[ Page 8283 ]

CONTENTS

Dentists Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 8283

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1986 (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading — 8283

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Forests estimates. (Hon. Mr Heinrich).

On vote 33: minister's office — 8283

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Kemp

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lockstead

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1986

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

DENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Dentists Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the Dentists Amendment Act is amendments to the Dentists Act which will empower the College of Dental Surgeons to regulate the practice of dentistry in the province. The amendments are the result of a very long and fully cooperative effort between the ministry and the college to bring up to date the regulatory authority of the college.

Bill 26 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.

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1986

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1986.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. The Vital Statistics Amendment Act modifies certain administrative authorities, and in that respect it is definitely housekeeping. One section of the act, however, perhaps will be of some interest to some, and that is whereby in British Columbia, effective after the act becomes law, a parent and a child will legally be able to change to a hyphenated surname under the Name Act. The details of that will be made available later. There are a number of other modifications to the act which involve registration and processing, but the hyphenated surname probably will cause the most interest.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 33: minister's office, $186, 345.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a couple of items under the purview of the minister and try to deal with them in segments. The first one is a question of forest fires — wildfires — and the activity of the ministry and the government respecting them, and particularly the sad experience of last season. While this minister is new on the job. as the saying goes, and may want to claim no responsibility for that which took place last year, I want to submit that he is responsible in that he was a member of the cabinet, a member of the government that saw fit to gamble with the property and lives of people in this province by the manner in which it very callously applied restraint to the Forest Service and to the fire-fighting capacity of the Forest Service.

That was an exhibition of carelessness in the approach to the people of this province. It was a gamble that regretfully visited great misery and hardship upon people in certain sections of the province. It was something about which the ministry was warned. In fact, if anything, I should say the ministry warned the cabinet about it. The people in the public service who had knowledge of what was happening made representations to the cabinet about the fire-fighting capacity, all of which was ignored by the then minister and by the government.

Regretfully, we saw a horrendous situation develop with wildfires last year in the province and a total inability on the part of the cabinet or the government to come to grips with it; a late realization that something serious was wrong. I think we need to put on the record in that regard, Mr. Chairman, the warning which the people in the public service in the Ministry of Forests who deal with fire management issues gave to the government about the dangers which existed, warnings which were ignored by a government intent on following its own blind direction.

In the forest and range resource analysis of last year, on page E63.... While this quotation has been used on a number of other occasions, I think it's worthwhile to put it on the record of the proceedings here, because it fits into what I'm saying and, I'm sure, what the minister knows to be correct. On page E63, item number 2 very clearly pointed out the problem. It said: "Pre-suppression activities such as fire prevention, detection and initial attack have been reduced. This may lead to more and larger fires where the costs and damages will be infinitely higher than the original saving."

[10:15]

We all know that if a forest fire breaks out, the initial detection is most important to nip it in the bud. The initial attack process is most important. A fire is stopped and dealt with most effectively at its point of commencement, not after it has been raging for some time. We know that if an ordinary fire that might take place in a person's home can be squelched immediately, if it can be detected and attacked immediately and put out, then that's the time to do it; but if it's left to burn before it's detected, if it gets underway, if it gets too far along, then you usually lose the whole house and the furnishings inside. If we looked at fire protection mechanisms for our forests in B.C. In the same way we look at our households, we would be much better off.

The government was warned clearly that those activities of fire prevention, detection and initial attack had been cut to the bone, that restraint had been applied to that aspect of fire protection irresponsibly and carelessly, without regard to the damage that could occur. The warning pointed out that because of that cutback, because of the stupid way in which restraint was applied by this government, the costs and the damages would be infinitely higher than the original saving. And they were; dollar costs to the taxpayer were something in excess of $100 million extra expended to fight forest fires. Costs to the populace are not measurable in terms of the stress

[ Page 8284 ]

and the strain and the worry that people underwent in those areas that were in the path of forest fires last summer.

The warning goes on and says that the ability to cost-effectively manage the control of large fires is still a major problem for the fire-control organization, and the fire-control organization is not always geared to make the transition from the readiness to control small fires to the economic management of large and expensive fires. That warning was given, and it was ignored. I think it's a shameful commentary upon government that it is so short-sighted in its vision of what we need to do to protect people of this province that it would ignore warnings from its own public service, from people in the Forest Service who deal with the forest-fire-fighting capacity, who issue those pleas to the government to get things changed. It's a shameful commentary to see what happened. The full, direct responsibility for that must be taken by this minister, because he was a part of the government that went along with that approach of cutting back on forest-fire-fighting capacities.

There was also a subsequent examination made of the forest-fire situation last summer that showed conclusively, Mr. Minister, that it was not the worst fire season on record. It showed conclusively that it was not the year in which there was the highest number of high-risk fire days; that it was not a year in which more forest fires got started than in other years; that it was not the situation of nature that was involved, but the stupid, irresponsible application of restraint in an area where it should not have been applied.

This government has a record of being able to carelessly spend other people's money, and it also has a record of being careless with other people's rights and properties. It's as if it just didn't give a damn about the people in this province when it applied restraint, in the manner in which it applied it, to such a fundamental thing as protecting the lives, property and possessions of citizens from the onslaught of forest fires.

An examination was made — the only one that I know of — by a Dr. Pinkerton, who was a sociologist and presumably got her doctorate in sociology. She examined the whole situation and dealt, for example, with the Nelson forest region and identified what I referred to earlier as high fire risk days and so on. She pointed out that the situation was worse in that regard in 1979 than it was in 1984, that there were more fires started then than there were in 1984. The situation across the line in the United States this year, 1984, where the terrain and the weather were quite similar, if not the same, was such that they were able effectively to deal with the situation just across the line in the United States, but we were not able to deal with it here.

The conclusion that one must come to is that it didn't have anything to do with God or nature. It had to do with human beings in the cabinet and the irresponsible manner in which they approached the very fundamental question of protecting the forests, property and lives of people in the province. Since then the minister — not this minister but the earlier one — has said: "We have appointed an internal inquiry into this; we're going to see what happened." That inquiry came up with quite a substantial number of recommendations for change in the methods and the mechanism of dealing with forest fires. It would seem to me that if an internal inquiry comes up with that number of recommendations for alteration, then there must have been something seriously wrong about it in the first place.

I think it would be very worthwhile, it would help the committee, it would certainly help the general public to understand what it is that is being proposed, if the full background information that led to that forest-fire-fighting analysis that was made within the ministry could be made public so that we all could see what it is that took place, and we could all participate then in the solutions to make sure that the same horrendous mess doesn't occur in the future as occurred last year. Perhaps the minister could tell us about that report that he, so far, has not yet disclosed to the general public.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to get up and talk in the Ministry of Forests estimates, particularly on this subject, a subject which I happen to have a little knowledge of. I want to say that what I've just heard from that member opposite is absolutely preposterous. It's really too bad that the real Forests critic can't stand up over there. I want to tell you, the member who's just been on his feet knows absolutely nothing about that on which he just spoke — absolutely nothing.

I spent 16 years in the forest industry in this province, and I spent an awful lot of time working for and with the Forest Service in this province, particularly during summers of high forest fire hazard. I spent many hours, many days — in fact, weeks — on forest fires in this province. That member has just done a great disservice to the Forest Service and to those very diligent and very hard-working people who ensure that our forests are safe in this province. Not only did I spend an awful lot of time at it myself, Mr. Chairman, but I have a son who is presently in the Forest Service; in fact, not just in the Forest Service but in fire suppression in the Forest Service in this province.

During that very tough fire season that we experienced last summer in British Columbia, I spoke on the phone many times to my son, to assure myself as a member of this government and as a member of this Legislature, that there were no cutbacks and there was no restraint in the area of forest fire suppression in this province. I can tell you that there is no set situation as was alluded to by that member over there this morning, absolutely none. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I would direct him to go out there and have a little experience before he got up in this House and said those kinds of things about people who are doing a very good job of forest fire suppression and protection in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the member over there doesn't have a clue. He doesn't have a clue. He doesn't realize that when many of the lookouts were shut down, closed, that job of surveillance was taken over by aircraft, in aerial surveillance. I've been up with those people. I've seen how they criss-cross an area, how they are in total communication with the ground units, who are totally ready for fire suppression. You talk of last summer and you talk of the Kootenays. Yes, we had a disastrous summer in the Kootenays. What do you expect, when you had nights when an electrical storm passed through that area, and on waking in the morning, those people that were on the fire line faced as many as 100 new fires in one night? What do you expect, Mr. Chairman? What does that member expect? Not knowing, I guess he wouldn't know what to expect.

Mr. Chairman, I say again: that member has done a great disservice. I call on him to apologize to those people out there who, during a, yes, disastrous summer, did a very good job, a very top-notch job for the people of this province in regard to fire suppression. The member doesn't understand. He uses political rhetoric; that's because he's never been on a fire line.

[ Page 8285 ]

He's never experienced an electrical storm during a summer when you haven't had rain for six weeks or two months. I've experienced that, and experienced it on a fire line.

[10:30]

I say again: I have it from very good authority — I had it almost on a weekly basis last summer — that there were absolutely no cutbacks in fire suppression in this province. That member doesn't realize that technology has taken over from the old lookout situation, in regard to surveillance, in regard to detection. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I didn't even hear any of those words used, because that member doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to fire suppression in this province. I would ask again that he get up in this House and apologize to those people in the Forest Service who do an admirable job on behalf of the taxpayers of this province where fire suppression is concerned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the matter with you, Jack?

HON. MR. KEMPF: I'm just a little smarter than you are, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Just a moment. Hold it. The member for Skeena

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena has not been recognized. One moment please.

We are on vote 33. We'll continue the vote in order. The member for Skeena, please.

MR. HOWARD: It's amazing. A hit-and-run driver from Omineca. Here we see an example of a guy.... I don't know what happened to him up at Coquihalla, whether it was then or whether it was before, but a minister of the Crown just standing up in this House and labelling the people who put together the forest and range resource analysis as absolute bald-faced liars? That's what he said they were.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or stupid.

MR. HOWARD: No, he didn't say they were stupid. He has some personal knowledge about that himself perhaps, but he didn't label them as stupid. He called them liars. Those are the people who have put together the report that said there was restraint, that there were cutbacks; now we get a cabinet minister standing up and calling honoured members of the public service liars. No wonder he left the chamber when he did — embarrassed and shamed.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In any event, we've always found that when people get vacuumed into the cabinet, they want to try to make a name for themselves. But they shouldn't do it by attacking honest....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on the Minister of Forests estimates, not those of another member of the cabinet.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I realize exactly where we are, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the minister would care to stand up and defend his public servants who put together that excellent forest and range resource analysis report, in which they pointed out the dangers and problems as a result of cutbacks; to stand up and defend them against the attack they've just been subjected to by his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I would think the Minister of Forests should at least be courteous enough to his staff to do that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, before we pass some comment, the House might be interested in the current status — as of the report filed around May 15 — for the number of fires which have occurred within the province. It's interesting to note that as a result of the weather, we're not suffering the problems that we've had in the past. I note that the total number of fires to date is 148. I was interested in finding out exactly where they were located. I find that some were in the Cariboo and Prince George region, in particular the areas of Telkwa, Hazelton and Alexis Creek.

There have been some serious problems and I think it might be worthwhile making reference to the 1984 forest and range resource analysis, which I've got here. On page E63 there's a reference that fires started by arsonists have reached alarming proportions. That's one of the concerns we're going to have here. But the actual amount of timber lost has not been very significant when you look at the total number of hectares which have been burned. As of May 15, the total area burned was 871 hectares. The majority were in the Prince George region — 524 hectares — but very little good timber has been lost.

I think it's only fair that we make reference also to the report. The member for Skeena asked when the report will be available. My understanding is that the report was made available and has been circulated widely throughout all offices in the region. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that as soon as the report was prepared, it was released and made public. As a matter of fact, I recall receiving questions on it during question period.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I do not know what the status of the background papers are.

I think what is really important is this. If we recognize there were some difficulties in 1985, let's have them thoroughly examined. The report came in. There were a total of 300 recommendations; however, many of them were very similar, and they were collapsed into about 30 recommendations.

I don't think that we can discount the fact that 1985 — and all of us are aware of that — was a very dry season. I think it would be important just to quote from page 4 of the report which was made public: "The 1985 fire season occurred as a result of abnormal weather patterns in the most severely hit areas." That is established without any doubt.

Here's something which I am learning about: "The over-winter soil moisture was less than normal, the rains which normally occur in June failed to materialize, and lightning which usually occurs in August was prevalent in late June and early July." I can assure everybody that in the amount of travelling which MLAs do they certainly have opportunities to see exactly what happens in the interior and the northern part of British Columbia — what happens when lightning strikes. The report goes on: "The lightning activity also can

[ Page 8286 ]

coincide with the longest daylight hours. During the first half of July many forest districts were calculating rate-of-fire-spread indices greater than had ever been recorded before."

The other item which I think is....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He's on the highway, not in the back lane, Mr. Member.

There were 3,604 fires during the year. That is the third-highest number on record. But the interesting fact about all of this was the number which were caused by lightning: just under 2,000. Members must recognize, too, that where lightning hits is often the most difficult place to get access to. So lightning looked after about 54 percent of the total, well above the ten-year average of 48 percent lightning — and 52 percent man-caused. Also lightning-caused fires when not quickly controlled were those that cost the most to suppress and caused the most damage.

We have to look at what the impact of these fires is. Again the report went on to examine the area burned in British Columbia. There is a graph on page 6 of the report which sets this out very clearly. Obviously when we have fires, one of the greatest impacts on our community is the effect which it has on the timber resource. In 1958, well over 800,000 — roughly 820,000 hectares — burned. In 1985, and it goes down.... By the way, Mr. Chairman, as far as the area burned goes, when we take the five worst fires which occurred in British Columbia starting with 1958 — I won't go back any further than that — 1958, 1961, 1971, 1983 and then 1985, we look at the total area burned, and in 1985 it was about 230,000 hectares, which is not good. It is a significant loss to our community, but I think we have to put it in perspective.

What has happened here, as all members know, as a result of the paper which was prepared, the investigations which were conducted by a number of committees throughout the province, is that everybody was involved. Everybody in the industry and government and the general public who wished to make a contribution had that opportunity. There was an analysis done, as members know, to consider the actions on nine of British Columbia's major fires in 1985. As a result of that we have enhanced or improved the initial attack capability in the Kamloops, Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Nelson regions. There have been improvements in the air tanker fleet, the lightning location system, the fire overhead teams and industry and public fire involvement training, as well as improved communications.

It seems to me that the government has always recognized the significance of fire-suppression activity. I think one of the greatest indicators of this is a system which the Forest Service refers to that any fires are to be out by 10 o'clock the following morning on the initial attacks. The initial attack success rates on a ten-year average up until 1985 demonstrated something in the order of 83 percent. In 1985 the success rate was 79 percent. I would say that is quite a significant accomplishment by those people involved in suppression activities, in view of the extraordinary increase in the number of fire starts resulting from lightning, keeping in mind that where lightning hits is often the area which is the toughest and least accessible.

So I would have to take issue with the member for Skeena on the statement that was made which the opposition apparently takes issue with, and that is the fact that nature was involved in a very significant way in 1985. There isn't any question about it: it was. I recognize the statement which the member referred to under the 1984 forest and range resource analysis, and I appreciate paragraph 2, where a caution is advanced with respect to the number of suppression crews. It's my understanding that the number of suppression crews has been enhanced, and that occurred for this spring. The number of suppression crews has increased for 1985.

With respect to the backup question that you had asked, or the backup material to the report, I'll make the appropriate inquiries.

MR. HOWARD: I suppose one could take it as being a gentle way of admonishing his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf), when the minister referred to paragraph 2 on page E63 of the forest and range resource analysis of 1984. He recognized that that existed, because those are the words put there by people in the public service who knew what was going on, who outlined and identified that situation and gave it as a warning, and indicated that those activities such as fire prevention, detection and initial attack have been reduced. So the minister is recognizing that and I'll take it as an admonishment of his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who classified the public service who put this report together as being liars. Although I wish the minister had been a bit more stringent about it and clear, I'm sure the gentlemen in the public service who are here and who are out in the field will recognize that the minister, in a very gentle way, has slapped the wrist of his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, for being so intemperate in his attack upon people in the public service.

[10:45]

The minister did read from paragraph 5, a mention that fires started by arsonists had reach alarming proportions. He didn't read further, though, and point out that that was in the Cariboo forest region and that fires had increased significantly in the Prince George and the Prince Rupert regions. The forest fire situation last summer was, at its most notable intensity, not in those forest regions but in other forest regions. Nelson, for argument's sake, was where one of the most intense sets of fires was, and the report about arsonists didn't relate to that at all. It related to the Cariboo and Prince George and Prince Rupert forest regions.

Mr. Chairman, there's a pattern of activity here that I think needs to be sort of identified in an historic context. This is a government that functions on a cyclical basis of election to election. It's a government that does its most damaging things immediately after an election, and then does its best to suck up to the general public in the period preceding an election, hoping that people will forget what villains they've been in the preceding years. One of the mechanisms to deal with that is the shuffling of the cabinet, getting rid of the bad guys or putting them off into another portfolio, and bringing a new face into a new portfolio so that the new face is able to say: "Yes, we recognize that some problems exist, but by golly we're going to fix them all up." And we're dealing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the administrative functions of the Minister of Forests, not those of the Premier.

[ Page 8287 ]

MR. HOWARD: We're not dealing with the Premier, Mr. Chairman. It was this Minister of Forests who accepted the appointment as minister. We're not dealing with the Premier's estimates. In fact we've found in the last couple of years that we're not able to deal with the Premier's estimates, because he abandons the place when his estimates come up and flies off to some other part of the country so he can't be questioned.

But the preliminary — what I was getting to, Mr. Chairman — to the situation that we now see, namely this minister saying, "Yes, we've had an analysis of the forest-fire-fighting situation, and we're going to correct it all. We're going to go into the future and do much better than we've done in the past," the prelude to that was July 1983, which was a post-election time. In July 1983, the Council of Forest Industries, the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association and the northern interior lumber sector of COFI made a presentation to the cabinet, part of which dealt with forest-fire-suppression costs. They wanted an examination of that.

COFI said to the government: "The current extremely high costs of fighting forest fires impact directly on the industry as well as on the ministry. These costs urgently need to be brought under tighter control." That's an argumentative question — whether the costs were extremely high or whether they needed to be brought under tighter control. I'm not talking about the necessity of having runaway expenditures or the necessity of dealing with runaway expenditures, but what I'm saying is that COFI had a particular point of view. They made a recommendation to establish a joint government-industry committee to study all aspects of fire suppression management responsibility and cost effectiveness.

The government succumbed to that, and cut back on the fire management questions and curtailed activities there. My colleague from Nelson-Creston will be able to give you chapter and verse of how those cutbacks affected the Nelson forest region. Right after the election COFI says: "Hey, we've got to cut down on the amount of money we're spending on dealing with forest fires; it's costing too much." COFI wasn't concerned; the Council of Forest Industries and the lumber manufacturers as such were not concerned about how this would impact upon the population. They were concerned about costs, firefighting costs.

So the government said: "Okay, we'll go along with you. We'll institute cutbacks." Then the public service comes along in their five-year analysis and said: "Wait a minute. These activities have been reduced: fire prevention, detection and initial attack have been reduced. The result is going to be a disaster. It's going to cost us more than the savings that you're going to realize right now." It did cost more. It cost well in excess of $100 million more of taxpayers' money. I've heard $125 million as a round figure, but this was the amount identified in the press as the cost of fighting forest fires last year in excess of $100 million over the budgeted amount.

Yes, indeed, it did cost more money than was budgeted for. Yes, indeed, the cost was higher than the savings. Mr. Chairman, this is the result of a post-1983 election representation by industry to government to cut back on forest-fire-fighting costs, and initial attack and suppression costs. The government responded to that and said: "Yes, we'll do that."

The result was injury to this province — in dollars and cents well over and above the budget. The cost was injury in terms of lost timber and injury to individuals in the stress-related area, and the potential loss of their property and their lives, because this government so carelessly dealt with the question of fire management issues in this province.

All it proves and all this tends to show is that you can't trust this government to do what it says it's going to do. You can't have any faith in them, or any trust, or believe what they say they're going to do. They've proved before that they cannot be believed. They gambled with people's lives in this province. They gambled with their property. They cut back on fire-suppression costs, nearly burned up half the country in the process, and now they say: "Trust us." You can't trust them.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if you were doing your job, you'd slow down the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) a bit as well, instead of letting him chatter on.

That's the simple part of it. You simply can't trust this crowd to do what it is they say that they want to do, because they always do something opposite. This is a government that lies to the people of this province. This is a government that doesn't level with the people of this province; this is a government that is untrustworthy. The simple question, the one identified question of fire-suppression and fighting forest fires, proves that they can't be trusted in that regard.

MRS. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Not only are these comments completely unrelated to the subject at hand, but they are absolutely repetitious. We're hearing the same theme from every member of the opposition party. You can listen to it for so long and be patient, but after a while it seems to me they're just putting in time. I would ask you to have the member stick to the subject at hand.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I wish to make two or three points, Mr. Chairman. Number one....

MS. SANFORD: Have you said them before?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I haven't said them before.

First of all, with respect to the expenditure, the amount that was budgeted for 1985 was $46.5 million; we look at the average over a number years, and this is felt to be the right sum. The actual amount which was spent for the 1985 fire season was approximately $128 million. What we had better understand here is that the additional amount which was spent was in the order of $82 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Of course it's a great deal of money. Am I going to hear the same comments with respect to the problems the forest ministries and the people have in Newfoundland and New Brunswick, where they're running over a million dollars a day in fire suppression?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm most upset about it. Obviously I'm upset about it. But the fact is, when you have a very dry season.... And they're being attacked with dry weather now, just the way we were in May and June of 1985.

[ Page 8288 ]

The other point which I wish to leave with the member is this — and I mentioned this earlier, so it's going to be repetitious, just a bit. The actual amount of land lost to fire, the growth on it, was about 230,000 hectares — a lot. But I can assure you that when we look over a period from 1958 to 1985, the amount lost was about one-quarter of the worst season, which we had experienced in 1958.

I think what is important is that the province wasn't being left to burn, as was being alleged by the member. The government came by and fought those fires, and expended a great deal of money; there is not any question about that. But the losses, as far as acreage were concerned, weren't anywhere near the first experience in the latter half of this century.

MR. NICOLSON: For the minister's information, I guess he tried to make two points there, not three.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is trying to defend the policies that the government adopted. What we would like the minister to realize is that those policies of reorganization adopted since 1980 have led to a tremendous reduction in the efficacy of his ministry to respond to forest fires.

I want to get down to one of the most hard-hit areas, and that is the Kootenays. I want to get a little bit specific. I want to point out to the minister that if we look at the years 1979 and compare with 1985, in the Nakusp district there were 37 class-4 and 28 class-5 fires — I should say "hazard days" — for a combined total of 65 high-hazard days, compared with last year only 37 high-hazard days, comprising 17 class-4 and 20 class-5 fires in the Nakusp district. We had considerably more back in 1979. The same thing in Cranbrook: 64 high-hazard days back in 1979, and 45 high-hazard days in 1985.

[11:00]

Really, we can conclude that last summer was a longer, hotter, drier summer, by the ministry's own data. When we look at what happened.... In 1979 there were 1,019 fires recorded in the Nelson forest region, while there were 952 recorded in 1985. But 4,680 hectares of forest were burned at a cost of $7.7 million in 1979, while in 1985, 66,314 hectares were burned at a cost of $42.3 million. The number of hazard days was considerably less — less than two-thirds — and the actual damage, the number of fires that were started, was the same. But what we're talking about is the ones that got away and how we dealt with them.

I was up there at that time. We had to send down to Spokane, Washington to get those Wajax pumps that you people had auctioned off. We had to go through the list of people to whom all of the forest-fire-fighting equipment was sold by you bottom-liners, so we could fight those damn fires and protect our homes and our jobs. I don't care what kind of information you're fed, Mr. Minister, but if you don't get busy and kick a few posteriors and get to the bottom of this, and get through the smokescreen on this, we're going to be in jeopardy again and again. If you don't abandon that bottom-line mentality, which in the final analysis cost us about six times as much in terms of firefighting, which cost us a great deal more in terms of lost forests and lost job potential in annual allowable cut, then you are not going to be doing your job.

I want to quote from a report that was given to our three-day session on forestry in Nelson, which was attended by our critic, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), by me and by people of probably every political persuasion, at which briefs were presented. A great deal of it dealt with the forest fire situation. One of those briefs said:

"I feel that reorganization and centralization are the main reasons for the dramatic increase in burned hectares of forest land. In 1979 the Arrow TSA had five local ranger offices spread throughout the district and approximately 28 full-time and 35 summer staff. In 1985 the district was reduced to one district office in Castlegar" — which is five hours at least from a lot of the forest land, so you can imagine that in a normal working day a person can't even get out of that office, into the field and back — "and one field office in Nakusp. The staffing difference for the Nakusp field office area in 1979 was 16 full-time and 18 summer positions, while in 1985 it was reduced to seven full-time and ten part-time positions. The initial attack suppression crews were reduced from 35 in 1979 to 12 in 1985 for the Arrow TSA. The north end of the Arrow TSA, now covered by the Nakusp field office, had three ranger stations in 1979, with enough fire tools warehoused in each to put 200 men on a fire line, for a total of 600 men, while in 1985 the Nakusp field office was reduced to a 25-man tool cache."

The backpack spray cans — which have another title in the field — the back pumps, and the combination axes and mattocks were all sold off, along with a lot of the good four-wheel-drive vehicles that were used to get people out into the field.

So we reduced the ability from a 200-person cache to a 25-man tool cache. "These tools were used up within the first six hours of the first major lightning storm that hit the Nakusp region on June 29, 1985." This is from one of the people who worked in that area and was a crew boss. "I conclude that restraint, reorganization, sympathetic management and partnership with industry are costing the taxpayer large amounts of tax dollars because these programs are not working."

I want to ask the minister what specific changes he will be carrying out in the Invermere and Nakusp forest districts, and throughout the various components of the Nelson forest region, to increase staff, lookouts and equipment to ensure that this disaster does not happen again this summer.

I did hear the minister's comments about tankers and about lightning detectors. That is the trend we have been following for the past ten years, to rely more and more heavily on those. They do work very well for initial suppression. It's incredible. I saw them operating right opposite my home for a whole day in which a huge fire was knocked out with that kind of suppression. But you've still got to put people onto the ground after you do that, or it gets away. We made the initial attack in a lot of these instances, only to lose the war. We won the first battle and we lost the war.

Besides the tankers and the lightning, Mr. Minister, I want to know what you are going to do in terms of manpower — trained manpower. This isn't a place for on-the-job training. You've got to have a well-trained nucleus before disaster hits.

Mr. Chairman, another person who was an acting fire warden last summer said:

"Because initial attack crews cannot be mustered quickly without decentralized crews and tool caches and effective local organization, it has not been cost-effective to eliminate the ranger stations, fail to staff

[ Page 8289 ]

lookouts, not maintain the necessary tools, and operate with only a skeleton staff of trained and experienced firefighters. The keys to successful initial attack are preparation and readiness to respond with the proper equipment.

"It is clear the Forest Service was caught unprepared at the start of this fire outbreak, an unpreparedness caused primarily by the drastic cuts in staff and materiel and by the centralization or elimination of many ranger stations and lookouts. That mistake has already cost $750 million in firefighting expenses and lost timber, and much more will be lost before this fire season is over."

That was by Grant Copeland from New Denver, who was an acting fire warden during that fire season. That was in the Vancouver Sun.

I want to ask the minister what specific changes he will be making to operations in the Arrow forest district and in the Nelson forest district. I want to know how many more staff will be dealing with forest protection, how many will be added, how many more ranger districts or whatever you want to call them — field stations — will be added and where, so that they are not five hours' drive from the forest. Before restraint we had the manpower. Maybe we could have used more tankers and high-tech equipment such as lightning indicators. But we did have lookouts.

Last summer the Invermere district had 30 full-time staff with only three of them assigned to forest protection. If that sounds like forest-fire protection, no; that is for protection from insects and disease and fire attack. This number of staff was completely insufficient, as we know, to deal with the huge fires that occurred in that area. As a result of your own forest-fire report documents, the Canal Flats fire alone cost $3.6 million to put out. It did $658,000 worth of damage. It took 339 men with 60 pieces of equipment and seven helicopters to put out the Canal Flats fire alone. So it is obvious that we have been penny wise and pound foolish.

What specific changes will the minister be carrying out in the Invermere forest district to increase staff, lookouts and equipment and ensure that this disaster doesn't happen again? What specific changes will your ministry be making to improve operations in the Arrow forest district? How many more staff dealing with forest protection will be added? How many more ranger stations or field stations will be added in the site-specific areas where response can take place?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I am not really in a position to give a thorough answer at this time with respect to all the points raised by the member for Nelson-Creston. However, if he would look at the report filed after the investigation of last year's fire season had come to an end, on page 21, recommendation number 12 reads: "Increase the efficiency at the initial attack stage of forest-fire suppression through the use of more precise fire probability indicators, more forest industry and other private sector logging crews and more helitack crews," or helitackers. What has happened in this is that four more crews will be used this year, increasing the number from two to six and the total number of persons involved from 40 to 98. These crews will be based in Vancouver, Nelson, Prince Rupert and Kamloops and will be available for use locally and throughout the province. So that answers one of the questions with respect to increasing the helitack crews, and one is located in the Nelson forest region.

The report goes on to say: "Improvements have been made to the fire prediction model for initial attack. More emphasis will be placed on the probable rate of initial fire spread, rather than on just the overall fire danger." I think really that's what the member was referring to. You stop the fire and there should be — there will be — crews available to stop the spread, when in fact the example was given that you saw a fire put out but apparently although that went out, others perhaps of which you have knowledge were put out but subsequently flared up again.

In addition you're talking about the training of people. In the last part of the recommendation and the resultant action is.... I quote: "In keeping with past practice, districts will be allocated funds to pay the cost of training local fire wardens and placing additional manpower and fire-suppression equipment on standby when deemed necessary. Districts will place a higher priority on the coordination of the forest industry's initial attack capability." It seems to me upon reading the report that I find statements comparable to the one just read throughout.

As to each of the districts — and I think you referred to Invermere, Nakusp and Arrow — you'll have to give me a little time before I can give you a full answer on that. There was some discussion as well involving the ranger stations, but I understand that the concept of the ranger station is something of the past and there's a great reliance upon the air tanker fleet and the lightning location system, as well as fire overhead teams and improvement of the initial attack capability. I will secure information on the three or four districts to which you have referred and provide you with a more complete answer later.

[11:15]

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has talked about recommendations in that report. I read the report. I would like to know if those recommendations have been implemented. Are they in place all over?

The other thing is that the minister says the ranger stations are a thing of the past. Yes, they are in a way. In fact, so is the Nakusp forest district or the Creston forest district. They are a thing of the past technically in your department. Things are either in the Arrow Lakes TSA or the Nelson TSA or some other TSA. We have new divisions, but when it came to really fighting these fires last summer, you had to go back to operating out of the old field camps, out of the old ranger stations. When you get past the tankers, when you get past that initial attack and it doesn't work, or where you're spread too thin and even with increased numbers of helicopters and helicopter crews standing by....

I must say it looks rather strange: you go into the Castlegar airport and you see those tankers sitting there day after day, sometimes year after year, not being used, and you know that those pilots are being paid to do virtually nothing except a few training runs. But when they're needed they're needed, and cutting back on them certainly doesn't help. But neither does it help to cut back on the tool cache. You don't have to pay a pump tank to sit in a warehouse — not very much. It doesn't cost much to put a sufficient number and have a surplus of equipment. It doesn't cost that much to have a surplus of repair parts for things like Wajax pumps. It doesn't cost that much to have people trained in how to do repairs on these things. It doesn't cost that much when you compare

[ Page 8290 ]

what you spent on that one fire alone at Canal Flats — the kinds of savings that you make.

I'm fairly confident that in terms of some of the more recent technological changes in firefighting, we will be in a stronger position this year. What I want some assurance about is the old standby: that is, somebody on the ground with a shovel and a pickaxe, as I think it's called. My logging colleague over here could.... I know that it looks almost like a mattock and has an axe on it. You had to buy some stuff last year that must have been made out of mild steel. One hit at a rock and it bent. This is the kind of stuff you used to replace the good, tempered equipment that you sold off from those caches.

I want to know about those caches. I want to know about the tools you're going to give people to do the job this year. Are those caches going to be up to snuff?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the Forest Service is carrying an inventory right now of about $100 million in equipment. This is something I'm not familiar with, but I'm also told there's a rule used within the industry that the annual cost — I think I'm right in this — for the maintenance and preservation of that equipment usually works out to be about 40 percent of the cost. So a significant amount is involved.

You referred to the caches where the equipment is held in inventory. I can't really give you any particulars as to the nature or scope of the inventory within any one of the 46 districts, let alone the three to which you refer. I would hope you would provide the opportunity to give you a fuller and more complete answer later on. You have raised the issue and I'm quite prepared to make the appropriate inquiry.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if each year it costs 40 percent of the cost of an axe to look after an axe, when I retire from this Legislature I'm going to come to the government and ask for a contract. I'll do it for 39 percent.

MS. SANFORD: I raised with the Minister of Forests under the debate on Bill 6 an issue that relates particularly to my constituency — the use of Roundup in watersheds. Two or three watersheds are affected by this application by the Forest Service to spray Roundup as a site-preparation procedure.

I want the minister to be aware that the people in my constituency are most upset by the prospect of any kind of aerial spraying in the watersheds on which they rely for their drinking water. A large meeting was held in Fanny Bay — I think most members of the community were out at that meeting — and there was a unanimous vote opposing the use of Roundup in their particular watershed. Down in the Qualicum Bay–Horn Lake area the same situation has arisen; people are most concerned about the prospect of Roundup being used in the watersheds — any kind of spray in the watersheds. They feel it should not happen. There have been a number of meetings over in the Port Alberni office with representatives from the Forest Service.

It seems to me that the minister, in view of the concern of people who are affected by this kind of proposal, should undertake to instruct his officials within the ministry to look at alternatives to the use of sprays in watersheds. A number of alternatives are now available, ones which (a) put people to work — people who need the work could be employed — and which (b) are not that much more costly than the current use of these sprays. It makes eminent sense to protect the watersheds, to reassure the people living within those watersheds, to put people to work and to avoid the kind of potential environmental hazard that the use of these sprays presents.

I recognize that most of the sprays used in our environment are in the agricultural sector, not the forest sector, and I'm as concerned about the use of sprays in the agricultural sector as in the forest sector. Nonetheless, it seems to me that we have an obligation to begin to turn around the direction in which we've been headed all these years, which is to use more and more chemicals in our environment.

The latest studies related to cancer alone indicate that about 80 percent of the cancers are environmentally caused. I don't think anybody disputes that figure anymore. Some of those environmental causes undoubtedly relate to the sprays that are used, food additives, and all kinds of environmental problems. People do not feel reassured these days. There has been too much in the way of accepting the information provided by the companies that manufacture the sprays, with respect to its safety. We know that in the United States lab companies that were testing for various manufacturers of chemicals falsified results. We know that Agriculture Canada, which is responsible for approving all of these chemicals, relies on the lab results which are obtained by the companies that manufacture the chemical. That alone, Mr. Chairman, should raise a lot of suspicion on the part of the people of this country.

Here we have an opportunity for the minister to issue directives to his own ministry that in areas where there are watersheds involved, or where the people may be affected by drifting sprays, an alternative be adopted. A lot of work has been done with respect to alternatives to the use of sprays. There are clearing saws; there are girdling tools; all of these have been tried.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, within my own constituency, in the Merville area, a group of people have convinced the Ministry of Forests people in the Campbell River office that they in fact should be given the opportunity to utilize these tools, in order to avoid the use of sprays on one particular area. It's a small area. They have been successful in convincing the Ministry of Forests people in the Campbell River office that it is possible and that it should be done. They're having more trouble convincing the people in the Port Alberni office at this stage. It's a long, long process. There are people that spend hours and hours and hours putting together information, putting together proposals, and feel discouraged very often that the Ministry of Forests is not responding in the way they feel they should be responding.

I would like the minister to give me some assurance today that he is prepared to take a stand on this issue of the use of aerial sprays, particularly in watersheds or in populated areas. That, at least, would be a start, Mr. Chairman, and it certainly would reassure a lot of the people within my constituency who are most concerned about this particular proposal.

The application I have, Mr. Chairman, indicates that the spraying will take place about June I of this year. There are committees working with the Ship Point watershed area, people within the Fanny Bay waterworks district and people within the Qualicum Bay–Horn Lake waterworks district who are attempting to ensure that that doesn't take place this year. They're working very hard with the Ministry of Forests, but they have not yet received any assurance that the spray program will not go ahead.

[ Page 8291 ]

Can the minister, today, give me the assurance that the spraying will not take place in those watersheds; and is he prepared to issue a directive to ensure that watersheds in the province or in populated areas will not be sprayed by airplanes or helicopters?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting to get some particulars so I can attempt to answer. I cannot give any assurances one way or the other right now without finding out more particulars about what is occurring on June 1. I would like to know the three areas that the member was referring to. One was Qualicum, the other was Fanny Bay, and the first one was....

MS. SANFORD: There is a Qualicum Bay–Horn Lake waterworks district.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Horn Lake.

MS. SANFORD: There is the Ship Point water district and Fanny Bay. They're in the same general area.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet and while the minister is awaiting some specifics regarding this particular area and the possible use of Roundup this June in those areas, I would like the minister to comment on the other issue which is related generally to the use of sprays where watersheds are involved and where there are populated areas. People are concerned, and I would like some indication from the minister about his own feelings, his own direction and his own concerns in this area.

[11:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister is going to respond to the member for Comox, and I can see that he's consulting with his people and getting definite or more detailed answers.

Before I start on the topic that I got to my feet for, I just would like to support the remarks of the member for Comox. All of us MLAs who have large ridings and depend upon the forest industry a great deal, or whose constituents depend upon the Forest Service and related industries for their livelihoods, have had similar problems. I might tell you, and I know the minister is listening, that three years ago in an area north of Powell River called the Okeover area — it's approximately 20 miles north of Powell River, a large watershed — we went through the same situation.

It took me and a large group of concerned citizens approximately two months to convince the Forest Service not to proceed with the aerial spraying of that specific site, and then only because under a federal government job-creation program our MP was able to get some money to pay, or at least assist in paying, for a manual-release program. I'm just going from memory, but I think it involved about 20 hectares. At the end of that three years, on re-evaluation of that specific site utilizing a manual-release program that employed people, put people to work for a while — people who were formerly on either welfare or UIC — the program appears to have been a huge success. That kind of release program has to be done at a certain time of year when you are dealing with alder, and a whole lot of things have to be done correctly. Nonetheless the program appears to have been a success.

Last but not least on this topic, because I know the minister is still consulting with his people on this matter, I might tell you that an integrated large forest company had a proposal to aerial spray an area in another part of my riding that included three watersheds on the Sunshine Coast. On behalf of the concerned residents, I did approach that company and, believe it or not, I got a better hearing and consideration from that large company than I did from the Forest Service in this particular case. I'm not putting down the Forest Service. Any time I walk into a regional office and ask for information, I'm always dealt with quite courteously, and they provide the information as best they can. But I think the policy of the government and perhaps of the senior administration of the staff is that they tell us that they cannot possibly manage the forests without utilizing these dangerous sprays — and unproven; in some cases they have not been proven safe to the satisfaction of a lot of people.

Anyway, I wasn't going to talk about that. I want to talk about something else, Mr. Chairman, and that is the small business enterprise program. The minister has been in office long enough now, I think, to understand the program, and he should know what is happening in that program.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No? Well, that's next week perhaps — whenever.

In any event, that program is very important to a lot of people in my constituency and, I suspect, in the constituencies of a lot of other MLAs. I don't have to tell the minister that that is a program whereby the ministry allows bidding to take place in certain specific areas for the small independent operators, who usually don't own sawmills and pulp mills but depend entirely on the logging within an area for their livelihood, and to provide jobs in these local areas throughout the province. I might add that under the small business enterprise program the ministry — i.e., the government — collects three to five times more stumpage out of these operations than it does from the operations of a large multinational or integrated forest company in this province, depending on the area and the species and that kind of thing.

I guess my specific question to the minister on this matter is: is he going to make more timber available to these small independent operators who have to bid against each other for the resource? I could cite cases and that kind of thing, and I have been in contact with senior people in the ministry about attempting to obtain a greater portion of that resource for smaller independent loggers up and down the coast, particularly in the riding I represent. But if the minister could briefly bring us up to date on that program, tell us what the plans are in regard to that program, I would very much appreciate it.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I was going to discuss silviculture for a wee bit, but I think we covered that topic pretty well in debate of Bill 6, which is still before this House. But there is another matter — while I have the floor I might as well get rid of all these at one shot — and that is the coastal management plan. While this may not relate directly to the office of that ministry, that ministry is involved in what I'm about to discuss.

About 1981, just prior to so-called restraint, this government initiated the start of a coastal management plan in this province, which of course would have involved the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Environment, possibly the federal Ministry of

[ Page 8292 ]

Environment — those kinds of things. The concept and purpose of the plan at that time — which was subsequently scuttled, by the way — was for the government to rather willy-nilly hand out leases for all kinds of purposes — booming grounds, log dump grounds, mariculture, whatever — and to consult with local areas and regional boards about a comprehensive coastal management plan.

The reason I mention this under this ministry is that I'm already receiving complaints from people in the industry that you represent about losing access to bays for booming and log dumping purposes. I know that your ministry has identified many of these sites. Nonetheless, these various types of leases are currently being issued against the will of regional districts in some cases; I could cite you verse and chapter, which I won't, because I'm sure you're aware of this.

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Minister, is that your ministry undertake with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the Ministry of Environment, the local community, elected organizations — and non-elected; ratepayers' groups — to initiate once again a coastal management plan in this province. We now have areas of the Sunshine Coast — I could cite other areas but the Sunshine Coast is particularly bad — where literally hundreds of leases are being granted for various purposes, against the best interests of the people in those communities. So I'd ask you to consider that as well.

Last but not least, one of the concerns that I came across again last weekend on a visit to Pender Harbour, in this case — although this has been happening all over the coast and possibly in the interior as well, I don't know — is the disposal of the forest ranger station facilities in this province, certainly on the coast.

I have had complaints from Powell River involving the Lund ranger station as recently as early as last weekend, where there is an application, I think, before your ministry or perhaps before the B.C. Buildings Corporation for the acquisition of an abandoned ranger station for an historical site and the possibility of a museum for that local community. I understand there are two other applications before either your ministry or the B.C. Buildings Corporation as well.

Nonetheless, I can think of two cases specifically — not the one at Pender Harbour; not the one I am talking about now — where in my view those facilities were disposed of not in the best interests of the local community. For example, the station at Lund should have, in my view, been converted — a beautiful site, beautiful harbour, beautiful facilities really — to the use of a mariculture-aquaculture research station. It wasn't. It went basically for other purposes, in spite of people in the local community thinking it should have gone for a research station, for that purpose in that area.

However, it didn't and it's gone. I am not sure if these facilities are still disposed of by your ministry or if they are transferred to the B.C. Buildings Corporation and then transferred in that manner. But overall, quite frankly, I am unhappy with the way these facilities are being disposed of. With that, I will take my seat and await the minister's response to the members from Comox, Parksville and Mackenzie.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to give a definitive answer to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) with respect to the June I date. I think the member probably, in following this through, knows exactly what the process is much better than I do at this time.

I am told that before any spraying is permitted in any area within the province, there must be a submission to the pesticide control board under the Ministry of Environment. I understand that any proposal is then farmed out to agencies which have an interest; for example, fisheries.

If there is no reluctance on the part of those agencies, then a permit is issued with conditions. A couple of the conditions, I understand, may involve setbacks from streams if those streams form part of a watershed and feed a reservoir.

One point I am interested in is that which the member raised when he used the expression "drifting sprays." I accept and understand the concern which has been raised. I gather that one of the conditions which may be attached, if applicable, where watersheds are involved is that any aerial spraying will have a caveat attached to it, that caveat being that there shall be no wind, or the wind speed will be substantially reduced.

I gather that the permit, once issued, is posted in the community which deems itself to be affected. The posting is well advertised. If objections are still extant, then there is an appeal process available. The appeal process results in a public hearing in the community.

I am advised that just about all permits are sustained on appeal after the public hearing. There may be additional conditions imposed, but....

[11:45]

MR. HOWARD: Whom does the appeal go through?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There is an appellate board set up under the provisions of the Pesticide Control Act. Now as to who those individuals are whose names are on the appellate tribunal, I suppose they are order-in-council appointments.

It concerns me to see the members nodding as if they know something that I don't. I am not sure. I have a feeling that they are probably taking to issue who is on the appellate board, and I would have thought that there were certain rules and regulations, plus the law which applies to public hearings, that everyone receives a fair hearing. Otherwise I suspect there is a further tribunal in this province that would be receiving a petition. The public hearings are usually held in a community hall.

I asked this question: how long has Roundup been in use? Information passed on to me is that it has been in use for several years. I also wanted to know about the spraying of vegetables or fruits, which we purchase daily in any of our stores within the province, I'm told that the application of spray on perishables consumed by all of us and the doses administered are significantly higher than that which is used for Roundup.

Now I'm not disputing that there are some concerns expressed, particularly in watersheds. Although I haven't been in the portfolio that long, the travel around the province and in particular areas points out the necessity for some spraying. I don't think there's any question about that. In many areas of the province, when you examine the growth of weeds and deciduous trees you can fully understand why it is being used. But it seems to me that if the process is in fact as I have set out, there is ample opportunity for those people to be concerned. What the member is somewhat nervous about is perhaps the success experienced by the Ministry of Forests,

[ Page 8293 ]

or those contractors or operators who wish to administer the spray on areas where reforestation has occurred.

That doesn't answer, and I can't answer today, the point with respect to the June I deadline, but I gave a commitment that I would inquire into this, Mr. Chairman, and try to have a fuller answer, as I did with the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) with respect to the equipment found in caches and the helitack crews and the initial attack crews in the forest area. I'm just not in a position to give you a commitment or statement one way or another with respect to the use of Roundup without becoming fully apprised of what it involves.

MS. SANFORD: I'm rather disappointed in the answer that the minister has provided for me just now, because he obviously assumes the absolute safety of the use of these herbicides, simply because they've been approved through the Department of Agriculture federally and simply because there is this so-called appeal procedure.

Now the minister seemed to be unaware of the whole way in which these permits for spraying are issued in the first place, and he also was unaware until this morning of the procedure with respect to an appeal process. This was all news to him this morning, and I must say I am rather disappointed that he has not taken more interest in this subject earlier.

Does the minister know that of all of the appeals that have taken place that I am aware of related to the use of herbicides in the forest industry, not one has been turned down by that appeal board — not one that I'm aware of? Now maybe the minister's staff will be able to find one somewhere. But that is why the people in the areas are so concerned, because they know very well that they have so many days in which to get their appeal in. They also know very well that the board which is appointed by the government has not ever understood what they are trying to say to that board, never understood the concerns or never understood the uncertainty they feel about the aerial use of these particular herbicides.

When it's applied in a watershed, you can understand why they are particularly concerned. Ten metres, says the minister; even when they're spraying from an airplane, they have to stay ten metres away from the watershed. Now you have to be a pretty darned good pilot to follow a winding river up and down and stay ten metres away from the watershed.

The other thing about this — and the people in that area keep pointing this out to people within the Forests minister's office over in Port Alberni — is that there are literally hundreds of tiny, tiny rivulets, some of them as small as your little finger, Mr. Chairman, that all lead to the same water source. They all lead into that river eventually. So even though you're staying ten metres away — that the pilot is that expert and there is absolutely no wind and we have a perfect spray, in terms of the conditions that are laid out here — you still have all of those little rivulets that have been sprayed that are leading directly into that same river that provides the source of the water supply for drinking purposes to so many of my constituents in those two areas.

The minister indicated that certainly we're going to have to spray in large areas of this province. He has given me nothing today so that I can go home to the people within my constituency to say: "Yes, we have a Minister of Forests who is concerned about the use of herbicides and who is certainly going to look into the concerns the people of my area have related to the aerial spraying of these products." The minister did not say: "I certainly will attempt to ensure that manual application is used for site preparation or brushing, weeding or whatever." He just said: " Oh, we're going to have to use a lot of herbicides." That's the message that I'm getting from him today.

I appreciate the fact that he's going to look into these two specific applications. But it's true, they have followed the procedures. They have got their permit. Mind you, the first permit that they applied for had so many errors in it that it had to be disqualified and they had to resubmit, because they had the maps wrong, the places wrong. Some confidence you get from these various ministry officials who are applying for permits to spray when they can't even get the maps right for the areas they're applying for. We had both of these permits set aside simply because there were too many errors in them. And we're supposed to be confident that the use of these herbicides in the watersheds is not going to affect the drinking water in any way, shape or form? I'm with my constituents on this. They have a right to be concerned. We had an announcement just the other day from the various people involved in the scientific community and the health community, saying they're losing the battle against cancer. I'm not saying this particular herbicide is going to cause cancer in my constituents, but I am saying there are enough unknowns about many of these products used in our environment that it is high time to go to alternatives when alternatives are available. The alternatives are in many ways superior to the use of these aerial herbicides, aerial sprays. The alternatives put people to work. We know the alternatives are safe.

People are prepared to go to the Ministry of Forests and say: "We will work with you. We will set up a program. We will ensure that the site preparation is done, that the brushing and weeding is done." Yet this application has not been withdrawn. It's still on the books. Ministry officials are at least talking to these people, but people are very concerned that time is running out on them. They know they have virtually no chance with that appeal board. As a result, they're trying every other avenue they can to avoid the use of aerial sprays in the water which they have to drink.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The member has raised some very important questions, and the minister has yet to answer my questions. particularly on the small business enterprise program. In view of the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.