[ Page 3845 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 25: resource and environmental management –– 3845

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Kempf

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Mitchell

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this moment to ask the House to join me in extending a welcome to a newcomer in our community. At 10 a.m. yesterday an 8 lb. 12 oz. boy was born to Mr. and Mrs. Duhaime. It is the first baby to be born in our new and exciting town of Tumbler Ridge. Would the House please welcome him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mr. Dave Parker of B.C. Timber in Terrace. Dave was my campaign manager in the last election; he helped me to achieve a major victory in Columbia River and prove the Vancouver media wrong. I'd like to welcome him to the House today.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 25: resource and environmental management, $88,866,952.

MR. BLENCOE: Good morning to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all government members and those on this side, on this beautiful day in Victoria, this jewel of the Pacific.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Jewel. A diamond.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now we're going to hear from Sparkle Plenty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: Order is right.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's a genuine zircon.

MR. BLENCOE: I didn't catch that, Mr. Premier. This morning I would like to discuss with the minister an issue in the greater Victoria area that is environmental.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wolves.

MR. BLENCOE: We do have some wolves in Victoria, but they are not necessarily the four-legged kind.

The issue I tried to start here is an environmental issue, but also one that I think if we tackled it property, Mr. Minister, could be an area of job creation for greater Victoria. I know the government is aware of the particular problems of unemployment in this area, so I would like to explore an issue that I think is very close to Victorians, one that constantly comes up, one that the people of greater Victoria wish could be resolved: that is, the whole question of sewage, sewage treatment and outfalls, and of course the archaic method we use to deal with sewage in the Victoria area, pumping it straight out into the ocean and onto our beaches,

Everybody agrees with me that Victoria is indeed a very beautiful community. It is one that attracts millions of tourists. They bring dollars and jobs, there is no question about that, and we hope they will continue to visit our community and help out during these difficult times. Unfortunately there are others who are not helping out as much as they should, but we won't get into that issue.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Everyone is feeling rambunctious today. Obviously the sunshine is not out, but maybe there is something else happening in Victoria.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Beware the ides of March.

MR. BLENCOE: Indeed, the ides of March.

In sewage treatment, the problem that constantly plagues the Victoria area.... Victoria is indeed a very attractive city, a beautiful heritage town, with particular attractions that bring people here. On the whole it is environmentally sound; we are well known for being basically a very clean community. The people of this community are very aware and, I think, have a high degree of sophistication about environmental issues, and have worked diligently over the years to persuade all levels of government to take a role in environmental issues. The Inner Harbour, I guess, was one where we did indeed have some rather unfortunate industries, which were relocated and we removed their environmental impact on the Inner Harbour.

But one thing that remains, Mr. Minister, and I am sure you may be aware of it if you have walked on our beaches in Victoria, is this whole issue of sewage and the lack of treatment. It really doesn't fit this community. With just about everything else in this community we try to deal with problems in a rational and an intelligent way. Unfortunately, we have not been able to deal with this issue in such a rational and intelligent way. There have been umpteen studies and lots of reports and documentation that indicate we have some real problems in the greater Victoria area — particularly along our waterfronts, not far from this very building, where we still have awful outfalls that basically pump raw sewage into the ocean. All the accoutrements, shall we say, go into the system and, unfortunately, wash back onto our beaches. I think it's a bit of an insult for this community.

[10:15]

Many times I have spoken with visitors and residents who visit those particular areas and see the signs that say, "Do Not Swim," "Do Not Paddle," "Do Not Go into the Water," because of the polluted water. I can recall quite vividly, Mr. Minister, over in Mount Douglas Park, not far from here, a six-year-old child once saying to me — I think this brought the whole thing home — "I'm going to go down to swim in the polluted water." That child had become accustomed to the fact that the seawater around Vancouver Island is very much polluted, with high coliform counts on occasion, which of course is a great health hazard. But the thing that really upset me, and it upsets a lot of people, is that a child would accept

[ Page 3846 ]

the fact that Victoria has to accept such polluted waters around this area.

Victoria is the capital of British Columbia. It's one of the finest cities in this country, and it has many fine residents who care about this issue. I'm sure the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who lives in Oak Bay, hears this very complaint from many of his constituents: why doesn't somebody do something about this problem? I recall a survey that was done a few years ago. Over 90 percent of the people of greater Victoria wanted.... Virtually the number one issue on their minds was the whole question of pollution around the waterfront — the lack of sewage treatment, the lack of response from governments on this particular issue. They also indicated — which was quite remarkable — that there would have to be a fairly substantial cost to the local taxpayer. Even if there was a cost-sharing agreement with the provincial government, there would be some substantial costs to the local taxpayer, as it would necessitate the raising of taxes to build an adequate sewage treatment plant in this area. But they were prepared to meet that cost, because they believe that the waterfront environment is particularly unique; that it is a very special component of this region. They, and their children, were tired of walking on those beaches, having to step over and around, and not go in the water. It's an embarrassment. I'm not blaming anybody. I think it's time to get together and try to resolve this issue. It brings a bit of shame on this community, and shame on the whole province, that the capital of British Columbia still pumps its sewage out into the waters around this beautiful jewel. I think we have to do something about that. I think it's time for all of us to recognize that that must stop, and that we must have the resolve to take that issue seriously and try to get together to find some solutions.

I'm sure you know, Mr. Minister, that there have been a number of studies on how it could be done: sewage treatment, composting plants — and I'll go into that in a minute. Unfortunately, when this has come up, the provincial government says it's not prepared to go into a cost-sharing arrangement with the local government. Today one of my questions to the minister is.... And this is not a partisan issue; this is a very important issue in terms of trying to resolve an important problem. The minister lives here much of the year, and I'm sure he knows the problem. Is there any way the provincial government can start to take this issue seriously and perhaps enter into some arrangements with the Capital Regional District and the local municipalities to get together to develop a sewage treatment proposal and a composting plant that could once and for all eradicate those outfalls? Take that junk off the beaches, and those rather unfortunate accoutrements which I think are offensive to Victorians.

The other side of this issue is that not only would it eradicate a serious environmental problem.... I'm sure the minister is aware that many times the health officer puts out an announcement that the coliform counts are too high. For instance, in Gonzales Bay, one of the neighbourhoods in my constituency, on a number of occasions the residents have been warned that the prevailing winds are blowing back much of the results of pumping sewage — coliform, — into their homes, and it is very much a health hazard. They have to live with that particular concern. I'm sure the Attorney-General has heard this from many of his constituents over the years. If we had the resolve to eliminate a very serious environmental problem in the greater Victoria area, we could look at a major sewage treatment for south Vancouver Island. It may need a major station with some substations out in the Westem Communities, but if we could put a major composting plant into the system, there is the opportunity for a substantial job creation factor in this kind of proposal. I'm sure the minister or his deputy has looked at the Swedish or West German examples, where for many years they have not pumped sewage out into their natural environs. They treat it and compost it, and of course we all know that there is a return on that compost. There is a job return, and there is a financial return — agreed, it's amortized over a number of years — to those who establish those particular plants. It would also, I believe, allow for local organizations to participate in this particular kind of proposal. I recognize that it would be a long-term project in terms of job creation, but the possibilities are there. It's something that the minister could perhaps take under advisement.

I would like today in this House to suggest that a serious proposal for sewage treatment and a composting plant be put together in the next year and discussed in the community, and that we look at cost-sharing arrangements with local municipalities in the Capital Regional District. It's something that does come up every now and again; then it disappears and we forget about it for a while but it's always there as a nagging problem. Mr. Minister, perhaps you would respond to the idea of such a proposal, and the idea of the provincial government maybe participating financially down the road in a project that I think will eliminate an eyesore, an irritant and an environmental problem, and on the other side will potentially create jobs and a new industry in the greater Victoria area in terms of the composting and selling of the final product.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It seems the member is interested in job creation by creating another industry and doesn't seem to be too interested...or wants other industries to move out of the area. So I'm not quite clear where he is on job creation. What he's talking about in the sewage treatment is highly technical and would be minimal in terms of employees.

Regarding the sewage, I don't think that the physical problem itself is nearly as detrimental as the kind of comments the member makes about how polluted the beaches are, etc. I think that is a much greater detriment to attracting people to the area than the actual sewage situation, because some of the problems have been rectified. The long outfalls have proven to be very effective; the decomposition in salt water seems to be very effective. There aren't the problems the member mentions except, say, in some isolated instances. For example, the Capital Regional District for cost reasons asked to take a shortcut in one area. We went along with it as an experiment and said that if it didn't work out then they would have to go the expensive route through the entire system to the long outfall. As far as further treatment goes, the member was, I believe, a member of council here, and I think he must be aware that this is run by the Capital Regional District. Certainly if you want to go into secondary and tertiary treatment, that opportunity is available to the people of Victoria. I guess the one reason it hasn't been dealt with is that it would run into hundreds of millions of dollars which the taxpayers would pick up. The member talks about provincial cost-sharing and that the provincial government should share. I think he must by now be aware, whether he cares to admit it or not, that the provincial government gets its money from the taxpayers in the province. If you take the approach

[ Page 3847 ]

not in isolation to Victoria but to say that the provincial government should pick up the tab for this sewage treatment by massive cost-sharing, then that should apply equally throughout all of the area. So whether you impose the taxes on the area that needs to deal with it or whether you impose them throughout the province to satisfy all areas, you're really talking about massive tax increases. Certainly I don't see that I would have any particular objection if that member, who knows the Victoria municipal and Capital Regional system.... If they were to come forth with the initiative and say that they were quite prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and that their taxpayers were quite willing to do this treatment.... But I think you have to recognize that it would have to be from the local people. If it's a problem here, then the local taxpayers would pick up the bill, as I indicated. If they don't, and if we take his idea about the provincial cost-sharing, then we have to go across the province. We simply spread it out, and the provincial government collects from all for the benefit of those who want it.

One of the other problems that has developed is being rectified by the municipalities. They are working hard to prevent some of the leakage through the bypassing of the actual sewerage system. Certainly any initiative from the municipal government, from the capital regional district, to say "We don't like what's happening and we're willing to pay the cost," would be welcomed by my ministry.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I was hoping the minister would not get into personalities and make such statements that what I'm saying about the problem is detrimental. I'm trying to get away from that, Mr. Minister. I think we all know that this is a concern. It is a bit of an embarrassment. Other jurisdictions around the world have recognized that what we do in this area in terms of sewage treatment really is somewhat archaic. I was just hoping the minister could say: "Okay, we may have a few financial problems, but we are prepared to see what we can help with and what we can look at. Collectively let's see what what we can do together."

You said that if local municipalities see it as an issue and they do.... You didn't answer my question about whether you would look at participating financially. I also would say, Mr. Minister, it's not necessarily hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved. I think that's a little bit off the top.

I'll finish here, because I'm obviously not going to get very far with this issue. I would ask the minister to be a little more positive about what I'm talking about this morning, and not just feel he has to defend all the time. I'm not blaming the minister. I'm just saying that there's something here in south Vancouver Island, where we've got close to 230,000 people in this area. One of the things that is particularly special to them is the unique maritime environment around it, and at the moment it's being impacted upon in a major way by human waste and other things. It is a bit of a shame and something that shouldn't be done. It's something we should work on together. I hope I leave this issue, Mr. Minister, in an atmosphere of positive discussion.

Could you see your way clear to at least look at and discuss it with local groups and the CRD? I would welcome the opportunity to get together with you, not in the atmosphere of this chamber but to discuss ideas about positive suggestions. It is something we can work on together, and I hope the minister will look upon it as something that.... I know he may not reside here on a permanent basis, but this is the capital and probably the tourist attraction of the area. This is probably one of the more beautiful havens in a country that is still basically environmentally sound, but we have a thorn that should be removed. If there's one thing that virtually 100 percent of the citizens of Victoria agree on, I think it's this particular issue. Without feeling that he is being attacked in a partisan way, I would hope that the minister would agree that this is rather a unique problem that we can all work on together. Maybe the minister has some further thoughts, but I'll leave it there.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, just in responding briefly, I'm not sure that the member was listening. I said that we are quite receptive to any proposal to upgrade the sewage treatment. What he has to recognize is that the cost is there, and all the ministry technical expertise is available if the taxpayers are willing to absorb the costs. There have been ongoing discussions about the problem. My initial comment was that tests show that since the long outfalls have been put out there, there is not the problem on the beach. In a few specific areas the Ministry of Health has found that the coliform count is too high, and when that information comes in it is looked at to see what can and should be done, so that is ongoing.

My comment was that the reference was made, almost by implication, that all of the beaches are polluted, and I think that's unfortunate and not correct. It doesn't help to say that we have awful beaches. If the member is saying there is a specific problem somewhere, we are certainly prepared to discuss it and deal with it. The Capital Regional District is the vehicle that has to come to us and say: "We know it is going to cost some money, but we want it." So let's discuss it by all means.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments and perhaps a couple of questions to ask the minister regarding the special waste disposal site for which he is presently looking.

Normally another minister doesn't become involved in a minister's estimates. but because the examination of possible areas for sites does tend to zero in on my constituency, there are a couple of things that I would like to see on record for the benefit of the people who live in the general area where the investigation is taking place, which, as everyone knows, is the general Ashcroft-Cache Creek area — the southern interior.

Mr. Chairman. I understand fully that a site is needed and that we cannot possibly ignore the problem which exists in the disposal of special wastes. I also understand that the best possible location for such a site would be in a rather dry climate and in an area where we have impervious soil layers to prevent any leaching of material that may be deposited. However, the people in Ashcroft show some concern. By and large the citizens of Ashcroft and Cache Creek are relatively objective people. They like to be advised and informed, and they don't like to jump to conclusions. But there is an element in our society which likes to stir up emotions, for what motives I don't know. It is certainly not for environmental motives, because the minister is trying to protect the environment. Anyway, there are certain rent-a-crowd types who like to go to areas like Ashcroft and instil fear into the minds of the residents there about the possibility of a waste site.

[ Page 3848 ]

Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of points that have come to me a number of times. First of all, I do appreciate the fact that Genstar-IT, who are doing the examinations and will eventually be putting in a site someplace, have had an information station in Ashcroft to provide information to people there about the nature of their investigation, what type of site they are looking for and what type of material could and would be deposited. However, there is a certain mistrust of the corporate sector in many people's minds. I wonder if the minister has any plans to have a more impartial information source in that area — such as something operated by his ministry.

Secondly, questions come to my mind through a number of people who have legitimate concerns, I believe, in the area. Why must you bury the material in a landfill? Why can't it be stored above ground so that it is visible and can in effect be watched? As they are asking this they also ask: what is the nature of that material that will be deposited — the physical characteristics? Will it be in barrels or sludges? What form will it take? How will it be deposited? How can we be assured that there won't be any leaching? They do want to be assured. Yesterday the question was raised about the possibility of importing wastes from other jurisdictions. I understand — I heard you comment yesterday, Mr. Minister — that we wouldn't be a net importer. I guess it makes some sense to trade wastes with other areas who may then not have to duplicate the disposition of certain types of wastes. However, I am sure the people up there want to be assured by you again that if a site in fact is located in the Ashcroft-Cache Creek area we will not be the net importers of waste from other jurisdictions. Not only is that important to my constituents; it is extremely important to me.

I am fairly close to my constituents throughout the various communities in my riding. I sense a responsible attitude. People in the area that appears to have been chosen recognize we have a problem. They don't want to obstruct the resolution of this problem, but they do need some assurances. I think it really is necessary that they have some of this information coming not from the chosen company that's going to be involved in the waste disposal, but from their government which they elected last May.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my seat.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I can recognize the concerns. Many of them are because of misinformation that people are bandying about for some reason. Certainly I can recognize the minister's concerns and assure him that these are the concerns that we've dealt with.

In general terms, the reason that area was selected was that a federal-provincial study which resulted in the Reid-Crowther report delineated that area as the best and most suitable area, primarily because of climatic conditions and soil conditions. That was determined, of course, from all kinds of information that governments have on soil types from wells that have been drilled. That general area was selected. Then, as indicated, the ministry went in an objective way with overlays and screening out all of the problem areas where there might be rock fissures or groundwater, to the best of our knowledge. They did find a few specific spots in that climate- and soil-suitable general area. It was done objectively. Even then the decision about the exact site could not be made until further studies were made. This is from more superficial information than we want to go with, because of course our main objective is a secure landfill. So the final stage had to involve actual testing and drilling on the site to see that what seemed to be was actually the fact.

I think the minister knows that the great concern is in Ashcroft; yet it is over the hill in another plateau. There is a hill between Ashcroft and Cache Creek and the area which creates the problem of road access and so on. Nevertheless, the main criterion is to make sure that the soil conditions are suitable and that all of the conditions for security can be met. I'm sorry that my environment critic has left the House, but I was astounded last Saturday night, having provided my critic with all of the information, to hear her telling the people of British Columbia on television that the reason this site was selected was because it has little political clout. Certainly that isn't a factor. The site was selected because of objective criteria. As I say, I was so surprised, because I had made an effort to keep that member informed of all of the information that is available to us. The exact design of the site has not been done, because it's somewhat dependent on the specific conditions that apply there.

As for the information, we had accepted the fact that it was Genstar's responsibility to provide all of the answers to any questions that people in the area had. We've realized that the concern was not so much with the technical information which some of the people were avoiding, but seemed to centre on the motives of the company and the government. So we've taken steps to involve our ministry personnel more. We're bringing in our own experts. We've even offered to bring in other people to convince the people that it's our program and we're going to monitor it, supervise it, decide on it, establish all the conditions and permits and all the securities will be built in. With that in mind we are now looking at opening up an office in the area so people can talk to ministry personnel as well as Genstar. My feeling right now is to separate the two offices because of this unfortunate feeling that's come about that we're trying to hand Genstar some sort of a profit-making scheme.

Genstar, in order to deliver according to all the terms and conditions that we're making, are concerned about the economics. If it weren't them being concerned about it, we would have to be concerned about it, because eventually the taxpayers or the industry would have to pay for it. We felt in discussions with the advisory group from industry and all others that industry could pick up the tab on this and that Genstar could be the operator and we could be the regulator and supervisor. We're always available on call. I can't go in every week myself, but certainly my people are always available. If anybody has questions, we do the best we can to answer any and all of them.

[10:45]

As for the nature of the material that would go into the secure landfill, that is in the form of solids. I've tried to explain over and over that the material would be collected, recycled and treated. All of the organic materials can be treated or destroyed, but the residue would then be put into a solid form — a cement block type of form — and that would be put into the secure landfill. Even then, though leaching possibilities are minimal, we're still adding the extra security steps of covering it to prevent exposure from the weather, because the less water gets at it the less chance there is of leaching, and also a pickup and monitoring system underneath it in case, despite all these precautions, something does get through. Unfortunately the criticism is levelled at the barrels that are shown in pictures in other places. Of course

[ Page 3849 ]

barrels deteriorate, decompose and start leaking. That's exactly why we're into this program. We do not want toxic dumps. The critics insist on referring to them as toxic dumps and using the example of how toxic dumps leak. Exactly! Toxic dumps and liquids do leak. This is why we're going into the solidified form and then double- and triple-securing all that.

There would be an ongoing monitoring committee that would not be appointed by the company — the company would have to provide the funds for that, and we would control the committee together with the residents in the area, so they can be satisfied that every possible precaution is taken in the construction, in the design and in the ongoing monitoring. Then there's an added security built in. A bonding system is worked in so that if the company ceased operations or something of that nature, we have adequate security for any time down the road. Many of us probably wouldn't be here in another 50 or 100 years — I'm giving myself only 75 years more — but the government would have that bonding in place so they have the means where if anything goes wrong.... We're doing everything possible to see that nothing goes wrong and getting the best possible advice from the available experts.

I know that's a rather long answer, but I know it's a very important issue and a very genuine concern to some of the people in the area. But I can't overemphasize this: the reason we think the waste management plan with the treatment, regulation of collection and temporary storage, and all of that, and finally, whatever can't be destroyed or recycled, to put it in a secure fill.... That is to prevent the very types of problems that people are using as bad examples that speak against toxic dumps. We are very much against toxic dumps, believe me. That's why we're into this.

MR. NICOLSON: It was a very interesting answer by the minister. I would probably admit that his proposal is not going to be another Love Canal. But I think the ministry misses the point. It's the very same topic that I would like to talk about, not specifically the site the minister's been talking about. But I think that the minister and we in North America have to realize that the use of pesticides is a violent technology. It is not something that God placed on this earth. The chemicals that we are trying to store now, after they've been used, are chemicals that were not put on this earth in any natural way, shape or form. It is the same with the element plutonium, a byproduct of most nuclear reactors. When we think of elements, we think of the fundamental building blocks of matter that God placed on this earth. But God did not place plutonium on this earth, and we're faced now with having to store it. We're not producing that at the moment; not that Robert Bonner wouldn't wish we had been. It's the kind of element like the PCBs and the pesticides.

I find it very interesting that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) got up and asked this question, and showed this concern. I'd like to ask the minister this question before I get on to the matter of storing dangerous wastes in Nelson: how much of the chemicals that the Minister of Forests purchased a few years ago for the spruce budworm...? Because of objections in the community and from the official opposition, the program was put in abeyance. How much of that chemical is being stored? Does the minister have any idea? How many barrels? What's the unit they use for these dangerous wastes? How many 45-gallon drums, or how many gallons? Or how many — what is it — CFTs or something? Does the minister have any idea?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Not with me in the exact amounts, but I know the question was on the order paper last year, and we gave a very complete answer on how many units of everything and anything we knew of that was stored or had been used. I believe that went to one of the members on that side. I could look it up, but if you need to, perhaps check with me later rather than take it on notice. If you don't get that information, please contact me later and we'll try and give you that information.

I note that the member said that God did not place these chemicals or pesticides and other things on this earth. I recognize that. Many of them have been man-created. But God did not place clothing...

AN HON. MEMBER: Or politicians.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Stay out of this.

...or cars, houses, appliances, paint, things of that nature that society seems to have a demand for. Or chrome, if you like, various metals — that was not placed on the earth. Believe me, I would gladly turn the problem back to Him, but I can't. In other words, society has brought us, with industries and what the public has, in effect, demanded.... So we're faced with the problems. I think our job is to deal with them as best we can, and to try and minimize. The emphasis has been on the treatment, but there's a great deal of work going on in trying to eliminate, cut back and move to natural controls rather than chemical controls. I wish I could turn the problem back to God, but I can't.

MR. NICOLSON: The whole thing is that I think we have to have a will to move our society toward appropriate scale technology and away from this whole type of groupthink that large-scale is the most economical and most efficient, because these are some of the true costs when you come to dealing with these. Once these chemicals have been spent in their usefulness and we're stuck with them, what would be the true cost of these chemicals and the true cost of this technology if we now had to restore these to fundamental elements? Certainly, while God did not make clothing, He did make linen, cotton, wool and those natural materials which can be used for clothing.

Mr. Chairman, the city of Nelson has been approached for the possible construction of a waste interim-storage facility in Nelson. The minister has said, with respect to the questions by his colleague the Minister of Forests, that the sites were selected by objective criteria. I'd like to ask the minister this question: how can it be that when his ministry has decided, or when that minister has decided, that Nelson is no longer the central area that it has been since the turn of the century.... It has been a regional centre, and I would argue that it still is a regional centre. But when the minister has been making decisions to move the Ministry of Lands to Cranbrook and move the Ministry of Parks to Kamloops, how does the minister then, by that set of criteria, arrive at the conclusion that Nelson is the central place when it comes to the interim storage of wastes?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know just how you connect where the regional office comes from as to which is the main town in an area. It's there. I believe the Ministry of

[ Page 3850 ]

Environment offices are still in Nelson. I am not quite sure what point the member is trying to make. There will be collection centres throughout the province, logically for distance and so on. If the member somehow wants to relate that to the operation of regional offices, then I don't know whether I can answer him.

MR. NICOLSON: I could ask a question to which I don't know the answer. Is there also an interim-storage facility proposed for Cranbrook or some city in the East Kootenays?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Some of that is still in the works, and it will depend on where.... We're talking now about special wastes, I take it, and it would depend on where the special wastes are generated. There wouldn't be an office in Cranbrook if that is not a major generating area. I expect there would be one in the Kamloops area, perhaps one in Prince George, one in the Peace River area, but I couldn't tell you right now. I don't think one is planned for the Cranbrook area because of the inventory that's shown about wastes.

MR. NICOLSON: I note that it is proposed to locate the facility here more or less in the centre of town. I've read some of the material and realize that there will be styrofoam chips mixed in with liquids in order to prevent them from sloshing around, it will be stored in 45-gallon barrels and such. Has the advice to the minister been that the best place for such a storage facility would be in the centre of a city?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Chairman. The temporary collection site can go anywhere. What I think the member should realize is that we are trying to deal with it. Apparently there is a concrete block situation there — concrete storage — which provides security. It is temporary storage. We are also trying to make it accessible to the small producer, and that can be almost every household and so on. We have been concentrating so much on the major generators because they generate the major amount, but we think the collection can, with the proper education program, encourage people to bring their wastes once they are identified. For instance, instead of paint thinner thrown into the sewage system or down the standard sewer pipe, which is happening now, maybe we can encourage people to bring that in to the central collection and storage area.

There's no particular hangup about its being in the centre of town. It is convenient, and it's felt that it is secure in some cases. In other cases it would be on the outskirts of town. No, there's no particularly strong commitment. The ministry people are out in the field looking for what is logical, what would work best, what will best serve the purpose.

[11:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. PASSARELL: I was talking to my mother today and she was saying that she has been reading Hansard in the last few weeks, and how it is getting a bit more reasonable in here; so I'll go on to some reasonable questions to the minister. To begin with, I'd like to thank the minister for the cooperation he gives me with regard to the numerous constituency problems I bring to his attention and the reports he gives to my office; I appreciate that.

On to constituency problems. First is an ongoing problem which has been raised here a number of times: conservation officers in the far north. As the minister is aware — I've brought this forward in debate previously — it is a problem with the cutbacks. We have one officer in Cassiar who has to cover the far north. His name is Gordie Pearson, and he puts in a lot of time and does an excellent job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a friend of Bob's?

MR. PASSARELL: No, he isn't a friend of Bob's. I don't think he knows Bob, as a matter of fact.

He does an excellent job, but it's difficult to go from a place like Cassiar, where his office is, and get into the community of Atlin 300 miles to the west. Often he has to fly in, and it's an expense to the government to have an aircraft come into Atlin for one or two days.

One of the problems with the cutbacks has to do with the outfitters. The outfitters have brought this to the government's attention because, particularly in a place like Atlin, it's difficult if the conservation officer comes in once a month during the hunting season to get the export permits signed so that hunters can get the capes out. I've talked with the minister about this before. I think we resolved the problem, but it's going to be an ongoing problem in communities like Atlin across this province until we get definite policy regarding signing of export permits and having individuals in the communities who are able to sign these permits — they might not be conservation officers but might be government agents or the RCMP.

Another problem that as a hunter I've seen myself, with the cutbacks in the far north and with having only one officer in Cassiar, is the poaching problem. I've noticed, in the last year particularly, that we have quite a few poachers coming in from the Yukon — it's only 30 miles down into Atlin — hunting.... As a matter of fact, last fall while I was hunting I stopped a few who had come down; during our conversation they said to me that they had come down because they know it's easy hunting in that area and that there aren't many conservation officers around.

A problem, too, in my constituency is that Alaskans come down the Stikine River. That's 200 miles south of Cassiar, and the way Gordie would have to patrol that is go into a place like Telegraph Creek, get a boat, and then go down the river 30 or 40 miles. It's an ongoing problem which has been brought to my attention numerous times by the Tahltan tribe. Americans are coming across the mouth of the Stikine and hunting in British Columbia. There is a large moose population down in that area. I don't know what kind of help the minister can give in regard to this, because it is a difficult, isolated problem. Maybe something could be worked out with the Tahltan council to have something done in the hunting season about an individual patrolling that area. There are a number of American hunters coming into the Stikine from Alaska. They know that it's easy hunting there, and they poach.

The last question with regard to the conservation officer is that of travelling expense. It's very difficult for Mr. Pearson to do the kind of job that it's necessary to do in the far north with his travelling expense. I would hope that the minister might be able to give some positive suggestions on increases in Gordie's travelling expense, because he has an extremely large area to cover, as the minister knows.

The second issue I'd like to bring to the minister's attention is the concept of North Wind Ranch — growth game

[ Page 3851 ]

development. The minister and I are both hunters and appreciate the wildlife, climate and atmosphere in this province that is conducive to our hobby of hunting. Most people are aware that we stock rivers and lakes with fish. I think the time might now have come that we have to look even further into that — in stocking big game in our province. North Wind is a move in this direction. We listened to the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) explaining the situation. It's something that I think the government and political parties in this province really have to address, the need to use big game and stock it, as we do fish in rivers and lakes; and to look at the concept of what North Wind is talking about. If he is able to proceed the way he intends and wants to, it could be a million-dollar business, which is needed at this time — plus providing hunters and the residents of British Columbia with big game that could come out of this operation. He's asking for corporate sponsorship to help finance the operation. I think that might be worthwhile here. Wouldn't it be nice if he had the permits and we could each give a sponsorship? I know the minister would want to give a sponsorship to a certain animal, and I would probably like to give a sponsorship to a grizzly on that aspect.

The third aspect is a court decision that the minister might not have been aware of. In December there was a Yukon Territory Water Board application to dredge the Laird River, almost on the B.C.-Yukon border, but that aspect of it was going to affect British Columbia. I had put in a submission, as well as the Kaska-Dene band. This was a gentleman named Mr. Gordon Franks — I think his last name was Franks. He wanted to dredge the entire Laird River from about three miles south of Watson Lake, which would have affected the fishing and cultural aspects of the Kaska-Dene at Lower Post and farther down in the minister's own riding, down the Alaska Highway.

I was concerned because there was no provincial input into these hearings held at Watson Lake about December 14. The water board hasn't made a final decision. I just received a letter from the Yukon water board yesterday, saying they were going to.... Mr. Franks has resubmitted his application. I would like the minister and his staff to check into this application to see if it's going to adversely affect the Laird River. You still have some time. From a letter I received yesterday from the territorial government, they won't be making their decision until April or May. So if there is a problem, it allows time for the ministry to look into it and see if there could be some submission put in by the provincial government. There was no provincial input into this hearing. A couple of federal departments came in — Fisheries and Environment.

The next issue is hunting licences. I'm pleased there is no increase in fees for hunting licences or permits for this year. We had a big increase a few years back. I appreciate that there have been no increases for this issue.

The fifth issue is a problem that four trappers brought to my attention: the Klappan road that Gulf Oil is putting in outside the community of Iskut. Supposedly they went in this fall and winter and put a number of bridges in to their deposit without explaining the position to the Iskut band and the United Tahltan Association. A number of trappers have said that these bridges and the road that they've put in there without giving any notification have caused a detriment to their traplines this winter. I would hope that the minister.... When you ask a specific constituency question of this nature, it's pretty difficult for him to get up and give an answer. Hopefully he will get back to me regarding the Gulf road into Klappan.

Another one is the anti-litter act the government brought in. There are a number of Social Credit and independent campaign signs still up on Highway 37. Hopefully the anti-litter act will repossess these leftover signs. Of course, my signs were taken down within 30 days of the election. We have enough unemployment in the far north that we don't really need one or two individuals advertising their unemployment situation through their signs.

Another question. This will probably take a detailed response from the minister, and I would appreciate it if he could get back to me on this. This is regarding the ocean tailings at Kitsault. We know that the mine has been closed for a number of years now. The federal government was doing most of the monitoring with their ocean vessels in Kitsault Arm. The concern I have is that one of the problems that came out in the initial hearings regarding the use of ocean tailings was the current in that arm. Has there been any further testing? Are those tailings that were put in when the mine was operating moving, or are they staying where they are? I don't think there's been any testing done in regard to this.

Another problem is something that I talked about in the throne speech and the budget speech, and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) spoke about it again yesterday. It is the garbage situation on the mainland, and the problem in the urban areas with garbage. As a suggestion to the minister, I think we have to undertake some further studies in this regard, particularly of European countries with a low land base and a high population, and how they solve their garbage problems.

There were approximately seven or eight questions I addressed to the minister. Some need some detailed responses, and I'm sure the minister, in regard to a few of them, would have to go back to his staff. But I'd appreciate it if the minister could give any answers to the questions I raised.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the member for Atlin for his kind remarks, and perhaps use it as an example. Many members opposite come at me in the House with problems, and it's pretty hard for me to deal with them in the House. When they approach me about a problem, I try to deal with it as minister. I try to leave my politics as MLA...as the member knows.

Regarding the conservation officer at Atlin, the problem developed there when the existing conservation officer left. We've been partly caught up in having to wait to see who might move on a seniority basis. We're very concerned about that area, because it's remote from any others. I'm well aware of the area, having travelled it. We have maintained that conservation officer in Atlin. We've received authority to fill the position, and we're moving on that as quickly as we can. In the meantime we're still trying to see what other steps can be taken. As I think the member knows, last fall we managed to.... Well, the Alaska Highway goes in and out of the Yukon, and when people had to come to Fort Nelson to report.... We made a policy change by order-in-council. We changed that so that they could, in effect, come through to Fort Nelson without having to report back and forth across the border. People who don't know how that highway goes would have difficulty understanding, but I'm certainly aware of that.

[ Page 3852 ]

The Stikine hunter problem is part of the total package. I guess it wouldn't matter if we put six conservation officers in Atlin; they couldn't cover the Stikine and Telegraph Creek, that total area, so we do the best we can. Periodically, without warning, a team of our people goes in and checks the Stikine. Assistance from local people is a great help. I commented on it yesterday — our observe, record and report program. We don't have legislative authority, and it could be dangerous to start telling people to get into enforcement. But we're saying: "Bring the problem to us, and we'll certainly get on it." Our people are. Any reports that come in are checked out as quickly as possible. It won't have that effect here, but we think our zonal office arrangements in other parts of the province that aren't so vast, with the towns so far apart.... They will actually be able to get to the office, and that message can go out by radio-telephone or whatever, so that the person can check. So we think that's going to help. But certainly, all the assistance we can get.... As a matter of fact, we are discussing auxiliaries within the ministry, or some such method. We haven't come up with a solution yet, but right now we're saying to the citizens that each one of them can help us, can be a conservation officer if they have the interest, and that will help us. We'll have to try to put in the legal authority and the system.

As far as travel expenses for conservation officers is concerned, every once in a while that comes up. Whenever it has come up, we've usually found that some sort of glitch has developed in the system — some money didn't go out, or something went wrong — but ordinarily the money is there. There will never be enough money for everybody to travel everywhere that they want. So they have to try to establish priorities in their travel, and try to make the best use of the money available, We haven't found that.... We're not taking the travel money away and putting it to a conservation officer. We know that these people have to travel. As the member knows, the conservation officer in Fort Nelson has a vast territory to cover.

Regarding poaching from across the border with the Yukon, where they are basically in the same situation, I know we have some difficulties with the native people. Some of them say those borders are not theirs; they don't concern them and they have hunting rights. They do, and they should have some access to use of the land that they had in the past. But it still presents us with the problem: who then is the poacher? We're trying to get discussions. Any help the member can provide to deal with that situation is most welcome, because we think poaching and poor game management would be detrimental to the natives, who need the moose as well. In other words, if we destroy them between us, then nobody will have any. So any cooperation and help we can get in that respect would be fine.

The member brought up the North Wind Ranch and the concept of somebody willing to spend a lot of money to raise a lot of wildlife on a ranch and then turn it loose in the environment. Is that with a charge, or is there some other way that the person wants to fund that operation? We don't know the answers to that. You mentioned that it could be a million-dollar operation. Is this proponent of the North Wind Ranch willing to put up a million dollars of his money to raise animals for us to turn them loose? I don't know the answer to that. As I mentioned yesterday, I am quite willing to discuss it and find out whether it is strictly a benevolent operation to help the province, or what the other factors are. If that information can be provided I would certainly appreciate it.

As for the court decision with the Yukon Territory Water Board, we have just extended our membership and participation on the Yukon Basin water study because it wasn't completed, so that gives us a contact and liaison. We do have the Mackenzie Basin one, and as I understand, it's on the other side of the border, so there is some question about our jurisdiction, but we are involved in that study team and we get the reports. On the dredging operation, we'll take that as notice and find out just what is happening there. In general terms we are involved, both in the total Mackenzie and the Yukon River Basin study.

I am sorry and surprised to hear that there was no consultation with native people on the road to Mount Klappam that Gulf was doing, and we'll certainly get in touch with them and make sure that under the Coal Steering Committee guidelines that will be covered, because it is generally done. I met some of the proponents of the company recently, and they seemed to be interested in trying to do everything right rather than bypass them. It might have been inadvertently overlooked.

As far as the signs are concerned, we're still looking ahead, and if the member finds them offensive, maybe he can help us as a citizen in this respect by picking them up on his next tour, as our defeated candidate no longer makes the tours that you do. Please assist us in that regard, as the general policy is that the signs should be removed. But I'm not prepared to send in a team at this point; I would rather put the money into something more productive. We were counting on deterioration — natural weathering and that sort of thing.

In the Kitsault operation, there is not much point in expensive duplication. I believe Dr. McInerney is monitoring the Kitsault tailings for the federal government. They are in contact with our staff, and if any developments occur we will continue to be briefed on the status quo there.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, in the members' gallery this morning are Mr. and Mrs. Vern Carter. Anna and Vern are from Fraser Lake, where Vern is a alderman on village council. He is in Victoria to accept, on behalf of the village, the award for having the cleanest sewage effluent in the province. They are here today to see how well we behave in this chamber. It is their first visit to Victoria, for a very good cause, and I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Let's talk about wolves, Jack.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the ministers' comments on my problem and the issues that I raised. With regard to the Stikine, it is going to be very difficult, and even though the spot checks come down, the old moccasin telegraph can still work pretty quickly down in that part of the country. Sometimes the old moccasin telegraph travels quicker than an airplane leaving Dease Lake to do spot checks down river.

I have a couple of suggestions. There is a customs office at Wrangell, Alaska, which the American hunters have to go through, once they get back into the United States on the Stikine from British Columbia — unless they are out in the

[ Page 3853 ]

middle of the night with flashlights, because the customs office closes at 8 o'clock. Maybe somehow we could have some type of cooperation between the customs officers there. That is one problem, and we'll never get around it. If you're going to have poachers coming in, it is going to be very difficult, unless you have somebody right there watching them 24 hours a day.

I like the idea of the auxiliary. The RCMP use this very effectively in setting up auxiliary officers. Maybe that would be something we could look at in smaller communities — some type of an auxiliary program where a uniform might be provided and some kind of training. I know there are individuals in the far north in both of our ridings, as the minister is quite aware, who would be willing to work in a program of this nature without any salary, just because of their concern for the environment.

We had a game check on Highway 37 at Terry Lake, which helped that aspect. But I think we're going to have to look at some kind of a game check on Atlin Road. I don't know whether it's going to be some kind of a building set-up as they did at Terry Lake, where an individual was back in that part of the country.

I disagree with the minister when he responded to my question with regard to the hunting in that area. It isn't, I would say, the native people who are doing this. I know quite a few people in that area who are doing it. These are people who are coming down from Whitehorse, and they're not the native people. There are two or three individuals at the most in that area who do go across the border back and forth because of their cultural beliefs. When I brought this to your attention, I was talking about people who are driving down en masse from Whitehorse, because they know it's easy to get down into Atlin without a conservation officer around. They can pick up a moose. From where I live and going down toward the O'Donnel, they drive south out of Atlin on a Saturday morning. Sometimes I can see 15 vehicles with Yukon plates that are coming down into that area to hunt. It's an excellent area to hunt for moose.

With regard to the road that Gulf is putting in, I appreciate the minister's statements, and I'm sure my constituents do too. Maybe it was an oversight on the part of Gulf for not setting up some meetings with the two native bands in question.

A further comment on North Wind Ranch. We have to look at operations of this nature more seriously. When you and I go out to hunt and we get a moose, we're looking at.... If we had to go and buy similar meat — beef, let's say.... Usually by shooting a moose we’re going to get ourselves $2,500 worth of meat. That's a big investment, and that's why most of us who go out hunting in the fall know the magnitude of hunting.

After what the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and myself brought to your attention yesterday and this morning, maybe some of your staff can talk with the individual in question at North Wind and work out some kind of policy that will be useful right across this province. It's not just an isolated area. I have people in my riding who speak of similar projects that they would like to do. I think it's something that we have to put a White Paper together on. If we're not going to go to that extreme, we should just have some consultation with individuals. You could allow them to put out something in the hunting synopsis at the end of the year or the beginning of the year asking individual hunters and people who are concerned about the environment in this province to give some presentations to the ministry.

Lastly, the Kitsault tailings. Is the federal government continuing to monitor Kitsault Arm at this time? I know they were there about a year and a half ago. I wasn't under the impression that they were still coming up periodically to do work. Those are a few further questions that I direct to the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, to answer the last question first, to our knowledge they are monitoring now. We'll check into whether that monitoring is once a month, once every six months or what.

I recognize the member's concern about the poachers. I mention the natives hunting in B.C. as one aspect, because it is presented in this way: must we license them when they don't accept the need for licensing? Are they a foreign hunter when they come into British Columbia and have to be guided, and that sort of thing? These have been concerns that we've had to deal with.

Again, I would think it would be in some of the natives' interests to help us to observe, record and report; in other words, if you see somebody shooting a moose, get the licence number. Get us something definite. It's pretty hard to just say there are some poachers, but if we can get something specific to follow up, our people will do that.

A further comment on the auxiliaries. Of course, we have the other problem. Because of our contract with government employees, if we started putting free people to take the place of others, as willing as they are, we would have to deal with that, if you follow what I mean. We are looking at the auxiliaries to see to what extent.... But it's not quite that simple to say: look, get a bunch of volunteers, give them uniforms and away you go. We have to sort out all these other problems. In the meantime, we can say there is no regulation against citizens helping us with information. I indicated that we might be going further on that.

I think that pretty well answers the North Wind situation in whatever form. I think I've indicated that we will take a look at it. It's something worth considering. As I was saying yesterday, at this point in time it seems like public opinion is not in favour of game ranching, whatever it is. I know the term "game ranching" wasn't meant, but that's why I raised the question today. Are there two parts to this program, or is it strictly a benevolent program to raise and release? I do raise the question that we have to sort out: are domestically raised animals suitable for wildlife? As the member knows, we are working on a transfer program where we take wildlife captured in one area.... We did the sheep transplant from the Okanagan to the Grand Forks area; we're doing an elk transplant into the Kechika area. The discussion about elk into the Chilcotin area is still under review and discussion. We're trying to get the conflict sorted out between the ranching community and the wildlife interests.

[11:30]

We could go on indefinitely here in the House debating the North Wind and the terms. I mention the term "game ranch," and somebody jumps on that. I would much prefer if there were some solid information, as I've indicated I'm quite willing to listen and quite willing to discuss that. I'd be happy to do it if anybody wants to carry it on in the House, but I don't think it's going to be as productive as if we were to sit down and put together all the information we have, and get

[ Page 3854 ]

the views straightened out, and then sort out our ministry position on it and try to come up with something productive.

Since we're on Environment, and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) raised the people from Fraser Lake — I'm sorry I don't remember all the names — I was in the position last night, as I indicated.... We were hosted by the Lieutenant-Governor and his wife at Government House to make presentations to those people who have made significant contributions toward environmental protection. The people recognized and presented with awards were the ROSS Committee, because of their long-standing work in preserving the Skagit Valley — they were recognized and several of their members were there; the city of Vernon had put together a particularly good community effort toward collection and recycling of paper waste, bottles, etc., and they've done a good job there. The community of Fraser Lake had done far and above requirements — they had exceeded the environmental standards for sewage disposal, garbage disposal and so on, and for keeping the lake clean, so they've certainly done a job there.

In the industrial category we had a presentation to Mohawk Oil Co. for their recycling of used oil program and the collection, through their service stations.... It's associated with the Variety Club of British Columbia, who have encouraged that by asking the service stations to provide the money they get from that to the Variety Club for the use of handicapped children. I'm informed they've raised almost $100,000 or something along that line. In effect the Variety Club presentation is recognition for all of the citizens, service stations and so on that are contributing to that program.

Then one individual was given one of the industrial awards: Larry Smith from Prince George who works for Westburne, supplier to many companies, who got interested in environmental conservation to the point where he tried to educate other people. He set up schooling, set up a very good public information program and educational program. I welcome the reminder from the member for Omineca to add this additional recognition, which we have also put out in a press release.

MR. KEMPF: Along the same line of questioning as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I thank the minister for his kind remarks in regard to the village of Fraser Lake. I don't want to prolong the debate on the North Wind Ranch, but again this morning, as I did yesterday, I want to emphasize.... It doesn't seem as though the point is being made. I don't think it can be said too many times in this chamber: the North Wind Ranch proposal is not, in the sense of the word, a "game ranch." It is strictly a proposal to raise and release animals into the wild. The proposal is that orphaned animals or maimed animals that are hit on the CNR tracks or on Highway 16 be taken to the ranch, nursed back to health, raised and used as animals to produce offspring to eventually be released in the wilds.

I understand, Mr. Minister, that it's a completely new concept, and I understand as well that ministry personnel have a very difficult time with that. We have seen it over and over again with the harassment that Dr. Kuntz has gotten on his North Wind Ranch from the fish and wildlife branch in Smithers. They don't understand. I say that again, because I don't think we can emphasize that too many times. It is a new concept. We understand the problem with human indexing. North Wind Ranch now covers 1,100 acres with application for further Crown land to augment those 1,100 acres to ensure that animals that are raised in that environment aren't human indexed, and in fact are raised in a wild environment so that they can, in fact, be released to the wild.

We'll never know whether it will be successful unless Dr. Kuntz is allowed to try it. It is an experiment, admittedly, but an experiment by a person who is really an expert in his field. He's one of the best-known back specialists in North America. He is a professional in the work he does with human beings, and I have no doubt that he will be a professional in this job that he wishes to do for the people of British Columbia. I plead with the minister. Yesterday he said he would take the time to accompany me to North Wind Ranch, and I am going to ask him to do that very early in the spring. I hope at that time we can kick off the North Wind Ranch proposal for the good of all wildlife-loving people in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have said that a phrase can be taken out of the game ranch concept, but I do have to respond to the comment about harassment by our Environment people. They have a job to do. It is part of their job to enforce the game laws. Regardless of the merits of the idea, at present it is illegal to capture wildlife and keep it in captivity without a permit. So if one of our conservation officers goes out and does his job in that respect, I'm certainly not going to put him on the mat for that. If we want to change the policy, fine; until then I think he's obligated to do his job.

I might say that I might have to take a bit of convincing here, Mr. Member, because some years ago I did run across a little baby moose that had been caught on a river bank and had had its leg broken. I knew objectively that it would not survive in the wild; I also knew that the logical thing would have been to hit it on the head and throw it in the river to end its suffering. But I'm a little soft-hearted, so I loaded it in my boat and took my little baby moose home, took it to a vet and had a cast put on its leg. The animal recovered — not to mention that it ate the rose bushes in the back yard. My wife was not too delighted with my captive baby moose, which I kept in the house for two days while it was raining, and then in the back yard. It seemed to love flowers, rose bushes and things of that nature. She was not impressed. However, to save my life at home, within a short time we did manage to get the moose out to some people who had a ranch close to a river. This little baby moose got very affectionate with the collie dog and played all summer with it. Then of course we had to consider whether it would be released into the wild, and we felt at that time that that would have been a very dangerous thing for that baby moose, because it would have been attracted to hunters, to people, to dogs — we had bottle-fed it, of course — so we did manage to get it into the zoo at Abbotsford, and it carried on there for a while. So I'm a bit affected by my feelings and my objectivity, but I need to be convinced. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying that we have to do it the legal and proper way, and we have to consider some of these things. I'm sorry for adding this little personal touch, but some of these things do colour our thinking sometimes.

MR. KEMPF: Well, yes, and I appreciate the minister's personal touch. But the point has been missed, and I'm sorry if I didn't make it very clear. The object is not to take the animals that have been nursed back to life or that have been

[ Page 3855 ]

orphaned, and put them back into the wild. On the contrary, the object is to use those animals as breeding stock; to take the offspring from that stock, after looking after them in a wild environment, and release them to the wild. That's a completely different situation. It's utilizing something that's now wasted in order to gain the stock that will be put back into the wild, not in a human indexing situation. That's the key. That's where the mental block lies in regard to the fish and wildlife branch.

MRS. DAILLY: I was going to come out with an attack on the Minister of Environment, but now that he's told me about the baby moose, it's very hard for me not to soften towards that minister. I think we all appreciated that story. It's a good example to many other people. I'm glad the minister took that action with the baby moose.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: You got permission from the wildlife officer. I hope everything at home ended up all right too, Mr. Minister. I could carry it further and say I hope that that compassion follows through in all other aspects that you're going to have to deal with in wildlife.

I have to get back now to a more mundane topic, but it isn't mundane to the people of North Burnaby and Port Moody. It deals with the Burrard thermal generating plant. I understand that B.C. Hydro is planning to submit applications for permits under the Waste Management Act to allow further generating of the Burrard thermal. I have a couple of questions to ask the minister. First, I wonder if he could tell me what status the permit is in. Has the application come forward? Has it reached your level of ministry yet? That's my first question. In my second question I would like to ask the minister just what can be done from the public's point of view when it comes to reacting to a very excellent public relations job done by B.C. Hydro. I give them credit for having open houses and giving the public an opportunity to view the thermal plant and to explain to the public how they are not concerned about the health hazards of further emissions from this generating plant.

My concern is that B.C. Hydro has millions and millions of dollars available to them from the taxpayers of B.C., but the average taxpayer who wishes to counter all this material which points out that we're not to be worried, that these emissions will not be harmful, does not have an opportunity to equally come forward with professional advice. I read this material. It's so technical that, frankly, being a lay person in this, I couldn't possibly know whether what Hydro's telling me is actually accurate. Is it going to be examined by your ministry in an objective way? They make statements like: "There will be no health hazards from this increased emission." Yet quite often, Mr. Chairman, I drive through from North Burnaby to Port Moody, and the odours are dreadful from that if you come through at the wrong time. Thousands and thousands of people reside in that peripheral area around the plant. So it's a major concern to both MLAs from the Port Moody end and from my end and to all the citizens whom we are representing. So my main question is: what status is this application in? Are you prepared for the appellants who come forward? Has anyone come forward yet to question the need for this?

[11:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The reason they are applying for a permit is that they have not had a permit in the past because it was considered a backup operation, not an ongoing situation. I can't tell you exactly where the application is, and whether it's actually been filed or not. We've heard that the application is forthcoming. The member mentions that the taxpayers — I guess it's the users, the same people — are paying for Hydro. The taxpayers do have a considerable input from their dollars through our Environment ministry, where our people have to monitor very carefully. When the application comes in, they have to analyze and check it, that sort of thing, and we have technical people and are always willing to listen to some others who have some input. If we set up another agency to duplicate what the Environment ministry is doing, we have some reservations about spending double taxpayers' dollars to do the job. Then we also have the Ministry of Health, which has people to check to see whether the requirements are being met, so undoubtedly that will go through the process. If and when it's analyzed and when the permit is issued, there is the right of appeal, and then it can go through the process. I know that there is an air inversion situation there in Burrard Inlet. Some of the evidence indicates that the biggest polluter is the automobile from the metropolitan area, so let's hope we don't get into a Los Angeles smog situation. But certainly our standards for permits are quite high with that in mind.

MR. MITCHELL: There are a couple of things I wanted to cover. I couldn't help but make one additional comment, and that's on this game ranch idea. I don't know if the department is still doing it, but I remember that a number of years ago they used to buy quail and pheasant to release. These animals were domestically raised, and when they turned them loose in the fields of Saanich they were sitting ducks. There is a serious concern that when you do raise anything in a domestic situation and then try to take it out to the wild, you're going to have a problem. They're not going to be as wild-wise, I guess, as those raised in the natural environment. I think there is a serious concern if you're going to change the idea. The present policy of good game management is in the long run the main objective of the ministry, and I think it should remain that. But there is also the need for the sick and injured animals to be looked after and utilized if needed.

The main thing I want to get into is the need for some leadership to be given by the ministry in the area that a number of my colleagues have mentioned: that is, the utilization — if you want to call it that — of the septic sludge dumps and sewers, and the garbage problem that is hitting all of our cities. My riding has the distinction of having the septic sludge dump for the greater Victoria area. As the minister is aware, in any area that is not sewered and does have septic tanks, every two or three years there is a need to empty out the solids from a septic tank. The way the septic sludge dump was maintained by the Capital Regional District in Victoria was one of the biggest disasters any organized government body could have perpetrated on the community. I'm not going to go into the details of the maintenance of these tanks, but you had one large pond into which they were dumping not only the septic sludge but also the oil wastes pumped out when cleaning the naval ships and the ships in the dry dock in the area around Victoria. So what you had was a mixture of

[ Page 3856 ]

oil and septic sludge. There is no way that mixture could properly degrade or properly perk and be disposed of. For five years now I have been appealing to the Minister of Environment, and I have been appealing in briefs to the capital region, to take a positive, modern approach to what to do with septic sludge. We had a disaster up there last year. They had to spend another $100,000 to $200,000 to put an additional holding pond in because the Ministry of Environment was insisting that the leachate from the pond on the hill was getting down into the drainage system around the pond. This was needed but it was needed ten years ago.

In British Columbia there are many excellent programs whereby communities have taken their septic sludge and composted it; they have utilized forest wastes in Vernon and Kelowna; there are a number of them in British Columbia. I'm convinced that the only way to make the municipal leaders of the greater Victoria area get off their butts and do something positive is the ministry giving some leadership to stop the continued dumping of sludge into either the ponds or the sewer system. The problem with the sewer system today is that the amount of waste and sewage that goes in is about 1 percent and the rest is water. But the solids that are taken out of a septic tank are far more concentrated. They are three to five years of solids and the ground has got rid of a lot of the water. If you are going to do anything positive with the sewer waste, the place to start is where they are in the most concentrated form — in the septic sludge waste. One place to start, if we are going to take the sewer systems out of our sea, is at the level of the ministry, with their technical knowledge. Some of the information that they have provided me in briefs that I have presented to the CRD has been excellent, but that leadership has to come from the minister and it has to come from that ministry level.

The city of Victoria has just installed another dump going into the sewer system. They're dumping all the Western Community's waste into the sewer system. This should have been stopped. I've been working on it nearly five years now. We've even had a change in some of the elected officials in the greater Victoria area, but they are still blundering along, not doing anything positive, trying to hide this problem. I think the minister and his ministry have to come down and say: "Look, we've got to stop dumping waste into the sewers. We've got to start utilizing the compost system, and we have to do it now. We can't continue to go on."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wish the member would make up his mind, quite frankly. At this point in time he wants leadership, but when we try to direct a municipality or a regional government to do something, that's imposition of authority from Victoria. Now please make up your mind.

I think the ministry has shown considerable leadership. We have shown leadership in the lower mainland area in pulling together all of the groups there. I think it can be done here. We've made that offer on sewage disposal. We're certainly available in the same way I was in the area there. Here again, should there be a sewer system in the western region? By all means let's have the people in the Capital Regional District who look after the whole thing come forward with it. He talked about leadership. The whole emphasis of our waste management plan has been on the Ashcroft secure landfill and that sort of thing. There's a treatment facility and there is a program under the Waste Management Act — a whole plan to try to keep oil and these sorts of things out of the municipal sewers. So we are showing that leadership, but we need a total waste management plan. We have the act in place. We have done a great deal in that respect to try to get it to happen. The Capital Regional District looks after the sewage and garbage disposal in this area. If you want us to take over the Capital Regional District, then we also have to take over the taxing that goes with it and so on. I'm using extremes here in response, but I just find it so strange that we have.... As far as the septic tank sludge, certainly there can be other things done with it. There's been a study done, there's been a technical report made, and now it's up to the Capital Regional District to convince their taxpayers and themselves to get on with the job. We're there. We're showing that leadership, as the member says.

He talks about "a positive, modern approach." For heaven's sake, tell me what it is, and we'll listen to it, but don't give me platitudinal words like "a positive, modern approach." That's what we think we're doing — a positive, modern approach. Let me know.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.