[ Page 8041 ]

CONTENTS

Youth Guarantee Act (Bill M205). Mr. Skelly

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 23). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Boundary Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Pelton

Introduction and first reading –– 8041

Oral Questions

Payment for TV program on fighting of forest fires. Mr. Howard –– 8042

Downie Street sawmill. Mr. Howard –– 8042

Forest fire fighting report. Mr. Williams –– 8042

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 8042

Expo 86. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8042

Chiropractors' fees. Mr. Stupich –– 8042

Chernobyl nuclear accident. Mr. Reynolds –– 8042

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment. (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 25: minister's office –– 8044

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Reid

Mr. Michael

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

MONDAY, MAY 5, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would like to express their sincerest sympathy and condolence to Mrs. Anne Macdonald and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on the death of His Honour Judge Malcolm Macdonald.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce two people from the dynamic community of Duncan: Mrs. Maria Munzer, mother-in-law of Rosa Munzer, who works in caucus research, and Mia Szabo. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in recognizing National Forest Week, and draw to the attention of the Legislature the fact that the city of Port Alberni, in the provincial constituency of Alberni, has been designated forestry capital of Canada by the Canadian Forestry Association of B.C. I understand the minister will be making a belated visit to that capital in the very near future – and we would welcome him. The fact is that Port Alberni has long been the forest capital of Canada, and only recently has become salmon capital of the galaxy, and we would welcome all members — all those within hearing of my voice— to Port Alberni, and to recognize the importance of that community.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Visiting us today is a constituent of mine, Mrs. Hilda Riva of Clearbrook, and her sister, Mrs. Anna Harendorfer, visiting us from Austria. Would the House please welcome these ladies.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have 55 grade 7 students visiting us from Strawberry Hill Elementary School in Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon are Charlene and Orrin Macdonadl from Miami, Florida, who are here on their honeymoon. l wish the House would make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

YOUTH GUARANTEE ACT

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill intituled Youth Guarantee Act be introduced and now read a first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're too old.

MR. SKELLY: Yes. There's no conflict of interest involved here at all.

The purpose of this bill, of course, is to recognize the importance of young people in the province of British Columbia. As we know, young people in B.C. are unemployed to a greater extent than almost every other group in the labour force. I'm including people between the ages of 15 and 24. There are 63,000 young people out of work, according to the last statistics we have available — 21.5 percent of the young people in the province.

The purpose of the bill is to offer to young people in British Columbia a guarantee of high-quality education, of training for employment, of employment itself, or a combination of those three things. I think that all members of the Legislature should recognize the importance of the young people in this province — that they are our investment in the future — and I look forward to having the government members support this bill when it is debated in the Legislature.

[(2:15]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure that that was an attempt to get all the cabinet ministers in the room or to indicate the tremendous support that we have for this bill, but I move that Bill M205 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1986

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In presenting this to the Legislature, a very few remarks. This bill contains a number of technical amendments. I will not call them housekeeping, Mr. Speaker, but they are technical. They're intended to bring the provincial act in line with the federal government's taxation statute. This is done almost every year, at the request of the federal government, under the terms of the Canada–British Columbia tax collection agreement.

I move introduction and first reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 23 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.

BOUNDARY ACT

Hon. Mr. Pelton presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Boundary Act.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now, and in moving this I have just a couple of words on the bill. It's technical in nature and its purpose is to replace the present Boundary Act in a manner that's consistent with section 43 of the Federal Constitution Act. The new Boundary Act also updates and makes housekeeping changes to the statutory provisions relating to the British Columbia–Alberta boundary. The Boundary Act replaced by this act allowed the work of the boundary commission to be confirmed by order-in-council, but section 43 of the Federal Constitution Act negated that process. It required that boundary alterations be confirmed by legislative resolution. Mr. Speaker, the new act alters the procedures for

[ Page 8042 ]

confirming the work of the commission, but does not alter the duties and responsibilities of the commission.

Bill 24 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.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT FOR TV PROGRAM ON
FIGHTING OF FOREST FIRES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of Forests. Last Wednesday, during a hockey game, there was a half-hour prime-time television program which dealt with the government's approach to the fighting of forest fires in the province. The minister starred in that program, and I want to ask the minister whether the production and the air time and the cost of putting on that program was paid for by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge it was. I thought that the program which was prepared, with the exception of the very last part of it, and that to which the member made earlier reference, was a wonderful way to inform the public of the activities which took place last year and which they're entitled to know. As we all know, 1985 was an extraordinarily hot season, and the member is well aware of all the difficulties which the weather, the lack of moisture content and the lightning strikes caused.

I think it was a wonderful opportunity to inform the public about the importance of the resource and the activities which have been taking place since.

MR. HOWARD: That editorializing is not in accordance with the facts. Last year's disastrous forest fire season was a result of the stupid application of restraint. That's what the problem was, and no amount of propagandizing at taxpayers' expense can cover up that fact.

I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. Estimates are that something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 of taxpayers' money was used to prepare and air that program, and inasmuch as it was straight propaganda, will the minister be sending the bill for that program of about $100,000 cost to the Social Credit Party for payment?

He's not going to. Perhaps the minister could declare to the House that he agrees that taxpayers' money should be used to propagandize for and on behalf of Social Credit. I don't.

DOWNIE STREET SAWMILL

The minister a few days ago told the House that he would investigate with respect to the inventory of logs at the Downie Street sawmill in Revelstoke. He's waving a paper around saying that he's done that, so I'm going to ask the minister whether he would be prepared to read from the paper the prepared answer and report on his efforts to get the workers in Revelstoke back on the job working in that sawmill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Last week the question involved inventory which is presently in the yard of the Downie Street sawmill. I said that I would make an inquiry, which I did. I can advise the House that there is approximately 28,000 cubic metres in the yard, something in excess of 800 truckloads of timber.

Perhaps the member is already aware of this. There is a particular provision under the licence… I will give you the number: it's timber sale licence No. A10295. There is a particular clause in that licence; to ease your research, it's clause 8.8. It reads something like the following: "During the term of this licence, the licensee will maintain a timber processing facility in Revelstoke, with a capacity sufficient to process annually a volume of timber not less than the volume authorized to be harvested within the licence." I would like to advise the House that what I was concerned about at the time is that inventory could come from one of two locations. One of the locations happens to be within a TFL; the other is not. The inventory which came out of the TFL was tied to that particular sawmill.

As a result of securing all of the information this morning, a telex was sent approximately two hours ago to the manager of the mill, refusing the exemption which was sought. The exemption which was sought was to remove those logs from that yard to another location. The concern that I have is, first, that there must be a resolution of that particular plant. But there was a commitment made at the time the licence was given that those logs would be attached to that plant.

I have a concern, I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the inventory is there. With a hot summer, I'm advised by the forestry personnel that there is a possibility some cracking could occur. And of course, we always have to worry about any fires in the yard.

Mr. Speaker, I've registered my concerns with the House. But I was aware of this. I thought before we made a decision I would get all the facts.

MR. HOWARD: The question was: what is the minister doing? What efforts is he expending to see that that sawmill reopens and the people there get back to work? That was the question. One way to prevent the splitting of logs in hot weather is to run them through the sawmill now.

[2:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We do not have to recite the difficult history that Downie Street Sawmills has incurred, I suspect both on the management side and on the employee side. I don't think there is any question about some difficulties. Yes, I would like them to resolve those problems and have that plant open. You see, the concern which I have right now is that the existing licence expires, I believe, in 1990, with respect to the quote. Their cutting rights now are within the average as set out by the Forests ministry, and that is plus or minus 50 any one year, plus or minus 10 percent over five years.

I understand there have been some proposals to acquire the Downie Street sawmills, and none of them have yet come to pass. But there's one thing that is certain: the cutting rights assigned to that plant were given on the understanding that the processing or manufacturing facility would be in the city of Revelstoke.

FOREST FIRE FIGHTING REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister of Forests advise the House whether he's forwarded the firefighting report tabled last week to the former minister, who misled so many

[ Page 8043 ]

British Columbians throughout the past year with respect to firefighting?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: A further question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Forests. With respect to studies done by his own staff, he confirmed that he had the Hopwood report. Can he confirm that his strategic studies section has carried out its own analysis of the problems dealt with in the Hopwood report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To my knowledge I haven't yet received an analysis of that report. I have raised in the House on more than one occasion that if the association who commissioned that report wishes to make it public, that is up to them. But I am not about to break any confidence, nor, even if I did have possession of an analysis done by the strategic studies department in the ministry, would I make that public, because indirectly you're going to be receiving some comments in the report and I don't think that's up to me.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying, despite the fact that these reports confirm millions lost to the provincial Crown — and he has had studies done by civil servants confirming that — that he will not provide that information to the Legislature?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the comment made by the member from Vancouver East with respect to the loss of millions and millions of dollars of Crown revenue is not accurate.

EXPO 86

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Three months ago the minister ordered Expo 86 to comply with the Financial Information Act, and disclose full information regarding its finances. Has Expo decided to comply with the minister's order at this time'?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the member is the same answer I gave him, to the same question, last week or the week before.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister. The Crown corporation has apparently decided to ignore the ministerial order. I wonder if the minister has decided to once again request that a full financial statement be supplied by Expo 86.

CHIROPRACTORS' FEES

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In response to a statement of mine with respect to chiropractors on Friday, April 11, the minister said: "We have been negotiating with the chiropractors. In fact, we are in negotiations now." I have since heard from representatives of the chiropractors' association that to the best of their knowledge there are no negotiations going on. No date has been set for negotiations, and they have been trying for four years to get such a date. I just wonder whether the minister can reconcile these two different points of view.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't wish to confuse anyone. Discussions have been underway. A specific date may not have been set for the next meeting, but I was speaking to representatives of the chiropractors on Saturday — I was speaking to them; that's not a negotiating team. I don't know whether they have a specific date for formal agenda items, but we have been speaking with them ongoing. It may not fit what they deem to be a head-to-head meeting, but discussions have been taking place.

MR. STUPICH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would these discussions include the matter of fees?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Fees really are almost all that's not quite resolved. Many of the other factors have been overcome, but they have not yet set up a process this year for precise fee negotiation. Other matters have been resolved. I would have to check to see if they've actually developed a date to sit down to discuss what modifications may be made to the fee schedule.

MR. STUPICH: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As I hear the minister, is it his team that has not yet agreed to set a date? I believe the chiropractors are ready any time to set a date. Is the minister saying that so far there hasn't been any discussion of a date as far as his team are concerned?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm sure it would be, yes. I know the chiropractors are anxious to meet at any time.

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. What representations have been made by the usual peace groups who protest the United States at every turn, and what actions have been requested of our government in informing Ottawa to voice the strongest protest from the people of British Columbia about the Soviets' lack of information to the free world on the nuclear accident at Chernobyl?

HON. MR. GARDOM: An excellent question coming from the hon. member. He raises very justifiably, Mr. Speaker, the issue of balance in the world. I think his point is very well taken.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What representation has the city of Vancouver made, since declaring itself a nuclear-free zone, in urging the strongest protest to the Soviet Union in failing to disclose at the earliest opportunity the hazards involved in the recent nuclear accident?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Absolutely nothing. I haven't heard a word.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 8044 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
(continued)

On vote 25: minister's office, $211,255.

MRS. WALLACE: When we were discussing the minister's estimates last Tuesday, I had been dealing at some extent with the particular area dealing with fish and wildlife, and the minister had made some responses. I don't intend to go on too long with this particular area, but as a result of the minister's responses I do feel that there are a couple of points I would like to raise with him again.

He began his remarks by talking about the as nitpicking. Really, Mr. Chairman, I can't understand why he would think that talking about an issue as important as our wildlife and fish resource in British Columbia could be considered as nitpicking.

One of the things that he dealt with in his reply was the question of the elk poaching at Shaw Creek. Actually, that was the very area that I was talking about, where the elk had been poached at Youbou. Some of that herd, six of the cows, had been radio-collared and sent down to Shaw Creek — a transplant. A great thing, sure, but the problem is that out of those six radio-collared cows, two were found dead at Shaw Creek, poached, left lying in the woods. That is just a very local example of the amount of poaching that is going on. As I had indicated earlier, for every animal that's found, the estimate is that there are two more lying somewhere in the woods that aren't found.

The minister sent tile recently — and I thank him for it — the limited-entry hunting for this year. I have discussed taking advantage of this break to discuss that in some detail with some of the people who are really involved in hunting. What seems to come out of this is that because of the shortage of game that's occurring, the ministry, rather than making shorter seasons, seems to be taking a turn to going towards limited-entry hunting on more and more species. We know there are some species where that is required, but I do question the fact that more and more with deer and moose — very standard types of animals — in some areas rather than going to the shorter season the ministry seems to be taking the turn of going to limited-entry hunting and expanding that.

It almost seems to coincide with the lottery mentality of this government, because in fact it's a lottery that you have for limited-entry hunting. A lot of people pay their three bucks and enter that lottery. I would like to know just how much the government has made in the past and how much more it proposes to make by extending that limited-entry hunting over a larger number of animals and really going into it as a way of limiting the take. To me it seems that it is just invoking the principle of a lottery as opposed to shortening the hunting season, and I would like to hear some comments from the minister on that.

When the minister was speaking to the B.C. Wildlife Federation in Penticton recently, I was interested to hear him say that he was going to deputize people who worked in other ministries as a means of supplementing the conservation officers who by his own admission are in very short supply. I understand from discussing this with people who work in the Forest Service, particularly, that this is not a new idea. This is something that has been tossed around for a long time and it has always been turned down. It has never been accepted, for various reasons.

[2:45]

One of the reasons is the training required. It's a very specialized job, the job of conservation officer. As a result of amendments to the act last year, conservation officers now have powers; they are asked to exercise powers that even the RCMP refuse to take on, because they are obliged to make a judgment as to whether or not a person is impaired to the point where they should not be carrying a firearm.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Is that good or bad'?

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. What I'm saying is that it is putting a load on conservation officers that even the RCMP refuse to accept. They insist on breathalyser tests before they will make that judgment as to whether or not a person is impaired.

So that is one area. Another thing, I'm advised that a conservation officer has the power to insist that someone open the trunk of their vehicle to allow inspection. Those are not the sort of things that foresters or other people who are out there doing other jobs in the woods are trained to do. So that's one of the concerns.

The other concern, an even more major concern, is the fact that every forester that I talk to is worked to death right now. They have more on their platter than they can deal with, and to add something else at this point in time as a result of the restraint and the cutbacks in the Forest Service that have taken place over the last three or four years means that they just don't have any free time.

So what I'm suggesting is this. We have, as the re-elected president of the Wildlife Federation John Carter said, reached a crossroads in our wildlife population and how we use it. He says that the recession, dam construction, native land claims, game ranching and fresh water aquaculture will all have major impacts on the resource. "We've reached a crossroads and face tremendous challenges the next few years in trying to maintain the diversity of outdoor opportunities we now have."

He goes on in much more detail, but I think we have reached a crossroads, and I would like to make just a few positive recommendations to the minister that really need to be implemented if we're going to protect this $2 billion industry in British Columbia. These are recommendations made within the concept of the existing legislation. The minister has just introduced a new bill, but it has nothing to do with fish and wildlife, Mr. Chairman. I know I can't talk about legislation, but as long as we're working under the existing legislation, which has a lot of shortfalls, there are some things that could be done.

I would like to see some of these things done. First of all, with regard to the conservation officers, the operating budget for conservation officers has to be increased. Their administrative backup has to be increased so they have more time to spend in the field. Now the minister has attempted to do this, he says, by regionalizing and putting that work together; but the feedback that I'm getting is that it just hasn't worked, that there is still a lot of administrative time being spent by conservation officers in doing paperwork.

Also, there should be no further closures of conservation offices. This is based on a pretty thorough review with a lot of people around this province on what should be happening. The Princeton office is an outstanding example. Now you have left that conservation officer there, you have acceded to the pressure there, and I'm glad. I congratulate you for doing that. But that has to become a permanent situation. In my

[ Page 8045 ]

estimation I believe the ministry should be re-evaluating that whole business of regionalizing, because there is so much more time being spent in travel, the coverage is so thin, and some of those areas are increasing so rapidly with more roads being opened up and more and more tourism in the province, that it's just not possible to cover everything.

I would suggest that you have a look at where those gaps are, that you identify them, and that in hiring new officers you place them in those localized areas. Perhaps you do not put the new officer you hire on his own, but you make sure that, by adding to that core of conservation officers, you provide coverage for those areas that are too thin.

I believe that what we need is a special task force to deal with the whole poaching problem. In the days when I used to deal with agriculture, rustling of cattle was a major problem. We worked with the RCMP and the cattlemen to deal with it, and I would suggest that a task force similar to that set up by the cattlemen to deal with this whole poaching problem would be a good way to go.

The minister talked in his remarks on Tuesday about the butcher at Prince George and how proud he was of what had happened, and he agreed that the penalties were too light. But he said we have to leave it to the courts, that that is beyond us. That's not entirely true. The legislation sets the penalties, the limits. What we need to do is look at changing that to ensure that those penalties are sufficiently heavy to deter that kind of poaching. Couple that with an adequate police force — more COs and a task force to look at the poaching — and I think that that could be dealt with. It has been suggested that those penalties should be doubled or even tripled, and that hunting privileges should be suspended for people who offend. More cases should go to court, rather than just letting them pay the penalty on the roadside, as it were. They really should have to go to court and face up to the trauma of that court experience, because they are committing a crime and they should be duly charged. And I think we have to educate the people who are sitting in judgment as to the actual value of that wildlife and the extent of the problem.

Those are certainly some definite suggestions that I would make to the minister. I think that, instead of the type of advertising we've been seeing on television lately, perhaps we need an advertising campaign geared strictly at the role of the conservation officer, the value of our game and so on. That kind of program would be extremely useful in educating the public on this problem.

It seems that many of the problems we face simply result from the lack of political will to do something about the protection of our fish and game. You know, if we're not a partner in protecting that fish and game resource, in ensuring that that poaching doesn't occur, then we automatically become a partner in that poaching. Mr. Chairman, the lack of adequate funds to do the job indicates, in my view, that this government and/or this minister are not really committed to the preservation of that resource, and that they don't have the political will to take the required actions. Perhaps I'll just leave it at that, if the minister wishes to respond.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, l hope the hon. member opposite is feeling much better today than she was last Tuesday. I wouldn't want to suggest that the hon. member was a nitpicker in any way, shape or form.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: Did I really?' A slip of the tongue.

Most of these things, I'm sure the hon. member will agree, Mr. Chairman, we've discussed before, though not in such great detail. It's very difficult to disagree with 99 44/100 percent of the things you say. Of course, I have to, not take exception, but suggest that it is a matter of priorities about what we do. Within the ministry we are, believe me, hon. member, really concerned about the wildlife and the fisheries of this province, because that's our duty, our mandate.

To deal with one or two of the items that you mentioned, I've got a little background paper on limited-entry hunting which you might find interesting. In the past, a number of hunters have on occasion expressed some concern, following each limited-hunting draw, that there are people who are repeatedly selected year after year, as you suggested, and that there are others who are never selected. We undertook a review of this, and I'd like to read to you from it.

We reviewed selected applicants for a three-year period, which ran from 1982 through 1984. The object was to determine, using each applicant's resident hunter number as an identification, the number of individuals selected once, twice or three times for specific hunts and under what conditions this might occur. The results of the review showed that there's really no significant occurrence of repeated success of individuals in draws. The popularity of limited entry has grown. In 1974 there were 168 applications, I believe, and there were 70,777 applications in 1985. The competition for many of these hunts is very fierce, and for heavily subscribed hunts, of course, the odds of being selected are very low. I'll give you an example. The Junction sheep hunts have odds as high as 147 to one against being drawn. It would not be surprising to apply every year for a lifetime and never be drawn. Odds dictate the frequency of success. Relatively few people have drawn authorizations more than once during this period, and only 5 percent were selected in all three years. The vast majority of hunters who have been successful more than once are hunters who repeatedly apply for relatively unpopular hunts with correspondingly low odds.

The hon. member asked specifically about how much money we thought we would take in through a continuation or an expansion of the limited-entry hunting. We expect some 75,000 applications. At $3 an application, that is about $225,000.

I would suggest, though, that limited-entry hunting is not all that new. It is just another tool that we utilize within the ministry to manage wildlife. As time goes by it becomes more and more important, because where wildlife used to just compete among themselves and with other wildlife, of course as the hon. member knows, they now compete with men. So they need some help in order even to retain the status quo.

We talked again about poaching. Yes, poaching is a real problem that we have. We don't make any bones about it. We don't try to play it down. It is a very real and a very difficult problem. As I have mentioned last Tuesday, we do have some success in catching people who undertake to poach, and we do have some success in taking them through the courts, prosecuting and having them convicted of the charges laid against them. But the member is absolutely right: we don't catch them all, and I guess we probably never will. Probably if we had three times as many conservation officers as we have we wouldn't catch them all. I guess it is very similar to the fact that there are probably thousands of people who daily speed down our highways and who are never caught because

[ Page 8046 ]

you just couldn't do it. It is an ongoing problem which we are attempting to address.

I didn't realize that the idea of utilizing other ministries in this protection capacity had been suggested before, although I guess there is nothing wrong with revisiting an old idea. Sometimes the old ideas turn out to be the best ones in the long run. We haven't completely succeeded in our endeavours in this regard either. One of the ministries we approached has expressed a great deal of interest in trying to be of assistance in this regard, and the other one has expressed some interest, to the point where everybody is going to sit down and talk about it and see if there isn't something that can be done.

[3:00]

The use of deputies would have to be very carefully thought out because there would obviously be things that they just couldn't do, as was pointed out by the member for Cowichan-Malahat. A great deal of training goes into becoming a conservation officer, and people attend schools for some time to acquire the knowledge necessary before they can be deputized in the way that conservation officers are and carry out their duties. Certainly we wouldn't expect others that were being of assistance to us within the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, whichever it might be, to carry out all of the duties of a conservation officer, because conservation officers are from time to time placed in positions where there might be some question about their safety. We certainly would want to be very careful before we got into that.

But let me just repeat that all we are trying to do, in the best way possible and with the limited resources at our disposal, is to bolster or to improve the conservation officer service in the province of British Columbia. I don't mean to be repetitious, but I must say that the conservation officers we have, although limited in number, do an outstanding job for this province, and l have nothing but praise for them.

We have statistics, which I won't bore you with, that show that the reorganization and the bringing of these conservation officers together — which they will admit themselves, I have had them say it to me — has been an improvement and has resulted in more people being apprehended and in more people being caught for the misdemeanor of poaching.

We haven't had the increases in funding that we would like to have to bring the conservation officer department up to a higher state of usefulness and readiness, but I should point out that last year, if I recall correctly, we put about $225,000 extra dollars into the pot, or it might have been a quarter of a million. This year, on top of that, we have added another $248,000. So we have put some in – not enough, we'd like to put a lot more, but it is just not available at this time. We do have priorities in our funding. I'm sure the hon. member opposite appreciates that. As we allocate the money within the budget, we do try to allocate it in the most reasonable and fair way, and we also try very, very hard to get, as the saying goes, the maximum bang for our buck. If I've missed anything, maybe the hon. member will remind me of what it is and I'll cover it the next time l get to my feet.

MRS. WALLACE: Where does that money go – that $225,000? Into general revenue'?

HON. MR. PELTON: It comes into the ministry. It's part of our revenue. It's shown as revenue in the budget.

MRS. WALLACE: Just for Hansard's information, what I said from across the floor was that the money that comes in from the limited-entry hunting does not go into habitat conservation. It just goes into general revenue. That would be approximately the amount that you're increasing the conservation officers this year, actually. Also, last year, when you increased the conservation officers, of course it was taken away from some of the fishery research projects. So it's not like there's more money coming in as far as government goes; it's simply coming in in other ways from the people who are hunting, or by reducing other programs.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I want to change the subject slightly and talk about another area of responsibility that this minister has, and that is for various methods of dealing with chemicals: the waste management vote, pesticide control — all of those kinds of things. To initiate that particular facet of the debate, I'd just like to quote from an article that was published recently in the Province, I believe. It's an article written by David Suzuki, entitled: "We've Lost the Gift of Avoiding Danger." It starts out by saying:

"Isn't it strange? The great evolutionary survival attribute of our species has been foresight. With our huge brains we are able to learn from past experience, to recognize certain predictable regularities and to project the consequence of today's actions tomorrow. Thus we are uniquely gifted with the ability to make conscious choices and avoid danger. That ability has more than compensated in our evolutionary past for our lack of...physical attributes....

"But today, with our immense populations and complex technological society, we seem to have lost that capacity. The PCB spill near Kenora emphasizes this loss. If it were the first environmental accident ever to occur, we might understand the confusion and paralysis.... Bhopal is still in the news! But don't we know about Hooker Chemical and the ticking time bomb its toxic dumps pose to those around Lake Ontario'? Dioxins spilled out years ago in Italy, but it is also found in the food chain around the Great Lakes. In the past, lead, arsenic, mercury, asbestos, radon, polyvinyl chlorides, pesticide residues — the list seems endless....

"But do you think any of these issues has been satisfactorily resolved, cleaned up, eliminated? Not on your life.

"High levels of PCBs in...London are not a serious hazard, yet it must appear to be concerned in Kenora.

"Various compounds...we are told that the carcinogenicity of PCBs — proved beyond a doubt in animals — has never been established in humans."

You know, this is the argument that we make for not being concerned about it. In the United States any substance that is carcinogenic in animals is automatically assumed to cause cancer in people.

"Can't we see that the environment is not infinitely self-renewing? Surely any objective bystander can plainly see that the sheer magnitude of our numbers and the scale of our industrial and domestic wastes are overloading the air, water and soil. Cancer experts today agree that 80 to 90 percent of all cancers

[ Page 8047 ]

are caused by factors in the environment — that includes all of the accumulated toxins of our technological society."

"But it's not just industry. Carbon tetrachloride, used by dry-cleaners and dumped into sewers...many toxic chemicals in our kitchens, bathrooms and workshops which we keep away from our children but flush straight them down the sink.... Do we have any idea how many chemicals are poured into drains in university laboratories?"

According to Suzuki, there are all kinds.

"We have a cavalier attitude toward the many chemicals in our society and a faith that the environment will dilute them enough to render them harmless. Yet today not only is the water in the largest body of fresh water in the world polluted, but the groundwater as well is turning out to contain toxins."

He concludes by saying:

"I'm afraid that so long as our elected representatives are so woefully ignorant of even the most elementary technological concepts and ecological principles, while being motivated by purely short-term political considerations, and so long as we blithely assume that a clean environment is someone else's problem, we're in trouble."

I think there is great deal of truth in what Dr. Suzuki is saying. We have had here in British Columbia over the last year or two a horrendous increase in the number of reported cases of spills or accidents or just appearances of various chemicals.

Let's talk about pentachlorophenol, the thing with which we treat wood. Supposedly it's the only thing available to keep wood from going mouldy. Well, that's not entirely true. There are other ways of protecting that wood. But how much research are we doing into it? How much is the government involved in ensuring that rather than just giving more and more permits to use PCP to treat wood and allowing more and more mills to install treatment tanks...? Are we doing anything to try to back off from it? We know that it's a harmful chemical; it's a dioxin. A dioxin is the most hazardous man-made product that has ever been known.

My colleague from North Okanagan has talked about the situation at Okanagan Lake where a permit is going out for a mill there to treat. My colleague from Nelson-Creston dealt with the problem which we were all involved with up there where a mill had been allowed to treat and then was allowed to burn. That was a very interesting incident, that one at, I think, Maple Bay or Maple Ridge or wherever it was, up in the Nelson area. I phoned the local manager there in Nelson Creston, and he told me that this permit would allow for 18 parts per billion of dioxin. But he said that that was based on the fact that 30 parts per billion were allowed in Ontario and that in the United States one part per billion was considered safe. We were going to allow 18 parts per billion. The problem is that those figures are not correct. It wasn't 18 parts per billion; it was much more than that. As far as the Ontario standard goes, it's not 30 parts per billion; it's 30 picograms per cubic metre, which is less than one part per billion. So the information that he was basing his permit on was utterly wrong. As far as EPA goes, they set a figure of zero — not even one part per billion. So we're getting false information. There's a lack of information. There is a lack of concern. There is a lack of recognition of the hazards we're creating. You can't see it; you can't smell it, particularly; the effects aren't immediate. As a result of this, we're building ourselves right up towards another Love Canal. I had a great many letters on both of those cases. But what happens?

I think one of the most interesting things that came across my desk was datelined Castlegar, where Westar was charged with 28 counts of air pollution. The case was dismissed because the Crown had failed to prove the pulp mill was the only source of hydrogen sulphide that was recorded by a ministry environment monitoring device. That's just wide open. Naturally you cannot prove that that's the only source. So if an industry, or anyone else, is going to be allowed.... In that instance it was hydrogen sulphide, which is not as bad as a dioxin but is still a pretty potent chemical. If you're not going to be able to do anything about it, with that kind of a judgment coming down, where are we going on this whole chemical situation'?

[3:15]

I talked about spills. We've had PCB spills; we've have PCP spills. We had an ammonia spill not long ago at the city of Merritt. We had a PCB spill, as opposed to PCP. Of course, we dealt last year in these Environment estimates at some length with the situation at Mackenzie, where Hydro, contrary to the rulings, had stored these capacitors outside, now hopefully under cover.

The minister talked about all the storage facilities that he had, including one here in Victoria. I don't know what dateline he was talking about that he had storage facilities available, but in March of this year Victoria discovered they had a bunch of PCBs stored in a wooden shack in a workyard. In their research they found there was no space. The provincial government's hazardous waste storage facilities at Cloverdale Avenue and Blanshard Street are full. B.C. Hydro's storage is also full. Here was Victoria city with these things stored in a wooden building, just waiting for an accident to happen. They're having to build some kind of a cement block structure to put those things in.

Eburne sawmill had oil stored there for many, many years which had pentachlorobiphenols. Through some very unfortunate accident one of these containers of oil was taken out and used to oil a saw, with some pretty disastrous results. It caused a real hazard to the workers there and a real concern to management in their attempt to clean the thing up. The ministry was certainly involved in that.

I see that my green light is on, so just a couple more words. I would like to point out to the minister — I'm sure he mentioned this too — that his deputy who is sitting on the floor made an announcement recently that we were going to get a mobile incinerator for pentachlorobiphenols and that he hoped it would be in operation by the end of this year. I notice there's a sizeable chunk of money in the particular vote. I expect that's the only sizeable addition of money in this budget and I would suppose it's for this incinerator. I would like a little more information from the minister regarding just where he's at with those disposal units and when they will be coming onstream.

HON. MR. PELTON: Of course, that was a 15-minute statement. An awful lot of things were said in there and I wasn't able to make notes on any questions that might have been involved. Maybe we could just deal with them one at a time, say, and try and do it in sort of a rational way.

Let's deal with the PCB one. Yes, there are a lot of PCBs stored around this province. At one time I had the figure in my head; I don't anymore, but there is a great deal of it. It's

[ Page 8048 ]

been around for many, many years. As long as it's around, and until such time as we find ourselves in a position to treat the PCBs and reduce them to innocuous matter, we're going to have spills. That's very unfortunate, but I guess that's going to happen. The only thing we're going to be able to do is to get out there and treat it as quickly as we can.

Even very recently the member will have read about the importation into Canada of some electric oil-filled radiator type heaters that had PCBs in them. They came from outside of North America and were found to contain these PCBs. As a matter of fact, I understand that down in Ontario one of these heaters sprang a leak and sprayed a pregnant woman. We jumped into that right away because we didn't know how many of those things might be around British Columbia. The reaction from the federal Ministry of Environment, who I suppose are the first ones that would be involved — or perhaps it was the provincial Ministry of Environment in Ontario — was to make arrangements with the people who had sold them in Canada to recall them, in the meantime — as we suggested to anyone who contacted the ministry — for heaven's sakes unplug them immediately, because it seemed it was the heat that caused the one in Toronto to explode. We suggested that they unplug them immediately and quit using them, put them in a plastic bag and put them away until they could return them for a refund. On the other hand, if anyone noticed that a leak was involved, they should phone the ministry right away and we would come and take it off their hands and put it away.

These things do happen, and I suppose, as I said before, all we can do is deal with them as they happen. That's the way it goes. On the other hand, l do think that over the past year I don't take any personal credit for this; it was part of the ministry's job — we have made some inroads into where we are going in this regard. As I said last Tuesday, by the middle of this year we will at least be able to come forward with a chart which will indicate the minimum acceptable levels of certain of the dioxins that we talk so much about.

By the end of the year we hope to be well on our way to having made some arrangement whereby either the province of British Columbia will have its own mobile destruction system, or with the cooperation of some of the other provinces Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular and perhaps even Alberta — we will have come to some arrangement whereby the facility is available to dispose of these noxious chemicals once and for all and get rid of them and break them down into other elements which are not so toxic.

But I must be honest with the hon. member, Mr. Chairman: the money that she spotted in our budget is not for that purpose. It is our intention that the people who generate these toxic wastes, or these special wastes as we like to call them, should be the ones that pay for their destruction and for their control. That is the whole thrust of the process we are trying to put into place. The last figure I saw was a little over $7 million that the people who produce the products should pay for any requirement for clearing them up or cleaning them up or disposing of them. Almost a year ago, if not a full year ago, I suggested this when I spoke to a meeting in Vancouver, and it was well received by the industrial people present at that meeting. So I think that is the way we will go.

I have a long report here with respect to the dioxin issue, but it would just take too long to read it into the record. I am sure that because my critic does her homework so very well she is aware of all these things anyway, and there is not much point in my repeating them. If we were dealing with one dioxin, it might make the job relatively simple. But my understanding is that there are 75 or more different types of dioxins that we must deal with, some worse than others. So it is a long process that we are going to go through. We don't have the facilities within our own ministry and within our own province to do a lot of research into this, but certainly we have available to us the results of research done by others, and we will certainly take advantage of it.

It's no excuse for what is happening, and I think the member alluded to it when she was reading from Dr. Suzuki, but these things have been around for a long time. That doesn't make them good, mind you, but they have been around for a long time, and it is only recently that we humans in our frail way have come to appreciate the problems caused by these dioxins, which by the way are not actually manufactured in themselves, but are the result of other products, in burning or various other things like that.

The one up in Meadow Creek was a good case in point. For many years the company involved have been disposing of the ends of the lumber that they get by burning it, which a lot of mills do, except that most of the mills have a burner, and these people burned this out in the open. They did it once a year, and they had a permit to do it, and they did it in a season that was least dangerous, when it was wet, when there was snow on the ground, etc. I imagine they got an overseas order for some lumber, and they treated the lumber with preservative. As the member knows, it is out of this preservative that this one form of dioxin is generated. Inadvertently, when they were disposing of the tailings – or whatever they call them – of the lumber they were manufacturing, they all got into the same pile. It caused quite a furor. But we got into the thing right away, and we did everything humanly possible. We had them take the contaminated wood out of the rest, and they got most of it out. If I remember correctly, a relatively small quantity of the preservative was used, but it caused a great uproar and it worried people and it worried us too. Fortunately we were right in our estimation of the results of burning some of it, and the program went through and worked out very well indeed. But there again, it's another incident, and I guess what we want to do in the long run is see that these incidents don't occur. That would be the thrust of what we're trying to do within the ministry.

I say once again that by the end of this year we expect to be pretty close to the point where we have a method of destroying PCBs anyway. I've actually seen one of these machines work, and it does a very effective job; but it was only effective on a certain type of oil with PCBs in it. But the technology is there. It's for us to bring it onstream and get to use it. We will no doubt run into one of the problems we ran into with the Genstar scheme, which I still think was well ahead of its time, and would have put British Columbia in the forefront of other provinces in this country, but it went awry, and the problem, of course, was that there is some residue with incineration of any kind and it's what you do with that that ends up to be a problem. But we'll work very assiduously to try to find a site where this can be disposed of, and to try to do it with the least disturbance to the population of our province, because after all, they're the people we're out to protect.

I think that's about it for now, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: First of all, I would like to assure the minister that I agree with the principle of user-pay — there's no argument there at all. However, we are in very difficult

[ Page 8049 ]

situation with the amount of stuff that has accumulated over the many years that we've been waiting to get this facility in operation. I'm not at all sure that everybody who has this stuff stored is going to be able to come up with the required amount of the cost to get rid of this backlog. So I think the government is going to have to have some kind of responsibility to ensure that we dispose of this backlog we've accumulated.

[3:30]

He mentioned Genstar. Sure, there were a lot of problems there. What worries me is that, from what I understand of the direction he's going with this new scheme, again much the same: he's going to put it into the hands of some private company to deal with it. I don't think that's going to work. That was the downfall with Genstar. They wanted to set up a centre here and bring in hazardous chemicals from the other provinces and from the United States, in order to have this a big enough enterprise that they would have enough recoverable material to make it a profitable operation. That's fine if you can do it, but I think there are a lot of people who have a real objection to bringing hazardous wastes in from the outside when we are already generating so many here. I think there's a general feeling that the way to go with this is to do it as a government-controlled operation, to ensure (a) that it is done in a safe way, no shortcuts; and (b) that the problem is dealt with on a local basis, with encouragement to polluters to reduce their pollution — and there are certainly lots of ways that can be done using methods that will become costeffective, if in fact they're going to have to pay for the cost of destroying this stuff.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are many things that can be done. One company's waste is another company's commodity, and those kinds of things can be worked out. With research you can get various methods of chemical combination so you don't have so much hazardous material...and for making that other material available. Some of those areas you might think about dealing with — for example, printer's ink; if there were a program in place that would encourage newspapers to recycle that ink on site rather than having it going out elsewhere.... That's certainly an area that should be explored. Ion exchange in the replating industry can be used onsite, by recouping the waste and having a profitable recovery of those metals rather than putting them into the garbage.

I think we need to look at renewable materials, too, that can supply chemicals and fuel. For example, it's technically possible to recycle overspray — that is, paint sludge. As you will recall, those barrels that were found in Burnaby not too long ago, that's exactly what they.... Now that is recyclable. That's what should be happening to it. So the government has a tremendous role to play in encouraging these operations to take those kinds of actions.

We certainly have to look at the transfer of that waste too, because hazardous goods in transit are a real problem. We've seen a lot of that more recently. So we need to try to do as much of the recycling as close to the site as possible. If in fact there was a little better communication between various companies using various commodities, I think that could be arranged. Rather than shipping everything down to a central location and then shipping it back out after you've treated it, we have to look at doing some of that on site. But the companies have to know of each other's existence and they have to know what commodities they want or need. Certainly it is being worked on in other jurisdictions. I think the 3M company in the United States is one of the outstanding examples, where in the last nine years they've saved something like $192 million just through recycling their own materials.

So I think there needs to be a strong shift in the direction that the ministry and this government take in providing that kind of information. Certainly if we're just going into a repeat of the Genstar thing, I have a lot of qualms about what will happen there.

I'd like to ask the minister about those electric heaters. I was going to raise that later, but he has raised it. What sort of advertising has been done'? You say that if people phone in and ask, you tell them. There hasn't been, that I have seen, anything of any great moment coming out of the federal government to warn people or even to make sure that they're aware. I wonder how many of these heaters are actually in British Columbia. Has there been any real program put in place to ensure that we locate all of them and have them returned'? You know, people don't all read the newspaper. Unless there's a good strong ad campaign to ensure that people know about these things, we could have that potential hazard sitting out there for some time. I'm a little bit concerned that we're just being told to unplug them and put them in a plastic bag. Really, we need to do something better than that with them.

I was also concerned when the minister talked about having come up with acceptable levels of dioxins. As I indicated, the EPA says zero parts per billion. We have never really seen an acceptable level agreed upon. Ontario has tentatively come up with a very limited amount — what is it? — 30 picograms, which amounts to something like one part per billion. But that's a tentative thing. l would hate to see us come up with something.... You know, what we usually do is we get a level of pollution and then we set our standards at that level so it doesn't upset anybody. Then if that pollution goes up, we change our standards.

We've seen this happen. I've seen it happen on a great many permits. The one that I recall most clearly is the Cargill one, when they had the hog farm over on the mainland. Every time they wanted to pollute a little more, the pollution permit was changed and allowed them to put more of that stuff into the water. So I hope that's not what's going to happen with this: that we're not just going to set that level at a point that sort of fills today's need and doesn't upset the apple cart. Because I have some very grave concerns about having any level above zero parts per billion. I think that we're into a real hazard if we allow this stuff to get out there legally, because we've already got it out there now. What we need to do is get rid of what's out there, not just legalize what's there.

HON. MR. PELTON: Just right off the bat I would just like to suggest to the hon. member, and I'm sure she would agree, that setting a zero level would be all well and good, but one would know before they even started that it was meaningless. Every time we have a forest fire, there are dioxins released. Probably more dioxins come out of forest fires in British Columbia than any other source. Without trying to appear to be making fun of it, I'm told that when you go to your barbecue on a Saturday night and cook up a steak or hamburgers, you produce some dioxins.

It would be nice to be able to have a zero level, but it just doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. You can reach for the

[ Page 8050 ]

stars, but when what you're reaching for is unreachable, you'll never get there, I don't think.

As far back as February 1984, the Ministry of Environment issued regulations that would control the storage, transportation and disposal of special wastes. The effective date of that was not specified, and we've now decided to revise these regulations — and I'm still talking about the same thing, Mr. Chairman — to make the determination of special wastes compatible with the federal transportation of dangerous goods system of identifying hazardous wastes.

We've been working closely with the federal government and other provincial governments through the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers to establish programs for national standards and for treatment and disposal, as I mentioned a little while ago. The major areas of common effort include programs to deal with PCBs; national standards for storage and treatment and disposal programs, for waste reduction and contingency planning programs; and improvements to the transportation of dangerous goods regulations. The movement of special wastes now is being tracked from source to the disposal point by the federal manifest system, and we are, Mr. Chairman, being informed in every instance when any hazardous waste is being transported down our coast, through coastal waters, or by land. We are being notified and are able to monitor this ourselves.

The matter of who should manage a system for the disposal.... We do lean toward having it undertaken on a private basis, a contract basis. In the province of Ontario, they set up a Crown corporation to deal with this. It's relatively new. I know that they have expended great amounts of money, but their problems are much greater than ours. God forbid that our problems should ever get to that point, but it's being dealt with in that manner in Ontario.

The province of Alberta also set up a Crown corporation to deal with this, and they have a disposal plant in Swan Hills. I'm led to believe that they already are in a position where they know that the cost of the operation of this plant is going to be absolutely horrendous. When they first got into this mode, part of the initial agreement that was made was that there would be no waste brought in from outside the province of Alberta. So they are looking to spend a great deal of tax money in taking care of the problem in that jurisdiction.

What we hope to do — and you mentioned this, hon. member; you're quite right — is to encourage, in every possible way, the people who generate the special wastes to recycle, to encourage them to reuse. I'm sure there are a lot of things that they could reuse. You suggested the materials that were in the barrels in Burnaby; that could have been reused.

In the United States, particularly in the state of Oregon, which has been set up as an illustration of how this should be done, they have an information system where they pass information through all the manufacturers in the province. It's kind of a compatibility information system, where everybody will know what the other person has so that they can utilize his product instead of acquiring more and increasing the amount in the system, and it works out very well. It's considered a model program down there, and we are looking at that one closely to see if we can accomplish the same thing.

We believe that when industry realizes that they're going to have to foot the bill.... We believe that we can reduce the amount of special waste that's coming into the system in the province of British Columbia by 75 percent. No, by a third — I wouldn't want to exaggerate — by about 60 to 66 percent. That's what we're hoping to do.

The assistant deputy minister in the Environment ministry is dealing with this almost on a daily basis through the other civil servants who are involved in the CCREM. I'm determined that this whole problem will be resolved, and resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and to the utter and complete safety of all the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

[3:45]

Also, the member asked how many of these heaters are in the province. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I don't know, but I do know already of people who are aware of the potential danger and who have.... Apparently Woodward's in Victoria has sold a number of these, and I'm aware of people who have returned these heaters to Woodward's and who have received a refund for the heater.

We haven't done any advertising that I'm aware of; we have just relied on people finding out about this thing through the press.

I didn't think our suggestion that they be unplugged and placed in plastic bags and put in a safe or cool place until they can be returned was too bad a suggestion. The only time they will do any harm — we know this for a fact — is if they leak, and it's very unlikely that they'll leak if they are taken out of use, if they are not heated up. The reason we have suggested that they be taken care of this way is the very reason that the hon. member suggested at one juncture: we do have storage sites around the province but they are limited in what they're capable of taking. We are quite prepared, like we were some time ago when a similar problem existed, to take them back and to store them for people. But we suggest that we certainly can't get into the business of refunding people for the cost of these heaters, and we suggest that certainly if they are leaking they call us immediately.

By the way, on something we discussed last year — everything takes a little while in government but it eventually happens — we do now have a Zenith number to report spills and things of this nature like these heaters, and it's Zenith 2667, and it works.

MR. PASSARELL: I have four quick snappers to the hon. minister. I wanted to congratulate him on winning the Greenpeace achievement award that was given to him recently by the environmental group.

The first one is in regard to black-powder hunting. Has the minister any plans for limited hunting of special categories of wildlife for just black-powder rifles? One of the reasons that this has been brought up is that there are a number of black-powder organizations throughout the province who are saying that there should be some limited hunting — a category just for black powder for the competition aspect. It's much more difficult to hunt with black powder than with high velocity rifles.

The second question is the wolves, and that's been an ongoing problem from prior to the minister's gaining this portfolio. There has been a reduction, particularly in the far north this year, in regard to wolves. Has the ministry looked at any kind of contingency plan? Because going out and shooting wolves out of aircraft just simply doesn't work. It's too expensive, and it just causes too much of a controversy in setting up some type of $25 or $50 bounty for trappers and hunters to alleviate the problem themselves as they have been doing over the last 18 months.

The third one was a statement that Dr. Suzuki made to the wilderness committee, an erroneous statement in regard to

[ Page 8051 ]

his presentation on the habitat of the camp robber, in which he stated that the camp robber....

Interjection.

MR. PASSARELL: It's a bird. He had made a statement to the wilderness committee in support of not logging on the Queen Charlotte Islands because this was the habitat of the camp robber. As any person who goes out on a picnic or spends any time in the bush knows, the camp robbers inhabit the entire province. I was wondering if the ministry and the minister could ask that the doctor come down from his ivory tower and downtown Vancouver and spend a little time.... They could maybe even provide him with a picnic lunch so he could go out in the bush and see that the camp robbers exist outside the Queen Charlottes.

The last question, and probably the most serious one of the three I've raised, is about a statement that was made by a spokesperson for the Atlin Indian band recently on CBC radio, Whitehorse, in which this individual said that the Atlin Indian band would go out and shoot animals when they felt like it, as part of their proposed sovereignty. As I think, and I think as most residents in the far north and across this province think, wildlife belongs to all people of British Columbia and not just to special groups. To go out and shoot wildlife anywhere in this province and, as in this proposal presented by the Atlin Indian band, to a shoot animals wherever they want to whenever they want to I find is an injustice to all residents of British Columbia.

The ministry has been very positive in regard to individuals who need subsistence permits and who can go to the wildlife officer to get permits. These are given out to individuals who are in need of meat. But in this case the Atlin Indian band simply wants to prove a political point by going out and shooting animals. There is a concern for this outrageous plan by residents of the north; there have been quite a number of bad feelings brought about by this statement. I'm opposed to this because I believe, as I said earlier, that wildlife belongs to all residents of British Columbia, not to any group. To go out and shoot a cow and a calf just to prove that you can go out and kill something – to destroy an animal just to prove a point – I think is pretty outrageous.

Special interest groups who strive for wilderness protection are put in a quandary in this regard, because often groups like Greenpeace support aboriginal title, and finding a group that's going out just to annihilate animals to prove a political point is going to put the special interest environmental groups into a pretty difficult situation.

I understand that the ministry over the years — and I've seen it in the far north — has been reluctant to prosecute natives on wildlife charges. If it happens that a particular band is going to prove a political point by going out and blatantly annihilating animals, would the ministry consider changing their position and prosecuting individuals who do this'?

HON. MR. PELTON: I thank my colleague for his questions. The first one with respect to black powder: at the moment we do not have limited hunting for people who participate in the sport of black-powder shooting, but I will certainly take that suggestion. We'll have a look at that and see what we can do with it. Sounds like it might have some merit.

On the matter of predator control, it is one of the ongoing wildlife management tools that we utilize to try to maintain that very delicate balance between predators and their prey. As the member knows, we have utilized a great number of methods, trapping being one, and various other things. In certain areas of the province, particularly around the Quesnel area where there was a problem with predators and domestic cattle, we have had a great deal of success with a trapping program. We've not only had a reduction in the predators, but have been very successful in training other trappers in the art of trapping these particular beasts. Apparently it's a very specialized undertaking. We're about to embark on a similar program on Vancouver Island. The predator problem on the island has been getting increasingly worse over the past few months, so we are moving into that one.

The programs we have in place are quite portable. We can direct these at almost any given time to any particular area of the province where they are required. So if there are problems in the member's area, we would be only too happy to move some people in there and see what we can do about them.

The matter of the camp robber, the little bird that the member talks about, I didn't read the good doctor's submission to the wildlife committee, but I heard something about some specific type of bear that he thought....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: No, it wasn't the hon. member's favorite bear; it was some other kind of bear. He said that this bear existed only in the Queen Charlottes, on South Moresby. When I was apprised of what really went on, I was told there was none of that particular type of bear at all. There are some, but not.... So even the most erudite of those people within our society, like Dr. Suzuki, I guess — even like me — make the odd mistake. I guess that's what he did with the matter of the little camp robber birds.

The last item: I'm reluctant to get into that to any great degree, and I'm sure I don't have to tell the hon. member why. But I can make one or two statements on it.

Since 1966 the Wildlife Act and the permit regulations have stated that the wildlife director may issue permits to residents of British Columbia to take wildlife outside the regular season — and I quote right from the act — "when in actual need for sustenance." There is no mention made of any racial origin involved in this at all. The only qualifications are residency and actual need. The program goes a little further than that. We don't just give them the permit to take the animal from the wild. If we have animals that we've taken from people who have been poaching, we will supply the actual meat to people who require it for sustenance.

Thus the matter of sustenance use of wildlife is one of allocation, not one of any kind of rights. However, where treaties apply, such as on portions of Vancouver Island or in northeastern B.C., those treaties take precedence over the Wildlife Act. We are not the least bit backward in coming forward in attempting to have people prosecuted for misdemeanors involving the taking of wildlife out of season or without permits, but once.... We go as far as we can, and then the rest is up to the courts.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have just a few brief observations and possibly questions for the Minister of the Environment, whose estimates we're currently debating.

[ Page 8052 ]

I should mention at the onset, Mr. Chairman, that I've been following the debate as closely as I possibly can, although I have not been here for the whole debate. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has addressed a whole list of the questions that I may have posed which apply to my riding, as well as to many other ridings in British Columbia, and I don't want to rehash that. If the question I'm now going to discuss with the minister has been addressed previously, I apologize; but this issue in the riding I represent is quite a large and persistent issue that seems to be there forever.

It is the matter of the application of pesticides and particularly herbicides on certain locations. It is less of a problem with highways; that has been reduced, I understand, a great deal over the past several years. But I am concerned with applications, by either the Forest Service or logging companies or whomever, to apply these herbicides in certain areas. The minister may or may not recall that we had a very serious case a couple of years ago where an application was made to use a great deal of the stuff in watershed areas in my riding. I won't go through that case again in this House.

[4:00]

To put it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could advise me currently about the appeal process. Every time one of these notices of the intention of whomever the group may be to apply herbicides — in some cases pesticides, but usually herbicides in a given area.... Notices must be put forward in the local newspapers, right? However, what happens if a group of residents or a regional district — in two cases in my riding, if not three — or a group of interested citizens or a ratepayers' group or a water district should happen to miss that notice'? Sometimes they don't appear in the local paper. They have 15 days to appeal, which is very little time. That regulation may have been changed within the last while. If it has, I'm not aware of it.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's being changed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like to get those comments in Hansard for my constituents. One of the major complaints I've received in terms of the appeal process was the lack of time for any given group of people to prepare their case before appearing before the appeal commission, and sometimes these permits have been granted without people in the area even being aware that an application was before them. I think the minister has my question on that matter, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

While I have the floor, I have one other question dealing with aquaculture and mariculture — I suppose all over the coast, but certainly in my riding, where the industry has really taken off. I hope you don't construe, from the few remarks that I'm going to make, that I'm opposed to mariculture and aquaculture, because I am not. We have a bit of a problem here, Mr. Chairman, in that this activity overlaps into a number of jurisdictions. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is responsible for the administration of that industry; however, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has some jurisdiction in terms of local zoning laws, by-laws that may or may not have been violated in terms of this industry as well. I did speak briefly under those estimates. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing of course has jurisdiction in that that ministry is responsible for issuing leases to proposed operations, and no end of leases over the last two years have been issued in my riding.

Where this Minister of Environment fits into this whole scheme of things is with the fisheries management branch. We know that there are people in the field from Environment, because the fisheries management branch obviously is responsible for managing fisheries under provincial jurisdiction, and these people presumably advise the minister, the various ministries, the government and the lease applicants on certain aspects of that activity. So what I'm on about here at the moment — and the only real reason I raise this particular subject this afternoon while I have a moment — is that I've had complaints from some people who have applied and received leases to proceed with mariculture activities — the rearing of fish in the oceans is basically what it's all about — and the financing of their programs has actually been stalled by this ministry's people in the field. Whether this accusation, which was put to me verbally on two occasions, is accurate or not, I honestly don't know, because there was no way for me to check at that time. This issue was just brought to my attention quite recently, as a matter of fact. Perhaps the minister could comment on the ministry's — and the minister's — involvement in this aspect of mariculture.

HON. MR. PELTON: I'd like to thank the member for Mackenzie for his questions. You pretty well have that aquaculture thing taped, Mr. Member. There are three ministries involved. At one time the Ministry of Environment was in some respects the lead ministry. But as it was about to expand, and because of the vast amount of interest shown, and because the whole industry, whether it be aquaculture or mariculture, is related to food, the lead ministry became the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and that's the way it is today. Of course, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is involved in the provision of foreshore leases and all that kind of thing. We're still very much involved in the licensing aspect. We approve the sites, and we approve the process that they're going to go through. Basically, because of the expertise that we have within the Ministry of Environment relative to fish and their habitat, and so on and so forth, we provide expert advice to the other two ministries, and review the applications from the people who want to get into the mariculture and aquaculture business, to ensure that the pitfalls are all noted, that they're aware of various things they might encounter, and that they aren't getting into this thing not really knowing from whence they came or where they're going.

Applications, I might say, are numerous. The interest shown in this particular new type of venture.... It's not really new; it's an old business around the world. But in British Columbia, up until a short time ago I think, there were only ten people involved; and now there must be 90 to 100 applications that have come on file. A lot of people are getting into the business. If there was some specific question in respect to that that the member wanted to ask, and if I missed it, if you remind me of what it was, I'll cover that one again.

Just to get on to the first question you asked about pesticides and herbicides, I'm certainly very well aware, because my critic brings this subject up on many occasions, of the concerns that people have out there about the use of pesticides and herbicides. Our involvement as a ministry, as you know, is in granting the permits. All things being equal, and if they comply in every respect with all the rules and regulations – the training they've had for application and all

[ Page 8053 ]

that kind of thing — we would normally be prepared to issue the permit.

There is a process, as was mentioned. It's required that the issuance of the permit be promulgated in a newspaper — which it is. Just recently we decided that there be a 15-day period after promulgation when the issuance of the permit could be appealed. I didn't feel that that was really adequate. We haven't got it in place yet, but we've done all the groundwork, and we're just about to make it a 30-day period, to give them more time. On top of that, because of the concerns — and I think they're genuine concerns that people have, even though we all know that to eradicate the complete use of pesticides would cause us a problem in providing food and things like that, the concerns are real, and we understand them — on a number of occasions we have granted appeals even after the 15-day appeal period was over. I've got a couple of cases in point. I just happen to have them here today.

One of them involves a Mr. McEachern, who is a Campbell River resident. He had done his very best to obtain a copy of a pesticide use permit following the appeal deadline and he missed his opportunity. He complained to a hearing before the Environmental Appeal Board. The member from north Vancouver Island had interceded on behalf of this gentleman and he was informed that the permit would likely be cancelled and reissued in order to reopen the opportunity for appeal. So I'm not trying to pat our ministry on the back, but I do think that we have a very real appreciation for the concerns of people about the use of pesticides and that we bend over backwards to ensure that they have every opportunity to make their concerns known to us before a permit is issued.

There was another similar case that happened when Whonnock Industries failed to notify local residents of the issuance of a permit. We did a similar thing for them and we will continue to do that so that the people's concerns can be adequately addressed and they will get the best possible hearing. I think the matter of appeals is just one of the basics of a democracy, that people should have the right to appeal the decisions of politicians or bureaucrats. In this particular instance we're doing everything we possible can to ensure that that happens.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the minister's answer, particularly the fact that the ministry will be moving to allow people at least 30 days to register their appeal. At 30 days' time, of course, they have to come up with the appropriate information and research as well. I might remind the minister that before his tenure as minister the government did at one point — in fact it was the ministry — help finance an appellant's research and briefs. I think that is no longer valid.

I might add just a note here. On a number of occasions I've been requested to and did appeal particularly to some of the larger companies, and in fact to the Forest Service, to have certain herbicide spraying programs set aside. In all fairness I've received fair cooperation. I didn't win them all; guess none of us does. I won't go into the specific cases, but there was one major case in the Powell River area where the Forest Service finally agreed to utilize a manual release type of operation for alder rather than pesticides in a watershed, and another major case involving a large private company on the Sunshine Coast where the company eventually agreed to reduce the operation significantly and perhaps go into manual release.

Anyway, one last item. In terms of getting back to the mariculture, you weren't quite clear, as I'm not — and I have to apologize to the minister. I didn't expect to be getting up at this moment, but I happened to be in the House and I did leave my material on my desk. But it's nothing that earth shattering; there are two small items. Well, one may not be small.

A well-known biologist from the University of British Columbia, a professor there, tells me that he is deeply concerned about the possibility of Atlantic salmon being brought into British Columbia for fish-farming purposes. I think I read in the paper somewhere — I don't have the material right in front of me — that the people who are proposing to bring the Atlantic salmon into the Pacific coast for fish-farming purposes say there is no danger because the fish won't get away. Well, fish do get away, but that is beside the point. No, it's not beside the point; the point I'm trying to make is: has the ministry made absolutely sure no detrimental effects will accrue from whatever kind of diseases Atlantic salmon have, if they have any? I'm sure they do, because all fish at some point do. It is introducing a new strain into the Pacific region. So maybe the minister could give me some information on that particular situation.

When I was referring to staff under the ministry, the complaint I had very specifically was this. I'm not sure if it was just because of lack of staff, but the process for these people who had obtained leases to proceed with mariculture programs was being held up somewhere within your ministry, sometimes by field staff, or somewhere in your department. But it's a valid complaint. The applications to proceed with their mariculture operations were somehow being held up either by field staff or some other staff within the ministry. So a lot of valuable time was lost. They were paying interest on bank loans and things. They felt that a better and prompter service would be in the better interest of the industry. I wondered if this was because of lack of staff or if you knew what the reason was.

[4:15]

Once again, I just want to make absolutely sure. l receive these complaints only verbally, nothing in writing, no proof or anything like that, although they said they would write; but I haven't received anything as yet. This came to my attention very recently.

HON. MR. PELTON: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there are some delays in the issuance of these permits, but I think the delays are the exception rather than the rule. The reason for the delays — the ones that I know of — is in some sense similar to the idea of the appeals against the permits for other things. In one of them, the local people, particularly in the immediate vicinity of where the operation is to take place, have had some concerns. We've been trying to address these to see if we can't bring the parties together to allay any concerns that people might have.

Also, because of the interest in aquaculture and mariculture, we have moved additional people into the particular part of the ministry that deals with this so that we can deal with people as expeditiously as possible. I'm pretty positive that there aren't many applications being held up. None of them are being held up, other than that there's some particular reason why it can't be dealt with. I don't think it's volume. Volume might have something to do with it. Specific items have given rise to concern, and these are the ones that I would suggest are being held up. But I'll look into that and see what

[ Page 8054 ]

kind of a backlog we have. I'd be pleased to provide you with that information.

The Atlantic salmon eggs: we have had some objections. As a matter of fact, I think there's been quite a bit in the newspapers about this. It comes primarily from those people – those fine people, as a matter of fact – who are really involved with steelhead fishing. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union has been alarmed over the importation of new fish diseases that may have serious effects on wild salmon stocks. Believe me, we're very much aware of that concern and very concerned about that possibility. My people have assessed the actual risks, in consultation with the federal people, particularly the disease experts. As you'll know if you've had goldfish in a bowl at home for the kids, fish seem to be prone to diseases. It's quite common, at least in my experience, to wake up in the morning and have the girls crying because one of the little fish is floating belly up in the bucket. They are very prone to diseases.

An effective quarantine and disease-screening procedure is in place. Also, there's strict federal legislation about the importation of these eggs. Last year I think about 150,000 disease-screened eggs were imported from a source in Scotland. This year about a million eggs have been imported from a second disease-free group. The policy has been completed, always in consultation with the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans.

I should also mention, Mr. Chairman, for the edification of the member, that down the road we see an end to this requirement for the importation of any of these Atlantic salmon eggs. Not too far down the road a strain will be developed that will.... We'll be able to get our own eggs right here on the coast.

I was just going to say a couple of other things about the appeal process. You were talking about helping people to come in and make their appeal; intervener funding, they call it. Our appeal board in the ministry is a very large one. It has a permanent chairman, and the other members are on call. We have members all around the province. To mitigate the large expenses of moving people around, we try to hold the appeals as close as possible to the place where the appeal generates from. That makes it much easier and much less expensive for people from various areas around the province to come and make their appeal before the board. They move around considerably. We haven't had too much criticism or concern expressed about intervener funding, particularly with respect to these appeals on pesticides, herbicides, water licences or whatever. That's the method we've used, and I think it's proven quite effective. We do have an excellent appeal board.

MR. REID: In your estimates, I would like to pursue a couple of subjects that you and I have had some discussions on, but I would like it on the record. It is to do with the concern about sewage and that proposed coal-absorption process that has been bandied around the province for the last 10 or 12 years. With the research that I have been able to follow up in the last year, I think it goes without saying that further interest must be paid to that subject by both the provincial ministry, your ministry, and the federal people, inasmuch as it will offer for us as a province not only a breakthrough in secondary treatment of sewage, but also a possibility and potential of selling a lot of coal, especially from the Hat Creek source that currently has no market developed.

In order to pursue the subject further, some strong support for that process has come to me from Simon Fraser University: Dr. Samia Fadl, who has been researching this subject for the last 12 years, with some absolutely phenomenal results. She also has an assistant who has graduated to the staff of BCIT, namely Joffre Berry, a chemical science technologist.

As recently as today, Mr. Minister, they are encouraging us and your ministry to assist first of all from a participatory point of view of a ministry plus ultimately, if necessary, some financial help towards a pilot project required at the Iona outfall. The reason why they are concerned about getting a pilot project at Iona approved is that there is currently a proposal to spend $72 million for a five-mile outfall into Georgia strait: the dilution solution, which has been proved totally unacceptable in the Puget Sound by other communities who have tried that process. As a result of their failure in the south, our research people, the professionals in the field, are saying: "Let's not make the same mistake and spend literally millions of dollars." I'm sure the proponents of the Iona outfall hope your ministry will put some money into that. I would hope that we would explore all other possibilities before we agree to assist in any way an outfall into Georgia strait that would continue to pollute it with toxic metals.

I am encouraged, by the research that has been done in the province of British Columbia, that we are on the threshold as a province, and your ministry could be on the threshold, of a brand-new innovative project to solve some of the problems of heavy metals and the toxic wastes that have come out of industrial plants through our normal sewage plants, secondarily and tertiarily treated and providing us with cleaner waters.

To back that up, Mr. Minister, as you know I have also been in contact with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Tom Siddon, because the Iona outfall is in his riding. Mr. Siddon says in a letter that I received on April 16: "If it is possible to process the effluent through smaller secondary treatment facilities at a reasonable cost, I would be most willing to support this proposal."

As does a graduate from UBC in engineering and a strong proponent of this process, Prof. Coulthard, Mr. Siddon indicates strong support for at least a pilot project to prove once and for all whether in fact this province, this ministry, would like to be on the leading edge of secondary and tertiary sewage treatment around the world. I am convinced we are at that stage, and I am convinced that the sooner we can get on with that pilot project.... As you know, we have been discussing it with the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which along with the city of Vancouver will have to fund the $72 million for the outfall. Of course, they're scrapping for their $14 million in the hole already, the city of Vancouver, and I am sure they are not in the position of putting out even another $1 million for an outfall, never mind $52 million.

So, Mr. Minister, because other constituencies in the world have had total disasters, total failures, with outfalls, I think it's prudent on our part not to encourage an outfall as a process of our dilution solution of disposing of heavy metals in the effluent into Georgia strait. I think whatever your ministry can do to put a pilot project in place, give it sufficient time — six, seven months; I think that's sufficient- to prove that it works on a larger proportion of sewage than the current smaller ones in the province that are in place.... The sooner you can encourage that, I think the better for all

[ Page 8055 ]

sewage outfalls on any ocean outlet in the world. I think we should start sooner than later to be part of that research, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PELTON: I must stand and respond in some way to my colleague and my friend on this subject. I can appreciate his desire to have those words written into this record, because he and I have had some very serious conversations about this matter on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, up to now it hasn't been possible to do anything really constructive in this regard, I guess with the exception of a study that was undertaken at a little place called Pritchard, not far from Kamloops, and that was funded through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and on which we have a report that is being looked at at this particular point in time.

[4:30]

Certainly the Iona outfall problem is understandable. I do know that even though the Greater Vancouver Regional District have not been as supportive as they might be of the cool process — or at least to my knowledge haven't been as supportive as they might be — they have at least offered the opportunity for some experimentation to take place in the Iona area. From the ministry's point of view, and to my disappointment I must say, we don't have funds available to become involved.

I am prepared to offer my support in any way, shape or form that I can, and as a matter of fact, I'm in the process, if it hasn't been done already, of committing that to paper. But we just don't have the funds to embark on any kind of experimentation program. I really don't think, from the information that I've been able to gather – and my information is not nearly as wide as the information that the member has-that there is any question but that the process will work, and will work well.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I guess it's a matter of application and a matter of costs that come into the picture. Certainly I think maybe there is a slight error when the cost of the outfall is suggested as $72 million, because I think it is really $47 million, which is still a lot of money. That outfall would be required, I'm advised by people within the ministry, regardless of the treatment. Even if it was taken to the ultimate of tertiary treatment, that would still be required.

What we'd like to achieve — and I don't say this in a derogatory way about the cool treatment system — and what we'd like to see when it comes down to heavy metals is that the heavy metals not be allowed to get into the sewage in the first place. There again we have to deal with the people who produce all these contaminants that get into sewage wastes, and if we can eliminate them at source, we're accomplishing a great deal.

In the meantime, as I say, the member has devoted a great deal of time to this program. I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of meeting an engineer who is a very strong proponent, and I've read papers from the professor from Simon Fraser. Certainly the hon. member has filled my ear well and good, and we will continue to do everything we can to support the member in his ongoing quest to have what could very likely become a worldwide accepted system put into place.

MR. REID: Mr. Minister, the concern I have is that.... I know that we've talked at great length about funding any of the projects which are demonstrative in nature, but in following up some of the reports that I've been able to read coming out of the Greater Vancouver Regional District area and the city of Vancouver, I see they indicate that in order to proceed they're going to need funds from your ministry in order to bring on the outfall. I just want assurance from your ministry that before we fund what appears to be a disaster solution in other areas of North America, this provincial government won't consider funding outfalls until we look at other potential solutions for the toxic-waste treatment of waste water.

Addressing one other comment that you made relative to source control, source control in the greater Vancouver area isn't and never will be sufficient to control heavy metals, the main component of which is lead. It comes off every street; every car that drives around gives off a certain amount of lead, which ends up in rainwater and our drainage water. It ends up in the system and ends up in Puget Sound. This process has been proven to remove 95 percent of lead from waste water. That problem will not go away by treating some of the other source controls. I agree with that, because that GVRD report said they'd have to deal with initial impact problems. There's major dumping by companies that do electroplating. They've got a commodity that they have to dispose of, so they have to go through impact sources now. There are slaughterhouses and rendering plants which have a major impact problem. All those have to be treated separately — I have no argument with that.

There are 70 million gallons of liquid going through that Iona plant on a normal day. When they get over 80 million gallons a day, which happens on some occasions during the winter, whatever goes over that volume gets around the current system and goes out raw into Georgia strait – right through the channel out into Georgia strait. So you've got not only the leads and the toxics that go through the normal system going out into Georgia strait on a straight pipe, but also all the other things that are in normal sewage. I disagree with that happening in my community, which is the lower mainland. I'm a resident of the lower mainland, and I challenge that.

There is a process which has been proven. Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, some of the numbers which have been generated through your ministry — I don't say by your ministry, but through your ministry — give everybody concern about the process having any viability. They use numbers such as 18,000 tonnes of coal a day being required. Well, I have a response here from a professional that says 5,000 to 6,000 tonnes is the total requirement for a process to treat 70 million gallons, and it's good for 7 1/2 years before you have to re-treat or dispose of the spent coal. Because of the misinformation provided out there — and the problems of toxic wastes and heavy metals....

We've got it right over here in Victoria. We don't hear our members for Victoria talking about it very much, because they've got a straight pipe out here to the ocean. Fortunately for them the ocean is from here to China — it's the open sea. Eventually they're going to get wise and agree to come and talk to me about it, because I'll give them some information on the subject. They should be talking about treating the sewage here in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: We've been asking you for years.

[ Page 8056 ]

MR. REID: if you've been asking about it, why haven't you said something about the Iona plant that's going to be putting it five miles closer to you if they get that outfall? Interjection.

MR. REID: This is running right into your beaches, and I think you should. Anyway, I haven't heard you say anything about it for three and half years, and you're supposed to be an environmental specialist.

I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, that the problem with the process....

Interjection.

MR. REID: He hasn't said a word.

MR. BLENCOE: Is this your maiden speech?

MR. REID: This is my maiden speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REID: Anyway, Mr. Minister, there's not only the problem of waste water. There's also a corporation in the lower mainland which wants to deal with the sludge after reduction of the effluent — bringing it down to a sludge basis, but drying the sludge, taking out the heavy metals and putting it into fertilizer, or whatever. We have corporations prepared to become part of a major pilot project that has potential to be researched and developed and sold around the world — not only the process, but the coal, of which we've got millions of tonnes sitting up there in Hat Creek. It has been proven to be the ideal coal for the process. We need to put a pilot project in place. It'll treat our problem first, and then everybody else's when they need it.

Mr. Minister, as you know, I've talked to you at great length on this before, but I want to be certain that if we're funding anything in the coming months, we fund the pilot project before we fund any major outfall components.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments to the minister regarding his very important portfolio. As an MLA and a representative of Shuswap-Revelstoke since May of 1983, I certainly recognize the very important role and important job that he has as Minister of Environment. It's certainly been a lesson for me to see the multitude of problems, regardless of what ministry or area they might be in, that must pass over his desk and through his ministry for resolution. At this time I would like to state the pleasure I've had working not only with the minister but with his staff, and the service that I've received, and the 100 percent cooperation that I've received on any inquiries I've made on behalf of my constituents.

It wouldn't have been that many years ago when the average person being asked a question as to the basic needs and desires of their life would have answered: food, shelter and clothing. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister, that if those questions were asked of the average citizen on the streets of British Columbia today, they would answer: number one, clean water; number two, clean air; number three, peace. Not only in that order, but certainly those three would be on top of anybody's priority list on the streets in British Columbia today.

While I know there's not that much that the minister can do on the subject of peace, I know that he does have a little bit of influence with his federal counterparts. Perhaps on occasion we should remind the world that Canada is very much in favour of peace and we are very much against certain things that happen in society. We're certainly very concerned with this nuclear fallout resulting from the situation in Kiev in Russia today. I know the minister is monitoring that situation as closely as he possibly can with his federal counterparts. I'm sure that the minister will be making presentations to the federal government about our very strong feelings and concerns about that situation in Russia, and will be calling upon them to see that that type of situation will never occur in that country again.

It's strange, Mr. Chairman, that we didn't see any marchers or demonstrations out in the streets, in particular in Vancouver, as a result of this particular accident. I'm sure had a similar accident occurred in the United States or in another friendly nation, the demonstrators would have been out there in the thousands, with the mayor of Vancouver and the aldermen leading the pack, demonstrating against this terrible atrocity; but not a word. Mr. Chairman, do we see as a result of that having occurred in the Soviet Union. Normally, we would have seen demonstrations as a result of the shooting down of the Korean airliner, the atrocities in East Germany, the putting down of the Hungarians, the situation in Afghanistan and the terrible atrocities with some of the races such as the Jewish nationality in Russia. But we don't see any demonstrations from that particular group, although we certainly see them when there are accidents and certain things happening in the friendly western nations. I find that very strange.

Getting back to some of the things in my constituency, I would like to talk about some of the concerns of the constituents of Shuswap-Revelstoke. The first one has to do with the growing concern with the houseboat industry on Shuswap Lake. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) has authorized a lake management study coordinated by the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, and I know that the Minister of Environment will cooperate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and other ministries, such as Lands, Parks and Housing, in giving as much input as they possibly can to investigating in detail the problems of houseboats and other environmental concerns for the Shuswap Lake management study. Houseboating is a growing industry. It has created a lot of jobs in the province. But I have to advise the minister that along with that there are certainly a lot of concerns. It's not only the grey water concerns, Mr. Minister; it's the question of noise and the interference of privacy from individual lot holders and cabin owners on the lake. I'm sure that all of the residents in the Shuswap will be looking forward to the lake management study.

[4:45]

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to express to the minister my personal satisfaction for the dollars that the Ministry of Environment has put into the Columbia-Shuswap regional district for the milfoil control program. Since I've been the MLA in Shuswap-Revelstoke, the amount of funding for the milfoil control program has been increased approximately five times. I believe that in the last fiscal year the minister placed somewhere in the neighbourhood of $145,000 into the milfoil control program for the Shuswap Lake. The results look very positive at this time.

[ Page 8057 ]

Mr. Chairman, I read the last letter that the Minister of Environment sent to the regional district regarding their request for additional funding, and I was extremely pleased with the quality, content, tone and feeling of that letter. I thought he did an excellent job in pointing out to the regional district the fact that a good job had been done up to now, that he was monitoring the situation very closely, and that when he examined the results in the fall of 1986, he would at that time make a consideration to further additional funding. In the meantime, he has renewed last year's program, which is five times what it was just three years ago. I think great progress is being made in that area, and I think the residents are pleased with the work and the emphasis that the Minister of Environment has put into this particular control program.

Another subject has to do with the small community of Pritchard. It has been discussed by myself and the minister on several occasions, and by myself and members of his staff on several occasions, but once more I would like to emphasize to the minister that Pritchard is a small community. There are only about 110 lots. There's no industry on which they can draw additional funds. A treatment plant for that community is going to be extremely expensive. It's going to be far beyond the financial ability of the taxpayers to put in a proper plant. It's no fault of theirs that they are living in a particular area where, whatever type of plant is installed — other than a land disposal site — the effluent will end up in a river that passes several communities before it reaches the outflow into the Pacific Ocean.

What I'm trying to get across to the minister is that it's a small community, they have no industry to draw on for taxation, only those 110, 120 lots. I would appeal to the minister to examine this problem one more time to see if he cannot come up with a better funding formula than the 25-75 situation. I know that's a problem in many other areas throughout the province. Perhaps I'm somewhat biased here, Mr. Chairman, but because of the nature and size of this community, and because the outflow flows into a river that passes many other communities which draw water from the Thompson system, perhaps something could be done to satisfy and resolve this situation in Pritchard, B.C.

Moving on, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank the minister for his cooperation in the progress of the Salmon Arm sewage treatment plant. I understand the tenders are being let now for further expansion and improvement of the plant in Salmon Arm. This money is coming from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the municipality, but I know the minister has been deeply involved in the planning and authorization of the improvements. I'm confident that this will further improve the water quality of the Shuswap system, and in doing that will improve the water quality of the Thompson system and the Fraser system.

I can also report to the minister that the Chase plant is operational and everything is going well there. As a result of cooperation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Environment, most of the problems in my constituency are in hand or are being investigated at this time.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of driving over the Coquihalla Highway before its official opening on May 16, 1986, which is one week from this Friday. I've also read a lot of the material regarding the Coquihalla Highway — the amount of dollars being spent, the input from the Ministry of Environment and the planning divisions of Highways — and I can tell you that we're all going to be very proud when we travel over that highway in the future weeks, months and years, because we will see one of the prizes of all highways anywhere in North America, from the city of Hope to the city of Merritt, and now being extended on to Kamloops. We will see a four-lane freeway, and environmental concerns are absolutely second to none.

I can tell you that the creeks and streams have been well looked after as a result of the efforts of the Ministry of Environment, and I can tell you that there are many animal underpasses. I'm not sure how many I counted, but there were certainly several underpasses where animals can travel east and west, and the creeks and streams looked as if they were in their natural state, although I know, having read a lot of the material, that several of them had been relocated. But you would swear, looking at them, that they were in their original form.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) for their sensitivity and their concern for the environment. As I said earlier, without clean water and clean air, life is not really worth that much. I can understand all of the frustrations and anxieties that that minister must experience because of all the pressures coming from a number of ministries flowing into his. Of course, he has to put his name on the dotted line on most of the approvals and things that happen in the province of British Columbia.

So with that I will close and look forward to working with that minister in the coming months and years.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, I really enjoyed that one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: No, sincerely, I must thank my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke for his comments. He covered an awful lot of area in that relatively short period of time, but let me just add to what he said about the Coquihalla and the measures that have been taken to ensure that the wildlife is protected — not only the wildlife, but the fisheries as well. I must say quite candidly that the whole thing was really made possible through the cooperation that the Ministry of Environment received from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. They actually put out relatively large sums of money to assist us in doing the studies that were necessary to determine what the migratory routes were, for example, of some of the deer and other animals that go through that area. My understanding is that you can have all of these underpasses and all the fencing and everything else in the world to protect these creatures, but they are creatures of habit, and so they have certain routes that they follow all the time. So if you don't have the underpasses in the right places, then your chances of really achieving what you set out to achieve are minimized indeed.

The matter of the Eurasian milfoil in Shuswap Lake — the ministry is more than pleased to become involved in this, because it has been an ongoing problem that we've experienced over the last number of years, particularly in the Okanagan area. So we found no difficulty at all with getting out there and supporting the program to try to rid Shuswap Lake of the noxious weed Eurasian milfoil, or at least to keep it under control.

The Pritchard situation is one of those, I guess, that we face on an ongoing basis. We want to help as much as we possibly can, but we're inhibited by the amount of dollars we

[ Page 8058 ]

have to put into the project. Yes, Pritchard is a very small community — 110 or 115 dwellings, I think — as stated by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. They have a horrendous problem. We did have the study done, and we've got some recommendations as to how it might be carried out, but there's the matter of dollars now.

The programs that are presently in place for that particular area and other similar areas around the province only see a support of 25 percent in the cost. We know full well that the good people who live in Pritchard certainly couldn't afford to amortize that expense. So we're having another look at it. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is looking at it at this very moment, and I think we're going to have to come back with some kind of proposition. I can't say what it will be, but at the moment the only programs we have in place would see us providing 25 percent of the total cost.

Of course, we certainly have a problem with dumping anything into the river. As was mentioned, it bypasses a number of other communities, one of them being Kamloops. If I remember correctly, they put something like $9 million into ensuring that the effluent that enters the Thompson from that area is just as clean as possible, almost to the point where you might require tertiary treatment. If we got to that point, we'd be into a different ball game, but we haven't quite arrived at that point yet.

The member made mention of the problem of the nuclear meltdown or the breakdown they had in Kiev. We have been monitoring it. The responsibility for monitoring this type of thing rests primarily with the federal government through the environmental protection service of the federal Environment ministry. They monitor radioactive fallout at 28 stations across Canada. We have been in touch with them through our provincial emergency program people to keep a handle on what is happening. We heard just before coming into the House today that there was a report on American radio stations that some radioactivity was being monitored in the jetstream — I don't think it was specifically mentioned which state it was passing over — at about 30,000 feet. But it wasn't considered that the levels were all that high or that there was any real danger to anyone; as a matter of fact, it would just continue and pass right over the U.S. unless it came into some precipitation where it was brought to the ground through rainfall.

I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke suggests with respect to the lack of information that has been received on this problem. We are making our feelings known to the federal Minister of the Environment. I believe something was brought up today at the first ministers' conference that is being held in Japan with respect to the lack of information coming out of the Soviet Union in respect of this particular incident.

Getting back to my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) and the coal treatment process, I said before that the process is probably an excellent one. Our involvement with the various municipalities in their attempts to improve the quality of the effluent that leaves their sewer systems and either goes into the oceans or into some other bodies of water is advice in helping them prepare waste management plans, which we have already received from a number of communities in the Okanagan Valley, Vernon being one, Westbank being another. I understand that the member, through his contacts with people in this coal filtration business, has also been involved with the people at

Westbank. We stand ready to support these programs under the formulas that we have in place. The final decision, I guess, will have to rest with the communities that might be interested in having such a system installed for their benefit. We'll come to the party insofar as the program we have in place will allow. Unfortunately, and I repeat myself, it is a matter of fact and has to be said: we do not have in our budget any funds for experimentation in any way, shape or form. So we just can't come to that party. But if the GVRD for example wants to embark on a program for the coal treatment process and the other processes that go along with it, certainly we'll be prepared to play our part.

[5:00]

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I want to talk a little bit this afternoon about a topic that has already been talked about but make it specific to Victoria. First though, I would like to welcome everybody back to Victoria after a busy week in Vancouver with all the various openings. It's nice to see everybody back and recognize that this is still the capital of British Columbia. I want to talk about how beautiful Victoria is but how that beauty continues to be eroded by the fact that we continue to discharge by long pipes virtually raw sewage off our beaches.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. BLENCOE: It is a shame. It is an incredible shame, and we have on a number of occasions in the last few years and certainly before I got here, by my predecessor.... We have asked this government to enter into negotiations with the Capital Regional District and municipalities to commence forthwith a major sewage treatment program in the capital region. No less will suffice, Madam Chairman. We've had promises from this government over the years that they recognize it's a problem, but unfortunately there's no sign in terms of dollars committed to enter into a full program of sewage treatment with the Capital Regional District.

Today I would like to invite the new Minister of Environment to accompany me in an airplane and fly over this region, over the waterfront, to see what we're doing to this incredibly beautiful part of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. You bring all these tourists to our beautiful city. We have the reputation of being a very clean city. Air pollution is minimal. We're very proud of the fact that we see ourselves as an environmentally sound community. The one flaw — and an embarrassing flaw — is what we're doing only a quarter of a mile away from this very chamber in terms of the waters and the beaches that we used to swim in not that many years ago. Now you see the signs: "Subject to Pollution," "Swim or Paddle in the Water at Risk." I'm inviting the new Minister of Environment to accompany me next week in an airplane — also on the beaches — to take a look at what's happening to see what we could be doing together to start cleaning up the capital of British Columbia once and for all.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll go with you.

MR. BLENCOE: You will? Terrific.

MR. REID: Take the mayor of Victoria too. She should see.

[ Page 8059 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The mayor of Victoria believes this is a critical issue, and would be pleased to enter into negotiations with the new minister to establish a formula for building sewage treatment in the city of Victoria. I suggest to this minister that the taxpayers of Victoria would be quite prepared, by referendum, to see a special levy applied for sewage treatment in the city of Victoria and the capital region if ….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's going to fly this plane'?

MR. BLENCOE: If you cabinet ministers will stay in Victoria long enough, we'll use the government jet and take a little trip.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Can't do that? Okay.

Over and over again we have put before this Legislature and this government that we would like to see some negotiations. We are in the process of expanding, at great expense, the sewerage facilities in the greater Victoria area, but basically — as the minister knows — all we're going to do is continue to pump out into the saltchuck.

l would like to ask the minister today if he's prepared to enter into serious negotiations with the Capital Regional District to build, in the next two to three years, sewage treatment facilities in the capital region that will end the shame and embarrassment that we've been putting up with for years and years in this region and start to build a proper sewage treatment system in the capital region. We haven't had the financial support. I was on the Capital Regional District when a number of studies were done. The Capital Regional District was prepared to go to a major financial commitment if the provincial government would become a partner in cleaning up the sewage problem here in the capital region.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor city council.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not just city council. We have the members for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), Oak Bay (Hon. Mr. Smith); the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was here. It is a regional problem. It's all our problem, and I would suggest it's the problem of all parties in terms of this being the capital of British Columbia. It's time for some action, some negotiations, some commitment. The people of Victoria always bring this issue up. It's always on their minds, particularly in the Fairfield, Gonzales and Oak Bay areas. Studies and counts are done all the time about what's blowing back into residential areas.

I'd like to hear the minister say today that as the new Minister of Environment he is prepared, along with his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), to enter into negotiation with the Capital Regional District to build one of the finest sewage treatment facilities in this country right here in the capital of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PELTON: You know, I find it hard to imagine why something wasn't done in the beautiful city of Victoria a long time ago. I remember very clearly.... What really surprises me most of all is that I know for a fact that the second member for Victoria was an alderman and involved with the municipal council. I can't remember the exact name, but when I was an alderman in Maple Ridge we applied for a grant that came from the federal government — you'll recall what it was, hon. member; l can't remember it — and we got, I think, 10- or 15-cent dollars, and we got enough money to upgrade the whole sewage system in that area, to build an interceptor and to do many things.

The Ministry of Environment is certainly prepared to help in any way that we can, but it would seem to me that the initiative for these grandiose schemes of building the best sewage disposal system in British Columbia here in beautiful Victoria should come from the municipal level – not from the top down, but from the bottom up. You know, we're prepared to discuss this any time with the good mayor of Victoria and the aldermen, and the Capital Regional District people — whoever. But that's where the initiative has got to come from, because in the long run that's where the money is going to come from, and I'm sure that if the taxpayers of the greater Victoria area are prepared to approve a referendum, there would be no problem at all. I know that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be happy to join in and try to achieve this objective. Seriously and with all due respect, I think that the initiative has to come from the municipality, not from the top down, because we — from the information I'm able to gather on the outfall.... I think the main one is some 6,000 feet — something like that. This was an improvement over what they used to do. I guess at one time it all went onto the beaches. At least we've got an outfall that pumps it a little farther out now. That kind of primary treatment is very acceptable in a lot of places, and if it weren't acceptable here from the point of view of those people involved in health and so on, then there would be a requirement for secondary or tertiary treatment. At this point there is no such requirement. But if the city of Victoria wants to do that, let's talk about it — no problem.

I'd love to go for an airplane ride with you, hon. member. Is your credit good'? Mine's recently good, but I think we should at least share the cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll go with you and share the cost.

HON. MR. PELTON: You'll go three ways?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister may not be aware of all the history of the proposals that have been made by the CRD, but perhaps he would like to go back with his staff. I can't remember the exact year — it was probably five or six years ago — but Alderman Bob Wright, who is known to many of the members over there and who owns Sealand and various things like that, when he was on the CRD board and chairman of the solid waste committee, made, out of his own pocket, a proposal for sewage treatment. Unfortunately the provincial government turned thumbs down; they said there was no money available to go into a substantial cost-sharing proposal to build sewage treatment here. As a consequence, we have continued to build wider and longer pipes, and more of that stuff gets piped out and more birds feed on it and more stuff comes back on our beautiful beaches. We continue to get one level of government saying to another: "Well, it's their responsibility. They should initiate." Initiatives have been proposed by the Capital Regional District, but thus far the provincial government has said: "No, we're not prepared to put…."

[ Page 8060 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring some money to the table, not just requests.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: There have been requests for funding for sewage treatment for years in this region, for provincial government partnership on sewage treatment — years of just requests. What do we have to say'? We are prepared, and the CRD and the mayor of Victoria are prepared, to enter into negotiation. I can tell you right now that when we win this election, we will negotiate in good faith with the municipalities in this area to build sewage treatment in the capital region of British Columbia. We will negotiate that, and we will build it, and once and for all we will have these beaches cleared up, and our children won't have to read those signs and say to their parents: "Can I go swim in the polluted water, Mommy or Daddy?" What a great shame! You guys won't build sewage treatment in Victoria; you won't commit money here. Well, Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party government will negotiate with local government, and we will build sewage treatment in the capital region of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you have a referendum?

[5:15]

MR. BLENCOE: Sure, we'll have a referendum. If the people want a referendum, we'll have a referendum. But we will build it.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: You ask about money. You can find money for projects whenever you feel you want it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Half a million dollars for a party, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) reminds me. Half a million dollars for champagne. It's priorities. We happen to feel, on this side of the House, that the capital of British Columbia, Victoria, is a priority. It's a health issue, and it's a priority to us.

The minister has the opportunity today to say that he is prepared to get on the telephone tomorrow and negotiate with the chairman of the CRD and the mayors in this region to build sewage treatment. That's what we're committed to do: to clean up this embarrassment once and for all. That's all we're saying.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of specific questions related to the sewage treatment here in Victoria. I'm advised, and I would like confirmation or refutation, that the diffuser at the end of the existing Clover Point outfall is broken off. I'd like to know whether your ministry has been advised. I'm advised that there are breaks in the pipe, and there are unsupported spans leading off the shore. I'd like your ministry to advise us if that's the case.

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, we were advised of this, but we were advised at the same time that in spite of this the system was working satisfactorily.

MR. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I can hardly believe my ears. There is a program that the Social Credit government has approved, for $10 million, for the east coast connector, to come down on the east coast of Saanich and through Oak Bay, to divert all of the sewage from southern Vancouver Island and discharge it at the Clover Point outfall. We're advised by the minister that yes, the diffuser at the end of the existing pipe has broken off, the pipe is broken, and the spans are unsupported through the shore for some distance; yet the volume is going to increase by a substantial magnitude. You're advised that the broken pipe, with the broken diffuser, is working adequately, so you're going to turn the other way.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's unfortunate that we can't have illustrations to explain what this all about, because obviously the member is not aware. This is a very long pipe, and it's got holes interspersed throughout the length of the pipe. Diffusers — that's the word. There's a piece broken off at the front end of the pipe, but the pipe is still working well and adequately, according to the information we receive.

MR. HANSON: Is it not of concern to the minister that the span of pipe is unsupported'? It is of concern to the engineering people in the region. I'm advised that they don't know precisely where the break in the pipe is. The diffuser, with the holes, is at the end; that's gone; that's broken off. The pipe itself from the shore....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Oh, one of the members for Vancouver South was, l believe, down there at one point. So he indicated to this House. He said there were lots of crab.

I don't want to make light of a very serious issue. It is of concern to this city that all of the sewage from southern Vancouver Island is going to be diverted off two blocks east of Beacon Hill Park. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) from Saanich must be concerned about it. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) from Oak Bay must be concerned about it. That pipe seems to be defective. It is broken. They don't know precisely where along the whole span of the pipe it's broken. The diffuser that is full of holes that you alluded to at the end has broken off, and parts of the pipe are not touching the bottom of the ocean; they are unsupported. It's not known whether they can take the volume of sewage that you intend to divert through there. So I want to impress upon the minister that this is a very serious problem, and that we would like him, as the minister in charge of water quality in this province and, as was pointed out by my colleague, the water quality of the capital, one of the tourism meccas of our beautiful province.... Are you going to authorize the expenditure of $10 million to increase the volume into that pipe which is broken in some spots? I mean, we want answers. This is a serious problem. If this was happening in downtown Vancouver, people would be in the streets.

HON. MR. PELTON: I would never suggest that it's not a serious problem, but I would sure suggest that it's not my

[ Page 8061 ]

problem. It's not this ministry's problem. If there's a problem with the pipe, why doesn't the Capital Regional District go out and repair it?

MR. HANSON: It's all very well for the minister to try to pass the buck down. You are the senior level of government. You're also the person in charge of the quality of water in this province. And if you're going to abrogate your responsibility by pointing your finger, it is your government that did away with the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act which was brought in by this government on this side of the House to allow local governments to give them the wherewithal to have proper sewage treatment.

Would you give us an undertaking to share on a three-quarter/one-quarter basis — three-quarter paid by the province, one-quarter paid by the municipalities — the providing of treatment here in the city of Victoria and for the municipalities in Victoria? That was in place under the New Democratic Party government.

HON. MR. PELTON: We will commit, but you've got the numbers wrong. It is 75 percent from the municipality and 25 percent from....

MR. HANSON: One last time. Will the minister undertake to come back to the House before his estimates are finished to give us an account from the local authorities as to precisely where the pipe is broken, where the diffuser is and what the implications are of increasing the volume, and a guarantee that that will not befoul the beaches of Victoria?

HON. MR. PELTON: I would be pleased to bring that information back, but I would hope that the member would be satisfied to receive it after my estimates have gone through. It might take a few days, but I will bring it back.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, I want to just get formalized some of the discussion the minister and I were having through the Chair just a few minutes ago. I indicated or expressed a desire to see the minister enter into some negotiation, meet with the CRD and the area mayors to start negotiating sewage treatment in the capital region. I would like to know if the minister actually did say he is prepared to do that in the very near future. If so, can we organize a meeting in the next few weeks to get this project on the road?

HON. MR. PELTON: I am prepared to do that, Madam Chairman. There is no problem. l talk to people every day on subjects such as this, and I am pleased to meet with them any time. It is always a good idea when you're getting into an operation like this, though, to have a conversation between the senior staff members of both parties before you get up to my level or the mayor's level, but I don't mind. Or the chairman of the CRD: I'll meet with him any time. No problem; set it up.

MR. BLENCOE: is the minister prepared to indicate today that he is prepared to see the kind of cost-sharing arrangement that was afforded the Premier's riding in the area of Rutland, where they have received or will be receiving 75 cent dollars for sewage and treatment...? They will only have to contribute 25 percent to their program in Rutland. Are you prepared to see that we can expand that special treatment — that patronage treatment for Kelowna — so we can get 75-cent-dollar programs here in the capital region, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to correct the member for Victoria, because....

MR. MITCHELL: Is that a point of order?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, it's not a point of order. It's my comments on the Minister of Environment's estimates. I want to congratulate the Minister of Environment and his ministry for identifying a very highly sensitive environmental issue in the Okanagan Valley, where every member in this House knows that the lake system is a very delicate system and one of major concern, not just to the people of the Okanagan but to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada. It's unique.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

You may or may not know, but the south end of the Okanagan Valley is basically a semi-desert. It's the top end of the desert system that comes up from the United States. It's ecologically sensitive and one of major concern. It's been identified as an environmentally sensitive area. As a result, this special arrangement was made. I know the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) will support me in my comments of appreciation to the Ministry of Environment, to the former minister and the current minister, for establishing that environmentally sensitive zoning funding with regard to 75-25. Excellent move by a government that was concerned about a provincial asset.

MR. BLENCOE: Now we have a different ball game, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria is now recognized.

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Education has admitted to this House that special treatment was given to that area of the province at the expense of other regions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes, at the expense of other regions. And because you happen to have a group of Socred MLAs and the Premier of this province getting special treatment, this member is saying that the capital of British Columbia, one of the most beautiful tourist areas of British Columbia, one of the most beautiful cities around, isn't worth special treatment? Well, Mr. Chairman, the people of the capital region will be pleased to hear that the Premier's riding and the Premier's area gets special attention but the capital of British Columbia isn't entitled to the same kind of treatment and the same kind of programs.

I would like to hear the response of the Minister of Environment now, given that the Minister of Education has actually admitted this special treatment. They get it. Why can't the capital of British Columbia get this kind of facilities?

[5:30]

[ Page 8062 ]

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to cut off the minister, but I felt that I had to get involved in this debate, because the problem of the greater Victoria area, which includes my constituency, is the sole responsibility of 30 years of Social Credit government. The minister is well aware, and the previous Minister of Environment is aware and the minister before him was aware that the standards of sewage disposal into the saltwater comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment. For years this government has been okaying and rubber-stamping the continuation of longer and longer pipes into the salt water, and continuing to hide the fact that we eventually must look at the serious problem of pollution and start treating the sewage before it hits the water.

In my own riding, a few years ago, they had a special committee from the cabinet to rubber-stamp another sewage outfall that came out of one of the subdivisions that was allowed to be created in my riding and ran 1,000 feet into the centre of Esquimalt harbour. When their own pollution board turned it down, when their own ministry turned it down, the cabinet set up a special committee to rubber-stamp it. This has been the problem. Many members from this side of the House have been pleading that the Minister of Environment and the government of the province of British Columbia take some leadership and some responsibility and face up to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, you can't go around and blame this particular capital regional district or that mayor or some other group. This is a problem that we have to face. The previous ministers brought up the need and I have brought up the need to look at composting. In greater Victoria we have a lot of subdivisions on septic tanks. We have a large group who empty those septic tanks, and together with them and with the assistance of the minister's own staff we came up with a proposal to compost the septic tank effluent dump. What happened? The CRD turned it down, the ministry gave no leadership to allow it, and then they allowed them to dump it into the outfall out of Victoria.

The minister and the government must give some leadership. I agree with the member for Surrey, who says we have to stop the policy of dumping sewage into the saltwater. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs funded the sewer outfall on Saltspring Island 100 percent, because that was in the Minister of Finance's riding. The Premier only got 75 cent dollars, but the Minister of Finance got 100 percent dollars in his area.

We are still continuing the pollution of our saltwater, and the government is not giving any leadership or any input. I know that when the previous minister before the minister before the present minister set up a committee of his own staff to go out and check the outfalls on the Fraser River, they went out at night and found about 100 percent of the industrial polluters were polluting. Instead of going out and doing an effective job of enforcement, they blew the whole operation and told everybody what they were doing and gave them all a pat on the wrist and told them to correct their pollution, and they dissolved the committee that exposed it. This is the sort of stuff.... This government has not given any leadership. It has not given any direction, and that is the problem we have today.

Right now the federal government is trying to bring in regulations that all the pleasure boats have to have holding tanks so they won't pollute the environment. The federal government is giving some leadership. They are following the leadership that has come from the American side, but while they are trying to plug up a few little pleasure boats, this government is allowing longer and longer pipes to go out and pollute it.

For maybe a half an hour of any day of the week, the outfall that goes out at the end of Clover Point is greater than all the little pleasure boats that go around this coast. But still there is a kind of a wishy-washy, hide their head in the sand leadership from this government, and it's not only this present minister but every minister that has gone before him. They haven't given the leadership, they haven't faced up to sewage, and we do eventually have to face up to it.

I've heard all the arguments on the Hat Creek coal and what a great thing it is. I mean, sand will do exactly the same thing. But we must treat it; we can't go around and do another study, another study on another study that we have had with Hat Creek coal. For 20 years they've been talking about that, and for 20 years every piece of information has been somewhere hidden in that ministry's file. I know in talking to the staff that when I wanted to get information on the Hat Creek coal, they had reams of it.

They say that we're going to solve the problem. We're not going to solve the problem until this government gets the political will to do something like the state of Washington did and what New Zealand has done. There are many, many examples in this world where we can have proper treatment, and we don't have to continue to run sewers out into the water.

HON. MR. PELTON: All of the points raised by the two members for Victoria and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be addressed in the ongoing dialogue we're going to have with the CRD in the city of Victoria, so there is not really much point in standing up here and commenting on each one of the points they've made individually.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I was sitting here listening to the debate that's been taking place in the last little while and visualizing this diffusion pipe sitting out in the bay where the material is squeezed through, almost like through cheesecloth. I mean, it's just absolutely absurd, the fact that we're at this inane level of treatment for the sewage that is coming out of the Capital Regional District. I didn't realize that it was absolutely raw sewage; the only thing they do apparently is homogenize it and get the lumps out, and that's about it.

You know, it is absolutely incredible that we have large urban areas that are dumping what must be hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage a day into our water bodies. At this level in technology and in an industrialized society, how we can allow that to take place when we have the technology for proper treatment of our effluents and wastes.... We have the technology, and yet this ministry is allowing that to happen. It's just absolutely incredible. You know, the city of Vernon probably has a population of about 20,000, and I think they pump out about 2.5 million gallons a day, so expanding and extrapolating to what must be coming out of the Victoria and Vancouver area.... The volumes are just incredible, and there is a great need for the installation of proper treatment facilities.

I do want to go back to a point that was made. The member for Victoria was pressing the issue that there is a need for adequate funding for sewage. I want to say that I was really pleased when the minister brought in the declaration of the Okanagan Valley as an environmentally sensitive zone. I

[ Page 8063 ]

think it was a wise move, and I supported that. I think, as the minister well knows, it's an issue that I've been speaking on long and hard for some time now — the fact that communities throughout the North Okanagan, throughout the Okanagan itself, are in great need of appropriate sewage treatment facilities. As a matter of fact, the minister also knows it was a critical issue in the by-election, where I first came to the House from. Obviously the minister as well as the government have responded to what was a very crucial political issue, and I'm pleased to see that my voice as a concerned member of the opposition has been heard with regard to the sewage issue in the North Okanagan.

But I do want to point out that this 75 percent funding for those communities in the North Okanagan, although it's very much appreciated, should only be a first step. The member for Victoria is very accurate when he says that all areas of British Columbia should be looked on as being environmentally sensitive zones when it comes to appropriate sewage treatment facilities. Victoria is no different in many ways from where I come from in the North Okanagan — the city of Vernon. It's an area that relies heavily on its tourist industry; it's an area that has unique environmental qualities. They're different, of course, than the North Okanagan, but they're here — a unique environmental quality in the Victoria area. And certainly it should be a prime candidate to receive a higher level of funding than is presently allocated under the sewerage assistance formula.

I think the present formula only allows 25 percent provincial funding; 75 percent has to be front loaded by the cities or the regional districts. With the program in the North Okanagan, that funding has been reversed. It's interesting that that was exactly what my private member's bill last spring was advocating. I'm pleased to see that that recommendation has been looked on favourably. I'd like to suggest to the minister: take that next step and apply that 75 percent funding to the other $300 million in the sewerage assistance programs that are left outstanding, in need of funding at this time.

I guess the one problem I have with regard to the present facility that's going in up in the North Okanagan.... I think the minister is well aware of the fact that the waste management plan has now been approved. The fact is — and perhaps the minister would like to comment on this — that even though there are plans for what amounts to a very expensive, advanced waste water treatment plant.... Even though we are getting tertiary level treatment when that plant is finally installed, the fact is that effluent will still be going into the lake through a deep-water outfall. As the minister also well knows, it doesn't matter how well you treat that water, there is still a certain amount of the nutrients that go through. They simply can't be taken out, the phosphates and nitrates being the main contaminants.

I guess I find it rather confusing that when we do have a spray irrigation system in the North Okanagan, a land disposal system that has worked very well when it has been run properly.... There have been some alleged abuses of the system with regard to flooding in some of the lower-lying areas. But when the system is run properly and managed properly, it works very well.

[5:45]

I've got a lot of information that indicates that there's a lot of land that is still available for a land disposal system. I'm wondering why the minister accepted so eagerly a tertiary treatment system where the effluent is dumped into the lake, when we could easily be utilizing a system of putting that effluent back onto the land, putting it to work for us growing crops, rather than adding to the nutrient levels of Okanagan Lake and therefore exacerbating the whole milfoil problem that we're presently facing.

The minister seemed very eager to respond to the advanced waste water treatment and the lake dumping. I think there are alternative solutions right before our eyes that haven't been given adequate viewing. Earlier the minister pointed out the idea of exploring the coal sorption process. The subject was brought up earlier in the day. It is a cheaper system, apparently a more efficient system, and has a lot of advantages over the present chemical system that will be used. Has the minister any views in terms of utilizing land disposal and the coal sorption system, and are there any plans for pilot studies in the communities using this type of system?

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, the member knows full well that the situation with respect to the lakes in the Okanagan Valley is completely different from the situation that applies in the greater Victoria area or in other similar areas in the lower mainland. The problem in the Okanagan was that the lakes were being killed because of the phosphorous problem. It was a situation where there was a requirement, as far as the provincial government was concerned, to go to the tertiary treatment level before the water could be discharged into the lake. The reason it was being discharged there — and the member knows this full well too, because I heard him speaking about it when he was running for election.... To use the effluent as irrigation is all well and good, but when you get a summer like the year the by-election was held, when it rains and rains and rains, the problem is that you can throw that stuff onto the land but it's not absorbed; it runs into the lake. So you've got a problem.

The other attendant problem with the extension of such a program.... It's a good one, this using it for spraying on the land. The irrigation system is an excellent one, except that getting it to where this land that you mentioned is available presents a horrendous problem from the point of view of dollars and cents. We know that with tertiary treatment you can get up to 95 percent of the impurities out of the effluent. When you dump it all on the land you've got 100 percent. So you combine the two.

I would suggest that in the Okanagan Basin we are achieving a very high level of treatment, and other than the effluent that we get from agriculture, which is a difficult one to cover, and the one from septic tanks, which is also difficult — but we'll cope with it as time goes by — I think the waste management plan from Vernon takes these things into account. I think we've accomplished a great deal, and I'm pleased that we have that formula in place for that area. But I must emphasize that it relates to the fact that there is a requirement.... Other than the community's requirement, there is a requirement for tertiary treatment.

MR. COCKE: I may as well have fun while I'm here, but you know the only reason I'm getting up now is that I know the press are sound asleep. I wouldn't want anybody in the world to know what I'm going to talk about now. It's about this Victoria thing.

Were I a constant resident in Victoria I would be absolutely outraged. When they first put that long pipe out there.... The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) knows this, or certainly will if he looks into his files from some time ago. They put that long pipe out into the Strait of

[ Page 8064 ]

Juan de Fuca and kept on increasing the length, saying: "Well, ultimately we'll get it out far enough so that it's no problem." Let me tell you the problem. Not only is it polluting that area, it's polluting the air. There's an aerosol effect. If the wind blows, it caps the waves off, and as a matter of fact they have taken coliform counts on windows — close, farther away and as far away as the Royal Roads college out there — and have got a coliform count from that window from the aerosol that's pick up by the wind. And we're breathing that. Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The Minister of International Trade, Science and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and I don't live here, so we get a bit of it, but those people who live here.... I'm not sure that I wouldn't be just a little bit worried were I to be breathing that stuff every time there's a bit of wind.

In any event, I thought they made a mistake in the first place when they extended that pipe. But that was a mistake they made. Why would they consider anything other than some kind of proper treatment'? The treatment you get down there is: they pump it through, throw in a little chlorine to make sure they kill a few fish and pump it on out. There is no treatment; there is no nothing. Another 500 metres and then everything is said to be fine, but it's not fine. Those counts were done after the extension, and now I understand the pipe is cracked and bleeding and so on and so forth. I can't offer any kind of an engineering remark, but I still say that that's a lousy situation and that Victoria is a tourist mecca, so let's make sure that somebody gets together very quickly and decides on some sort of cleanup for this very important area.

HON. MR. PELTON: Just to keep the record straight, I should put into the record the fact that the matter that the member for New Westminster just spoke about is quite right. There was an aerosol effect, but it should be stated that we advised the Capital Regional District at the time they wanted to do this that in our opinion what they wanted to do wouldn't work. They insisted on doing it, so we said, "Go ahead and do it as an experiment," and they did. The results that you cite are what happened as a result of them doing this, so consequently they've now diverted it all through the other pipe. This pipe is still used, but only when there is an overflow situation.

MRS. WALLACE: It has been an interesting discussion in the latter part of this afternoon, and it has indicated to me something that I've been concerned about for a long time, which is that this government and this ministry don't take seriously their responsibility for the regulation of pollutants.

I remember that last year in the estimates I went through a series of ways and means of treating sewage waste. The minister was most interested, or appeared to be most interested. I talked about the cattail swamps that were used in Manitoba; I talked about what was done in New Zealand, where they dry sewage and use it as a forest treatment substance; I talked about areas where they utilize it to make fertilizer to make money. The minister was so interested he asked me to send him material. Then he talked about the coal filtration; that's been raised. What has happened to that material'? Has he looked at it'? Has he read it'? He stands up here and seems to know nothing about these things. He has taken no action on them.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: If he's looked at it, he certainly hasn't taken any action on it. He seems completely naive about it. It's somebody else's problem, not his.

Mr. Chairman, I think that indicates where we're at with our environment in this province. We have a minister who has no will to do a job for it. He has no desire to take the bit in his teeth and run with it to prove that this province can be the kind of beautiful British Columbia that we talk about it being. You know, if you keep pouring that stuff into the straits you're going to kill that sea life. Sure, it's important to maintain the life of Okanagan Lake, but let me tell you that the richest resource we have is that saltwater marine resource. If we kill that, we've gone a long way to destroying one of the greatest suppliers of nutrient for our entire world.

We have a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to ensure that that environment is protected. We have a responsibility to ensure that those pollutants that we make as we go on, with more and more technological advancement, more and more development...a responsibility to take the necessary steps to ensure that we do not continually pollute the water.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talked about the two important things being pure air and pure water....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I will move adjournment as soon as I finish this sentence, Mr. Minister.

That member talked about pure air and pure water, but nothing is being done by this minister. No, we're certainly not going to finish these estimates tonight. We have a lot more to do. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.