[ Page 3857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M201). Mr. Howard.

Introduction and first reading –– 3857

Oral Questions

Booths closed at ferry terminals. Mr. Lockstead –– 3857

B.C. unemployment rate. Mr. Macdonald –– 3857

Food allowances. Ms. Sanford –– 3858

Bank profits. Mr. Blencoe –– 3858

Care of disturbed children. Mr. Barnes –– 3859

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

On vote 25: resource and environmental management –– 3859

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Lockstead

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Skelly

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 26: emergency assistance –– 3872

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

On vote 47: minister's office –– 3873

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Howard

Mr. Kempf

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mrs. Sharon Malmberg of the Kootenay Livestock Association in Fort Steele. I would like the members to join me in welcoming her.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of introducing to the House some members of the B.C. Hotels Association who are in the gallery today: their president, Mr. Merle Schrader, and executive director, Mr. Lloyd Manuel, together with the other directors of the B.C. Hotels Association who have had consultation and discussions with the government today. I would ask the members to welcome these visitors.

Introduction of Bills

On a motion by Mr. Howard, Bill M201, Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1984, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday a matter arose during oral question period which the Chair feels should be clarified.

A question was put to the acting Minister of Labour, and in response to that question the Premier rose to reply. The Chair expressed some unease as there was no wish to see an unusual or unanticipated practice develop. I have now had an opportunity to consult the authorities, and I am satisfied that questions addressed to the ministry may be answered by the minister responsible for the subject matter raised by the question, whether or not that minister was named in the question or by the leader of the government. It is obviously impossible for the Chair to be aware of the internal operations of the cabinet. As president of the executive council, the Premier is able to assist the House, and his intervention to respond to an oral question does not require leave of the House.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as Your Honour has made mention of the proceedings in question period yesterday, I draw to Your Honour's attention that on three occasions Your Honour permitted the Premier to refer to a member of the cabinet by name rather than by title, and that is an infraction of the rules that should never be permitted. Unless the same opportunity is afforded members of the opposition, one can only conclude that maybe the Premier has more influence in this chamber than one would give him credit for.

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the point of order was, in fact, in order. The second point was not. The point raised by the member is accurate. The Chair expresses regret that that matter was not addressed at the time, and I'm sure all hon. members are aware of the rules governing the use of members' names in this chamber.

MR. LAUK: I have a point of order of equal import, Mr. Speaker. It is my view that the ruling would allow the person whom you described in your ruling as being able to respond for other ministries — but who has not in eight years done so.... I wonder if Mr. Speaker would assist the opposition to some extent and restrict the length of time that such persons take in giving answers to questions put by the opposition. There are only two or three people –– I wouldn't call them offenders, because they are not offenders; they just can't cope with the language with any degree of precision — who tend to ramble on. For example, there was that time....

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure all hon. members recognize the need to adhere to the spirit of question period, and I commend that to all members.

BOOTHS CLOSED AT FERRY TERMINALS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). At a time of record unemployment, will the minister advise why B.C. Ferry Corporation has taken action to destroy several small private businesses in British Columbia by closing down and refusing permission for arts and crafts booths to operate at B.C. Ferries terminals?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member's talking about. I'll take that part of your question.... But I'll tell you that B.C. Ferries just called a contract to put 450 people to work right in the capital city of Victoria.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On the last part of the minister's remarks, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Queen of Alberni, when it is completed, will actually be servicing my riding, and I very much appreciate that. However, that is not the question; the question is will the minister now, in view of the fact that he.... And he knows very well what I'm talking about. You're closing down the arts and crafts booths at the ferry terminals. That's what you're doing, and you're allowing it.

Will the minister advise whether he supports the decision of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to arbitrarily withdraw the livelihood of the small business operators who promote British Columbia arts and crafts to travelers all over the world? Do you support that? Sure you do.

HON. A. FRASER: As I said, I'll take that part of the question as notice, because I am not aware of that. I'll look into it and bring an answer back.

B.C. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier said that the socialist government of France was having "an even worse economy than in any other country in the industrialized world." Now we all know that Reaganomics and Bennettomics — or whatever you call it — has created a depression throughout the western world, but is the Premier aware that the unemployment rate in France is less than 10 percent, while in British Columbia it is more than 15 percent?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad the second member for Vancouver East asked that question, because as ministers and those who have recently visited France will know, the French

[ Page 3858 ]

government had to abandon the policy that that party there still advocates, and that they practised when they first became government. The policies now are all geared to freeing the private sector and having jobs created in that area. I'm pleased to see that they're having a dramatic turnaround in results, although late.

As the member would know, trying to compare a country with a province is very difficult. I'm sure there are areas of France that are dependent on external trade, that are not internally related, and that probably have a fluctuating rate or rates — different than the French average. But there is no doubt that the policies they advocate and practise are very similar — in fact, identical — to the type of policies that that party has continued to press for during the last 50 years in Canada; they're identical now to what they were 50 years ago. They did not work and they had to make a dramatic turnaround. In fact, if the member gets some of the news coming out of countries facing the recession, I think he will find that governments of all political stripes, no matter what their political rhetoric, have had to make the difficult choices that we've made. They've had to curtail public spending in the face of a decline in revenues, and they've had to do it as part of an industrial and economic strategy that doesn't compound the debt to the point where it would be prohibitive, by implying future tax increases and thereby discouraging investment and jobs in their areas. Every country in the world has had to come to grips with the recession. It's only in British Columbia that the New Democrats, a perpetual opposition, still advocate unworkable policies.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I'll be glad to get in touch with Mr. Mitterrand, the Premier of France, and tell him that he now has the support of the Prime Minister of British Columbia — that you've been converted and that you're a supporter of the Socialist Party of France.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You're not? You sounded like it.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. I'm always pleased to have socialist parties see the light once they have the responsibility of government and adopt responsible policies. Unfortunately the opposition here has an opposition mentality, incapable of change, incapable of responsibility, and capable only of dissent, disruption and a wish that the government would fail in its task — not because they want to help people, but because it's the only way they see that they could somehow get back into power. It isn't going to happen here, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD ALLOWANCES

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker. What studies has the minister done on the nutritional adequacy of the food basket available to income assistance recipients, particularly those under the age of 25, whose food allowance has been slashed by 25 percent under the new regulations?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, our ministry does not undertake the duties and responsibilities of analyzing the nutritional values of food.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that's an interesting admission for the Minister of Food to make. I think it's high time that the minister took an interest in the nutritional value of the food that the people of British Columbia are consuming, particularly in view of the low incomes with which they have to purchase that food.

The other day — on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker — the minister suggested that the Ministry of Human Resources has increased funding for recipients in order to purchase food. Is the minister aware that all of the GAIN rates have been frozen for two years and that those people under the age of 25 have been cut by 25 percent?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the total number of dollars made available through the Ministry of Human Resources to help people in need has been increased. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to determine the best possible way to put those dollars into the hands of the people who have the greatest need.

MS. SANFORD: The suggestion that the minister gave the other day, then — that there was more money available for those people who were in receipt of assistance from Human Resources — is, in fact, erroneous. There are just more people, not more money available to those people.

Previously the Ministry of Human Resources referred British Columbians with urgent need to the volunteer food banks, and we have many examples of that. Even though the provincial government provides no support for those food banks, has the minister decided to recommend a program of government assistance for food banks, which could be implemented almost immediately?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

BANK PROFITS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. The day before yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Food said there is no money available in government to buy British Columbia produce for distribution to low-income families through volunteer food banks. We also know that much of the response to the crisis, the recession in our province, has come from the volunteer section, the community agencies and the churches, and they continue to respond to that crisis. One of the major institutions in our province, the banks, have done little in this crisis, yet taken lots. What consideration have the Premier and the cabinet given to increasing taxation of the chartered banks, who last year in British Columbia made $300 million in profits?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know how the member relates that to the distribution of food by churches, in wanting to single out one sector of society that operates a business in the private sector, but I would say that the government, as far as taxation in this province goes, did increase the bank tax on capital ahead of any other government in Canada a few years ago, and has the highest extra rates for capital purposes. That policy, incidentally, was followed by Manitoba in a very half-hearted way.

MR. BLENCOE: Supplementary to the Premier. Despite what the Premier says, the banks indeed continue to make

[ Page 3859 ]

record profits not only in this country but in this province. Does he not feel that those institutions that continue to make record profits, particularly when they make them from people who are losing their homes and being thrown into the unemployment lines, have some responsibility in these difficult times to return something to those people?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wish every business in this province was making record profits, because then they'd have the type of money to reinvest and employ our people. The mindset that that member and his party have against profits, that somehow profits and business are dirty words.... We found out that when there is no business and there are no profits, as struck our forest industry, that creates unemployment for our forest workers, which is unacceptable to me. It was only a few years ago that we used to hear the tremendous attacks on the forest industry for any profit at all. We know very well what happens when profits aren't there: investors in these companies, who may be anybody in Canada.... Corporate entities aren't in themselves some big invisible group; they're made up of thousands or hundreds of thousands, depending on the institution, of individual shareholders and depositors who get a return on their money.

The member thinks it's popular to criticize financial institutions. It's part of the mindset of the 50-year-ago policies of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to apologize for the banks or any other business. I'm here to say that our government isn't going to single out, in a vindictive way for the political purposes of the second member for Victoria, any single group for punitive taxes just because we wish to be vindictive.

CARE OF DISTURBED CHILDREN

MR. BARNES: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. As the minister realizes, today families in the province of British Columbia are experiencing considerable stress. Young people are finding themselves more and more without the security of home life. As a result, the schools are having more problems with young people with behavioural and emotional problems. What will happen to these young people now that she has ordered the termination of some six child-care workers in the Victoria area and approximately 50 child-care workers in the Vancouver elementary and secondary schools?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to answer the question in detail. I'm cognizant of the fact that there is only one minute left in question period.

In Victoria, I think the member is addressing himself to the Lampson Street educational rehabilitation program closure. We have 23 students in the Lampson Street educational rehab program; of these, 12 are wards, and the remaining 11 live with their families. Almost all are 17- and 18-year-old young people. The Ministry of Human Resources funds 11 such programs. It is one of 11 in greater Victoria, seven of which are in the Victoria School District. The Lampson Street program was the only one staffed by ministry personnel. Of six staff positions at Lampson Street, one is vacant, and we're told that as of March 31, 1984, alternative staff placements are to be offered to the remainder. On February 27, 1984, the school principal was notified verbally of the ministry's intent to close the program on March 31. As of March 14, 1984, of the 23 students affected by closure of the Lampson Street program, nine are going to the Warehouse alternative education program, which is a like service, without displacing any other child on their waiting list. The staff indicated that they expanded their capacity to make everyone's schedule for the Warehouse School, plus up to ten children from Lampson Street School. Three others are looking for work. Two of these had completed the Lampson Street program and the third had already been expelled due to noncompliance with attendance requirements. Two students are to return to regular public schools. One of these had been confirmed and the second placement is awaiting confirmation. Planning had already been underway prior to any change.

One student has been placed in a program in the Indian Friendship Centre. One student is attending the Crossroads program funded by the corrections department. One student was withdrawn from Lampson Street School by his parents. Three students, who are wards, quit Lampson Street School as soon as they heard that the program was ending. All were looking for an excuse to quit. Staff are looking for options to assist them, so they are still under the counselling of the staff. They would be difficult to place in any alternative education program. There are three students awaiting word on whether they can go into a work activity program in the city. Two of these students are close to obtaining their grade 10 level of education this spring, and if at all possible they should remain in the school system to obtain their education. Our staff is working toward that goal.

Staff continue to work to find appropriate options for the students not yet placed, of whom only the three that I mentioned were difficult, even within the Lampson Street situation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that in a question asked during the question period by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) the inference was that the Minister of Human Resources constantly or always or often refers people to the volunteer food banks. I have never done so. I have never publicly stated that, and never have done that so I want the member to be corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, with all due respect, that is not a point of order. It could have been made in another forum but not as a point of order.

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.

[2:30]

MR. MITCHELL: I want to get back to where we left off before the lunch period. I kind of resent the minister's attack that the people in the Western Community and those who are involved in waste management at the community level can't make up their minds. I want to stress again to the minister and the ministry that the people in the Western Community can make up their minds. What confused the issue was the minister's kind of offhand remark that the people in the Western

[ Page 3860 ]

Community cannot make up their minds whether they want sewers or waste management disposal of septic sewage. It's unfortunate that people at the government level at one time took the attitude that they were going to force sewers on the Western Community, similar to the operation that took place on Salt Spring Island. Although it would be desirable and would have a lot going for it, it is not economically possible at the present time to put a sewer system in the Western Communities. It may be something that should have been laid out 30 years ago, but it is not going to happen in the Western Communities. We still have the problem out in that area of pumping septic sludge deposits into the sea. I am not afraid to ask the minister for positive leadership. I know he has talented people in his ministry who can give that leadership, and that leadership has to come from the government. The government has missed the boat. To make an offhand statement that the people out there have to decide if they want sewers or composting is not the issue. The issue is that something has to be done in the line of composting if we're going to protect our environment in the Western Communities of the greater Victoria area.

I have a second question I would like to put to the minister, and I brought it up in an earlier speech. I was hoping to hear something from his ministry. Has the minister made any firm study of the Whiffin Spit erosion? Is there any cooperation between the Environment minister and the Highways minister to do some repair work on the Whiffin Spit before we have another storm at high tide causing the damage that is suspected to take place in the Sooke Basin if that natural breakwater, which has evolved over thousands of years, is not repaired? I mention it to the minister so that he may give serious consideration to either putting in some rock fill or to doing something to patch up the present hole. It's not only that it will protect the inner harbour in the Sooke area, but it will make the park area accessible to the general public.

A few years ago, just prior to the 1979 election, the government released $30,000 from the Lottery Fund to work on Whiffin Spit. The government at that time recognized Whiffin Spit as part of the Sooke community and part of the responsibility of the government in general. They decided to use Lottery Fund money and to give it to the chamber of commerce to do repair work on Whiffin Spit, which I think was kind of a petty political move. The government did do that on the insistence, and with the leadership, of the then Social Credit MLA. But the undertaking by this government at that time that Whiffin Spit is a needed breakwater for the harbour, that it was a tourist attraction, was an access to the park area on the east end of the spit.... For the last year and a half it's been sitting there in a state of disrepair. The effort that could go into repairing it would create some needed employment in that area. It would open up the area for tourists and parks and would be taking protective measures before the damage comes.

We're coming into a summer period, and I just don't want to hear the government say that the erosion off the banks is going to bring a lot of gravel back.... We can't wait, hoping that what took hundreds of years to build up is going to be solved right away. I think the government has to take a positive stand. I know that the minister doesn't like the words "positive stand," but it has to be repaired.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Responding briefly, it's interesting how the member can make some selective juxtapositions of comments that I made this morning. He said that I said that the Western Communities couldn't make up its mind about the sewer system. I mentioned that perhaps a sewer system would solve some of their problems, but what I said was that the member couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted local autonomy or imposition from Victoria. That was what I referred to about making up their minds.

As for the Whiffin Spit situation, no, we have not looked at it recently. The reason that lottery funds were given is because our riverbank protection program does not provide or allow for storm damage from the ocean. It would be better to give some money out of the lottery funds rather than nothing, I would think. If the member is now suggesting that we should spend that money to improve the breakwater, at this time I would welcome a suggestion from him as to what other program these funds should come from.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few quick questions for the minister. The first deals with a problem that is of particular concern in my riding, although it is happening all over British Columbia: that is, the use of herbicides and pesticides. The minister may recall...I'm sure he will recall, because we seem to go through this every year. The Forest Service, B.C. Hydro, other groups — occasionally Highways, but not so much any more — apply for a permit to spray whatever it is they spray –– 2-4D or whatever — on the plants. The Minister of Forests shakes his head; in a second I'll give you an example of a current situation. When the agencies apply for permits, first of all we usually give.... The environmentally conscious people in my riding, no matter where they live, ask questions and sometimes appeal or attempt to appeal decisions. Certainly two of the regional districts in my riding — the Sunshine Coast and Powell River Regional Districts — have on numerous occasions protested to your ministry about the issuing of permits for people to go in and spray here, there and wherever.

The latest case, which does in fact involve the Forest Service — and I'm pleased to see the Minister of Forests in the house — is near Earle Creek, which is near the Skookumchuck just out of Egmont. I'm sure you know the area; it's quite famous. It's also quite near a provincial park. The Forest Service has applied to use a herbicide to spray alder in that area, which they did last year in that area as well. We were successful last year, at least in one case in the Powell River area, in getting the Forest Service to use the hack and squirt technique, which is much better than aerial spraying or having people walking around with sprays killing everything in sight with the herbicides and pesticides that they use.

I am asking the minister to use his influence with the minister sitting next to him.... Now standing, now sitting again; he's like a jack-in-a-box. He got all fidgety there on his trip to Germany. He was over there for three weeks, and he hasn't reported back to this House yet. We don't know what he did over there. Did he sell anything?

What I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is for the Minister of Environment to use his influence and ask that minister to consider using the hack and squirt method in that area if it is required to kill the alder at all. Quite frankly, I don't know why in some of these areas it is necessary to wipe out what is a merchantable type of tree, in any event. The Forest Service sometimes gets carried away. I personally don't understand why the Forest Service has to always get these permits for this type of spraying when they ask for them, and why we have to kill alder in the first place, particularly in areas like that.

[ Page 3861 ]

Another item I want to ask the minister about very quickly is that when someone applies for a permit to pollute, in other words — that's really what it is — or to use these sprays and herbicides, there is no charge for receiving that permit. But if a citizen or a group wants to appeal the issue of such a permit, they have to pay to the ministry or to the Environmental Appeal Board, as published in the procedures put out by the ministry, a $25 fee. I fail to understand that as well. I have had a number of complaints. For each permit they have to pay $25 and I simply don't understand that. A large operation like the Forest Service or a large forest company can easily afford to pay something to apply, but here you have the appellant, who may wish to appeal a decision made by the ministry or the minister or the board, having to pay a fee of $25. Some of these people don't have a whole lot of money nowadays, particularly since the last two budgets this government has brought in.

I have another question for the minister; this is a constituency item as well. Could the minister tell me how much money the ministry anticipates spending on diking in the Bella Coola valley, river, estuary — the whole bit — this year? If you have a figure, I'd appreciate it. You may not have that figure with you today, and I understand that and am prepared to wait for an answer.

[2:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As to the permit applications for spraying or using pesticides, that is our requirement to make sure that we have control over it. We ask the people to apply for that. The member also questioned the $25 fee for people who appeal. It started out that at one time there was no charge for the appeals, and it seemed that there were a number of repetitive appeals coming in on issues that had already been resolved and gone to appeal, so that every time a permit was issued, an automatic appeal came in. So the fee was there to determine the seriousness of the appeal, and it is required from individuals, groups or companies wishing to appeal. It has not prevented the serious appeals, and it has done something to prevent tying up the appeal board on every single issue that had been decided over and over again in similar instances. The member, I think, recognizes that the permits and applications are site-specific, specific controls, in order to exercise a very good control over that. Certainly aerial spraying is the toughest to control, and we try to avoid it to the extent possible, but sometimes it's the only practical route to go. I guess the member can call it a permit to pollute, but we're looking at it as a permit to control what is there, and we rely on the technical people to make the decisions as to whether it's safe to do so or not. If it's not safe, then of course the permit isn't issued.

Regarding the amount for your constituency, I'll get you that.

MS. SANFORD: For the benefit of the House Leader, I'm going to be very brief. I have one question to direct to the minister which relates to a particular issue within my constituency. There are a lot of other questions; I'm going to deal with some of them by mail, and some of them I'm working on with his various ministry officials, but I'd like a direct answer from the minister about this one.

Within the constituency of Comox and located in the city of Courtenay is a conservation officer who has served that area for a long time. For some reason which I have not been able to determine, and which people like the Fish and Game Protective Association in Courtenay have not been able to determine, this particular conservation officer is no longer going to be located in Courtenay but is going to be moved 30 miles north into an office in Campbell River. The current office is in the courthouse, which is owned by BCBC, and I cannot think that the ministry is making that move simply because of office space, and perhaps putting three or four officers together in one office in order to cut down on the rental costs.

The service which the conservation officer, Ray Rogers, has given to the area has been outstanding, and I think everyone who is involved in the conservation field will agree with that. If he is moved to Campbell River, he will obviously not be able to serve the area as well as he has in the past, having to commute an extra 30 miles in order to respond to the requests for his services. The people within the area will have to make a long-distance call if they're going to contact the conservation officer, as a result of this move. Also, people are very concerned that the conservation officer already located right in that area is very hard-pressed to meet the requirements of the various problems that develop within the constituency. There's quite a large agricultural area in there, and of course, the conservation officer is quite often called in to police a number of problems related to agriculture and wildlife — deer, bears, swans, geese, cougars and dogs. All of those would not receive the attention that they require. Even now that conservation officer is hard-pressed to respond to all of those calls.

The other aspect of this is that Ray Rogers has served as a vital force in that local fish and game organization. They feel that if he is moved to Campbell River, they will lose that kind of readily available information, assistance and guidance that he's been able to give them over the years. I cannot understand why the move is being made; they cannot understand why the move is being made. Certainly the service provided to that area will be woefully inadequate as a result of this particular move. Could the minister give me an explanation that makes some sense?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the last part. It is part of our zonal office concept, whereby we're trying to pull people together into a central office which will then have administrative assistants. It will help. I don't have the record right here as to whether the officer is going to be responsible to the Campbell River office and continue to live in Courtenay — as in some of the areas. I can tell the member this: in total, the area gains. Adding up Campbell River, Courtenay and so on, there are four conservation officers. There will now be five, plus backup assistance; in other words, there will be access to the office even when he is out in the field. It's the same concept that is being used in other places. We're trying to cut out office rents, and that's showing up as a saving. We're trying, wherever we can, to have an automatic telephone transfer where long-distance calls are involved. I don't know whether that can be done in that area, but we're taking every step to make sure that these people are accessible. With five officers and the office backup now in the area, I think the area will get as good a service as in the past. I'm glad to hear that the conservation officer is giving good service. I would hope that he would continue and give even better service.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few questions for the Minister of Environment. The first concerns the

[ Page 3862 ]

estimates for the waste management branch and the pesticide control branch. I understand from the estimates this year that the operation of those branches is going to cost the provincial government a total of $9.572 million. Over the last few years, my concern has been that there are no charges made for pollution control permits in the province, that the provincial government totally subsidizes those who have pollution control permits or pesticide permits. We as taxpayers pay the full shot. Also, we end up paying the costs of cleanup when that is required. As taxpayers, we do not benefit from the application of pesticides in many cases — the individual applicator benefits. We're subsidizing these people to the tune of about $9.5 million. The government seems to be of two minds about this type of subsidy. When it comes to subsidizing Pacific Coach Lines to the tune of $8 million annually, they want to get rid of Pacific Coach Lines and privatize it. But when it comes to subsidizing the waste management branch and the issuance of waste management and pesticide control permits, the government seems to be of a different mind.

I discussed this with previous Ministers of Environment across the floor, and of course in letters, suggesting that the people who benefit from pollution control permits or waste management permits or pesticide application permits should be the people who pay the cost of the department issuing and monitoring the permits. I gather that it amounts to, per permit holder, a very small charge. I'm wondering why the minister persists in subsidizing these permit holders at taxpayers' expense when, for a very small charge, we could save $9.5 million of taxpayers' money and allocate that to some useful applications. For example, we could keep David Thompson University Centre going for three years on the amount with which we're subsidizing pesticide control permits and waste management permits. I wonder if the minister is giving consideration, as previous ministers have promised, to at least having these branches of his ministry self-financing, through charges on pesticide and pollution control permits. That's my first question.

In the auditor-general's report of March 31, 1981, as the minister knows, an audit was done of the Ministry of Environment. The auditor-general looked at the extent of noncompliance on page 130 of the report, and she did a number of samples of permits. Let me see if I can find out what she said there. "Using the above criteria, we classified 14 of the 39 permits where we were able to assess compliance as seriously violating permit conditions." She made a number of recommendations and also found that there were gross violations and some violations that were not as serious. In any event, she found that almost every pollution control permit in existence was in some stage of non-compliance and recommended that the ministry should ascertain the extent and severity of non-compliance with permit conditions and should develop and implement procedures to bring dischargers into acceptable compliance over a reasonable period of time.

We're talking about establishing a privately operated landfill system near Ashcroft, regulated, I understand, by the Ministry of Environment. The auditor-general has found that the ministry has not been an effective regulator of people who have waste management permits, and has requested that measures be taken by the ministry to improve the enforcement of waste management permits, bringing those permittees into an acceptable level of compliance. I am concerned about what the ministry has done to bring about this more acceptable level of compliance. Prior to the establishment of any facility for dealing with the disposal or storage of hazardous wastes, we should make sure that the ministry is capable of enforcing waste management permits and the regulation it imposes on people who dump or store hazardous substances. I am wondering if the minister will outline exactly what he has done to bring about a better level of compliance among permittees.

The third question was in fact brought to my attention by the brewery workers. It has to do with the old Litter Act, which I gather is now being brought under the new Waste Management Act, under sections 41 and 35, (h), (i), (j) and (k), which sections have yet to be proclaimed, and that minister is currently considering regulations under that section of the act. The brewery workers are concerned that it takes only half the number of workers to produce the same amount of beer in cans as it does to produce beer in bottles.

AN HON. MEMBER: They could build a pyramid.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is as irrelevant now as he always has been. Why aren't they appointing you to be the agent-general in London, instead of the member for South Peace River? I'll vote for you and support you.

The brewery workers are concerned that producing beer in cans requires only half the amount of labour on a can line as it does on a bottle line. We're buying these aluminium cans from outside the province, so we're losing a tremendous amount of employment in British Columbia by switching from bottles to cans. They are concerned that the new Waste Management Act regulations that apply to deposits on cans and bottles are going to favour the use of aluminium cans rather than bottles which can be reused something like 12, 15 or 20 times; also those bottles are produced here in British Columbia from British Columbia materials. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an idea of what the proposed changes in the regulations are and whether he will consider the representations from the brewery workers' union — I think they're a division of the B.C. Government Employees' Union — prior to bringing down these regulations. They are concerned that the regulations are going to encourage the changing from bottles to cans by providing a smaller deposit on aluminium cans than you require on bottles. That is the other question I wanted to ask the minister.

[3:00]

In the past I've asked the minister questions about Meares Island. As the minister is aware, there are a number of groups on the west coast of Vancouver Island in my constituency who are concerned about the future of Meares Island. A decision that was made by the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet allowed Meares Island to be logged according to a plan that was arrived at by the Environment and Land Use Committee. The people in the area feel that much more information should have been given greater consideration and that more weight should have been given to their arguments.

Unfortunately, when the Environment and Land Use Committee came to their decision on Meares Island, they didn't give adequate weight to those arguments from groups other than the logging companies. They would like to see the moratorium on Meares Island extended under the Environment and Land Use Act until such time as the minister has had an opportunity to hear those additional arguments. I'm wondering if the minister has heard from the village of Tofino or if he has agreed to meet with representatives from the

[ Page 3863 ]

village of Tofino and with other organizations from the area. Are you willing to meet with them or have you met with them yet? If so, what conclusions have you reached? Those are the questions I'd like to address to the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, taking them in order, regarding the Waste Management Act and the Water Act, we are looking at the user-pay principle across the board. What we're somewhat concerned about is that government, in effect, requires all these permits. Imposing a cost on them is one of the considerations. The member says we could save $9.5 million. The $9.5 million would have to come out of industry, which is in a delicate situation right now. It has to come from somebody, and whether it gets passed on by the industry.... But we are certainly looking at it. We're moving in some areas. We're analyzing each of the areas and are seriously considering it.

The member reads from the auditor-general's report of the lack of compliance. That was taken seriously by the ministry. The non-compliance has now been reduced. One of the things that has been done is that the conservation officers have had their scope extended — not just for fish and wildlife, but they keep an eye on other things as well. We've been concentrating on where environmental damage has been done rather than going to supervise the actual application of each permit. I might say, in broader terms, that our waste management plan gets focused in on certain particular areas, but part of the intent of that is to give people the alternative to do something so that there is a way to comply more easily, and therefore we can enforce. Stronger enforcement is a part of that waste management plan.

Regarding the cans versus bottle and the labour situation, in my ministry we're looking at the recovery rate. Even though it's tempting sometimes, we can't get into it from a litter point of view. We have had representation from glass, can and other organizations, and we are working on putting together the regulations that encompass that. I don't recall hearing from the group that you're mentioning. If they want to send in their concerns, fine. You asked if I would meet with them. I have a fairly hectic schedule for the next while, so it might be faster to get a letter that I can deal with and then try to set up a meeting.

The Meares Island situation. As the member well knows, there was a conflict about what should be done with that, so a study team was set up. That study team held all kinds of public meetings and proposed some options which went from one extreme to the other extreme and halfway down the middle. The only recommendation that came forth was that studies be continued. In considering what we took to be the major points of concern — the watershed and the view from Tofino — we tried to make a decision. Immediately that a decision is made in any situation, you then have the approach from people to say: "We now want further public discussion. Rather than accept the decision, we want to do further studies, so please put a moratorium on any decision." That could go on indefinitely. We did assure ourselves that any of the logging would be done according to plan. The statements that "they're now going to wipe out and clearcut all of Meares Island this year" are not correct. It's going to be done over a period of years, according to a management plan which will be supervised by the Forests ministry, and, of course, with referrals to the various ministries that are concerned. So it will be done properly. By the time the last of it is logged, some of it would probably be well grown up again.

MR. SKELLY: I believe the minister received a request from Alderman Barnard of the village of Tofino. I wonder if you have agreed to meet with the village of Tofino or with Mr. Barnard to discuss the moratorium, so that he at least has an opportunity to meet with you on it and make his arguments to you directly.

Also, I wonder if the minister has established.... Every minister to whom I've addressed this issue of user charges for waste management permits and pesticide control permits has said they were giving it serious consideration. One minister said he had no power under the act to make those charges, but when you read the act, of course he had the power. I'm wondering if you put any deadline on this serious consideration that's been taking place over the last five or six years at least. Surely if this cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $8 million last year and is now costing $9.5 million dollars — and growing — there should be some deadline that you place on the consideration. Make the decision one way or the other: either go to the user-pay concept or continue the taxpayer-subsidized concept. In this case, I'm certainly in favour of going to the user-pay concept. People who have their water tested pay for the cost of the testing. People who buy maps from the ministry pay for the cost of those maps. The ministry doesn't seem that concerned about the cost to the taxpayer. You seem more concerned about the cost to industry. Yet the taxpayer is in just as difficult a situation as the industrial side. Surely the principle of user-pay should apply regardless. So I'm wondering if you put a deadline on when you're actually going to make a decision on self-financing of these two branches of the ministry. Or is it going to go on and be seriously considered for ever and ever, without any decision being made?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I never like to put deadlines on serious consideration. In other words, I always want to seriously consider it until we reach the point of making a decision. I might point out that on the basis of fees.... You talk about water-testing. It has come to my attention that even though we charge a fee for that, it's probably a quarter or a fifth of what the lab tests actually cost. So if a proposal came in to say that we should have a proper fee.... I didn't make a decision in considering that. On the one hand, we're trying to encourage people to make sure they have their well-water tested. If we make the fee prohibitive — up from the $25 to, say, $125 or $135, which is the actual cost of it — then we may certainly recover all the testing costs but we may discourage people from testing their wells. Those are the kinds of things we have to consider. I know the member is in favour of charging fees in this instance, but time and again, whenever we do come up with user-pay, we are just as severely criticized for imposing a fee during these tough economic times. So that's why. I would suspect that we will try to make that decision as soon as possible, because we are trying to do that. Whether it will be within this year or sooner.... I'm very favourable to getting the decision made, so that I can get on to the next issue — there is always another one. But sometimes I have to spend a little time weighing them.

MRS. WALLACE: The last time I was on my feet the minister and I were discussing hazardous wastes. Before I move on to another topic, I do want to go back and pose a couple of questions to him relative to that. I was interested in the comments this morning of the Minister of Forests (Hon.

[ Page 3864 ]

Mr. Waterland). His comment about the the minister and the ministry getting involved in some kind of public discussion with the people at Ashcroft, rather than leaving it to the company, seemed to me to be the sort of thing that the people in Ashcroft are asking for. I accepted an invitation — actually the invitation was extended to the Leader of the Opposition and he asked me as Agriculture critic to go to Ashcroft last Saturday, which I did. The feeling I got from those people in Ashcroft was that they really wanted to have some backup information; they wanted to see the data, the studies. They were pretty concerned about the letter that the minister issued, dated February 27, "To whom it may concern...." In item 3 he talked about extensive studies, to learn what you are going to do. They would like to see those studies. They haven't seen them; at least they haven't seen any studies from the government. They've seen lots of information from Genstar-IT, but they haven't seen anything from the government. They're looking for those studies.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are we.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, yes, so are we. I've been quoting a lot of information in this House that indicates that IT is not the best of operators.

MR. SKELLY: The minister said: "So are we."

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, I thought you said.... The minister said: "So are we"? Well, why are we doing something if we don't know what we're doing?

Item 12 of this letter was the item that really upset the people there, because it reads: "The problem began with improper management of toxic wastes." We all agree with that. "But it seems that some would have us leave that problem in place or return to it."

I think the minister is misreading the intent of what's happening in Ashcroft. They have been trying to get information. They haven't been able to get it from the ministry. They have grave doubts about the reliability of the company responsible for putting this operation into effect. They have grave concerns about it being monitored only by a government agency. My colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) just pointed out some of the reasons for those concerns. The track record of the ministry is not good in monitoring things relative to disposal of wastes, pollution and those kinds of matters. Here we are, facing massive layoffs; something like 100 people, I understand, are finished this month in your ministry, including a great many in areas that would be related to this particular topic. I note that you've got all kinds of money provided for professional services. I don't know if that's how you are proposing to monitor. But there are some concerns. They would like some exchange, some dialogue.

[3:15]

I believe you have a letter, Mr. Minister, requesting you to attend a meeting on April 10; requesting you to be there, someone from Genstar to be there, and to meet with Mr. Kaufman, whom you have taken some issue with in the public press. They would like you to come to Ashcroft on April 10 and discuss your information, give them your supportive evidence. Let them know why Mr. Kaufman is wrong. Mr. Kaufman has the support of a great many very well-known groups and authorities who agree with the things he is saying. I would hope that the minister will stand up in this House and tell us that he will go to Ashcroft on April 10, that he is prepared to meet Mr. Kaufman on the public platform, not in a debate but in a symposium, a discussion, and make the information available that those people in Ashcroft are trying to get, because they feel that they're going blind into this thing, that the company is not being well monitored, that it won't be well-monitored, and that the same kinds of concerns that have developed in other areas will develop there.

I was pleased to hear the minister say that Genstar-IT is bonded. I would like to know how large a bond he intends to have them post, because the history in the United States has been bankruptcy, and the cost of looking after, cleaning up and maintaining, and getting rid of a half-completed site.... I know that you're not proposing to put any liquids in this dump, and that has been happening down there. I shouldn't call it a dump, I'm sorry. It's not a dump; it's a solid-waste disposal area. They are concerned — and I am concerned — that this may happen again; that we may find the company out of business. Certainly the generators of the waste are the people who should be paying the shot. I know they're going to be charged for bringing this in. But what happens once they have paid that charge and the company is not able to deal with it, if it finds that it is not an economically viable operation, and they pull out? Who's going to pay the costs then? Is that bond sufficient to ensure that the whole operation can continue, that it can be subsidized through that bond or something? Because once you've started this operation, it pretty well has to be carried out. If the operation turns out not to be safe, if there are problems, if it's not properly done, then it's going to be a major cost to ensure that there is no resulting pollution. I'd certainly like answers from the minister on those items: the professional services, how he's going to cope with monitoring this thing.... It must be monitored if it's going to be safe, when he is facing fewer employees and an already overloaded staff as part of the government policy of reduction in staff; how he's proposing to police this thing; how large the bond is; and whether he will go to that meeting on April 10, meet with Mr. Kaufmann, and present the arguments. If he has solid basic data, then let's see it. Let the public see it. Let those concerned citizens see it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's strange how they interpret. The member is delighted that we are suddenly going to get involved in this waste management plan. We have been involved from day one. What I said this morning is that we felt that the technical information was the key issue. We are now going to get more directly involved in the community. We went there and offered to answer any questions, to come to any meetings they wanted and send any technical staff, any consultants, any expertise and anything they wanted. We released all of the available studies. Some of the studies we're referring to we can't get; people have blocked them. I said in number 12 in that letter that some would seem to want us to back off this program because some people have taken the position from the day we announced it of: "Stay out of our back yard. We don't want you." They didn't ask initially, "Is it safe? What are you doing?" and so on. Some of these people from day one said: "We don't care what the information is. Our minds are made up." Many other people have still kept an open mind on it. We have tried, all along, to respond. My assistant deputy minister has been in there on several occasions. I've been in there a couple of times. We try to keep

[ Page 3865 ]

anybody informed and try to answer all questions of a technical nature. The ones we have some difficulty answering are questions like, "Yes, we agree that something should be done, but go somewhere else," when we're trying to find the best location.

You say that the ministry's track record isn't good. I rather object to that. You can say the minister's track record is not good, if you like, which you....

MS. SANFORD: No, the ministry's.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, the other day you said that a zero salary was exactly what I was worth. That I can accept, but now you're saying that my best technical people have a poor track record. You pick out isolated examples of non-compliance and that sort of thing. How do we find out about non-compliance? Our people are finding out about it, and when a spill happens or anything happens, these people are right on it. So I do get a bit resentful when you malign very professional people in an attempt to criticize me. Criticize me by all means, but give some acknowledgment and credit to those people who are doing a very technical and good job. Our ministry people on this special waste problem have come up with a great deal of research — and it's all available — about the bad problems that have happened in other places.

The member refers to Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Kaufman was brought in and financed, as I understand it, by the people who said: "Whatever the security is, we don't want him in our area, so this is it." I guess what bothered me is that Mr. Kaufman came in under the pretence of representing the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, and we checked and they had completely dissociated themselves from him. They said: "No, he's in no way representing us." So maybe he's representing his own concerns; I'll give the man that. But he came in and attacked our program without making any effort to check what our program was. What was his objective and motive? Now I'm invited to appear on the stage with him. Last time it was very carefully, I thought, staged: I left here on Friday at noon, and on Friday afternoon the invitation came in to be there on Saturday, which of course was too late. I pointed that out. I think that some of the people wanted to point out that there's no way I would appear. Now Mr. Kaufman, having set the stage, and with what I consider a complete lack of credibility because he had never looked at our program, was attacking us on the basis of the worst examples in the United States, where he comes from and where he was on the EPA at one time. They set the regulations, and our regulations are an improvement on that; yet he criticized us for having no regulations. So, yes, now I guess the answer is that these people "against the dump," as they call it, against our secure landfill, trying to stop this factor in our waste management plan, are bringing Mr. Kaufman back, and I'm supposed to go there and put on a stage show with him. I'm not interested in putting on stage shows. I will meet at any time with any people who want to ask responsible questions. I am not interested in providing a sideshow for somebody. Even the last meeting was not billed as an informational meeting; it was billed as a citizens-against-the-dump rally. That was not information; that was to make their point. So they're making their point. I am not going to help them in producing stage shows for the media. I am willing to provide any information and any assistance that I can, in any form.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I don't think there's much point in pursuing that particular aspect. Obviously the minister has made up his mind; he has decided that's what he is going to do, and he is not prepared to listen to any alternatives.

I want to deal with recycling. I understand that the people who were employed with the ministry to direct the recycling program have been pink-slipped; they'll no longer be with the ministry. This concerns me. Certainly the minister has talked a lot about the need for and the importance of recycling. I wonder how he is going to deal with this. How is he going to give any direction or assistance to recycling depots around the province if, in fact, he doesn't have any staff who are prepared to do that? Apparently there were also grants going out, to a maximum of $10,000, to provide the community or regional districts with recycling, if they agreed to match that amount. It was a fifty-fifty thing. Ninety-six percent of the operating groups are non-profit organizations. That funding was terminated. I understand that they were advised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), or the minister's colleague, that they should stop being non-profit associations and turn it into a business. Well, there are not the facilities or the money. Some of them are too small. It's a real slap in the face to people who are trying to do something that is ecologically sound and environmentally wise and at least a forerunner of what could become a very viable program in the long haul. But to do away with those people at this point in time — as well as cutting the grants, which has been done for some time — is not good. That's one question that I have regarding waste disposal.

The other question relates to sawdust and wood-chips. I understand that in my particular area there's been a bit of a conflict between the industry and the ministry people. Let me stop right there for a minute. The minister indicated earlier that I was throwing black marks against his staff. That is certainly not the case and not my intention. The lack of effectiveness of the program has nothing to do with the capabilities of the staff. It's the shortage of staff and the shortage of desire on the part of this particular government, that minister and his predecessors to really crack down on the polluters. Certainly I had no intent of throwing any derogatory statements relative to the people who work for the ministry. I've had excellent cooperation from many of them, and I'm sure they are all very dedicated people. They are extremely busy and spread very, very thin.

Sawdust. People in the ministry and in the industry tell me that there was a bit of a conflict. The industry wanted the ministry to set up places where they could dump the surplus sawdust and chips from the mills. The ministry said: "That's not our responsibility. It's up to the industry to find a place. Then we will check it out to see whether it's suitable and acceptable, and give you a permit to put the sawdust there." Nothing happened. Eventually a tacit agreement was reached. Industry went and found a place where they could put it. They're going to individual landowners, small farmers and small plot holders, and saying: "Can we dump some sawdust in that low place in the back of your property?" I suppose they're paying them something for it. Times are tough, and so this is happening. On the other hand, the Ministry of the Environment has agreed that unless a report comes in objecting to this being dumped they will not do anything about it. That's partly because they're overworked, they don't have the time, and the whole thing has come to this

[ Page 3866 ]

situation. It's bad from an environmental point of view. I know that the local officer is presently looking at one spot up there where a lot of sawdust and chips have been dumped. They could well have PCP in them, because they're out of sawmills, and all the other leachates. They're checking to see whether this will be flowing into Shawnigan Creek, which will flow into Mill Bay and would certainly have harmful effects on the fish. If that is the case, and it's found to be a hazard, who is responsible? The person on whose land it is dumped. Now that's a very unfair thing that's developed there, and I don't know what the answer is. Obviously an answer is more staff and more time to find a piece of Crown land where that stuff can go. Or else utilize it; set up some kind of alternative energy plant where we can burn the chips — something besides just leaving it, so that the little guy at the bottom of the ladder who needs the money and allows the sawmill to dump on his property, not realizing the consequence....

That's a local concern which I have, and, together with the recycling concern, ends my comments on hazardous waste disposal. If the minister wants to answer those two, we can then move on to something else.

[3:30]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, regarding the sawdust situation, I am not aware of the specifics that the member is talking about. I can say in general terms though that we cannot have our technical people, who have a mandate to supervise, advise and analyze, put their priority into going to look for sites which industries might want, no more than we can have some people going out looking for where people would like to farm, etc. In other words, the people have to come in. Industry, I think, accepts the responsibility that it is up to them to make the proposal and then have our ministry people check out whether or not it is suitable. I don't have much difficulty with that, although I would be interested in following up the specifics.

As far as approaching people to allow them to dump waste on their land, which becomes a subsequent problem, I suppose that is part and parcel of the person's responsibility for what happens on their land. If they allow people to dump sawdust.... Let's use another example. If, for the sake of making some money because of hard times, they say: "If you've got some waste oil please feel free to dump it on my property" — I'm using that extreme example to make the point — yes, they have to be held accountable because they have some property rights. We certainly will do what we can to check into that.

I think that was about it, wasn't it?

MRS. WALLACE: What about the recycling people?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I guess initially the proposal that came forth in the program adopted by the ministry was that it was felt recycling could actually pay its way as long as there was some seed money for equipment or startup costs; so some grants were provided from that. Some of the programs are now self-funding. As often happens with government programs, people accept on those terms, saying: "Yes, give us startup money and we'll take it from there," and then once it has started up they need a continuing grant. We can't very well do that, particularly when we'd have to take that money from higher priority areas. There is only so big a pot.

Yes, we have cut out the grants for next year. We are working with people to see what we can do, and under our waste management program we'll have people do it. Of the people who have been working specifically on the recovery program, one has been laid off. I believe one has been transferred and will be working under the waste management program rather than as a separate entity. So we're pulling a lot of these things together. I'm sorry, because the recycling grants did start some good things, but it became a matter of priorities. We think some of them can carry on. I talked to some people just recently about how they can carry on and what we might be able to do to assist them so that it's a viable operation which keeps going, and we hope to be able to help in any way that we can.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his remarks.

While we're dealing with cutbacks in staff, I understand that the standards and data unit of the water management branch is losing seven people; in fact, that seems to be almost the entire staff. I am concerned about that generally, and specifically in relation to my own Shawnigan Lake situation, where for a long time we have been trying to get some updated and more realistic water quality studies done there. I assume that this is the group that would be doing that. It is a very sensitive area because of a lot of development around that lake and problems with the water level. The one side of the lake is more subject to flooding than the other side — a real conflict about what the lake levels should be, according to the people who live on other side of it. I certainly have some concerns about that in relation to Shawnigan Lake.

I'm also concerned about problems like those they've been having with the Fraser River. Just a week ago I noticed a clipping in one of the local papers where they are claiming that no progress has been made there. A government spokesman has cited restraint as the reason for the delay. The chairman of the coalition that has been dealing with this has indicated that immediate action is necessary because of continuing destruction in the estuary. The "Fraser River Estuary Study" was set up by the federal and provincial governments in 1978 to develop the management plan for the estuary. The proposed plan was sent to Victoria about two years ago, and nothing has happened. That indicates to me the need for more people in that particular area of research rather than fewer and fewer, and perhaps more and more action.

Another similar thing is the whole situation in the Georgia strait and Stuart Channel — all those inside waters. I think there is a real conflict over who has jurisdiction over those — federal or provincial. The province quite often has claimed that they have the jurisdiction, but what we are seeing happening out there is that the federal government has certain regulations and is supposed to designate specific anchorage areas for freighters-in-waiting, as it were, yet boats are in areas which certainly haven't been so designated. The federal minister's own statement in answer to a question in the House of Commons has indicated that it is true that boats very often anchor in those areas.

What's really brought it to a head recently is the problem with the coal dust that was so easily traceable and so obvious. But that's just one of the problems. Those boats anchor there; they are like huge cities with all their lights on. Maybe somebody who lives in the heart of a city wouldn't realize that that is a bit of a pollutant, but I am sure the minister, who comes from a small, rural area as I do, will recognize that when you have that rural atmosphere...and certainly the

[ Page 3867 ]

Gulf Islands is one of the most special sort of local environments....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're prejudiced.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's a very precious, special kind of setup in the Gulf Islands. To have almost a city, with its glaring lights and noise, imported there and sitting for a week or so is bad enough, but even worse is what else is being discharged into those waters from those ships.

I don't know if the minister is prepared to take on the federal government relative to some kind of control over those inland waters or not. As I say, it has often been indicated that you feel you do have the jurisdiction over those waters. If the feds aren't doing much about it, maybe the minister can move in.

The next subject is one that is very dear to my heart. I know that the minister has been waiting for me to talk about this ever since he issued this report two or three days ago. Certainly the Cowichan estuary is not a new subject on the floor of this House. It started back in 1975 when I first came here, but it was certainly up for discussion before that, and we've gone through task force 1 and task force 2, one in 1974 and one in 1980, and now we have what is supposed to be the implementation program of Task Force II. I have some specific questions for the minister.

What's the status of order-in-council 3339? Has it been repealed yet? That order-in-council specifies that there will be no further development in the estuary without an environmental assessment. One of the things this thing is calling for.... Sorry that I call it a "thing," but that's what I feel about it. The implementation program is calling for the provision of a dike on private property — $200,000 worth. Do you know that dike is already being built? Now where is the environmental assessment study for that, if order-in-council 3339 is still in place? There is no business in that going ahead if there hasn't been an environmental assessment study made and if that order is still in place. So I would like to know the status of that. The minister, in his press release that covered this, indicated: "I intend to proceed in the next few weeks with appropriate action to follow up these agreements."

I would like to know what action he is proposing. He goes on to talk about this being fair play and that everybody is going to accept it gracefully and gladly. That's not the case. There are a couple of problems, and they are the same kinds of problems that we have been talking about with almost everything this minister undertakes. The hazardous wastes was one; there are others. There is no public involvement prior to the announcement — suddenly there it is. The minister puts his head down and shakes his head. The terms of reference set out for the coordinator, which the ministry appointed, ordered that the coordinator was to work along with federal Fisheries — "interact with federal Fisheries," were the words, I think. He was to report progress to all local levels of government and the public. Sure, in the initial stages he talked to everybody, I guess. I know he came and talked to me for quite some time. He had a public information meeting in the community centre some several months ago — almost a year, I think. Then suddenly we have a final report. The supposed direction indicated in this report is that this constitutes public consultation and progress reports. It's interesting to note that one local government was advised on the same day that the minister made his announcement. That local government was not told that this was a final report. They were told it was a progress report; that it still had to go to ELUC. Yet on the same day the minister made an announcement saying: "Here it is folks. This is it." I haven't seen any order-in-council that has indicated that this is it.

The other thing I'm concerned about is that the whole emphasis of the implementation program is on the forest industry, recreation and a bit on agriculture. There's very little mention of the environment. Just a little background, first of all. In the original report they came up with four different concepts. In concept 4 the environmental people were rated number 1, and the forest companies rated number 4. In concept 1 the forest companies rated number 1, and the environmentalists rated number 4 — the absolute reverse.

[3:45]

Concept 2 came up with second choice for both the environmental and the forestry people. So it seemed a logical direction to go was to implement concept 2. When this report came out, the covering press release talked about the great reduction in log storage. Well, sure, there's a reduction from what those people were actually storing there. It's absolutely contrary to what the original task force said. It's absolutely contrary to concept 2 of the report. For example, Doman Industries, which was supposed to have 20 acres in the 1980 task force plus 15 acres dryland storage, are presently storing on 128 acres. The task force has come up with 50 acres intertidal storage — 40 acres, plus 10 acres for peak loads, plus 80 acres in deep water. I agree, that particular industry is going to make an exchange of 23 intertidal acres, seven of which were already established under previous arrangements to replace the current mill site; so it's really just 16. In return for that, they're getting the $200,000 dike. That's a reduction? It's a reduction from the 128, but it sure isn't any reduction from the 20 plus the 15 dryland, or even the 40 that was sort of agreed to. They sort of said: "Okay, if you can't do it on 20, temporarily you can have another 20." It's way above that.

B.C. Forest Products is right on. In fact, it's even just a little bit less. hey've done very well — 16.3 — except that they have added about 30 acres in deep water that was previously in intertidal. Now that's questionable deep water. If you look at the charts in the implementation program, you'll see that some of it was sort of flipped over, and part of it — the table I'm looking at is on page 23.... But one of the charts — I think it's chart 2.3 — shows the flipover of that deepwater storage, which is still partially in the intertidal zone. Also, it's on top of the crab beds, I understand. So while it seems that it's somewhat of an improvement from the 22.1 that concept 2 recommended, it still leaves a bit to be desired.

MacMillan Bloedel presently has 73. They're going down to 57, and the recommendation in concept 2 was 44.6. But what are MacMillan Bloedel getting as well as that? If you read the written part of the report, you'll see that it talks about them being very reluctant to do this. So what are they getting? They're getting the right to barge up the estuary — 10 acres — and they're getting the right to bring a road in. So we're going to have them bringing their logs in, I assume, and barging them out. So it's even more than this shows.

L&K Lumber has been phased out. Well, that, I guess, should have been phased out, because that was in a very sensitive spot, That's better than the task force's concept 2 recommended. But it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that L&K Lumber is the only site that independent loggers can use. That's gone now. B.C. Forest Products has a site, MacMillan

[ Page 3868 ]

Bloedel has a site, Doman has a site. But there's no place where independent loggers can put their logs in the water. That bothers me, because it seems as if we're hitting at the little guy again and leaving the major operators with the goodies.

There's one other catch in this thing: Doman has the right to expand. As the mill increases, so will their log storage, up to a maximum of 10 more acres. So it seems to me that when the person who wrote this report wrote down that the logging companies — and I think it's on page 6 of the report.... "Many forest companies were reluctant to give up the intertidal storage sites. They were reluctant to go with concept 2, even though it was their second choice." And on page 7: "The log management concepts would have been more realistic if the forest companies had been given the opportunity to participate directly in formulating the concepts." The forest companies certainly sat on that task force in 1980, and had quite a major input. The implementation coordinator took the approach that what he would do is simply ask the logging companies what they wanted. And it seems that's what they've got.

I notice the minister has been making notes. I'm sure he wants to make some comments. I'm extremely concerned that this seems to be not the beginning of the end but the end of the end for the Cowichan estuary, as far as fish habitat, wildlife and all the other things that we have wanted to retain so much are concerned. It's a very valuable fisheries resource. At one time in the House I quoted figures which indicated that that fisheries resource in the Cowichan estuary was far more lucrative in its prime than even that of Campbell River. We've lost a great deal of that. We could recoup. But I'm afraid that under this it's gone forever.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the member now has me completely confused. I had the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) berating me for making a decision. I had that same member stand up and berate me for not making a decision on the Fraser River estuary. Now, again, I'm being attacked for making a decision. I don't know what it is that you want. I can't change my convictions and my operations according to the convenience of the moment, whoever it happens to suit. I can tell the member that there was a report on the Fraser estuary finally, and after all of the study, an implementation plan, and that's being worked out right now. We're waiting to hear back from the federal Environment minister, and are hoping to get that into place as quickly as possible. To say that nothing has been done is, I think, a gross exaggeration.

Repeatedly we're asked where the public input and involvement is. The member by her own admission says that there has been a long-continuing study program in the Cowichan estuary; a task force studied it and made recommendations, and they came up with a proposal that has been evaluated and looked at by the lumber companies, by the other people, by federal Fisheries and by our people. A proposal was put together that there were some agreements possible that would help. That went to a public meeting last December — public input. The member now says we should have gone to dryland sorts at that public meeting. Apparently the public wasn't prepared to accept dryland sorts. We took that advice and incorporated it into an implementation plan so that something be done.

The member says that this is bound to destroy the Cowichan estuary. As far as I understand, they have been using the 128 acres and it hasn't destroyed it. Now it's going down to 73 or 58, and you say that that is now going to destroy it. The federal Fisheries people have looked at it and have said: "This is certainly an improvement on what is, which hasn't destroyed the fisheries, and it's much better. We think we can live with that and that it will help the fisheries and help a great deal." Roughly 61 percent of the intertidal storage has been moved out, instead of the 68 percent that was at one time recommended by the task force. So here you have the situation that the decision has been made. Also they say that there's nothing environmental about it. We've discussed the fish and the possible effects, and we think this is a beneficial effect and will allow things to go on. Also, by building that dike, we pick up a whole bunch of marshland — I can't give you the exact acreage — for waterfowl and for that sort of thing. The company has donated that. They don't just get what they want.

I suppose what it boiled down to, Madam Member, is that a person charged with trying to implement all of these.... You say that we should get agreement. Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful, Madam Member, if we could get full agreement on any of these proposals? Sometimes agreement requires some compromise and the best possible solution. As I understand it, what it really boiled down to was that if Doman had to be limited to 20 acres, they would in effect have to shut down, The member shakes her head, but if the company can't operate, and if there were only 20 acres in the total estuary, then you assume that all of these companies don't need any water storage. Surely, we're just as interested and perhaps more interested in preserving some of the industries that create jobs. We have to be conscious of that. As Environment minister, I could simply protect the environment by stopping everything else. That's an extreme statement, but it's a ridiculous position for me to take. So we get the best advice, we get all this public input — say the Meares, the Fraser River estuary; years and years of study — and when it gets to the point where you put all this information and public input together and try to reach a decision, then the immediate reaction is: "Why don't you involve the public in the decision?" I really don't know how you collect information. Do I bring 100 people into the office and say, "Today is decision day," or do we collect all that information from hundreds of people from various sources and from all of the interested parties, and try to come up with something?

This was not an imposition; there is agreement. That should be something. Doman has agreed, Mac-Blo has agreed — and who's the other one? — and they are prepared to sign an agreement to let this thing finally go ahead and be solved. It won't damage the fisheries, we're told by the people who are given the mandate to protect the fisheries. It will improve the environment. It will help the agriculture. It will help everything, and it will serve the best needs of the most possible people. It will never serve the needs of somebody who looks at it and says: "No, we don't want anything on our waterfront." The only way we could do that is stop everything else in this province. As much as that might be nice for me as Minister of Environment, to get Brownie points to stop everything to protect the environment, I have to be pragmatic and realistic. I can't adjust my mandate to fit the situations wherever the Brownie points are available. And then I don't really know: what is public consensus? It's usually public opinion as represented by a whole variety of conflicting and varied interests. That is public opinion.

So I thank the member, and the one point I'd like to finish on.... I guess I took exception, and perhaps I get a bit

[ Page 3869 ]

defensive when somebody seems to be attacking the technical people who I know do their job as well as they can. I'll accept the member's statement that there was no intent of that.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, when you have a task force, you spend a lot of money on it. That's what happened in the Cowichan and Fraser estuaries. I would think that that task force should make recommendations that should be implemented. All I'm saying is that the actual implementation with regard to the Cowichan estuary doesn't bear much resemblance to the recommendations of either the 1974 or 1980 task force. As far as the Fraser task forces are concerned, nothing has happened.

[4:00]

I want to turn to the subject of chemicals just briefly; it has been dealt with by various people. There are a couple of things that I want to deal with and one is in relation to the minister's position on allowing chemicals into this province which have not been approved by the federal government. I think there are a couple of them. Their names are difficult to pronounce, but I know one is used in onion production and the other in carrot production. I am sure the minister is aware of what I'm speaking about. I'm wondering what he is proposing to do relative to those particular chemicals, or any chemicals, which in fact are not approved for use in Canada by the federal government. The federal government system is bad enough and loose enough as it is, pretty well rubber stamping anything that the United States approves, and the United States system is to farm it out to testing companies, most of which are owned and operated by the chemical companies, so it is a bit of a hazard. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) smiling away, and I know this is of concern to the farmers who really feel that the only way they can produce these crops is to use these chemicals.

Certainly what we need is more research and development and more alternative methods. As far as the onions are concerned, I think there are now alternative methods available. We'll probably have to do more research before we can come up with something that's really going to give us the kind of protection we need for carrot production. What we need is some kind of overall policy to work toward getting rid of many of these chemicals — as many as we can. We have to look to alternatives. Chemicals are a poison, and we're the guinea-pigs.

I have been reading quite a bit of the writings of Ross Hall, who is a biochemist at McMaster University. To paraphrase him, he says in effect that you have about three or four different choices of what you can do, but if you continue the way you're going, then you have to make a conscious decision that you're going to continue to eat poisons, because that's what these things are and they don't dissipate. They may be in small quantities, but they build up over time. Of course, his suggestion is that we set up an independent commission to really review this whole thing, and that's on a federal level. I'm not asking the province to do that. I do have some concerns, and perhaps the Minister of Environment could become more actively involved and have the particular concern about those couple of chemicals that have been allowed into this province and were not approved by the federal government.

The other thing relative to chemicals that I want to raise with the minister is the high-tech industry. We always hear that high-tech is a nice, clean industry. It's a very heavy user of chemicals, tetrachloroethane particularly. In the Silicon Valley in California, where high-tech is a big industry, they have had some major problems. They have to store this stuff in underground tanks, because it is that hazardous. I think they have 44 known storage tanks down there, 36 of which have had leaks. It's about a $10 million project at the present time to clean up a spill that they had. That is one very grave concern about high-tech industry that I think the Minister of Environment should be keeping a close eye on. If we're going to bring it practically right in to the city of Victoria, where we have ferry transportation back and forth.... I think the Minister of Environment really should be involved in this one.

The other one is in relation to the people who actually work in the plant. It is a relatively new industry, but already there is a fair amount of information building up that indicates that a lot of the people who work there are affected by caustic burns as a result of working with these chemicals. I believe it's in Sweden, but I'm not sure. I know in Sweden they've set up a testing system where all doctors have to report all malignant tumours. They have a different system there. You're registered at birth and carry the same number right through, so wherever they have a malignant tumour.... I'm not recommending that we do that here particularly. What I'm saying is that when a malignant tumour is reported, they're able to trace where that person has been all through their life, and perhaps are able to tie it in to some recurring environmental problems. Cancer of the liver and various liver problems have been fairly well documented, with a much higher incidence in people who work in the high-tech industry.

I just wanted to bring those matters to the attention of the minister. It's apparently an upcoming industry here in British Columbia. There's a great possibility of that. I think the minister should be very aware and very watchful of what happens with those chemicals in that particular industry.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Just a brief response on the two chemicals that the member referred to about onions and carrots, allidochlor and chlorbromuron. These are two that the federal government decided to suspend because the manufacturing company had suspended further studies, but they did allow their continued use in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec because they seemed to be essential to the successful production of those industries, I can tell you that yes, we have acted on that. We've moved them from schedule 4 to schedule 1, which is the most restricted use, with the most protection that we can.... They require a certified applicator and very rigid controls. So we've moved on that.

As far as the other concerns about the high-tech industries and so on, I think we have reasonably good safeguards built in in the Ministry of Environment. That's why we require permit applications. That's why we require people to identify chemicals. With our waste management plant and the new regulations — you know, our manifest system, cradle-to-grave sort of check on this — we're moving in that direction, very much in the hope that we'll have much better results than in the past. I thank the member for bringing these concerns to our attention. We should be concerned about them, and we are. That's what the people in the ministry do, and that's really what our ministry is all about.

I suppose I could conclude on a more positive note perhaps. Yes, there have been some unfortunate experiences. Some bad things have happened and mistakes have been

[ Page 3870 ]

made. I don't accept that as the status quo. From every one that has been made we have learned, and we've improved our attack on these problems. We've improved our efforts to deal with them. We don't just ignore problems; people deal with them. I wish we could have every problem solved before it happened, but I'm sorry, life doesn't quite work that way; and neither does government.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to deal briefly with your responsibilities for clean air. The local forest people have been very concerned in both Alberni and the Cowichan area. In Alberni I believe there is some evidence that wood treated with PCP is being burned at the mill site; also, ends and so on are being given to the workers to take home for burning. In Cowichan the concern is that the regional district incinerator was burning waste wood that had been treated with PCP. The problem, of course, is the dioxins in the air. When the minister is successful in getting his hazardous waste plant in operation, I would hope that's a problem that may go away. In the meantime, I wonder if he's prepared to take any action to do any testing. Alberni is a particular problem because of the closed-in valley there; the air doesn't escape or move around very much. I'm certainly concerned about the regional district incinerators in Cowichan if they are burning wood waste that has been treated with PCP. About the only way we will know is if in fact atmospheric tests are done for dioxins in the air. I'm wondering if the minister has any funds available or if he would be prepared to get involved in doing that.

The other thing, of course, relates to the Vancouver area, where there have been quite some studies undertaken. I think the government gives a grant. I notice in the estimates that you are still making a grant to the Vancouver Regional District. I assume it's for air studies. Maybe 50 percent of the problem is from motorcars, and perhaps if we get a rapid transit system in the metropolitan area, that will reduce some of that. But there is still a great amount of air pollution that will remain in the Vancouver area. It comes from all sorts of sources. My understanding is that a test program was set up in Vancouver. It was recommended and almost implemented by the provincial government, but then you backed off, even though the money had already been spent in setting up the structure. This, I believe, was a joint federal-provincial program. I'm wondering why the government backed off on that. If they thought that perhaps by introducing rapid transit it was going to resolve the problem, I don't think that's an adequate answer, because certainly all the information indicated that it was only about 50 percent if you took all the vehicles off the road. It is getting to be a fairly serious problem over in the lower mainland. It certainly would be better treated now than later, because those things build up and we can get into a serious problem if something isn't done. So I have those two questions about the minister's responsibility for clean air.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, I suppose most realistically, regarding the burning of these products and so on at Port Alberni and Cowichan, I can express grave concern here in the House. I think the more effective route, if those instances are happening, is to report them to our Nanaimo regional office, and we expect that our officers would go out and check into them.

As for the GVRD, that's not a grant. They do air monitoring, we do air monitoring, and to save duplication, because we get those services, we pay them a fee for service. That way we both benefit from it. The pollution problem in Vancouver is one that, as a city grows, the cars and so on produce more wastes. We have asked the federal government, or given our support, that Canadian standards be tightened. I think they are working in that direction right now.

To save bobbing up and down here, perhaps if the member has a few more questions she will put them all together, and I'll stand up and try and answer them all at one time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just before we proceed, I have an announcement that I would like to make. I would like to bring to the attention of all hon. members that we are honoured in our House this afternoon by having with us on the floor the Deputy Premier of the province of Ontario, the Hon. Robert Welch, and accompanied by Rev. Carl Sulliman. I would ask that all those members present welcome His Honour.

[4:15]

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very close to the conclusion of this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Minister you'll be pleased to know.

I have just a few unrelated items here. The soil-testing lab in Kelowna, I understand, is being closed down or discontinued. Six of the nine staff are being laid off. Is it being closed down completely, or is it still going to operate? Are those three people going to be able to carry on? Why that particular facility? Certainly that soil lab provided a very much-needed service.

Also I understand that there has been quite a reduction in the survey and mapping branch. Is the thinking that you are going to do less in that way, or are you going to contract it out? The thing that I notice is that there is a terrific increase in the amount that you have budgeted for professional services this year, as compared to last year. Last year you had expected to spend something just in excess of $5 million on professional services. This year it's $15,675,000. That's way more than three times as much on professional services. It doesn't indicate that the pink-slipping of government employees is really going to save the government anything in dollars. In fact, your budget this year is slightly more than last year, in total. So you haven't really reduced your expenditures. When I see the number of auxiliaries — I think there were about 144 last year and 100 this year; if I'm wrong in my figures, I hope the minister will correct me — who are being got rid of.... Yet we have that whopping increase in professional services, which, I assume, means that you're.... In the government's idea of privatizing things, we're spending more money on these outside professional services that we're bringing in than we would have had we kept our own people on. Just from looking at the budget, it's hard to tell, because the accounts are different every year, and it's very difficult to sort it out. Certainly the professional services are pretty straightforward, and it is more than three times as much this year than it was last year.

I want to talk a little bit about the habitat conservation fund. I note that the interim financial statements up to December 31 of last year.... At the beginning of the year there was $96,000 in that fund; at the end of December that had gone up to $1.174 million. The minister has indicated in question period and at various other times that they have actually expended some $622,000 this year. The reason I'm raising this is that many of the people who willingly — as you have said — contribute the $3 surcharge on their licences

[ Page 3871 ]

have come to me with concerns as to whether, first of all, this money is intact. You have assured me that the fund is intact. But they are concerned now that while the fund is intact, it isn't being spent. As of December 31 there was close to $1 million in the fund over and above what was there on April 1 of the preceding year. It doesn't indicate that that money is being used for the purpose for which it is being gladly donated by those people who buy hunting licences. It's all well and good to say that the fund is intact, but if it isn't being spent, it's not doing the job for which it was intended. So those figures cause me some concern as they are causing concern among the people out there who buy hunting licences.

There has been some discussion of the fish and wildlife conservation officers. I have been very concerned about what has happened in my area through attrition. As I understand it, the position of conservation officer in the Victoria area has not been filled. The very dedicated fellow who works out of the Cowichan office is now required to cover both areas. In addition to that, he no longer has any administrative staff. Well, he's going to kill himself, I think. He's working at night and every weekend. It's beyond the call of duty. It's an impossibility. Certainly it's not in the best interests of conservation. He's also having to do this whole sawdust thing that I was talking about before, which is not good.

I got a note this morning, which is sort of in line with what my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) was talking about. She tells us that the Courtenay officer is being moved to Campbell River, but the Gold River officer has retired and is not being replaced. So the Campbell River conservation officer is having to cover his own area plus Gold River. He's certainly not being criticized by the people there. He's doing an excellent job — as best he can — but it's impossible for him to cover his area plus the Gold River area. The message that I got just this morning was that because of the depressed economy and no surveillance, people are poaching the elk herd. The elk is a very special kind of animal that we have to be very careful about, because it is not that plentiful. The local people up there are genuinely concerned that the whole herd will be wiped out. They spoke of a recent incident there in which elk were killed. Many of the carcasses were just simply left, which doesn't indicate to me that that kill was by people who were really that hungry. I understand the RCMP have been involved in that one. It just goes to show that those people are spread too thin, that it's not possible for one person to adequately cover that large area.

I want to talk about the hunter training program. The book used to be available for $15. The fish and wildlife organizations provided the instructors. I think there were about six around the province, and they taught from 30 to 70 students twice a year. This was a volunteer course they put on, I understand. There were eight meetings for two hours per night for $15, and the Minister of Education provided the materials for the course. There was a multiple-choice exam provided by the Minister of Environment, and then they were taken out to the rifle range for a practical test. What it meant was that the prospective hunter received a piece of paper which could be exchanged for a hunting licence. It was a good program. It was working well. Lots of kids were involved, and it was within reach of their pocketbooks, and certainly it made for safer hunters.

Now apparently what has happened is that the program is being transferred to the Open Learning Institute, and the cost of the material there is $23, as opposed to $15. There is no instruction available. It is simply like a correspondence course through the OLI. I understand that B.C. Shooting Sports is being asked to do the examination and some practical work. But there, again, there is going to be a cost. They are talking about charging; I believe the figure that I heard was $40. Now we are looking at something in the $60 to $70 range, as opposed to the $15 that the student paid before. I'm not sure that the practical instruction problem has even been resolved. I understand that you are presently going back to the fish and wildlife people to see whether or not they will undertake to do this, after having taken the thing away from them. I don't understand why you're doing that. It was a good program before. Why didn't you leave it the way it was? What was the problem? Why wasn't it left the way it was?

One other item that I would like to deal with under this vote has, of course, to be the minister's wolf-kill program. I wrote the minister some time ago, and I have had no reply. I had requested a moratorium, because I had gone very carefully through the material that he had submitted, which was supposed to back up his program. I think this, again, is one of the instances where the minister decided that this was the way to go; that he was going to kill X number of wolves in X number of valleys, and then when.... It's a very divisive issue. I'm sure there are divisions on that side of the House. There are people with different opinions on this side of the House, but the fact remains that if you are going to do that, then certainly, when you know it is a divisive issue, you should have the very best possible statistical evidence to back it up.

On the first page of the Kechika enhancement project report, he talks about the number of moose, stone sheep, elk and wolves in the Laird. The moose, for example, are estimated to be 45,000 in 1982, and then in the Muskwa project, page 8, he estimates the number of moose in the Laird to be 4,000. What you have done is to take the totals for the whole northeast area — Deadwood, Kechika, Laird, Rabbit, Toad, Crest, Muskwa, Fort Nelson, Etsho, Trutch and Sikanni — total them, come up with 45,000 moose, and transfer it over to this report as being in the Laird. That's one example. You talk in one area about how the wolf population has increased between 1982 and 1983. It increased from one wolf in 25 acres in '82 to one wolf in 33 acres in '83 — a complete contradiction.

That's why people have raised the kind of opposition that's been raised, because there hasn't been the backup that's required. The Wildlife Society of Canada and the wildlife biologists' section of the Canadian Society of Zoologists went through the report in great depth. I just received their report this morning, and I want to read a few sections of it into the record. It is interesting to note that what they're in effect saying is that the people who wrote those reports you submitted did not come up with the results which were used to support the wolf-kill project. For example:

[4:30]

"However, the committee," — this is the committee that studied the report — "did note that the authors of the research papers accompanying the minister's news release were usually cautious in presenting the results of their research. They frequently pointed out biases in sampling, noted the constraints of time and money on their research effort, and qualified their results accordingly.

"In most discussions about predator control the committee noted that the proximate and ultimate

[ Page 3872 ]

causes of prey declines are seldom recognized. Consequently there remains considerable confusion about the relative importance of the various factors which influence prey population sizes. Recent work suggests that predators may influence prey populations under certain conditions, typically after some initial cause of prey population decline — for example, habitat deterioration or overhunting."

And they give the reference for that. I'm just reading excerpts.

"In the first instance, the committee concluded that there was no biological justification for the wolf program per se in northeast B.C. at this time. In the second, the committee found little evidence that the current situation could be viewed as a carefully designed experiment."

And they make certain recommendations.

"Recognizing that the stated objectives for the wolf removal program in B.C. purport to be biologically based, but are not supported by available biological evidence, the committee recommends, as an alternative to the present management action, a continuation or even an intensification of the research effort aimed at understanding the complex interaction of environmental factors."

I'm not going to read any more of it. I just wanted to make the point that a great many very highly qualified people have raised the same and similar points. I would repeat again that this is a paper produced by the Wildlife Society of Canada and the wildlife biologists' section of the Canadian Society of Zoologists.

With that, Mr. Minister, I conclude my remarks on this vote.

Vote 25 approved.

On vote 26: emergency assistance, $2,530,000.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I just have a couple of remarks on this vote, Mr. Chairman. The inadequacy of the provisions under this particular measure were pointed out recently in the situation at Hatzic. We've seen them pointed out in many areas, and I've seen them in many areas in my own constituency. Because of the very restrictive limits that are put on how that emergency money is expended.... The regulations are very strict, and I'm sure the minister is aware of the kinds of things I'm talking about. Circumstances are very pertinent, and it is a sort of judgment call for so-called essentials. How do you decide what is an essential? Often gardens and landscaping are not considered essential, and yet they certainly are very much an added value to that property. There is often a deductible formula. There have been people who have been absolutely excluded because they didn't make their permanent residence in that particular home and various other things. I just think that that whole program should be reviewed to make it more comprehensive and more readily applied to help people in real need. When you have an emergency, it's an emergency, and when you're faced with all these rules and regulations and narrow interpretations, it makes it very difficult for people to re-establish themselves or to continue to carry on any kind of normal life.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member is perhaps confusing this a bit. The emergency assistance program is to deal with emergencies, and this isn't a budgeted amount. I think the member has gotten into compensation and that sort of thing. Under the compensation program we're really trying to deal with disaster relief in that we say that.... The member has said it is very restrictive. No, when an emergency happens, the people are out there and they do the job and try to deal with the disastrous situation and prevent it, mitigate it and what have you — provide immediate shelter for people. Then when we get into the compensation program, we're really involved in some basic concepts there: is it the responsibility of government and the other taxpayers to provide shelter and accommodation for people, or is it a government responsibility to compensate them fully for all their losses? We have said that since it's disaster relief, since we're limiting our commitment, we should provide enough to provide a home, and we do pay rent as a temporary measure and that sort of thing automatically, but we deal with what they can live with in a basic home basically furnished, etc. To that extent we provide assistance. In the Cascade Creek situation land was taken into consideration. Every effort is made. We also fund the improvement of the creek bed, with the municipality, to try to help in the future. But I don't think we can get into compensation, because if we get into that do we, the taxpayers, owe as much compensation to someone who has a $50,000 unit as to someone who has a $500,000 or $900,000 home? We say that whether you have this home or that home, our obligation — which isn't a legal but a moral obligation — is to provide you with what it takes for basic living. Then we can't get into how much money you've borrowed, how much you owe, how much finances, because then we're immediately into total compensation.

I wish we had the answer to just assist everybody to the extent that anybody and everybody would like to be assisted by government, but that opens up such possibilities that it could break the government, which is the taxpayers in the province. Do the people who build on high ground owe full compensation or disaster relief, through taxes, to the people who live on low ground? It's not an easy question; it's a difficult one. I have to make some pretty hard policy decisions. I sometimes wish I could be the nice guy, and when someone is in tears in my office because of how much money they owe and so on I could say that would be it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, people approaching me.

Yes, I do have a heart, but I can't let my heart rule except in my own personal situation. As minister I have a responsibility to deal with policy and how it affects the government and the rest of the taxpayers. I have to be pretty rough sometimes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief as well under this vote. I think those of us in this House who, as MLAs, have to deal with disasters, and flooding problems particularly, in our own areas are familiar with government policy that came into place about two years ago or more in terms of revising the guidelines for who receives compensation and who does not.

Just two things very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that this year's vote has been reduced by about $1 million, to just slightly above $2,500,000. To tell you the truth, when you

[ Page 3873 ]

consider the flooding problems we have just in my own riding, never mind the severe problems you have in places like Squamish and this year in the Fraser Valley and other places, it seems like a very small sum.

The minister will recall that we had a severe flooding problem this year in Roberts Creek — a creek called Clough Brook up in Elphinstone Mountain, flooded, although it was the first time in probably thousands of years. I've been in the logging industry as a logger. I've got many friends in the industry. The reality was that Mount Elphinstone was logged, and the water of the small running creek was allowed to run off in one fell swoop after a severe, heavy rainstorm. The net result was that a number of homes were flooded out and damaged, and no compensation at all will be paid. I want to make it quite clear in saying, first, that the Ministry of Highways were very good, as well as Hydro and other people. But the Ministry of Highways did come in and rebuild road, provide access to private property and install culverts rather than bridges, which were wiped out. Your ministry assisted as well in this particular instance in putting the creek bed back in its proper channel, and those kinds of things. I appreciated the assistance, as I'm sure the people there did, and the technical advice we received from your people working out of, I think, your Richmond office and the local emergency program director, whose name I'd like to put in Hansard, but his name escapes me. They were of a great deal of assistance in that way.

The problem is that those people living in those areas have suffered severe financial losses, and there will be no compensation. It's as simple as that. They are not living on the floodplain. This area is not considered to be floodplain. In fact, it's on a bit of a side hill, on the upper side of Highway 101. You were good enough to write back to me after my correspondence. I made a special trip to Victoria over this matter. You were out of Victoria at the time, but I did meet with your senior people — in fact, I think, with your deputy at the time. You proposed a 75 to 25 percent sharing formula through the regional district as financial compensation to assist some of the people who had received a great deal of damage. The problem is — and this has happened twice now.... Two years ago we had the same problem in Bella Coola. By the way, the problem in Bella Coola is going to occur again, and everybody within the ministry knows that. You could spend half the provincial budget, I would guess, and maybe still not solve that problem up there. But the fact is that that problem in Bella Coola is going to happen again and again. What I'm really asking about is the 75 to 25 percent proposal on cost-sharing formulas. The regional districts, particularly in areas like the central coast and the Sunshine Coast, simply can't afford to come up with even their 25 percent share, or whatever their share may be. They simply don't have that kind of tax base and that money. The net result of all this is that these people who have suffered severe flood damage in this last case, in the Roberts Creek area — but there'll be other cases in the years to come in those areas.... We all know that. In the year before it was in a different area of the Sunshine Coast. I was wondering if the minister could add any thoughts at all on this cost-sharing formula which simply isn't working because regional districts can't afford it.

[4:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The cost-sharing formula is 75 percent from the taxpayers from the rest of the province against 25 percent from the affected taxpayers in the area. It's hard to see that as not being fair. I know that the costs are high in some cases, but then I suppose you have to look at it in terms of the people there not seeing the advantage being sufficient to warrant paying 25 cents out of every dollar for their protection. I know there are some difficulties and emergencies, but we can't deal with all of them unless we say that whenever something happens some place, the provincial government shall just pay 100 percent of all the cost of anything that happens from the main pot, which is the taxpayers' money. I might just add that again we're confused with this emergency assistance funding, which is there to help immediately and so on. The compensation thing that we're talking about is not included there. Since I became minister we did ask for some guidelines, because each situation had to be dealt with. We basically accepted disaster relief rather than full compensation.

Again, we'll never satisfy the people who have had extensive damage. We decided on the deductible because the people have some responsibility before the government help kicks in. I know it hurts at times. I know it's difficult. I guess we have to deal with each situation as we can. The other thing that I might add is that this assistance program is not elsewhere in the budget, and that's why our budget is as high as it is — diking money and that sort of thing. We try to spend as much money as we can on protective measures. In some cases, we do ask for the municipal contribution of 25 percent. We try to build as many dikes as we can before the flood instead of after, but we don't make it in all cases.

Vote 26 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 47: minister's office, $191,758.

MR. MITCHELL: Is the minister going to lead off?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll allow the minister a moment of courtesy to change portfolios.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I thank the Chairman very kindly for giving me time to — as he said — change portfolios. I'd like to make a few introductory remarks. I'm sure that the rest of it can be covered under questions.

Once again I'm pleased to present the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. I would like to again recognize my staff, and if the moccasin telegraph is working, my deputy minister should be here shortly to assist me with the questioning. I'd like to recognize the efforts of certainly my deputy, my senior staff, my ADMs and regional staff in trying to maintain services at the same time that there has been reorganization and restructuring in the ministry, and even some cuts. I'd like to commend their efforts in trying to simplify the process — and in land dispositions. We have maintained a good record because of their efforts, really. We're all working on simplification.

The essential programs have been maintained. In the Lands area we witnessed an increasing competition for a fixed land supply. I would just like to say one of the biggest crises that we're facing — or concerns or issues, if you like — is an increasing demand for a decreasing amount of available land. So that makes it difficult. It puts a great deal of

[ Page 3874 ]

pressure on our ministry to try and satisfy all the demands, and at the same time to protect the areas that we just heard about in my Ministry of Environment estimates. Some people want to protect areas, and the other half want to use them. So it's a neat balancing act which we sometimes achieve, and other times we don't.

We are moving away from random applications to sort of prepared ones — whether it be agricultural, recreational lots, or something else. We're trying to anticipate the needs, trying to find the available amount of land, and putting the two together and then marketing and servicing them as best we can.

We've also had the consolidation of district and regional land offices. Again, it is saving us costs as far as office rental, and it is increasing, in many respects, the service in areas where there is a great deal of travel. We're trying to accommodate that by having people in the area doing the job, and then back to the office to do the necessary background. I think with a little time — with the computer technology and that — it will improve.

One of the things that we're pleased with, for instance, is the Songhees project. In the Songhees area a senior citizens' project is completed. The co-op project there is going on, and in the rest of the area, the conceptual plan has been completed, or is being worked on. Hopefully we'll get something going there very quickly.

I would like to comment briefly on the Whistler situation, which was a great, volatile issue with erroneous accusations last year. I would like to commend the Whistler board. They have taken that situation and in a short period of time pulled it together. They opened a golf course last year, which I had the honour of participating in, and that has increased the summer trade at Whistler. The convention centre plan may go out to tender around the end of this month. When that gets completed — we expect April 1985 — that concept will be there, and it's generating a great deal of money. I don't need to tell anyone about the success of the world downhill and what that did to Whistler, and the publicity that it created for the future. So our concept that Whistler will and is paying its own way, I think, will be realized even sooner than our most conservative estimates. Congratulations to the WLC and to the other people involved in that.

Just to give you an example, I might say that the provincial parks system last year had 15 million recorded visitors. That's a large contribution to tourism, and we are maintaining that.

We will be increasing the level of private sector participation in the provision of goods and services — if you like, the operation sector of the parks. We will not be selling our parklands. As many people know, the Manning Park tenders close tomorrow. We had it operated by a private operator very successfully this winter. The Cypress information package has gone out also. So those are two operations that will get us, as a government, out of the ski operations and allow others to compete with each other, yet it will preserve our parks system. We are very proud of the quality of our provincial parks, and that will be kept up.

In the housing field, the ministry has continued to implement government policies of reliance on the private sector for housing delivery, the sale of Crown land for residential use, deregulation and well-targeted social housing. I'm sure we'll probably be discussing some areas there. Again, a simplification there: letting the people who can fund build the money and letting the government create the environment and the infrastructure, where needed, in order to make the private sector, which has in every case where it's happened been the most successful in providing an even housing market through the years....

The B.C. home program helped many people. Thank goodness, not as many people need help, because the interest rates went down. I can well remember when the B.C. home program was put into effect. People were saying, "Well, your projections are nuts, because the interest rates are going to go up and stay high," and so on. As it turned out, the interest rates went down.

We have had, of course, non-profit societies. We've undertaken that program of 600 seniors' units which is well underway in various stages of completion. We're providing that sort of housing, and we're looking at other ways to encourage housing for seniors.

The ministry has also provided some 150 disabled units. We've budgeted for 200, but people have to get them in operation for disabled housing in communities. That will be carried on within this next year to provide more housing there.

We continued our land servicing programs. For instance, at Riverview Heights 120 lots were sold, providing revenue of $6.7 million to the province. We're certainly getting our money back there, and people are getting a good deal and are taking up those lots to build themselves or through enclaves that we're providing to the private sector who are doing it. Instead of us building houses, we're letting them build them and we're making it possible for them to do so.

We are maintaining the B.C. second mortgage program. The $10,000 second mortgage helps people to buy homes.

We are continuing our land-servicing program.

I'm just trying to abbreviate here as much as I can. I suppose I could sum it up by saying that in the housing sector, government intervention will be selective and confined to tightly constructed programs with strong emphasis on cost recovery factors in our land-servicing. Program objectives will be to project demand for future housing needs to ensure an adequate supply of serviced land, to assist home ownership by British Columbians of average means, to ensure an adequate supply of rental accommodation and efficient rent decontrol and efficient legislation to provide social housing to meet objectives of deinstitutionalization of disabled people.

Certainly one other role that we play is to advocate that the federal housing policies put the emphasis on private involvement and a minimum of government participation, because that seems to be the best route to go.

With those opening comments, Mr. Chairman, I welcome any questions that I may be able to answer.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I was interested not in what the minister said about parks but rather what he didn't say about parks. When we look at our parks system in British Columbia, I think it is important that we look at it as a whole and not as a small group of individuals or certain acres here and there. I think it's the concept that the British Columbia parks system has come from and has grown to over the 20, 30 or 40 years that we've had a park system that became the pride of North America. At one time, the B.C. parks system was recognized by the tourist industry, the travelling public and by the camping fraternity as having a group of employees who were there to give service to the public. I think that attitude was one of the drawing-cards for the tourist industry

[ Page 3875 ]

of British Columbia. I know that people travelled all over North America to travel the parks system as set up, advertised and promoted. But the last three years, and I can't hang it all on the present minister, there appears to be a cutback on the services that are going to be provided. There's an attitude that this is going to be part of our so-called restraint.

[5:00]

Mr. Chairman, I say this very seriously. I think there is a need for restraint in many segments of the government. But when you look at the parks system and what it is designed to do and what it has done, it is something that gives an economic stimulant to many segments of our community. When you are promoting recreation, camping and parks you are promoting the purchase of trailers, tents and sleeping-bags. You are adding to the sale of new recreation vehicles and gas. You are stimulating jobs throughout the economy. They say: "We're talking restraint. We're laying off from 500 to 700 employees. We're cutting back in services in our parks system." This is going out into the community. But at the same time, the minister's vote has gone up 12.2 percent. If we have created 500 to 700 fewer jobs, and we are cutting back on services provided, why do we have this 12 percent increase?

I believe it can be found in the philosophy of the minister or the government when they say we are going to privatize. I take it they're going to privatize the construction segment of the Parks ministry. Is the parks system going to become a kind of political pork-barrel, that we can take this 12 percent increase after we've already cut back the employees and those who are providing the service? Is that money going to be frittered away to political friends? I have had a number of contractors in one particular park, Mouat Park on Saltspring Island.... I believe a new water system was put into the park. The $100,000 contract was advertised one weekend, and they had five days to have their bids in by Friday of the following week. Now no contractor who first saw that ad in the paper could pick up the plans, do a cost analysis, do a study and get in a reliable bid on a $100,000 contract. The general contractor out there, the people who believe they're going to benefit by this particular privatization of the construction industry or the construction segment of the parks, believe there will be political payoffs somewhere down the line. I say this very seriously, because I feel that the philosophy that went out when parks were a tourist attraction, when the cutbacks that are now appearing in the parks service.... Then we find examples of very poor planning. Somewhere in that whole area, if you're going to cut back on a service and if you're going to replace it — and it's obviously going to be replaced within this 12 percent increase in the estimates — we're allowing a suspicion or a worry to grow in that particular industry that it's going to cost us more for a lot less. I think it's important that when we look at the parks....

I'm just going to hit lightly on maybe the six parks in the greater Victoria area. Again, I look at it from a different viewpoint. I know that as we enter the spring break next week, a lot of children and older school students will be out in those parks. They will be camping and carrying on. For the first time, only two of the six parks are going to have full-time people working through the school break. In the past it was always the policy of the parks branch to bring on the auxiliaries to start the upgrading, the cleaning up, the trail cleaning, the new construction that was needed. They were hired at the beginning of the spring break, so there was someone in all the parks, especially the six in this area, doing the supervising that is needed. When I talk to a lot of people who were part of that ministry and worked on a regular basis as auxiliaries, who have all now been laid off, they all looked forward to participating in the improvement of the park — to putting in the new trails and upgrading the facilities. They had pride in that park, a pride that was reflected throughout the ministry. What we have now is a very depressing feeling, a lack of morale. All the years of service that a lot of people gave are now forgotten.

I would like to be here saying that we should be improving the services that we have, making the parks a lot more attractive so they would bring tourists into British Columbia. I know that in a lot of parks south of the border the States have developed a full park warden system whereby you have park wardens in radio contact patrolling the parks. That gives the travelling public a certain sense of security — a sense that when they go into a park where they don't know anyone around, if rowdies come through the park or if there are any suspicious people around, they know they have a radio-controlled park warden set-up to give that certain amount of security that families want. These are the promotions that we should be seeing within the park system. We should be looking at our parks not as a cost but as an economic stimulant to overall job creation. We talk about the $1 million cost for jobs in northeast coal. We realize that the $1 million per job that British Columbia invested in that project is all borrowed money. By the time it's paid back it's $2.5 million. But if you had a tenth of that amount of money invested in the parks system to enlarge it, not only would you be able to maintain the 500 or 600 people who have been cut back, but you would be stimulating other sections of the economy, as I mentioned earlier on, in retail sales and recreational vehicle sales. All this sort of investment should be the long-range plan of where this particular ministry is going to go. I think parks in themselves are not fringe benefits, but an important part of the whole economy of British Columbia.

Another one of the questions I would like to put to the minister is.... He has reported in the press that the park system today is approximately 80 percent of what the ministry is planning — whereabouts down the line? What particular types of parks are we looking for, from a provincial point of view? By what method are we going to arrive at that?

What I'd like to bring to the minister, and I think it's all part of the parks system, is the Meares Island study that was made on the preservation of Meares Island — whether it should be logged. The ministry, the government, the forest industry and the community did do a fairly extensive study on Meares Island. They made a cost analysis of the benefits to the community and to the province. It was shown, after all the studies, that there would be more money generated in British Columbia — in the area around Tofino, where Meares Island is located — by the development of that as a natural park. After all the studies and all the efforts that were put in by many, many people in that area — citizens from all walks of life — the report was given to the ministry, and somehow it just got lost. Mac-Blo then brought in their suggestions, what they wanted; then the ministry came down with something different again, which came from the local recommendations.

What the communities of British Columbia are really looking at the minister.... If we are going to have, and are going to ask for, public input; if you are going to expect people to spend hundreds and hundreds of hours' time, effort

[ Page 3876 ]

and money in making these studies, then I think it's the responsibility of the minister to listen to the suggestions. We know what happened at Meares Island. We know that all the recommendations that were made were not carried out. Now we have the report that the minister has released on the Moresby park proposal in the Queen Charlottes. There again, in the same vein, there are a lot of local people in the community of the Queen Charlotte Islands who have studied this; they have toured it. There have been experts from ministries within the government who have given input. There have been thousands of hours of time from the industry, and the Moresby park report has come down. It has four particular recommendations.

[5:15]

I think the public who have spent the time in working on these reports, who have spent time designing possibilities for the preservation of that area; the industries which have looked at it and have given input about what particular timber can be harvested without destroying the park, what areas can be left and incorporated; the people in the private sector who have looked at it as a potential tourist mecca.... Let's face it, Mr. Chairman. With the development of South Moresby parks, that will become a drawing point from all over the world, not only British Columbia or North America. South Moresby Island has sights found nowhere else in the world. There are animals, birds, marine life, protected waters and wild waters, all of which will become one of the drawing cards. If we are going to look at expanding our economy we must look at that in the same way as they did — and I'll always give the minister credit for this — when they made all the studies of the Valhalla Parks. It was shown that by developing that as a park, by encouraging the tourist industry, if you compared that to the short-term logging income or any potential mineral, that the park outlook and philosophy, and the increased employment, outweighed anything else that could be preserved in that area.

When we look at our whole parks structure it is important not to look at it in the short term — we'll save a buck this year and that will look good in our estimates — but on a long-term basis, continuing to develop the high pride felt by the ministry employees throughout the province, a lot of whom had spent all their lives developing a parks system which, as I said earlier, was the pride of North America. I think the talents and abilities which have been shown within that ministry can be utilized. Right now they are being suppressed. There is a fear that goes right through the ministry, from the upper echelon right down to a lot of the auxiliaries who have been let go and have now joined the ranks of the unemployed. They do not have the commitment or pride that was once displayed. One little group in my riding, the construction group in Langford, made all the signs and built a lot of the facilities, the tables and outhouses, for all of the province. They were very efficient and talented, many of them artists, and believed in the British Columbia parks system. But in the name of restraint that crew was destroyed.

I am convinced, by the example of the little bit of construction that has started in the last year, that the services the public get are going to be more expensive. If nothing else, the increase of 12 percent will show up in the supervision of what is taking place out in the field. I know a lot of the people who are bidding on some of these contracts and I know they will do an excellent job; but when you find that some of these contracts are let with only a week's notice, it does leave a lot to be desired.

On going through my many notes I find another thing I would like the minister to answer. One of the senior people in the ministry who was at the symposium held at UBC a few weeks ago stated that some study was being done within the parks system on having a two-budget operation for the parks branch. One budget would look after the purchase and acquisition of park lands, and the other would look after the operation of the parks within the province. If my notes were correct, I believe he said they were hoping to have a higher return from user fees to pay for the facilities in the operation of the parks, and that wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the purchase of the lands.

When I go through the increased fees that are being charged to the parks, I am not so much worried whether the user charges are going to be reflected in the service that the public get when they go into a park — that if certain parks have additional services, that should relate to the fees in the park. What really bothers me is when I read that in some of the parks the fees, on a per-night basis, were going to be raised to $10, and this was to reflect against the charges in private parks in the area. I don't think public parks should be used to jack up the charges of any other park. If you are going to pay $10 and the services in that park are worth $10, then fine. That is a user charge. I think a lot of these charges may be too high. But if we are going to have one system where the user charge does reflect on the services available, then let's have that throughout the province. Let's not use that as an excuse to raise it because a park across the road....

We all know that a lot of the private parks across the road were only designed to take the overflow when the provincial parks were full. I think every one of us who has done any travelling at one time or another has pitched a tent in the middle of some field with no facilities, no services, and we paid the maximum amount. I think it is important that we look at the parks so that we are getting the best service. Let us look on them as being there to provide an attraction for our own residents and for our tourists. Our parks should not be used solely to jack up the revenue of private parks, which in most cases came into being to take that overflow. They were not an investment solely to go into the park business.

I'll let the minister cover some of the points that I have brought up, so carry on.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like now to introduce my deputy minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, John Johnston, who has joined us since my opening remarks. He will be here to support me against the vicious attacks that are levelled at me.

The member indicated that our parks system has deteriorated so badly in the last three years because of our practices and so on, and yet it seems that the people don't believe this. Visitor registration in our parks has increased immensely. People seem to be very pleased. There were something like 15 million registered visits to our parks last year. We anticipate about 20 million this year. A great deal of pride is there for our parks, and to say that our people no longer have any pride in or commitment to the parks is very inaccurate. The people who are our full-time parks employees are basically still there. They still have a pride in supervising those parks and making sure that they are making sure they're looked after. We haven't eliminated all auxiliaries. We will still have an auxiliary program there. I think in many cases people are seeing that we want to get the best value for the money available. I commend our park people who have accepted

[ Page 3877 ]

that. I've had to accept some things, yes. I would like all the possible money for parks. I would like all the possible money for this, that or the other thing, from my own point of view, but I have to match that against priorities for health care, education and all these other things. So what do we do — cut out some hospital beds in order to make the parks better. I only say that to make the point.

Somewhere, some place, there has to be some give. I feel very proud, with that give that has to be there, of what our people have done and what adjustments they're making to keep that park system as the pride of Canada, if not North America. We certainly are not backing off on that. We don't think we need to have everybody working for us in order to have a good park system. We do believe it's our mandate to supervise those parks to make sure they are well looked after, that the services can be provided. The member mentioned contracts and so on as political pork barrels. I could get into a political discussion on that, for goodness' sake. The party that put in the Fair Labour Practices Act, which eliminated a lot of people in British Columbia, then talks to us about the tender system and accuses me of political pork barrelling. Well, I'm sorry, in many of these contracts unless there is a major policy I don't get involved in it. The staff looks at it, evaluates it and issues the contract. Perhaps you're accusing them of political pork barrelling, but I would differ with you on that. I think they try to do an objective job. In some cases, as a matter of fact, Mr. Member, they do such an objective job, based strictly on the economics of the situation, that I get a little static. Nevertheless, we try to keep it fair and proper.

[5:30]

1 don't know what more I can say about the Meares. The members leave the House. I talk about it. They ask questions. Then they come back one at a time and accuse again that there is no public input, no public involvement, none of this. We've made some decisions based on four and five or ten years of study, with all the public input available, with all the recommendations. The member asks why we didn't agree with the recommendations of the committee. The only recommendations that the Meares Island committee made after two or three or more years was that we should make more studies. They presented us with three options: one extreme, the other extreme, and somewhere down the middle. This is after I don't know how many years. I think they attached some figures to that. We looked at those reports. Then we were accused of taking the MacMillan Bloedel report and acting on that. No. What we took was the logging interests — yes — the scenic interests — yes — and the watershed interests. We looked at all of them. We had our technical people, as well as our committee, look at all that and study it. Okay, since we cannot get a consensus.... Another four years of study would perhaps have recommended five options and four more years of study. In the meantime the world comes to a halt.

Maybe I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, but we looked at concerns such as the scenic view from Tofino. I guess some people in that study said: "Well, now that we've created Pacific Rim Park at great expense and great effort, anything that can be seen from Pacific Rim Park should not be touched, because we don't want to spoil the view." Well, if I followed that to its illogical conclusion.... From every peak in every park in British Columbia you see something else. Maybe the member is saying that they showed from the figures on the Vallhallas that tourist use is the greatest use. Now on Meares, now on Moresby, now on this, now on that. If I followed that to its illogical conclusion — or logical, whichever way your bias goes — all of British Columbia, which has many scenic parks, would be left untouched, because that would do the greatest job for tourism. Unfortunately, I think, I would get some argument from the people who make a living from mining and logging.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

If the member wants to join his colleagues for Moresby, Meares and these other situations, and the ones that we talked about — the Cowichan estuary and some of these others — and stand up and say that he wants to shut down the logging operations and the sawmills in much of this province, let him do so, but let him go on record. I have to be a bit more responsible than that. I think that we can live with parks — I think we can have both. We still have much beautiful scenery in British Columbia. We can have the best of many worlds. But I don't think we can just take one argument, which you can — you get on one point, any one of you at any one time, and belabour that point, and you make your case. I don't think, as a responsible minister, that I have the luxury of adjusting to each particular situation as it suits me. I think I have to consider the whole range of things.

Dealing with that, the member, I think, is confusing fees. He talks about parks, and then he talks about the fees that we charge. Let's at least get this straight: there is free admission to our parks. We do not charge fees for people to come in and enjoy our beautiful parks. We charge fees where we provide campsites and facilities. For $10 a night a whole family can stay with water supplied, wood supplied, garbage removal supplied, a nice campsite, a fire grill and all of these things. That, you're saying, is not worth $10 a night? The people don't believe you, because they fill up the $10-a-night parks probably sooner than they'd fill up the $6 and $7 because of the extra amenities that are there, so obviously they seem to go. I've only mentioned some of the amenities that are there. The people seem to be willing to pay for our beautiful campsites and the facilities that are provided there. I suppose we could bat that one back and forth indefinitely, but really that's what we're talking about.

There have been cutbacks in the amount of funding, but we have found ways and we think that with some of the privatization we can find more ways. For instance, we are having more of our people now who can concentrate on park development, park planning and park supervision, because we're getting out of subsidizing a ski operation that competes, as a subsidized operation, with other ski operations that are making it on their own. So we're getting out of the ski business. We're not getting rid of the parks. There will be park-use permits, according to our terms and conditions, under our supervision. Let somebody else take the risks in whether or not skiers come to the hill. We'll provide the parks services. So we've made people available who can fulfill their mandate much better in the job of looking after the parks.

Yes, I'm very proud of our park system. I don't think it's complete yet. We're adding parks, we're studying other areas and I think we have the potential to have the greatest park system in the world — if we don't have it already. I will not apologize for our beautiful parks or for the commitment of our staff.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I really don't know why we bother talking, because I say one thing and he turns

[ Page 3878 ]

around and says that I said something else. Mr. Chairman, let's go over what I said. I said if there are going to be fees set for the campsites.... Maybe I made a mistake and said "parks" when I should have said "campsites." I apologize. But I said that if we are going to set those fees on the services, let's set them, but don't put out press releases that these fees are going to be set to compare with the private campsites, because the services that are provided in the majority of the provincial campsites are far superior to the majority of the private campsites. So let's not just set fees because someone across the road has a vacant field and he is charging $10 or whatever it is to take the overflow. Let's set the fees on the services that are provided.

When studying some of the reports from Ontario.... They have gone into it a lot higher. They brought in hot showers and laundry services, and consequently the cost to go into those parks, with the last figures I had, was $7 for all the facilities. Let's set the fees on the services provided. Let's do that up front. Let's not say that we're going to set them to compete with the private parks. I don't think we should be out there competing. There are two different services provided, and I think the public is happy to have additional services. They are not complaining about paying. They want the additional services.

I think this is something that we have a responsibility to the community to look at. To even suggest that anyone on this side of the House is saying that we should shut down the province because at the top of a mountain you can see some clearcut is just straight stupidity on the part of the minister. He has a responsibility and we have a responsibility. Because there are certain jewels within the park system, because there are certain areas that should be protected, to do some broad brush attack and to say that we want to preserve certain areas that are different than any other areas available, and that we want to shut down industry, is straight nonsense. The members on this side of the House are more aware of the need for jobs, more aware of the need for the preservation and development of a sustained-yield from our resources, than anybody. I say that the group on the other side is not looking at the preservation of our forests on a sustained yield basis. They are looking at the maximum amount of profit for some company. But I don't want to get into that study. I say that when we bring out.... Meares Island is one. The South Moresby park study is another one. There are certain areas that should be protected. What I'm saying about the studies is that you go out to the community and ask for studies. The people in those communities go out of their way to do the studies.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Read the reports.

MR. MITCHELL: I've read their reports.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What do they say?

MR. MITCHELL: In the South Moresby report they brought in four recommendations — suggestions, if you want to split hairs. But they made these various suggestions. If I went through it I might decide to pick one or another. If we're going to ask for public involvement, we should then say, okay, what are we going to do? There should be some feedback. What they are afraid of is what happened with Meares Island. They made all their studies and recommendations, and then....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What recommendations?

MR. MITCHELL: Well, to preserve the island or parts of it, and then the government seemed to come out of left field and bring in something altogether different than what the local community was working on. This is the worry. If the government wants to be Big Brother and make all the decisions and run roughshod over groups in the community, then go ahead and stand up and say: "We're going to be Big Brother, and we're going to tell you what to do." But don't go out and say to the community: "We want your input. You sit down and study it, and let's talk about it." So they brought in options on Meares Island and they were forgotten. Now with Moresby they've brought in four options — maybe they're not recommendations but options. There has to be a certain amount of commitment. I think the government has to give some assurance.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Which one are you going to pick?

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I was kind of hoping that you were going to invite me on your tour, and we would go up there. I would come back, and I would be able to give a bona fide recommendation on one of the options. I know that the past minister of parks let me sit on a podium with him when they opened a park, but I don't even get any invites from the present minister.

I think it's important that you do your study. You should take a few of the people who may ask you embarrassing questions and who may take a position other than some of the logging firms in that area. I know that might be irritating, but I think it's important that we look at that South Moresby Island park. I think we should look at our whole park system with a broad idea.

There was one other question that the minister didn't answer. The park system right now is about 80 percent. I'm asking the minister what particular parks or areas the ministry is looking at for preservation for future parks sites. What studies have been made that the general public could look at? One area that I have received a certain number of inquiries on is the Brooks Peninsula proposal for a park on the northwest end of Vancouver Island. Have any studies being compiled? I know park people have been looking at that area. A lot of outdoor clubs and recreational groups have looked and made proposals on the Brooks Peninsula. Are there any ongoing studies by the ministry at the present time?

[5:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm certain that the Moresby debate will continue. I can say that we have looked at the options. The member has obviously decided which option he prefers, because he has said that I'm not willing to listen to anybody who has a dissenting voice. I haven't made any decision yet. It seems like the options were presented, and after four years of public input.... If you've read the Moresby report, you'll know that there has been nothing but disagreement among all the parties. Then they say: "We're presenting you with these four options. But for heaven's sake don't make a decision, because we're not prepared to make any recommendations." So it leaves us in a fairly difficult situation. I suppose the obvious one is to do nothing forever — delay it, postpone it, or whatever, and hope that it will go away. In the meantime things do happen.

Be that as it may.... Now I've lost track of the last question the member asked.

[ Page 3879 ]

MR. MITCHELL: What studies and what areas are you looking at for parks?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Regarding the parks, there has been an idea advanced.... The number quoted is that our parks system is about 80 percent complete. Whether that's in numbers, area or whatever.... We haven't done anything even with the major concept, nor have we done all of the studies. We're looking at all the proposals for areas to be preserved that have come from the ministry, from other people and so on. South Moresby obviously is on the list — one portion of it. Then there are a number of others that over the years people have advocated as park areas. So none of those.... I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Brooks Peninsula; that one hasn't even come to my attention.

MR. MITCHELL: I just wanted to get the record straight. The minister said that I've already made up my mind on one of the options. I have not made up my mind. Why he stands up there and puts words into my mouth or anything else.... I say there should be some studies and there should be some statements. I know there have been all kinds of studies, but I think the government should start making some comments on the various options that have been presented. I'm kind of hoping that maybe we'll be out of this House this summer, and I'm going to go up there and take a look at it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where is that?

MR. MITCHELL: South Moresby Island. Do you mind? We'll go up....

MR. GARDOM: Don't get into trouble.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to take my wife, so I won't get into trouble.

Getting off parks and onto lands, we have had this particular problem that keeps coming up. Has the government come down with a policy of allowing people to cross Crown lands that have been leased out to farmers and that are not being used? I believe we did bring in some legislation that you had to have a hunting or fishing licence before it was legal, but I know that hasn't been proclaimed. What is the government policy for crossing leased land? I don't mean going through the fences, but for families, back-packers and campers who want to get across that land.

MR. SEGARTY: What's your position?

MR. MITCHELL: I say that anyone should be allowed to cross it, as long as they are not damaging any of the cattle on that property or any of the land. I don't believe that they should be in possession of a hunting or fishing licence. I believe if they're not causing any damage the public should have access to Crown lands that are not being used to the detriment of those who hold that lease. That's my position. I want to know the position of the government and I'm really not interested in the position of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). He can get up and tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to know yours.

MR. MITCHELL: I told you what mine is.

MR. HOWARD: I was very interested in the minister espousing that policy of do nothing. What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is what the minister is doing about the Lakelse Hot Springs, apart from having razed the old buildings there. That was a commendable move. As a matter of fact, if the minister's predecessor had followed my advice about this right from the beginning, he would have saved the taxpayers about $100,000 in expended money on that facility. You just drive right by it now. South on the highway, just a short distance from the main spring and off to the side of the road, local residents are using a kind of mud hole for their own use. It is not very satisfactory, but is the best alternative. What about doing something to make those hot springs available to the general public in the area, instead of having a big pile of dirt on the driveway? You can't get in unless you clamber over it. People in the area are really interested in what your policy is and what you are going to do about that. It lends itself to something concrete and positive happening for local people.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I certainly agree with the member that it lends itself to something very positive happening there. It is a good source of water, and a lot of studies went on as to the agricultural potential of water and so on, and that fell apart, etc. We took a look at it. We tried to get someone to take it over. It would appear that the buildings and facilities that were in place — many of them, not all of them; the motel.... It turned out that the people wouldn't take it because it was more of a liability than an asset, and it would cost them more to refurbish it. So finally we made the decision: okay, let's start with the hot springs and the other concept and do away with that motel unit that was a liability. So we sold what we could and got rid of it. I'm just trying to get the terms of reference for a tender called for this spring, to get it out there, to get the thing going. We'd like to sell it to somebody and say: develop it; here it is; go to it. We think it can be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a tender call, I have a hard time predicting in advance.

MR. KEMPF: I've got an awful lot to say in regard to the lands side of this portfolio, but considering the time of day, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.