[ Page 8065 ]

CONTENTS

Columbia Bible College Act (Bill PR402). Mr. Schroeder.

Introduction and first reading — 8065

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

On vote 25: minister's office — 8065

Mr. Michael

Ms. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

COLUMBIA BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

On a motion by Mr. Schroeder, Bill PR402, Columbia Bible College Act, 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.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

HON. MR. PELTON: During the lively discussion which we carried on late yesterday afternoon, with respect to sewer outfalls and other such delightful subjects, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) raised a question of problems with the Clover Point outfall. There was a misunderstanding, I must say, on this side of the House when he mentioned the Clover Point outfall, because we were thinking of the Macaulay Point outfall. I certainly wouldn't want to mislead anybody; neither would I want to cause any concern to the Capital Regional District or to those wonderful people in the engineering departments of the city of Victoria. I'm sure the first member for Victoria would also not want to cause disconcertion on this particular matter.

I would like to have that into the record, Mr. Chairman, and just a short interim report that I'd like to bring on this matter. I ran it through the ministry last night. The ministry have been in contact with Capital Regional District engineers, who advise — I notice it was in this morning's paper that they know of no break in the Clover Point outfall or the diffuser, the line is completely intact and continues to perform as designed. Further, there is no knowledge of any problem with the structural support of the outfall.

With regard to the Macaulay Point outfall, where the misunderstanding occurred, it has been public knowledge for several years that a part of the diffuser section has separated from the outfall, but environmental monitoring has shown no problems to exist and the rest of the line is intact.

So once again, both the Macaulay Point outfall and the Clover Point outfall are functioning as they were designed.

MR. MICHAEL: Although I'm the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke, on behalf of the city of Victoria — I notice that neither of the members for Victoria is in the House this morning — I thank the minister for his response. I was somewhat concerned regarding the discussion yesterday on that subject. I will see that the information that the minister has relayed to the House this morning is indeed relayed to the city of Victoria, because of the absence of the two members for Victoria this morning.

MS. WALLACE,: Well, it's very generous of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to take this on his shoulders. But I can assure you that the members for Victoria are quite aware of what is going on in this House even at this moment and are quite aware of the situation. It seems that the minister misunderstood what the location was, but I think that that applies to the minister rather than to the people on this side of the House I just want to set that straight: the members for Victoria certainly are quite aware of the situation and don't need to get in touch with the city, because they are in very close touch with what is going on with the city and with the regional district.

We were discussing chemicals at some length yesterday as well, and at this point I would like to deal with a couple of specifics with the minister. I am sure he is aware of the situation at the little town of Topley, where we had the Texada Lime silos located. That was a real travesty, the length of time that was involved before those people even had a permit to operate. I wish the minister could have been at those public hearings and heard some of the things that went on there. I don't know if he has a transcript of them or not. What we saw happen was the company, Texada Lime, come in and tell how careful they were and how everything was in hand and there were no problems. Then we had the evidence given by the local residents, testimony that was just astounding. It was something like a revival, Mr. Chairman, after that happened, because suddenly the president of the company went to the microphone and said: "Look, I know we've been remiss. We trusted the trucking company. We didn't regulate this the way we should. But if you just give us a permit, we've seen the light and we'll behave ourselves in future." Then there was more testimony given and more of the same. Just as the thing was about to close down, suddenly the representative from the trucking company went to the microphone, and it was the same thing. Suddenly he had seen the light. He had been remiss, and if this permit was just granted, they would do a good job in the future. It was more like a revival than a public hearing.

I think what it points out is that the ministry is so thin that they are not able to be on top of these things. Either that or else they just don't really care. I think the people who work for the ministry care, but I am not sure that the minister has the real concern of those people at heart.

They now have issued a permit, and of course the local people are appealing it because they feel that those silos should be moved, that they should not be placed in the middle of a residential area. The permit has, actually, some very good conditions in it. There are certain things that are supposed to be done by I'm not sure whether it's the beginning of June or the end of June. But the last time I checked up there, none of those things had been done — no fencing, nothing. None of those things had been done. They have till the end of June, and I'm just wondering whether or not the minister is aware that nothing has happened. Mind you, they're being more careful about how they handle the stuff, but they're not taking the precautions of fencing off the yard, putting up the signs, doing the kinds of things that will prevent the school kids, who are right next door, from getting in there. Now they have, as I say, till the end of June, but nothing has happened to date. I would hope that the minister will make sure that that is closely watched.

Now the material involved is quicklime — calcium oxide. This leads me into another topic that relates very closely to the transportation of dangerous goods. The minister spoke

[ Page 8066 ]

at some length earlier about how he's working so closely, and gets the manifests and so on on every piece of material that is transported — dangerous cargo.

I wonder if he is aware that Texada Lime has applied to the federal government, to the board — I just don't recall the name of the specific bureaucracy to which they have applied — to have calcium oxide removed from the hazardous goods list. I have certainly protested this, and I am wondering whether or not the minister has taken any steps in protesting. [10:15]

In the discussions on hazardous goods, it is interesting to note that we've had a tremendous number of narrow escapes recently; talk to the people around the area where he lives where we've had the derailment of cars. It seems that we're just waiting for a really serious accident to happen. Now I know he gets all the lists, but I just wonder what he's doing about it and whether or not he has any influence with the federal authorities to ensure, first of all, that things like calcium oxide are maintained on the hazardous goods list — also, any precautions that are taken when we know that those shipments are coming through. Because we seem to be having an undue number of spills and accidents lately relative to the transport of dangerous goods. Just for those few questions about that lime silo and about the transport of hazardous goods, I'll take my place and await the minister's response.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, l suppose I should have started off this morning by inquiring after the member's health again, because the very vicious attack that was made against me on this lime issue is something that I really didn't expect on such a beautiful morning.

However, I have some information which I'd like to pass along to the member. I'm sure she knows about this, but she didn't mention it when she was talking about the Topley situation. It goes back quite some way. It goes back to January of 1985 when the waste management branch of the ministry began to get some complaints from residents of Topley regarding Texada Lime's silos in that area. At the time waste management investigated the problem, they determined that the company had not been very diligent in maintaining and operating the facilities to minimize the amount of lime dust that was emitted, and in February the company was advised to apply for a permit under the Waste Management Act. In April and early May of 1985 the company initiated some repairs, and conducted a general clean-up of the site.

In the same month, in May, the member for Omineca (Hon. Mr. Kempf) wrote to my office to express his concerns on behalf of his constituents, and in the reply to that member it was indicated that an informational meeting would be held in Topley to give the company an opportunity to explain the operation of the silo, to give the citizens of Topley the opportunity to express their concerns and to give their recommendations to the ministry before a decision was made by the regional waste manager as to whether or not a permit should be issued under the Waste Management Act.

In November of '85 the member for Cowichan-Malahat called our office to determine the status of the situation, and as a result of that telephone call a letter was written to the member advising about the informational meeting that was to be held in Topley in January 1986. In November again the member for Cowichan-Malahat wrote asking a number of further questions with respect to the public meeting. So the member is very diligent in her duties as critic for the environment.

The meeting was held in Topley, and it was on January 15 at the community hall. There were about 100 people there, including the member for Cowichan-Malahat, and there was also TV coverage. The residents were very angry about the lime silo, and their concerns were based on the company's poor performance in the past. The silo is approximately 100 metres away from a number of the residences, and their concerns were for possible health hazards from the lime dust, nuisance conditions, and property damage to lawns, gardens and other things. The company stated that it would send a qualified industrial appraiser to the community to estimate the amount of property damage that had been caused by the lime emissions.

The current status, Mr. Chairman, is that a permit was issued on February 14, 1986, with very strict operating and maintenance requirements, including the requirement to measure lime dust in the ambient air in the community. The residents of Topley, as was to be expected, have appealed the decision, and the appeal process is in motion. I can't say specifically when the appeal will be heard, but the appeal will be heard.

As for the matter of toxic chemicals and other such things being controlled, in the meetings that the ministry has had with the federal government through the CCREM, we are developing a list — I think I mentioned it yesterday — that we hope will gain acceptance across Canada. We are at liberty to put different chemicals on that list for discussion, and the member will be pleased to know that we have included lime.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In the gallery today we have a large group of grade 10 students from Brookswood Secondary School in Langley, our largest secondary school. l understand that there will be three groups visiting us today because of the size of the delegation. They're accompanied today by Mr. Lloyd Rutten, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three subjects I'd like to deal with and talk to the minister about, relating to the report and the considerations given to matters by the Wilderness Advisory Committee. These may have been dealt with already by the minister in the operation of this department. If so I'm sure he'll tell me what has happened. In a couple of them we've had correspondence with the minister, and in one of the three that I want to deal with there hasn't been.

I'd like to deal first with the area around a community called Cedarvale along the Skeena River, about halfway between Terrace and Hazelton, and a mountain range there identified as the Seven Sisters. There is a very active Seven Sisters Society in the area that has been working for some time to promote the preservation of that mountain range and the area surrounding it for purposes other than resource exploitation. The Seven Sisters Society and a number of other people who are not members of the society but who see the potentials of the Seven Sisters think that it has a far greater potential both for its natural aesthetic qualities in themselves and also for tourism. There isn't anything of this nature anywhere in that part of the country that lends itself so

[ Page 8067 ]

admirably to tourism or to an easily accessible wilderness area — accessible right alongside the highway. People who promote it think that it would lend itself to that purpose.

There seems to be a unanimity on this matter as between the constituency association of the New Democratic Party and the constituency association of the Social Credit Party in Skeena. I say it seems to be the case, because representations have been made by the Seven Sisters Society to the New Democratic Party constituency association and to a number of other groups in the area, advocating a moratorium on resource exploitation in the area, or at least a limitation of some of the potential of that, in order that an examination could be made of its tourist potential. The constituency association of the New Democratic Party earlier this year passed a resolution to that effect, a copy of which was sent to the minister, wherein it was referred to in another letter. I just heard from the constituency executive of the Social Credit Party in the riding that they had considered this matter as a result of my having written to them in March and had dealt with it and passed it on to the minister. That's why I said earlier it seems to be unanimity, because from the covering letter that I received from the Social Credit association it didn't specifically say they approved of this, but they dealt with it and passed it on to the minister. So that's one subject matter I think needs to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, in order that we can look at the potential from a long-term job-creation point of view around tourism and recreation in an area admirably suited to those two activities.

Now the Wilderness Advisory Committee did not deal with the Seven Sisters proposal in its report, but when a portion of the committee met in Terrace, representations and a presentation were made to them by the Seven Sisters Society, but they made no comment about it, maybe because it was not within the focus of the committee in the first instance, maybe because in that sense their focus was too circumscribed and too narrow and they felt that they didn't have a mandate to examine the Seven Sisters Society's wilderness proposal. But it is worth examining and dealing with, and worth receiving the support of the ministry to set it aside for the purposes I've mentioned.

I also want to deal with a portion of the report involving the Gitnadoix River or the Gitnadoix watershed. Gitnadoix is a Tsimshian name of the Tsimshian nation of native Indian people. It was the homeland of a phratry of the Tsimshian people, the Gitnadoix, who lived in that area, and who, so history seems to indicate.... A smallpox epidemic visited itself upon the Gitnadoix around the time that the non-Indian came to the north coast. The Hudson's Bay Company established its trading posts on the coastal area around the mouth of the Nass River and subsequently at Port Simpson. Because of the combination of those two factors — the most notable one being, I would think, the smallpox epidemic — the Gitnadoix moved from their homeland, along with other tribes of that nation who lived along the lower reaches of the Skeena River. The Gitnadoix people are now a part of the Port Simpson band; it is one of the seven tribes that merged to form the Port Simpson band. The head chief of the Gitnadoix lives at Port Simpson.

The wilderness advisory committee gives recognition to the fact — as it says in one of its recommendations — that the Gitnadoix traditional interests and use should be recognized, etc. I think it should go a little bit further than that, and the Gitnadoix should be consulted and involved in any activity that takes place with respect to that watershed. That's one aspect of it. I don't think there would be any difficulty in dealing with the Gitnadoix in terms of identifying it as a class A park and a conservancy area, which has been proposed for some time now. There appears to be no impediment whatever in the way of following the recommendations of the wilderness advisory committee with respect to Gitnadoix. They go back quite a number of years in assessing the interest that has been shown in the area. They deal with the resource question, point out that it is minimal and that the Gitnadoix watershed lends itself admirably to a class A park and a wilderness conservancy.

[10:30]

That's something the minister could have done beforehand, without the Wilderness Advisory Committee, because all of the relevant information has been available for some time. All that the wilderness advisory committee did was sort of look over the information and the material that had been available and say: "Yes, we should do what should have been done some years ago." That would be an admirable move to make in conjunction with, as I said earlier, the Gitnadoix themselves in Port Simpson.

I want also to deal with the reference to what is called the Khutzeymateen, or the headwaters of Khutzeymateen Inlet, just outside of Prince Rupert. This one is not quite so easy, I suppose would be a decent enough word, to deal with as the other two. It seems to me that the Wilderness Advisory Committee erred in assessing the relevant information insofar as using that information to come to a conclusion. I think the committee erred in the conclusion.

Let me read some portions of the report itself, which the minister has. It talks about the background and is fairly short. There's a page and a half of a sort of analysis of the Khutzeymateen proposal. It points out from the very beginning that the Khutzeymateen has "high ecological significance," and I quote those words from the report. It goes on to say why: coastal watershed, high fishery, high wildlife, high forest values, high quality grizzly bear habitat.

What has occurred over the years with the population increasing and "civilization" coming further and further into the area is that people drive grizzly bears away. Grizzlies don't like people any more than people like grizzly bears. Civilization does that; they move away from the areas and back into their natural location. There used to be quite a number of grizzlies along the middle and lower reaches of the Nass River. But Columbia Cellulose's logging activities there, going back some 20 or 25 years, working and logging along the lower reaches of the Nass, drove grizzly bears away from that area and gradually moved them back into a pocket; and one of those pockets is the Khutzeymateen Inlet. It's almost the last refuge in that area for grizzly bears. That's mentioned in here as well.

Then the report goes on to say: "Despite the significance, despite the high ecological potential or values that are companion to the headwaters of the Khutzeymateen, surprisingly little research has been conducted in the area." They recognize all of these factors, but surprisingly little research has been conducted.

Then it goes on to point out that the Ministry of Environment has developed some alternative schemes with respect to the Khutzeymateen valley. It says that one is to establish either a permanent ecological reserve or a temporary wildlife management area; and the second is a timber management option. Then it goes on to point out.... I think this is where the committee errs. It says, first, that surprisingly little

[ Page 8068 ]

research has been done to identify what impact industrial activity would have upon that area of high ecological value — all across the board: fish and wildlife, terrain, flora and fauna, and everything else; there's surprisingly little information about that. It points out that Ministry of Environment staff are critical of the timber company's logging consultant's opinions about the area. It points out that the consultant for Wedeene River Logging, the company that wants the timber in there, confirmed that he had never had an opportunity to visit the valley. It sets this out as the background: high ecological value, worth preserving, surprisingly little research done, errors in the timber company's consultant's position about things — an admission that he or the consultant firm had never been in the valley at all. Then they go on to say: "The lack of adequate information in support of an ecological reserve of this size for scientific study makes it difficult to justify." The lack of adequate information for ecological purposes makes it difficult to deal with the ecological question, but it's okay to log it. That's why, I submit, they are in error.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I submit that the Wilderness Advisory Committee should have said something of this sort: that the lack of adequate information with respect to ecological matters should be used as the foundation to get that information first, before coming to a conclusion about ruining the area by logging. The minister would be well advised to ignore the committee recommendations about logging in there. Admittedly it is diluted somewhat by saying that logging should only be permitted if sufficient field studies, acceptable to the wildlife branch, are done, and that sort of thing. But we know from experience that once logging starts, once the devastation of a high-lead logging operation takes place, which is what would be happening in here, you can cause the damage beforehand and then it's too late. I would submit that the field studies need to be done first, that the research needs to be done first, that the area needs to be examined from the point of view of preserving it.

I would suggest the minister take advantage of the first option developed within his ministry — that is, establish either a permanent ecological reserve or a temporary wildlife management area over the entire watershed, or all lands below 500 feet above sea level. In other words, preserve that area below 500 feet — that's one of the possibilities. The minister would be serving the interests of that whole area by following what I've just suggested he follow.

As an afterthought, it seems, from my reading of some relevant information about the Wedeene River Logging proposal, that the purpose is not to acquire sufficient volume of logs from that area to justify the building of a sawmill in Prince Rupert, but to get a sufficient volume of logs out of that area so that they can export the logs — which would be number one, top-quality logs — to have cash flow in order to assist in the building of the sawmill. That seems to be what the rationale is for that purpose. It's not to acquire logs for the purpose of a value-added aspect here in British Columbia, but to acquire them for export for cash flow. If that's the case, and that seems to be what it might well be, then running in that direction is just simply going to injure the thing. I submit the minister shouldn't permit that. Do the studies and the research first. Expose to the general public what the results of that research are and what the analysis is, and then get involved in the discussion as to whether something other than an ecological reserve is worth pursuing.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, I really sincerely appreciate the comments of the member for Skeena because, having talked to him on one or two of these issues previously, I understand his deep and abiding interest in this particular subject. I not only appreciate his comments but I am going to make a point, because there was a lot of substance in what he said, of rereading it in the Blues and letting it soak in.

I just might say, because the member's statement was more that than a series of questions, that he is absolutely right in many of the things he says. For example, the mandate of the wilderness committee was relatively limited, and of course that was because of the time-frame that was allowed for them to do their work. That is one of the reasons, I suppose, why they didn't study the subject of the Seven Sisters and Cedarvale, the place where they are or near where they are. It wasn't on the list.

I'm sure that most people in this House know that there are many such areas that have been brought forward for discussion. I am very excited about the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, and there are areas in there which will have to be looked at — like the member suggests, the Khutzeymateen particularly. We in the ministry have no problem in admitting that we must get in there and do more research on the grizzly bear population, because it is one of the largest in British Columbia and one of the few large grizzly bear populations left in North America, I understand. They don't like people, and we mustn't drive them away, so a great deal of consideration must be given to this particular problem when we do get in a position to deal with the report and the recommendations therein.

As I said before, I'm excited about the report. There are a lot of good things in there, and I believe that when we find ourselves in a position to take some constructive action on the suggestions that have been made, the report itself will provide almost a blueprint for how we will deal with the matters that were placed before the committee for their consideration and recommendation, as well as for other matters which come forward, like the Seven Sisters. I think one of the pillars or the foundation of the report is the recommendations which come forward throughout the report in various ways that consultation is the order of the day. I am sure that that will be part and parcel of any ongoing process which is developed out of the report.

In the matter of the Gitnadoix, I hear very clearly what the member says in that matter as well, and I'm positive that when we — and I hope it happens very soon — arrive at the point in time where we can begin to take the actions necessary to implement some or all of the recommendations in that report, that will be looked at in a favourable way.

Yes, I guess not all of the recommendations would be completely palatable to everyone, but they do give us something to work from. Unless the member has some specific questions, I think he knows that this is the subject I enjoy talking about and that I take a great deal of interest in. I can assure him, as I said at the outset, that the suggestions he has made and the points that he has made are very well taken, and I'm going to make a point of getting the Blues and reading them again. Thank you.

[10:45]

[ Page 8069 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister's last few words were "enjoys talking about these subject matters." I'm interested in having something done about them, rather than talking about them. I enjoy talking about them as well, but I don't have the power to do anything about them. Maybe that will change.

I understood the minister to say that yes, they were desirous of getting into the Khutzeymateen to conduct further studies or research in that area and find out what the situation is. The companion to that then I think should be no movement on the logging side until those research studies are completed. Could the minister give us that assurance?

HON. MR. PELTON: I can't do that, because at this point in time the report of the wilderness committee has not been officially received.

MR. HOWARD: The report of the wilderness committee — is that what the minister said — has not been officially received? I may be in error, but I've got a copy of it here that says: "We, the Wilderness Advisory Committee duly appointed by the Hon. Austin Pelton, Minister of Environment for the province of British Columbia, have prepared the following report, 'The Wilderness Mosaic,' and fully endorse its conclusions and recommendations." It's dated at the city of Vancouver, March 7, 1986; then there are the signatures of all the committee members. If it hasn't been officially received, where is it?

HON. MR. PELTON: I don't think that we're here to play a game of semantics. I know that the member knows precisely what I mean. The report was filed by the committee, and the report has been examined for some time now by senior officials of the ministries involved, but the report has not been approved to this point in time by the government. Therefore it would be presumptuous on my part to suggest any specific action related to any specific recommendation until I have the approval of the government to proceed.

MR. HOWARD: Then the minister's use of the words "officially received" was incorrect. The minister was in error. It wasn't a question of playing semantics. I was taken by the words "officially received," that's all. But it has been officially received and it's being studied, so that's fine and dandy.

All I was asking for was that the minister said that his ministry is interested in getting into the Khutzeymateen area and doing the research work and doing the studies and finding out what's happening, even in the absence of any approval or disapproval on the part of the government in terms of this. He won't make that commitment, so I have to repeat it: could he guarantee that no damage as a result of industrial activity decisions made by his government will take place before the studies and the research are completed? If we can't get that guarantee, then there's not much point in talking about it any further.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I've just got a couple of matters that won't take long to present and I'm sure won't take the minister long to deal with. One of them arises from a letter that was written to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), but I think it might well have been copied to the Minister of Environment. It won't take long; I'd like to read it now, Mr. Chairman.

"I have recently learned of a conviction under the B.C. Wildlife Act in which a Mr. Taleghani was fined $50 for killing a five-point bull elk in the Lake Cowichan area last September. There is no open season there for these animals, and the offender, a graduate of the CORE program, I understand, cannot claim he mistook an elk for a deer. To put it bluntly, the penalty was a bloody disgrace.

"I have participated in elk translocation projects on Vancouver Island in the hopes of re-establishing viable elk herds already badly depleted or annihilated by poaching, and I am disgusted to learn that the considerable time and effort I and others have expended are being negated by your government's refusal to increase the maximum penalty for such offences and by your ministry's refusal to instruct regional Crown counsel to not treat these offences in such a cavalier manner.

"I note from recent media reports that both the federal Minister of the Environment and the Alberta government are currently pursuing the implementation of maximum fines in the amount of up to $150,000, thus giving the courts more latitude to impose a deterrent rather than a poaching licence fee. What action, if any, is your government taking to bring maximum fines in B.C. more in line with today's economic reality, and with the aesthetic value of our wildlife resource?"

This is signed by Mr. Harling.

I know the subject has been raised in general, but this is a very specific incidence raised by an individual. I know that the letter was written to the Attorney-General. The Minister of Environment may not have had this case brought to his attention, but my concern at the moment is whether or not he supports this constituent's request that there be a much higher fine, at least, available to the courts; whether or not they impose it is up to the judge, I suppose, but something that would act as a deterrent rather than, as my correspondent suggests, as a poaching licence fee. I wonder whether the minister supports this, whether he has any intention.... I can't ask what he's doing in cabinet, but I would hope that he's making representations to the Attorney-General to have some changes made.

The other matter is something that I would normally raise by simply sending a letter to the minister or to his ministry, but I just came across it as I was reading some correspondence waiting for an opportunity to address the first issue that I discussed. In this particular instance the minister probably doesn't know about it, and I think perhaps his ministry may not even know — at least not at the level represented here this morning. It's about a proposed rezoning of residential property in Lantzville. The applicant is a Josie Robertson, and it's dealing with rezoning lot 2, district lot 27-G, formerly known as district lot 27.

As I say, it's the kind of thing that I would raise with the minister, and I will. I think he won't know the specifics of it. It's addressed in this case to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), but I'm asking the Minister of Environment because there is a reference in this letter to the Ministry of Environment taking a position with respect to the sewage problems. There is no sewage system in that area. The proposal is to develop a restaurant where there already is a sewage problem.

[ Page 8070 ]

I'll just read this one section of the letter: "The area does not have sewers. The septic fields in the area have now reached the saturation point, and a restaurant in this area would create serious drainage problems for the surrounding properties. The Ministry of Environment has apparently expressed concerns in this regard, and I trust their report is available to you."

I intend to be contacting the Minister of Municipal Affairs about this, and I wonder whether the Ministry of Environment can provide me with any information about this reference to their involvement in this particular instance. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to send a copy of this to the minister because, as I say, I doubt very much that he'd be aware of this at this point.

HON. MR. PELTON: The first item that the member for Nanaimo brought up.... Most of the correspondence does go across my desk, and I think I recall that one.

MR. STUPICH: It went to the A-G, not you.

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, but we got a carbon copy, I believe. I think we did.

But in response to, I think, the main question that the member had, we are in the process of making representations to have the fines increased. Certainly it is correct — and it was stated not too many days ago by our Attorney-General — that we were talking about the levying of these fines, that the decisions that are made in respect to how much the fines will be are not ours to adjudicate. But yes, the member has my assurance that we are in the process of seeking increased fines for poaching and for this type of thing.

I don't have any knowledge of the Lantzville thing. I'd be more than happy to provide the member with any information that we have available.

MR. MITCHELL: There are a couple of things that I think we should discuss. I know the minister has been skirting around them and failing to accept his duty as Minister of Environment, especially when it was the minister who set up the committee known as the Wilderness Advisory Committee to study many — and I say many — environmentally sensitive areas in British Columbia that should be protected. It's not for me at this time to make any attack on the members of that committee, but the job that was given to that committee was an impossible job. I say it was an impossible job for any of us as human beings to really do the studies from a regional point of view and come up with the answers that the people of British Columbia demand; that is, an intelligent development of our resources.

I kind of feel that the minister, being a nice man like he is, and very acceptable, very friendly, was used as.... He was suckered in by the rest of the cabinet to lay a smokescreen. And that's all he did — lay the smokescreen so that they could hide from doing and making the decisions that have to be made.

When you go through this "Wilderness Mosaic," as it's called.... It's a beautiful name, and it has some excellent recommendations in it. But at the top of the list of areas that they were to study was south Moresby. South Moresby has been studied and studied and studied. It has had one of the best types of committees ever set up. It was a local regional committee that was set up with residents of that area. They had the support of the technical staff of forestry, the technical staff of park development, and the technical staff of the environmental ministries. They studied it for three years and they brought in four recommendations, or not so much four recommendations but recommendations that allowed four different options, and it was up to the government to make a decision.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The previous Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who was faced with that decision has shifted into another ministry. But we have to start making decisions if we're going to protect these areas that are environmentally sensitive. We can't continue to have smokescreens and study after study and allow this ministry to continually allow these areas to be logged, to be exploited or, worst of all, not to be developed and to realize the potential that is needed to create jobs in this province. I say, Mr. Chairman, that the one recommendation that should be before this House right now is a recommendation or some kind of bill to set up a wilderness study committee that is permanent. As part of that group, before any type of legislation is introduced or any decisions are made, there should be some regional input.

[11:00]

I say to this minister, who is kind of protecting the upper bureaucracy of his own ministry — this is not an attack on individuals but an attack on a philosophy — that nobody in Victoria or nobody in a central area, including me if I was on the committee, can give an honest report knowing all the local problems that exist in that area. You can look at all the maps, you can study all the reports, but it's the people who live in that area who have the technical input and the knowledge of the area's potential. There has to be input, not only from the forestry ministries, the park ministries, the environmental ministries, but local input.

When you go through this you will find a very cut-down version of some really thoughtful briefs that have been prepared by people who have had the time to study one issue, and they have become experts on that. When you're going through hundreds of reports of hundreds of experts, you miss some of the important positions that they have taken. They're lost in the shuffle. I don't say that is anything detrimental to the individual, but it's something that all of us as human beings would do in the same position.

This is why we have been asking from this side of the House that you do have some regional development, that you do have some regional input, and that you do build on the resources that we have there in all their potential. Logs for export are not the only potential; there is potential for tourist development in every part of this area. There are areas that can be developed as destination points to go to, with input from the government, with input from the community, and input from all the industries.

Let us not have another study and then sit on it, and then get up in the House and say: "Well, it hasn't been officially accepted." Well, the one that has been official accepted was the one that was done on south Moresby four or five years ago. It sat around and I imagine it's still collecting dust, because the government will not make a decision. They will not give the people in that area an opportunity to start working towards a final solution.

Every one of these areas has great potential. I know when I brought up, under the Parks ministry, the Brooks Peninsula, I was quite shocked that the minister didn't even know where

[ Page 8071 ]

it was. I was quite happy to see that the present Minister of Environment managed to find it. They managed to study it, and they brought in a report. There is great potential in the Brooks Peninsula.

You talk about Robson Bight. The Parks ministry have done a study on that area. They have made recommendations for a class A park, and it took two years to get the ministry even to let me see it. So we have another study on it. I don't think in any of the recommendations did they really take seriously the recommendations that were in the study made by the technical staff of the parks branch that indicated that Robson Bight is a potential destination place for all of North America. It is one of the few areas where you can go and you can watch the killer whales rub on the beach. I know when you talk to the people in that area they say the big problem with it right now is because it got too much publicity. Now everyone is going up there, and boats are going into that area where the killer whales come in and are harassing them. You can have 20 boats up there. It only takes one idiot with a tenhorse outboard motor to go out and harass that resource. That is a potential tourist resource of the killer whales.

The Americans have spent millions on a geyser in the states, and we have a far bigger potential and absolutely ignore it. The government sits there and makes their snide little remarks, and they don't look at that potential. They don't even look at the report. They move the boundary away, the recommendations to put it under the parks branch and have some protection, which is needed. The people who have been studying it and who are experts on it have been saying this year after year, but the government does nothing. They hide behind their smokescreen laid down by this minister, laid down by this minister to do nothing, and they have no intention of doing anything.

By the time the NDP come to power, all the trees will be cut down and the whales will be dead, and the Senator over there will be saying: "Why don't you do something? Why don't you bring them back?" We'll have to hire his running-mate to find out what happened to the whales. But this is what is happening, Mr. Chairman: you are doing nothing. You're not looking and you're not listening. That's worst of all: you're not listening to those who have studied it, those who have been involved, and you're not accepting the responsibility that a government should accept.

Every one of these issues can be solved. Every one of these areas must be solved. If a moratorium was put on every one of the areas that the government has identified as being environmentally sensitive, it would add only another 2 percent to the timber that can't be harvested. So either do something positive or put a moratorium on all the areas that you have recommended to be studied, and at that time bring in the proper legislation to do the fine-tuning. None of these areas — I say this in all due deference to the minister and his whole ministry — can be fine-tuned by running a line around a flat piece of map.

It is a lot easier for a bureaucrat to come to the minister and say: "Now this is the area I think it should be." He runs a nice black or red or purple line around it, and the minister, who doesn't know the area.... As the critic I know that some of the areas I can't even pronounce, let alone know the areas in detail. But you have a nice line around it and politically you can get up in the House and say: "Now we're going to do this and we're going to do that." But you don't know the area. You don't know the potential, and you have to listen to the groups from those areas like the one in south Moresby and the Queen Charlottes, the Cascade wilderness areas. There are groups, such as the Lovers of the Stein, or whatever their particular group is.... Every one of these groups has studied it, and every one wants an opportunity to sit down with somebody in the ministry — the Ministries of Forests, Parks, Tourism and Environment.

Until we start doing something — instead of smokescreens and talk — that is going to be constructive, that is going to create a potential for more jobs, we're going to continue going from one disaster to another. I find it embarrassing for all those people who worked on that particular committee, who made recommendations, who travelled at great inconvenience all over the province, who heard briefs presented by hundreds and hundreds of well-meaning British Columbians, who believed this government was going to do something, who didn't believe the cynical opposition when they said it's just another smokescreen, just another dodge to get away from facing the issues. The minister gets up and says: "Well, it hasn't been officially received." It could sit there, and he could get up until the end of his term of office saying it has not been officially received. I don't know what it takes to be officially received, but I imagine someone paid for this printing. And it didn't come to me in a brown envelope; it came with a nice card from the minister — for my information, to study. This is the issue that I think the minister.... Don't be suckered into doing something that the rest of the cabinet are afraid to do. Come on in and make a recommendation. Take a stand. If you take that stand, good or bad, we will support it.

MS. SANFORD: During last year's estimates I raised with the Minister of Environment an issue which is quite significant within my constituency. It relates to the Mount Washington copper-mine, which closed down some years ago, and which is now causing untold problems as far as the fishery is concerned. I'll just review with the minister the fact that many years ago there used to be over 200,000 pink salmon in the Tsolum River every year. That diminished and dwindled down, mostly as a result of logging practices over the years. Stocks began to come back, until the leaching from the Mount Washington mine began. Now there are absolutely no salmon in the Tsolum River. I mentioned this to the minister last year, and I subsequently had correspondence from him. It's almost a year ago that I had a letter from the minister, indicating that it is an issue of concern and that the Ministry of Environment is collaborating with federal Fisheries, via Environment Canada, and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in analyzing the historical water quality data.

They say they've already set up contact with these various organizations, but I would like to know whether or not, at this stage, there is any ministry that will assume responsibility for the cleanup involved there. Based on the preliminary information that I have, the costs could be quite extensive. Will it be a joint federal-provincial project? Are the Mines people going to be involved? Has anybody assumed any responsibility, at this stage, regarding the cleanup of that particular project?

The second issue that I would like to raise is one that has already been raised in this Legislature, but I feel that I must say something on it as well. This relates to the use of herbicides and pesticides in the province. We have within the constituency of Comox two watershed areas that are now going to be sprayed, according to permits that have been

[ Page 8072 ]

issued through the Ministry of Forests. The people in our area are very concerned about the use of these aerial sprays in watersheds. It may be that they don't have all the information that they should have; it may be that some of these herbicides and pesticides are quite safe to use; but it may also be that they are not safe to use. I think that the experience we have all been through this last week, with the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, has given us some kind of insight into what can happen with the way in which we are galloping ahead in terms of the use of nuclear power, and various herbicides, pesticides and poisons that we are putting into our atmosphere. We've all been assured about the safety of power plants. We see what can happen. We've all been assured that it's safe to use these sprays in various parts of the province, but we can also wonder at the impact that these poisons are having not only on wildlife but on humans as well.

I think if you look at the increase in the number of diseases that seem to be afflicting people in British Columbia, Canada and North America, for that matter, it's time that we had a second look at the ways in which we are allowing people to get permits. I realize a lot of this is approved under the federal government, through Agriculture Canada, but I think that the minister, in his concern for the environment and for the impact that some of these herbicides and pesticides may have on people, should use whatever influence he can with the other members of his cabinet — Forests, Agriculture and others that are inclined to have a lot to do with these herbicides and pesticides — and with his federal counterpart, in terms of let's have a second look, let's ensure that the safety is there when we approve these products.

[11:15]

People are alarmed. I know that based on a meeting that was held in Fanny Bay, where most of the community was out; they were, to a person, opposed to the use of Roundup within the Fanny Bay watershed. There are alternatives. I think this is what the minister should be looking at. There are alternatives, certainly in terms of brushing and weeding within the industry. Many of the people in the communities are now attempting to convince the Forest Service that if they are given the job themselves within that community of ensuring that that brushing and weeding is done, it will be done.

Already the Forest Service has granted people in the Merville area the right to do the brushing and weeding in exchange for no spraying. The Forest Service has at least bowed, to a certain extent, in recognition of the fact that people are alarmed about it. They're opposed to it. Who knows what effects these various sprays have on people? I would like the minister to comment on those two issues.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, on the Mount Washington mess — and I think it's only fair to call it that — although it has taken what might seem to be an inordinately long time, a report is in its final stages. It's being prepared. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm told within the ministry that it is in its final stages. Dealing with this subject, the parties to that report were the federal Environment department, our provincial Environment ministry, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the federal Fisheries people. I haven't any idea what's in the report, but I expect that it will deal with the extent of the problem and with what might be done to clear it up. I'd be pleased to share that with the member for Comox when it becomes available.

The matter of the herbicides and pesticides.... I'm sure everybody would agree, in spite of the things that are tossed back and forth across this room, that the Ministry of Environment, or the province of British Columbia, is very concerned about pesticides and herbicides and the use thereof. We feel very confident that we have in this province probably the toughest regulations and rules in the whole of Canada with respect to the issuance of these permits. l know that the hon. member realizes that this is all we do. We issue the permits. But we are involved because of the concern that we know everyone has, and that we have, about the use of pesticides and herbicides. The member can be assured that to the very utmost of our ability within the ministry, before permits are issued, we endeavour to acquire every possible bit of knowledge and information that we can that will ensure that the decision that we make as to whether or not to issue a permit is the right decision.

I might also mention that for some time, nine or ten months now, we have been — and this came about as a result of a CCREM meeting that we attended in Toronto — arranging to get more information out of Ottawa, out of the federal Ag people, on the background they have on a lot of these pesticides and herbicides. Some of these things are protected under the Patent Act. That makes it a little difficult to get the information that we require, but we're actively pursuing it. I think we are gradually making some inroads. We have the federal Department of the Environment on our side, and all of the other Environment ministries — the provincial ones — throughout the land are also concerned about this. I'm hoping that as time goes by we will get more and more information about the various types of pesticides and herbicides that are being used.

I would just close by once again saying that we do our utmost to ensure that we consider everything. In watersheds we consider the fisheries, we consider all of these other things that are so important and so crucial to the people of our province, before pesticide or herbicide permits are issued.

MR. MITCHELL: The biggest thing that this ministry has done is to set up the wilderness committee. I asked the minister a number of questions, and he didn't even have the decency to make any comment. I think that the people of British Columbia have a right to know that this government and that ministry that he leads is going to do something on the biggest thing he's done so far, which was set up the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reflections on another member's honour are most unparliamentary.

MR. MITCHELL: I've asked a series of questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The comment with respect to decency was quite unparliamentary.

MR. MITCHELL: I've asked a series of questions. What is the government going to do? Is it going to take any of these recommendations, or is it going to continue to sit there with this report as long as they sat on the report that came from the south Moresby study group? Are they going to do anything? That's all we're saying. There are some excellent recommendations in there. Are we going to pick them out? Are we going to do any fine-tuning, or is this ministry just going to ignore it? It's not a personal attack against the minister. The environmental, forestry and tourism people have a right to

[ Page 8073 ]

expect some leadership from this government, not an indication that we haven't even officially received it.

You start looking at other reports. It took two years for me to get the report on parks, knowing it had been in production for another two years before that.

Are we going to do anything? From his silence I take it that we're going to do nothing. If what they intend to do is nothing.... If not, give some indication what we can expect out of this report and when, and not go through the record of the previous reports on many other areas that have come in and nothing has been done about it.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's very difficult indeed to ignore such erudite statements as come out of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. The reason that I didn't leap to my feet to respond was that it seemed to me I had covered most of those questions during the answer I gave to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). But we can talk about these things. I'll stand and talk about it all day.

To start with, I'm sure that those very hard-working and talented members of the Wilderness Advisory Committee will be flattered to know that the hon. member has referred to them as being nothing more than a smokescreen. That will be very well received, particularly by those members who served on the committee who I know have the same political philosophies as the members opposite. They'll be most pleased to know that their talents are looked upon in such a demeaning way.

The points made by the member are points that were made all through the news media when the committee was first struck: smokescreen, no public information, no input, studied to death. But you know that the committee was very well received in the community. When we first set the committee up, there were a number of people who refused to appear before the committee because they said it was nothing but a smokescreen, nothing but stalling for time. The hon. member would be interested to know that by the time the process was completed, everybody had appeared before that committee, except one who had said previously they wouldn't appear.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: It was one of the environmental groups. I don't recall which particular one it was. We have many of those in British Columbia, and they feel very strongly about the things they represent.

The report is in now, and the member knows, having been around this assembly for many years, that a minister cannot stand up and comment, in the way he would like me to comment, before the report has been received by cabinet. I have high hopes that this will happen very shortly. I can assure the member that I feel very strongly that the recommendations and comments made in the "Wilderness Mosaic" will serve as a blueprint for what happens in this province from here on in respect to these matters.

From time to time — and I say this with all due respect — I've had a feeling the member was kind of talking in riddles. He would talk about protecting wilderness areas, not logging, and then in the next breath he would say we should be in there developing and this kind of thing. The whole process, the basic thing we were looking for in the report of the committee, was to look at this matter of multiple use within our province. It is the only way to proceed. We can't isolate areas from one thing or another. We've got to talk about multi-use. That's what the report has done, and I'm glad the member had time to read it. It's an excellent report, and I'm pleased that I sent it to him even if it did come in a brown envelope. If I'd known he had a problem with that, I would have sent it in a white one.

The member has the report, he's had an opportunity to read it. I think it's a good report. I admire the work of the people who were involved. They were a dedicated group of people even though they came from diverse parts of the community, from the point of view of their professions. They did a super job and I'm very pleased with it. As I said before, I think it will provide the groundwork as we go forward and try to resolve some of these problems that have been lying around for a long time.

Another thing mentioned was, why hadn't some of the previous recommendations been acted upon. There was no consensus available. You can't act upon something if you haven't got a consensus. Now we've got something to work from — from a new perspective, a new point of view. I think it's going to work very well for this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to correct two errors in the minister's speech. I didn't say that the committee was a smokescreen; I said that setting up the committee was a smokescreen by the government to diffuse the issue. These people did an excellent job, and I've said it in my speech. They brought some good recommendations. It is up to the government to start doing something. As I say, we have all kinds of studies — on south Moresby, Brooks Peninsula, Robson Bight — but they don't do anything. That's all the public wants to know.

The second thing is that I didn't say it came in a brown envelope. I said it didn't come in a brown envelope, it came from the minister. The minister sent it to me and I read it. And other people who work on my committee have read it, and some they endorse and some they point out the flaws in.

The main thing I'm saying is that if we're going to do something, we have to set up regional committees of people who are experts in that particular area — who know something about killer whales or about the historical trails in the Cascade/Manning Park study area. There's no sense in expecting either the minister or myself to intelligently discuss where a logging area should go in. I know those Cascade heritage historical trails were put where they are because they follow the line of least resistance, and when logging firms go in to put in a logging road they're also going to follow the lines of least resistance. They're not going to be able to put them 100 metres up a hill. This is an engineering fact. Some of these recommendations that have come out of various committees.... "Don't touch the trail, but put it 100 metres away" — whatever bureaucrat or person came up with that idea doesn't know the area.

[11:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All I'm asking is that before they do any major destruction of these areas they meet with the people who know that particular area, who have studied it, who can give some positive input. Don't leave it to the politicians; don't leave it solely to the senior bureaucrats sitting down here. Go out into the communities and the areas and talk to those who have

[ Page 8074 ]

been studying some of these environmentally sensitive problems for years and years and have sent in report after report that have been ignored by this government.

Don't attack me because I'm asking for some action, but listen to what I'm saying, and meet with the local people, and let's get on with the job. Let's start creating destination areas. Let's start developing it. About multiple use, I agree with you. But that's not been the practice of this government. They have gone into areas and they've just wiped them clean — clear-cut logging; get in there and get out. You look at the northern islands on the Queen Charlottes. That's the example that the public see. They don't read all the reports. That's why they want input. But all they can go on is the example that this government has allowed to take place, when they have not taken into account local considerations and have not planned for multiple use.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of issues that I'd like to deal with, and I guess the best way is to deal with them seriatim; in addition to that, we'll do them one at a time!

While we were on the topic of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, I have a particular question as it relates to tourism and the function of that committee. As the minister well knows, I've often spoken about the fact that tourism is now poised to become the second major industry in British Columbia, with revenues exceeding $2 billion annually and employing thousands of people. As a job-creation source for the future, it's probably one of the most fertile fields that we can look at in terms of employment generation. Of course, tourism relies extremely heavily on the environmental assets of this province; on identifying and developing those appropriate travel generators, as they call them in the jargon of the industry, which will attract tourists to British Columbia, and entice them to stay and come again.

I think the issue of south Moresby is a particular case in point. This wilderness area is an ecologically unique area, due to the fact that it was probably one of the only areas in British Columbia that escaped the glaciation period of the last ice age over 10,000 years ago. It has unique environmental characteristics, flora and fauna that you cannot find in other places. This particular area has been identified by environmental groups as being of significant value. I think the United Nations has even wanted to classify it as a world heritage site, environmentally. Here we have a unique resource, a resource that has immense potential as a tourist travel generator, a resource that, once we go in and take out that first-stand timber, once we go in and destroy the environmental beauty of that area, may produce revenue out of short-term logging, but we will have lost the true value of the area.

What I was really concerned about when the Wilderness Advisory Committee was struck, outside of the fact that it was given, I feel, a deadline for its mandate, which was far too short; very difficult to get provincial-wide consensus to draft a summary report and make recommendations within that time-frame.... But above and beyond that, I was most concerned that there was no representation from the Ministry of Tourism or the tourism industry as part of that advisory committee. I can't for the life of me understand why the minister would strike a committee and leave off such a valuable component, because tourism and environmental preservation walk hand in hand in the future of this province. I'd like the minister to address that question as to why there was no representation on that committee from either the Ministry of Tourism or — at least that's my understanding — the tourism industry as a whole. I think you would have obtained some very valuable input if that industry had been given a voice on that committee.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, let's deal with the Ministry of Tourism. I realize that the report doesn't get into the tourism discussion at all — the "Wilderness Mosaic." That's a good question about why someone from the Tourism ministry is not involved in the committees that deal with this. I should tell you that ELUC, which is where the report is dealt with and where the discussions take place.... Whenever anything that affects tourism is being discussed at the technical level of the committee, I understand that the ministry is provided with a copy of the agenda items and invited to attend.

Yes, there probably would have been great merit in having someone from the tourism industry on the advisory committee. As the member says — and I couldn't agree more — there are certainly very strong links between the tourist industry and preservation of wilderness, setting up of corridors, etc. They go hand in hand. Unfortunately, like so many things that happen in life, the committee was struck, did its job and has submitted their report. We can't go back in time and change that, as I know the member will appreciate. He makes a very good point, and I'm prepared to accept that point in the same way that I know it was given — as a good, solid suggestion. I listened very carefully to what the member has said in that regard.

I might just mention Moresby for a moment or two. There again, I feel the same as the member does, and as many others do about south Moresby. Although I might from time to time be accused of doing or not doing many things, I think I have been consistent in what I've said about south Moresby. The recommendation in the report is, I think, a pretty good one. The member mentioned that the United Nations has suggested that it become a kind of international park. The United Nations placed that status on Anthony Island, which is right down at the southern tip of south Moresby, where we find the old Haida village and all the totem poles. Certainly there has been interest expressed from many quarters, the United Nations included, in what happens to south Moresby. I imagine that will continue until we reach the point where we're able to make some definitive decision as to what's going to happen in that area.

As the member probably knows from having read the report, the committee's recommendation does not see any logging on the south Moresby, except continuation of some logging on Lyell Island, if my memory serves me correctly. I think Louise Island was probably mentioned as well. I'm most anxious that we get on with the south Moresby thing. It has been studied and studied and studied, and a report of the last committee that studied it, before the wilderness committee, came out with four recommendations for different ways that it might be dealt with. As I said before, unfortunately there was never a consensus reached on any one of those four that might be adopted. But it looks to me as if we are getting a little closer to resolving this problem, and I would hope that it is resolved in relatively short order.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I appreciate his comments, but I would like to point out to the minister that, even though the report has been submitted and recommendations made, there is very little hope, I think, of resolving this whole issue until

[ Page 8075 ]

the issue of the native land claims is settled. In that respect, I think that the government simply has to recognize that negotiations are in order on that. That is another issue entirely, but it is an issue that is obviously clouding the future of south Moresby. The government has to recognize that it has to sit down and negotiate this whole issue, as has been requested by the federal government.

Above and beyond south Moresby there are other issues, such as the Stikine and the Stein. These too are environmental heritages that have been identified. I guess the only thing left at this point is an appeal from the heart, if you like, to the minister to put more teeth into his representations in cabinet, to try, on behalf of all British Columbians, to ensure that these prime resources, these natural heritages that we have throughout the province, are not compromised in the interest of short-term profit or gain. If he can make his voice a little stronger on the issue of the value of these resources in terms of the tourism industry.... I was most disappointed that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) seemed to be so strangely silent regarding south Moresby and regarding the lack of any representation on the advisory committee. What's done is done. The minister admits now that perhaps there was an oversight in not having members from the tourism industry there. However, I just appeal to him and say that their interests are at heart.

If he would care to read a report given by the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., which unfortunately I have no copy of at this point, they go over these resource areas, such as the Stikine, the Stein and particularly south Moresby. They make a very good case that it is an absolute necessity that we preserve these areas, not just for the environmental aspect but for the economic aspect also, and the cultural and the historic aspects. I cannot emphasize that point strongly enough, and I hope that the minister will continue, in his representation of the Ministry of Environment, to press this issue.

On to another issue. The minister and I were speaking yesterday about the waste management plant in the north Okanagan for the city of Vernon. As the minister knows, in a November 1984 report on waste water management, stage two, for the city of Vernon that has been submitted to the ministry, there were a number of recommendations made. I think there were 12 recommendations, with a 13th one added on later.

[11:45]

The recommendations present different options for waste disposal; I guess we should clarify that. Some of them are good recommendations; some of them are not so good. Most options seem to involve the construction of an advanced waste water treatment plant along with a deep water outfall into the north arm of Okanagan Lake. Some of the options involve land disposal through spray irrigation, through rapid infiltration. The options were all costed out, and apparently a decision has been made.

I'd like to ask the minister if he can advise us as to which option the ministry has, in consultation with the city, decided to pursue. I would also like to ask him when the initial work will be done in the development of this waste management plan.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, as the member knows, the waste management plan for the city of Vernon has been approved by the Ministry of Environment. I, like the member, don't have any particular information before me, but I do know from having discussed it, if I remember correctly, that it's a combination of the options that were put forward in the plan that has been accepted and will be.... We're in the process of implementing the plan, as far as I know.

There was some question from some people that lived in Okanagan Landing — OK Landing, is it? — with respect to irrigation, but in that regard I think the eventual decision was that the irrigation practices are safe. I think you would agree with that, hon. member. They've certainly been widely used in that area for a long time and been very successful, other than the fact that there has not appeared to be adequate land to be able to do it on a 100 percent basis. But other than that, I think we will have further meetings with the Okanagan Landing people to ensure that their fears and concerns are completely allayed, if we possibly can.

I should also say that I think the city of Vernon was one of the first from the basin that submitted a waste management plan. There was a lot of effort and time put in by the mayor of the city, his council and the engineering staff of the city of Vernon to put the plan together. It's a very good one, and we've endorsed it. As I say, I don't know the precise details, but the approval of this plan sees a combination of the various recommendations that were put forward.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I would agree with the minister that.... It's my understanding that one of the options, which is a combination of land disposal and advanced waste water treatment with a deep-water outfall, seems to be the one that has been chosen.

However, it's my understanding, according to some of the information available in this report, that the advanced waste water treatment plant to be developed at the Marshall property, if it is developed when it is, according to one of the plans, initiated to go in, in 1992.... The approximate cost for the plant alone is $45,852,000. That's, I guess, in 1992 dollars. I guess my concern is that that's only a part of the cost. There is quite a significant list here in terms of the ancillary equipment and technology that is required.

It's my understanding that the recently announced funding for the Okanagan zone, which has been declared an environmentally sensitive zone, is.... I believe $26 million has been set aside for that. I would ask the minister how they can justify the cost of a $46 million plant when the funding for the entire Okanagan region is only $26 million. The funding doesn't seem to add up in terms of what the needs are and what has been made available.

HON. MR. PELTON: Here again I don't have all the facts and figures in front of me, but it seems to me, if my memory serves me correctly, that we are only into the first phase of the whole plan. It's for three years, and the $26.3 or $26.5 million is to be expended over the three-year period. I would imagine that we would proceed from there.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.