[ Page 8077 ]

CONTENTS

Municipalities Enabling And Validating Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Introduction and first reading –– 8077

Oral Questions

Louisiana-Pacific plant. Mr. Williams –– 8077

BCR derailment. Mr. Reynolds –– 8077

Power and freight rates for Louisiana-Pacific. Mr. Williams –– 8078

Soliciting practices of funeral homes. Mr. MacWilliam –– 8078

Social housing allegations. Mr. Blencoe –– 8078

Expo 86. Mr. Michael –– 8078

Social housing allegations. Mr. Blencoe –– 8078

Partners in Enterprise advertising. Mr. Nicolson –– 8079

Mining stock transactions. Mr. Macdonald –– 8079

Decline in commercial construction. Mr. Williams –– 8079

Hotel evictions. Hon. Mr. Kempf replies –– 8079

Tabling Documents –– 8080

International Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8080

Mr. Lauk –– 8081

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8081 Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 25: minister's office –– 8081 Mrs. Wallace

Mr. MacWilliam Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams Mr. D'Arcy Mr. Michael Mr. Blencoe

Accountants (Management) Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill PR401). Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 8102

Commercial Arbitration Act (Bill 22). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Smith

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8102

Mr. Cocke –– 8102

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 8102

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today David Brosz, a constituent from Courtenay. David is currently doing some work for the Courtenay-Comox Valley Record, a newly established newspaper in the area. I would like the House to make him welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today, in the members' gallery, Mr. Jake Paetkau and Edith Wiens, members of the Marpole-Richmond Sportsmen's Association, who do a great deal of work in our community, and Mr. and Mrs. Art Wiens from Sidney, formerly from Kitimat. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reintroduce to the House a gentleman who has been reintroduced before, but not for a long time: the former member for Omineca, Mr. Shelford.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Ritchie presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1986.

Bill 25 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

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC PLANT

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development advise the House when he was first involved with respect to the question of the loan for $25 million interest-free to Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take that question as notice, check my diary and bring the answer back.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further, Mr. Speaker, statements were made by the former minister of trade with respect to competition from the states of Oregon and Minnesota and the province of Alberta that he claimed were very strong and difficult and that he was competing with and that's why he provided such a generous loan. Can the minister advise us what checking he did regarding those statements or suggestions?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take that question as notice, check my diary and the notes of my meetings and come back with a full answer at the earliest possible time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is then saying that these matters were not checked before they made a $25 million zero-percent loan. He is saying that he didn't carry out those analyses that he doesn't remember?

Can the minister advise the House if he investigated the question of the machinery for this operation? Eighty percent of the machinery for waferboards is produced in Vancouver, in this province, yet he was willing to loan to a company that was going to use German technology that only 20 percent of the world uses? Has he investigated that question?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister advise why he made the decision with respect to funding a program that would not benefit British Columbia manufacturers?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member is wrong, and I would be glad to bring a further full answer when I come back with the question taken as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House what investigations he made of the impact of this kind of generous subsidy on our own plywood industry in British Columbia and plywood operations in the northeast part of the province, which don't have the benefit of such generous terms, even though they are indigenous companies?

Can the minister advise why funding was not entertained under the ERD agreement with respect to Louisiana-Pacific, where we would have had federal participation in the program?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer it. It's a new question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It isn't a new question, it is a supplementary question, and I'll answer it in the fullness of time and with a very full reply.

MR. WILLIAMS: Will the minister tell us what the criteria were for this loan? Will the minister tell us whether this was a backroom deal? Isn't it time that he confessed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't it time he levelled with this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no supplementary to a question that's out of order.

BCR DERAILMENT

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the minister in charge of B.C. Rail. In view of the derailment in West Vancouver yesterday, could the minister advise this House what type of investigation will be taking place into that derailment, outside of the offices of B.C. Rail?

[ Page 8078 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the investigations and inspections of B.C. Rail are conducted on an independent basis by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of the provincial government. That investigation will take place, and I should advise the member that inspections are made on an unannounced basis frequently by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as far as B.C. Rail is concerned.

POWER AND FREIGHT RATES FOR LOUISIANA-PACIFIC

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise whether B.C. Hydro is entertaining lower power rates for Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I can't. I'll check that out — take it as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: A question for the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House whether they are entertaining lower rates than the published freight rates for BCR for Louisiana-Pacific?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, certainly not to my knowledge. It seems to me that the BCR was deregulated, and rates are negotiated by the BCR with shippers all up and down the line.

[2:15]

SOLICITING PRACTICES OF FUNERAL HOMES

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. The Kelowna General Hospital has been forced to change the locks on its morgue in an attempt to halt local funeral home employees from making unauthorized visits in search of customers — quite seriously. Will the Attorney-General advise whether he had decided to investigate the commercial practices of funeral homes that harass bereaved relatives and engage in other unsavory and unethical commercial practices?

HON. MR. SMITH: No I haven't, but it's a stiff reminder for me to look into it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister, and I would suggest that members of the House take it in the serious manner it deserves.

In some cases relatives have been receiving calls from the local funeral home regarding disposition of the corpse before they were even aware of the death. Relatives of the deceased have been hounded with unsolicited calls within hours after a loved one's death. In view of the strong emotions associated with a death in the family, has the Attorney-General considered more stringent regulation of the commercial practices of funeral home operators in order to eliminate such unscrupulous, and, I emphasize, unethical behaviour?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker, and I would need more particulars. I would be happy to look into the matter and get back to the member and bring an answer to the House.

SOCIAL HOUSING ALLEGATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On March 12 of this year the minister made serious allegations regarding conflict of interest in social housing. Those were the minister's words. He repeated them outside the house, and a commission of inquiry that was established by this government found no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the minister's charges. In view of the serious nature of this matter, has the minister decided to take the honourable course for members who make wild unsubstantiated allegations and apologize to the housing organizations and non-profit societies in this province.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

EXPO 86

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Tourism a question. Is it too late to put an additional pavilion into the Expo site? I'm getting a lot of inquiries about the province of Manitoba from people visiting the site.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Tourism I'll take the question as notice and report back to the House whether we have any space available.

SOCIAL HOUSING ALLEGATIONS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing made similar allegations about the same type and — in his words — rip-off of expenditures of money in social housing. A commission of inquiry was held, and no evidence whatsoever was found to substantiate the minister's allegations. In view of the fact that no such evidence was found, will that minister do the honourable thing and apologize to those organizations that deliver affordable housing in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. KEMPF: That member continues to attempt to mislead this House; he has done that again today. The member knows full well that the report brought in by the commission of inquiry was an interim report, and that further reports will be brought in and brought down. I'm sure, when those reports are in fact tabled, they will have the answers that that member looks for.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. I can only assume, then, that those were interim allegations, Mr. Minister. If you can't do the honourable thing....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a time to lecture other members of the House, hon. member. It's question period. The member has a question — put the question.

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister. If the minister cannot do the honourable thing and apologize in this House....

Interjections.

[ Page 8079 ]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Be seated.

Hon. members, this is question period. It is a time for questions. When members are advised by the Chair, they should at least have the courtesy to listen to the advice that the Chair gives so that the Chair does not have to take time in question period to bring to members' attention what the rules of the House are.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister. In that the allegations have not been proved and he refuses to do the honourable thing, and in that he has made blatant statements about social housing and community groups, will the minister do the honourable thing and resign his seat?

PARTNERS IN ENTERPRISE ADVERTISING

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I stand here trembling a little, but I'll ask a question to the Minister of Post-Secondary Education.

The minister's genial smile is now appearing in a saturation television and ad campaign — and I'm sure that everyone has seen it — which flaunts the Social Credit's current Partners in Enterprise theme and slogan. Would the minister advise whether taxpayers' money has been used to pay for this ad campaign?

HON. R. FRASER: I am sure the member would like to know that every minister, in fact every member of the House, should be promoting the interests of British Columbia during this great year of Expo.

MR. NICOLSON: A new question. Will the minister report to this House how much this campaign will be costing the taxpayers?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the member will have lots of ways of finding out the answer to all the questions he has with respect to government spending of public money.

MINING STOCK TRANSACTIONS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1985, I asked the Attorney-General about New Cinch Uranium and the Attorney-General replied that there was a body, a dead person. There was $100 million raised based on a deceptive material statement of fact signed by Canarim. I asked the Attorney-General what he would do about it and he said he was looking into the matter. Has the Attorney-General got a statement?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it's been a long look.

MR. MACDONALD: Just so we understand each other, is that all the public of the province of British Columbia are entitled to know about what happened in the New Cinch Uranium case?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I'm sorry that the member appears to be about as disinterested in the answer a year ago as I was in the question, but I overlooked the question. I will look at it and bring an answer. I'm sorry that that happened.

DECLINE IN COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industry. There's an indication that in this quarter commercial construction has increased 119 percent in Quebec, 83 percent in Saskatchewan, 52 percent in Manitoba. It has declined in the last quarter in British Columbia. Can the minister advise what studies he's carried out and what thoughts he has in terms of dealing with this problem in British Columbia so that we can get construction workers back to work?

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the member than an open-ended question elicits an open response.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for your kind permission, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to have the advice that that member seems to have, and if he would table the information that he has on his desk, so that I could study it in the light of the Coquihalla Highway construction, which is well on its way, of the Annacis Island bridge construction, which is the most marvellous structure in the world in terms of new technology; of the construction jobs which have been going on and are going on at Expo, which is going to be the greatest fair the world has ever seen, of the construction jobs over the next 20 years, after Expo, as we develop B.C. Place into the greatest downtown redevelopment in the world. I'd be very glad to share all of that information with that member, as I'm sure he'll share the statistics that he has on his desk with me.

HOTEL EVICTIONS

HON. MR. KEMPF: Several days ago I took a question on notice from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who asked several questions about B.C. Hydro's Fraser Hotel. In answer to the member — and I think it's indicative of the kind of research that's put into questions from that side of the floor — Hydro owns no Fraser Hotel.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, in the interest of even-handedness from the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the Chair inadvertently — and it's little wonder, with the din and hue and cry during question period — missed the statement made by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) in which he accused the member for Victoria of attempting to mislead the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair overlooked the remark, just as the Chair yesterday overlooked a similar statement by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Do you wish to continue on the point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. The point is that each individual member must be treated as an individual member in the chamber. If the recipient of the remark from the minister was the member for Vancouver East, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with respect, your point is well taken. I'm raising this issue as a question of decorum and behaviour in the House. In my brief absence from this chamber, things

[ Page 8080 ]

have deteriorated. I wanted to have some assurance from the Chair that this disgraceful conduct on the part of the treasury benches will not continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has listened carefully to the remarks of the member. I'm sure that upon reflection both members toward whom the remarks were directed will reflect upon their statements in the House and make sure that those particular words are not used again.

Hon. Mr. Brummet tabled the 1984-85 report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 20.

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading of the international commercial arbitration bill. This bill will provide modern and comprehensive rules for the conduct of international commercial arbitrations in this province for the first time, and indeed, for the first time in this country. The legislation that we're considering here is essentially the model United Nations legislation which was prepared by 61 states in 18 international organizations, and we're the first jurisdiction in the world to take this plunge. The introduction of this act, together with the Foreign Arbitral Awards Act that we passed in the last session and together with the establishment of our own international commercial arbitration centre, underlines the strong commitment of this government to provide this sophisticated new service to the international business community located in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing practice among international businesses to look to arbitration as a method of resolving disputes out of contractual relationships, rather than looking to the courts of the respective jurisdictions. This method of dispute resolution has been perceived to be very attractive in the international context for a number of reasons, the first of which is that many foreign nationals are highly skeptical of submitting to the laws and judicial system of another state with whom they're doing business, and secondly, that arbitrations can offer speedier and less costly resolution together with a practical input into the decision making, because arbitrators often are people who have some familiarity with a particular commercial undertaking. There is a need also to draw upon experts to an extent not available in judicial proceedings, to deal with the complexity of the subject matter in these disputes. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the creation of a hospitable legal environment for international arbitrations will encourage international business to attend at our centre in Vancouver to resolve their disputes, and at the same time of course these people will be exposed to the business and commercial opportunities and indeed the recreational and residential opportunities that are available in this great province.

[2:30]

The readings that we have received from international business, from lawyers who are involved in practising international commercial law and from the arbitration community around the world is that there is strong interest in what we're doing in British Columbia. What we're doing is pioneering, really, because for the first time we will have persuaded the Canadian government to adopt the United Nations convention on foreign arbitral awards — a convention that was passed in the mid-50s and has never been adopted by Canada, and that is in the process of being adopted by the Canadian parliament. When we open our own international arbitration centre in Vancouver on Monday next, Mr. Crosbie will be present in Vancouver and we hope that he will bring us the news that parliament, with the unanimous consent of all three parties in the federal parliament, will be passing the bill that will adopt the UN convention. It is then necessary for us to proceed with our own bill which adopts a model law which will apply to these international disputes.

In the United States of America, a place which is probably more active than any other country in the world in commercial arbitration, there are very few international arbitrations taking place. International commercial arbitration does not take place in the United States, because businessmen from other countries are very loath to submit to the possible intrusion of American courts. While you have a few arbitrations in New York, the Americans are largely in the domestic arbitration business, and they go for their arbitrations to London or Paris or Stockholm or Hong Kong or Geneva. The Americans we have talked to would be most interested in having disputes involving an American customer on the one hand and a foreign customer on the other hand resolved in an arbitration centre in British Columbia. So we expect that it will be a very popular centre and that this legislation will provide a framework for Americans to come here, as well as people doing business on the Pacific Rim and in Europe. The time is right for this initiative, Mr. Speaker.

The bill itself I just will very briefly highlight. It provides procedural and substantive rules for international commercial arbitration conducted in the province and for the enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards no matter what country they were made in. The code has in the main the ability of the parties to override its provisions if they wish to do so. The hallmark of the arbitration process is the ability of the parties to agree to the method of the resolution of their dispute. Except in a limited number of essential provisions, the parties can agree to their own process. There are some exceptions to that.

The second major aspect of the legislation is that it specifically limits the ability of our domestic courts to intervene in the arbitral proceedings, except in the manner that's set out in the act and which is agreed to by international arbitrators. There are some areas where the court has to intervene. It cannot leave everything to the parties or to the rules of a tribunal. The grounds for a judicial intervention are clearly specified, and are quite different from the old arbitration legislation in place in this province. The changes that we made are absolutely essential to attract international arbitration parties to come here and submit to this jurisdiction. There are provisions, for instance, that secure the protection of the court where it's necessary and required, in such instances as the necessity of appointing an arbitrator if the mechanism for appointment fails or breaks down. There is some limited basis for challenging an arbitrator as well, or for where an arbitrator is unable to act or fails to act, and there are provisions that the court can assist with the taking of evidence

[ Page 8081 ]

and with the consolidation of arbitrations, which is an important power. The ICC arbitrations and other arbitrations in Europe don't have that kind of provision.

The court may set aside an award only on the very limited grounds set out in section 34, just as the court can refuse to enforce an award only on the grounds that are listed in sections 35 and 36. But the bill provides a very simple mechanism for the enforcement of international commercial arbitration awards. We have made some changes to the UNCITRAL model law, but basically, with a few improvements, it is the model law that has had so much care and consideration put into its drafting.

I commend the bill to the House, and I urge its speedy passage.

MR. LAUK: The opposition agrees in principle with Bill 20.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the official opposition and my opposite number, the member for Vancouver Centre, for his support of this bill. I am very pleased that it is proceeding as a bipartisan measure.

I move second reading. Motion approved.

Bill 20, International Commercial Arbitration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

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

MRS. WALLACE: I want to express to the minister my appreciation of his concern about my health and to assure him that my health is excellent. A week ago, when we first started discussing these estimates, because I was a bit hoarse he may have been hopeful that I was just coming down with the flu and that it would have relieved him from this sort of experience. But unfortunately for the minister, I was just recovering, and my health is excellent.

Mr. Chairman, I think it only right that I compliment the minister on one thing that he has done. It took him quite a long time, but he finally did it: he removed the $25 fee for appeals against pesticide permits. There has been quite a lot of discussion about these permits and the appeals and so on, and I wonder if perchance the minister or his deputy could tell me whether or not any permits have been cancelled as a result of those appeals.

HON. MR. PELTON: We don't have precise numbers that I can give the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I can tell her that many permits have been modified in some way, shape or form or tightened up or made more stringent. But very few have been cancelled outright.

MRS. WALLACE: I expect that "very few" is actually one great big zero, and it would be interesting to have that on the record. It seems to me that it is very difficult to be successful in appealing a permit. Sure, you get some conditions put on it, but once the decision is made to issue a permit, that seems to be it. You may get a little stricter control or limit on time and so on.

I would like to ask you specifically about the permit that was issued for the Garlon in the Hudson Bay Flats area. That's an experimental chemical. The minister mentioned earlier that sometimes it's difficult because of the trade name to get the components, but my understanding is that this is very similar to 2,4,5-T. It has one less or one more chlorine molecule. The intent was to do some massive spraying there, granted on an experimental basis, over a food fishery source for the native people in that area, and over the natives themselves — and without concern, apparently, for the streams involved. The whole thing ground to a halt because of the protest, but basically there was never a moratorium put on it. My understanding is that the weather actually stopped the spraying from going ahead. This was to be a continuing thing, and I wonder if the minister can tell me whether it is their intention to start that up again, or whether he's going to intervene and see that that doesn't go forward.

HON. MR. PELTON: I just happen to have some information here on that. It's relatively current, I believe. This was in the Skeena River valley you refer to...?

Interjection.

HON. MR. PELTON: The federal and provincial permits were issued for the conducting of the environmental studies to several sites west of Terrace. The research program represented approximately half of a major joint federal and provincial effort — approximately $2 million — to identify the environmental risks that might be caused by a herbicide currently used in force, called Roundup, and another being reviewed towards registration, which was Garlon, which you mentioned. The trials were postponed when the local Indian band was granted a temporary court injunction halting the spraying. The current status is that the trials have been withdrawn by the Forest Pest Management Institute of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, following a letter to the leader of the Kitsumkalum Indian band. An appeal against the temporary court injunction did not take place as originally scheduled on February 18, 1986, so the whole thing is on hold.

Dow Chemical and a private research contractor plan to test Garlon, likely at the UBC research forest north of Haney in Maple Ridge in 1986, to generate environmental data to support registration in the forest. The current experimental designs call for overspraying a tiny stream to simulate a worst-case scenario, as was originally planned in the Skeena River near Terrace. Based on the success of this court injunction, there is some concern that some other anti-pesticide groups may in the future use the courts in the same way, which is their privilege, but at the moment the thing is on hold. The initiative to start it up again or to continue it would have to come from the federal government.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm glad that this has come to fruition and that it will not be used in that area. But I wonder if you've spoken to the residents of Maple Ridge. I would think you would have some concern about that, Mr. Minister. How are they going to feel about Garlon being used there? Is this stream a fishbearing stream? It's certainly right in your back yard. I would

[ Page 8082 ]

expect that you could find yourself in a bit of chemical hot water as a result of this going ahead there.

You know, we have seen ministers before in this province forbid the use of certain chemicals, even though they have been passed for use in Canada. I don't know why we should become a testing ground for Dow Chemical. Wouldn't it be much more practical to do some testing in alternative means of brush control, rather than using chemicals all the time? We get one that gets into disrepute.… The older a chemical is, the longer it's been around, the more evidence mounts. That was the case with DDT, with 2,4,5-T. The evidence is mounting against 2,4-D. So then what the chemical company does is just play around a little bit with the chemical formula, come up with a new trade name, and then you've got a new chemical that has nothing against it, because it hasn't been around. So it comes in.

It seems to me that this minister has the responsibility to protect people in British Columbia, particularly his own constituents, from being guinea pigs for the use of a new chemical. I submit that he does have the power to ensure that that chemical is not used for testing purposes or in any other way here. He has that power if he wants to use it.

[2:45]

We are hearing a lot about proposed helicopter spraying of Roundup in the Kamloops area. I wonder whether or not there have been any appeals against those permits and what the status of those permits is. The residents there are saying that the "squirt-and-hack" method could be used as opposed to the helicopter spraying. They're concerned about the fish streams and about the people. So I wonder what the status of that Kamloops situation is.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, I must point out as forcefully as I can to the hon. member that the testing of Garlon is only a proposal at this point in time. Certainly wherever the test is held we'll go through all the proper routines to ensure that everyone is made fully aware of what's happening and what's going on. Of course, the normal appeal processes will be in place.

I think the member also knows that this government has banned certain pesticides. We certainly haven't been negligent in that regard. That has been done, and it will be done again if and when it is warranted. I suggest that what we're looking for, with particular reference to the use of herbicides in the forests, is the completely unharmful way of dealing with the problem. That's what we're trying to do. We'll never find these things out unless we test them to see where we stand. We are well aware of our responsibilities in this regard and will continue to operate in that way.

The current status of the Kamloops aerial spraying issue is that the permit was suspended. There has been no spraying. I don't know for how long.... There has been no aerial spraying up there for mosquitoes for some time. I don't know of a complaint from citizens in the area. I know of one party who complained about the aerial spraying. I'm also informed that the regional district is most anxious to continue their mosquito control program and that the ground methods of handling it haven't been considered adequate up to this point. In the meantime, as I say, the licence for aerial spraying was suspended. We are in the process of trying to arrange for maybe a temporary continuation of that until such time as we can do a complete investigation as to what is happening up there. People are plagued by the mosquitoes in that particular area and many of them are concerned that the ongoing control program will be stopped.

MRS. WALLACE: I asked the minister a question about the forestry minister spraying the forests with Roundup and I got an answer about spraying mosquitoes. It's the regional district that passed a resolution objecting. What they've asked, actually, is for someone from forestry to come in and talk to them about this to see whether or not they couldn't use the hack and squirt method instead. Obviously there's some misunderstanding there.

The minister talks that he does have the right and that the ministry — the province — has refused to allow certain chemicals to be used here. What I'm suggesting to him is that Garlon should be one of those chemicals that are disallowed here because it is so closely akin to 2,4,5-T, but he doesn't seem prepared to do that. He's quite prepared to let the people of Maple Ridge be the guinea pigs in this particular thing.

I want to turn to another subject, and that's air pollution. We've heard an awful lot about acid rain recently. We've had the agreement between Reagan and Mulroney at the federal level. We've had the Pearse report, which indicates that a great amount of acid rain is prevalent here in British Columbia. It's an ever-increasing problem right on our own doorstep, and in the face of all this I pick up a little column in the B.C. Hydro News last December that this minister has granted a three-year permit to operate Burrard Thermal. This is an area where there are real problems with the ozone levels.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: But is that not subject to the ministry? Don't you have any control over whether or not that plant is going to run? It seems to me that if the minister doesn't have anything to say about it, he certainly should, because that's everybody's air. As Minister of Environment surely he's responsible for clean air. If in fact the situation is such that any local regional district can grant permits to allow this kind of pollution to take place without the approval of the minister.... You know, it doesn't happen in your town with your pulp mills. Those are all controlled. The regional district can do what it likes, but the Minister of Environment has the final say. I can't understand why that's not the case in this particular instance. If it isn't, it certainly should be.

HON. MR. PELTON: First of all, I cannot allow that member over there to stand up and record in the Hansard of this House that I am going to deliberately subject the people in my constituency to an unauthorized test of Garlon. That is incorrect, and I take great exception to that member, for whom I have a great deal of respect, saying that.

The matter of the thermal plant in Port Moody. The authority for the issuance of the permit was delegated through our ministry to the GVRD. They granted the permit, but there was a great deal of concern expressed, so an appeal is being held. They already hold the permit to operate that thermal plant in cases of emergency, but this was an extension of that authority to cover a different requirement, which people took exception to. It's being appealed, and we will all have to await the results of the appeal before we will be able to determine in which direction we're going there.

[ Page 8083 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: We seem to be hopping back and forth here, and I apologize to the minister. Before we recessed for lunch I had a couple of issues that I wanted to deal with. Before I do, I want to go back to an issue that we've already dealt with, and one particular question that I had inadvertently left out.

As the minister will recall, we were talking about the Wilderness Advisory Committee and the lack of any representation from tourism on that committee. The minister admitted that that had been an oversight, and he also basically reiterated my views that there is a need for coordinating the interests of both environmental concerns and the tourism industry. This brings me to a critical question that I'd like the minister to address, and that is the concept of a joint tourism and environment advisory committee. I propose this as a personal recommendation to the minister, if he would consider establishing such a committee involving representatives from both ministries — Environment and Tourism — as well as representatives from the tourism industry and those environmental groups that have environmental protection as their mandate. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that. I would request that he seriously consider such a joint tourism-environmental advisory committee with the mandate to identify critical environmental resources and those that are also of importance to the tourism industry. It's a sound recommendation. Often it seems, in this maze of bureaucracy, the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or at least, is not fully aware. Such a joint advisory committee could be of real benefit in helping to coordinate what is really an overlapping concern for both ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some latitude will be allowed, hon. members of the committee, but I must remind the committee that discussion of future legislation, which the question could ask, would not be permitted. Further, it really would not be appropriate for the committee to discuss what would be a committee of cabinet. As I said, some latitude will be allowed the minister in reply.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your sage advice.

I'm always open to new ideas and new suggestions, and yes, I'd be more than happy to consider the proposal put forward by the member for Okanagan North, and would perhaps look forward to his being involved in some capacity if such a thing came to pass.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'm flattered. I appreciate the minister's response.

Going on to another issue, an issue that we discussed in the previous session.... I guess I should repaint the background. We were talking about the waste management plan for the city of Vernon, and the fact that a proposal option has been adopted. The minister indicated that the city is now proceeding along those lines. It was his understanding that work towards the development of an advanced waste water treatment plant, with a combination of both land disposal and deep water disposal, was in process. I think the minister can probably recall that. The minister also indicated that he didn't feel that simply using the land disposal option was viable, because of the apparent lack of usable land for that type of disposal system.

I tend to disagree with the minister, and I'd like to just bring to his attention, in the interests of perhaps whetting his interest in pursuing the land disposal option as a viable one, a number of letters that have been written in past years, directly to the city of Vernon, indicating a very great interest in making more land available. One is written by Thorlakson Ranches on Commonage Road. I won't read the whole thing, but it states: "I wish to bring to your attention that we have approximately 120 acres under spray irrigation presently. If' you have need of more land, we have approximately another 1,400 acres for irrigation, all bordering the present reservoir." The minister had indicated that there was considerable cost in piping to some of these areas. I would like to advise the minister that there are 1,400 additional acres right next to the present system.

Another letter, by the Circle K ranch to the city of Vernon, indicates, as before: "We have 400 acres plus, with a complete irrigation system in place that could be started within 24 hours of a signed agreement. We felt our proposal would have increased the output of effluent over that of the last two years, which was one-fourth of your effluent program annually."

[3:00]

Another letter, written by a local agriculturist, a Mrs. French: "I have a spray irrigation program on my farm, presently of approximately 100 acres. I have suggested earlier the adjoining grounds of approximately 50 acres for spray irrigation to help your present problem."

Another one, by a Mr. Anderson, cites the availability of over 2,400 acres of land that could be used for the spray irrigation program. A letter from El Rancho Vista Farms, on Commonage Road, indicates:

"We are currently ranching about 1,600 acres, the larger part of which could be put under irrigation for pasture and hay land, providing a mutual agreement between ourselves and the city could be arrived at. It would seem prudent, when there is so much public concern about putting effluent into the lakes, to take a serious look at extending the spray irrigation program. We are prepared to allow a further reservoir to be located on the land, to enable the gravity-feed system to service many hundreds of additional acres of land."

I'd like to submit to the minister that it is my position, as well as the position of a number of individuals in the community, that there certainly is additional land that could be used for expansion of the present spray irrigation program.

I want to give full credit to the fact that both the ministry and the city have pursued the concept of an updated and more efficient waste-disposal system. l also want to point out to the minister that this is an issue which is still — and I think always will be — of major concern to the people of the north Okanagan. It certainly has not been an overnight wonder. The people of the north Okanagan largely — far more than largely; almost unanimously, I would venture — support the concept of an expanded land disposal system. I realize the city is looking at the deep-water outfall, in the event that the future populations are too large to be served by a land disposal system. That may be a future reality that has to be approached. But I'm suggesting to the minister that we do have the land available to consider an expanded land disposal system; that we do not have to go into the lake at this time. I would like to suggest a reconsideration of this option.

I bring that to the attention of the minister. It's certainly an issue that continues to be of concern, particularly to the

[ Page 8084 ]

residents surrounding the north arm of Okanagan Lake, who, I might add, draw their water from the lake and are obviously affected by the fact that there is a program that will be in place, which is dumping effluent — although treated, it is still effluent — into their drinking water. They've got concerns, and justifiable concerns.

I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: The member brings forward some very interesting points. I know that he is very well versed in the contents of the waste-water management plan that's come out of the city of Vernon. I know that even if he was not personally involved, he certainly would have been apprised of the happenings at various public hearings and meetings on the subject. There was a great deal of discussion, as I understand, on the spray irrigation method. It is a good method, as I think I've said before, and if it could be utilized a hundred percent would be well received, I'm sure. I wouldn't want to take a lot of time of the committee to go through some of the public comments and some of the responses that were made.

In this whole matter, I'm sure that the member has no intention, or does not seem to be intending, to do an end-run around the city of Vernon, in bringing in these matters here today. I would just hope that, for example, the lands that he has talked about in the correspondence that he had at hand have been brought to the attention of the city of Vernon. It is their plan, and if they want to make some changes to it or to come forward with some different ideas, that would be most acceptable to us. But certainly if that land is available and it is right next to the reservoir, unless there is some other reason why it can't be utilized, it would seem kind of a logical step. But I would really like the member to discuss this matter with the city, and if they want to come forward with some suggestions, we would be pleased to receive them.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I am pleased to hear that the minister is open to at least a consideration of other options. Yes, for the information of the minister, that information has been made available to the city for some time now.

I don't want to belabour the issue, but I just want to point out that it is the consideration of members of the community, including some professional members of the community who have particular experience in agriculture and the application of effluent on forest crops, that this is a viable measure that could be instituted. I guess I am just speaking on behalf of the community and those individuals who have some concern that the city may not have investigated this option to its fullest. If the minister is saying that he is open to the consideration of other options, then I am sure that those individuals will be pleased to know that they can at least have an audience.

I would like to move on to another issue of concern regarding a recent letter that I wrote to the minister about the Shuswap River flooding. The minister may recall that last year there was a major flood problem on the Shuswap River south of Mabel Lake in the north Okanagan area. I had documented the problems experienced by the farmers. It was an unusual year as far as rainfall and the degree of snow melt all happening at the same time, but I think the critical issue here is that much of the land that was inundated with flood water has had considerable erosion damage done to it as a result of the flooding. I also brought to the minister's attention that it is not a first time for this flooding; in fact, it occurs reasonably frequently, although not on the magnitude that it did the other year.

I made a previous suggestion to the minister, one which he didn't seem to wish to comment on in the letter. The river protection assistance program is basically 75 percent funded by the government with 25 percent put up by those individuals. I would like to submit to the minister that perhaps in looking at those situations where we have prime agricultural land being destroyed as a result of the natural erosion of a river, land that is under cultivation or under usage being destroyed as a result of these natural forces, perhaps the ministry should be considering an alteration of that formula. Even though the individual landowner has to put up only 25 percent, that 25 percent in these tough economic times is sometimes a figure that is economically unattainable by those individuals. I brought that case to the minister and suggested that possibly, looking at agricultural land specifically, we make an alteration of that formula.

I don't suggest any figures to go along with that, but it's with the view of reducing that 25 percent front-loading cost to the individual farmer. Alternatively, if we can't reduce it from 25 percent to 15 percent or 10 percent or whatever, I suggest looking at an amortization program. Rather than the farmer having to come up with $5,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 front-loaded before the work can be done, would the ministry consider an amortization program where that money can be paid back over a period of 10 to 20 years? Would the minister care to comment on those suggestions at this time?

HON. MR. PELTON: It is difficult to comment on something that would require approval through cabinet, so I can't really comment on any reduction in the formula as it now stands, from 75-25 to something else. That would be highly improper and inappropriate as well. But I can tell the hon. member that situations similar to the situation in the Shuswap River prevail throughout this whole province, and that there are literally thousands upon thousands who have like problems and that would also like us to move in and take up the cost of doing something about land erosion and flooding, etc. There are a lot of programs relative to flooding. They have the ones that we have in the Fraser River basin, and we have other programs that relate to areas where they get flash flooding and all this kind of thing.

I don't know if the ARDSA program has been renewed yet, but there's another program that is involved with water, with groundwater particularly, and with rural areas. I can't see us making any change. I wasn't involved when the formula was established, but I guess you always come to the question that if an individual is not prepared to put something up himself, then the value of the whole undertaking comes into question. That undoubtedly was something that was considered at the time the formula was put in place.

With respect to the amortization of the percentage share which would be the responsibility of the recipient of the works that would go into stopping erosion or other damage from floodwater, that also is a subject which would require discussion at cabinet level. We'd have to have that type of approval. So there again, as I said before, we can certainly look at the suggestion and we will, but it is impossible to give any indication of how the situation might be resolved.

[ Page 8085 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just in concluding that point, I would like to emphasize to the minister that arable agricultural land, in terms of the percentage of land in the province, I think stands at about 3 percent to 5 percent. In terms of financing or altering the finance formula for agricultural land, it would not be, I don't think, that much greater a financial burden upon the ministry.

To move on to another issue for the minister, recently there has been the startup of a $6 million resort industry for houseboats on the Okanagan Lake in the Westbank area, in the constituency of Okanagan South, and there are plans for 100 charter boat rentals as part of this marina facility.

Now apparently, in the process of obtaining land, I understand there has been some land obtained through the local band council of the Westbank Indian band, but there is also an application through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for the lease of almost 15 acres of Crown foreshore.

I know this is in the area of another ministry, but it does impact upon the Ministry of Environment, and I'll explain how it does. A licence was recently granted by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, against the wishes of 1,400 residents that petitioned both the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and directly petitioned the Premier of this government, who is the MLA in that constituency, to allow for a process of public input before such licence was granted. The reason I bring this up within the concerns of the Minister of Environment is that the rationale for that public inquiry or those public meetings to be held was that those residents — 1,400 names on a petition — were concerned over, largely, the environmental issues and the impact of such an industry on Okanagan Lake.

Now I think there are a lot of positive aspects to be considered with the houseboat industry. It has a lot of merit in terms of local tourism potential, and I'm not critical of the concept. But what I'd like to point out is that this marina facility, where there will be a hundred large houseboats on the lake, has gone ahead virtually without any study or any input in terms of the environmental impact on the lake. Now apparently on March 20, 1986, at a public meeting held up in the Westbank area, an official from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing advised those residents that the Ministry of Environment was directly involved, I understand, in assessing the lease application. When the citizens contacted the Penticton office of the Ministry of Environment, they were informed that the ministry was not involved in assessing the lease application.

[3:15]

We have a public statement being made by an official in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing saying the Ministry of Environment was involved, and we have the Ministry of Environment saying no, they've got nothing to do with it. I might point out for the minister's information that Mr. Eain Lamont, who is the chairman of the Okanagan Basin Water Board and also, I believe, one of the regional directors in the regional district, has called upon the Minister of Environment to hold a public meeting regarding the impact of houseboats upon Okanagan lake. Here are his words.... Sorry, these aren't his words. I will get back to his quote in a moment.

Here is a quote from a Mr. Barry Cope which was brought up at the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce meeting regarding this situation. He says: "Houseboat operation is unregulated, and one particular marina is nothing less than an animal show all summer long." Now I'm not sure which one he's talking about, and he makes no specific reference. He goes on to say: "There is sewage, beer bottles, large quantities of grey water, and all forms of vulgar flotsam thrown into the lake every day of the summer." He goes on with some other quotes, but they're not particularly of concern to the Minister of Environment.

John Thompson, who is a representative in Lands, Parks and Housing, indicated that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing really has no legal clout in enforcing operations upon the houseboat operators. I guess he was only hoping that goodwill on both sides would allow for a stringent operating plan to be developed.

Here is the quote from Eain Lamont, who is the regional district director I was referring to earlier. These are minutes taken from the regular board meeting of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, so I assume it's a quote. Perhaps it's being paraphrased. Mr. Eain Lamont says that he was concerned too about another aspect, that of houseboats being pulled up on shore and therefore becoming permanent residents. He felt strongly that some sort of licence or permit should be required for all houseboats on Okanagan Lake. John Hurlburt of the Okanagan Mission Residents' Association says that he too agreed the regulation was necessary and went further, to suggest a moratorium be established to allow time for proper rules to be implemented.

Now I cite those comments for the minister's attention, as well as the fact that there has been a request for a public meeting and an impact study to be done. I think the bottom line here, to stress the point to the minister, is that presently there are no regulations in terms of what can and can't be done. There doesn't seem to be any central authority responsible for monitoring the activities of these houseboats, so there is the potential for abuse — environmental abuse, including noise pollution, as well as certain safety factors. For example, are the people who are going to be renting the houseboats going to be duly registered or qualified to operate them safely? The minister probably well knows that there's very little shelter along the main part of Okanagan Lake, and there's considerable concern for the safety of a party of 15 people who go out in the lake, get caught in a storm.... The RCMP have confirmed that they can't rescue 15 people — that their rescue boat wouldn't accommodate such.... So there's a whole bag of concerns wrapped up under this umbrella of environmental concerns.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, as the member just stated, there are many, many things involved in this issue, and even the member, with his excellent memory, had to refer quite extensively to a document he had to bring the problems that he sees to our attention. So I would suggest to him, in the particular problem which he has brought to this forum today, that if he would provide my ministry with all of the background, we would be more than pleased to look into it and to respond in some way. He might be interested to know, however, that we do have some clout in this regard. Under the Litter Act any boats that are found discharging unacceptable effluent into the lake can be charged, and also there is some federal legislation which is in the process — I don't know whether it's been approved yet — which would give provincial governments further powers in dealing with this kind of thing where people might be dumping effluent into a lake or even into the ocean. It would give powers to designate areas where people without holding tanks, for example, are not

[ Page 8086 ]

allowed to go. It would provide the authority to demand that pump stations be located in certain harbours and certain areas. But as I say, that's still in the process. We haven't had that legislation passed on to us yet.

But in the meantime, the concerned individuals — I think you said there were something in the neighbourhood of 1,400 in that particular area — might consider or might be interested in talking about doing something that was done on Shuswap Lake, where they formed a Shuswap Lake management plan. Maybe these people might want to get into that. The plan was proposed by the regional district in the Shuswap area, and it was made to encompass many areas, including environmental impacts, relating to the future development or use of Shuswap Lake and the environs all around it. So they might be interested in doing something like that. In the meantime, though, I say again to the member that if the specifics of the case he cited could be passed over to us, we'd be pleased to have a look at it and do something about it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I guess that's the particular point in question that I'd like to emphasize. These individuals have requested that there be an opportunity for public input, whether through a public meeting or a public inquiry — whatever you wish to call it. The minister seems to indicate that he would entertain the concerns of those individuals. I would like to know if the minister would be willing to entertain a public inquiry of this sort, in terms of establishing some regulations and guidelines to ensure that the environmental concerns these individuals have have in fact been addressed, and perhaps even go so far as to consider the establishment of a controlling body — an Okanagan lakes or basin water authority, or something of the sort — which would be there to monitor. The minister has said that they do have some clout, but it's no good having clout if you've got no one monitoring whether abuses are taking place. It's my understanding that the onus is on the company's goodwill to ensure that there are no infractions taking place. I'm not trying to impugn the integrity of the company, but that is kind of like setting the wolves to watch the sheep. I would suggest that it would possibly be better to have an independent authority that could monitor the situation — above and beyond the houseboat issue, there are many environmental concerns at the lake.

So going back, there are two questions. Would the minister entertain the opportunity for a public meeting to air the environmental concerns? Secondly, would he consider the establishment of a controlling authority for that lake?

HON. MR. PELTON: I'll reserve judgment on that and reserve my answer until you provide me with all the background you've been talking about today.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I will do that, and perhaps at that time the minister can give me a more adequate response.

MRS. WALLACE: I doubt it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, moving on to another issue...

Interjection.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Thank you. I've just got to sift through the paper here a little bit.

...which is the issue of the application by Crown Forest Industries of Kelowna to use sodium tetrachlorophenate to treat their softwood lumber, at the last opportunity I had to contact the ministry that application was still being reviewed. To refresh the minister's memory, as the minister well knows, tetrachlorophenols, of which sodium tetrachlorophenate is a derivative salt, are among the most toxic chemicals used in British Columbia. What is even more concerning is that a natural contaminant, due to the manufacturing process, is dioxin. The minister is also aware that dioxin is a compound that has been found to be increasing in the environment throughout British Columbia. In fact, levels of dioxin contaminants in human tissue samples have been found to have almost doubled in British Columbia, compared to samples taken in other major industrialized parts of the country.

I'd like to submit to the minister, as I have before, that that particular dioxin contaminant is peculiar to the wood-processing industry. The minister is well aware of a fairly detailed report that I submitted to him which cites this evidence. It also cites the particular concerns about the use of these fungicide preservatives at the Crown Forest operation in Kelowna. To again refresh the minister's memory, that particular operation is located right on the lake near a major residential area and a recreation area. The land that it sits on is porous, and the water table is very high. Although I think the company has made every attempt to ensure that the industrial process is adequate and safe, there are many outstanding concerns regarding accidental spills and the possibility of a fire in the plant which, through the sprinkler systems, would cause flooding, and obviously cause a leakage of the fungicide from the tank when it overflowed. There is also the problem of drippage and waste disposal. There are a lot of problems, as the minister well knows, regarding this particular issue.

[3:30]

The community members have been most concerned about the application for use of this fungicide. The Kelowna city council has come out strongly opposed to it. The local MLA has been strangely silent. But on behalf of the people of that area, I would like to ask the minister whether he has reviewed this situation. I might add that in my investigation with the application process, I found that officials in the Ministry of Environment are only responsible for testing and monitoring the atmospheric contaminants coming out of the spray tank. There is no testing or evaluation of other sources of contamination — groundwater contamination, drippage, spillage, etc.

Has the minister taken these dangers into consideration? What is the status of the present application?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. PELTON: I think I'm reasonably well aware of the many different items mentioned by the hon. member with respect to the Crown Forest Products application for the permit in Kelowna. I understand that there have been meetings held up there. They weren't sponsored by this ministry, but I understand there have been meetings. I'm aware of how the Kelowna council and the mayor feel on this issue. I've had considerably correspondence from people in the community, and know how they feel.

At this point in time, and as far as I know, the decision still rests in the hands of the director of waste management of

[ Page 8087 ]

the Ministry of Environment; once his decision has been reached, depending upon what that decision may be, there is still the opportunity for the appeal process, and for all of those various other ways and means in which the public can have their say and their input into what goes on. We don't have any say in where a thing is located.

We just look at it on the basis of all the best information we can find, and have to make a decision as to whether a permit might be proper in any case that comes before us. This one is still under consideration. A decision hasn't been made yet. So under those circumstances there's really nothing else to be said, from my point of view, at this point in time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't know if I'm reading something into the minister's statement, but he says that after the decision has been made there is always the process of appeal, which gives the implication that the decision has been made informally. I don't know if the minister is indicating that through his statement; but it does concern me somewhat. The minister has said that he has been fully briefed on this issue. He certainly received my report, because I have a reply to the report I submitted. He has certainly received other documentation from council and from concerned citizens.

The minister has the information. I might advise him also that he has the power to make that ultimate decision. I would suggest that it's a bit of a copout to say that the person responsible is the director of waste management. This is a situation that must be looked at, in terms of the public outcry that has been raised. That is the minister's responsibility: to pay attention to those public concerns and, if need be, to override decisions made within his ministry. I'm suggesting to the minister that this is a case that he should be taking a personal interest in, and not be ducking out the back door by putting it onto somebody else's shoulders. I understand that the decision has not been made. I would suggest to the minister that there is still opportunity for more public input. Perhaps there is again opportunity for the minister to go to the people who have requested that public input and to allow them due process that should be established.

I'll leave that point as is, and I hope the minister takes those remarks in good faith. It is a particular concern of vital interest to the people in Kelowna — not only in Kelowna, but to people throughout the Okanagan. I might remind the minister that this mill is situated in the heart of what he has now classified as an environmentally sensitive area, and his decision regarding the outcome of this application should reflect the nature of that environmentally sensitive area.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been listening with great interest to my colleague from North Okanagan because he has been raising some points that have certainly concerned me over the past several years in this chamber, particularly relative to these environmental concerns. He's right when he says that the minister has the power. The minister does have the power to make these decisions. The minister told me a few hours ago that once a permit is issued, the chances of an appeal ever being granted to cancel that permit is practically zilch. Once that permit is issued, it's there. The minister certainly does have a responsibility to ensure that if in fact there's a hazard to the environment.... He's the minister responsible for the environment. He's the minister responsible for our clean air and our pure water. If he just sits idly by and lets somebody decide, and says: "Well, I can't do anything. Somebody is going to decide this for me...." That seems to be the format that he follows.

My colleague from North Okanagan talked a lot about the houseboats, and I had intended to get into that with some detail. I don't know if it's worth my effort to even repeat some of the arguments, but I do have some interesting suggestions here about some of the things that are happening — some very positive suggestions. The minister says: "Well, you know, we don't have the authority; the federal has some authority." I have a letter from the minister — this was in March — which tells me that Canada has the prime jurisdiction to regulate navigation and shipping and that they're coming up with some cooperative program to regulate pleasure craft. The draft regulations have been circulated, and promulgation is anticipated later this year. So there it is, but here we are with nothing happening again.

This particular individual, who happens to live out of the province but owns a cottage on Shuswap Lake and comes in to holiday, is really concerned about what's going on with those pleasure boats. He indicates that some of the problem is the simple invasion of privacy, because under the law these people apparently have foreshore rights. They can dump garbage or trash on the foreshore or in the lake. There is the sanitary problem, with no real control of holding tanks. They trespass above the high-water mark searching for firewood; they build fires in hazardous locations; they create noise and disturbance.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Do they shoot cows?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they shoot cows.

What he suggests is that there should be some regulations. They should limit the number of houseboats permitted on the lake. They should permit overnight docking only at prescribed sites; all such sites should be equipped with suitable garbage removal facilities. Locks should be required on all sewage holding tanks, with supervised unloading facilities. Large identification numbers should be required on both privately owned houseboats and those rental units, with the name of the renter so that offenders can be spotted. To do that requires some pretty strong rules and regulations.

The minister says the owners should get together, or the upland residents, the local ratepayers, the regional district or whatever. I suggest that this is an environmental question and that's the minister who should be doing something about it. He's had letters, and I have copies of them, from the B.C. Wildlife Federation complaining particularly about the saltwater situation — which is again a different situation, but a continuing situation — and the difficulties between the two federal and provincial jurisdictions and nothing happening. Sure, the Litter Act is there, and how often is anybody charged and convicted under the Litter Act? Not very often, Mr. Chairman. Letters from ratepayers associations.... They go on and on.

And then I have a letter that the minister is sending out. I'm sure that he's getting all kinds of letters relative to this, so he has a form letter that he's sending out talking all about the fact that this is a great problem of jurisdictional difference, and so on. He winds up by saying that he has assured the yachting association that before he takes any action he will be sure that they know what he's going to do. What about the ratepayers? What about the people who are really the upland dwellers? Is the yachting association all you're going to deal

[ Page 8088 ]

with? Sure, they're one element in it, but it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that more than that should be reviewed.

If there are two things that I'm sure to talk about in this Legislature — and they both really relate to Environment — one is my bill relative to non-smoking, which I won't talk about, and the other is...

AN HON. MEMBER: The Cowichan estuary.

MRS. WALLACE: ...the Cowichan estuary. My colleague already anticipated it. This has been a subject that I have spoken on every year for the last 13 years.

MR. BLENCOE: Fifty-six hours, now, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm going to be brief today. The minister and his staff have put together, at long last, a draft management plan. We had a plan long before this minister saw light of day in this House that established some pretty firm terms about what should and shouldn't happen in that Cowichan estuary. Over the years it has been ignored and watered down. Then we had order-in-council 3339 which said that nothing should happen there without a full environmental impact study. And now we have a draft report. The minister has indicated that he's going to bring in some legislation — at least that's what the throne speech said; I haven't seen anything on it on the Orders of the Day yet — in which he's going to put this draft, or some further version of it, into being. And you know, I commend the people who have worked on this thing, particularly Mr. Lambertsen who has worked hard and long on it.

But what I am concerned about in this draft is that when it boils right down to it there are certain things put into place but all of them are subject to the minister's discretion. If there is a difference of opinion, the minister can decide, with or without consultation with local groups. If that draft goes into place the way it is written, then he is taking into his own hands the final decision-making. We've seen what's happened there in the past, where certainly industry has had far more influence than the environmental groups. I can foresee that ten years down the road, if this goes into place and if that minister, heaven forbid, should remain the Minister of Environment for ten years, we will see that whole thing destroyed, that Cowichan estuary, which, in fact, was the richest fish-bearing stream on all of Vancouver Island, far richer than even the Campbell River, in its heyday. And it's gradually being destroyed. I can see that if this plan goes into place as it is written, with those kinds of powers being taken on by the minister, we may as well kiss goodbye to that Cowichan estuary. I'm hoping that the minister will ensure that when he finally decides, if he ever does decide, what he's going to do about that draft plan, and if he ever brings in the promised legislation, he will take into consideration the problems inherent with allowing those kinds of powers to a minister to make those decisions if in fact the plan is objected to by any of the participants.

[3:45]

HON. MR. PELTON: Just one small comment, Mr. Chairman. I'm overwhelmed by the faith that the good member for Cowichan-Malahat has in me. It's really very gratifying to know that one's efforts are appreciated. I would suggest to that member, and she admitted it herself a moment ago, that we have come a long way in dealing with the Cowichan estuary plan. The final draft of the plan is almost ready and will be going forward to cabinet very shortly.

I find it very difficult to sit over here and listen to the comments. I do think that my critic does a lot of homework on this, but one moment I hear said from across the way that the minister has the powers and should use them to veto this and to veto that or to disallow a plan for this or to disallow a permit for that. Then in the next breath they stand up and say that the minister should not have any discretionary powers to do with something else. So one is led to wonder really what is important from that other side, whether just to make chitchat — yes, nitpicking — and fill in time or whether there is something really definite coming out of there.

We've come a long way in the Cowichan Bay plan, and I think it will go a lot farther. I think the work that has been done by the ministry is deserving of praise, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat suggested, and that the people in that area will benefit from the work that has been done on the Cowichan estuary plan.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what is a quorum in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten, hon. members, including the Chairman. We're okay, if that was a concern.

MR. ROSE: A highly intelligent intrusion or intervention. The minister is....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has not been recognized.

MR. ROSE: I don't recognize the minister, but I certainly hope a man of his ability and reputation for brilliance has learned how to count. I give him credit for that, even though some people might not.

I am going to talk about three little matters, maybe not so little. They are riding matters, and I will just list them quickly in case there is a need for the minister to go and get some documents. I have referred to him the case about Anmore Camplands and its water licence; he agreed to look into that. I would also like to find out from him and bring it up for the record about these aerial surveys and digital mapping, on which I also made representation to him a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if he has done anything about those. Finally, I would like to know a little bit more about the dangerous goods....

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, I don't know whether this is a reflection on the member's speech or not, but I believe that the New Democratic Party is now down to three. It was better than the one they had yesterday, but for an issue that is of such importance to the New Democratic Party, we would think at least they would be able to have a quorum for their own members' speeches. Do we not have a quorum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we don't. One moment, please, and I'll summon the members.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think we should remind the members opposite that there is a debate on the environment going on, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 8089 ]

MR. ROSE: It is not unusual that when I get up to speak large numbers of people leave the building. But I am able to attract some others among the numbers that I repel, approximately equally I hope. I think the minister is just feeling his oats this afternoon, feeling a little bit cocky, a little bit capricious. I understand that. He gets bored with life from time to time, and he thought he would inject into the House a little bit of fun or what passes as humour.

Anyway, as I was saying to the minister, I've got those two items that I would like answers to, if I can get them, and I'll talk about them in a moment.

Before I get another point of order on a quorum call, I would like to be able to tell him the third one. It has to do with the transportation of dangerous goods in the lower mainland. I want to know, since it is a shared jurisdiction with the federal government, what he intends to do about that and what his position is.

I will deal with the first one, having to do with the Anmore water licence. I received a letter from Hal Weinberg, a GVRD director for that area, and he is concerned about the granting of an extended water licence to a commercial enterprise in that part of the riding. Last summer Camplands used in excess of their 500-gallon-a-day limit, and that greatly exceeded the allowable use. I understand now they want more and there are other users on that creek. So they are very concerned about what's going to happen to the other users if this licence is changed from domestic use to commercial use.

I've no objection to having Camplands there. I think we need those facilities, especially this summer. But what I am concerned about, and so is the director of electoral area B, is that what this will in effect mean is that other users who perhaps have equal or prior rights are going to be denied a limited supply of water, especially if we have a long, hot, dry summer. I suppose the question would be, rather than grant these people additional rights on that creek, that they should be urged to seek other means, such as well drilling, for their requirements. I'd like to know, since this is a matter of some urgency, if the minister is prepared to give me today, in the House, a response to that particular question.

HON. MR. PELTON: It seems only a few days ago that the member for Coquitlam-Moody asked me about this particular subject and gave me a copy of a letter that he had received. I took that letter back to the office and immediately passed it through to the ministry for their response, and I will be letting the member know exactly where we stand in that regard just as quickly as I possibly can. As a matter of fact, on that particular question I put a little "urgent" tag on it, so I'm hoping to get the information back as quickly as possible.

I do have a response that just came through today to the member's queries with respect to the aerial mapping program. I could read that letter to the member if he wishes, but it will be coming forward in the normal manner, if that will be satisfactory.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for yielding on that point. I would like an answer, but for the record I would also like to put the thing in a proper setting before he gives his answer. So perhaps we could deal with the water rights question earlier.

The letter sent by the regional district director on April 14 was a registered one, so that was in excess of three weeks ago. I wouldn't suggest that that is too short a time to get some sort of a response, so I think it should be ready. I don't think it should be done with undue haste, but at the same time undue lethargy is not to be admired either. So I look forward to an answer to that one.

On the mapping service, I have a constituent who is one of a number of mapping companies. It's a small enterprise in my riding, and apparently he has been ruled out of an umbrella group that is going to go for a different type of mapping called digital mapping, which requires a fair amount of investment and equipment. There seems now to be a group, co-op or enterprise which effectively rules my constituent out of this particular business. Try as he might, he has so far been unable to break through to this other group which has the exclusive contract, worth about $25 million. So it's a matter of substantial business to him, because most of the mapping, as the minister well knows, is done by the government. He feels that he's excluded. Other companies have been brought in. He is a B.C. company and a struggling beginner in the field. This is of great consequence to him, and I'd like to have an answer now. It would be worthwhile if the minister has a brief response. I'd appreciate receiving his letter and I hope it's a positive one.

HON. MR. PELTON: Well, not having had the opportunity to look at this file copy of the letter that was prepared for the hon. member, I'll have to read from it. The first part, of course, is just in reference to the letter that we received. Then it goes on to say,

"The content of Mr. Hume's letter to you...is generally factual. The proposal that was submitted by the Canadian Association of Aerial Surveyors (B.C. Chapter) in 1983 met the following criteria for unsolicited proposals.

"It was submitted by an individual or organization in the private sector on its own initiative. It satisfied a government science and technology requirement in a unique manner. It was sponsored by a program — in this case the surveys and resource mapping program, and directly supported the mission of that program. It had scientific merit and technical feasibility. It was unique enough to justify waiving the normal competitive procurement process. In this case the proposal contained unique ideas as well as a unique capacity for carrying out the proposed work.

"The members of the association later formalized their relationship by forming a limited company known as the Digital Mapping Group, which presumably provided working capital for compilation and presentation of their proposal, whose scientific merit and uniqueness also makes it attractive to overseas markets around the Pacific Rim.

"I believe Eagle Mapping Services Ltd. was a late arrival on the scene that was definitely not in existence at the time of the unsolicited proposal. For the Ministry of Environment this is a precarious issue since the unsolicited proposal is a technological concept that rightfully belongs to the 'proposer' until we commit ourselves to pay for its implementation. It would be unethical for us to (a) take the unsolicited proposal and ask another organization to carry it out, or (b) force the proposer to take on new partners.

"We could recommend that they take on new partners if we had serious doubts that they lacked expertise or capital to carry out their proposal. This is

[ Page 8090 ]

not the case, since we do not believe that Eagle Mapping offers anything needed to enhance the proposal. In fact, it is a relatively small company (no smaller than at least one of the member companies of the Digital Mapping Group) where retroactive inclusion would only be another level of complication for the general manager of the ten-company consortium. It might also set a precedent for other applicants who have not yet set up shop.

"Nevertheless, my surveys and resource mapping branch people have asked the Digital Mapping Group board of directors to meet with Mr. Hume and give him an opportunity to review his position. He may or may not be admitted as a partner, but at least the answer that you and I seek will come from those who have control over his admission. Certainly the Ministry of Environment cannot dictate the corporate structure of the company that made the proposal.

"In closing, I should point out that the project plan being prepared recognizes the role of subcontractors for special services, and it is possible that Eagle Mapping Services Ltd. might participate in that way."

That's the letter you will be receiving officially, hon. member.

[4:00]

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a reasonable response. I'm grateful for it and I'm sure he will be.

Just one or two points that I think might be mentioned, though. I don't believe that all of the 11 were the original creators; they were brought under an umbrella group by the initiator. As the only one in a mapping service left in B.C., my constituent feels it's a bit unfair that he wasn't allowed to be included. If he were seagulling in from some other jurisdiction, I could understand their reluctance.

Digital mapping wasn't invented by this group. It's a technological innovation and was sold to the government, as the letter states. There's no argument about that part of it. The argument is that if what we've created is in fact a monopoly or a cartel which forbids his being brought in, then that could be grossly unfair, especially if the total mapping in future is going in that direction — that is, a digital system. He's set up for the other stuff, but it's a technological improvement or change, and he's out in the cold. If it's true that he's the only one left out in the cold, it would seem to me that it wouldn't be too difficult.

I can understand that you can't force any number of new partners into a firm or a partnership, or whatever you want to call the umbrella group. I think there has to be a limit. But if he is in fact the only one that's left out, it wouldn't seem to be.... And he's a small firm, a single-man operation. He would have to put out money for further equipment. Undoubtedly he would be prepared to hire people. The counterargument to that, I guess, would be that there's only so much mapping going on and we're just dividing up the jobs among fewer people; we're not going to create totally new jobs. If you let Mr. Hume in he may hire one more, but there would be one fewer by someone else. I suppose that could be the counterargument.

I just feel that to exclude him really endangers condemning his business to death. That's what I'm concerned about. So I'm delighted that he's going to have a hearing; I hope it will result in some sort of positive approach. He isn't whining about this. He feels that the system accepted by the government is a good one. His complaints don't rest there; his complaints are his view of the exclusivity of his particular role in CAAS.

I'll carry on with something else, unless the minister wants to respond to that one.

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly I understand what the member is saying. I still have a lot of faith in people. If in fact Mr. Hume's company is the only one that has been excluded, I think we've made a little bit of progress simply in the fact that he's going to have a meeting with the others. I'm sure that in that specialized field they'll be understanding of his position, and I would hope they would be able to do something to accommodate him.

MR. ROSE: It's very interesting that the minister has been here three years, and he still has a lot of faith in people. He could have learned otherwise in that time. The prediction that the critic for environment...the member from Cowichan expressing an interest in his longevity for another ten years I think restores a lot of faith in.... We're looking forward to increased and enhanced geriatric treatment by that time, so both of us will be in great shape, I hope.

HON. MR. PELTON: So will my critic.

MR. ROSE: Your critic's checking out.

What I want to deal with briefly is not a personal matter involving one or two citizens; this one involves thousands. It has to do with the traffic of dangerous cargo, by rail largely, but not exclusively, in the lower mainland. Now the Eisler report of some four years ago called for long-term planning. We really haven't had that long-term planning. We had the rail transportation committee hold hearings about two or three months ago in Vancouver, at which I appeared on March 3 as an intervener.

What has happened essentially, although this has been delayed, was that the terminal for trans-shipment of this dangerous cargo, some five bargeloads per day, has been altered or will be altered from just below the Vancouver Club, almost cheek-by-jowl with the new Canada Pavilion, to somewhere near the foot of Campbell Avenue, the idea being that it should have been taken out of the Vancouver harbour entirely. What scared me as member for Coquitlam-Moody was that there was some suggestion that that dangerous cargo dock would go in the city of Port Moody at the head of Burrard Inlet. I could give the minister some facts to remind him how environmentally sensitive that area is on two or three grounds, not only the marine life, the restoration of salmon stocks, but the waterfall, the air inversions, the fact that it is a dead end or a cul-de-sac for a lot of air pollution. So it is a very important matter that we don't have another Mississauga in Port Moody.

But we don't want it down at the foot of Campbell Avenue either, because we'll have removed the dock from the foot of Granville Street or thereabouts — maybe at Burrard Street would be closer, the old CPR docks — and we have located it again now at the Burlington Northern docks. So we've taken the risk from all the tycoons that are sitting in the Vancouver Club in case there is an accident — and ultimately there will be an accident. One of the prices we pay for living in a complex, technological, highly pollutant society is that we have to deal with chemicals and explosives and things that are

[ Page 8091 ]

generally grouped under the heading of dangerous cargo. Anyway, the tycoons of the Vancouver Club will be safe from now on, and so will all those large buildings, and the good burghers that live in my friend's riding at the foot of Campbell Avenue for the foreseeable future will have all that dangerous cargo right on their doorstep. So we have altered our terminus from a threat to property and all those highrise buildings around there and those expensive office buildings to a threat to people.

If you think about the different times of day when these things occur, the downtown core.... If there had been an accident in the daytime, it would have been a holocaust because of all the people working in those buildings. If it occurs at night, it's not quite as bad because those buildings and areas are largely vacant at that time except for maybe the Holiday Inn Harbourside, or something like that. It wouldn't be good anywhere. But it is just the opposite in Campbell Avenue, where you have people working in the daytime, by and large not at home, and they come home at night. So you see you've got a tremendous risk anywhere.

I want to know what level of cooperation the minister has had with the federal government on this dangerous cargo, what he has done to press for a long-term solution to it. Because wherever you put that stuff it is going to be dangerous. I can give you the criteria that I have used in deciding where these things should go. But perhaps he could give a general statement here on his general involvement and cooperation with the federal Department of Transport and what he thinks is going to be the future of these dangerous-cargo routes and when he anticipates some solution or the conclusion of a long-term plan in cooperation with the federal government.

HON. MR. PELTON: I know that the member opposite knows that the lead ministry insofar as the provincial government is concerned is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The Ministry of Environment has been working through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, but to my knowledge we have never had any direct contacts with the federal ministry who brought this legislation down.

I of course have a copy of the latest decision in the matter of the transportation of dangerous goods and commodities by rail in Vancouver and Victoria waterfront areas, which I know that you have also. Our concerns are very real, and we are trying to keep on top of how this thing is going. We do have a certain amount of input, but the decisions, when they are finally taken, are taken through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. As the member knows, this came into force last July, I believe it was, and they were given a six month lead time to February of this year.

We will continue to monitor this thing, because we become involved, and unfortunately we always become involved after the fact. When something has been spilled, or we have a problem, then the Ministry of Environment comes in to try to mitigate the circumstances that have come about as a result of the spill or such other incident. We would like, of course, to be able to bring forth some type of legislation that would do away with this kind of thing altogether. I guess things like that will happen as long as we're transporting goods of this nature. But the best we can do is to do everything possible to ensure that they do not happen. We will continue in the ministry to be involved in this matter. Other than that, I wouldn't like to be accused of passing any bucks here, but I do believe that a lot of the questions on this matter would be much better directed to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

MR. ROSE: I don't blame the minister for wanting me to ask these questions of another minister. But as the minister pointed out — if not explicitly, at least implicitly — it's the Minister of Transportation's responsibility if something happens. Until something happens; then you're in it with both feet, and you've got to clean up the mess.

MRS. WALLACE: He'd better prevent it instead.

MR. ROSE: Well, that's the point that I'm trying to make. It seems to me that there are certain principles that we have to follow. Number one is that we are always going to have these hazardous chemicals: there's no question about that. We can't have a modern industrial society, especially in the resource industry, without using some of those chemicals — not that I know of. So we're going to have toxic chemicals. What worries me is really not so much the rail stuff as the trucks. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of concern or safeguard as far as trucks are concerned. Then you've got to consider an evacuation plan, wherever you put one of those things. If you put them, for instance, in Port Moody — that's a cul de sac. There are 30,000 cars going through that area a day. All the dangerous goods, with the exception of those going on CN, go through my riding. So we're sitting on a powder keg.

The minister knows, as well as I do, that until we had the Mary Hill bypass there was a virtual impossibility at certain times of the day for members of his constituency.... His voters and my voters would be in the same boat if there were any kind of terrible accident along the lines that we almost had in Mississauga and that we've had in other places, notably in the States. So that's the second thing.

We've got to consider safety, the environment, and cost effectiveness. If you're going to consider the evacuation plan, you can't ignore those costs. We need a whole system to develop a provincewide plan. Maybe they shouldn't be going down the Fraser estuary at all. They are now though. Maybe they should be going down and out.... Some people will say: "Well, we don't want them in our yard." They're like prisons and garbage dumps and nuclear plants: "Not in our yard, please." But they're going to be in somebody's yard.

If they're going to be, what do you consider? Number one, I think you have to consider population density. Keep that junk away from as many people as you can — and Campbell Avenue doesn't do it. The Ministry of Environment, I think, has a tremendous voice, a tremendous public responsibility to make those statements on behalf of the safety of those people should an accident occur, because you're right in it then.

The other thing is that you've got certain kinds of navigational constraints. What are the implications of water and road transportation? You've got environmental concerns; I've mentioned some of them, so I won't go into those. Finally, you've got the evacuation problems.

In terms of the population density, it would seem to me that we should be dealing, especially for the upcoast stuff that we're barging out of Victoria and out of Vancouver.... Maybe they should go through someplace else; maybe Kitimat. Kitimat wants it. Prince Rupert wants that stuff. So maybe we should be considering that.

[ Page 8092 ]

I could go into the Port Moody issue in much greater detail, but I don't think there's any purpose in doing that here. The Ministry of Environment has, I think, not only a responsibility, but a great opportunity to push for an early resolution to getting that stuff out of the densely populated areas of the lower mainland, and to insist that the CTC come up with a long-term plan, not just for rail but for all modes of transportation, and not just for the lower mainland but for all parts of British Columbia.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister has a response to those points. It seems to me that certain basic criteria could be established readily by the Ministry of Environment. Those criteria could be conveyed to the other ministry, in terms of your discipline and concerns. The simple point, I think, that's made regarding population density is an obvious one. The Campbell Avenue–Raymur Avenue location is simply not acceptable. There is highrise housing, part of the greater Vancouver housing complexes, right at Hastings and Raymur and Campbell Avenue, just a few hundred feet away from the Burlington Northern dock. That clearly is not acceptable. There is a pedestrian overpass right over there for school children going to Seymour Elementary School. It's just not acceptable in that kind of urban environment.

The options that the member has mentioned, including Kitimat, are interesting, and there aren't the densities there. But at the same time there are areas of lower density in the Fraser corridor. The other option of Tilbury Island, for example, or Port Mann.... Tilbury Island would be away from significant residential densities anyway.

It doesn't seem to me difficult to establish some broad criteria and say these broad criteria should be adhered to — and density is one. Could the minister advise the House whether he's prepared to do that?

HON. MR. PELTON: The points made by both members are very valid ones, and I must say that I support the things that they say, and that insofar as I am able, I will bring these points forward at every opportunity to those people who are charged with making the final decision.

I should mention in passing, though — and I think it was the member for Coquitlam-Moody who mentioned evacuation plans — that we do have all these plans in place through our provincial emergency program. We are prepared for all of these events, and just hope that we never have to bring the plans into use.

As I said before, the points made are very valid ones. On the matter of population density, it would seem to me that anybody with even a limited amount of common sense would take that into consideration when considering the issue as a whole. One thing, though, that may have been overlooked — I don't think deliberately — is that the new legislation that was brought forward and that came into effect last July, and in B.C. In February, was a tightening up of all the rules and regulations relating to the transportation of dangerous goods. I think some credit is deserved for them having done that.

I think that at this particular point that's about all I would have to say on the matter, except to repeat once again that I think the points made are well made and that at every opportunity I get I will bring them forward in the forums where they are appropriate.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but it is an important problem. The minister said that there are evacuation plans in place under emergency measures. That is a little bit contrary to my understanding of it. One of the problems is that at the moment there isn't any provision under the fire marshals' act, unless my research is incorrect, for a person to even give the order to carry that out. So he might be interested in looking into that. Who's responsible in case of an emergency? Where does the responsibility lie? Who gives the orders? Where does the liability lie if there's a death or damage due to either an evacuation or some serious accident because of dangerous commodities?

HON. MR. PELTON: We do have a plan, but it's not a mandatory thing. If we want to evacuate people, we cannot force them to leave any particular area. All we can do is suggest very strongly to them that it would be in their best interest. It is under this type of circumstance that this plan was formulated. We do have a plan. I don't know about the feds. I imagine they do, because they've had evacuation plans for many years relative to war and that kind of thing. Ours is related primarily to the kinds of things which we envision happening through a spillage, or something like what happened in Mississauga. But I say again that we have no.... Our mandate will not allow us to compel people to leave a particular area. All we can do is persuade them in the best possible way.

MR. ROSE: I don't think that's good enough. I think that we should have that power. We should also have a designated person. I notice that when they had the gas spill — was it in Moncton? — recently, the mayor ordered several blocks of the city cleared. It wasn't voluntary: "Hey, fellows, would you like to get out of town? We've got a gas leak here." No, they had the power to order people to vacate homes and businesses in a designated area. I think we need the power, and to have somebody who's in charge, somebody who's responsible, somebody to assume liability in case of injury or death, and certainly the power to order people to evacuate, rather than just allow a sort of voluntary thing: if you want to go, you can. Otherwise, if you want to be a torch, you can do that too. I think we need more powers than that. So I'd appreciate it if the minister, in his spare time, would look into that aspect as well. Thank you.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm going to jump around to a different part of the province now, and give the minister a little bit of a break here. He and his able deputy, I know, are carrying on well here.

I'd like to ask the minister if he can advise the committee what he and his ministry are going to be doing regarding the emission levels at the Westar pulp mill in Castlegar. This plant is not only a bit out of compliance with his ministry's regulations part of the time, but the monitoring devices operated by the ministry and by the company itself show that it's massively out of compliance most of the time. I know the pulp market isn't very good in terms of price — it has improved slightly, but it's not very good — and Westar management says: "Well, you can't get blood out of a stone." They can't install the equipment necessary to bring this mill somewhere near the level of the mill's competitors throughout the interior and the north in terms of atmospheric emissions, because they say they don't have the money. But this mill under a succession of owners has been saying that

[ Page 8093 ]

you can't get blood out of a stone for 15 years and yet for 25 years it has been one of the most efficient producers of quality kraft pulp anywhere in British Columbia, and it still is that way today, even though it is basically operating with technology which is 25 to 30 years old — which is a tribute to the management, engineers and working people and maintenance people in that operation.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he can give this committee an assurance that when the application for a variance, which is before him and his people now, is considered, the compliance will not be set on some timeframe — one year, five years, ten years, fifteen years — but rather will be based on being necessary when the price of pulp rises to such a point as there is cash flow in order to bring that mill into the same operating range as has long been accepted by other mills in the interior and the north and for all I know at the coast as well.

Mr. Chairman, this mill and this company operates in the same pulp market as other mills in British Columbia. I agree when the company says that they have a slight disadvantage in the fact that they are the only mill in the interior or the north which is required to process round wood in the plant site by the Forests ministry. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no excuse that this plant has been allowed to get away with what they have since 1960, when it comes to levels of atmospheric pollutants which the people of the lower Columbia Valley have been exposed to during that time. It doesn't happen in the Skookumchuck mill, it doesn't happen in Kamloops, it doesn't happen in Quesnel, it doesn't happen in Prince George, it doesn't happen in Mackenzie. There's no reason why it has to happen that way in Castlegar.

So I would ask the minister to give a commitment to this committee that that operation will be required to install the equipment to put them into compliance just as soon as the price of pulp in British Columbia warrants it. Because I know that if his ministry says, "You've got ten years," which is what they've applied for, it doesn't matter what happens to the price between now and 1996; they won't do anything until 1996. And if the price of pulp is bad then, they will do exactly what they've done since 1961 and say: "We can't afford it right now." So it can't be a fixed time. It has to be a variable time, and it has to be rigidly enforced by the minister and his ministry as soon as there is money there to make it possible.

Mr. Chairman, the other series of questions I want to ask the minister involves the water licence that was issued way back in 1962 to B.C. Hydro to construct what is now known as the Keenleyside Dam on the lower Arrow Lake. As part of that water licence, the comptroller at the time, Mr. Paget, recognized that sport-fish spawning in the lower levels of the creeks was going to be flooded because the valley was U-shaped; there was going to be serious damage and elimination of much spawning habitat, especially for rainbow and kokanee, and he required at that time that the holder of the licence.... In fact he made it a condition to British Columbia Hydro that they indulge in a fisheries mitigation project or projects on the lower Arrow Lakes. Since that time — now 24 years ago — absolutely nothing has happened. There has been fishery mitigation on the Mica reservoir. There has been fishery mitigation on the upper Kootenay Lake at Meadow Creek. There has been fishery mitigation on the upper lakes due to the Revelstoke project, but there has never been fishery mitigation for lost habitat on the lower lake for a water licence that was issued in 1962 and for a project that was completed in 1969.

Rather than going through a historical horror story about how this was arrived at — I'm not here to throw darts at either the fish and wildlife branch or B.C. Hydro at this point — there has been agreement in principle all along, through a succession of Hydro chairmen, including the present one, and through a number of ministers in charge of the fish and wildlife branch — in charge of Environment, in charge of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, when that was the name of the ministry — that something be done. But nothing has happened.

It is my understanding that a proposal has been put forward to develop spawning channels in Inonoaklin Creek at Edgewood on unrecorded water that licensees don't have. It's also my understanding that some holders of water licences have objected, even though their existing licences wouldn't be threatened. I've also discovered, from talking with people in the Agriculture and Environment ministries, that some consideration has been given to water storage projects to increase the flow, which gets very low in that river during August and September, which is exactly when it normally can be expected to have spawning fish. Things have been trotted out, such as storage and diversion of Barnes Creek and other projects, which may or may not have the approval of the local people.

I would like to ask the minister to report to this committee what the status of this project is. It is 24 years old at this point. I don't think there's another fishery mitigation project — which is a condition of a water licence — which a succession of ministers and governments and Hydro chairmen have dragged their feet on that comes anywhere near this in length of time of overall obfuscation. If the minister and his ministry are to decide that this particular project is inappropriate to resolve the problem, and they want to do something else on Lower Arrow Lake, then I wish they'd make that decision soon, too, so that everyone can get on with the replacement project or projects. There are a large number of people from my constituency and, indeed, from throughout the province, and even from across the line, who make use of Lower Arrow Lake as a recreational resource for boating, camping, fishing, picnicking, and for just general enjoyment. When we consider what government decision has done to this part of the province by flooding all the usable land, the very least the Crown can do is restore the fishery resource to something of what it was before the water impoundment known as the Keenleyside Dam and the Arrow Reservoir.

[4:30]

HON. MR. PELTON: I'll deal first with Inonoaklin Creek and the fishway. The member will be very pleased to know that after 23 years I can give him reasonable assurance that we think we'll have this thing resolved within a matter of weeks now. The final report is in. What we've been trying to do all along, I suppose, is see if we can't satisfy, to the very best of our ability, the concerns of all the people involved. We now have the final report. I could go into more detail, but I think that the member would be just as satisfied to know that I can give him pretty reasonable assurance that this should be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone within the next few weeks — and after 23 years that's a long time. I think we've finally reached a point where we can come up with this kind of a decision. At the moment it's just a matter of our getting together with the people who are involved with the agricultural side of the thing, which is where a lot of the complaints came from.

[ Page 8094 ]

As far as Westar's Castlegar mill is concerned, the member should know that we're so interested in the emissions that come from that mill that we recently took the company, Westar Timber, to court on 28 different counts of air pollution, the majority of which happened within a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately the case was dismissed by the court for a couple of reasons. One was that we hadn't established unequivocally enough that there was a threat to human health, and the other one was that there was some question about our being able to prove where the emissions were actually coming from. We are in the process of appealing this decision, and we would hope to have some better luck in the appeal than we had in the original action that we took against them. In the meantime we're having an investigator go in and investigate this whole matter, and he'll be talking to not only the local authorities and the people who live in the area but also the people who work in the mill and the union officials, and we hope he will bring back a report. They have asked for a variance on this permit they have.

I am taken with the member's suggestion about tying the length of time to the price of the product that they sell. I think that is an excellent idea, and we are going to take a very close look at that. As the member knows, we haven't issued any variance order yet, and we won't until after the investigation is complete. But we have been concerned about this for a long time, and we are concerned about emissions in other areas of the province as well.

But they are very difficult things, I am sure the member would agree. As he stated, it is usually a matter of money, from the point of view of the people that are guilty of causing the unacceptable emissions. Then you know the ultimate step would involve the loss of jobs. We have to be very cautious about that, particularly in this time and in this industry. But we are very concerned about these matters, and I will certainly take into consideration his suggestion if a variance order is approved.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister's statements on the Inonoaklin proposal are indeed most encouraging. Representing my own constituents who are looking for long-denied justice and mitigation, I certainly would not want to impose another problem on the people of the Inonoaklin valley in the Edgewood area whereby the government down the road would have to mitigate them, just transferring a problem. So I am pleased to hear that the minister is working something out with Agriculture which hopefully is going to be acceptable to all concerned.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I was aware that a prosecution had taken place. I am not in the committee going to question that decision or that judgment to prosecute, but I think most of my constituents would agree with me when I say that prosecuting and getting a conviction or 20 convictions or 50 convictions doesn't resolve the problem. People want the problem resolved, and they want that plant brought into compliance with the rest of the province of British Columbia.

Let's remember that even if the mill was in compliance, there is still going to be a problem on some day or days when atmospheric inversion does not allow the dispersal of material which is offensive to man and beast. Yes, the minister and his ministry did prosecute, and the court ruled against them, but even if you were successful, that really isn't a solution, and I hope the government realizes that. The solution is resolving the problem, and the solution is installing the equipment that other mills in this province have long since installed. I want to repeat to the committee that all these mills compete in the same market, and they buy wood at the same rate.

I hope the minister is going to deal with that. As I say, the community there has been very patient. The last thing anybody wants is to see a threat to employment, but we are tired of hearing that story too. That's why I make the strong suggestion that if the company does not have the cash flow now, just as soon as there is whatever the minister deems appropriate — a 10 percent increase, a 20 percent increase — they be required to comply with all deliberate speed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, just following up on the dangerous-goods movement: in view of the positive statements the minister has made, agreeing with some of the points made on this side of the House, is he prepared to send a letter to the provincial and federal ministers involved and their ministries backing up the point of view he has expressed today?

HON. MR. PELTON: I don't see any reason that I couldn't do that through the provincial minister to the other minister concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. I am pleased to hear that, and I am sure that citizens in the high-density areas of the urban area of Vancouver will be pleased to hear that as well, especially those along the Burlington Northern line.

I would just like to talk a little about some of the provincial parks and the potentials in that area. I recall that the provincial park acreage doubled during the 1972-75 period from about 6 million to 11 or 12 million acres. That is something I am particularly proud of. It includes parks like Naikoon, which is the northeast part of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the Spatsizi and many others. But since then not much has happened. There have been modest steps here and there, but generally relatively small-scale improvements. One would hope that the new minister, who's not burdened with other obligations, or not too many other obligations, might pursue more actively the question of preservation of wilderness, of river corridors and of new park sites in the province. Certainly one of the areas that intrigues me.... I wonder how much the minister has travelled through these locations around the province. I know it's a pretty vast empire that we try to govern here, but I wonder, for example, if the minister has visited the Stikine. Has he seen the Grand Canyon?

HON. MR. PELTON: I've flown over it.

MR. WILLIAMS: By helicopter?

HON. MR. PELTON: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: If one is to appreciate, for example, the Grand Canyon of the Stikine.... It's very difficult to hike, but if you can take a helicopter down through the canyon, it is absolutely spectacular, and is one of the great wonders of this province. I would urge that upon the minister. I've flown that region by helicopter, and spent some time up

[ Page 8095 ]

there. I landed at Mount Edziza and other locations around Telegraph Creek.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I took at least ten days checking all that grand country back of the panhandle one time — moved the ministry to the northwest. Yes, they were very expensive days. It must have been about a hundred bucks a day, at the most.

The Grand Canyon of the Stikine is truly one of the wonders of the province. To see the wildlife in there as well, that live in that rugged regime, is really a privilege. To travel down the Stikine from Telegraph Creek and Glenora down towards Wrangell is also quite spectacular. It's a great braided river, with huge glaciers breaking off, tumbling into it in all of the tributaries. For me, it's one of the truly great wonders of the province. I urge that trip on the minister.

I wonder how much thought he's given to the preservation of the Stikine. There is mineral activity in some areas. I gather there's even, I believe, helicopter logging in the braided river part of the Stikine as well, which is a little disturbing. That is really a unique area. It's hard to believe that the forest values are huge. It's a little different in the Iskut, which is a significant tributary which also has a power potential. The preservation of the Iskut doesn't really intrigue me personally very much, but the preservation of the entire Stikine length does. On the basis of my examinations, I'm convinced that hydro values there should not be entertained, that the lands should be preserved, and that this is one of the great wild rivers of North America. It indeed should be preserved. Maybe the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. PELTON: I'm pleased to hear what the member has to say about the Stikine, because I have had others tell me very similar stories. Unfortunately, as I said, I haven't had the opportunity of seeing it on the ground or close up, as a helicopter would take us, but I certainly would look forward to doing that. I have been very fortunate in seeing some of the other park areas and actually moving right through them during the past year, but not the Stikine.

I do recall, if my memory serves me correctly, that the "Wilderness Mosaic" dealt not extensively, but to quite some degree, with the Stikine, and recommended, I think they called it, a scenic corridor and various other things. I have high hopes for that report, Mr. Chairman, and anticipate that the Stikine would be just one of the other areas that were examined that would be dealt with as quickly as possible, because I think it's very important that we get on with this wilderness issue and the wilderness preservation concept for our province. I'm in strong support of what the member says about that area and will do everything I possibly can to bring some decision forward as quickly as possible.

[4:45]

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate those comments. I suspect that that message may have been delivered to the cabinet on occasion, and fell on a majority of deaf ears. But I guess we can all work away on these matters.

Maybe the minister could elaborate on his view, then, of wilderness, and how he perceives that. I have to admit that I have some trepidation about wilderness designations being handled by the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Forests is clearly the mirror image in far too many ways of this forest industry, rather than representing a broader view in terms of the public interest. I suspect that a separate ministry outside of the industrial side of forestry has to handle the wilderness matters if there's going to be the balance that's needed in terms of looking after that part of the public interest. Has the minister got a view of the new approach toward wilderness and management of wilderness?

HON. MR. PELTON: I don't think that it's necessarily a new approach, but ever since the Wilderness Advisory Committee was struck, we have been proceeding on the basis of a cooperative effort on behalf of those ministries that are closely involved with the land base of our province, and which includes, of course, Forests; Lands, Parks and Housing; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and so on. They have been, as a committee, studying the report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee, "The Wilderness Mosaic," ever since it was filed with me on March 7. The information I'm getting back is that they are proceeding very well together and are dealing with these things on a cooperative basis.

I agree with the member when he says or suggests that you can't really deal with these matters of wilderness in an isolated way. When I say isolated, I mean from the point of view of any particular ministry. I think it has to be the combined point of view. After all, what we're trying to achieve here and what I'd like to see happen is that we get this multi-use concept so that we can get the very best of everything out of this heritage that we have in our province of beautiful wilderness areas, areas where at the same time there is potential for some economic benefit other than, say, just tourism. I think in other parts of North America and the world they proceed on this basis and you get your wilderness.

You'll notice, having studied "The Wilderness Mosaic," that they talk about many ways of preserving wilderness and different concepts of what it might be, how it might be used and how we might accommodate the various uses. I think that we have struck a good rapport between the ministries that are involved in this. I look forward to seeing some pretty positive recommendations coming down in very short order now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Minister. That's encouraging. I wonder if the minister is familiar with some experimental work that was done in terms of integrated management units, which I don't think have been pursued beyond the initial one in the Smithers area at Hudson Bay Mountain and so on, where that is handled jointly by ministries. So Fish and Wildlife and your staff are working with the Forests ministry and others, and with the local community, in terms of determining programs and policies within that unit. That clearly is a principle that could be expanded around the province, rather than a single-ministry approach, particularly in areas of difficulty and conflict.

But what the minister really is almost leading to, in terms of how he sees this working together of ministries, is something that was done before but was disbanded. There was a significant interdisciplinary group called the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, with people from all disciplines involved in these kinds of questions. Maybe the minister is prepared to look at rebuilding, or at least initiating the beginnings of a significant secretariat to deal with these problems. It's clearly not adequate to have a small committee trying, as best as they might, to deal with these conflict questions. Clearly you need full-time, able professionals from many disciplines working on these questions. Is the

[ Page 8096 ]

minister prepared to entertain that kind of interdisciplinary group again so that you really might have the best advice that's available?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think the member would agree that the Wilderness Advisory Committee was just such a group, and that they certainly proved that bringing people of different disciplines together to resolve a problem pays dividends. I wouldn't hesitate, if the occasion arose where this requirement seemed to me to be essential, to recommend such a move again. At the moment I wouldn't have the authority to set about doing that on my own, I wouldn't think, but I certainly wouldn't hesitate to do it again, because I am so impressed by what was accomplished by the group of eight people that we had working for us just recently.

The idea of integrated resource management that the member suggested is something that we have experimented with, and we have had it. In some sense that is, I guess, another way of saying multiple use. That's the way I see it, and it's what we're out to achieve. I feel very strongly that we're moving well along in reaching this goal. But I accept what the member says, and accept the suggestion that should the need arise, I should have no compunction in recommending that a committee of people with many different talents be brought together to try to resolve some of these problems that haven't already been addressed in that way.

Also, I think the member would support me when I say that in that process we must never forget the fact that the people who are closely involved, the people who live in the particular areas of the wilderness, should also be consulted. That's also part of my personal plan.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm encouraged that the minister is interested in local input. Certainly some of the hearings at Wells Gray, for example, in the community of Clearbrook are an example of that, and that's to be commended. In the case of the Stikine the communities are very small, but if you're prepared to involve them in that process, that's good news. There is, of course, a significant provincial interest as well that can't be ignored.

I guess the main point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that there is clearly a need on an ongoing basis; not an ad hoc committee basis, but rather a continuing availability of professional staff to work on questions like this. At the last minute you added to the committee Mr. Ken Farquharson, for example, who is an environmentalist of some repute in this province despite his original engineering background. I shouldn't say that; I don't really mean it. He's clearly a person who has contributed greatly to the environmental debate for a generation in this province. There are many people like that who really should be full-time people on your staff; who have the capability of understanding and appreciating numerous disciplines, bringing skills to this very difficult task of dealing with these kinds of conflicts.

I guess I'm arguing for a full-time capability of some scale. I do appreciate the kinds of problems you have in taking that kind of proposal to this cabinet — relatively deaf ears, I suspect, in view of the fact that most of them were players who removed the last group that carried on that kind of work so well for some length of time.

Maybe the minister could advise us what he sees for south Moresby and elsewhere in terms of the negotiation process to preserve these lands as significant public park wilderness preservations. Clearly there are arguments over Lyell Island, but essentially the committee has recommended that the bulk of the archipelago be preserved. I think there is a genuine consensus around that. Then there's the question of negotiating that, dealing with other ministries that have interests, and other private sector interests as well, and potentially the federal government as well. What series of steps does the minister see in terms of the preservation of that important archipelago?

HON. MR. PELTON: I'm sure the member would agree that first things come first, and the first thing we have to do is get a formal acceptance — I won't use the same word as I used this morning — of the "Mosaic." Then we can start on the job of implementation, discussion and negotiation. Certainly there will be negotiations specifically related, I suppose, to the recommendations — if accepted — with respect to south Moresby. There will be some negotiations there. We've already had representations from time to time from my federal counterpart, who is also involved with national parks, saying loud and clear how he feels and what he would like to do.

There will be ongoing negotiations in that respect, as there will be, I would suggest, with some of the others. Some negotiations will be necessary. When we start dealing with matters of compensation — one of the matters mentioned in the report — negotiations will certainly be required there. It's difficult to speculate how they will go or how they will proceed, but I think that once we get a green light to start working on these things and using the information that's in the report to the very best advantage possible, we will proceed in an orderly and I hope relatively quick and efficient negotiation process with other agencies and other jurisdictions that will undoubtedly be involved in what eventually happens in the south Moresby area. I've never changed my feeling about that area. That's an area that I have had the opportunity of seeing at as close hand as the member has the Stikine. I've always wanted to preserve as much of that area as I possibly can, and I was reasonably pleased with the recommendation that came forward, because it does see a reasonable amount of preservation. I think it relates pretty closely to what we used to refer to as option 4 in one of the many reports that came out on that area.

So I look forward to getting on with that as quickly as possible, and I can assure the member that the south Moresby.... Although I'm interested in the whole province, as it is my responsibility to be, I'm particularly interested in that area and seeing that something happens there just as quickly as possible.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's encouraging. I take it from what the minister says that he is seeking a green light with respect to the preservation of most of south Moresby — Lyell Island might well be a question mark, but the remainder. So I take it that's the department's position, and that's encouraging.

[5:00]

I wonder, however, in view of the length of time it's taken to deal with the Nitinat triangle in Pacific Rim National Park, whether the minister or this administration mightn't have pursued it more diligently, in view of the fact that it's been probably 13 or 14 years since the boundaries were basically agreed upon involving the lakes in the Nitinat triangle. Could the minister advise us where that negotiating process stands

[ Page 8097 ]

now, with respect to that part of the full Pacific Rim National Park?

HON. MR. PELTON: This debate has been going along very well, and I wouldn't want to spoil the tenor that we have been able to achieve up to this point in time. But I'm sure the member realizes that this is a bit outside my jurisdiction. This is a matter that relates to Lands, Parks and Housing. Certainly I'm aware of what's going on there, and it was one of those areas that the committee was asked to look at, but I think that this question would be much better directed to my colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf).

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to nitpick either, but these are public lands and they have varying degrees of licences with respect to them, so one might argue that the Ministry of Forests is as involved as any ministry with respect to those lands. But the whole question of the park I would think would be a matter in the end between the ministries involved. However, fair enough. I'm not going to pursue that.

I wonder if the minister has looked at other analyses of the Stein, particularly economic analyses carried out by the masters program in natural resource management at Simon Fraser University. Professors there, along with the graduate program, have looked at the Stein and have found very significant negative numbers in terms of the cost versus the benefit of logging the Stein River basin, to the tune of I think $10 million plus, or $12 million, if my memory serves me right. Has your ministry looked at those economic studies carried out by independent professionals with respect to the Stein and its preservation? It would strike me that there are very strong arguments against bridging the Fraser River and building roads up the Stein. If you're going into that kind of negative amounts, it would seem to me that essentially you're feeding the arguments in the United States about our subsidizing our forest industry. This would clearly be a case of subsidization in terms of bridge-building or other elements by the Crown.

The company involved, B.C. Forest Products, has argued that they should be able to transfer their stumpage credits from the coast to the interior to justify the logging of the Stein. That doesn't make sense to me in terms of the pure economics, let alone the wilderness values. I just wonder if your department is aware of those studies, and if they are making use of them in their dialogue with the Ministry of Forests on this issue.

HON. MR. PELTON: I guess if I could list the various items that were looked at from the point of view of difficulty in their resolution, the Stein would rank probably as number one. I wouldn't begin to say that I personally, nor could I even say on behalf of the ministry that they have examined all these various studies in a great deal of detail. But I am certainly aware, and I am sure the ministry people.... Dr. O'Riordan is one who has been concerned with this whole process all the way through, and he would also be aware of the studies that have been done. The wilderness committee had a study done, too. And I am aware of the negative impact in dollars that has been stated in some of these studies, that could accrue through the logging, saying that in their opinion logging was not economically justifiable. I am aware of those things. I can't, just off the top of my head, recall precisely what the wilderness committee said about the Stein, but I think they were aware of this as well. I certainly think it would be one of the things that would have to be considered in making any definitive decisions about what would happen in that particular area.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, that is encouraging. I would hope then that the minister.... I presume the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet will be considering these various proposals, either individually or as a group. Does the minister see it on an individual basis or as the full wilderness report?

HON. MR. PELTON: I think in the long run it will be to resolve them.... I don't think you could just say that the whole thing will be resolved at once, that we're going to do everything at one time. Although I have often said they shouldn't be dealt with in isolation, I think that each one of them is unique in some particular way. I would expect that they would be dealt with on an individual basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. I hope therefore that when that one is considered, the Simon Fraser studies are looked at very closely by your staff, because I think they alone sink the ship in terms of the idea of industrial development of that basin. The dollars are just not there in returns for the Crown. I think that leaves us open, as we are on the issue of what the Americans charge as subsidization of this industry. This one is so classic that I think the American Congress would jump at the chance of seeing this kind of subsidization by the Crown with respect to industrial logging activity.

Another one that intrigues me is Nimpkish Island here in the Nimpkish valley. I think it is presently controlled by Canadian Forest Products, if my memory serves me correctly. That's a tree-farm licence that they hold there. Under the terms of the tree-farm licence, the Crown has the right to take back certain lands, up to a certain percentage point. This is one of the most significant stands of virgin, huge, old Douglas fir in the province. I haven't seen it myself, but others who have seen it tell me that it is probably the finest unprotected stand of Douglas fir of some considerable age in the province. I think they're 600-plus years old, if my memory serve me right, and very significant.

I know the "Wilderness Mosaic" report suggests compensation to the operator. The Crown has the right to take back lands that it has given into tree-farm licences. I'm sure that the full percentage, with respect to the CanFor tree-farm licence, has not been obtained by the Crown, in terms of land reversion. We take a certain amount back for highways or powerline rights-of-way or various other provincial needs. But surely one of the provincial needs is preserving one of the last great stands of Douglas fir left in the province. This is probably more significant than Cathedral Grove near Port Alberni.

The Crown has these contracts, clearly has the right to acquire back some of these lands when it's deemed that it is in the public interest to do so. So I have some trouble with the idea of negotiating compensation with this particular timber company in view of the fact that the Crown has these rights under the legislation to preserve areas just such as that. Has the minister any comment?

HON. MR. PELTON: I guess my comment would be really nothing more than to say that I hear very clearly what the member has said. As I recall, the committee recommended compensation. I think they said something in the

[ Page 8098 ]

neighbourhood of a million dollars, and the way that's handled or whether the Crown exercises its right to take back part or all of the holding is a matter of judgment which I guess will be decided when the Nimpkish area is dealt with under the recommendations put forward by the committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could we have the assurance, then, of the minister that he will look very carefully at the TFL document with respect to the question of compensation and the amounts of land the Crown in fact can get back in terms of serving the public interest? I don't think the maximum amount has been obtained back from that tree farm licence, and clearly this little oxbow island — it's not a big area at all — on the Nimpkish with this last great stand of Douglas firs should be preserved.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, previous administrations of your same stripe allocated these huge tree farm licences in British Columbia at zero price — a modest trade-off in terms of industrial development and some kind of standards established with respect to logging. The Crown retained its right to take back some of those lands in the public interest, so I know that the Bentley family clearly would like the million dollars with respect to our island of trees that the public of British Columbia owns, but I don't think, despite their problems with the banks at the moment, that the province of British Columbia should pay a million dollars for something that is already ours.

HON. MR. PELTON: I feel that I can assure the member that this will be taken into consideration when a decision is made. I have gathered a little more information about Nimpkish which I might pass on. There is one interesting thing here, though, and being a bit of an expert in the forest business, hon. member, I just note here in the study that it says that they talk about the company having applied for a permit to cut trees on the island, and it says that the Ministry of Forests denied the permit. It goes on to say: "Under section 53 of the Forest Act" — and I'm not all that familiar with the Forest Act — "the government is required to compensate the tenure-holder." Then it goes on to say how they arrived at the value of about $999,000. This might be something we should take a look at.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the point, and I'm sure the company would make that argument, but there is another section of the Forest Act that deals with a percentage of the area and volume taken back for public purposes. The two, I guess, have to be balanced off one against the other.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of items I would like to discuss with the minister. The first one has to do with the situation in Revelstoke, dealing with the Illecillewaet River. I know that the minister is aware of most of the background of this problem. I can relate to the minister the fact that the city of Revelstoke has been attempting to coordinate the resolution of the problem of the Illecillewaet flooding. They have been successful in obtaining a meeting with B.C. Hydro. It's my information that the meeting was of a positive nature. But before any resolution of the problem can be attained it will be necessary for the Ministry of Environment staff, at the senior level, to get involved in discussions with the city of Revelstoke and B.C. Hydro.

I would like to relate to the minister, Mr. Chairman, the urgency of discussions taking place on this problem. There are a number of homes adjacent to the river that, indeed, have had serious problems up to now. But I can also say that the problems could be much greater than they have been to date, with any kind of runoff any spring, whether it be this freshet or any in the future. So I would appeal to the minister to please direct your senior staff to get in and have a meeting with the city and B.C. Hydro, to see if they can't jell, among the three parties, some kind of financing-funding formula, to bring this long-standing problem to a resolution.

[5:15]

The other subject, Mr. Chairman, has to do with the comptroller of water rights. Of all of the divisions or ministries or branches of government, I find this particular one to be perhaps the slowest in processing constituents' concerns. I could relate numerous instances where people have tried to process water utilities problems, and I can tell you that it's not unusual for the process to take a year. It's not unusual or infrequent for it to take two years and longer. Eighteen months is common. That is just not good enough service to give taxpayers and constituents throughout the province of British Columbia.

I don't know the intricacies of the ministry or the department, but I do know that if problems of this nature exist there's got to be some type of answer, whether it be more staff or perhaps a study of the department to see that the process and the approvals are updated and working efficiently. In every single case I've heard of having to do with water utilities, there is a feeling by constituents that they are not being treated in an expeditious, prompt manner. To me, this is not good enough for constituents in the province. Whether it is developers or private landowners doesn't matter. Business is business, and these problems have got to be addressed in an more expeditious manner.

I would be very pleased if the minister could assure me and the House that this situation will be looked into, that perhaps additional staff will be put in that particular department and that the concerns and the applications of constituents, members of the public, taxpayers, will be addressed in a more efficient manner.

HON. MR. PELTON: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke and my colleague is absolutely right: the water utility services that we provide are not good enough. It's not because we don't want them to be good enough; I think it's the system that is causing a lot of the problems. We do have some staff problems, but that's not uncommon in most organizations.

I recognized that there was a problem here from talking to people like my colleague, so I'm pleased to be able to tell the committee that we have engaged the services of the firm of Ernst and Whinney. They will undertake a review of all the regulations with respect to the water utility system within the government. The terms of reference are fairly broad. They will consist of a review of the current system for regulations and administration, which will include the philosophy and strategy of the government on which the legislation is founded: the Utilities Commission Act, Municipal Act, Local Services Act and other pertinent legislation.

I could go on and on, but I think what the member was asking for was some assurance that we were trying to do something about this, and I can assure him that we are. Ernst and Whinney have been on the job now for a couple of months, so we shouldn't be too far down the road from where

[ Page 8099 ]

we will get a presentation and an assessment from them, which I would expect will facilitate our changing the rules and the regulations to make the system a little more efficient, one that responds in a better and quicker manner to the demands of the public.

The Illecillewaet River flood and drainage problem is a matter that I've been aware of for some time now. It has been going on for a long time. I believe it goes back to the year 1977. At the moment I guess the situation is that the city is awaiting clarification of the ministry's position concerning recommendations and possible financial assistance before meeting with B.C. Hydro for further discussions.

One apparent option that we have is to dredge a channel through the gravel deposits below the bridge. This would involve the expenditure of some $200,000 and would require that a survey be done. Another is to install a storm drainage system as proposed by Urban Systems Ltd., consultants to the city of Revelstoke. The bill there would be about $800,000. One of the other options is to raise the problem houses; that would cost $400,000, plus or minus. The last one is the purchase of the properties, but this option is opposed by the city of Revelstoke, and that would cost $1 million plus.

Where we stand right at the moment, I guess, is that we are still meeting with the city of Revelstoke and with B.C. Hydro, and we have failed to resolve the problem of financial responsibility. But that doesn't mean we don't keep on trying. We have offered to carry out a survey of the river area and to assist financially in the remedial channel-improvement measures. But at this point we haven't been able to resolve the sharing of the costs with the city of Revelstoke.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time, because I did most of the things I wanted to do yesterday. But something has come to my attention, or certainly given me some food for thought. It was that in dealing with environmental issues and conflict resolution in resource use, sometimes these are very controversial and very emotional issues. Sometimes in the environment of this Legislature, trying to debate these kinds of issues within this chamber may not always be the most advantageous way. I am wondering if the minister has given some thought to using — and some of my colleagues may have already written this up, I don't know — the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Resources for all-party discussions and perhaps problem-solving on some of these delicate issues. I think the minister is aware that the committees of this House don't always work as well as they should. But these are some of the issues that we are talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing the minister's estimates — the administrative things. This is not a forum for discussion of other committees of the Legislature, which take their direction not from this committee but from the full House. So possibly the member could get into the administrative functions of the minister and not other committees of the House which are not the minister's responsibility.

MR. BLENCOE: The Chairman is partially correct — indeed, maybe totally correct. But what I am trying to suggest is that on some of these issues I think all of us in this House would like to consider that there are times when we can do problem-solving. I am just wondering if the minister has given some thought to some mechanisms whereby some of these issues that are indeed difficult, and that he administers and tries to deal with.... Maybe there are some ways — and I won't refer to any committees, Mr. Chairman — whereby all parties can be represented in problem-solving or trying to take some of the emotion and the heat out of these issues before they become, shall we say, extremely controversial. I suspect that with some of the issues that face us today, the things you're trying to administer and deal with, Mr. Minister, if we had some mechanisms rather early on, we could have caught some of these things, and all sides of the House and all political persuasions could have quietly and efficiently entered into some rational and intelligent discussion. We may have found some conflict-resolution early. Has the minister given any thought to that kind of process in his particular ministry, which is very emotional, very controversial at times?

HON. MR. PELTON: May I suggest that this is really what happened with the wilderness committee, and it worked very, very well. It was also suggested in a way by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) before the second member for Victoria came into the Legislature this afternoon. I think the idea has a lot of merit, and I'm prepared to consider such an idea. I should point out, though, bearing in mind the words of wisdom that we received from our Chairman, that some of the committees that are struck are struck at the will of the House, at the pleasure of the House, and the tasks that they undertake on behalf of us all are also given to them by the House.

I think there is a lot of merit in the idea. I think I said the same thing to the second member for Vancouver East. Certainly I am prepared to consider such a move.

MR. BLENCOE: It's interesting that the member for Vancouver East has brought up a similar topic. I find the minister's response, from what I've heard today, to be fairly encouraging. Although the minister is correct and the Chairman is correct that the committees do the will of this House, there can be some leadership from various ministers in terms of indicating that perhaps some of these other — I don't want to refer to committees — processes may be useful. I think leadership from those who are in charge of administering particular portfolios could indicate to this House that maybe some rational discussion at an earlier stage within the confines of this Legislature may be useful to all of us, and may be useful for the real thing that we should be trying to do, which is problem-solving and resolving some of these delicate issues that affect all British Columbians.

I think many of us — I know since I came to this House — have seen that, you know, there are days when we have to wonder when we ever.... Really, what do we resolve in terms of the daily problems facing British Columbians? I think it's in the interests of all of us that we as legislators, on behalf of all constituents in all parts of the province, try to encourage progressive and innovative mechanisms that resolve problems rather than create or extend confrontation and conflict.

MRS. WALLACE: I have one other major issue I wanted to raise. But just before I do that I want to mention a couple of minor things. The minister accused me again of nitpicking in what I said about whether or not he had certain powers to make decisions. I would just like to point out to him that, in

[ Page 8100 ]

my opinion, there is a terrific difference between using your powers to ensure that there is public participation of the local people concerned and using those powers to prevent that kind of participation. That's the difference in the two things, referring to where he was trying to point out that I was not being consistent in my remarks.

[5:30]

I have a little bit of a problem with his consistency in his remarks about fines for poaching. On Tuesday afternoon he said, in response to some of my comments about the fines for the people of Prince George — and I'm quoting from Hansard — that if there was anything wrong with this fine, "in my view it's a little on the small side." Then he goes on to say:

But then I guess we have these things. These judgments, as was suggested in the House one day recently by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), are judgments that have to be made by the courts and we can't really interfere in these things.

And yet this morning, in answer to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), he indicated that there were some steps underway — that it was already in process — to have the fines increased. So the two things don't seem to jibe. One says we have to live with it — there's nothing we can do about it — and the other says we're in the process of doing something about it. Perhaps that's nitpicking, but it's just a small thing where I find some inconsistencies in what the minister is telling us.

The thing that I want to raise with him is probably one of the most crucial issues that we have facing us in British Columbia. In Canada and the world. It has been referred to earlier in some rather partisan ways. It is this whole problem of nuclear energy, nuclear warfare and the nuclear escalation that's going on around the world. What has happened near Kiev in the U.S.S.R. Is a very unfortunate thing, and I hold no brief for the way it has been handled. We're getting some public input now — some information. But if there is to be anything gained by that experience, by the Three Mile Island experience and by the thing that happened in Britain that was on the news last night, it is to increase our concern about this continuing escalation of nuclear power, nuclear warfare, the whole problem of the use of nuclear energy, the disposal of waste and the hazards involved in that kind of thing. It's the biggest environmental problem that we're facing. It's a huge environmental problem.

I have some concerns that I would like the minister to answer specifically to British Columbia. We have a moratorium on uranium-mining that expires in February of next year. What's going to happen? Is the minister prepared to make a commitment that he will fight in cabinet to ensure that that moratorium remains?

I tell you, I have some concerns about the approach that this government is taking, inasmuch as one of his colleagues in cabinet recently amended the regulations to the steam pressure vessels act. The amendments are the inclusion of nuclear-power components under those regulations. Why amend those regulations, if you are not proposing to move into nuclear power in this province? I would like the minister's assurance that he will do all in his power to prevent that from happening.

HON. MR. PELTON: The member dwells on a problem that.... I have no difficulty in agreeing on the magnitude of the problem that faces us. I know that all we can do, from where we sit and where we stand, is to express our concern the way that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has expressed her concern. It seems to be a problem that the world leaders have been grappling with for an extended period of time now. All of us would hope that they achieve some measure of agreement before it's too late.

On the matter of the amendment to the act that was mentioned by the member, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) was the.... Through his ministry that amendment came forward. I must suggest, most humbly and without appearing to be impertinent, that I would think that he should be the one to respond to a question such as that.

The matter of the uranium. That was a decision that was taken.... I wasn't involved at the time, I guess, but I'm sure it was taken by cabinet and any further decision would have to be taken by that same body in this respect. Other than that, there's not a great deal that I can say. I have a great deal of concern about the proliferation of atomic weapons and about the potential disasters that we live with every day now. I will do my own part as best I can to make known my concerns and the concerns of others who speak to me.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, in my brief absence my colleague the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) brought up an issue that I had wished to comment on. I'm glad that he has brought it up, because it's an issue which affects both his riding and the eastern portion of my constituency, and that is the development of a fish ladder in the Inonoaklin stream which basically comes off of the western shore of the Arrow Lakes near the community of Edgewood. This has been an issue for a number of years now and still doesn't seem to have been resolved. I have been in contact with numerous members of the community in Edgewood, and as a matter of fact in the surrounding communities of Burton and Fauquier, and by and large the community members support the development of a fish ladder in this area.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I might add that the Inonoaklin is a major spawning channel that can be utilized providing the fish can get access to the channel. It's got good gravel beds and it meanders back and forth and it's a good spawning river. But the present problem is that with the lake being used as a reservoir there is insufficient spawning channel before the falls in order for the fish to spawn.

Needless to say it's an important issue in that area. There have been public meetings slated, and they seem to be continually delaying the decision on this. I think, on behalf of the residents of those communities who have wanted this issue resolved for some time, I would like to see some final decision made on this, and I would request that the minister ask his regional representatives to go ahead with that public inquiry, that public meeting, so that the communities can have some input on that.

The second issue. I want to be very brief here because I know my colleague would like to summarize, but there is another issue of pressing concern in the north Okanagan area. It involves a water rights dispute with a private firm called Alto Utilities, which operates in the Winfield area. For the minister's information, back in 1984 Alto Utilities applied through the water rights branch for a rate increase. It was the feeling of the members of the Clearwater subdivision — the members of the community who draw their water from that

[ Page 8101 ]

utility — that the amounts being requested for the rate increase were too large, and exorbitant in view of the levels of service that had been given. At that time they requested a public hearing, and that was granted by the deputy comptroller of water rights. The public hearing was finally held in the fall of 1985, over a year after the initial request for the public hearing.

The evidence brought in at that public hearing was quite surprising in terms of some of the expenditures that this company was trying to justify, such as paint jobs for the Mercedes — things like that — going under the operating costs of the company. I attended that hearing on behalf of the residents, and quite frankly, some of the allegations that I heard were very surprising, to say the least. There's a very good indication that that company has not been operated in a fiscally responsible manner, yet there has still been no decision on that public hearing.

While preparing that decision, apparently the water rights branch received a second application for a rate increase; a second rate increase before they have even been able to decide on the first rate increase. Alto Utilities is now coming along and requesting an additional increase in rates.

I would point out to the minister that this problem has been going on for over two years now. It is my position that the water rights branch does have sufficient information available to them to make a decision. The public hearing has been held; there was, I would suggest, intentional withholding of financial information from Alto Utilities that obviously protracted the decisions being made. However, the residents of Clearwater subdivision do need a decision to be brought down one way or the other. As a matter of fact, just last week I attended a meeting with the residents of the subdivision, who have quite frankly had it to the gills, to say the least, with the undue length of this whole negotiation.

I would ask the minister to request his deputies and those individuals in the water rights branch to bring down a final decision so that we can resolve this issue.

MRS. WALLACE: It is always an interesting exercise, these estimates on Environment. We come from different perspectives with different priorities, and the minister is always very cooperative in trying to answer the question, so he spends a lot of time getting up and telling us a lot of things. But unfortunately he never seems to be able to give us definitive answers. What seems to be the problem is that he somehow sits back and waits for other people to make decisions.

The "Wilderness Mosaic," for example — I have made some remarks about that, and he certainly has the copy of my submission to the Wilderness Advisory Committee. That committee was dedicated, well-meaning people, completely hamstrung in their ability to make recommendations that are unbiased and meaningful because of the makeup of the committee, because of the time constraints and because of the limitations put on that committee. It was established, as I've said before, because the minister had so many problems that he couldn't deal with that he set up a committee to take the heat off. That report has been in now almost exactly two months. He gave the committee an unrealistic time-frame of a month, which was extended slightly, and...

[5:45]

HON. MR. PELTON: Ninety days.

MRS. WALLACE: It was extended that much? But there was apparently some urgency on that. We've now had this report for two months, and all the minister can tell us is that he hears that things are going very well, and that someday we're going to have something come out of this. I wonder if we will ever see that report. It seems to me that the minister is not prepared to put the kind of pressure on his cabinet colleagues that is required if we are going to get these programs that are so badly needed for the protection of our environment.

What we have is someone who can't seem to make a decision. He always puts it off to somebody else. I don't know what we should call him. I've mentioned before that he obviously doesn't have much ability to influence his cabinet colleagues; and I sympathize with him in that, because they're a group of people who don't share a lot of the ideas that we've been talking about. But what have we got? I hate to use the term "a Mr. Dithers," but it almost seems that that's what we have: someone who dithers from one position to the other and doesn't come down with decisions. What we need right now are some firm decisions regarding a lot of the issues that are facing British Columbians, and decision on those wilderness area is one of them.

The wildlife area. We've had the minister telling us that he really believes that we should have more conservation officers. He's come up with some kind of a plan where he's going to deputize people. He's talking to ministers about it. But nothing happens. This goes on year after year, and nothing happens. We don't need that kind of dithering and delay. What we need is action, and we need it now if we're going to protect that $2 billion industry.

Pesticides. Mr. Chairman, we have gone into pesticides over and over again in this debate. This minister has only been around a couple of years, but it's an old story here. He is not prepared to ensure that these questionable products are used in a safe and secure way. It's not happening. Again we have this indecision; always the indecision. What we need are some firm, hard decisions for the protection of our environment from those chemicals.

Waste management. We have had the garbage problem, we've had the sewage problem, we've fed all kinds of information to that minister on positive, economically viable methods that he could go into to reutilize the waste, and what do we get? More delays, more dithering, no action. We need action, or we're going to go down gasping under piles of garbage and tons of sewage. The problems go on, and the minister obviously is not willing or able to take action.

Probably one of the worst things that has happened in this province is the sense of false security that has resulted from the establishment of a token environmental ministry. Somehow people feel that because we have an environmental ministry, everything in our environment is being protected. That is a false premise, because it is in fact only a token. It is not a power-broker in cabinet. It is not a high-priority ministry.

Somehow the government fails to see that protecting our environment is the best economic program they could embark on. If in fact they took the steps that we've been talking about during this debate and other debates in this House, they would be economically viable programs that would create jobs, would protect our environment for the future, and would ensure that British Columbians have a beautiful, safe and continuing British Columbia in which to live.

[ Page 8102 ]

Vote 25 approved.

Vote 26: resource and environmental management, $99,072,825 — approved.

Vote 27: emergency assistance, $2,403,500 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like leave to introduce a private bill.

Leave granted.

Introduction of Bills

ACCOUNTANTS (MANAGEMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

On a motion by Mr. Reynolds, Bill PR401, Accountants (Management) Amendment Act, 1986, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 22, the Commercial Arbitration Act, which will largely implement the recommendations of the 1982 Law Reform Commission's report on arbitration. It will modernize our legislation for domestic commercial arbitration, to provide a more simple process. This bill is supported by my counterpart and by the other side of the House.

MR. COCKE: This is going to take some debate, Mr. Speaker. This is a major bill, so therefore we'll look at it in committee.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading. Motion approved.

Bill 22, Commercial Arbitration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.