[ Page 4619 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4619

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 4619

Presenting Reports –– 4620

Oral Questions

Neighbourhood pub referendum. Mr. Sihota –– 4620

Uranium moratorium. Mr. Harcourt –– 4620

Plywood-grading agreement. Mr. Miller –– 4621

Douglas Fir committee room. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4621

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Sihota –– 4621

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4622

Ms. Smallwood

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Michael

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Guno

Mr. Gabelmann

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, today we have a very distinguished gentleman and his wife in the gallery, plus other distinguished people. I'm very pleased to have the House welcome Mr. Jagdish Sharma and his wife, Mrs. Kavita Sharma. Mr. Sharma is the consul-general of India at Vancouver and has served his country well in British Columbia for many years. I've been very proud to be associated with him in my capacity as Provincial Secretary. Unfortunately, Mr. Sharma and his wife will be departing British Columbia in June for another posting. I know this House and this government wish him the very best and Godspeed in his future endeavours.

As well, in the gallery we have Canon Michael Green, who is the professor of evangelism at Regent College. Canon Green is accompanied by Rev. Alistair Petrie of Brentwood Chapel. I would ask the House to bid these two distinguished clerics Godspeed.

MR. HARCOURT: On behalf of the opposition, I too would like to pass on our greetings to consul-general and Mrs. Sharma. I have enjoyed our relationship over the last four years that he has been in British Columbia, stationed in Vancouver. He was a great part of the activities in 1986, when our city celebrated its centennial and, of course, Expo was here. We wish you well in your new posting. We have enjoyed your company and your advice over the last four years.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this assembly to introduce two strong constituents in the great riding of Delta. Would this House please recognize Mr. Henry Block and Mr. John Friesen.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like the House to give a special welcome to four of the most hard-working, industrious agricultural proponents of horse-racing, interested parties from south Surrey in my constituency: Mr. Jim Wallace, Mr. Tom Ivanore and Mr. Rick Clough. Would the House make these gentlemen welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would also like to extend greetings to two prominent businessmen who lived in the Fraser Valley at one time and whom I've done business with: John B. Friesen, also a realtor from way back, and Mr. Henry Block, formerly Block Bros. Realty. I too would like the House to please welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's my pleasure this afternoon to make a bit of a lengthy introduction, only because this young man has accomplished a great deal in his first 24 years.

Rob Sorenson is a B.C. native, a graduate of the University of Victoria with a master of science degree in computer science and a graduate of the young entrepreneurs program. He's been active in community work all of his life. He's also chairman of the B.C. Youth Advisory Council, chairman of the B.C. wheelchair track association, and a member of both the provincial and the regional committees on access to postsecondary education. He now owns a local computer consulting company which specializes in systems design and database programming. He competes in wheelchair track and is currently the Canadian record-holder in the 100-metre track race; he was the 1987 best rookie of the Canadian Games for the Physically Disabled in Brantford, Ontario, and will represent Canada at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, in wheelchair track.

Would you please welcome Rob Sorenson to the House.

MR. BARNES: I want to join with the minister in welcoming Mr. Sorenson. I'll be meeting with him this afternoon to discuss a matter of general importance to the public: that is, the right of the 18-year-old to vote in the province. I'm looking forward to meeting him.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL
GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The House Leader informs me that this is a message bill. It might be paraphrased as the natural gas royalty simplification act. Rather than continue with the complicated profit-type tax, this bill allows us to charge a flat rate of 15 percent royalty, which is revenue-neutral. It generates the same amount of revenue for the Crown and it does not impact on the price of natural gas to B.C. consumers.

This simplification is warranted for several reasons, including recommendations made by the auditor-general that we simplify our mineral and oil and gas tax system.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 30 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.

COMMERCIAL RIVER RAFTING SAFETY ACT

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Commercial River Rafting Safety Act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. In making this motion, I'd like to say that we are fortunate in British Columbia to have so many opportunities for outdoor recreation, but I'm sure hon. members would agree that the more demanding of these can sometimes be unforgiving of human error or ill-preparedness, and the tragic proof of this lies in last summer's fatal river rafting accidents.

The Commercial River Rafting Safety Act now before this House is aimed at ensuring the greatest possible degree of safety for recreational users of our river resources. This new act is based largely on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Commercial River Rafting established last fall in a response to the tragedies. That committee's mandate was to find ways to ensure that commercial river rafting operations in our waters are run competently, using properly qualified guides and outfitters, and are prepared and

[ Page 4620 ]

equipped to provide public enjoyment, and above all, public safety.

[2:15]

The chairman, Jim Millar, and members Jim Lavalley and Dan Culver brought to all aspects of the committee's hearings and proceedings the highest level of expertise and professionalism which has culminated in these tough regulations to give a measure of the force of law in the province of British Columbia. When this act is passed by this House, we will be in a position to put this regulatory framework into place. I call the question, then, on first reading.

Bill 29 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.

Presenting Reports

MR. PELTON: I have the honour today to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, and I move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"May 18, 1988. Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to report as follows: the preamble to Bill PR402, intituled Life Bible College Act, has been approved as amended, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. F.C.A. Pelton, Chairman."

MR. PELTON: By leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

NEIGHBOURHOOD PUB REFERENDUM

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services on the Knight and 57th pub. There have been an increasing number of allegations relating to misrepresentation, forgery and perhaps even fraud. Should the investigation that the ministry is conducting this time confirm these, will the minister hold a new vote?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly the investigations of those allegations is going on at the moment, and I expect to have a report on them shortly. Future action we might take as a result of those investigations will be revealed when that decision is made.

MR. SIHOTA: Given the fact that the purpose of the vote is to determine the views of the residents, it seems to me that the government would be obliged to hold another vote. The purpose of the vote is to determine what the neighbours want and not so much what the friends of government want.

With respect to the investigation, I want to ask the minister this question: can he tell the House whether his investigation, which of course deals with ballots, will also deal with the role of Delta Media Services in conducting the plebiscite?

HON. L. HANSON: It's interesting to note that the member has already made a determination of what the investigation is going to reveal. The qualifications of the consulting firm that did the original will be assessed when the investigation is complete.

MR. SIHOTA: Another supplementary to the minister. Does his investigation include a review of the relationship between Delta Media Services and the pub applicant?

HON. L. HANSON: We require that the consulting firm sign a statement to the effect that they have no relationship or interest in the outcome of the opinion poll. If the member opposite has evidence that there is a relationship other than that, I would be pleased to investigate it if he would provide me with that.

URANIUM MORATORIUM

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier about the uranium moratorium. The Premier has publicly stated that the question of uranium mining should be left to each B.C. community that is affected. You said that you would like to see a vote taken in the affected areas. Mr. Premier, votes were taken in the Boundary-Similkameen area in November, and 85 percent of the residents voted against any uranium exploration.

Will the Premier now listen to and respect the wishes of the people of Greenwood, Grand Forks, Rock Creek and other communities and renew the ban on uranium exploration and mining?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is a process which is part of the policy with respect to uranium mining and part of the legislative requirements. I will defer the question to the minister responsible, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) to provide more detail to the Leader of the Opposition for that purpose.

MR. HARCOURT: I understand that process, but that's not the point. The point is: how can the Premier reconcile the fact that his government has refused to reinstate a uranium moratorium when the people have clearly told you they don't want uranium exploration?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I still think it would be of benefit to the opposition if they were provided with some further information by the minister responsible. But let me say again there is no uranium mining now. If there is an application for such, there is a process available. In the meantime, other mining activities can take place in the area. In particular, the area referred to by the Leader of the Opposition — if he isn't already aware — has been historically very dependent, as far as jobs and economic development, on the mining industry. We as a government don't want to see people denied that economic opportunity. We are equally concerned with environmental matters, but we also are concerned about job opportunities for the people in that particular area. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to deny all of these people that job opportunity, let it be on his head.

[ Page 4621 ]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. It's the people of Boundary-Similkameen that don't want it, not me. You're denying them democracy. Here it is, Mr. Speaker: 87 percent against uranium mining in Midway; 80 percent in Greenwood; 78 percent in Grand Forks; 94 percent in area D; 89 percent in area E. Mr. Premier, when are you going to respect local democracy and the wishes of the people of Boundary-Similkameen?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A part of democracy is to provide people opportunity, not to deny them opportunity through various legislative actions in government. It's not to be suppressive, using the clout of government, as the socialists would, to deny people opportunity. That's a part of democracy: to allow people opportunity. And we're not faced with an application for uranium mining. But what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting would deny people in Boundary-Similkameen and elsewhere in the province an opportunity to mine for other resources, and that's sad. This is why I think he should be given an explanation by the minister responsible of what his suggestion would really do to the people of the area.

PLYWOOD-GRADING AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER: A question to the Premier. The U.S. is now refusing to comply with an agreement that the question of standards of the U.S. C-D grade of plywood be placed before a panel of experts. Will the Premier advise the House what position he has taken on this matter, which appears to be a fundamental breakdown of a Canada-U.S. agreement, and eventually, if it's ever signed, would be a fundamental breakdown of the free trade agreement? What position has the Premier taken on this matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts as presented are not quite correct, in that what we have in the U.S. is the position of a committee with respect to that particular item. Their position might be that of the NDP in, say, British Columbia, but it's still for the government to make a decision, and they've committed themselves to the free trade agreement as we've seen it, without amendment. Now fortunately in the U.S. they don't have the NDP, but they still have other people in opposition who could take a similar stance and attempt to influence the agreement that way. That doesn't mean that the agreement will be changed; that's simply a committee taking that position, and it doesn't take away from the agreement.

MR. MILLER: A supplementary on the same topic. The Premier is misinformed, and I hope it's not by his Forests minister. The fact is that the United States is refusing to comply with letters of agreement that state that failing to reach agreement on the plywood standards issue by CMHC reviewing its standards, the issue would go to a panel of experts. The United States administration is refusing to follow that process. If you read the free trade agreement, it's outlined in there. Perhaps what the United States does have is people who are prepared to stand up for jobs for their people, which is all too lacking in this administration.

A supplementary to the Premier. The direction this seems to be heading was stated quite aptly by Mike Apsey, the former Deputy Minister of Forests in this province: it looks like the Americans are trying to circumvent the process that was agreed to, to arrive at some common standards which would ultimately lower the standards of B.C. products in terms of our offshore markets. Is the Premier aware of that in terms of this issue? And again I ask, what steps has the Premier taken to defend the plywood industry in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, for more detail I'll defer to the Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter of the plywood issue between Canada and the United States is under review, and I'm glad it's under review. The free trade agreement has provided us with the means to deal with these kinds of issues and to deal with them effectively, and that's taking place. We can play "what if" games forever, but it's not in the best interests of question period.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it's fine for the member to say what's in the best interests of question period, but it's hard to get answers out of the Premier. I have a copy of the trade agreement. The point I've made is that the United States has not complied with it.

My final supplementary question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, is it all talk and no action? Look, you got suckered on the fish-processing, on the GATT ruling. You refused to stand up for British Columbia provincial rights. Mr. Premier, are you going to finally stand up for provincial rights in terms of this issue and advise the Prime Minister that it's no deal for B.C. if the United States continues to try to circumvent the agreements that are in place, both in the free trade agreement and in letters of agreement? Is it all talk and no action, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the information of the member, the free trade agreement is not in place yet. We are dealing federally and similarly in the U.S. with the free trade agreement. Hopefully, for the good of the country, the economy and jobs, it will be concluded shortly.

DOUGLAS FIR COMMITTEE ROOM

MR. R. FRASER: To the Premier. Early in your administration a sophisticated committee room was built adjacent to this chamber for the purpose of conducting committees and recording proceedings — much as they are here. Can the Premier advise us when committees such as the Committee of Supply will be moved to the new committee room?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Negotiations are presently taking place between the two House leaders.

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. SIHOTA: This question is to the Minister of Finance, because he's indicated on several occasions that everything has changed since the Carter-Ward trial has come down. The events occurred some three years ago. I'm now in possession of new and somewhat astonishing information. I want to ask the minister the following question: could the minister explain why the Carter-Ward companies are still trading on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, with their shares being traded by the same brokers through the same Carter-Ward accounts? Could he explain why there is still matched trading going on on the exchange?

[ Page 4622 ]

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's enlightening to observe that the hon. member hasn't abandoned his vendetta against the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I guess that would be too much to expect. You would normally expect individuals who express a serious concern about the operation of that institution to be working hard to improve it, rather than standing in the bullrushes in the sanctity of this House levelling broadsides for the purpose of capturing some momentary attention across the stage of life here.

As I've told the hon. member repeatedly, the fact of the matter is that the events that surround that case occurred some time ago. We've made many changes since. That's point one. Point two: as the hon. member is aware, there is litigation currently underway in another province dealing with some of the individuals connected with that unfortunate situation. Point three: there is a public statement by the executive director of the Vancouver Stock Exchange that the operations and practices exemplified by the court case are presently under examination by the VSE board of governors.

Given those facts, and given the fact that the hon. member is supposedly a member of the legal profession and therefore well aware of the importance of due process being followed whenever serious allegations are made, I am continually amazed by that same hon. member raising these issues in this forum when he knows full well that I am totally unable to deal with any of the specifics. It would violate the trust of the office that I'm elected to hold. ,

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $260,049.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll begin with a comment regarding a question I had yesterday from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). It had to do with one of the Info Line statements, dealing with the Environmental Lab and the privatization of that operation. I'm quoting Hansard and the second member for Nanaimo....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Picky, picky, picky. I'm reading from the Blues, and I'm quoting the second member for Nanaimo, who in fact is reading from Info Line of May 20: "'Control and analysis of environmental data standards will not be given to B.C. Research. This has been and will remain a ministry responsibility."' Then he goes on to say: "Here's the operative part: 'In fact, this function will be strengthened after privatization, with more staff and more funds."' Then the second member for Nanaimo says: "The question is: how?" I found that curious myself. As a matter of fact, my response to the member was, "I didn't write that," because I didn't. I found it curious why that would have been contained in the Info Line. However, the information was provided to me this morning, and I'll explain it to you. I has to do with the interface group.

The interface group, as the committee will recall, is six staff people and a budget of $450,000. Prior to our notion of privatization, we had approximately three FTEs dedicated to the interface function that the six people are now going to be doing with, of course, less money devoted to the salaries. Those people were handling test tubes and doing testing as well as some of the administrative processes of interface in the testing lab. Those six people are now dedicated. They have a better budget, and they're doing nothing but that administrative interface. That is how Info Line people arrived at the statement — which is correct — that the staff and salaries are increased for that function.

That answers that question. With that, I'll take my seat and let the hon. critic continue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: For the minister's information, I'll just outline some of the business that I'm hoping to deal with today so that he'll have an opportunity to have his staff here. As I indicated yesterday, primarily I want to deal with waste management issues, the special waste task force, the ombudsman's report and the appeal board. If we get through that material we may go on to parks, but I really don't think we'll get through the waste management part today.

It was indicated to me that some other members want to deal with environment lab issues, so I'll turn the floor over to them.

MRS. BOONE: It has come to my attention that there was a slight problem with some of the testing that took place in the past. In 1987 some tests on bacterial contamination were done by, I believe, a lab called Can Test. Some problem developed there, and it's my understanding that the Ministry of Environment is currently working very hard to pull most of that data out of the computer base because of problems that they have with the data.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I guess the question I have is, how does the fact that there were problems with this private contracted-out testing company, and that it was picked up by the Ministry of Environment, relate to the privatization of the testing labs? And where are the controls going to be in the future, given that problems already exist? Can the minister explain that to me?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for Prince George for posing the question. We'll endeavour to supply as much information as we can to the committee.

I think what the member has indicated, if we look at this generally at first blush, is the need to continue the process by B.C. Research of testing and auditing the private labs.

Obviously this was a private lab operating under the current structure which, according to the member, made some errors or had some difficulty in arriving at the correct opinion. That can happen, I guess, from time to time; but I can assure the committee that with the audit procedure in place, we will maintain credibility with the testing industry and maintain safety for the people of British Columbia. I'll get more details on that specific instance in a while.

MRS. BOONE: I was away yesterday, so I may have missed some of the debate that took place, but from what I understand, B.C. Research is going to be doing strictly an audit function right now. Then you mentioned these other six

[ Page 4623 ]

people who will, I understand, be auditing B.C. Research. Is this how it works? We've got six people auditing B.C. Research, who are auditing the private companies. Is this the way it will work, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member did miss a bit yesterday. If and when the Environment Lab is sold, it will of course be sold to the private sector. They will do testing for whoever wants testing done, including those people we tell to send their samples to be tested, such as pulp mills or anybody else that we want to have tested.

From time to time, regularly and at random, we will have an audit done by B.C. Research on the samples being tested by the private facility. That will normally take the form of a sample being split — half of it going to the private lab, half of it to B.C. Research, and then we will compare the results. The private sector will also pay for that audit.

The six employees I discussed earlier will be the interface employees. They will remain employees of the Ministry of Environment, and they will ensure that the concerns of the ministry — of our legislation — are being carried out; in other words, that proper auditing and testing is being done. They will be the control administrative group employed by government to ensure that safety is in place. It's that simple. They will be doing everything they can to ensure that the public is safe, that testing is appropriate, and that B.C. Research is doing a good job.

MRS. BOONE: Is this meant to be more effective, or is it meant to save money? I'm having a little difficulty understanding how it is going to save money when, as your Info Line stated, you've got more people and you are paying them more, plus you are going to have to pay your consulting people and B.C. Research. Perhaps the minister can explain that to me. I'm not quite sure how that works. Is the intent to save money? If so, is it going to be saved, or is that not a primary intent of this move?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The intent of privatization is to put a lesser load on the B.C. taxpayer; in other words, to save money out of the process, whatever that might be — highways or, in this case, testing.

Secondly, the intent is to ensure the efficiency, and that's why we have put the audit and the interface groups in place — to ensure that what the private sector is doing, they are doing to the same standards, if not higher, than the government sector.

We see two immediate benefits: efficiency and a cost saving. The cost saving will come about when we see the bids and how much the private sector wants to charge us for the various tests, which is probably how they will bid. Until we open the envelopes, we don't really know.

The third thing, though, I guess is the one that is maybe easy politically for us to sell and maybe not too easy for your party, Madam Member, with the greatest respect, to digest. It is this: we see that by fostering a bigger and healthier private sector in the province of British Columbia in all matters, they will become world leaders in what they are doing. We expect that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'll get your turn, okay?

We expect that the.... Where was I? We've got a new yappy spaniel candidate.

We expect that as and if the laboratory industry is developed and encouraged by government business, by other government and by other business within British Columbia, they will be able to compete better in the world market and become a dominant industry in the province of British Columbia, and they will have done so with some government encouragement. I guess that's item number three of why we are getting into privatization.

I have a long lecture on B.C. Hydro compared to Quebec Hydro engineering-consulting, which the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) has heard, and which I won't go into, but if one follows that example, it does make a lot of sense to encourage the private sector to develop and it certainly does better for that sector in your province. They become a big economic factor. That can't be denied. It's what we are trying to encourage here.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE: It's obvious that we do need the controls and the audit. We need the auditing factor; that's obvious to everyone.

If you get your bids from your private contractors and they come in and they are not lower than it would have been for the ministry to do their work in-house, will this program be scrapped or will you proceed regardless of whether the bids are higher or lower? Are you going to do it regardless of what the bids are going to do?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. and I've given that answer before. It's been the policy of the government that unless privatization makes sense and we can justify to the taxpayers that they've got a saving and the service is just as efficient as it was before — if not an improvement — then there is no sense in doing it. That's been the record of the government to date. I have no wish to change that or to say that we are going to privatize simply for the sake of privatization.

MRS. BOONE: I will relate back to something I think the minister should understand, and that's the school buses in Prince George which we used to own and operate. We sold them off and went over to Standard Bus, and now Standard Bus virtually has a monopoly on the buses in the Prince George region. If Standard Bus decides that they are going to increase their prices to us, and if they decide they are going to give their employees increases regardless, as they did during the restraint program even when we weren't able to give our employees increases.... The school district had no option but to absorb those costs, because they were a monopoly.

Do you not see that as a difficult thing that we could get into with companies bidding low, getting the bid and then having a monopoly on this thing and virtually being able to charge whatever they wanted in the future because you don't have anywhere else to go? If they do get the bid for the government contracts, it will be a substantial bid and will obviously put them in a class above some others that don't get those bids. Is the minister concerned about any of these things happening?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member couldn't have used a worse example. Standard Bus has always been the bus contractor in Prince George. You've been a trustee, and I've been a trustee. They've been a contractor since the mid-sixties, well before I was on the board. They run the most efficient school bus system per student mile in the province of

[ Page 4624 ]

British Columbia, and they are a private contractor and always have been. Thanks for the example because it's a good one, and I will use it.

MRS. BOONE: I don't think the minister understood what my question was. I was not questioning whether it was efficient or not. I was saying that you were held ransom to these people because you virtually have no other choice. There are no other choices around, as there are no other choices in many areas where people have a monopoly. You do not have the choice as to whether you are going to go to another contractor. There are not the options there.

The point I was making was that if they have a monopoly, which would probably happen in this case, that monopoly enables people to have a stranglehold on you and to virtually demand whatever price they want from you. Is this not a concern of yours?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. Actually, most of the testing in the province always has been done by the private sector. It's just the testing that has been done by the Environmental Lab run by the Ministry of Environment that we'll be concerned with, but it is not by any means the majority of testing.

There is a good private sector out there to look at and ensure that we have competition, plus the fact — and this is something that will be done by the implementation committee when we open the envelopes — that we're going to be looking at maybe a fixed price for three or four years, and all the guarantees to ensure that the government isn't held up for ransom will be in place. That is something I would look at, and I can assure you the officials in the ministry would look at it. I can't see that being a problem.

MS. EDWARDS: I attended a meeting this past Sunday of the Tie Lake improvement district. You probably won't recognize that group, but you probably will know very soon because they dispatched a letter to you yesterday to put forward a problem that I want to ask you about now. I want to establish just what the effects of the changes in the Environmental Lab will be.

The Tie Lake improvement district is a group of citizens who surround a small lake in my riding called Tie Lake. The level of the lake is going down. This discussion and looking at the problem has been going on for five years or more. They have made a proposal that they pipe some water from Little Sand Creek into Tie Lake. This is the simple background business.

They did have a water study done by a member of the Ministry of Environment in the waste management branch that indicated there are some major dangers in that, and at the end of the report is the sentence: "The best way to answer these questions is through bench-top experiments and pilot scale studies using limnocorrals. " I don't know what bench-top studies are, and I am sure I don't know what limnocorrals are, but I understand that you may have access to that kind of technical language.

The point is that you have written this group. Your predecessor, the current Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), had written and promised this group to supply technical information and guidance in reviewing the feasibility of the proposal to enrich calcium carbonate in the lake. You yourself repeated that statement and said the offer still stands. At the meeting on Sunday, Mr. Minister, the group who are still trying to figure out how they could afford it, and various problems with absentee landlords and so on, which I don't think is pertinent to the point.... They had been warned that there would probably be no access this year to very much lab work, to very much technical assistance. They asked me what I thought the provincial government could do, and I was unable to say that I thought that there would necessarily be that. But I suggested to them that they follow up on your offer.

What I want to know, Mr. Minister, is this. Does this restriction, which is very obviously that the Environmental Lab at UBC is going to be cut down to perhaps half what it normally does...? Does that lab come into this? I understand that's the lab where some of these studies would be done. What happens now to these people who are at the low point of what they expect will be a low-water cycle - out of which they will slowly climb, because that's the way things go — and have a major problem with the water quality in their lake? What happens to these kinds of people when they want this kind of technical study, when the lab is being limited in the amount of activity that can be done?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Generally, there's been a lot of concern about the Ferguson memo, which stated that if the lab is sold there could be a delay in some of the tests being performed, but that was for administrative purposes and just to advise the regional managers and others that this might happen, so they could be geared up to be alerted for that possible delay in process. That's about it.

If I've made a promise and if my colleague the current Minister of Transportation and Highways has made a promise that we're going to assist and do the testing, then we'll do the testing, and we'll do it whenever they want us to. You can assure the good people of Tie Lake that whatever we promised in the past will be delivered whenever they want it delivered. Whatever it is we've obligated ourselves to do, we'll do, one way or the other.

I can also tell you that a lot of water testing, I'm advised.... Some of the analysis was done at the lab, but other testing was done by private labs prior to that, so it hasn't been totally a government function.

MS. EDWARDS: The work that was done so far was done without charge to the residents of Tie Lake. With the changes you have outlined today, are you saying that you will live up to your promise, and that this will be done without charge to this improvement district?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. If it's samplings that we would be interested in, we'd pay for them.

MS. EDWARDS: I don't think, Mr. Minister, the bench-top studies and pilot scale studies using limnocorrals are sampling. Obviously they'll use some samples, but it's some particularly technical testing of those samples, I believe.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's difficult to stand here without seeing the letter, without reviewing the case and understanding what I've committed myself to. But I can assure you that whatever I've committed myself to by way of that letter or by way of the letter of a previous minister, we'll stay committed to that promise.

Interjection.

[ Page 4625 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if we said without charge, it will be without charge.

MR. STUPICH: I have a problem in the Cedar district of my constituency. I'm not sure just how long it goes back, but I have a letter in the beginning of this file dated November 17, 1986, from a Mr. Steve Chan, a public health inspector. It's a problem that the minister may recall having heard about. Some residents living near the Venco plant that's working with fibreglass have been agitating for quite some time to get some.... They'd like to get rid of the industry, but at the very least they'd like to get the air pollution controlled. This particular letter refers to the fact that they did not find fibreglass particles in this sampling that they were doing. That was in November 1986, but obviously it had been going on for some time prior to that.

On May 29, 1987, there was a petition, signed by about 14 of the residents near the Venco Products plant. They referred to chemicals that mean little to me, but might to the staff in the ministry: styrene, methyl ethyl ketone and acetone. It refers to them as dangerous to health and also explosive. One of the paragraphs in the petition asks the question: "Why must we be forced to live like prisoners in our own homes, with our doors and windows closed to protect us from hazardous fumes and dust fall?"

I wrote to the minister on June 19, 1987, asking him for help in this case. The minister responded on August 11, and one of his points was that equipment had been provided to a nearby resident to sample the air. I tried to find out just who that resident was, but I guess I didn't try hard enough. In any case, I didn't find out. But I finally did get a sample of dust — not taken the way it should be, I suppose, for scientific investigation, but nevertheless a sample of dust — from a vacuum bag that was turned over to the ministry in September '87 and was accepted to be analyzed at the lab. The thing that worries me at the moment is that I see this new look to privatization of the Environmental Lab, and if something is sent there in September 1987 and we don't have the results in May 1988, I wonder what it's going to be like with privatization: better or worse? I fear for it.

I've been trying to contact an official in the minister's ministry, Dr. Rick Wilson, and it's not his fault that I haven't been able to. I just started panicking, knowing that we were into estimates and knowing that this was happening, so I've been phoning him, and he's been returning the calls, and I've been phoning him, and he has returned the calls, and we're chasing each other back and forth. So far we just don't seem to have been able to get together at the same time to find out what has happened to that sample of dust — whether there is any report on the analysis of it, or whether it has been lost in the eight months between September '87 and May '88. I don't know.

I don't expect the minister to have the answer today, but I thought that with all of us working on it, maybe Dr. Wilson and somebody can get together and find out what's happening for me.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A glib answer would be that maybe the member makes a good case for privatization, but I won't say that, because that would be a reflection on the work that the employees are doing now, and I don't think that's appropriate.

Dr. Wilson is only about 40 feet away in my office and listening to me right now, and I would suspect that an answer is forthcoming. I have some officials in my office listening to the speaker phone, and they will hopefully be sending a reply as quickly as possible.

MR. STUPICH: I want to share the latest message that I had from Dr. Wilson. It was that likely he would not be able to get back to me today. Now I understand why.

[3:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I got so excited about you saying you would do it and for free for this group that I forgot to follow up with the question I did want to follow up with: is this generally going to be the case that citizen groups that generally do not particularly have a way of raising money and so on — they can turn into a specified area or so on, that sort of thing — are going to be charged too for this kind of environmental testing? Is that going to be a consistent thing? To what degree will the ministry in fact do testing for citizens of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When it comes to improvement districts and people wishing to develop services, and where we have an interest, we generally provide what help we can. We can't do in-depth engineering; we can do some assistance, and from time to time I've seen it done. I've been involved, and I know how generally responsive the officials in the field are. I think that generally that type of assistance is available, but we're not going to play the role of the private sector; nor can we dedicate forces to a particular project.

In terms of water sampling — we discussed this a bit yesterday — we know that water tests which we now charge $25 for we should be charging about $125 for. In other words, the general taxpayer of British Columbia is subsidizing tests that we are currently doing. Of course, when this does go to the private sector, that subsidization will no longer exist. People such as those you are representing will have to pay for their own water testing.

I think that's fair. That's probably a difference in opinion between you and me, but our feeling is that if you want a service performed, you should pay for it. It should not be subsidized by the treasury or the general taxpayer of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: Could I take that one step further, Mr. Minister, and go to another example that has come up recently. It's the Elko soap burner, where in fact the ministry did some testing and some work and there was a hearing. In that case, there was a citizens' group which had not organized beforehand. They organized because they were worried about the burning of resin soap in a teepee burner, which is something that hasn't been done anywhere else. I don't know if that report has come out yet; I don't think so.

In that case, when the residents' group is worried about the effects of what would happen, would then the private company pay for that kind of testing, if none of the testing is to be done and paid for by the ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The principle is that the companies test their own effluents and we test the receiving environment as the Ministry of Environment. When and if the lab is privatized, we will have a private sector lab doing that testing for us. But the company has always had to test, under their permit, for their own concerns, and we insist on that. They've always had to pay for them, and nothing will change there.

[ Page 4626 ]

MS. EDWARDS: In this case, Mr. Minister, there seemed to be a requirement that.... I wasn't at the whole hearing, but I heard the first part of it. There was certainly an understanding by some of the people there that there should have been tests as to what was going on within the burner — that testing the effluent would not have done what was required — and that was discussed to quite an extent. Let's be theoretical to this extent. Suppose it had been agreed that that would have been a good idea. Is that then the responsibility of the company who proposes to do the burning or of the citizens who object?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If we consider that testing to be done, it'll be part of the permit. That's the general application. In terms of the details here, I note that Dr. Rick Wilson, who was discussed earlier, has heard an appeal. He heard the appeal on March 25. I don't know if he reported out, but there's not much more I can say if he hasn't reported out. I think it would be sort of sub judice to further discuss this particular issue of Crestbrook Forest Industries at Elko, so I want to avoid that. If he has reported out, then I'll have that information for you.

MS. EDWARDS: That's why I said it's really a theoretical question. My question is: where do citizens' groups stand? I use this as an example only. There are a number of environmental threats or perceived threats, as you know, and citizens are more and more alarmed at the kinds of chemical effluent and so on that they find in their immediate environment. When a citizens' group comes together and seems to present a reasonable case for a worry, and it is a case where the ministry is going to be issuing the permit — in fact, perhaps the ministry has issued a permit — will there be any consideration for the citizens' group? That's what I want to know. Is it possible that the citizens' group itself will have the funding of the ministry to do the testing? Or if it is not going to be financed by the ministry, would it then be financed by the company? What will be the procedure in situations like that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the general matter of appeals, the member knows that Dr. Rick Wilson, who is assistant director of the waste management branch, did hear this appeal. His opinion is immaterial to this debate, but we do in fact have an appeal process. Other directors hear appeals. Jim Walker, director of wildlife, hears appeals. It's common throughout this ministry, and presumably others, that there is a voice for citizens' groups, such as the people of Elko — and such as they applied for in this case — to be heard by an official of the ministry. Then, of course, there's a further appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board.

On the question of intervener funding, no, we would not do intervener funding. That is a policy of government, and it applies in all public hearing cases.

In terms of paying for the testing, if we, the Ministry of Environment, feel that testing is necessary and we require certain evidence — whether it be on the resin soap at Crestbrook or any other material we want to find out about, and whether it be Dr. Wilson hearing the appeal or whether it be the Environmental Appeal Board or anyone else — we will do the testing and pay for it. If the lab is privatized, then a private sector lab is going to do the testing. I guess that's the only distinction. But in terms of the public process, nothing will change. The public still has an appeal through officials, through the Environmental Appeal Board. Where that director or appeal board feels that testing and evidence is necessary, they will pay for the process.

MR. MICHAEL: First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on the progress that's been made in the Shuswap Lake area, mainly with the broadening and expansion of the Shuswap Lake Marine Park. I think we in the constituency and the Shuswap Lake area in general are quite proud of all the parks that have been established there over the years and the tremendous number of improvements that have been made in that area over the last few years.

We have some problems, and I know he's well aware of the milfoil problem. I know some delegations have been visiting him recently regarding the possible purchase of some permanent equipment to attack the milfoil problem. I would appreciate a follow-up, Mr. Minister, regarding the commitment that your ministry might be able to make to the regional district in establishing an adequate milfoil control program with the equipment th—at is necessary.

Just as an aside, Mr. Minister, I had talked to some of your staff some time ago about the report that I had received about a type of carp fish that could be placed in certain bodies to cut down on the milfoil. I know that there have been some problems with that concept on the basis that the carp would perhaps destroy other fish in the lake and spread, but I understand that down in California there is an experiment underway that is reasonably successful, where they have neutered the carp before putting them in the lake. They are really making inroads to the milfbil problems in areas down in California. As I say, Mr. Minister, I haven't discussed this with you personally but I've discussed it with your staff. I'm wondering if you have any recent information on the possibilities of embarking on some type of an experimental program such as that.

The other thing I would like to put on the record to the minister is my displeasure with the fee schedules that were put in place some months ago for burners located throughout the province. There are a number of discrepancies. I know that we've made those concerns known to the minister. There are some ridiculous situations where we have small- or medium-sized firms paying in the neighbourhood of $4,000 a year for licences for emission permits, and in looking at the amount of dollars that a small firm such as this might turn over within a year, it perhaps could range in the neighbourhood of a half a million dollars or so.

It's interesting in looking at this schedule, Mr. Minister, and this is where we have to have a review of these fees. For the same amount of money we can give a licence to a fairly large sawmill or a pulp mill that could turn out as much as $360 million for that same $4,000 fee. I think there's got to be some review of that schedule of fees and some revisions.

The other thing that we have in the constituency that's causing us a lot of concern is the question of houseboats. We've been passing letters back and forth now for a number of years, and the dilemma seems to be that neither the province nor the federal government nor the regional district appear to have clear jurisdiction over the control of houseboats on Shuswap Lake. I'm wondering if we couldn't make an all out effort in the coming year to determine once and for all who has jurisdiction and control over the regulating and regulations of houseboats on Shuswap Lake.

I'm sure that would apply to other lakes as well, but we all, in this assembly, I am sure, are aware that Sicamous is the

[ Page 4627 ]

houseboat capital of the world. I think we're running somewhere in excess of 400 houseboats now on Shuswap Lake. It has turned into a very big business, but a lot of people are concerned about the need for regulations. Before we can really address the issue, we must find out which jurisdiction has control.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will take my seat and hopefully of those number of items that I've mentioned, the minister could, not necessarily right now but sometime in the not too distant future, get back to me on the concerns of my constituents in those areas.

[3:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've got a series of answers here. I'll begin by providing an answer to my good friend the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). It is this. The sample provided to the ministry was a vacuum cleaner bag and it turned out to be filled with household dust. The Nanaimo regional office is pursuing the problem, including microscope analysis of the contents of the bag. Unfortunately, there's a lot of material and we haven't resolved the matter of whether there are fiberglass fibres in the vacuum cleaner bag, but Dr. Wilson assures me that he will phone the member as soon as possible.

The Crestbrook appeal. The appeal hearing in late March lasted from 9 a.m. until midnight. Because of the length of the hearing, it has taken longer than expected to finalize the report. It is expected to be released within the next week or two. Dr. Wilson's a busy guy.

To my colleague from Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), the problem with the Can Test coliform data. The Prince George region had taken a number of background samples from various rivers. The Environmental Lab has contracts in place to deal with work overload situations, so those are being looked after. In the summer of 1987, some samples were sent to Can Test for them to analyze. The regional staff noted that the values seemed low and asked the Environmental Lab to investigate. The problem has not been resolved, but it could have been due to the samples sitting in storage too long. Under a private lab, the ministry would continue to closely monitor contracts and B.C. Research would confirm lab capabilities. I will agree that we did have a problem there. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. It is with information like this in mind, when we get into the private contract and we get our interface group going, we can maybe avoid some of these delay problems.

To the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), we have discussed the milfoil equipment and situation with your locally elected people. I had a good meeting with them a couple of weeks ago. We have agreed that we will wait for the summer milfoil season and the work season to proceed. We will be back to them in August, and hopefully we'll have something to talk about at that time.

With respect to the carp, that idea has been kicked around for a long time, and a lot of suggestions have been made. Carp, preferably those that have been neutered and are not capable of producing further offspring, will eat the milfoil. Then they will die of old age or whatever and have no offspring, so the carp will be gone. That's still viewed with some suspicion, because I'm told by the fish people that it's difficult to effectively ensure that the carp are totally neutralized. You could end up with a breeding pair — maybe two or four — and a lot of problems, so they are not willing to take that risk.

However, in terms of biological control, we are looking at the study being done at UBC of a milfoil moth that lays its larva in the milfoil and eats the milfoil, as a moth would eat anything else. Apparently it's a European moth that controls the milfoil reasonably well in Europe, and it could work here. From a biological control point of view, that appears to be the most promising event on the market coming around, and we think that we are going to pursue that investigation, and that's being done at UBC. We see that as the most promising way of effecting a solution.

In terms of the permit fees, the member makes a good point. We have had numerous concerns about our permit fees which were introduced last summer. I should point out for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, that we spend about $12 million a year on issuing and inspecting permits, and we wanted to recapture some of that cost. By putting in the permit fees, we are now capturing about $4 million of the cost, so it still is an expense to the Crown and to the taxpayers of British Columbia to have those permits in place and to regularly monitor them. We thought a fee system would be appropriate, and one which industry would have to bear to some degree. I'll admit — and the ministry has admitted — that in fact we weren't totally fair on all permits. The concrete industry, for example, had a major concern, and we addressed those concerns. Other industries were just a little out of sync, and I don't think, in all cases, we have established a totally level playing field, in the sense that we are charging more for some permits that are easier to inspect or people who are polluting less or who have less reason to be continually inspected.

We do have a few lumps in the system, and I make no bones about that. But we are trying to address it and massage it so that we are treating industry fairly. I have asked the officials to, as much as they can, put in place a bonus-malus system, whereby an industry that is a heavy polluter just because of the nature of industry — a chrome plating plant or something like that — or an industry that has a bad track record just because of their own management practices would be required to pay more. There are other industries who, by nature of what they are doing, have a tendency to cause us less concern, or because of their track record, or because they are good corporate citizens, they monitor themselves very well and endeavour to ensure that their operation is as clean as possible. They would be charged less. I don't know if we can ever totally achieve that, but that would be my desire. It would be an appropriate way to structure the permit fee system, where we had a bonus-malus system in place and would be encouraging people, through a tax regime, to keep a clean operation. That's something I have asked to be put in place. How well it is going to work remains to be seen, but that certainly is the way I want to have it done. I thank you for your comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could take this opportunity to remind all members that during committee, they should address their comments to the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Before I ask the minister about the Special Waste Advisory Committee, I would like to make some comments on the minister's last series of answers. If I understood you correctly, when you were talking about the permitting process, you were talking about looking into a sliding scale for permits. Why would the minister not use the power that he already has in the Waste Management Act to

[ Page 4628 ]

bond companies that are heavy polluters or companies that have a bad track record?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't quite understand what you're getting at. Just to recap briefly what I said, I have encouraged the staff in charge of the permit organization and regime to look at a bonus-malus system: charging higher permit fees for those people who have to be regularly inspected, either because of the nature of their operation or because they might have a bad track record. Those are the people who are causing us the expense; therefore they should be picking up the bulk of that expense. Other industries.... They can be heavy industries, they can be pulp mills, they can be industries that normally might cause us a lot of concern, but if they have a good environmental track record, if we after some time see that they really do stay within compliance at all times, they wouldn't have to be inspected as much; therefore they should be charged less. That would be the ideal bonus-malus system. Whether or not we can achieve that is another question.

In terms of bonding, I don't quite know what you're getting at. You might explain it a little further.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think we were a little bit at cross-purposes. The comments you made twigged my concern around the fact that the minister doesn't seem to use the power that he has to bond industries to ensure there is money there to clean up. I didn't understand the point you were making around using the permits to cover the expenses that are required for inspection. It sounds like a good idea. Maybe the minister could, though, comment on why the ministry has not, to my knowledge, used the power to bond to ensure that companies are held financially responsible for any environmental contamination.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know why one would want to bond. The plant is there. If they spill something, I insist they clean it up. If they don't do that, then there are measures. We will close them down. One does not need a bond when one has, by statute authority, the right to have an operation cease its operations. That is all the clout one would want. We do that from time to time. Our record is good, I would say. As a matter of fact, we laid more than 100 charges last year. We do have a strong record of enforcement, so bonding is not really required. If someone is outside of compliance, we insist that they clean up their act.

Bonding is where you have someone who is going to get away from you. When someone is being charged with a criminal offence and you want to ensure that he's going to come back and appear in court, then you ask him to post a bond. You don't have to worry about a factory or a plant or a mill getting away from you. It's not going to run away; it's not on rubber tires or anything. It can't be moved. It's going to stay within your jurisdiction. So there's no reason to bond it. It will be there whatever measures you have to take.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This wasn't exactly the time I wanted to pursue this, but I think it is important, because there are instances in the province where environmental bonding would be appropriate — for instance, in mining operations. I can think of other heavy industrial operations where there is some sort of bonding, whether it's bonding for reclamation or bonding for work. The Ministry of Highways, for instance, requires bonding for construction. It's more or less a promise held in trust that the industry will comply with the standards, and it secures for the province the ability to deal with the problem afterwards.

There are instances around B.C. that I can think of where taxpayers' dollars will be used to clean up the mess after industries leave, and that is by virtue of the fact that nothing was left in trust to deal with the environmental problems left after the industries have moved away. Sometimes industries pack up and move because of sad circumstances — bankruptcies and that sort of thing. So it's a matter of the ministry making certain that the business of the people of this province is being dealt with, and dealt with in the long term.

What I had hoped to deal with at this point — perhaps the minister would like to take a list of things he wants to comment on, including the issue of bonding.

I want to ask the minister a little bit about the Special Waste Advisory Committee. I understand the committee is expected to report in mid May, and because this is the only opportunity we will have in the House to actually deal with the issue of hazardous waste in depth — other than question period, of course — I'd like to explore some of the work the committee has done. Perhaps the minister can provide some information for the House that will enable us to take a look at the inevitable siting of a facility in the province.

I'd like to know if the minister can explain to us whether or not there has been an inventory of hazardous wastes in the province — whether that was a task of the special waste committee or whether the ministry has undertaken that purpose — and if he could provide information about the inventory and the amount of waste expected to be generated in the province yearly.

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to bonding, I will get to that briefly. The mining example is more appropriate, as we both recognize, than the mill or heavy industry, which cannot move and will have an investment in place that we can attach. The member is right about the mine. Where we have jurisdiction to do bonding is in a recreation area, if mining were to occur.

If it's on Crown land, any bonding process or reclamation responsibilities would be the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I wouldn't have the authority for that bonding except in a recreation area. We would assess every permit as it is made and then devise a bonding or reclamation regime, as we saw fit. That's about all I can comment on in that area of bonding, but it would apply in our case only to recreation areas.

With respect to special waste, it's a very topical subject, given that, as the member has indicated, we are getting close to making a decision on siting. I can't resist this opportunity to compliment Dr. David Boyes, Lael Hamilton and Mr. Jefferys on the remarkable work they have done over the last year and a half. They have taken what was a very difficult political and technical concern of the people of British Columbia and worked with it with some vigour, an awful lot of energy, great enthusiasm and genuine concern.

I guess if there is any way I could characterize the work, the opinion and the feelings of Dr. Boyes, it's that he does have a genuine concern with ensuring that whatever is done in the province is done properly. As we all know, his background and his life work in medicine has been largely cancer research, and I don't think there is anyone who is more concerned with the proper siting and handling of special

[ Page 4629 ]

wastes. All of us in this room and the people of British Columbia will be forever indebted for his work, I can assure you.

In any event, they worked for some time. A couple of months ago they arrived at a proponent contractor they believed could do the best job of putting the process in place — we will get into the details of that later if you wish — and they are now seeking a site. As you know, the people of Cache Creek and Ashcroft have come together as a community unit and agreed in a vote taken a couple of weeks ago that they think theirs is the appropriate spot for this facility to be sited.

There is, of course, every good reason for that. The drier the area, the better it is. They certainly would like to see the economic benefit, because this facility will employ 50 to 60 well-trained people. It's a good payroll and is an industry that will continue forever, given that special wastes are very much a fact of life, very much a fact of the way we live. If you have your clothes dry-cleaned, if you take film to be developed, if you change the oil in your car, if you really do anything that we do in the 1980s in British Columbia, you are in one way or another a contributor to special wastes.

It's a problem that's not going to go away, and it's going to be reflected, if all goes well, in a very good industry for some community in British Columbia. It looks like — and I can't say much more at this point, because I know nothing more than I am telling you now — it could be that Cache Creek-Ashcroft area.

In terms of the member's question about the inventory we have, we have people registering their special wastes with us now. We know what Hydro has in terms of PCBs, because they are storing them, and we know what other large industries have. We reckon our inventory at this point is about 70,000 tonnes, a large amount. We reckon that is what we will generate on an annual basis — maybe a little less, but we reckon that's what it will be in B.C. That's the best answer I can give the member at this point.

We have, of course, been exporting toxic wastes for some time now, with the exception of PCBs. There is a facility in Oregon that we export to, and they were accepting everything. Some time ago they stopped taking PCBs, so we have to store them now. We think that about 70,000 tonnes a year will be the treatment requirement in B.C., although it could go up. It could go up beneficially, in that once you have a special waste facility in a province, you begin to attract the industry that generates special waste and just about everybody does. The high tech industry high tech labs, microprocessors, that type of thing — develops a little special waste. So in fact, a special waste treatment facility is an economic generator and will attract more industry, employment and jobs to your province.

I know I'm filibustering my own estimates. I'll sit down now and let you carry on.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find this whole process extraordinarily frustrating, for the minister to give the doublespeak that he constantly does in these issues. The minister talks about us all being generators of hazardous waste. I was a little concerned when the special committee sent out information kits to everyone and held public information meetings — not to hear what the communities had to say but to provide information. The information they provided related to household hazardous waste.

The reality of a special waste facility in this province is that it will deal with industrial waste. It will not have the capability or the infrastructure to go around household to household and collect hazardous waste.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It will.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Maybe the minister can explain to us how the facility will do that if there is to be one facility in the province, when at the moment, the ministry itself does not have the capability of handling never mind industrial but household waste.

We saw a facility waste management office in Surrey, my own constituency.... I've been down there several times. They've got a back room that they ended up having to close because people didn't know what to do with their own household hazardous waste and responsibly did not want to flush it down the sink.

We've got all this talk about household waste, and we've seen nothing in the way of a program that will actually deal with the collection and disposal of that hazardous waste. That is an astronomical task. I would love to hear the minister enlighten me: how is this facility going to deal with household waste?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the member is about a year late in her concerns. The Boyes committee has been discussing this. Municipalities have to develop a waste management scheme; they've always had to. They do that now with regular household garbage. They will be responsible, and I think I said that last year when I did the amendments to the bill. They will be responsible for maintaining.... Surrey should be able to tell you that. Have you really talked to the people at city hall? Well, you'd better talk to them again. They will be responsible for managing their own toxic waste stream. You as a householder will have the responsibility to ensure that whatever you have — your pesticides. your half-gallon of paint or whatever — you take down to an appropriate place for storage, manifestation, collection and shipment to our facility.

I don't see what so miffed about. The process is in place, and municipalities know about it. It's going to be a scheme and a regime that works throughout the province, and everybody will be able to take advantage of it. By the way, the most dangerous stuff in the province is underneath your sink.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is telling us that every municipality now has an additional responsibility to collect and store household hazardous waste and ship it to the facility, and the facility will have the capacity then to deal with all of these different little containers and dispose of them. Who's going to pay for this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The generator of the special waste: you and I, the taxpayer, industry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that there are approximately 70,000 tonnes of hazardous industrial waste in the province and that along with household waste, it will be enough to run economically a single facility in the province. This private company will be able to make enough money to keep the facility going and make a decent enough profit to make it worth their while.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That was the mandate given to Dr. David Boyes and the committee, that it

[ Page 4630 ]

be an appropriate pricing regime so people would, number one, obey the regulations and legislation that we had put in place but wouldn't be so expensive that they had to bootleg their stuff out of the province or just dump it to avoid regulations and legislation. So the price has to be reasonably low to the waste generator, yet it has to be high enough that the company is going to be assured of making a return on their investment. In our estimation, and that of the special waste committee in reviewing all the proponent bids — and there were more than just one, I can assure you.... We looked at everybody's pricing regime and looked at what they were going to spend in terms of capital investment to put the facility in place. They hired accounting and consulting firms to identify the numbers and the investment return.

They arrived at the proponent and they reckoned that with that person's investment — which I think is in the tune of $20 million — they will be able to, first of all, ensure that the industry won't be charged that much to go to that facility and, secondly, that the company will make an appropriate return on their investment. We're quite convinced at this point that it's going to work well; that industry and municipalities are going to be part of the process, and the company is going to make a fair return on their investment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Could the minister explain to the House why it is that my neighbour or the dry-cleaners down the street would go through this process and pay the price to have their waste disposed of?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The dry-cleaner will have to register; that's in the legislation. You will want to do it as good citizens. Do you take pesticides now and pour them down the toilet? No, you don't. You look after them in a responsible manner. And I'm sure that's what all citizens will do, because they have the concern about their environment. If they don't, they're breaking the law. And if that happens, it's regrettable, but I don't know what else we can do in that case. But the generators of special waste, such as the dry-cleaners or the service stations, will have to register.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What is the penalty for breaking that law and who will enforce it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We don't know yet. Those will be in the regulations as they develop. We haven't got a regime in place yet.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's interesting to look at what other jurisdictions have done in this regard. In 1986 the Ministry of Environment in Ontario announced a household hazardous waste funding program. They provided municipalities with up to 50 percent of the funds needed for a special waste day. What they did was go around and collect special waste at households and deal with them in that way. Has the ministry considered such a program? It seems very clear to me that the reason we are now trying to tackle the special waste problem in B.C. is that people have not been dealing with their waste responsibly. And beyond siting a private facility for profit, it would seem to me that this ministry has some responsibility to put in the infrastructure necessary to make sure it works. Have you considered such a program?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I haven't. But outside of Alberta, whose system is really not up to speed yet, we are leading the rest of Canada. It was great for Ontario to have their special waste day, but once they got all that stuff, they had no place to put it. So I don't know what sort of point you're making there. We know that we'll bring in an appropriate regime for collection. Municipalities will have to look after it, such as they do with the rest of your garbage, which you and I and taxpayers have been paying for ever since we've had garbage collection. It was either that or look after it ourselves, and we agreed that it would be a municipal function. This will be the same thing. People who are generators of hazardous wastes will have to register. That is the law, and there will be a regime of fines put in place. I don't think we'll have any problems there, because we can identify what the industry is; that's simple. We know what industries are generators of special waste and what industries are not.

We may consider some special waste day where we send a truck around to all the communities or assist municipalities in getting everything out of the closet. That may or may not come to be. It's a good thought, but I really hadn't though of it at this point. I would just hope that we put the regime in place and the municipalities go about the regular business of picking up this garbage.

[3:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: As I have said in previous estimates and in other discussions in the House, one of the best ways to deal with hazardous waste is through recycling: actually using or identifying the hazardous waste, recycling it and sharing it with other industries. There are instances where a certain chemical is a waste to one industry but may be useful to another, and there are always instances of encouraging industries to use other chemicals or other procedures rather than generating the hazardous waste in the first place.

The minister has told the House that this facility will be the generator not only of economic returns to the community that the facility will be situated in.... The minister has talked about jobs available to that community. Now he's telling us that we can look forward to hazardous waste producers actually locating in B.C., because if there's a facility to deal with the hazardous waste, this is a lure to those kinds of industries to come here. I find that just about the most incredible statement for the Minister of Environment to make to this House and to this province. This might be your best, quite frankly, because what you are saying is that by putting in a hazardous waste facilit.... Rather than dealing with the problems we have here in the province, looking at other options, encouraging industries for other uses, we're going to use this facility to encourage the generators of hazardous waste to come and locate here in B.C. That, Mr. Minister, is an irresponsible statement in this day and age. Maybe back in the 1920s, but no longer in this day and age can we even begin to contemplate such outrageous thoughts. If we are looking for industry and industrial development in this province, we should be encouraging industries to be looking at the new technologies, looking at new production methods, looking at new options, being on the cutting edge of the new world, not of the old.

The minister has indicated that this hazardous waste facility will generate jobs and has indicated that Ashcroft may indeed be the community that receives the facility. If we take a look at the example of Swan Hills, Alberta, which the minister has compared this one to.... I understand the

[ Page 4631 ]

engineering company that has advised Dr. Boyes is the company that put Swan Hills in place. If we look at that facility as an example and we look at the 50-some jobs that the facility generates, we're looking at something like one third of the jobs being for people from that community. The more highly technical jobs are imported; those technicians are brought in. The people that are unemployed in Cache Creek or in Ashcroft are not going to get those jobs. These are fairly technical, sophisticated jobs; I would certainly hope that they are. It is not going to be the unemployed in that community who get them. So it's a little misleading to suggest that it's going to provide 50 jobs for that community.

I am sure that some of my comments have inspired the minister and that he would like to enlighten me, so I'll let him do that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not inspired, but you do need enlightening, let me tell you. Good Lord!

Do you know the difference between special waste and hazardous waste? We're not dealing with anything radioactive. Are you aware of that?

You talk about new industry and how this will attract.... Do you have a television set? Just nod your head. Do you have a television set?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What would you think about a company that was making television sets in British Columbia? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

MS. SMALLWOOD: If you'd like to make your comments, I'll answer your questions.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's presume the member would like to see high technology. She asked about the new age — we have to have that. Well, the production of microchips, the new technology, all the things we want to see, the nice clean industries in B.C..... They're not smokestack industries; they're not nineteenth-century industries. We're not creating the rustbelt again. These are state-of-the-art industries. Microchips and all this space age stuff create special wastes to a small degree. It's in the acid etching process of microchips and that type of thing. They create a special waste — not a hazardous waste, but a special waste that must be treated.

The ones that we're dealing with in our legislation — the legislation you were opposed to last year, if you will recall.... That is the industry we are going to attract, we are trying to attract; we do it all the time. That is the industry that will locate in British Columbia if they know they have a facility that can take that special waste. It's in small amounts, but it has to be taken somewhere and treated. That is why this can be an employment generator, not just in Cache Creek but throughout British Columbia.

You are sadly mistaken in your comparison of the contractors at Swan Hills with any of the contractors in B.C. There's no relation. Bow Valley Resources did the site at Swan Hills, and they have no presence in the proponent company in British Columbia.

Thirdly, I don't see how you can make the argument that jobs at a special waste facility will not be able to assist the people of Cache Creek. There will be a payroll of 50 to 55 people. There is a multiplier effect, and maybe some of the people in your caucus who understand economics can tell you about that. That multiplier effect ensures there are more jobs in the service industries — trucking, for example. First of all, I think you're selling the people of Cache Creek short in saying that they won't have the technical expertise to work at this type of plant. But those who don't will find other employment. When you inject that type of a payroll into a community, a regular 365-days-a-year payroll, that's a remarkable economic benefit to that community. I think a small lecture in economics from one of your caucus members will tell you what that type of economic benefit will do. If they won't tell you, I'll have the MLA from the area give you some advice on that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me tell you a little bit about the high tech industries. This is a good thing for us to talk about because I've done a fair amount of work on the high tech industries, on what happened in Silicon Valley and the kind of chemicals they use in that industry. When you take a look at high tech industry, you find out that the ten most corrosive, most carcinogenic, most mutagenic chemicals in North America are used in the microchip industry. When the minister tries to explain to me about the kinds of chemicals used in these clean industries, I think I probably know more about what those industries do and the impact they have had on the environment in Silicon Valley than even he knows. When you take a look at what those industries have done to a state, to a very beautiful valley.... The people who plan for those industries, who encourage those industries, didn't take into consideration what they were dealing with. Instead, they now have to deal with the health effect not only on the workers but on the community, with the effect on the water table due to contamination, with the effect on local services — the fire department has to deal with chemicals they never even heard about before, with the kinds of fires they've had in those industries. For the minister to suggest, on such a superficial level, that this is going to be a great thing for this province.... I suggest you take a look at what has gone on down in Silicon Valley before you go about encouraging industries that are generators of toxic waste, and looking at that as a tremendous economic spinoff.

When you look at those industries on a global scale, there is some significant question whether or not (1) they are particularly viable and (2) it would be to their advantage to site en masse in B.C. If you want to talk about those industries and sell them as clean industries, then I think that in and of itself deserves a decent debate.

The minister talks about this facility and suggests that I sell the people of Cache Creek short, because the minister suggests that perhaps they do have the technical ability to run a facility to deal with hazardous waste. The facility that is needed to deal with the wide range of hazardous waste for this province has got to be a fairly sophisticated facility. If it is not, then perhaps I should be more concerned than I already am. For that kind of facility, two-thirds of those 50-some people have got to be brought in. They have got to be specially trained experts in their field, technicians, to be able to deal with and run that facility. For the comfort and concern that the Cache Creek people already have, I would hope that you could assure them that they will have the best technicians, the best professionals and the best facility.

Let's talk about Cache Creek, if that is to be the site of the new facility, and let's talk about the support that you men-

[ Page 4632 ]

tioned is coming from that community for such a facility. Both the minister and I are well aware of the fact that the referendum held in Cache Creek did not include some 200 natives and did not include many of the people who are in the outskirts of town and are very concerned because of their well water, the grazing, their livelihood. There are some very serious concerns about whether that referendum was — and very clearly it was not — representative of the community. From day one the development of the special waste task force and the special waste facility in this province has not respected the advice that your own ministry got from dedicated, committed people from the industry, the communities and specialized environmental groups, groups that worked for three years and advised your ministry on the best way to proceed, to build confidence and to share information. Your ministry totally disregarded that and went straight ahead, and now we have a proposal in a community with a referendum that is not representative.

What are you interested in? Are you interested in actually siting a facility and understanding the problem? Or are you interested in more confrontation? If you don't respect the opinions of the people of this province, if you don't let them become involved in that process, then they have no option but to resist what you are trying to do to them. If they don't have the information to make the decision on, it is irresponsible of them to do anything less than resist.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's the most bizarre speech I've ever heard in my life, Mr. Chairman, and I'll read it to the member next year. It isn't worth comment, except to say that I was at Cache Creek a couple of weeks ago. There was a good turnout. Everybody was genuinely interested and, I think, genuinely informed. I am quite sure that the community is sincerely interested in that project. Outside of that I have nothing to say. Bizarre.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'll bring the minister back to previous discussions on the issue of recycling, hazardous waste and collecting. In Sweden they have had a program in place for some time that has collected household batteries — batteries from cameras, calculators, flashlights, that kind of thing. What they found out initially was that the incineration of household batteries was contributing to half of the mercury that was poisoning the Swedish environment. So they established a national battery collection program, and it has retrieved up to 75 percent of all batteries sold. Has the minister considered identifying such dangerous substances, and would he consider such a program here in B.C.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, the comments with respect to recycling were well taken and I should have responded earlier. As a matter of fact, the whole pricing regime that the special waste committee has looked at and that has been discussed with a proponent contractor is such that we're pretty well convinced, as we look at the operation cost of industry that does generate special waste, that for them to send their special wastes on to be treated is going to be just enough.... In fact, they'll have to do it; they're not going to bootleg the stuff or try to get it out of the way, because it will be registered anyway.

Secondly, it will encourage them to get into recycling. That was one of the major thrusts in designing the pricing regime for selecting the proponent contractor. So that has been taken into account. We expect that any industry operating in British Columbia once our site, legislation and regulations are in place will seriously consider simply from the economic point of view any and all recycling initiatives. That's something we will consider.

In respect of the battery pickup, I know that batteries are handled now sometimes properly and sometimes not so properly. I will take the member's comments to heart and have the ministry look at them and give me more advice on the Swedish regime of collecting and managing waste batteries.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand that the minister has had underway for the last few months a committee dealing specifically with hazardous hospital wastes. Can the minister provide some information about that committee?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Dr. John Ward from the Ministry of Environment is doing it, along with people from the Ministry of Health. There are a couple of initiatives now. I think there is an American outfit taking some of the hospital wastes and treating them in Washington, just across the border, and that's about all I know about it at my level. You're right, the committee has been working for some time now. The report is not finalized but should be soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me provide a little information for the minister. Presently, I don't believe that there is any requirement of hospitals to deal with their hazardous wastes. Some hospitals on the lower mainland have incinerators and dispose of their wastes in them. The information that I have been able to put together shows that most incinerators in hospitals are not operating at the standards or the new technical requirements for hazardous waste incinerators.

We have a situation not only in B. C. but in North America of hazardous hospital wastes being disposed of in local landfills. That creates an incredible health risk, and while I am encouraged that the ministry has a committee working on this very serious problem, I am a bit concerned that the minister at this point has not provided the House with more information. I would ask the minister when it will be reporting and whether we can expect regulations or legislation requiring the safe disposal of such hazardous waste.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to tell the House more, but there is not much more I can say officially at this point aside from what I said earlier, that Dr. John Ward is looking into it on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Parks. The partners are GVRD and the lower mainland hospitals. The member is absolutely right: in some cases the collection and incineration of wastes is pretty spotty, and of course with the concern about AIDS, which is fatal, one has to worry about proper management and disposal of hospital wastes.

I believe that UBC and — now that I think of it — Lions Gate are using a contractor who is sending the hospital wastes to a facility in Washington on the Canadian-Washington border where they are autoclaved at the appropriate heat and taken care of. Those are probably the only two hospital facilities doing that. The member is right: we have to do something and we are doing it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't believe I heard the minister correctly. Did the minister suggest that this is not a fatal situation? I didn't quite catch that comment.

[ Page 4633 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I was referring to some infectious wastes, particularly materials that have been used for testing AIDS victims. That would be fatal if you happened to come across that infectious waste — either a broken vial or a needle or whatever. That's what I meant, yes, and it's fatal.

MR. CLARK: I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this sector, but I was following the discussion regarding special wastes as opposed to hazardous wastes, and obviously following with interest Dr. Boyes's commission. I must say it is clearly a very difficult problem to find alternative mechanisms for recycling those kinds of waste. I have some sympathy for the government trying to come to grips with the problem. I might disagree on the solution, but I think it's a difficult one.

I also might say that to the extent that all industries do provide special waste, if we want to develop more industry — as I and certainly our side of the House do — it becomes a growing problem over time. Coming to grips with it is important.

You're going to have a private sector company do it. I don't necessarily have a problem with that either. but it seems to me that the ombudsman made a very good point with respect to privatization and deregulation. If you're going to have a private company do it, then there is a little more onus on the government to regulate that private company. We see a kind of twin track developing with the government, which concerns me: privatization and deregulation at the same time. It's very difficult to do that and maintain quality services and protection for the public. If you're going to have a private company do disposal of special wastes, then you have to have tougher monitoring and tougher regulation and rigorous staff. It doesn't have to be a large bureaucracy, but you need to be really on top of that. I'd like the minister to comment a little on that.

Another concern I have is with respect to setting up a waste disposal unit here in Ashcroft or Cache Creek. If we do that and no other provinces are doing it, then there is a temptation, it seems to me, to import everybody's special waste. That's a great concern to me. I can understand the minister saying we're going to provide the site, and maybe that's an attraction for people to locate here. I can understand the logic there, but I'm really concerned about trucking everybody else's special waste in from all across Canada.

I'd like the minister to tell us there's no intention and there won't be any importation of special wastes into that site once it's developed, and that you have in place beefed-up monitoring and regulation regarding policing that private sector site. The studies I've seen in my earlier career as a planner were that one of the problems with incinerators and so on is that they rarely, over a period of time.... Unless there's tough enforcement, incinerators rarely meet the emission requirements, because in time they wear down or whatever. You need to be on top of that kind of facility all the time with your independent staff from the ministry making sure they're complying.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member makes a good point. I've noted your comments here, and I'll try to deal with them as best I can.

Again, recycling. As I said to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), I'll say to the second member for Vancouver East that we want to price our waste disposal system so that every generator is encouraged to recycle. I guess the most immediate automatic one would be used oil. Every service station has used oil. They will become a generator, they will be registered under our system and our regulations, and they'll have to shift that stuff. Mohawk and the other people who want to get into recycling will be more than happy to take that in their facility and treat it and take whatever out. They'll be left with a bit of sludge to send to our facility for treatment, but they'll also be left with the recycled oil to sell again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the economics will have to work out, but I'm sure they will.

Someone suggested the other day — and this is not ministerial policy; it's not my policy, anyway — that maybe the government could be the catalyst by saying that when we're buying oil, unless there's a great price difference we'll give preference to recycled oil. We buy a lot of oil for our vehicle fleet. As I said, that's not my policy, but it's a regime we could put in. We could ensure that that sort of process is in place, and we could ask other people to do it. We could advertise. I think that as Minister of Environment I would be more than happy to promote not specifically Mohawk but people who are good citizens and are recycling.

We have the regulations in place; they were contained in our legislation — which, by the way, your party voted against, but I won't hold that one over you. We do have tough regulations in place. I can understand your concern: we seem to be double-tracking. We're deregulating here, but we're regulating quite heavily over here.

[4:15]

In the case of special waste, yes, you bet, those are tough regulations. I've seen the operation. I've seen how it works in Alberta. The trucks are of one design. The drivers are trained. Talk about regulating the trucking industry: it's very tough. You could drop one of those trucks off the Harbour Towers and it wouldn't break. It's all battleship construction, the trailers that they use. It's a very tight and highly regulated industry, from registration to inventory control to warehousing to transportation to final disposal. The regulation is there. We will not be in the deregulation mode on that.

Imports. It's interesting. When I went to Swan Hills, we had the good fortune to have lunch with Premier Getty and Ken Kowalski. Ken is the Minister of Environment for Alberta, and I had met him in another movie; we're good friends from way back. We had a long chat about it, and, of course....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. As a matter of fact, it was a parliamentary conference to Quebec. You were there.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I stayed for the whole thing. It was your buddy who didn't stay.

Anyway, Ken Kowalski was there. We had quite a long chat about that. The subject of import had been a political issue during the Alberta election, because at that point Swan Hills had been approved and was on stream. Premier Getty and Kowalski said there would be no imports to Alberta, and they promised everybody that. Naturally, I asked them a

[ Page 4634 ]

question. I said: "Now that you've got Swan Hills in place, do you want to take ours for a while?" And they said: "Oh, no. Wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole." They've got a political problem.

I have taken the position — and this is on the recommendation of Dr. Boyes — that perhaps in B.C..... I think this would have to go to cabinet, because it would be a major policy issue. But I'll tell you right now that in B.C. we should establish the policy of no net import. Here's the wisdom: if hypothetically we located Cache Creek-Ashcroft, maybe we'll take some southern Alberta wastes, and maybe they'll take at Swan Hills, which is in the Peace River country, wastes from Prince George, the Highway 16 area and our Peace area, which is the oil patch — Fort St. John, Fort Nelson — and is going to be a generator. Maybe we'll do it that way. My policy will be no net import — and Boyes recommends it. I think I'll stick with that. I may ask cabinet to decide on what I've just told you, because that would be major cabinet policy. But that's the way I feel about it right now, Mr. Member: no net import. I think the public would accept that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a couple of questions, just closing the issue of special waste. There is a piece of legislation that I've been particularly interested in — again, in another jurisdiction — from Sweden. It's an environmental protection act. This piece of legislation provides that anyone who causes a nuisance by polluting may pay compensation. It's a victims' compensation act, dealing with victims of environmental pollution. I wonder if the minister would consider such legislation, given the fact that his Waste Management Act, which he has referred to two or three times in the last hour, is, in my opinion, far too permissive, far too lax in providing protection for communities. Mr. Minister, if you'll remember the debate around that piece of legislation and the issues that were brought forward at that point, I think that even you would have to agree that there are regulations alongside that piece of legislation that raise some rather significant concerns to do with hazardous waste. Given the fact that you are now dealing with and encouraging, as you've just said, the cross-boundary transportation of hazardous waste, would you consider victims' compensation for effects of environmental contamination?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. I'd probably have to discuss that with the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), and find out if in fact his victims-of-crime legislation or process would assist there. For example, if someone did pollute, and you as a householder or whatever were injured, could you have compensation? That's an interesting question.

In terms of holding safe the person who has had some environmental action offend him or damage him, that's already in place now in the Environment Management Act. As a matter of fact, I guess the most current example is the Later Chemicals problem at Richmond last year. As you will recall, there was an explosion and then there was this toxic fertilizer material blown all over the area, including Fantasy Gardens — the boss was just delighted about that one. We had the company clean it up, or we cleaned it up and they had to pay us, or they had to pay someone to clean it up. Under the Environment Management Act, that is done. So the company had to bear responsibility for the clean-up cost, and the people who had the fertilizer dumped on their operation, in fact, had it all cleaned up, and everything was fine after that. There is a proper process in place that if something does happen, you are looked after.

In terms of financial compensation, I think that's getting into the realm of victims of crime. It's something I might consider, but I think it would be a question more appropriately discussed with the Attorney-General.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I hope the minister would encourage the Attorney-General to take a look at that, because beyond the clean-up for.... The minister is using the example of the Richmond incident. There were people near the area — some of our seniors — who were affected by being exposed to the toxin and were sick. So it's more extensive than just cleaning up after the contamination has occurred.

Sticking with the example of that incident, the company had been requested at that time to develop a contingency plan and to submit it to ministry staff. Has the company done that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would think they have. I can't recall if they have or not; we're checking on it.

We were quite concerned, and what really bothered us mostly was that Later Chemicals was making a fertilizer product that is not even allowed in Canada. The feds had control over and knowledge of what they were bringing in to make this product. It's an agricultural crop-dusting fertilizer that we won't even allow to be used in Canada. But it's used in the United States, and we probably eat those cucumbers when they come back here. Nevertheless, it's a product that wasn't allowed, and we weren't too happy about not knowing what it was that they were doing or making. We've since put in a pretty stringent method of ensuring that we know what is happening in our communities and of having everybody tell us what they're doing. I'll probably have more information coming soon as to the status of their contingency plans.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister indicated that the ministry is actually gathering information about what is going on in the province now. I imagine it would be distressing not only to you but to everyone to find out that the manufacturing of a banned chemical was going on in the province. What is the process you put in place to make certain that the ministry now knows what chemicals are on the workplace floor?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the case of Later and other allied operations, it's having Agriculture Canada tell us what's coming across the border from the U.S. for processing in Canada. They are the regulatory body, through Customs or whatever. We're developing that program now, where they let us know what's happening and what's coming in. Unless they do that, we don't really know.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Does this pertain only to agricultural products, or are you gathering information on other chemicals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We try to know as much as we can about everybody's process of operation. Most are pretty standard. Our permit system now collects all of that, whether it is a lead-plating outfit or something that really can be offensive or toxic to the atmosphere.

In the case of Later, it was a company bringing in certain fertilizers approved for import into Canada by Agriculture

[ Page 4635 ]

Canada. We were not informed as to what they were, because Agriculture Canada had given them approval, and we seemed to feel that was appropriate. Whatever they were doing was approved by the government of Canada, so it had to be okay. But we didn't know what elements were being used at the plant itself. I am advised that we now have a tracking system where we have that specialized type of industry, and we are informed as to what's happening there, and what is being brought into Canada to be used, manufactured or processed at that plant.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to touch on another couple of things to do with waste management. With such a serious problem as acid mine leachate, I think I would not be doing my job if I didn't at least ask the minister what initiatives, beyond the project for Mount Washington, the ministry has undertaken. Has the ministry put in place a policy with regard to the approval process for new mine acid generating?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've been working very closely, Madam Member, with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and some other research facilities to address this problem. It is serious; there's no question about that. It's serious because of the geology of British Columbia. I am advised that on this side of the mountains, because of the high concentration of iron pyrite and other materials that can go acid on you, we probably have the highest potential in North America for these materials going acid. It has developed just in the last 15 to 20 years as a problem. It wasn't considered a problem before; it certainly is one now. So we are doing our best to identify it. The people in both ministries — Environment and Energy — have to conclude that we are probably becoming the North American experts on the problem. So we are working at it and doing everything we can. You'll recall that in terms of the Tsolum River, which was almost down to absolutely no fish because of the acidity in the water, we've done some remarkable work. I think there was a Treasury Board submission arid an approval of $600,000 to begin cleaning that up. I think we have a further commitment of another $600,000 if we have to go to another process.

So we are attempting, as much as we can financially — and also intellectually — to deal with the problem. It's going to be the major topic now of the mine development review process. When mine applications come to that committee, they're going to look at the potential for the tailings going acid, and it will be foremost in our minds, I can assure you. It's a problem we have in British Columbia; it's one that geology has created for us. If we're going to consider any mining activity where we have tailings exposed to air and precipitation, we're going to have that problem, so we'd better start dealing with it now. I can assure you that we put our heart, our pocketbook and our best intellect in the right place to try to deal with the problem.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to put some more information to the minister to stress not only the economic costs to the mining companies.... I guess the example that really sticks out most in my mind is the silver mine up in Terrace, where they're paying $1.5 million a year just to collect the acid-generating effluent. Very clearly, I think that mine is now looking at closure, looking at decommissioning the mine in the next few years. I'd like to know whether the ministry has entered into negotiations, whether there is some plan for the ongoing monitoring and collection of that effluent. and whether the mine will be required, in its reclamation plans, to deal with the acid-generating tailings.

[4:30]

I might remind the minister that he has yet to answer my question about the ministry's policy and whether or not you will approve new acid-generating mines. I understand there are approximately 20 in the approval process — mines or exploration sites that are known to be acid-generating, some of them known to be significantly more acid-generating than the ones that currently exist. Is it the Ministry of Environment's policy to continue to approve such mines coming onsite? I would remind the minister that in places like Appalachia, West Virginia, there are 10,000 dead streams, and they are dead because of acid-generating mine tailings. So it's a very serious problem for water quality in the province. It's a very serious problem for our fisheries and the fish resources in the province.

The minister has indicated that he is very concerned. We know that this pilot project is on the way, but I' d like to know whether or not the minister is going to approve more mines coming on-site.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Absolutely not. I said that before, Madam Member. The mine development review process now has, as one of its major mandates, the requirement to look at a mine proposal and investigate first and foremost what the potential is of this mine going acid.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So if it could go acid they aren't going to approve it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. Unless there's some sort of totally believable reclamation scheme that the proponent can put forward to us, saying they're going to do one thing or the other to stop the rock.... Another problem that we have in B.C. is that it's not just the tailings that can go acid; the waste rock can go acid. Tailings are one thing, but when the rock you're digging up goes acid through exposure to air and water, then you have a greater problem.

So all plans presented to the mine development review process — of which we are a partner, as the Ministry of Environment and Parks — have to tell us clearly that there will be no acid generation, and all reclamation programs will have to be clearly identified.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I didn't believe the minister answered the question about Equity Mines near Smithers. Has the ministry been involved in negotiating a plan for reclamation there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've been involved peripherally, but the negotiations for a reclamation regime are with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Equity.

MS. SMALLWOOD: For the last year, on and off, I have been talking to some of the community people up there, and until six months ago, I guess, they were told that the ministry would be up and talking to them about some plan for closure, given that the mine at this point not only has full staff resources there but on top of that is again spending something like $1.5 million each and every year to deal with the problem. When the staff is no longer at the site, the cost, I

[ Page 4636 ]

would imagine, would go up significantly, because they would no longer be able to deal with the problem daily. It's a very serious environmental problem, and while the Ministry of Mines will be dealing with reclamation plans, they will not necessarily be dealing with the environmental impact. I would hope the ministry would have more direct involvement with such a significant problem.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We are involved peripherally, as I told you. The Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is also involved at Equity. We are putting in place a bonding requirement to ensure that we're protected at the time of mine abandonment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to touch on a couple of issues and get some response from the minister.

First, the issue of enforcement. The information made public in the last month to do with the enforcement of waste management permits at pulp mills.... If the minister will recall, in the estimates last year we went through a process of taking a look at the 1981 auditor-general's report that looked at the ministry's permit process, and at that time the minister assured me that everything was okay. I find it very disconcerting that we have gone through an expensive audit, we've looked at the permit process, minimum standards of compliance have been set for waste management permits in the province, and now we are finding that a large number of those permits are not being met, and not being met in the category of toxicity, which is a very serious category.

Can the minister tell the House what work has been done since this information was brought to light? Is the minister satisfied that the government has a two-tiered justice system where certain individuals or corporations have to obey the laws minimally and others have to obey the letter of the law? Can the minister please explain?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To make a general comment.... We discussed this yesterday in terms of the pulp mills. In the last 20 or 25 years, as we've seen the large industrial development happen in the province of British Columbia, we have brought in more and more stringent environmental applications, particularly in the pulp and paper industry, and particularly as we've found out about nasty things such as BOD and dioxins. We saw and measured their impact on the environment — air and water in particular, and of course soil. Over the years we have brought in tough regulations and tough procedures and strategies to ensure that we have a good, clean environment to live in. Nothing is perfect, as the member knows, but I would say that our regime and strategies are as good as anybody's. The member is well aware of the strategy we have in place of assessing the damage that a permit-holder is doing, because I gave the member that strategy a couple of weeks ago.

In terms of the pulp mills and the recent reports, some of them of course were incorrect — the case of Prince George. In other cases the times of being at variance were not as significant as the story in the newspaper might have said. However, we do recognize that in terms of compliance our most serious issue is with toxicity. We have put some stress and pressure on the companies and those who are violating, particularly in the area of toxicity, and we have told them they're going to have to clean up. They are doing that.

It is our policy that if we can see some major investment, if we can see that companies are embarked on a reconstruction strategy or are putting in better and different equipment in terms of getting into compliance, then we will let them do that. The ultimate objective is to get the operation into compliance. One could shut down the whole province right now and be totally clean tomorrow morning, but the economic expense and loss to the province would be remarkable. None of us could afford that.

You look at the individual offender. You say: "We want to assess how you can bring about a remedy. Show us your plan, show us you are about to put a remedy in place, and do it as quickly as you can." And they are doing that. They have been doing that for some years, the result being that we have a far cleaner environment now than we had in the mid-sixties when, for example, I first moved to Prince George and the pulp mill started. Things have changed considerably for the better since then. It's not going to happen tomorrow, but it's going to happen as soon as it physically can that we will have industry in our province in compliance and have a better environment to live in.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I should ever get a speeding ticket, with the minister's philosophy on law enforcement I'll be sure to see him. I'm sure there are times when people just go a little bit over the speed limit, and it's funny that the law enforcement for speeding and, for the most part, other laws in B.C. are followed to the letter of the law. I don't have to remind the minister that the regulations are minimal requirements. They are not maximum requirements; they are minimal requirements. When those requirements are not met — in particular in the area of toxicity — they are very serious.

Again on the issue of enforcement, I would bring the minister's attention to another piece of legislation that the minister brought to the House just a matter of months ago, the Mineral Tenure Act, Bill 66. At that time we brought to your attention that this bill would be opening the whole province up to placer mining. The question we had at that time was whether the minister would be providing additional staff in his estimates and additional money to be able to enforce and police the wide-open season on our river and stream beds.

At that time I provided information for the minister indicating that in 1986 there were 5,000 to 6,000 placer leases. At that time, only 800 of those leases had notices of work filed, and of that 800 only 250 were actually inspected by the Ministry of Environment. The minister, in cooperation with the Ministry of Mines, has now through his legislation opened the province up — opened all spawning beds up — to the prospect of placer mining.

Can the minister explain during his estimates how he is providing for the regulation and protection of the people's resources — the streams, the fish, the water quality — in this province? How, Mr. Minister, are you protecting the province of B.C.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Number one, Bill 66 was a proclamation bill and has not yet been proclaimed. I don't know the cabinet agenda, but I would suspect it's going to be some time later in the month of June or the first part of July. Secondly, after proclamation it still has to have regulations developed, so it will be some time before any placer mining takes place. In the meantime, there's a provincewide reserve on staking placer mining claims.

Secondly, with respect to our enforcement, I can tell you that within our estimates there is $500,000 in the Ministry of Environment to undertake sufficient inspection to safeguard our concerns when the placer mining reserve is lifted.

[ Page 4637 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister explain what a provincewide reserve for placer mining is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It means you can't do it until the reserve is lifted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like at this time to deal with the ombudsman's report and the appeal board. There are two members who wanted to ask the minister some questions, and I'll follow that later.

[4:45]

MR. MILLER: I wanted to deal directly with the ombudsman's report No. 11 in terms of the activities of the pesticide appeal board. I'll just preface it with some remarks before I get into some questions.

I am acutely aware, coming from my comer of British Columbia, that the use of pesticides is a very worrisome issue for many people. I suspect it's more true of people in the outlying areas who are a little closer to the bush, if you like, where a lot of this stuff is used. I think it's a difficult area for any government to handle properly.

It seems to me that what's required, in order to start from a good base, is some confidence in the system. People have to feel that there is an avenue they can go to express their concerns and fears about chemical use. Let's face it, if it hadn't been for people expressing those concerns in the strongest possible terms over the years, we may not have arrived as quickly at some of the knowledge we now have about chemicals that were in common use. All of us remember that DDT, for example, was used with virtually no concern for the long-term effects. We accumulate a body of knowledge, and hopefully that process is ongoing.

It seems to me that the ombudsman has presented in his report.... I like his approach, because he deals with process. I don't know if members on the government side realize the value of the style the ombudsman has adopted in dealing with some of these very difficult questions. He tends to be very non-confrontational. I think it's worth stressing that. Because of that and because of the very high quality of the reports that he does deliver, they're worthy of being followed quite closely. When he deals with process, I think he deals with a question that I initially raised: the question of confidence. If people feel that there is an honest avenue they can go to in terms of expressing their concerns, and that they are listened to, and that honest consideration is given to their concerns.... Of course, that also means that they are given weight, that it's not a completely one-sided affair.

Very simply, does the minister accept the overview of the report written by Mr. Owen, where he basically states that the Ministry of Forests and Lands and your ministry are in acceptance of his report?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, let me say that I put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I share the member's good opinion of Stephen Owen. I had the good fortune to be on the selection committee along with Eileen Dailly, as a matter of fact.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right — the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), Graham Lea, Eileen Dailly, John Parks and I. Stephen Owen has done a very good job. For the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, the ombudsman looked into the whole pesticide situation and came out with 11 recommendations. There is no question that the member for Prince Rupert has a serious concern. I had a lot to do with pesticide activity in the Charlottes, and I met with the Haidas on that on a couple of occasions. I've always felt — and I think it's shared by those of us who looked at some of the activities up there — that mechanical weeding and taking of pesticides might be a far better method of doing it. I've taken that concern of the Haidas to heart.

I hate to shut this conversation down, but I'm going to have to now, Mr. Chairman, because with respect to the ombudsman's report, we have some recommendations that will be coming in in the form of legislation. By telling you that, I'm advising you that we are discussing future legislation, which we can't do in committee. So at that point I'll declare myself out of order, but I'll thank the member for his comments and assure him that something is coming along the pike.

MR. MILLER: That's really like a bucket of cold water.

I have some other questions, by the way, but I wanted specifically to deal with some of the recommendations, because I think they're important. Is the minister advising the committee that he's unable to respond to that specific question? I want to read it, because I think it's important. The second paragraph of the overview of the report written by Mr. Owen — I'll read it in its entirety:

"This systems study makes recommendations for the timely and meaningful participation by all interested parties in such decisions. The process has involved consultation with the ministers and government officials responsible for the Environmental Appeal Board, the pesticide control program and the Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries, Forests and Lands, Health, and Environment and Parks. This constructive interaction has ensured that the recommendations are realistic and supported by the public officials responsible for their implementation and administration."

Mr. Minister, even though you contemplate legislation, I don't think it would detract from that for you to answer my question: is the statement accurate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, generally it is. I think we'd find it difficult to accept all the recommendations or all the opinions, but we are prepared — I guess I can say this without offending any rule of anticipation — to incorporate most of the recommendations in terms of the Environmental Appeal Board and some of the recommendations related to the pesticide permit system.

MR. MILLER: I will look forward to debating the legislation, or perhaps not debating it if it proves to be satisfactory.

I wanted to ask you additionally, and it's fairly broad but dealing with the same subject.... There are, as I said, ongoing scientific advances in alternative methods, and the minister mentioned mechanical methods. I just happened to read a bulletin from the RPFs the other day that talked about the relative costs of mechanical versus chemical. I don't completely accept the kind of information that they're putting out; it seems to me heavily biased in favour of chemical. As well, it seems to me that there is a body of work in terms of

[ Page 4638 ]

alternative, shall I say, biological methods. I don't know whether that's really been given the prominence that it should have, whether it holds a promise that can steer us away from chemicals, but perhaps the minister might take some time to outline in fairly broad terms what association his ministry has with that kind of ongoing research, whether or not they fund any, whether or not they keep the ministry up to date on that kind of work and its application throughout British Columbia — not just in forestry and agriculture but in a number of other areas. Just take the time to talk a bit about that end of it, steering away from the reliance on chemicals, which, granted, are cheap when it comes to application, but if you add them up in this society, I think its something that we should all be focusing some energy and attention towards in trying to get away from that. Ultimately we create our problems on this planet by continuing to go that easy route. Perhaps the minister might want to discuss that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is no question that it's a concern we have. I guess the first time it came to any of us was some time ago now, in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I remember hearing about that in the late sixties. That brought out the whole thing, and people started to avoid even some of the more innocuous forms of weed control like Weed N Feed in the garden. We really had a change in our mental attitude.

I can tell you that from a straight point of view of operations of the ministry, we do have experts in the pesticide control branch. Dr. Ron Kobylnyk is the director of that, and he works very closely to ensure that the best interests of the receiving environment are in place. A lot of things go against us. People talk about hack and squirt, and it sounds like there is someone out there with a fire hose spraying this stuff around, and that isn't the case. It's direct injection. It does paint a bad picture at times.

We don't actively get involved in R and D. In the case of the concerns you have in the Charlottes and other areas, it's left up to the Ministry of Forests to do the research and development in terms of looking after the weed species, defoliation and that type of thing if they want to do it. As I said earlier, I am in favour — just because it's environmentally sound and it makes a lot more sense and there is a better economy in terms of employment — of mechanical forms of weed elimination and weed species elimination.

That is a general thought. All I can say about your direct question is that I share your concerns. Our involvement is as a regulatory branch. We feel we do a good job, but we have to leave R and D and that type of thing to the Ministry of Forests and to the various forestry faculties.

MR. MILLER: I think it has to go beyond that. I asked a question a while back of the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson), responsible for WCB, about the situation in Nanaimo with the chemical.... If I'm not mistaken, I heard you try to pronounce it this morning. You're not as good as my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How do you know he got it right?

MR. MILLER: He sounded better.

The response I got was: "Really, it's not my department in a way. It's up to somebody else to look at it." I was hot about it. I went and did some basic research and contacted the company that manufactures the chemical, and they sent me some stuff. It was clear to me, at least on the surface, that there was a superior product. I don't like the attitude that it's up to so-and-so or the other ministry to do it. I like to be proactive when it comes to those kinds of things because I think it's a better way to be. That's part of our public responsibility.

The ministry has to be proactive or on top of developments. How else are they able to make informed decisions about applications for pesticides or herbicides? I don't want to stray too much, but we've been constrained by: "Well, the chemicals are registered by the federal Ministry of Agriculture; therefore they're safe." Everything else flows from that. Anybody who applies in the proper manner and has the proper manner of distributing the particular chemical is okay, but that's not a very proactive position to take from your ministry, to simply say: "Yes, this is registered; therefore it's okay."

I think you have to go one step or more beyond that and ask: "What alternatives are available? What's the latest scientific research on this particular chemical?" Never mind that it's been registered as safe by the federal Ministry of Agriculture. What realistic alternatives are available? In that sense, I think you have to go beyond just saying it's some other ministry's responsibility.

In any event, I will leave that topic for now and turn to the question of.... Before I do that, I would like to — I think I've congratulated Mr. Shelford personally — congratulate the minister on his choice of consultants. I think it was a good report on the possible harvesting of peregrine falcons on the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think Mr. Shelford dealt quite well with the issues attendant on that question. I look forward to the work that I hope will be done over the years, because I think he portrayed a fairly realistic picture of what could be done.

[5:00]

I want to deal with the South Moresby issue. All of us have been waiting. We went through a pretty tough time in getting that whole park issue to the table. I think we played a part over here, obviously the government played a part, and an agreement was reached. Since that time, even admitting the difficulty and complexity of reaching a formal or final agreement, it seems to have taken longer than anticipated. I recall the announcements or predictions early this year that there would be a formal agreement achieved in March. Then it was April and now we're into the last half of May, and still nothing.

There was a recent story in one of the papers.... I had a great weekend; I avoided the papers. But there was a story to the effect that three out of four visitors to British Columbia wanted to go to the Queen Charlotte Islands. Obviously there are people right across North America, and I suspect right across the world, who view the Charlottes as a place to go. I canvassed the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to some extent on this issue.

Last year the level of tourism increased significantly on the Queen Charlotte Islands. This year it is anticipated that the same level of increase, if not a further level of increase, will take place.

They're stifled. There's a feeling on the Queen Charlotte Islands that they don't seem to be part of what is happening. People don't know when there's going to be a final agreement reached. Various people have approached me who are trying to develop tourism facilities on various parts of the island,

[ Page 4639 ]

who feel that they are not in a position to make investments because they don't know what kind of assistance might be forthcoming through the fund established under an agreement or through western diversification.

Generally, it's just not a very good situation. It's somewhat amusing, but in talking to the desk clerk at the Sandspit Inn, she said to me — I'm surprised that people will do this: "People get off the plane from New York City, walk in and say: 'Where can I rent a car to drive down to South Moresby?"' I would never spend my money that foolishly, but people are doing it. I think we should be in a position to take advantage of that. If they want to spend their money that way, let them come to B.C. and we'll be happy to show them a good time.

It's a great place to go, but it needs to develop a complementary infrastructure. It needs to be able to start that planning process and get things moving. I'm really concerned that we seem to be going in spurts. First we've got to do this, then we've got to do this, and then we've got to do this, as opposed to doing a bunch of things simultaneously and hopefully arriving at the end point together — if you get the drift of what I'm trying to say.

Would the minister outline where we're at? What can we expect? When can the people in the Queen Charlotte Islands get moving? Because there's a lot of enthusiasm there and a lot of people prepared to put some time and effort into developing facilities there, but they want to get some word from you guys. They want to know what's going on. Maybe you can enlighten us on that.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his questions. They're all relevant and they're all good. They're all quite timely, because we expect within the next little while — as a matter of fact, Tom McMillan wants to do it Monday, May 30, the beginning of Environment Week. I think we may be able to achieve that signing. There are a few wrinkles. I can't speak totally for our cabinet because we want to have another review of it, and I can't speak totally for Mr. McMillan's cabinet either. We are extremely close, so let me say that we are there. It is too bad that the whole thing has taken this long. It has been about nine months; it was July 1987 when we signed the first memorandum of understanding. It's an extensive document. The agreement is about as thick as the Prince Rupert telephone book. It is extensive because it does involve probably the most major land transaction this province has seen for some time or ever will see. It involves pages and pages of management issues. An example is: how we are going to manage during the transition period? When you see the agreement, you will understand what I mean, but it is involved.

I find it curious that you and the people in the Queen Charlottes don't know what's happening, because Duane Gould phoned me the other day and he had some information about what was in the agreement. Patrick Armstrong has other information about what is in the agreement, so obviously they have been talking to federal officials and maybe some of our officials, because they do know even to the letter and to the section what a good part of the agreement says and how it affects them — say at Sandspit. There is a lot of information out there about what the agreement says and does. We have had to do some amendments just in the last week to ensure that certain interests were looked after, but it's extensive.

I compliment Tom Johnson sitting just to my left here, who has negotiated on behalf of the province all the agreements with Ottawa. He spent the last eight or nine months working out the management and transition scheme in this monstrous proposition. It just isn't easy. We just don't say: hey, this is yours — here you go. There was a lot to be concerned with and it's all in the document. When you see it, you will recognize the complexity and why it has taken so long to get it signed.

MR. MILLER: The last time I talked to Patrick Armstrong, he was busy working on the Stein River coalition, and the last time I talked to Duane Gould, which was only last week, he had a lot of the concerns that I've expressed today. I express these as a result of talking to people on the Queen Charlottes, particularly in terms of planning.

Just a short follow-up. Will you continue to be a lead minister in terms of overall organization and planning? It seems to me that that is critical as well. I put that question to the Minister of Tourism. If the planning is to be successful, if there is to be adequate local input, if people, particularly local people, are to be able to take advantage of the opportunities that will come to the fore as a result of the agreement, I think it needs that kind of direction. I called it a planning team approach — interministry — but also it is critical that the tie-in with the local people be there. Perhaps you might advise me if are you going to be the lead minister. Are you the guy who I can come to if I or people there indeed have problems with implementation?

Secondly, if you are, what kind of structure do you see being put in place to involve people there so that they are part of that planning process too?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: After the agreement is signed by myself, the Premier, Mr. McMillan and the Prime Minister, I guess I will be responsible only for evolution of the park and the park area. Forest compensation will be the responsibility of the Minister of Forests and Lands. Economic development will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Development, in conjunction now with the minister of state who is also the Minister of Forests for the area. That's where the economic development will occur, and if you are interested in making representation with respect to the area outside the park, then it would be those other two ministers. If it's Canada's activity within the area that is now park, I would be responsible as the B.C. contact person to Parks Canada, if you didn't want to speak to Parks Canada. My obligation will be, after the agreement is signed, just to the park area itself, the area that is going to be considered South Moresby Park. The area outside Sandspit would be either the Minister of Economic Development, or in the case of the forest companies — the TFLs it would be the Minister of Forests.

MR. MILLER: You didn't respond and maybe you aren't able to in terms of the local involvement — on whether there has been any discussion as to the type of structure. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is proceeding cautiously, which I think is wise. She has talked about possible incorporation of some of those unorganized areas. But beyond that, part of the problem on the Charlottes has been, I think, that it's very difficult. You have a bunch of separate communities and it is difficult to get them together. Is there any concept of some kind of formal-

[ Page 4640 ]

ized structure on the islands? Are you waiting for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to go her route and see what develops there, or has there been any discussion about a broad framework for local involvement in the planning process? Perhaps the minister can respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is an official at the ADM level of federal-provincial that will be working. There is also a citizens' advisory committee, and the two will liaise to develop the best development process for the area. But there is clearly a citizens' advisory committee in place and an appropriate very-high-level-officials' committee to listen to their concerns and to present them to the respective governments.

MR. MILLER: I'll look forward to, hopefully, May 30, but if not, then very soon.

One other question regarding the Khutzeymateen Valley north of Prince Rupert and the recent study announcement by the minister and the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). I just wanted to clarify the attitude of the ministries involved regarding the study. Is the study such that it's taking a new look at whether the area should be set aside as an ecological reserve, or is the study aimed at trying to show that logging would not be disruptive to the bear habitat? There's a fairly subtle difference, but I think it's important in some people's minds. I think I read — I can't recall whether it was quoting you or the Minister of Forests and Lands — that if the study were to prove or show that logging had a detrimental effect, then the province would seriously consider no logging. Perhaps the minister could amplify on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member raises some very good questions and points out some subtle differences. That's what we hope the study is going to identify for us.

I'm not equipped mentally to tell you how the design is going to work, but we have said that the Ministry of Environment and Parks, wildlife branch, will be the designer of the study and we will probably bring in consultants. The Ministry of Forests and Lands is going to help pay for us. The World Wildlife Fund may also contribute some money; we don't know about that just yet. That's how the funding arrangement is put in place.

As I understand it from speaking to the biologists, they want to first of all find out the denning activity of the bears in the area. Do they den there or do they den somewhere else, and what are their habits? It's amazing in the twentieth century and the 1980s how really little we know about our B.C. wildlife. I'm amazed when I talk to some well-schooled people that, particularly in a lot of the remote areas like Khutzeymateen.... We know there are a lot of bears there, but how do they live, what is their lifestyle? Some grizzlies, believe it or not, are largely nocturnal in British Columbia; other grizzlies aren't. Grizzlies seem to be different depending on where they are. So we want to have a good look and find out what their habits are.

From that we can develop an idea of whether a logging strategy will work. Grizzlies are antisocial to the extent that in fact they cat their young if they become upset and are stressed by man. You wouldn't think a grizzly would be frightened of anything. Well, they're not; they can do anything they want. But they do have this tendency to disappear if there's the presence of man around, and that's one of the reasons why. They just can't stand the stress of human activity. They're far more sensitive to human activity and the stress imposed by man than black bears or brown bears are, which will hang around your garbage in your backyard for ever and ever. Man doesn't bother them, but it's not the same with the grizzlies. So we've got a sensitive problem to sort out there, and we want to take a couple of years to look at it.

The questions you raise are valid, and we don't know the answers. When we do we'll make a decision. But I'm convinced and I'm committed, and so is the Minister of Forests, that if the evidence we arrive at says there can't be any extraction activity, then there won't be any. He has made that commitment and so have I. We're convinced that this is a world-class area. It has salmon and berries. What more could a grizzly bear ask for? I'd live there too if I were a grizzly bear. It's just a perfect habitat for them, and it should be protected, because it is a world-class area.

MR. MILLER: One thing about a grizzly bear is you wouldn't want to ask him what his habits were,

Okay, that's fine. As I understand it, your ministry is designing the study, there is possible involvement from the World Wildlife Fund and the Ministry of Forests, and that will be contracted to, presumably....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Yes. I have my own reasons for at this point resisting the logging of the area. I think there are some pretty good economic reasons.

[5:15]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The wildlife from Vancouver South keeps interrupting here; it's pretty hard to get a word in. It's a good thing he's nowhere near as difficult to handle as a grizzly bear. He might like salmon and berries, though — berries in one form or another.

MR. GUNO: It was rather interesting to hear the Minister of Environment talk about the lifestyle of grizzlies. I can tell you there are no yuppie grizzlies in Atlin; in fact, they are downright antisocial. And they don't drive BMWs.

I have some very specific questions about the Environmental Appeal Board. I want to just preface my questions with a couple of general remarks, mainly to agree with my colleague from Prince Rupert about the concerns in the north about the application of pesticides and the genuine fear of people about the impact these chemicals have on the local ecosystem. I think he's right about this feeling of helplessness, the feeling of powerlessness and the lack of faith in the appeal process on the part of local people. This is unfortunate because we ought to have some sort of due process that's fair and open. As I understand it, the Environmental Appeal Board was established under the provisions of the Environment Management Act, which was passed in 1981. It's purpose was to hear appeals to decisions made under the various environmental acts. This was to streamline the process because before, there were several separate pieces of ministry legislation that governed this sort of appeal process.

The process now, as I understand it, is that when a pesticide use permit is granted, it is publicly advertised for a 30-day period before it becomes effective. During that 30 days, any person can file an appeal against the issuance of

[ Page 4641 ]

that permit. When an appeal is filed, there is no formal mechanism to ensure that the parties to the appeal — usually the appellants challenging the permit — can have equal access to important background information like copies of the pesticide use application, comments of the Pesticide Control Committee and things like that. I just want to ask the minister why there isn't any contemplation of some mechanism to have the Environmental Appeal Board disclose all the important background information to all the parties involved in that appeal process.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All information that's in the application is made available to the appellant. I know you're raising other questions that the ombudsman raised, and all I can say is that I acknowledge them. I can advise you that we are now discussing the necessity for legislation — which is out of order — but I can tell you the legislation is coming. We'll have a chance to further debate at that point. I don't know what else I can say, Mr. Chairman. I gave the same answer to the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), and it is this: we have considered the recommendations of the ombudsman, and we have agreed in large part with them. We are bringing about change, and when that change comes, we can discuss it in the legislation as it's presented. I'm more than happy to hear more of your concerns, but I can assure that there will be a better forum for discussing those concerns.

MR. GUNO: As a matter of fact, there is no actual requirement under the present process that the parties involved in the appeal process exchange basic factual information before the appeal begins. Is that a fair assessment of the present situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I guess I would have to agree that that's a fair assessment.

MR. GUNO: Although pesticide appeals are the largest part of the board's work, I understand that not all of the 23 board members are available for pesticide appeals, and that this is one of the main reasons for the backlog of many pending appeals. Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, believe it or not, Mr. Member, you are the first one who has brought the issue of a backlog to my attention. I do know there have been some delays. I'm also well aware that it's a very aggressive committee. But you are absolutely right: not all 23 members are expert in pesticide appeals. As a matter of fact, the Environmental Appeal Board covers appeals to any legislation under the Minister of Environment.

As a matter of fact — and I can't talk about this one either, because it was just tabled today — there is going to be an appeal of the river rafting legislation I introduced in the House today. For that reason I will be selecting members who are conversant with and knowledgeable in the river rafting industry to sit on the Environmental Appeal Board when there are cases of appeal from that legislation — when it's passed.

We draw on expertise from wherever we can to deal with all matters legislated by the Ministry of Environment: pesticides, water, waste, wildlife, and now river rafting. Any person who feels aggrieved with our legislation, or with any decision or permit of the Ministry of Environment, can appeal to the board and have his case heard by people who are knowledgeable. They are not all pesticide people by any means. I am not aware of the backlog, but if there is one I will look into it.

MR. GUNO: Just following up on the qualifications of the various individual board members, as I understand it, they have specific expertise in a wide variety of areas — medical, chemical, engineering and legal areas. But the board does not function strictly as a kind of technical science court. The board does not, as I understand it, have any pesticide expert, for instance, as staff, nor does it have any inhouse laboratory or testing facilities. In view of this, how do you expect the appeal board to function and assess the various appeals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd have to disagree with that. Frank Hillier, the chairman. is published in pesticides. He authored some books on the subject, and I would consider him quite knowledgeable in the area. He is an engineer by training, but in spite of that he is quite intelligent and has published. Also, I know of some recent appointments that I've made. One has a master's degree in agriculture and some considerable training in pesticides and herbicides, and a horticulturist who has some training. I think the expertise is there. Of course, there are the medical people. As a matter of fact, a couple of reappointments of medical doctors came through just today.

I think the level of expert opinion and of general knowledge is extremely good on that board. I would defend it. If you see any glaring errors or deficiencies in terms of expertise, let me know: but having looked at the people who are on that board and at the training they have, I really can't see any.

MR. GUNO: One of the problems, I guess, is the perception that the Environmental Appeal Board is sometimes not so much a kind of forum where both sides can present evidence and assess it in an objective manner, but that there is a heavier onus on the part of the appellants to meet some very onerous technical and scientific burden of proof to establish their case. How would you comment on that kind of a perception? It is there. I've talked to a number of lawyers who are involved in appearing before the Environmental Appeal Board.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the burden of proof is on the person presenting their case. You would know that better than I do. You have to establish that. The Environmental Appeal Board, no matter what the issue, listens to all sides, looks at what the statutes that they operate under say they can do or say can happen. They look at other statutes in British Columbia. In the case of pesticides, they look at the evidence provided to them by Agriculture Canada, which is knowledge that is known to everybody. They look at previous evidence that has come up and at precedent law, and they investigate and hear all the evidence that they think is necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion. I don't know what else I can say about the process.

One more thing, which I forgot from a previous question, is that they do have the Environmental Lab and will have lab testing services available to them if they so wish. That was answered in another question, but you did raise the question about testing. That is available and paid for by the appeal board, if they have to have such testing done.

[ Page 4642 ]

MR. GUNO: What I was referring to is that, generally speaking, the permit-holder has all the resources — all the technical and scientific data and access to information. But the local people who are being impacted on generally don't have access to those kinds of information nor the expertise. Yet the appeal board generally does not recognize the inequality when it comes to taking into consideration their concern. That's an unconscionability, I think, built into the whole process.

I want to know if you have any data on the number of appeals heard since the inception of this board. How many appeals were heard in 1986? How many were upheld, and how many were denied? Do you have any of that hard data available?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I don't have hard numbers for you, but I can get it for you. I'll give you my undertaking that either during my estimates or as quickly as possible, I will send that information to you. Just to repeat: you wanted to know the number of appeals that have been heard since the inception of the board, and those for the current year?

MR. GUNO: Yes, that's correct.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No problem. I'll give you and the committee my undertaking to provide that information as quickly as possible.

[5:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that they're working on legislation. But I want to again put on the record something I said earlier in the estimates. We were talking about the Brundtland report, and the minister said that this province was far ahead of other provinces in Canada. I don't have an analysis of where the other provinces are, or what they are doing. For that matter, I think it would be quite interesting to assess what this province is doing against what the Brundtland report recommends. But the heart of the Brundtland report says that what we need is legislation that guarantees public access to decision-making; that guarantees full public disclosure and freedom of information. This is probably a particularly relevant time to restate those needs, especially when we're talking about an important board like the Environmental Appeal Board and any legislation being considered with regard to it.

I'm looking at bylaws brought down by the city of Vancouver in the last year. This was a right-to-know bylaw. It identified the rights of citizens to know when pesticides were being sprayed — that's for tenants and for people using parks or public areas. I would suggest that while it was a very good step, a lot of the information that is necessary for people to make informed decisions about whether the pesticides will affect them and their families is not being made available at this point. When considering any legislation, that information is crucial.

It's interesting to look at what Washington has done just recently. This has to do with changes to their pesticide policy for public timber lands. They've said that before chemicals are used, vegetation control methods must be considered in ranked sequence and that no treatment option is ranked highest and is considered first. In other words, before you use a herbicide or a pesticide, first you have to look at what happens if you don't do anything; and that's followed by non-chemical treatment, ground spraying of chemicals, and then aerial spraying of chemicals. The first method which meets minimum criteria for effectiveness and cost return of at least 7 percent on investment is chosen. In other words, written into the policy is a process that has to be undertaken. They don't automatically assume, as is assumed by this government, that chemicals are best rather than looking at options. Built into their policy is an exploration of other options first and foremost, with the last option being the use of chemicals.

In addition, site-specific assessment is required to determine whether or not there is a need for vegetation control before treatment. This latter requirement has led to a decrease in aerial application of herbicides from 11,400 acres to 4,800 acres in a period of two years. A similar reduction in non-aerial application also took place over the same period of time. Washington State is also proposing to eliminate backpack spraying of 2, 4-D and Garlon — which is Roundup — in public forests and to reduce the use of 2, 4-D and Garlon in aerial applications.

I think this is a really interesting policy. They have recognized that there are serious concerns and have agreed that it's to everyone's benefit to thoroughly explore options before using chemicals, acknowledging the fact that not only are chemicals dangerous, that there are some significant health concerns related to them, but also often more expensive than the alternatives.

When the minister is looking at and preparing legislation for pesticides and for the appeal board, I would hope that he would take into consideration these examples of right-to know legislation — the right and the guarantee of the public to be involved in decision-making — and the extensive exploration of alternatives before the use of chemical spraying.

There are members who want to explore a couple of other issues before we close, so I will give them the floor — unless the minister would like to reply.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just generally to the member, the points she makes are all well taken. I don't think we are going to meet all your expectations, Madam Member, but in the legislation I referred to earlier you may see some remedies that answer your concerns.

Let me say that the Washington regime is one I would look at. I have a couple of comments about that. First, it's a highly populated state, far more dense than British Columbia. Secondly, if you recall what I was telling you about Later Chemicals, in the United States they still allow some pretty toxic stuff that is not allowed in Canada. That was the Later Chemicals situation. They have a lot more to control there and probably a lot of good reasons for putting very stringent regulations on how they go through the application process. When I say application, I mean applying the pesticides or herbicides to whatever they're applying them to. I can understand why they would want to bring in extensive regimes likes that.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few brief comments in respect to Strathcona. Park. I want to ask some specific questions that the minister may or may not be able to answer now. If he can't, tomorrow would be fine, or by letter later if necessary. I'll get to that in a minute.

I just want to make a couple of more general comments. I'll just take a minute doing this. I realize that some of the

[ Page 4643 ]

issues have been debated earlier in the estimates; I don't mean to recanvass them. I just want to say a couple of complimentary things to the minister. First, I think that in this province we always live with tension between our industrial structure and our need to develop industry and provide jobs and a sound economy on the one hand, and on the other hand a concern that we don't destroy the very environment in which we want to live and work. It's always been a tense balance between those two issues.

I don't believe those issues need to be put up one against the other as much as they are. I think that increasingly now we recognize that healthy environments can in fact lead to jobs of another kind. They aren't the best-paying jobs in our society yet, but they will be as time goes on. I think we need to integrate the jobs and environment issues in a better way than we do today. When I say we, 1 mean all of us in our society. That is a concern that I express in general terms, without making any critical comment.

Going back to my point about the tensions, I think as individuals we all come down in a slightly different spot as to where on that string you come down: on one side, unlimited smokestack pollution, jobs at any cost; and on the other side, a pristine and pure environment without any degradation of any kind. We all come down in the middle somewhere, but as to where we come down exactly, each of us is clearly different in this Legislature, not just in the two parties. There are various of us in each of the parties, I suspect, who would come down in different places.

I would like us to begin, in the years to come, to have less and less of that question of having to come down anywhere on that line, but rather finding a way to integrate. I think as the ministry has its policies developed and administered on the ground, it goes a long way towards that. The people who are actually delivering the services, whether it's parks branch officers, conservation officers or other staff of the ministry in the various other branches, for the most part have a conscientious approach and a real desire to integrate the tensions and conflicts. For the most part, they come down fairly well.

We would argue that the government isn't strict enough, and I think that's what the tension relates to. I can't for the life of me understand why pulp mills on the coast haven't been required by now to have settling ponds. Elk Falls pulp mill — a Crown Forests mill there — is in many ways a model of how pulp mills should be operated. They have an excellent relationship with their employees in terms of health and safety matters. It has a good program in terms of air pollution, but still has the ability — simply by a slight human error — to dump thousands of tonnes of sulphuric acid into the Strait of Georgia through Discovery Passage. If you had settling ponds to collect all of the run-off water out of those mills — like you do in a lot of the interior mills, if not all of them, I'm not sure — then that would be an incident that couldn't happen.

The idea that salt water adjacent to coastal pulp mills can absorb all of this pollution that we dump into it, whether it's from municipal sewer systems or from pulp mills or other heavy industries.... We need to recognize that that system cannot take an unlimited amount of that pollution. If we haven't already reached it, we are fast reaching a point where we need to put an end to it. I think it's level A they are talking about in terms of the pulp mill standards. I hope the negotiations that are going on between the federal government, the province and the pulp and paper industry pursue that agenda a little more rigorously and vigorously and reach an agreement soon that would require that settling ponds be implemented, unless there is some better technology, which there may well be. Some people tell me that there's a better technology just around the comer and we should wait for it rather than spending, as in the Elk Falls case, $25 million to put in settling ponds. The minister may well have canvassed this issue yesterday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I didn't.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, let's canvass it today then. That's all I wanted to say on that unless the minister has some comments I might want to respond to.

I want to also say thank you to the minister and ministry for the ecological reserves program. The Tahsish-Kwois reserve was established just the other day. It's a reasonable size, not as big as some of us would have appreciated from the initial requests. The major problem that the ministry needs to concern itself with there is: what happens with the debris from the logging that will take place on the slopes around, behind and above the estuary that's now protected?

There's a very real possibility that flooding could wipe out the estuary if the logging takes place in a typical manner. In other words, if we have typical west coast logging take place in that river valley above, behind and beyond the estuary, we may well have flooding in the estuary and in the ecological reserve that could wipe out the value of it.

When I walked through the estuary, on the island — there's a 12 hectare island in the ecological reserve — the flood mark on the trees was higher than I stand. When I stand at the foot of a tree, you can see that the flood level debris, the marking on the tree from high water, is more than six feet tall. That's with no logging in the lower reaches whatsoever. You can imagine what destruction could take place if a lot of debris and other material comes down from the logged area that goes through that estuary

I just flag that as a concern that people — well, nobody lives there — on the west coast who know the area are concerned about. I say good on the ministry for establishing the ecological reserve in a larger area than was originally envisioned.

[5:45]

Similarly, it's not a perfect solution at Tsitika, the Robson Bight area, but it's a lot better than it might have been from the early days. I'm one of those people.... Maybe it's because I've been around here so long that I take some pleasure in small victories, because there have been so many years without any small victories that I'm not going to be dumping all over people when they give us a small victory which may not be as much as we want. I still think that similarly in the Tsitika there needs to be better protection further upstream in order to make sure that that particular body of water in Robson Bight doesn't end up becoming silted. If it becomes silted, then the whole point of this exercise is lost. Mac-Blo is required to log more stringently in that watershed, to do all of its programs in a more careful way than anybody else does anywhere else. Nevertheless there are some very real concerns from not only their logging but Canfor's upstream off the Tsitika watershed. I am concerned about the whole project being lost as a result of situation.

Those were just preliminary remarks that weren't quite on the topic that the debate leader had us talking about.

I want to talk about a few things at Strathcona Park. In these estimates I'm not going to talk about Strathcona Park in

[ Page 4644 ]

general. I'm going to make a presentation to the review committee in Campbell River this Friday, as are many other people, and I doubt very much whether anything that could be said hasn't already been said or won't be said to the review committee. I just want to say to the minister — because we may not have another set of estimates before decisions are made as a result of the review committee — that I hope and I trust that the government will not sit on the recommendations in the report, and if it's a report that calls for really good preservation and enhancement of Strathcona Park, will not decide not to listen to it.

We've had a history of bad decisions.... I heard the minister say this in the House, I think yesterday or the day before: bad decisions, bad actions, destructive ones over the years, bad faith for far too long. There is an immense amount of cynicism about this review committee, as the minister knows. If you want to entrench forever in the minds of not just hard-line environmentalists but a lot of other people in this province that cynicism is warranted, it will be by not paying attention to what Larkin's committee reports.

I've no idea what they're going to suggest. They may suggest we log the whole park, and then I'm stuck with it, I guess. But I have some confidence that that group of people will not recommend that but will make some good recommendations. I have some confidence in that, and I trust that the government will at long last make a decision to make sure that in the future Strathcona Park is not talked about as a place where conflict exists, a place where mines are developed, a place where logging is rampant, but rather as the jewel for future economic activity on this Island, which it could be. It could be a major economic attraction and resource. I think no one yet understands the limit as to Just how magnificent a resource it could be.

I have five specific questions that are not appropriate to take to the review committee, because they're more dealing with current policy, and I'd like to get the minister to comment on them now, or later if he can't now.

First, the noise pollution from the ventilator machine at Westmin. Baffling was put up around that last year. I raised this issue previously in the House about trying to cut down the noise. Hike at Flower Ridge, hike up Price Creek, do any kind of hiking anywhere within five or ten miles, I guess, of Westmin's operation, and you hear this noise. It's just an incredible roar. Whatever work they did has not worked. They need to be told to put in the proper baffling for noise protection. They're making buckets of money right now. It's a rich resource, a rich ore body. The prices are good for what they're selling, and they can afford to do a lot more than they've done.

The second thing is the dangerous trees along Buttle Lake Road. This is the road in the park that goes from Buttle Narrows to the mine. A worker was killed there a year or two ago because a tree came down on the van they were going to the mine in, so some of the dangerous trees were taken out. It's my understanding that 752 trees were identified and contracted to be taken out on this road along Buttle Lake. In fact, I'm told — I don't have any verification for this, but I'm told — that far in excess of that number is coming out. Trees are coming out which, if they did fall, couldn't reach the highway, they're so far back up. I haven't been in there in the last little while to see. I suspect that if they came down, the answer might be that they would knock down the neighbouring tree, which will then come down on the road. I don't know what all the arguments are, but a concern is being expressed now by a number of people who have been in there that in fact more trees than should are coming out along the lake there.

The third issue is Price Creek trail, the trail that leads up to Cream Lake eventually and out of the general Westmin area. It goes up Price Creek, and then you turn to go straight up to Cream Lake. The Price Creek trail starts in that old burn area that the minister has referred to on other occasions, and it then goes through a magnificent stand of old-growth timber. It is one of the most beautiful places to hike that you can imagine. That is the location of Cream Silver's prized anticipated ore body, and that is the area in which Cream Silver was told they could not cut trees in order to put in a landing pad for a helicopter for exploratory activity. Yet somebody on their behalf — I think a surveying company called Underhill — has been in there slashing trees for survey purposes along this trail.

It seems to me that if you haven't got a permit to go in and develop your claim, you shouldn't be able to do any of the preliminary work either. I don't think this activity is continuing at the moment, so I can't really say, "Please go and stop it," because it has happened. That kind of activity adds to the general cynicism and disbelief in the government's stated objectives of not allowing the claims to be developed. I trust that the application by Cream Silver to drill these extra holes will not go ahead simply because the committee has conducted its hearings, and that all of that potential activity will await the decision or the recommendations of the review committee, rather than there being any activity in the meantime.

I trust that the same thing will apply to Elk.... This is another issue; this is the fourth of the issues inside Strathcona — the Elkhorn Mountain logging by B.C. Forest Products. I have talked to the minister about this on several occasions.

This is land that everybody wants to put into the park, including the Wilderness Advisory Committee and the ministry. It's just a question of negotiating an arrangement with BCFP. I trust that the arrangement or negotiations or buying or trading or whatever has to happen will in fact happen, because Elkhorn Mountain is the crucial viewscape in terms of the main entrance to Strathcona Park.

The final issue I want to raise is the question of bonding for long-term impacts of acid leaching out of Westmin long after it is closed down. The ministry, I think, has not required an appropriate bonding, given the inevitable long-term results of that mine. It is in a sense comparable to what happened with the Mount Washington copper mine on the Tsolum River, except many times magnified because of the size involved and, of course, dumping right into Campbell River's drinking water, which is something people forget when they talk about Strathcona Park and Westmin Resources.

My light.... No wonder the Chairman is smiling at me. Mr. Chairman, I'm almost finished that last issue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, I think I'm about to call it a day. I've got a whole lot of notes here and I'll make a brief response to the member; then we'll get back to this tomorrow morning.

I'd like to thank you for your complimentary remarks and also the acknowledgment of what we're doing. I guess we're all becoming more aware of the fact that the management strategies for our British Columbia resources should be multi-use. This is almost heresy, coming from a Prince

[ Page 4645 ]

George MLA, but after being in this portfolio for a year and after having as one of my constituencies the wilderness tourism crowd — with which I deal in river rafting and that type of thing — I've come to the conclusion that in many cases a vertical tree is worth more than a horizontal tree. How's that, eh? I've said that publicly before; don't look so shocked.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say in all cases; I said in many cases,

But we have to consider multiple use and we are certainly doing that. A lot of people are concerned about the Stein. There we ended for preservation purposes 91 percent of the watershed, and I think that indicated good multi-use concept for that area.

I have a tendency to agree with the member on pulp mills, particularly discharging into the salt water. As we know, they are level B, as opposed to the ones in the interior, which are at level A. The federal government wants to get them up to level A. I can't say I would personally disagree with that commitment. Interestingly enough, in the state of Washington all the saltwater mills are up to a level A, but they got federal grants to do it. I think if the feds are so concerned about protecting the saltwater environment and, as you say, put in settling ponds or any other mechanism or remedy that can bring the mills up to a level A, then they should be prepared to put their money where their wishes are and maybe offer some income tax assistance or tax relief or whatever to those mills to go to that level of treatment. I think that would be appropriate.

There's a lot to discuss, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you and all members for their indulgence this afternoon. With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.