[ Page 4659 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Committee on multicultural policy. Mr. Barnes –– 4659

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Sihota –– 4659

Mr. Harcourt

Long-term-care user fees. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4661

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4661

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Long

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 4680

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. VANT: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the Legislature two very distinguished constituents from the great Cariboo constituency. Today in the members' gallery we have Mr. Jerry MacDonald, editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, the best weekly newspaper in British Columbia. Also we have Mr. Richard Wright, the president of the Friends of Barkerville Heritage Society, who is a historical author and columnist and one of the characters that helps bring Barkerville alive every summer. I know the House will want to give both these gentlemen a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. REID: I would also like to add my voice of welcome to Richard Wright and Mr. MacDonald.

Also a guest in the House is a former member who saw the error of his ways, left the confines of the New Democratic Party, went out into the real world and became a car salesman — I think he's the richest man in Victoria — the former MLA, Graham Lea. Would the House make him especially welcome.

MR. MILLER: I should have to add my voice after that last introduction and say: "Thank you, Graham."

I stand to introduce a woman from Victoria, Miss Edith Bartram, who in addition to being a big help to my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in that she volunteers to work at his office, has also been a big help to me. She is my mother-in-law, and I'd like the House to make her welcome today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members will recall that about a month ago Alex Stuart and others were in the Legislative Assembly and were introduced with respect to a major waste disposal initiative taking place in Nanaimo using Swedish technology. In our presence today are two of the gentlemen representing the Swedish manufacturers, and I'd like the House to please give a nice Canadian, British Columbia and Victoria welcome to Mr. Lennart Sivertsson and Dr. Jan Bergstrom.

MS. A. HAGEN: Visiting in the House today and in Victoria are two residents of the Burnaby North riding, Anne Smith and Dorothy Caddell, who are doing research on women in political life. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. CRANDALL: I would like to advise the House that a very good percentage of B.C.'s artistic talent yesterday gathered in the great Columbia River city of Kimberley to open the 1988 B.C. Festival of the Arts. I would like to take my hat off to the city council of the city of Kimberley, the economic development commission and the hundreds of volunteers who have gotten together to put on the Festival of the Arts for British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: Now that my good friend from Prince Rupert has managed to get himself in the good books of his wife, his mother-in-law and his predecessor, let me also convey my appreciation of the fact that Edith Bartram is here today and joining her in the gallery is another volunteer in my Esquimalt office, who coordinates all the activities there. Would the House please join me in extending a warm welcome to Elizabeth Woods.

MRS. GRAN: Visiting Victoria today and in the House is Dr. Stanley Fenton and his wife, Margaret. Dr. Fenton is one of Canada's leading rheumatologists. He is the former owner of the Langley Times and is chairman of the pharmacy committees for the Royal Columbian and Maple Ridge Hospitals. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

COMMITTEE ON MULTICULTURAL POLICY

MR. BARNES: I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. Inasmuch as we are on the brink of a major breakthrough in the province, the minister made an announcement earlier this month that he was going to appoint a council of individuals throughout the province who would come back in about 60 days and advise the government on possibilities for the creation of a multicultural policy. I'd like to ask the minister how that is going. Who are the members? What criteria did he use in selecting these people? Is the public aware that this is happening? It is a pretty exciting idea. I just want to make sure that it is taking place.

HON. MR. REID: Yes, it is taking place. We solicited from all the ethnic communities around the province nominees for committee appointments. We have selected 20 at the moment. The final number may be 20, but the terms of reference and the mechanics for the activities of the committee are just being refined now. Within 30 days, the announcement of the structure of the members will be announced, plus the terms of reference and the criteria for the committee's activities.

[2:15]

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to one of the largest scams ever on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, namely the Carter-Ward case. It was astonishing to discover yesterday that the minister seems to know so little about the situation. It now comes to light, Mr. Speaker, that even today the Vancouver Stock Exchange and its brokerage firms are earning commission and revenue from individuals and companies directly linked in with the CarterWard scam — the same brokers, the same houses, the same accounts.

Question to the minister, who has done nothing to date: when does the ministry intend to take action against the brokerage houses and the individual brokers involved in the Carter-Ward scam? It has been three years since you've known about it, Mr. Minister. When do you intend to take action?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member certainly has a fixation on this subject. I would remind the hon. member, as I repeated yesterday, that there are individuals associated with the Carter-Ward situation who are presently involved in a litigation in the province of Ontario. That's point one.

[ Page 4660 ]

Point two: the president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange has publicly said that he and his board of governors are reviewing the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the Carter-Ward issue, and as a consequence, the issue is in their court.

The member errs gravely. Were he to read the legislation, he would be aware that the issue he refers to is one that is properly addressed by the VSE board of governors, and there is a public statement that they are doing that.

If the hon. member believes it is in the public interest for politicians to intrude into those areas prior to there being a proven evident claim that they should — that is to say, the self-regulating organization is not able to perform the duty — I can tell him that while that may be a socialist philosophy, it certainly is not a free enterprise philosophy.

This government believes that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is prepared to act responsibly and will do so. This government believes that the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange acted appropriately, given the fact that the issues around the Carter-Ward matter were the subject of ongoing litigation that has taken months to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, before I intrude on your patience any further, may I just lastly make the point that the issues around the Carter-Ward matter occurred a number of years ago, and that the remedies that are in place now are far different than the remedies that were in place then in terms of the regulatory authorities. Furthermore, this government has dramatically increased the funding and the staffing levels at the Securities Commission. Finally, as a consequence of those steps, we have a far closer liaison with the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I am confident that they will rise to the obligations that they hold in terms of ensuring that any actions that can and should take place as a consequence of the Carter-Ward situation do in fact take place.

MR. HARCOURT: The Minister of Finance doesn't seem to understand the importance of this. He keeps trying to imply that the minister is able to continue to go after the veracity of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), saying that he's going on a vendetta levelling broadsides. The member has been referring to the judgment of Madam Justice Southin, and we are still waiting for the minister to respond.

The Madam Justice said that there were 21 brokerage houses and 179 accounts. It was not a scheme capable of execution without a lot of brokerage houses involved, and I would like to ask the minister to stop pushing it off to other people. I would like to ask him when he is going to exercise his lawful authority to bring some stability to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Instead of having Peter Brown having to bring this to his ministry's attention, Mr. Minister, when are you going to move on this?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's appropriate that we should have this kind of a discussion during question period, and I'm delighted for the opportunity. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is absent from this House so frequently that I can understand that he would not have heard earlier responses I gave to this issue while they were raised during my estimates. The first point I'd like to make is that attendance might be a better indicator of interest in the subject on the part of the member.

After having made that point, let me remind the hon. member, in case he hasn't read the Blues — because he certainly wasn't here to hear it spoken in person — that if there is any serious desire on the part of members of the opposition of this government to improve matters on the Vancouver Stock Exchange or to correct any past abuses or errors, those opportunities have been provided amply by my open invitation to discuss these matters out of the public arena where a full and frank discussion can be held regarding the degree of examination taking place, the names of the individuals that might be involved in that exercise and the final results that might flow as a consequence of those discussions and examinations which I have repeatedly said are being pursued as required by legislation and as prudence dictates. We must all be cognizant of the fact that due process must be followed. It is easy for these members, in the sanctity of these halls, to make these wild allegations on the basis of street talk or else privileged communications which the proponents know full well could not be used in a court of law without violating confidences and exposing themselves to charges of abuse of privilege.

As a consequence of that, given the sensitivities around the matter and the fact that I cannot possibly respond to these issues publicly for fear that they would be printed by the media and therefore jeopardize the legal rights of individuals who are entitled to due process.... As a consequence of my inability to do those things in a public arena, I have said repeatedly — and let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that I have made that a public offer outside the hall and inside these chambers — we are prepared at any time to sit down and discuss privately any privileged information that members of the opposition may have about specific dealings on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

Because they have never taken the opportunity to share that information with me and rather have taken these opportunities to grab momentary attention among some observers, I have to wonder what the motivation of raising the issue is. I have to wonder whether the motivation is purely and simply to get a headline or to try to improve the matters that they constantly complain about regarding the operating style of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. In the absence of any positive offer of support or methods to seek improvements, and in the repeated raising of these issues for the purpose of attracting some momentary attention, it strikes me that the motivation behind the initiative is crystal clear. If there is any real desire to improve things, then I invite members of the opposition to share whatever privileged information they have with me so that I can respond to it appropriately. But to the suggestion....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister take his seat? I would remind members of standing order 47A(b) and I'm going to read it to both sides: "questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." The Chair allows some leeway, but I think that on both sides, the questions and the answers are extremely long and argumentative. If the questions were shorter, I'm sure the other side will make sure that the answers are shorter, and we can get more questions and answers into question period.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the minister has still not said what action he's going to take, and he can't hide behind the courts. Madam Justice Southin has made it crystal clear that he should be acting. This is the biggest scandal in the stock exchange history; he's had three years to act. The courts and the regulatory bodies have said very clearly that they cannot restrict trading. You can, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4661 ]

1 would like to know if the Minister of Finance is prepared — as Ontario had to do after the Windfall oil and gas situation in 1964 — to call a legislative committee so that we can clean up the financial affairs as they relate to the Vancouver Stock Exchange and the financial community in this province. Are you prepared to set up a legislative committee to do that task?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. members opposite don't seem to have heard what I've been saying to them. They have attempted to do so much damage outside the tent, any sane person would wonder why they would welcome them inside the tent.

The assumption you are making is that there will be no consequences as a result of the Carter-Ward verdict being handed down. You are making that assumption, and you are trying to create the impression that I have some obligation to step in at this point.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the matter is presently before the board of governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange; they are reviewing the situation. They are the appropriate people to take any action, if action is deemed necessary. You should read nothing into failure to respond to the moment, other than the critical necessity for due process to be followed. You make a gross error of assumption, and you do great damage to the public reputation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange by making these allegations which you know are premature and at the moment, in my opinion, totally unjustified. You make some assumptions which are improper.

If you have any inquiries to make, I suggest that the hon. members make a phone call. They have told the House that they are on a first-name basis with some of these principals. Why don't they pick up the phone and make an inquiry to find out the exact state of affairs? I think if they did, they would understand the truth of what I'm telling them now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm told that they have. They could not have. They absolutely could not have and still asked the question. I am telling the hon. members opposite that these matters are in the hands of the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors, and they are reviewing it. Are the hon. members telling me I'm misleading the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the minister take his seat.

You cannot shout other questions across while the minister is answering, or we're going to end up with a House that is totally unruly. If the members would allow the minister to answer his question — which I think he's done fully.... I will accept the next question.

MR. SIHOTA: If there is any damage being done, it's by this minister not taking any action. That's the whole point here. We have a minister, Mr. Speaker, who doesn't understand his responsibilities. The exchange has known about this situation for three years. This minister, if he was on top of his portfolio, would be asking the exchange why they haven't moved for three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister is this: has the minister ascertained why the exchange has sat on its hands for three years with respect to the Carter-Ward situation and why it hasn't taken any action whatsoever?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I have said repeatedly to this House, the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors and the Securities Commission people have been obliging the investigations that were unfolding in a proper court of law. Now that that issue has been resolved in that arena, it is appropriate for matters to progress to their next stage.

I would remind the House of the irresponsible statements that have been made by previous members of the opposition. It doesn't take much of a memory to remember certain comments — irresponsible comments, I might say — made about the Bank of Commerce by a member of the opposition, which had grave consequences in the marketplace, just as these comments we've heard this afternoon are irresponsible.

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like to answer a question taken on notice.

On May 24 the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) asked me about continuing-care user fees. I would like to clarify that the daily charge of 85 percent of the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement instituted on May I this year will not be changed. As stated by my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) in his response to you, B.C. is third best in Canada for minimum disposable income of seniors living in facilities.

The user fee increase does equate to an annual increase of $912.50 for all seniors. However, as was announced in the budget speech, those on OAS/GIS are now recipients of GAIN for Seniors. Therefore, for the large majority of our long-term care residents, their annual income will have been reduced by $324, not $900, as the hon. member claimed. Also, this group will not be required to pay any MSP premiums.

[2:30]

The increase quoted by the hon. member in relation to income testing is speculation. The ministry has announced its policy in relation to income testing; however, I have said in the past a number of times that there will be a ceiling on this fee equivalent to the current cost of personal living expenses incurred in residential care. The residents will not pay for the medical component.

The policies under consideration at this time would ensure that only those who can afford to are expected to contribute further toward their personal living costs, costs that might be expected if the person were living independently at home. As for the home support user fee, the 77 percent of the clientele who currently do not pay user fees would continue not to pay them. Actually, there will be some good news here for some clients, because the number who pay fees will decline. Overall, fewer clients will pay user fees for homemaker services than do now.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

[ Page 4662 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
(continued)

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to see that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is here, because I'd like to speak about Botanical Beach for a minute and give you the anatomy of a park deal.

First of all, I will read into the record a letter written under the title "Legislative Ledger," signed by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, giving his interpretation of Botanical Beach, a new park. He writes:

"After a year of lobbying, the Minister of Environment and Parks finally agreed to my demand to make Botanical Beach a provincial park."

This, by the way, was written in April, I would think, because I've had it on my desk for a little while. He goes on to say how hard he worked, and he says:

"While the ministry was thinking about Botanical Beach, the province settled the Moresby Island fiasco, and a part of that deal involved the government giving up property near French Beach to the logging interests at Moresby. "

French Beach, he had suggested, should have been used in a swap for Botanical Beach. Then he goes on to generally take credit for the whole initiative.

To set the record straight.... I wouldn't accuse the member of misleading; that would be inappropriate. But perhaps we can give the committee the facts.

First of all, the first notice we had of this was in June 1987, which is when "A" Team Logging came and made it known to us. They were quite up front that they were going to log the area back of Botanical Beach. Writing to us was not the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew but Mr. Samuel Cook, a Victoria resident and private citizen, Mr. Ray Nestman, a regional director for the Port Renfrew area, and Bert Hoffmeister, one of British Columbia's and Canada's noted environmentalists; he's of the Nature Trust. Many others joined their voices to the list, and our diaries do not indicate any representation made by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Secondly, with respect to the curious comment about exchange of lands with respect to French Beach, that does not exist. There is no connection there. There was no exchange of timber at French Beach for any of the loggers affected on South Moresby. The connection there is totally fabricated or could not exist in any way.

I just thought I would put that on the record, because I know the member wants to take credit for his initiative — I guess when you are a new MLA you like to do that type of thing — but in fact the credit has to go to Derek Thompson of the Ministry of Environment and Parks, who did the negotiating and first got this issue up to the cabinet level, and, as I said, Sam Cook, Ray Nestman and Bert Hoffmeister. I think that should be on the record to point out who has the correct story and who hasn't.

MS. A. HAGEN: It would have been helpful if I had been able to follow the two members from Victoria this morning on some of the matters that I want to raise this afternoon, but regrettably I had a group that I was meeting with. So we are going to be going back to some matters relating to sewage treatment centres or facilities and also some environmental issues coming out of garbage disposal. My comments will be very specifically related to my area. I certainly think that the comments that I will be making will have significance not only in my own riding but in the many ridings that border on the Fraser River, which in lower mainland terms is sometimes called the Fraser River trench, a term that I hadn't really thought of. I thought of that more as something that might be applicable in Prince George, but there is in fact a kind of trench there that is created by that wide river delta and the mountains that surround us.

I think I'll start with some comments about the Annacis Island treatment centre and some of the problems it is having with sewage treatment. I'm not sure of its age at this time — about ten years possibly. At the time it was instituted there was concern that it was only doing the most basic of treatment, a concern that has continued to this day.

It's a system that's often overloaded and that often breaks down, and certainly communities downwind are very much aware of that situation when the incinerator is not functioning as it should. The odours are really very pervasive. In fact, one person said to me that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) should be concerned about that because the new Fraser Bridge passes just about over that treatment centre. As people are coming in on sunny days, they are likely to get a waft that they're not used to in the lower mainland. I think we have a number of concerns not only for people who are living there but for people who are travelling through.

I want to pursue the matter that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) raised around treatment facilities and the improvement of sewage treatment facilities as an economic measure. It's something, Mr. Minister, that I'm sure that you and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who has some interest in this region that I'm speaking about, could have some very effective dialogue on.

The Iona treatment centre does, in a small scale, actually capitalize on some of the byproducts of sewage treatment through some methane manufacture. I don't know how extensive that is, but we do have a bit of modelling of that, and certainly the development of treatment facilities that would enable the manufacture of methane and the manufacture of fertilizer are ones that appear to have some very significant economic benefits.

Look at the importance of the Fraser River. For hundreds of miles, in fact, it is a primary fishery resource and transportation resource, and increasingly, too, a recreation resource in our area. The need for some additional treatment facilities in this very major treatment plant is something that we could and should all look forward to.

One of the issues that's been raised is around the use of a fertilizer from this particular area. There are a high number of industrial pollutants that may very well be either officially or in a clandestine way a part of the material that goes through any treatment plant on the Fraser. But it's my understanding that the use of fertilizer in forest management is one that we could very well use. We have but to look right now at what's happening with the extensive chemical use of fertilizer rather than use of organic contents. We have but to look at the Prairies, where because of the lack of organic content that soil is now blowing away. Certainly the use of organic fertilizers in our forest industry would be one very useful kind of development for us to consider.

I want to ask the minister whether his ministry, in cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is look-

[ Page 4663 ]

ing at some of the infrastructure around sewage disposal toward a much more comprehensive treatment system with the aim, in fact, of improving the environment and at the same time bringing economic benefits to the province in the way of jobs and in the way of byproducts that could be very advantageous to communities and to various industries in the province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for New Westminster for her comments and her observations. I advised the committee this morning, Madam Member, and perhaps you didn't hear. The ministry has been working for some time now, well before my time and well before the time of the current administration, in terms of it arriving at a new comprehensive plan for the waste management sewage stream. I have seen a preliminary presentation of that at cabinet. As a matter of fact, it came to ELUC. I can't tell you much more at this point until it's gone through cabinet. It's coming soon. It's imminent.

First of all, let me give you, I guess, a bit of background. As I understand it, we began in '86, maybe even in '85, writing to all city engineers and that level of person involved with the waste management, and finding out what they did, how they treated, what their expenses were, and what their whole program was. That went on for some time. That information has been coming in, of course, and is being collated. We've gone to all the other agencies who are concerned about the waste management system. The pop bottle dealers, the beer bottle people and everybody covered under the Litter Act have had input to us. So we've done some extensive work and are at the point, within in a couple of weeks, of presenting a position paper publicly. It will go, of course, to that whole constituency — all the city engineers and interested groups. Outdoors Unlittered and the B.C. Wildlife Federation are interested in this and, of course, the commercial people such as the soda pop distributors, the beverage people and the beer people. There's a very large community out there that's interested, and we will be sending that plan of ours and looking for input.

I want to put on the record now that when we send our report out, it will clearly be a discussion paper. We want to tell them what we think ought to be done, and then we want to get input back so we can arrive at an appropriate plan. In this discussion paper we're not casting anything in stone but in fact listing more responses from the various agencies who are concerned with this. As I said, it's local government, industry and, of course, the locally interested groups: Outdoors Unlittered, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the nature clubs and everybody. There are a lot of people who are really interested in improving our environment, and it's good to see that support.

In terms of your area, Madam Member, there's not much I can say specifically with respect to New Westminster, except that I am advised that the GVRD is also doing a major redraft of their operating plans. We're not totally aware of what stage they're at, but they are discussing the whole thing now and apparently will be presenting to the Ministry of Environment and Parks their plans for the future and ways of addressing the problems they have now. I could, I guess, solicit more information on that study for you now or at a later time if you wish, but I'm advised that it's coming soon. That's all I can say about it at this point.

[2:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: We look forward to that discussion paper, which I think you said would perhaps be tabled within a couple of weeks, or as soon as that.

Apropos of your comments regarding the GVRD and their drafting of a position paper on some of the issues that are particularly under review, could you just comment briefly on the relationship between the work they may currently be doing and your own ministry's broader framework of waste management discussion, which will be addressed in the paper you advise us will be tabled in the very near future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A good question. The GVRD's is essentially a liquid waste management plan, so it's dealing specifically with sewage and the odoriferous problems you mentioned earlier.

Our scheme is to deal with the whole waste management stream: everything from beer bottles, pop bottles and household garbage to recycling, such as curbside sorting and that type of thing. We notice that although this type of recycling and curbside sorting has been spasmodically tried in North America for the last 15 years, we're getting to the point where it's becoming quite a positive story and quite a positive attitude change in the minds of people; it's becoming very popular. Delta is into this. We have 14 communities, Delta being the latest on stream to do curbside sorting and to play its part as municipal government to try to eliminate or cut down on the waste stream, the amount of landfill required and all the other expenses a municipality has, and to try to recapture a bit of money from recycling.

With all that information in place, we will have this discussion paper out and it will deal with everything we have to deal with in the waste stream — everything that would, say, impact on a landfill. What's happening, of course, is that the landfill costs are going very high, and now we're into the situation where the GVRD has to export to Cache Creek, which is not very popular at Cache Creek and has caused me some political problems. So we just have to consider better methods. We reckon that by recycling paper, aluminium, glass and all the recyclables, we can cut 20 percent out of what goes into the landfills. The only thing left would be the wet garbage, which is appropriate for landfill. It will cut down on the need for that type of landfill. Of course, as landfill costs go up, we'll have to get into more incineration projects similar to what we have in Burnaby.

So there's a whole regime being developed and, I think, a whole different mindset coming to bear in the 1980s. Probably by the year 2000 we'll be burning everything, generating steam and doing all sorts of things that we hadn't even considered in the 1980s.

MS. A. HAGEN: There are two questions rising out of the minister's last comments.

Just to get back to the liquid garbage, it goes into the Fraser, which is a provincial resource in relation to our fishery and to recreation. I'm still not clear whether the minister is acknowledging any responsibility lying with his ministry regarding sewage and sewage treatment. I'm gathering from his comments that the report he is going to be tabling is mostly to do with solid waste, if you like, rather than liquid waste.

I'd like you to clarify, Mr. Minister, what responsibility and role your ministry has to play in liquid sewage disposal. I know that it's a major GVRD responsibility, but in the broader context, the Ministry of Environment must have some regulatory responsibilities here. From a funding perspective, the Ministry of Environment and, as we both acknowledge, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have an

[ Page 4664 ]

interest, because most of these major systems are developed with shared funding — federal, provincial, regional and municipal. That's one question coming out of the comments.

On the matter of waste disposal and recycling, can the minister give us some indication of whether these plans involve stimulation of the use of these waste materials in economic and byproduct productive ways? Are we looking at curbside recycling, for example, and other methods being channelled into recycling of these products and into industry or productive economic activity? A comment on that would be appreciated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a couple of questions there. In terms of the liquid waste management plan being put forward by the GVRD, we don't know what it says yet, but I approve it. That's our responsibility. We also ensure that the public has adequate opportunity to review what GVRD wants to do. We insist on that, and until we have seen the plan, there's not much more we can say at this point on their new proposal, but it is our responsibility as the provincial government agency to review the GVRD plan as well as anybody else's.

That's our relationship in the scheme of things in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, although with the GVRD, it performs some of the roles that the Ministry of Environment would normally do in other areas. For example, they do air monitoring and other work for us, just because of their size and the economy of scale, where you wouldn't have that in other regional districts. The CRD doesn't have that function, for example, and neither would regional districts in other areas. But because of the size and the economy of scale of the GVRD, we use them quite a bit.

Their relationship to us in terms of the liquid waste management plan would be the same as any other municipality’s: they present the plan to us, we have a good look at it, review it, and if we see some deficiencies, we make our comments known to them. If we reckon that there should be further public input, if we note that there might be an odour, we think that they should present that to the people who would be affected and do all those things that senior government ought to be doing. At least we think we're doing all the things that senior government ought to be doing.

As to recycling, I really can't say much yet on how we're going to lead, by way of an incentive. In other provinces, other countries, I think, and other ministries of environment — Ontario being one, in the Mississauga effort that I heard about — the senior government or the ministry paid for the curbside blue boxes for sorting. That was 100 percent of the cost that they looked after. There might have been other incentives that they led with to ensure that the recycling effort was effective.

Glass now has a recycled value; paper certainly does. Belkin, if I'm not mistaken, has just added a third machine in Vancouver to recycle newsprint. Aluminium beer cans have a remarkable value: they're about $1,600 a tonne now. With that value to it, it's something that can fuel and economically drive a recycling industry. The value of garbage is going up and up and making it more economically viable. We're dealing now not just with the spasmodic efforts made in the mid-sixties but with very major industries in terms of recycling.

We predict that probably within five years in the lower mainland, in the populated area where we have the economy and density of scale, we'll be recycling half a million tonnes of household garbage, which is a considerable amount.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm somewhat disappointed, Mr. Chairman, not to have been able to get from the minister some greater acknowledgement of the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment to stimulate a more extensive sewage treatment system. That may be coming from the GVRD, and I acknowledge that it may be a part of the proposal. What I'm looking for from the minister is greater commitment to that kind of treatment, with the Ministry of Environment taking a lead there. I haven't heard that in the comments. Perhaps it's been implicit, but it certainly hasn't come through to me in the comments the minister made. I'd really like to see that kind of leadership coming from the Ministry of Environment, because it's a matter of leadership and of funding and of R and D.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to another topic just briefly, and that is the matter of air quality control. As the minister knows, in the last several months a major new waste disposal facility — an incinerator — has become operative in the Fraser River trench area. I can see it from my window, and I watch it with considerable interest and some trepidation. We have been told that this incinerator has been built to very high standards and with very up-to-date technology. I don't pretend to be an expert in all the things that go into this. So my questions are very much those of a layperson, but I think these are the questions that people are asking and seeking to have some knowledge and reassurance about.

As I understand it, the technology used in this particular incinerator uses a very simple means of removing acids through the use of limestone and then a vacuuming process to take the particulates out of the air. What I'm not very clear about — and I haven't been able to get very solid answers about — is what happens to chemicals being burned in the incinerator.

For instance, plastic is a very major component of waste, and I understand that dioxins are among the byproducts of the burning of plastics. We all know there are many things that go into the garbage that perhaps shouldn't go into garbage. I'm not very clear that there is an adequate monitoring. I know, for instance, that dioxin emissions are monitored very seldom — I've been told, only twice a year — and the information about those chemicals and other emissions is in fact not available to the public. The monitoring being done, as the minister has noted, by the GVRD is not made public.

Mr. Minister, your pollution control board must have issued some permits for the operation of this particular plant. I'd like to have some observations from you about the kind and frequency of monitoring that is taking place and access to information by the public so that they may get answers to their questions and concerns. This particular stack wafts its way right up the Fraser Valley trench and into literally hundreds and thousands of backyards and homes in the greater Vancouver area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I enjoy this stuff, Madam Member, because I didn't do much science in school; it had a tendency to put me off my lunch. But now that I'm in this ministry, I'm quite enjoying it.

In terms of the incinerator, to begin with, we did the pre-testing — what we call base-line testing. We sampled soils before the incinerator was fired up so we knew what the ground was like, because anything that's going to be produced by this incinerator will be something added. So we take the ground prior to the incinerator being fired up, and we test; we take soil samples all around the area. We monitor

[ Page 4665 ]

that, so we know what we're dealing with, prior to the incinerator being put in place. Now that we have those baseline results, and the incinerator is fired up and working, we are going to do post-testing on a regular basis.

[3:00]

Dioxins are a concern; there's no question about that. We have the knowledge that at 1,100 degrees Celsius the dioxins will be burned. As a matter of fact, one of the tests to quantify that was done in a recovery boiler in a pulp mill in Prince George. We know generally that at 1,100 degrees Celsius we are eliminating dioxins. If we know that to be a fact, then we don't test for dioxins much anymore. What we do is continually monitor the burn. We know that if we have continual monitoring of the burn — calibrating the stacks is what it is called — and if the temperature is always 1,100 Celsius or higher, we're eliminating the dioxins. Once you have established the remedy, you don't really have to monitor for the dioxins; you monitor for the procedure. As long as the process is carried out correctly, we feel pretty safe that we are eliminating the element we want to get rid of.

In terms of access to that information, I don't see why we couldn't put a public knowledge regime in place to indicate times when we may have been out of compliance or to indicate what we're finding from our post-testing in terms of soils. We know it's state of the art; it has a state of the art permit that we have put in place — very sophisticated — and I wouldn't have any problem with making good, accurate information available.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to follow that up with the minister in correspondence so that we could see that happening.

One final question on this matter. This has provided a basis for some further discussion that I may want to engage in with the minister through communication. You mention baseline testing of soils. Has there been any consideration of baseline testing in terms of health? In a sense this is, as the minister has noted, a state-of-the-art incinerator and in that particular area we are concerned about any potential damage that might occur around health. This would have to be a longitudinal study; there is no question about it.

Has there been any consideration of doing some of that testing so that there could be a follow-up for the benefit not only of this particular project but for any further projects that might be considered in other parts of the province, or, in fact, in other jurisdictions altogether?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It would be pretty tough — and this is probably not an answer that is going to be acceptable to those of you who live in the area — to monitor for any impact of that incinerator on the health of the people in the area because there are so many other factors — automobiles, for example — that are going to cause you more problems than that plant. I don't know if we could ever get a handle on what that plant is going to do outside of what we're doing now.

If there was something significant in a circumference of so many miles, and it really stood out as statistically significant, then we'd have to have a look at it. I think, given the variety of pollutants that are in the area because of many other sources, that type of testing would be difficult to do. Let me put it this way: the incinerator is far cleaner than a lot of other things you have there in that area, cars just being one of them.

MS. A. HAGEN: I can't resist; the minister gives me the opportunity. Perhaps the minister would make one final comment around continuing concern about industrial pollution in the Fraser River. I don't have specific examples to cite in our discussion today, but the whole issue of the control of industrial pollution along that river is just a long-standing one that a number of organizations monitor very closely. It's coming back full circle to the first questions I was asking around the Annacis treatment plant.

We've got some pretty exciting examples of what has been done in other jurisdictions to improve really dirty, dirty — not to put you off your lunch — rivers. That is a very beautiful river. There are many changes occurring along that river in terms of its mixed use not only for industry but housing. Of course, it is a major river as far as our fish resource is concerned. I must confess when I go down to the dock and pick up my annual stock of oolichans, I sort of wonder about my own lunch a little bit at times. What's happening there? What are your concerns? What are you doing about it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, just for a little bit of light humour, a lot of the brown stuff you see in the river this time of the year is my riding. It's mud from Prince George and it's good, healthy Prince George mud.

The Fraser River in the New Westminster area has been a concern for some time. I guess the most notable initiative we've taken would be the banning of the anti-sapstain chemicals, which was an initiative taken last September by this ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where we told the sawmill people, particularly the people in your part of the province, that they had to change from the PCBs to other approved chemicals, and they had one year to do it. That's in place now. I guess that's our most significant effort in terms of discharge into water. We monitor that all the time from all the sources who have permits and we try to ensure that those standards are maintained.

But to answer your question about our initiatives, I think the anti-sapstain one was the most significant because there was without question a significant fear that there could be danger to the health...a concern about the increase of PCBs in the food chain — that is, the oolichans and other sand crabs, and that type of animal that inhabits the sludges and the river banks. We noticed that, and we had to bring that change into place. That's something that has been put in place. As we monitor and discover other elements in the water and we discover their sources, such as in this case the sawmills, we will be bringing those corrections into play.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I just have one little question to follow up on the comment of the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) about the Fraser River before turning the mike over to our other member who wants to talk to you about privatization in parks.

My question has to do with the Canadian heritage rivers system. This is a program that.... I've got a status report here for April '88: "The objectives of the CHRS are to give national recognition to the important rivers of Canada, and to ensure long-term management which will conserve their natural, historical and recreational values for the benefit of Canadians now and in the future. "

The information I have is that B.C. has refused to participate in this program. Can the minister give us any information about that, about why B.C. has refused to participate? It would seem that such a program may help focus some of the attention that the member for New West-

[ Page 4666 ]

minister was talking about and the needs around the Fraser River, for instance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The CHRS is the Canadian heritage rivers system scheme. It's never been really apparent to us what the major benefit of this would be. We're still looking at it. We're not closing the door on it, but I think we want some more information and maybe a bit more study to really tell us where the benefit of indulging in this program would be.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I want to bring up first of all the issue of the Columbia River Treaty and the reservoirs in British Columbia, most particularly the Koocanusa reservoir and the problems that are being created for the recreational users of that particular sometime lake.

The Columbia River Treaty, as we have said before, was signed on the basis that its major benefits would be for power generation and flood control. On that basis, both the U.S. and Canada, but Canada in particular, put together a number of reservoirs, filled the reservoirs, destroyed some good farmland and made a number of sacrifices that we're not going to go into. The point is that those sacrifices and the losses that were required in order to create the Columbia River Treaty dam system were sold on the basis that the reservoirs would create a major and valuable recreational resource.

The problem is that this recreational resource is currently under threat. I have asked you before — and you have responded to me — about what the parks branch has done and mainly about what the British Columbia-Canadian entity has done, which is B.C. Hydro, and I simply want to review. The fact of the matter is that with the reservoir way below its normal level, it may in fact not even be a reservoir in most of the part of Canada that it normally inhabits this year. In fact, we may not get much beyond the river with the mud flats on both sides, and so on and so forth.

I know that you have probably been in receipt of a number of requests from people because of the problems it's creating, particularly for the parks branch. I'm going to talk about more of them in a minute, but right now I will simply outline that there is this major pressure, this demand on that lake, that cannot be met, that will be met in other years or may not be there in other years. In fact, you may not be able to supply the recreational resource by stocking surrounding lakes this year. You may not be able to supply the recreational needs within the province and within that area.

What I've been able to get the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to do, I would ask that you might do as well: to commit that you will contact the Canadian entity, B.C. Hydro, and tell it — Hydro does the continuous negotiating on the management of that water resource — that as a minister and a representative of the people of British Columbia, you believe that the recreational resource should be honoured and recognized and should be considered when decisions are being made by B.C. Hydro when it consults with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and besides that, to commit to setting up a system with B.C. Hydro whereby the managers of the recreational resource itself will meet on a regular enough basis with the people making the decisions about the water level in the reservoirs, so that they can make the managerial decisions required in the threat of low water and various other situations that could come up. I don't think drought is the only problem that could come up, Mr. Minister; there could be other situations.

There has not been good communication between the managers in Hydro who do the day-to-day or month-to-month managing and who know what the water level is going to be in the reservoirs. They have not consistently, in any way — formally or even informally — been telling the managers of the resource, which certainly includes your parks people, that there are likely to be, or that they expect there could be, some problems. That is why this particular year of low level came upon people with some surprise, whereas the Hydro people and the engineers in the States knew that it was likely to be a low-water year.

[3:15]

I wonder if the minister would make the same commitment that the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture has made: to contact B.C. Hydro, saying that you, as the minister, would consider it valuable and useful that they take into account the recreational value of those reservoirs when doing their planning, and that they set up a system whereby they would be in regular enough contact with the managers of the reservoirs. The managers would know, along with the Hydro people, all the events that could happen to impact on the management of the reservoirs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the benefit of the committee, I'll just bring in some general background on this Lake Koocanusa. It's a hybrid term standing for Kootenay, Canada and the U.S.A. The member was the first one to tell me of this and I thank her for that. It's a bit of knowledge that I was not aware of until the member told me — with all the briefings we get and everything.

In any event, it was created when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed the Libby Dam in 1973. It has terms and a method of operation. As a matter of fact, Tom Johnson, my deputy minister, is on the permanent engineering board, a board of engineers that sort of supervises what B.C. Hydro and the American equivalent are doing. It's a bit detailed, Madam Member, but I'll have Tom send you something on how they work and what their management scheme is. It's a program of water levels negotiated six years in advance. It's part of the whole Columbia River Treaty and something that we are stuck with.

The member raises a real concern, and as the Minister of Environment responsible for fish and also for a good, clean environment, it is a concern that I have as well. We are advised, though, that the reservoir is 30 feet above the minimum level, and that's all we will be drawing this year. We are not generating any power from it; we are just keeping enough water there to maintain fish flows. This has been a difficult year because of snow factor and higher-than-expected power demands, but we are still well within 30 feet of the minimum licence requirement, so I believe we are okay. I do acknowledge the member's concern and that of the people who live in the area. I wish there were more I could do about it.

I will undertake to have the member given the terms from Mr. Johnson, our member on the permanent engineering board, so she can understand the relationship between that board, the American operator and B.C. Hydro. That, in written form, may better explain how things work, and the fact that they are giving permits on their levels on a six-year basis. It's just not all that easy. It's not something that, standing in this House right now or sitting in my office as minister, I can address immediately, but I'll provide the member with as much information as I can, take her concerns

[ Page 4667 ]

to heart and advise the committee that I understand clearly the concern that she has.

MS. EDWARDS: I have been studying for a number of months, and I followed the development of this treaty dam and the reservoir and the whole thing at the time it was built. I have a fairly clear idea, I believe, about how the decisions are made. I know that it's in the treaty that the two entities, the one for the U.S. and the one for Canada, must put forward every year a five-year plan so that it will follow into the sixth year. I know all of these things. The problem is that the treaty designates that the major uses shall be power generation and flood control. I am not asking that the minister take that away. That is the main reason for the Columbia River Treaty dam system. Flood control is another concern, partly in the Creston area but mainly in the U.S. The situation is that there is some other generation that can be done over and above what was originally planned. Of course, the U.S. and Canada do that planning on a five-year basis. They also do some short-term sales, which they decide approximately each year or sometimes in a shorter time.

Why they are making those decisions, Mr. Minister, they are not now required to consider the recreational value of the reservoirs. I am asking that the minister tell B.C. Hydro that for your ministry, you would like B.C. Hydro to consider the recreational value before it makes some of those decisions that are optional decisions. Many of the residents in the Libby area, in Montana and in Idaho have been making exactly this case to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In fact, they have had very good commitment from the Army Corps. The Army Corps has extended boat launches so that they will be down to the reservoir this summer; they have accepted that recreational function.

I know that somehow or another this recreational function is probably going to end up, in this country, in the hands of the ministry. What I'm asking is for a process whereby the management ministries know a bit ahead of time, which they don't know now because they do not meet regularly with that.... There is not a formal structure for passing that information back and forth. I'm also asking that the minister make clear that he wants the recreational value, which was the basis for telling the citizens it was a good idea.... It is a value, and B.C. Hydro should consider that in their planning. I'm told by various people in the Corps of Engineers that they are sometimes even more willing to recognize a recreational value than B.C. Hydro is.

This is not a big step, but it could lead to a consideration for the recreational value, which then perhaps would not be in such an emergent situation as it is this summer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the management has two clear responsibilities: power and flood control. Those are the only two items they can deal with. They do discuss fish and try to assist each other in fish. We could negotiate for a recreation water benefit, but it would be very expensive. Water does have a price to it, and I don't know if the taxpayer would be willing to spend that recreational dollar to ensure that there was always recreational water. That would be very pricey water and water levels from time to time.

In terms of the work the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does in helping build boat launches and that type of thing, that's admirable. I don't know if we'd want to anticipate that. It's a good suggestion, but we may have other uses and priorities for spending in British Columbia. One can applaud the Corps of Engineers, but then one has to remember the United States doesn't have medicare either. Everything has a saw-off, depending on the fabric of your society.

In terms of the discussion, the member has a good point and I agree with that. Probably B.C. Hydro, which does know a year in advance what the levels are going to be, should be persuaded to give the residents some notice. I think that's a good suggestion. I don't have any problem with that at all, and we'll look at that. We can't change the level, but we can certainly be a bit more courteous — or Hydro can be — and we'll make that suggestion. As I said, Mr. Johnson is involved with this. I'll bring that up as well, that letting the residents know what the water levels are going to be is a courtesy they could extend to you. They have that knowledge a year in advance. It's not hard to arrive at, and there's no reason why you shouldn't have it. I'll accept that part of your concern.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think your managers need it too. Of course, it's always dependent on the precipitation too, but the actual amount that will be drawn down and that they expect, I think, should be given to the managers regularly. It's not just your ministry; there are a number of other ministries who should be involved and who should know.

I might also point out to you that to suggest that Hydro can only deal with power generation and flood control is to ignore that tiny fraction of a percentage, I guess, that could be considered.... Even in the treaty there are some clauses where you can make some consideration for consumptive use, which means the use of water for domestic, municipal, stock, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes. If B.C. Hydro can consider those particular functions.... Sometimes they are not allowed to, but there is a clause where it can, under certain circumstances, be considered.

The preamble to the treaty says it is for the greater wealth and happiness of our respective nations and that the two treaters are desirous of achieving the development of resources in a manner that will make the largest contribution to the welfare of the peoples, etc. Because of that kind of thing, and also because of the various notations throughout the treaty which talk about notes which can be exchanged simply between the two.... It's not that simple; I don't want to oversimplify it. All I ask is that one step would be for you, as a minister, to tell B.C. Hydro that the consideration of recreation as a value is something that you, as a minister, would support.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be more than happy to do that, Madam Member. I'll be more than happy to ensure that courtesy is extended. I can't force anything on the agreement though. It's a 30-year agreement. We'll do whatever we can in terms of jawboning and asking the participants to be courteous, give advance notice and think about other concerns than just power and flood control and the other items they may negotiate. That's as far as I can go, but I do welcome your input, and I think you've made a very good point.

MS. EDWARDS: I simply would say that I don't really think you would be pushing it beyond what the treaty can do. If that is the feeling of this government, I think they can do that.

One of the circumstances this summer is that because of the low water there's going to be even more pressure on the

[ Page 4668 ]

Newgate area, which is currently an unmanaged area. There has been an application, which I understand was approved by the divisional management committee this morning and is on its way to your office, for the establishment of a Newgate park. All the minister has been able to do this summer is to put in two toilets. At one meeting I was at with residents, B.C. Hydro thought they might be able to put in another pair, because the largest part of 18,000 campers who use that unmanaged area.... It will probably be less this year because of the low water, but there are thousands of campers who come into this unmanaged area. There they are with no particular place to put their campers. They don't have a water source, and these will be the only toilets for several thousands of them. Last year people couldn't walk into the woods for human feces, there was vandalism, the residents were bothered by people wanting to use the phone and wanting to borrow gasoline, and all-terrain vehicles were ripping up the hillside. It has been quite a mess.

The citizens are extremely anxious that there be some resolution on this. As I understand it, since it's been approved by the divisional management committee and is going to.... Do you know if it's on its way? Can I take some good news back to the residents of Newgate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: By all means, yes. The area is going to be designated as a class A park. We're building a boat launch. It's not going to do you much good if the water's low, but we are building a boat launch and some campsites, along with sanitary facilities to accommodate the fishermen who wish to access the reservoir. I understand the fishing is excellent. That's the extent of our plans for this year for Newgate.

[3:30]

MS. EDWARDS: You said this year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MS. EDWARDS: Excellent. I'm very pleased about that,

To go to news that isn't quite so good, I have had a number of phone calls and people coming up to me on the street after the long weekend. Many of the campsites in our area were virtually unsupervised over the long weekend. I tried to find out why that was so, because people were phoning me particularly about the Koocanusa campsite, which was one of the major problems. People were parked all over the parking lot; there was vandalism, and one of the picnic tables was burned. In other campgrounds there were facilities that some of the citizens had built themselves in the days before they were even classified as parks, and they were up there feeling extremely angry about the lack of supervision. I understand there were beer cases on the beaches and so on.

I'm told the reason is that the ministry is at skeleton staff, that in fact no fees were collected for these parks over the long weekend, and that there will not likely be any collections of fees — except for this extremely small skeleton staff — until perhaps the July 1 weekend. Could the minister please explain what happened, and why these campsites are going basically unsupervised?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're going to be starting a self-regulating — that is, the honour system or pay-in-an-envelope — system beginning today or in the next day or two with full staffing, as the member has indicated, on the July 1 weekend.

MS. EDWARDS: You say "staff," Mr. Minister, but I believe that it is permittees operating the campsites. Is that correct? It's certainly not staff.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It will be a contractor, but that's a person.

MS. EDWARDS: Excuse me, I take "staff" to mean members of your staff, but that's not the case. So you're going to have an honour system. You don't have the facilities for an honour system right now, do you? I presume that someone will have to have envelopes. Are you going to have them printed and get them out and have locked boxes, and people can put them in by tomorrow or the next day or by the weekend? I ask you that as a question, but I will go ahead anyway. In fact, what I see here is a major problem with the campsites.

One of the private operators near the Koocanusa campsite was extremely angry because he feels that had the campsite been supervised, a number of people — obviously way beyond the reasonable limit that should have been taken at that campsite — would have gone to his campsite. Perhaps he will contract to do the other; I have no idea. But right now, not only are we having the campers and the tourists angry, but we've also got the private operators — who you say are going to be all very happy with this move — now angry at the province and at what's happening.

So what's happening there, Mr. Minister, is that we have a skeleton staff. In fact, I understand — and this comes from your ministry — that there will be a cut of 140 FTEs this year in your ministry. A senior administrator told me that the 140 are nearly all because of privatization of the park sites and early retirement. Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It probably is. I can verify that in a moment. Yes, that sounds about right. We are privatizing the services to.... That's right, a decrease of 142 parks and outdoor recreation — to a total of 69. So a little under half of that number you've given are a result of privatization of the parks. Those services will be contracted by the private sector. By and large, as you and I know, there is the collection of fees, the pickup of garbage, the provision of firewood and doing the various things that people do to maintain a nice campground. I think they can be done very well by the private sector.

MS. EDWARDS: Are any of the early retirement people going to be replaced? If not, I would ask you to elaborate on why not.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've got some numbers. There's no question that the early retirement offering generally throughout government was very well subscribed to, and a lot of us have ministries that look like Swiss cheese. We're filling in. We filled in immediately in our case with those people who are immediately essential to the safety and well-being and proper operation of the ministry. Conservation officer service, for example, was up to full strength just as quickly as possible and is at full strength now, with all transfers and placements being made to ensure that the service went uninterrupted.

[ Page 4669 ]

In terms of the early retirement people that we have confirmed, there are 109. Out of the people to be replaced, there are 52. The rest will be looked after by privatization or other initiatives.

MS. EDWARDS: Perhaps the minister would explain to me how the privatization in campsites is going to work. How are these permittees going to be contracted?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a pretty straightforward program. It's been in place since 1983. Of the 208 campgrounds, we have, I think, 158 or 156 that are privatized now in terms of their services. Really, I don't think, unless the member has specific questions about what we do when we.... A park pretty well operates itself. It's the park that is the selling feature.

What the ministry provides is maintenance such as garbage pickup, maintaining the picnic tables and all that type of thing, providing firewood, taking out the garbage. It's really a service sector to the campground. That's simply done by a private contractor as opposed to a government employee. We believe those employees with the parks service are better suited to management and supervision roles and ensuring that the contractor is being supervised and is doing the job properly. Those are the types of key staff and core staff that we want to keep, and the other services can quite handily be done — and according to our information is more efficiently done — by the private sector. That's what happens. It's really not new.

I know there was a story leaked to the Vancouver Sun. It struck the Vancouver Sun by surprise that we were doing this type of thing. In fact, they had to admit later that we've had privatization in the parks systems since 1983 and it's quite a significant operation.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, it has been suggested to me that what is happening is not the same thing that's been happening since 1983 in the parks. The kind of contracting out there was a service contracting-out. Now what you've got are permittees who will have, as I understand, a permit for two years' operation of the park site. They will do that by bidding on a contract. I don't know what kinds of protection there are in that contract. At the end of two years, they will have the option to bid on another three years, which gives them five years to be permittees to operate this site in our parks. As I understand it, that is quite a different thing from contracting out services. Despite what we may think of contracting out services, this is a brand-new thing.

If you're surprised at the Vancouver Sun and that I, when I brought this issue up in this House, was surprised that you were thinking of privatization at the time that you were, and you said you hadn't made a decision, and then we discovered that the tenders were called back in April, that they will all be tendered out by the end of June and that in fact you expect a whole private system to be in order by the first of July, I have to ask you what kinds of protection there are for the users and for the owners of those campsites that there will be reasonable access to the parks and reasonable maintenance of the facilities. I understand that the ministry is building more and better campground facilities. They are installing showers and those kinds of things at various campgrounds before they hand them out to the permittees.

Perhaps the minister could be a little more clear as to what the value is in this for the campers and for the owners of the resource?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take a bit of time here and we will also send the member a sample contract, because she makes a good point. Here are the principles that are adopted by the parks branch and have been adopted by me and that will be the principles we will apply for this type of privatization. They will be adhered to quite stringently because the parks are not going to be sold. The owners of the parks are the people of British Columbia, and we have a responsibility to that shareholder. I will read you the 12 principles that we did adopt, because they are significant and I think will maybe allay a lot of fears.

"Provincial parks are designated and managed to preserve particular places of natural beauty and historical value which are of lasting importance to the province of British Columbia for the inspiration, recreational use and enjoyment of the public.

"B.C. Parks, under the authority of the Park Act and the minister, is the agency responsible for the management of all matters concerning the park system.

"Preservation of park heritage values is the ultimate management priority, and in the event of a conflict those values take precedence over the provision of recreational development and services."

Heritage values — to repeat — take precedence over recreational development and services.

"The private sector may be invited to provide facilities and goods and services in provincial parks for public recreational use and enjoyment. If, in the opinion of the minister, such private sector involvement results in the maintenance or enhancement of desirable recreational opportunities in terms of quality, quantity or cost-effectiveness, such invitations will be given appropriate public visibility and distribution.

"All members of society have a right to free and reasonable access to provincial park lands.

"Commercial operators within provincial parks will not impair the public's right of free access to and within such parks, except as may be reasonably required for proper conduct of their business,

"All developments within a provincial park must be consistent with the approved objectives for that park.

"Park land and resources will not be sold.

"The province will prescribe and control standardized campground and other park user fees. Fees for additional services offered under permit — example, boat rentals — will be submitted to the province for approval,

"The employer will fulfill the obligations it has with its employees under the collective agreement. Where there are existing service agreements, B.C. Parks will offer contractors the opportunity to continue to provide those services in 1988.

"Letting of agreements for the operation of an entire park unit — that is, the whole park. entire campground or day-use area — will not convey to the operator any rights other than those specified in the public tender and subsequent permit.

"The approval method by which a private operator will liaise and report on all aspects of any agreement will be through the district manager responsible for the park in which the permittee is authorized to operate."

[ Page 4670 ]

Those are our 12 principles, and we will be adhering to them.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister see any possible conflict between the reasonable exercise of his business...? I'm not sure if that's exactly how it's put. In other words, no person shall have his access limited except for the reasonable operation of the business. It seems to me that there is a danger there. Is there any more definition of that? Does the minister have any expectation that there might be a problem with an operator saying it's going to cost this much to run this park, which really pampers a particular income level, for example?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. What we mean by that is that because the public owns the park, the public must have right of free access. However, it will be reasonable if a campground operator is collecting fees for the campground part of that park to deny access to that part of the park where, in fact, we charge a fee. We charge a fee now for people to camp there, and the operator may want to have control over that area that they are responsible for and that they are earning a living from. That's what we call proper conduct of their business.

Overriding that is the principle that all the public has the right of free access. You could, I guess, to take this to its logical conclusion, drive to a campsite with your car and say: "Listen, the minister has said I have free public access to all of the park, which includes this spot right here, and I am not moving." The campground operator, that private contractor, would have the right — because that happens to be his business, that spot — to ask you to leave. He can't tell you to get out of any other part of the park. That's what we mean by that principle there. I think that's probably the best example I could think of.

[3:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I think it might be a case, particularly if you hit a back-country park — for example, the Elk Lakes in my area. If you drove up to the Elk Lakes Park and couldn't afford to camp in the campsite because the fees were so high, then you would virtually be denied access. What I am asking the minister is: how is he going to control the fees?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. It's a standard park fee throughout the province, on the schedule of $6, $8, $12 — whatever it is. The contractor can't vary them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. It's the standard fee schedule, depending on services provided. That's a standard regime.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to go to a different park problem that I've had brought to me by a constituent of one of your colleagues who has not yet had an adequate answer. It deals with the privatization of Cypress Provincial Park.

This person wrote a letter to you. You may even have answered it; I believe you did. Have you not yet answered his questions? His questions are: he understands that you have leased the commercially useful part of the park for $500,000 on a 50-year lease. I don't know if those figures are correct, but I believe they are. If they are wrong, would you please tell me? He says that the operator then returned to public use a small toboggan area, and for that the provincial government took on the responsibility of clearing two parking lots. It didn't really decide to do the clearing itself, but it would pay the operator to do the clearing of two parking lots in exchange for the fact that this toboggan run had become again open to the use of the public.

What I'm also told is that there is an exorbitant amount of money that the provincial government allows that operator for clearing the lots. There is also the question of whether they do or not, but I would like the minister to respond. The amount, I am told, is $157,000 a year; it's tied to inflation and it could go up. That's a considerable amount more than the private operator is even paying the province to have the whole part of the park that he operates with the cross-country ski runs and everything like that.

My question to the minister is: is this another of the possible ways that privatization is going to operate, with the operator paying $500,000 over ten years and then getting $157,000, more or less, per year to clear two parking lots? And we'll argue about whether he does that or not later.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the proposal that we are undertaking now is... By the way, the member's figures are correct, but the proposal that I am undertaking and the regime that we have for privatization in allowing the permittees to proceed under the principles that I read earlier will not be the same as this. We will not follow that model that was put into place some time ago, in 1984 — a different minister, a different administration. Our program will have very little bearing on this.

MS. EDWARDS: Will you then be able to correct this situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, we've got a contract for 50 years.

MS. EDWARDS: Are you suggesting that.... All right, the operator can operate for 50 years, but there is nothing that the province can do except continue to pay at a rate of six figures for cleaning parking lots in the winter, and that will go on as well as the lease?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We used to pay $419,000 a year for the operation and we are paying less now. The other thing that we have seen, because of investment and the increase in activity, is that the value of improvements is now $2 million, which still belong to us. The permit belongs to the people of British Columbia. The permittee is going to be operating it for another 46 years, but nevertheless we have seen a remarkable increase in the dollar value of our provincial asset and the revenues stemming from this have more than tripled, from half a million to $1.8 million. It has caused an awful lot of very good economic activity, and by and large, as I examined the information sheet here from 1984, it looks like a reasonably good contract.

It's really after the fact now. It's not our current style of privatization, because we are just talking about permittee service contractors, as opposed to something like this, which is far larger and, of course, is a far longer permit too.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure what you mean by revenue. I assume you mean that the operator's revenue has

[ Page 4671 ]

increased, that it is three times larger than what the province's revenue used to be. I don't know what revenue now comes to the province. I assume you take some tax off, and I don't know whether you meant that had increased or not, but the suggestion is that the brochure for the area, when this gentleman was there, had advertised 26 kilometres of daily groomed-and-packed ski runs. About half of them were abandoned and in poor condition, and he didn't see any first aid or safety patrols. What kind of monitoring do you do on this operation? Are there other operations in the province that were done at the same time in the same way that this contract was done? What monitoring do you do, and who decides that it's doing fine?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mount Seymour and Manning Park were also done at the same time as Cypress. We do some monitoring, and Transportation and Highways does the monitoring when it gets to ski lifts and that type of mechanism.

MS. EDWARDS: It's odd to me, Mr. Minister, that if you do the monitoring, and if in fact this kind of condition occurs.... There must be something in a contract that says that the owner, one of the contractors, has something to say about the way the operation is carried out. If there are runs that are in bad condition.... What if there are no first aid stations, no safety patrols? The problem here is: what in the world has the government got for its issue, and how can the government condone an operation that does this and continue to contract?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to get current on this. The member is raising some concerns with respect to a park that was privatized in 1984, four years ago. Her concerns may be valid or not valid. But we are discussing the estimates of 1988-89 and the current administration — my administration — a far different cabinet, a different Premier, a different method of doing things. So I find it difficult to answer, although I'll try and get more information about Manning if the member requires it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

In terms of dealing with my privatization initiative — the one I feel I should be responsible to this committee for — I want to give the committee the following answer with respect to our current plans. I think they'll agree that this is a far better and more responsible regime in terms of privatization. This is a proposal that is going to people who wish to be permittees:

"The province will retain ownership of the land and facilities which will ensure that the type and quality of camping opportunities expected in the campgrounds by the public are maintained."

Don't forget, we're only discussing campgrounds in my initiatives.

"Provision of services such as grocery stores, laundromats, fast food, video arcades, rental of ATVs and trail bikes will not be allowed."

We give a list of what you can't do:

"The rental of canoes, boats, mountain bikes, auto camping units, horseback riding, horseshoe pits, volleyballs, badminton equipment and the sale of fishing equipment are services which may be allowed. Each agreement will clearly specify those activities which are or are not appropriate. This arrangement will allow the operator to apply his business expertise to improve campground use and the efficiency of his campground operation."

Here's the important thing. I think the member will take some comfort from this, and the public as well:

"The terms of the agreements will be mainly for two years, with a renewal option for a further three years, providing satisfactory performance. Initially a few permits may have one-year terms. These terms likely will preclude any interest by an operator to fund major improvements. The longer-term strategy will be to work toward terms of five years or" —maybe — "greater."

So we are not entering into any long-term initiatives such as Manning. We're ensuring that we are maintaining very tight control over the operation, the length of the lease and all operations that happen within that campground. Don't forget that this is only a campground permittee situation; it's not a larger park operation such as we experienced at Cypress.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether you did the 1984 contract; the question is how the ministry monitors contracts. That particular experience seems to indicate that monitoring a private contract hasn't worked very well. That's why I want an answer from the minister as to how he is going to monitor these contracts. How is he going to monitor these contracts on the basis that he's going to have 69 fewer people working in the parks branch trying to monitor all of these very busy campgrounds, when in fact he says that already, before this year, 158 of 212 are already privatized? Do you have the manpower, and where do you have it written into the contract to do monitoring that is going to be sufficient and efficient?

MR. SIHOTA: Table the contract.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually, if you had been here earlier, Mr. Member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, you would have been advised that the member will have a copy of a contract. You can't table in committee.

In terms of the staff, the 69 I mentioned were in fact auxiliaries. These are the people who were doing the services that are now going to be done by the private sector.

As for management supervision, all those staff will be there and will remain there. They are very competent park administrators, and I have no problem at all that they will do a good job of managing and looking after the concerns of the public of British Columbia and also regulating and ensuring that the permittees are doing the job they are supposed to.

[4:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, may I conclude by expressing my extreme regret that this whole process seems to have gone rolling into operation after the season has started. We are already into the season of camping. We don't have any supervision for the first major weekend in the year, and then we're going ahead. Now we're going to have an honour system and so on. I am upset by this way of doing it. I hope that there will be some major monitoring. I sincerely hope that this high-quality and highly regarded and renowned camping and park system in British Columbia .... When you talk about extending the parks but not the manpower or anything like that, I think there is a major danger there. I am

[ Page 4672 ]

one of these helpful people who think you should have more people.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are a few things I wanted to touch on in general about wilderness and park designation in the province. Many of us expressed concern during the debate on Bill 18 and the changing of the category of designated funds that this minister is responsible for. I'd like to read into the record a couple of comments and ask the minister to provide more information.

During the debate on Bill 18 the minister suggested that he would be pleased to talk about his plans for conservation in the province and the money that he would have available to him. The federal Environment minister has recently stated that we're living on borrowed time, that deforestation caused by logging, farming, ranching and mining is expected to eradicate one million species of flora and fauna by the end of the twentieth century. Dr. David Suzuki has predicted that the rate of habitat destruction and species extinction throughout the world is so rapid that all wilderness will probably vanish within the next 30 years.

We have a very serious situation, and it's predicted by most experts that now is the time to do something about it. The provincial government's own committee, the Wilderness Advisory Committee, made recommendations to government. The committee's main recommendations were to establish a permanent advisory council and to have wilderness conservation legislation. There are several areas that need to be dealt with in this province, and what we have seen through the legislation that the House just dealt with is that the minister no longer has the designated amounts to do that.

Can the minister advise us what his plans are for wilderness conservation, if he intends to bring in legislation dealing with wilderness conservation, and whether he will embark upon an intensive study, an open system of planning, that will deal with these policy needs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the first place, you shouldn't ever quote Dr. Suzuki as an environmentalist, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He is a first-class geneticist. If you want an environmental opinion in British Columbia, talk to Ian McTaggart-Cowan. He is an eminent zoologist, an eminent environmentalist and an authority.

Suzuki told us that the Steller's jay was going to be extinct. He had other gems. He talked about the bears on Lyell Island. There are no bears on Lyell Island; there never have been. There was a Suzuki bear but not a Lyell Island bear. If you want to quote authorities, I would suggest you quote real ones. I'd recommend Ian McTaggart-Cowan, who is chairman of the habitat conservation fund, if you want to quote an authority in British Columbia, someone who knows something about the environment.

The permanent council is a good suggestion and one that WAC recommended. I don't have any problem with that, and we probably will be doing something soon. There's also the Premier's round table on the environment, and that's another appropriate body. As you know, I've used a lot of committees since I've been minister. There was the Shelford committee on falcons, and we have the Larkin committee at this point, and river-rafting. I think that type of small committee of experts, either short-term or long-term, is a really good idea. The habitat conservation fund, which I just talked about — that committee, under the stewardship of Ian McTaggart-Cowan, works extremely well and gives us good advice. I enjoy working with these various groups. I think it's appropriate. They give you good expertise and good advice. They're on the ground, they know what they're talking about, and they provide real information. So I don't have any problem, Madam Member, with your concerns.

With respect to discussing Bill 18, which is actually a bit out of order, because it's a bill that's already been passed this session, I presume you're concerned about the habitat conservation fund or the Crown land account. I don't have any problems with either of them. Bill 18 was just a reorganization of a payment process, suggested, I'm led to believe, by the auditor-general and other bean-counters who insist that we do things their way. That's why we have this bill in place. It doesn't really change the intent of the Crown land account. It doesn't change at all the intent, direction or purpose of the habitat conservation fund. I really have no concern with that bill. It's being served well. I have an order-in-council going through right now, of some substance, to do with the Crown land account, and you'll be hearing about that when it's finally through the cabinet process. The money is there, and I'm using it for appropriate purposes in this ministry. I don't know what else I can say about Bill 18, except that it really has had no bearing upon the management practices of the Ministry of Environment.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Beyond slandering a citizen of this province, I would assume, and you have said, that you agree with the basic substance of my comments. My question to you, then, is why you are maintaining your position of implementing the Wilderness Advisory Committee by the year 2011. You have said that when you have implemented all of the advisory committee recommendations, 6 percent of B.C. will be in parks, and all of the implementation will be completed by the year 2011. Can the minister indicate to this House why he would be turning back money from the Crown land account, rather than using it to preserve wilderness and establish parks in this province, even minimally to the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee?

The minister brags about the amount of land designated park in the province. However, by comparison with some other jurisdictions, we are not doing that well. Ontario, for instance, has 7 percent. They have a much denser population, they don't have the wilderness available to them, and yet they have a larger percentage of their province designated as park. Alaska - now there's a wilderness state, a state that has a very small population base. They have 25 percent of their land base in parks. Kenya, 17 percent. Indonesia, 9 percent. Six percent is a pretty small number. Why are you turning back money from the Crown land account rather than preserving wilderness in this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, the debate about the Crown land account and Bill 18 is out of order,

Secondly, we are not turning back money. The Crown land account is healthy and is doing very well.

Thirdly, you're referring to striking the balance. We say there — you can read, I presume — not that we will have a park system of 6 percent but that we envisage a system of acreage that is 6 percent of British Columbia. Now before you go trotting out Ontario numbers, you've got to be advised that Ontario also calculates the federal parks in that number of 6 or 7 percent; so does Alaska. So you're going to have to learn how to separate the apples from the oranges and the

[ Page 4673 ]

federal parks from the provincial parks. If we included the federal parks in our B.C. system, we'd have a greater system.

Also, I'm not particularly impressed with 6 percent numbers about land. We could have 20 percent of the province dedicated to wilderness, if you took all the mountaintops between here and the Chilcotin flats; most of the parks would be vertical. That may make you feel warm and cuddly because you've got a number that's 20 percent instead of 6 percent, but it doesn't do a bit for the park system. Numbers are really hollow; they mean nothing. It's not the quantity of the park that you want to be interested in, Madam Member, it's the quality. Get that quality — that's what we seek.

There are a lot of good, dedicated people in the park system who are working towards that every day. They have a mandate. They have a policy. They have good plans in place. They have the funding from the Crown land account. They have funding from our ministerial budget. The parks branch budget, you'll notice, this year is up from $30 million to $32 million, and they're doing a first-class job.

Don't trot out any misinterpretation you have or your caucus has given you about Bill 18. Don't tell me about Ontario numbers or Alaska numbers, which include the federal parks. And try, for goodness' sake, to get your facts right.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's nice to see that the good old Minister of Environment and Parks is back. I was getting a little concerned; he was becoming a little too agreeable.

I'd like to talk to the minister about this quality parks system he talks about, which has undergone a severe attack by this minister and this government in the past year — the very parks system that we've had to have citizens stand and be arrested to protect. Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about what we know, and let's talk about the real Minister of Environment and Parks.

The Minister of Environment and Parks has now got a commission of inquiry in Strathcona. He has a commission which he has, by the terms of reference, restricted in its ability to deal with the very immediate needs of the people of this province. By the terms of reference, the committee is unable to deal with native land claims. By the terms of reference, that committee is unable to deal with acid mine leachate — a very important issue for Strathcona. By the terms of reference, this committee is unable to deal with the implications on other parks. It is dealing specifically with a very narrow, small area, and yet the decisions this committee makes will have broad implications for the province.

You have been requested and have systematically denied requests from people around this province for that committee to have hearings in other parks and other communities in this province to give the citizens a chance to have some say in what goes on in their parks. You have a commission that, while you have been reluctant to put it in place, does not deal with the very needs of the people who have been standing in protection of that park.

I think it's important for that to get on the public record. You have constantly denied the reality that there is a legal opinion — both from Justice Southin and the legal firm of McAlpine and Hordo — that says you do not have to compensate the claims in Strathcona Park and that the Tener case does not apply to this particular decision. You have publicly stated that you got bad legal advice. So what are you doing? Why have you not moved to deal with these claims in question? Why have you appointed as the chairman of the commission a gentleman who has publicly stated that he is in favour of allowing mining in Strathcona Park? Is this an unbiased Chair?

[4:15]

The minister wants to talk about the facts. Mr. Minister, not only will you stand on your record come election time, but the people of this province may very well not tolerate you eroding their parks and putting out, with taxpayers' money, the blatant propaganda that has been circulated prior to the commission hearing. I'd like to ask the minister how much taxpayers' money went into the publication of the Strathcona newspaper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, well, have we got a litany here!

Let's begin with the whole issue of the Strathcona hearing and the hearing process. The decision to follow the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Committee was made early in January 1987. With one exception, the decisions were followed through and met with good public reaction. In March, I became minister. I'm not apologizing for the remarks, comments or decisions of another minister, because I was in cabinet in January when that decision about the Wilderness Advisory Committee was made. We did follow through on those.

Strathcona became a problem, and I indicated two days ago....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just let me finish. Strathcona became a problem, and I indicated a couple of days ago why the public were upset. I admitted that. Looking at the 77-year history of Strathcona, there is no question that the residents of Vancouver Island and the lower mainland who enjoy Strathcona were upset about the variety of uses that Strathcona had been put to, the way it had been ripped up by successive governments over the years, with bits of land taken out for forestry purposes, mining claims allowed to go ahead — a variety of things that happened to Strathcona. It wasn't very nice at all.

I met with the Friends of Strathcona successively. Every time they wanted to meet with me, they met with me. I did permit five test holes to be drilled in a recreation area that had been burned out and was not pristine environment. It had been burned, logged and mined and the roads were through it. That's how they got there, on our mining road. It was not pristine at all. Those are the only five permits I allowed. A whole bunch of other permit applications came to me which I denied.

If you want the background, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) can tell you, because he is aware of what has happened and what my record is. Don't try to tell the committee what you know about Strathcona and the process, because what you're saying is not correct. Talk to the member for North Island and he will tell you how the process went.

In any event, we get to the Friends of Strathcona, we get to some civil disobedience, and they said: "The WAC committee made a report; recommendation number 4 said that there should be a further public review of the boundaries of Strathcona." I said, "You're absolutely right; let's do that," and I put that in place. I used one of the members of that committee, Dr. Peter Larkin, who has never said he

[ Page 4674 ]

favours mining — not to my knowledge and not to your knowledge, I am sure, as well....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think you will have trouble proving that.

We used Dr. Peter Larkin, one of the members of the WAC committee, to chair the meeting, along with a native Indian fellow from Campbell River, a concerned housewife from Courtenay or Comox — I forget the exact place — and Jim Rutter of the federation of mountain climbers, who has, I think, climbed and guided hiking tours in the area for nine or ten years and knows Strathcona as well as anyone does, on that committee. I don't think I could have picked a better, more well-balanced committee, and they are in place now doing their thing.

You mentioned they don't have the right to decide native land claims. I'm sorry, they don't. I'm looking at boundary issues, and I know I've heard that complaint. No, I don't have the authority, and there isn't a member in our cabinet that has the authority, to instruct any committee to decide on native land claims. It's been our position, and it was the position of your government when you were government — your administration — that land claims was not a provincial matter.

Acid mine drainage is covered under the mine development review process — we've discussed that at some length — and the Friends of Strathcona know that. If they say, "We don't know about acid mine drainage," they are not being forthright with you, because I discussed it at some length with them and they have the process and the procedure manuals on the mine development review committee and they are well aware of what it's all about. Don't let Bruce Wood or anybody else fib to you, because he has had that information in his hot little hands for three or four months now on how that process works.

For those guys to tell you that they don't know, that they can't discuss acid mine drainage, or they don't know the process that the government has in place and therefore these hearings are not appropriate, is leading you down the garden path, Madam Member. I hate to tell you this, but get your facts right and you will understand how this works.

In terms of other parks and what the Larkin committee can look at, they were given the mandate, as WAC had recommended, that Strathcona boundaries be further reviewed before anything else is put in place, and that's what they are doing. Also, we have asked them to give us recommendations for park policy other than Strathcona, and they will do that. That's clear in their mandate and that's published, so don't try to tell me that it's not there,

The notion of legal opinion: you're right, there is legal opinion all over the province, and I am not totally convinced yet which is right. It is going to take a bevy of lawyers, legal opinions and probably some court cases before anyone in the province knows what the proper legal opinion is. We've had two court cases now. We've had Tener, and we've had one at Strathcona but it wasn't appealed. It could be appealed, and that could set up a new format in law. So I agree; I don't know, you don't know, there is no one in this world who knows what the final law is going to be in terms of mining claims — whether they're pre-park, whether they're post-Park Act, whether they are Crown-granted or otherwise. It's a legal opinion that's all over the block and no one knows at this point, so don't try to hang me on that one because it's absolutely incorrect.

With respect to public process, we've had very good public process throughout the province in terms of establishing a park. One of the best ones happened in my area in the formation of Tweedsmuir — a very good draft master plan, public hearings in Bella Coola, Burns Lake, you name it, all over the place, to good avail. We finally, after good public input, arrived at a park plan for Tweedsmuir. It was very good and successful, well-handled and well-managed. So we've had lots of successes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd hate to accuse the minister of having a skewed hearing. I would bring to the minister's attention the Blues. Perhaps if you reviewed the Blues you would more clearly understand what my questions and comments to you were. Quite frankly, your answers were inappropriate. Never mind getting your facts right; you can't listen right.

The reality of your record and your attempt to manipulate history, Mr. Minister, is that you had some 69 people — citizens, taxpayers of this province — having to get themselves arrested before your ministry listened to them and put in place this commission. This group of people volunteered their time, their money and their energy to try to get this government to listen to them, to try to get this government to fulfil its promise of consultation, public hearings, reviews.

Every time the Friends of Strathcona Park asked this government.... Mr. Minister, at a time when you were Minister of Environment they came to you and asked you for a public hearing. It wasn't until they got the kind of publicity that they got by being arrested that you all of a sudden saw the wisdom of setting up a commission, which did not deal with the issues that they asked you to deal with.

Mr. Minister, if you are truly concerned about what the people in the Strathcona community have to say, what their concerns are, then read the Blues and answer the questions that I put to you.

I believe there are members here who want to ask further questions on parks. Then I hope to sum up the estimates, dealing with water quality and water quality in the free trade agreement,

MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise a couple of issues that are specific to my part of the world, in terms of the riding I represent. However, I wasn't in the House when the minister was making his comments about Botanical Beach; certainly if he had some comments I will respond to them.

I will put on the record, quite frankly, that I do appreciate the efforts the minister made in this regard. I said that to him privately in this chamber when I walked over and congratulated him for the work on that issue. If I recollect — I don't have it here — the column properly, I think that the opening line dealt with the fact that I or an opposition member went over and applauded the minister for doing it. I'm certainly grateful for the work of the ministry's officials in this regard, because I talked to them on a number of occasions. I think it was Derek Thompson,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Twice.

MR. SIHOTA: It was more than that — certainly to the contracting company in Parksville. I can't remember Nick's last name, but it was Nick somebody, or "A" Team Logging.

It was a much-welcomed decision in my riding, and that's appreciated. It was raised last year with the minister in the

[ Page 4675 ]

House during estimates debate. The minister made some commitments at the time, and I'm pleased with the outcome. I have no hesitation in saying, as I did in the article, that the ministry ought to be congratulated for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: And he'll take credit in his mailing.

MR. SIHOTA: Certainly there was stuff that I did on that as well. I think that's taken for granted.

MR. WILLIAMS: That will be mailed out to every constituent.

MR. SIHOTA: That will be mailed out to Prince George for the benefit of the minister.

I wanted to raise another issue that's a little bit further down the road from Botanical Beach: the matter of the Sitka spruce trees, which, of course, have been of some concern and some note. I'm told that there are 300 to 400 acres of trees in that area. They are of a national quality; we haven't really seen that type of growth elsewhere in the country. The trees are up to 81 metres tall and about four metres in diameter. I read with some interest the report from the Sierra Club with respect to the Carmanah Creek drainage area. I must say that I concur in what the Sierra Club has to say with respect to the preservation of the area as some type of park.

I understand what's happened to date. I understand that Mac-Blo had built a road in the area and discovered this quite fine stand of trees. At that time they did the proper thing — and they ought to be congratulated for this as well — in terms of alerting the authorities and expressing their interest in preserving this type of stand. My understanding of the story ends there.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister could bring us up to date on negotiations between the province and Mac-Blo with respect to preserving that stand of trees. Where are we now, Mr. Minister, in that regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because it is adjacent to Pacific Rim, the feds have been doing the negotiating at this point with Mac-Blo. Mac-Blo, by the way, did go in, as the member said, Mr. Chairman, and then stopped the road when they came across these significant Sitka. The federal government is negotiating with Mac-Blo. It's fee simple land, as I understand it, and the Ministry of Environment and Parks is standing by to assist in any way we can. So far the negotiations are continuing between the federal government and Mac-Blo, so we will leave it at that unless there is something else we can assist in.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I understand the minister to say that the province is not a party to negotiations right now. I take it from what the minister had to say that the province, if necessary, will become a party to negotiations in the future. I see the minister nodding to confirm that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If you're asked. I take it that the province would be willing to contribute financially to some kind of deal, because I'm sure that what happens in these situations is that the owner of the lands in fee simple will immediately assert that the value of those lands and of the resources are considerable and there has to be a financial deal struck. Will the minister advise as to whether the province is open to contributing financially on this matter?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Boy, that's way down the line and that's hypothetical. It would be difficult and I don't think appropriate for me to stand here and commit financial resources. Also, the policy of the federal government is that they want to purchase and they want to own, and they have the greater interest for an expansion to their federal park. We'll see how they get along. We'll see if they want to buy it, because it is fee simple. Hopefully they will. We may be involved in some other way of helping the deal come together but, really, I can't make a comment with respect to a financial contribution. We have an interest; we want to see it preserved. I think it will come together well.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you sure that it's fee simple, not a licence or some old tenure?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess I stand to be corrected. I thought it was fee simple, but it could be Crown land. I don't have the information right now.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to turn quickly to another matter, Whiffin Spit, which is in Sooke Harbour. I have a letter here dated — sorry, it's undated, although I believe it was written around May 11 — from the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) with copies to me and the Minister of Environment and Parks. I don't know how familiar the minister is with the area, but Whiffin Spit is a spit of land that extends around and provides shelter to Sooke Harbour. The spit has been eroding such that there is now a gash in the spit and water coming over the top, and the view in the community is that the spit ought to be fixed. I know that our regional director has been moving in that regard, as well as the Member of Parliament for the area. I'm just wondering once again if the ministry is prepared to assist financially with respect to remedying the breach in the spit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish I were better informed. Actually, I should be better informed, because Frank Mitchell used to talk about this year after year, and I used to sit in the chair there — I used to be Deputy Speaker — but I always fell asleep when Frank Mitchell spoke, and I don't recall.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At least I was here, guys. You guys used to leave.

In any event, I don't think we would participate in that type of repair. As a matter of fact, I know we wouldn't. But I thank the member for bringing it to my concern. If I have any more information, I will provide you with whatever I can on the subject.

MR. SIHOTA: That's fair enough, because I know that the principal discussions have occurred with the Ministry of Forests and Lands, although there has been some interministerial discussions, and obviously with letters being sent to yourself that would be the case. I will tell Frank about what you had to say about him.

[ Page 4676 ]

The third issue that I wanted to canvass quickly, in relation to my riding, is one that requires a little more detail. It deals with waste management and permits issued by the Ministry of Environment. It deals with an asphalt plant located in the Western Communities. The owners of the asphalt plant have made an application to relocate the plant in the Highlands area of the Capital Regional District adjacent to Langford.

The Capital Regional District is really a bit at fault on this matter. The property had been zoned to allow for the location of an asphalt plant. The current owner bought the property on the basis of that zoning, expecting to relocate the asphalt plant onto this property in the Highlands. After the property was bought, it turned out that there had been a restrictive covenant on the property, limiting the use of it to, of all things, speed tracks for cars.

The Capital Regional District had erred in the legal description of the restrictive covenant, so it covered about three-quarters of the property but not a quarter of the property. When the individual who bought the property for some $400,000 wanted to put his asphalt plant on it, he became aware afterwards of the restrictive covenant, and the CRD chose, for legal reasons, because of liability, obviously, to allow the asphalt plant to go, in the sense that they would retain the M2 zoning which would allow it for industrial use. This, of course, exposes the CRD to legal action on the other side from the adjacent property owners who feel that they, who bought their property knowing of the restrictive covenant, will now be injured by the location of an asphalt plant.

The only hurdle that remains now for the owner of the asphalt plant is the acquisition of a permit from waste management of the Ministry of Environment. That's fair enough, and at this time I'm not going to stand up and say that the permit ought to be denied and get after the minister to deny that permit. That may or may not happen in the future. However, there are a lot of people living in the area, who are concerned about the location of the asphalt plant at that site. The Ministry of Environment, waste management branch, has been inundated with representations, letters, petitions and so on from residents wanting to make submissions on the location of this asphalt plant.

It's my understanding that the ministry has not acquiesced to calls for a public hearing process, arguing in large measure that this is really a minor issue not worthy of a public hearing and that there's some discretion vested in the regional director, who has the authority to decide one way or the other whether public hearings should be held.

Apart from the letters sent, it seems to me that a salient consideration ought to be the past record of the company involved with respect to its honouring of municipal bylaws, and more importantly from the context of the ministry, of Ministry of Environment directives. I think it's fair to say that its record has been terrible, so bad that this same company has maintained for 26 years a similar type of facility on agricultural land in Saanich, knowing all along that they couldn't do it. It was only this week, by way of court action, that they were removed from the area.

If the individual makes an application, it's my understanding — I stand to be corrected on this — that the owners have 21 days to appeal. But adjacent property owners are not given notice of the application, and hence, 21 days go by fairly quickly and they only know of the granting of the permit once the asphalt plant is located on the property.

I have two questions to the minister: one, of course, dealing with the obvious matter of notice, and two, with the matter of a public hearing. Will the minister explain why no public hearings are contemplated on this matter? I should identify it a little better. It's an application by Capital City Asphalt to locate in the Highlands. Could he explain why the ministry has decided not to hold a public hearing in this regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wish I could be more helpful to you and your constituents with their concern. In this case, the Ministry of Environment is a technical permitting agency and doesn't really deal in land use or what goes. You could build an asphalt plant on the parliament building lawns if you got ownership and the right zoning. As long as your permit in terms of waste and what you're putting into the receiving environment meets our technical standards, then that process can go ahead.

In terms of the appeal, as you know, there is an appeal process — the Environmental Appeal Board — which will hear any concerns expressed by anybody with respect to any permit or any action, actually, taken by the Ministry of Environment. So when the waste management permit for this asphalt operator to operate is issued, that can be appealed. But really, I can't give you any comfort with respect to zoning; that's not our business. We look at the technical side of what the permittee is putting into the receiving environment, not at where the receiving environment is located.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm obviously not asking the minister to intervene in a zoning matter; that's clearly not within his jurisdiction. There may well be questions as to whether or not the proposal here meets the technical requirements. The ministry may think that it does, but there are others in the community who may think that it doesn't meet the technical requirements. It would seem appropriate to me that those residents or those experts ought to have the opportunity to make representations at some type of public forum. Right now that's being denied. That's why I'm asking the minister to direct his people that there ought to be a public hearing.

On the matter of the permit, as I understand it, it is certainly applied for. No notice is given to the residents that the permit has been applied for, so their time to appeal also passes. In this case the concern is legitimate, because we've got existing air quality problems in the area already because there is an oil processing plant at that site. So if you put an asphalt plant in, it's going to cause some air quality problems, and I think there are some technical considerations around that issue as well.

So no, I'm not concerned about zoning, but I'm concerned about a public hearing process to deal with the technical issue of whether or not that permit should be issued. As I understand it, that is not being provided at this stage by the ministry, and I'm at a loss to understand why. I'd like some assurance from the minister that that will occur or that he will take it up with his officials and get back to me.

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has indicated to me that the permit has not yet been issued — is that correct?

MR. SIHOTA: That's correct.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now the public is well aware of the concern and is aware that we may or may not be issuing a permit. I don't make that decision; engineers do. But when

[ Page 4677 ]

and if a permit is issued, your community has 21 days to come to the Environmental Appeal Board and register its position as an appellant and have a technical hearing on the applicant's process. So I think the public is well protected, and I will certainly have that clarified in writing to you if you have any concern about the appeal process. But the permit has to be issued first; otherwise there's nothing to appeal.

MR. SIHOTA: Then they appeal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then they appeal.

MR. SIHOTA: But are they notified?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they are; it's a public notice. We'll ensure that when that permit is done, everybody and you are made aware of it.

I guess one other comment I'd like to make is that.... You talked about the fellow's previous record. That may be a major concern, but then again he may be relocating; he may be buying brand-new equipment that's state-of-the-art, and cleans and scrubs and does all sorts of good stuff. That would be adjudicated by technical people. So the past record, although it may be important to some people, may have no bearing on what his new performance is going to be.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to ask the minister about some issues of concern relating to aquaculture on the coast. It understand that there is presently a committee of ministers in which the Environment minister is participating, dealing with policy and regulations as they relate to aquaculture. I might bring up a couple of different areas in which the ministry has powers and can specifically affect the policy as it relates to aquaculture. The Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Environment Management Act are all pieces of legislation that are relevant to this discussion.

We are seeing at present — and have done for the last year or so — an incredible growth in the aquaculture industry, in particular the fin-fishery off the coast of B.C. That raises some concerns, given the fact that our neighbour to the south has seen fit to place a moratorium on the fin-fishery because of concerns they have and expertise they have developed in the aquaculture industry. I have some information that I'd like to provide the minister, and then will ask him to comment and to inform the committee as to the work his ministry has undertaken.

With regard to waste management, at this point I don't believe there have been any requirements for waste management permits for the aquaculture industry. That is of concern given the fact that the total amount of waste has been estimated to be .7 kilograms per kilo of fish produced. A fish farm producing 250 to 500 tonnes per year may therefore discharge 175 to 300 tonnes of solid waste annually.

To convert this into human terms, Prof. John Brookbank of the University of Florida estimates that five acres of fish pens is the equivalent to the sewage from about 4,000 people. We wouldn't for a moment consider not requiring some kind of waste management permits when we're talking about that kind of waste production for any other industry or, for that matter, human settlement. I am particularly interested in any work the ministry is doing with regards to waste management and the control of that problem.

In addition to that, there's a concern of the implications of growth of pathogenetic population as it relates to the nutrients around the pens and the concern over the spread of disease and the control of toxins around fish farms.

Given the fact that the majority of fish farms that have been cited here in B.C. have connections to the Norwegian fish-farm industry, we look at both the regulations that Norway has put in place and some of the initiatives that they have undertaken. The Norwegian government has established a gene bank, for instance.

I was particularly interested when visiting UVic to hear that they are now pushing for an area of bio-engineering because they have recognized that we have such a significant gene pool here in B.C. waters that they are now going to be doing experimentation to design the perfect fish farm. That puts at risk our gene pool. I would like to hear whether or not the minister has considered doing work in regards to the preservation of the existing gene pool.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can give the member some advice, a bit of it from my ministry and other advice that I've picked up along the way. A lot of your questions would have to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage).

First of all, with respect to waste management permits, we do have a concern and we have a position to take where we have the fish in a kind of a tank farm. There's been one of those that I recall permitting, and I think there's only one, because there was water in and a discharge out. You mentioned the sewage factor, and it was considerable. It was the same as a city with significant human population.

When it comes to just pens in the salt water, that's the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans or Environment Canada, and not our responsibility. Here's where I'll sort of wing some information for you because I've been to a couple of fish farms lately just out of interest.

They have found that the better the flushing action, tidal action, current action, whatever, the more success they're going to have in terms of a low mortality rate. A lot of them that were first built here in the early eighties, late seventies thought they would use protected waters without significant tides or currents, and they found out that they had a high mortality rate although they had a better pen life because of the lack of water action.

They've found out since they were better off to go to areas where they did have a lot of current, good tides, everything flushing through on a healthy and strong basis, and put up with the expense to their nets; they had a far lower mortality rate with the fish. They are just going to be getting their first crop off this fall, in terms of the active people who have stayed in business and haven't gone bankrupt or whatever, and then we'll have a better count of how successful they've been.

In terms of the gene pool, I think the jury is still totally out to lunch on that one. There's been some work with Maritime salmon, or Atlantic salmon as you know, and of course, a lot of work with Pacific stock. It's really a mystery area at this point, and I don't think we'll know for another ten years what the best species is.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm very disappointed to hear the minister say that he has very little to do with this. With the support of staff, I have done fairly extensive research into this area, and one of the things I have in front of me is the provincial aquaculture policy. Your government talks about

[ Page 4678 ]

the committee that you're a member of. Under the implementation it says: "by ensuring that environmental monitoring is undertaken to evaluate the impact of aquaculture activities on the environment and to ascertain the effect of discharges from other industries and human settlements on aquaculture production."

It goes on to talk about other aspects in which the ministry should be directly involved. We have an industry in its infant stages that is basically on the last frontier in this province. What we have is an opportunity not only to support an industry, but to make sure that it doesn't make many of the mistakes that frontier industries have made in this province in the past.

One of the reasons we are seeing such a massive investment here off our coast is because in Norway the fish farms had a massive kill a year ago. That was because of the problems they had with the aquaculture industry. We don't need a recurrence of that here. What we need to have is realistic regulations. We need to have the research and information put in place to be able to make decisions based on fact.

I saw the minister talking to his deputy; perhaps he has more information and can enlighten us as to what kind of work his ministry is doing. I have outlined the legislation he has in his control to deal with some of these problems. If he does not know, I would encourage the minister to do more than just go and tour a couple of fish farms.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you for your confidence. I'm glad you're suggesting to me that I should take more of a role. I'll talk to the Premier about that, because right now it's the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries who has the lead role in that resource.

We establish the standards for discharge, and that's our role. We sit on the committee peripherally, but it's up to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to monitor and manage aquaculture operations from a government point of view. Outside of that, I totally agree with everything you say.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The aquaculture steering committee — it is a complete mind-boggle to me that I have more information about this than you do — is a steering committee of your government. Member ministries include — and you are correct, the lead ministry is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries — Forests and Lands, Environment and Parks, Advanced Education and Job Training, Municipal Affairs, Finance and Corporate Relations, Economic Development and Tourism, Recreation and Culture.

The committee's terms of reference include information exchange, coordination of progress for the aquaculture industry, policy development and problem resolution. The purpose of this committee was to deal with the impact of the aquaculture industry, and both management and senior working levels of all the ministries listed are represented.

Mr. Minister, other jurisdictions have recognized this as an industry to be dealt with. All indications from this government to date indicate that they have holus-bolus opened the doors, invited in foreign money, given away our coastland with no protection for the environment, no support for the local communities and absolutely no information to base their decisions on. That is irresponsible, and I hope, when it comes time for our estimates next year, that your ministry has made more progress.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the member is absolutely right. I couldn't agree more.

The committee you've mentioned is essentially ELUC — all the same members. We set the water quality standards as the Ministry of Environment and Parks; that's our role on that committee. You'll have to address the rest of your questions such as gene-pool management to other ministers — the Minister of Forests and Lands when it comes to the foreshore leases and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries when it comes to the specific management. You've got some good questions there, and I'm sure those other people will be able to help you out.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Before I move away from this particular area, can I ask the minister to undertake to provide me with information specifically as it pertains to this committee and the work your ministry has undertaken. The minister says that his responsibility is water quality. I've seen nothing to indicate that your ministry has moved on that, or that you are using the legislation under your jurisdiction to deal with some of the significant problems. I would also indicate that there's a very serious need for research, and I would ask you to undertake providing me with information on any research projects that your ministry may be involved with.

[5:00]

MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. Listening to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, when she made a statement that she has all this information, that she knows so much more than the minister knows about it, I'd like to know how . . . . She made a statement that because of a fish kill in Norway just one year ago, the Norwegians came over here and put in fish farms. Do you know how long it takes to set up a fish farm and get production fish? A minimum of three years. This is the fastest fish farm I've ever seen. Maybe the member should also remember that we're not down there telling her how to run her chicken farms and cow farms, and we don't have pollution control on cow dung, so what is she doing telling us what fish have been doing for thousands of years in the ocean, that we're going to have some kind of collection sewer system for them?

The people who run these farms, who put their money up, their concerns are for the purity of that water. They depend on it; their fish depend on it. They don't make any money if it's polluted. I think the member should realize that there's more to this than what she's seeing. She doesn't live in the area. I have an area in my riding where these people depend on it. Not only the fish farmer, but the whole economy depends on it now. It's a good business. There are a lot of good people in it, and they're doing a good job. And the ministry is doing a good job, coming along with the regulations and things that make it right. I think she's a little unjust in what she's saying about the ministry at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: In your opinion.

MR. LONG: Not in my opinion; it's a fact. Go and tell these people working on it and all those young people getting the education and knowledge about fish farms. It's bringing money into the area for all those people to support their jobs. I think the member should realize that there is a lot to be considered. The environment is being considered, but also the jobs for the people already there. She should have a little more consideration for the people in my riding and for those who make their living at this business.

[ Page 4679 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to thank the member for his comments. I'm going to do a Minister of Environment and agree with you totally. My reference to a year ago is not correct, but I think that if you had listened, my concerns expressed to the minister were valid ones supported by the industry. I've been up to your riding, and I've talked to some of those people. While the industry is very concerned about the environment, what they want from this government is some support, some information and the ability to use that information to enhance the work they're doing. They realize that a safe, healthy environment is of the utmost importance to their industry. To do that, they need information. That's the role that this government, that the Ministry of Environment, can provide, by setting regulations based on good data, good information. I think we're talking about the same thing, Mr. Member.

I'd like to go on and talk about some issues of water quality before we finish the estimates for this year. First of all, Mr. Minister, the concern I have — and I think I expressed it in last year's estimates — has to do with the quality of drinking water and the protection of the groundwater resources that we have in this province. I was particularly interested and somewhat distressed to see a documentary out of the States talking about some of the significant problems they have with groundwater contamination due to toxic substances and some of the saline problems they have in some agricultural areas. Because of extensive irrigation, they are now in a situation of having significant saline contamination in the States.

I raise this because of the position we find ourselves in with the resource that we have in this province, a significant resource of fresh drinking water; that we will be increasingly called upon by the United States because they have so significantly jeopardized their water resources.

I'd like to talk about a couple of different issues and provide some information. First of all, the issue of groundwater: 38 percent of all municipalities rely either partly or totally on groundwater resources in the province; 87 percent of the water used for livestock is groundwater. I was really quite shocked to see numbers like this: a litre of gasoline can render one million liters of groundwater unfit for human use. Even in extensive clean-up, at least 50 percent of the leaked substances remain in the groundwater.

One of the things that I would like to call upon the minister to take a look at is something that the state of Oregon has undertaken just recently. They have just recently completed a comprehensive survey of groundwater. With that survey they found that over 30 percent of their groundwater had been contaminated with pesticides. This is very important information that I believe is needed for some management issues in this province, and I would ask the minister whether he has considered or would consider a comprehensive survey for B.C.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a comment on what our program is here in British Columbia. Within the water management branch we have a compilation group which takes information from approximately 2,500 wells a year, and this is obtained voluntarily from the B.C. Water Well Drilling Association. We store that system, and from that we have a pretty good mosaic and network of what the groundwater aquifers and the whole well network is throughout the province. From that we provide technical guidelines for use by well-drillers and water-supply authorities, and this helps us minimize the possibility of aquifer pollution or of a well being located too close to a source of pollution.

We are initiating and are always continuing to initiate and improve the groundwater-quality monitoring program in the more important areas where the possibility of groundwater contamination is of concern. I can tell you where that is, Madam Member. It's in the Fraser Valley area where we have heavy, intensive agriculture — not intensive agriculture in that sense, but heavy agriculture and a lot of use of pesticides. That's why we are getting into our agricultural training program now and why we are monitoring the use of pesticides so much.

We don't have a problem yet. I think we're well ahead of the other jurisdictions, only because they were before us and they were more intensive before us in terms of what they did, particularly in the agriculture industry. You've heard some concerns from Oregon. I've heard some concerns expressed from Ontario, particularly in the tobacco areas and the corn areas where they use high amounts of pesticides. They do have a problem there. They've been able to identify for us in British Columbia the problems that they have and probably the reasons they have them, and for that reason we are now able to act to ensure that we have the proper applicator-farmer training and to ensure that we have the best possible conditions in place.

By the way, Madam Member, that reminds me to give you a couple of answers that I took on notice before lunch. In terms of new regulations for toxic chemicals: parathion — you asked about that — will be under category 2, which requires training and certification by the applicator, and this chemical is only sold to those who can verify that they have completed the required training. Aldicarb will be under category 1. It is not authorized for general use. Applicators must have specific permits, and it is only usually for greenhouse use and occasionally potatoes. I realize those answers are from before lunch, but there they are. These regulations become effective June 15 this year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Those answers are very encouraging. I think that the minister should be congratulated on making that move.

On the issue we were discussing, groundwater, while the minister does have some programs in place to look at well water quality and such, there is no comprehensive study for overall protection and control of groundwater. Certainly there is no legislation. We've seen legislation brought down in California, I think within the past year, that deals with water quality and groundwater. It has taken significant steps to improve and control some of the problems of contamination at source. One of the major indicators of pollution is water. If you can get a handle on that data, if you can get a handle on groundwater and water contamination, you are steps ahead in being able to deal with significant pollution problems.

There are some examples of incidents that were provided to me by the Association of Professional Engineers. In Grand Forks and Cranbrook there were reports of leakage of gasoline from storage, contaminating local groundwater. These incidents were not thoroughly investigated, and there was no guarantee that all the gasoline had been removed and that the contamination would not occur again. Another example was at McLeese Lake, PCB-contaminated groundwater; and at Penticton leakage of highly toxic compounds, PCP and TCP, have occurred. No detailed study was carried out at McLeese Lake. A $400,000 study and clean-up program was carried

[ Page 4680 ]

out at the Penticton spill. It was understood that both spills were only detected by chance and not by a systematic monitoring program.

These are only very small examples, the kinds of examples that indicate the need for such a comprehensive study and ongoing monitoring. It's another tool. We've been talking throughout the estimates about tools that the ministry can put at its disposal to deal with some of the significant problems that the ministry must face when dealing with the environment.

In summary, I want to touch on the issue of water and free trade. There have been concerns raised to me, and I'd like to hear the minister's comments, as to the impact on our water resource in the province of the free trade deal. Presently we are in the situation of having permits let for the export of water resources from this province. We are soon to see a shipment to California, under just one private sector contractor, of 120 million tonnes, which is equal to the total water consumption of the city of Vancouver in the peak Expo year of 1986.

The concern that I have had raised to me.... I'm sure there will be other forums to deal with the free trade agreement and we can look at it at more length, but I'm hoping that the minister will be able to provide some information as to his ministry's involvement in the discussion about the water resource for this province and how the free trade deal is going to impact that.

[5:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to discuss the issue of water licences, they're all taken from creeks just before they go into the ocean, so they may appear to be large volumes of water, and they are, but nevertheless they were running out of the province anyway, essentially. We've decided to capture them and make some money from them.

With respect to your concern, any agreement already in place is in place and so free trade doesn't impact on that. Secondly, we have had as provincial policy the right to cancel any water licence at any time. The sale agreements are subject to that cancellation clause, so we always hold the upper hand.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A final question. During the last estimates the minister indicated that his ministry had very little, or nothing, to do with the issue of uranium. 1 think that it's important to ask the minister whether he has had any second thoughts and whether he has had some involvement in the last year, particularly in the Okanagan, in the Rock Creek area, where they have expressed significant concern not only about uranium mining but about their exposure to uranium due to other activities. Has the minister done any work over the past year? Has his ministry been involved in advising other ministries with regard to these people's concerns?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the Okanagan area from place to place there is uranium in the groundwater. It occurs naturally and we monitor it. That is essentially our involvement. The mineral mining activity would be regulated by the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Davis), with very tight control by the federal government as well. Our position is to monitor and inspect the groundwater. There's no question that in the Okanagan it's naturally occurring. It's the way God made the Okanagan, I guess, and our position is to monitor it for environmental purposes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister indicate how extensive that monitoring program is?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Medical health officers have new wells tested, and we take it from there.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $142,997,238 — approved.

Vote 36: Cariboo development region, $694,483 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call vote 67.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

On vote 67: minister's office, $280,361.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I had the opportunity to speak on the introduction of my estimates at an earlier time. Therefore, at this time if members opposite would have questions, I would be prepared to entertain them. Failing that, perhaps if the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is listening on his box, he will be more than welcome to come in and join in this debate, as I'm sure he has some remarks to make and it would be patently unfair of me and the members opposite to suggest that we allow my estimates to pass.

I see the member for Victoria has something to say. Of course, now this whole matter becomes somewhat redundant as we are able to welcome the critic for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways who will begin to deliberate.

MR. LOVICK: How exquisitely appropriate that my timing is at the last possible minute, given this is another chapter in estimatus interruptus. We do indeed seem to be having some problem in getting any time together to have this discussion. I'm glad that we're finally able to approach this important subject, and I know the minister is as well.

Let me begin by saying that I couldn't help but note in the minister's opening remarks that he began by saying that he was enjoying the job of Minister of Transportation and Highways. I want to say that in personal terms and in human terms I'm very delighted to hear that, because certainly I wish the minister well on those terms. In political terms, however, I'm not so sure, because I want to suggest that, though the minister may be enjoying his tenure as minister, I'm not sure that the great majority of employees in the ministry can make the same claim.

Indeed what I hear from numerous conversations, not just in the area of Victoria or in my own constituency of Nanaimo but from travels around the province, and also from letters and from phone calls and from plain brown envelopes that I receive, is a tremendous level of dissatisfaction, anguish and concern about the future that Highways department employees are feeling.

I'm certainly going to be talking about that as we proceed, Mr. Minister, but first I think what we ought to do is to establish, if I can put it this way, the ground rules, simply so we both understand how we can best and most effectively approach our time together during the estimates debate.

[ Page 4681 ]

1 want to suggest to the minister that I think it would be advisable and desirable for us to consider votes 67 to 70 as a single entity, even though I recognize there are a number of different things embraced in those particular votes, and that we allow ourselves some latitude in terms of moving from one thing to another. In other words, we aren't totally bound by the fact that even though we say we're going to spend some time on ferries on Tuesday, if we don't get everything covered and something else intervenes we might go back to it. I hope that's agreeable too; it seems to me a workable proposition.

I would suggest that we also treat vote 71 and the special First Citizens' Fund as a separate entity, distinct from Transportation and Highways, even though 1 recognize that vote 68 refers to the native affairs secretariat. I hope that we can divide this discussion into two main chunks, and I hope that's agreeable to the minister.

I intend to begin my comments with 67 to 70, namely the Transportation and Highways estimates, and I will also try to give some advance warning to the minister about the order of those things, simply so advisers and others can be brought in. I hope that, working on that kind of cooperative model, we can accomplish great things.

Let me start by offering a brief response to the minister's opening remarks in introducing his estimates by offering (1) some responses and (2) some questions and comments about them.

First of all, I note that we are talking about a total budget of some $731.3 million, which, as the minister acknowledges, is a reduction of 14.2 percent. That reduction, he explained to us, Mr. Chairman, is reflecting "some efficiencies and reductions in the work done by this ministry." It seems that we have come a long way indeed, because throughout the 1870s, I note, the government of the time spent some 45 percent of its resources on building and maintaining roads and bridges. Obviously nobody is going to suggest that we should return to that, but isn't it interesting, in a supposedly buoyant economy, that we are talking about a net reduction of some 14.2 percent?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

That may be quite legitimate; there may indeed be good grounds and absolute solid explanations and defences to account for that reduction in dollars. But I wonder just how convincing those arguments will be when presented to certain citizens in the province who have been waiting for a considerable period of time for improvements to their particular roads.

I think of people such as residents of Vancouver Island — my own turf, my own constituency among them — who have been hearing about a proposed Island Highway for a very long time and rather have had only, at the very best, most generously put, a token gesture towards that, by way of some $6 million apparently being devoted to further study. I think also of the people of Port Alberni, who have lived with Highway 4 for a very long time, clearly one of the most wretched transportation corridors in the province.

I note, by the way, that the residents of Port Alberni made common cause with a number of Island residents just a few weeks ago in a cavalcade down or up the Island — depending on your perspective — suggesting an authentic new route they want onward and upward. Of course, that's a wonderful idea, but I hope what won't happen is that the need to do something with Highway 4 gets lost in the shuffle.

As I say, I have some difficulty understanding that 14.2 percent reduction in aggregate and overall spending, given, as I say, the crying need for certain projects. I have a special difficulty with that, Mr. Chairman, because I note that the minister is wedded, apparently, to the concept of highway spending as a useful tool for economic development. I want to say to the minister that I was a bit surprised but also delighted to discover that he indeed embraces that concept. In fact, I know that in a recent interview with B.C. Politics and Policy, the Minister of Transportation and Highways sounds like a kind of latter-day Keynesian. He outlines a case for government spending that is what has traditionally been regarded as at least left of centre. I'm wondering if the minister in fact has decided that he is going to part company with the majority of his cabinet colleagues, or if indeed they're aware of what you've said, Mr. Minister. Because clearly, this isn't consistent with the sort of ideological crusade toward the primacy of the free market we keep hearing about over there.

Let me remind the House for you, Mr. Chairman, what the minister said. It's interesting to note. He begins by acknowledging that the biggest capital spender in terms of all the ministries is, of course, Highways. Quite correctly, in my view, he asks the question rhetorically: "Why not try and blend what we are trying to do in this ministry with the greater good of what our role should be in the provincial economy?" Marvellous stuff. And he goes on: "When the economy is buoyant and going at an accelerated pace, everyone is clamouring for roads — but people are clamouring for roads all the time." The minister always catches himself, of course. He then goes on to say: "On the other hand, when we go through a downturn —- and surely there will be another downturn — when we are looking to try and create some economic activity, highway construction certainly does that, as does bridge construction."

The last statement here is the one I really wanted to quote, Mr. Chairman: "It" — namely highway construction, government spending — "is a pretty effective way to get some money into the economy and get some money circulating." Excellent to hear that from a Social Credit minister. I would be watching closely my back and around me to both sides, Mr. Minister. You may be in trouble, given that heresy that has just been uttered here.

[5:30]

The obvious question surely is: if indeed it makes sense to use government spending as a tool, to do something about a depressed economy.... The minister, of course, puts this in classic economic terms, namely about downward cycles and the business cycle, at least implicitly. But if it makes sense to do that, doesn't it also make sense to do that in depressed areas? For example, is it not the case that — surprise, surprise — Port Alberni is a depressed area and has been a depressed area for at least seven or eight years? Wouldn't this be an ideal and marvellous time to get some money into that local economy by making Highway 4 a priority?

It seems to me that if the minister accepts the idea of a Keynesian model — and he certainly seems to and I have no doubt about his veracity or his sincerity in making these comments — then surely it logically follows, does it not, that he would be the first to go to his caucus colleagues and say: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have the technology. We have the means to do something for that community and to set forever to rest the notion that that community is being discriminated

[ Page 4682 ]

against because it votes the wrong way." It's an opportunity for you, Mr. Minister, it seems to me, to accomplish a number of good and necessary things.

Having made that brief comment, I now want to note in contrast to the overall reduction in budget...

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: ...unless the minister would care to respond at this point, because we don't have too much time remaining this afternoon. Mr. Minister, if you'd rather respond now, I'm certainly prepared to yield.

HON. MR. ROGERS: My experience of being a member of this House as a Committee of Supply Chairman would lead me to suggest that your suggestion about how we handle the votes is quite in order because virtually everything that can be handled under the minister's estimates can be handled under the vote of the minister. I appreciate your advising me of that in advance. I also appreciate the reason for wanting to keep issues involving the First Citizens' Fund as a separate item. We'll deal with that and that will assist me in having my staff present.

Your reflection back into the annals of history as to the percentage of funds spent on highways in the last century is interesting. In one of my previous portfolios I was responsible for the Ministry of Environment, whose estimates are just past, and I was taken to task by the groups that represent fishermen in this province, Fish and Wildlife, sports fishermen, in that in 1949 a total of 5 percent of the provincial budget was devoted not to the Ministry of Environment but just to Fish and Wildlife. It predates our expenditure on health care. In those days health was not a major consideration; at least it was certainly not a major public expense consideration. Certainly highways were up there with education in those days, although I haven't reflected on it. I doubt very much whether 5 percent of the provincial budget would be considered just for Fish and Wildlife ever again, although my friends at Fish and Wildlife would love to see it.

My suggestions, which you quoted from Mr. McMartin's publication, are true — except that you put a little interpretation on them —- in that I believe there are times when we have a global downturn and then a total provincial downturn. Then, of course, you talked about local pockets of depressed economy. I think back to a former Prime Minister who was convinced that giving money to youngsters to get some kind of experience would be a wonderful way to help them get the experience of learning to work. I think that Mr. Trudeau's experiments with opportunities for youth or the youth employment program, YEP — there were a number of acronyms for a bunch of programs — actually delayed the inevitable time when they were going to learn about the hard facts of life: not only getting and maintaining a job, but some responsibility about turning up on time. Many have, I think, had their inevitable reckoning with the reality of the workplace delayed until such time as they learned about it.

I don't want you to misunderstand where I think the Highways should be going. We're going to play a very vital role in the social and economic development of this province, because when we make a decision as to where to locate a ferry terminal or a new highway or a new river crossing, especially in a metropolitan area.... Highways lead, and hospitals, schools, subdivisions and all those other things follow.

Although we may try to predict the need, the need generally grows up around our facilities. One of the difficulties with the whole program, quite frankly, is that when you build a structure, if you build a narrow structure like a bridge crossing a certain area, the need follows. When it becomes a requirement to update that structure 25 or 30 years later, the peacefulness that you had during construction because there was no one on the other side demanding the service or because the service was not so great is no longer there. The rebuilding process is very expensive. On a global basis though, I think that we should try to match our overall highways expenditure and our speeding up or slowing down of that process with what is going on in the economy generally — not necessarily to try to solve local problems. We are not a social welfare agency, as such, to try to go into pockets of unemployment.

Kamloops, for example, has among the highest unemployment in the province, even though they recently had major construction of the Merritt to Kamloops phase of the Coquihalla Highway. That certainly had some influence on the local economy, but if we are just going to make decisions to build highways in areas where there happens to be a depressed economy, those areas where the economy happens to be accelerating also have transportation pressures on them, and those pressures need to be addressed. On a global basis, we should look at it for the whole provincial good, and on a regional basis it does deserve some consideration.

You mention the Island. Statistics will prove that expenditures per capita on the Island are much lower on a per capita basis than they have been on the mainland. That's not even including the Coquihalla. That has to be addressed. Having said that, there aren't too many places in the province that don't think they have a priority right now. In fact, I dare say that there is hardly an MLA — except a few actually in the city of Vancouver —- who aren't affected directly by highways in their constituency.

The member for Vancouver East — I know you have a highway, but Vancouver-Little Mountain doesn't have a highway. That's the one that doesn't, because Vancouver Centre has the causeway for the Lions Gate, Vancouver-Point Grey has the road around the university, and Vancouver South has the end of the two bridges. So there are some people who aren't affected, but every MLA is affected.

I have asked my ministry to come up with a five- and a ten-year plan, so that we can have a more systematic look at where highways are going. In the past, unfortunately, one of the things we have done is to say that your project is on our priority list. But we don't show anybody the list, or at least we don't number the list. There are some areas where we have critical problems. In terms of absolute hard numbers, probably the toughest highways problem we have is in Vancouver East. It's only a short stretch, but that's the toughest in terms of actual hard numbers. In terms of safety of the road, that's not a problem. That particular stretch of road happens to be pretty safe. We've got other problems with this road safety. We've got problems with this road erosion. We try to do it on a balanced basis.

In terms of expenditures, I would like to see us try and balance the expenditures around the province as we go about doing them. There are some economies of scale to be examined as well, and doing a tiny section of highway and then doing another section the next year and the next year doesn't necessarily make good economic sense.

I think that's a role we've got. I don't think the Ministry of Highways has ever really thought out in the past just how much of a social impact they have. Their view of their

[ Page 4683 ]

mandate has been to provide access to people going to and from places, but in fact they create whole new areas opened up for people.

I am sure that not only your debate but the debate from other members of the House will go through bridges, roads, highways and each particular section.

I can say unequivocally that people who live between Merritt and Kamloops are quite happy with the current highway situation just on that one direct route, and just about everybody else in the province has something to say about it.

1 don't want to say one area has priority over others, but I would like to suggest that if we come up with a five- and ten-year plan, then we can really get some realistic idea about where we're going to do the next river crossings, what are the plans for the Island, and perhaps what are the plans in the lower mainland in terms of the volumes that they have.

We have reached past congestion points. Rush hour is no longer an hour; rush hour is an hour and a half. If you were to look at the congestion points that we have in the system, you'd see we get a crowning effect. That is, if you were to look at it on a graph, it starts at about six in the morning and peaks maybe at 8:30, and then comes back down around nine or ten. There is a little bump in the middle, and then again the rush hour in the afternoon. Every year that load moves up.

The Port Mann Bridge, for example, which opened with 30,000 vehicles a day, is now running at 90,000 vehicles a day and has reached capacity. The same thing could be said for the Lions Gate, which technically handles more vehicles than it probably could technically handle unless everybody was either exceeding the speed limit or being incredibly cooperative. I must say the people who live on the North Shore have a common bond of discipline about knowing how to make the approach to that bridge so they get maximum utilization out of it. It's wonderful that they have that level of cooperation, but at a certain point we have to address it.

One of the greatest problems we have is what to do when we have to shut a bridge down to make major repairs. Do you shut it down for an hour at a time, or between midnight and three in the morning at great expense and not terribly productively, or do you build around it? Our growth in this province has got us to the point where we are going to have to look at some of those major structures which were built in previous times, not only not using the current curvatures and other things we use on highways but also not necessarily using the kind of structural integrity that we use today.

The new construction we have today.... For example, all the bridges have a divided median. You can turn off generally at bridge speed. You don't have to look back very far to see many bridges in the province where you virtually come onto the bridge at a right angle, because the bridge crosses the body of water at a 90 degree angle, but it doesn't line up with the road at either end. Consequently we have all kinds of accidents. We don't engineer that way anymore. Just some thoughts for you when you want to get on with this.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the comments made by the minister, and it demonstrates to me quite clearly that he has been giving some serious consideration to the magnitude of transportation problems we have in the province. Having now spent some considerable time reading and talking to people in the field, I certainly recognize the validity of that case, and I don't think there's any question that we can't solve all the problems overnight; clearly we just don't have sufficient resources.

I hope, however, when the minister makes reference to the importance of establishing a needs basis for a long-term policy, that he's serious about it and that we will give specific consideration to — if not specifically prioritize areas that deserve attention — at least coming up with some guidelines or criteria for selection. It would seem to me that that kind of model could be created relatively easily, given the evidence and the fact that we have considerable experience — surely sufficient to generate the number of variables we require to set up an accurate model. I hope that kind of thing will happen.

I want to deal with a specific question rather than respond at great length to all those things raised, because a number of those we will have occasion to chat about when we get to more specific parts of the estimates and specific questions.

First, I want to touch on a very specific matter: that juxtaposed with that decrease in budget across the board there is one area of increase in the minister's estimates that stands out rather blatantly. Just like a pothole on the Coquihalla, it stands out.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: To the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), who made the comment that there aren't any potholes, they've been working very hard to fix the problems they have had with the highway, but there is a developing literature of problems with that particular highway and the need to spend a considerable amount of money on repairs, and I will be addressing that as things unfold.

[5:45]

My question now though is with regard to a particular increase in the budget. I'm referring to the sum allocated to the minister's office. As I say, across the board we have a decrease. In the minister's office, however, there is an increase from $235,299 to $280,361, which by my calculation adds up to some $45,062 — roughly 15 percent. My question is very direct and very simple: namely, why? What is that for?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I must say that the comptroller did explain it to me; there is a reason for it. I believe that in the previous situation we had someone working in my office listed under another budget amount. I'll get you the full answer for that tomorrow. Believe it or not, that's not one of the areas that ministers have any influence on, except that our staff does put forward some projections as to where the expenditures are. So I'll just take that question and we'll get back to it.

You talked a little bit about setting priorities. We can't use volume as our only priority, because if we were to use it, the lower mainland could probably justify taking almost everything. So we have to build a number of other things into the criteria: accessibility, new service roads, safety — a big problem.

A few parts of the Hart Highway between Dawson Creek and Prince George are still a narrow roadway, and sure enough, at those narrow points we seem to get more than our share of motor vehicle accidents. When you upgrade a highway to a certain standard and people are driving it, they kind of get into the mood of driving it and they can take the comers at a certain speed. Despite the signage and everything

[ Page 4684 ]

else, down it comes. Sure enough, the road surface isn't as good, and maybe the corners were engineered in the old days and we didn't blow and cut as much out as we wanted to. Those are the areas we have the accidents in. We can't just do it on volume, because on volume I could justify spending almost everything on southern Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. I want to look at it that way.

In terms of prioritizing things, all areas deserve some attention at all times, but we should have a global idea of what we're looking at. That means, for example: does the highway up to Squamish and Whistler get pushed through as a paved grade up to D'Arcy? What does that do to the economics of the Fraser Canyon, which is already suffering some setback as a result of the Coquihalla traffic? Although they're getting the tourist traffic, which probably stays and spends a little more, the high-speed volume traffic that wants to motor through does that. Now should we be looking at a four-lane situation literally between the coast and the Alberta border, as parts of it are virtually at that stage now? There are parts east of Kamloops that are down to almost a country-road standard on the Trans Canada Highway. Regretfully, Parks Canada does not maintain parts of their highways. We get a lot of letters on what our highways are like in the middle of national parks. We have a little problem with that, although we work on it.

The Coquihalla is interesting. We're going to talk a little bit about the Coquihalla, and I hope we use the Coquihalla as a learning experience, because we're trying to do that in the ministry. We have certainly learned a lot about our design capability, our engineering capability and perhaps a little bit about our expectations because were all the highways in the province to be built to that kind of standard, then I would certainly be the only major spender in these estimates rather than number three or number four — I think it's number four we stand in expenditures — because it was a very substantial project.

There were problems in the construction of that highway, and for as much as I'm able to answer on what we're finding today, I will do so. We do see continued growth and volume. Truckers said they wouldn't use it for various reasons: sometimes because they were overweight and having difficulty making it up the hill being overweight, sometimes because they weren't that happy with their brakes and there's quite a long adverse there. We're now finding the truck volumes are up because there are financial savings. We've done a number of things to make it easier for them to handle the cash they require to go through there. I can give you the volumes that we're experiencing on that.

When we go through to the Okanagan, it will make quite a substantial difference for the volume of people who choose to go that route: probably as low as 1,000 vehicles a day in the wintertime, but up to perhaps as many as 3,500 vehicles a day is our projection for the summertime. That will make quite a difference for access to the whole of the Okanagan Valley in terms of the people from the lower mainland and the Island that choose to go there. That will be our major construction project for the next two years, and perhaps we'll talk about that as well during these estimates.

MR. LOVICK: Indeed we shall talk about that, I promise you. Apropos of which I'm tempted to say right now that yes, the Coquihalla is going to be the primary learning experience probably for the next decade. Sadly, though, it seems to me that the schooling process is taking rather a long time. In fact, there are some who say that we're spending all our time in the classroom and we're no longer doing anything because we're so busy apparently digesting lessons. Given what happened about Coquihalla and the problems and the scandals attaching thereto, what has happened is that the ministry, so the argument goes, has become gun-shy, or at least construction shy, and therefore isn't doing much of anything. Certainly that's an argument one hears a great deal of.

I want to refer again to that business about the plan and attempting to set up some kind of priority approach to building, construction and upgrading.

I recognize that volume is certainly not the only criterion. There are a number of obvious ones that suggest themselves. The minister and I both know those, so I need not belabour that point. What I am suggesting is that until such time as we make an effort to set up criteria, and until we make an honest effort to set up a model that says this is what will guide us is our deliberations — in other words, this is the rationale for the plan itself — we're going to continue to be in the same predicament we have been in for a very long time in this province, namely, the perception by large numbers of people that highways are purely politics and nothing else.

I don't think that's healthy for the province; I don't think it's healthy for the governing party or the opposition party. It would seem to me that we would all be better served if we could make some effort towards a rationalized, coherent and qualitative — as well as quantitative — plan to talk about highways, to set up some models and some ideas at least of what criteria need to be met before one's community becomes a player in the game of construction and upgrading.

I don't think that is terribly difficult to do, Mr. Minister. It's difficult, but it isn't impossible. Let me put it that way.

I am pleased by the reference to the detailed and long-range plan. I think it's long overdue, and I'm sure the minister agrees with that. I'm hoping that it takes into account all the variables and tries to do so in as objective and quantifiable a manner as possible. That's all; I think it's important.

What I propose to do is to simply respond to a couple of other comments in the minister's opening remarks and to give him notice of what I intend to focus on. I want to devote a little time to Coquihalla phase 3, specifically about the cost efficiency of downsizing that road. We have already undertaken a considerable amount of engineering work, study and some land acquisition — in other words, a great deal of preliminary work. I'm wondering if it would be more cost-effective — coming back to the minister's point about some longer-term planning and needs basis planning — to consider beefing up that road, rather than downsizing it the way it has presently been outlined by the minister. So that's an area that I think we can have some discussion about. And I would simply like to get some answers to the obvious questions that come to my mind as to why we are downsizing.

Other projects: of course, I am pleased to note that the Annacis Island and Richmond freeway is going on. Upgrading of Highway 97: 1 know a number of people will be anxious about that. It certainly services a number; I hear one clapping already.

Horseshoe Bay-Whistler: I was intrigued by your comment, Mr. Minister, in your opening statement about trying to do that upgrading without having to shut down the road. On the face of it, that sounds like it is somehow defying all the laws of physics; but I am anxious to see what you have in mind about that, and of course we will get to it at some point. The Cassiar connector — of course.

[ Page 4685 ]

I have, however — and perhaps I'll just end on this note — some real misgivings about certain comments that were made in your introductory comments. On the one hand, as I say, I can praise and be delighted about certain things that are happening that sound to me very good indeed; but I hear alarm bells go off when I find out, in reference to the Island Highway, that apparently the construction is going to begin around Qualicum Beach. I struggle with that, because my information and my understanding is that the preliminary study work that was done demonstrates that in fact the Nanaimo bypass ought to in fact be the beginning, and of course I offer that observation totally without regard to my own self-interest. That is purely objective, as you can recognize, I am sure.

I also hear alarm bells go off when I hear finally — and I emphasize finally — a bit of detail about the motor vehicle inspection plan. We've been waiting a while for that. I have a number of questions. I appreciate the fact that the minister did indeed provide us with an overview at least of that project, but certainly I have a number of questions and I propose to raise them.

I'm looking at the clock now, Mr. Minister, and I'm wondering if this might be an appropriate time for me to move that the committee rise and report resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.