[ Page 8217 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8217

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Jones

Mr. Kempf

THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1989

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief in my opening comments. I would like to make reference to some items discussed yesterday. First of all, there was a charge by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) about certain events happening at Millstream Creek regarding a Petro-Canada malfunction and a resulting oil spill. I said yesterday in the committee that I couldn't accept what the member was advising me, because I was sure that he was wrong, as he normally is in his information.

Upon checking with staff in my ministry and also with the Ministry of Attorney-General, I found out that I was correct and the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was wrong again on the evidence he presented to the committee. I would like that on the record now, that what he said was unacceptable. He did not have the facts, and the information presented to the House by that member is incorrect.

MR. CASHORE: Our opposition House Leader just pointed out that those little digs that the minister gets in are really designed to shorten debate. He's suggesting that there be no more digs.

For the record, I want to come back to the issue of the increase in the Ministry of Environment's staff. We've spent considerable time on the 29 new employees — the ten employees being shifted around within the ministry. We've established that there are 15 conservation officers, ten additional waste technicians and four administrative people who are really secretarial staff. We have established that when you take a look at the total scope of what is expected of these people, it is not going to make the dramatic increase in enforcement that is desperately required in this province.

The real issue is that there really are only ten people working in this field of waste technicians. In these enforcement units the question is: will they also be responsible for an entire new permit-monitoring and transportation system relating to special or hazardous wastes? This would leave them almost no time to step up enforcement of the general waste permit system for air effluent and refuse permits.

Let's take into consideration the fact that the federal government handed over total control of this program to the province under CEPA rather than monitoring it itself or having dual jurisdiction, in spite of the province's sorry track record in this regard. When we look at the huge list of storage sites for PCBs in the lower mainland and schools, hospitals, etc., as well as industrial sites of the numerous locations throughout the province, we see that this is a gigantic task that these people are going to be expected to address. All these places are going to now need to get permits and comply with requirements for proper storage, not only at these PCB sites but in all kinds of other hazardous waste sites.

The work-load addition, because of the standards needing to be put in place, is enormous. We're talking about these ten additional waste technicians, and it simply isn't adequate. The permits will need to be in place by January 1, 1990, which is less than six months' time to get up to speed. Under the regulations, the conservation officers who do not have permits presumably can be prosecuted. There will need to be constant monitoring and inspection of sites, and there will be a lot of non-compliance. The staffing for this program should take up all the staff increases, if not actually cut into existing levels.

I'm just going to ask three questions, Mr. Chairman. The first is: given the ten additional waste technicians, are these people also responsible for the enforcement of the special waste regulations? Is that part of their job description?

What will be the Ministry of Environment's role with respect to transportation of dangerous wastes? Will the ministry need to keep records, attend at spills, enforce non-compliance and ensure trucks and other forms of transportation are properly labelled and inspected? Will they have the staffing requirements needed to deal with this enormous increasing workload? How are one or two other persons in each of the regions — that is, half a person in Nelson and half a person in Cranbrook — going to do all this? We're referencing ads that have been posted in local newspapers. I'll leave it at that for now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the member's benefit, the 39 people I talked about yesterday have a variety of jobs to do, but there are an extra 17 for special waste. There are the 39 that I spoke about yesterday: the 29 and then the extra ten COs that we are budgeting for. But there are 17 additional staff for special waste. It's a good question though.

MR. CASHORE: The fact is that we're still dealing — no matter how the numbers shake down — with an enormously increased workload for these people in order to begin to deal with the situation. Now the minister refers to an additional 17. I want a little more clarification on who those 17 are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They are just what the member suggested: people who are monitoring the special waste program.

[ Page 8218 ]

MR. CASHORE: Are they outside the 39? Are they conservation officers?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh no, they're not. They are special waste technicians with specialized training. We're dealing with a particularly delicate discipline here. They will be people specially trained to monitor and enforce our regulations.

MR. CASHORE: What we have, then, is that these are special waste technicians: 17 in addition to the ten that are being added. So there will be 27 all together.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are a lot more than that. There are the 39 I talked about yesterday plus 17 special waste. That gives us 56.

[10:15]

MR. CASHORE: It becomes extremely confusing, but even given the minister's numbers, we're still dealing with a component of personnel that is simply not sufficient to fulfil a job that needs to be done. Let's be very clear that in some of these positions, these people are expected to perform tasks other than the waste management tasks that form so much of the area of concern about industrial pollution that needs to be addressed. The area we pointed out in the past received only 1 percent of the conservation officers' total time. I still do not see how this is going to produce the significant increase in time that is necessary in order for that work to be dealt with appropriately.

Recently some jobs have been posted throughout the province. For instance, two conservation officers are advertised in Prince George and Bella Coola. The duties are to include nuisance, wildlife control and public relations duties. Obviously these aren't people who are being brought in specially to deal with the work of waste management enforcement.

Secondly, there is an advert for a special waste technician in Kamloops. This person's responsibilities include the following: "Maintain the register of interim special waste storage facilities; provide technical advice to industry, government and public re special waste regulations, chemical spills, etc.; and transportation and disposal of special wastes."

There's another advert for a regional waste technician in Smithers — to administer waste management permits and approvals primarily related to special wastes, to carry out sampling of air, water, etc. That's a very extensive job description. Here we have two half-times advertised for regional waste technicians: Cranbrook — to administer permits, etc. "primarily related to the coal industry"; Nelson — to administer permits primarily related to the municipality and the forest industry. There is another advertisement for a senior engineering technician, water management program, to respond to timber-harvesting and watershed management problems on Crown lands.

We have these people being hired; some of them are part-time, some of them are full-time, but all of them with a very extensive job description. When we hear this encouraging talk about people being hired to relate directly to the issue of the administration of waste management permits and the administration of the waste management section, it just doesn't add up to something that is significantly going to improve the situation.

We would have to say that the benefit announced by the government's plans to increase staff has been all but eliminated by the doubling of the workload of these employees. That's before they even begin working. Their workload has significantly increased, and it will continue to significantly increase because of having to deal with the special waste regulations, the increasing number of spills being reported and the increasing amount of environmental concern that is being expressed within the province.

I think we have to take that seriously. These people are not only going to be responsible for monitoring air, water and land pollution, but they will also have to establish and monitor the new permits and sites, and these will have to be set in place by January. It's a case of two steps forward and two steps back.

I am sorry, Mr. Minister. I don't think the public is confident that what you have announced is going to produce what you say it is going to produce.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's interesting. The member says we are not doing anything and then reads a whole bunch of "personnel required" ads.

To set the record straight I will give you two numbers that I hope you can deal with. When we are finished, there will be 141 conservation officers doing what conservation officers do. The member seems to feel we are starting from zero in terms of personnel; we're not. Separate from that, totally excluded from the CO staff, will be 188 employees handling waste management. There are increases in funding and in FTEs throughout the ministry, and we believe that that is appropriate.

We will always continue to go to Treasury Board for more; I can assure the member and the committee of that. But we have added substantially to the ministry forces, and I think the figures that I mentioned are the ones the member should bear in mind: 141 CO staff and another 188 waste management staff.

MR. CASHORE: The fact remains that this government and its predecessors have seriously cut back on staff during a time when their agenda was a restraint agenda, at a time when the environment was expendable. Now that the polls tell them that they need to be catching up on environmental things, they're going to Treasury Board and doing what they can. But they're trying to repair a situation where morale among staff has been seriously impacted and where they simply are not going to produce the result that they say they're going to produce, given the program they've put in place. I do appreciate the fact that the minister will go back to Treasury Board and try to get more, because he desperately needs more, but it has to be done in a way that is going to coordinate very

[ Page 8219 ]

carefully and creatively with the staff who have the experience so that it will be an effective process.

I'd like to turn to the subject of toxic wood preservatives. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious situation in the province. Just to give a little bit of background, in 1981 a task force consisting of representatives from federal and provincial governments, the sawmill industry and unions was formed to investigate the use of toxic chlorophenates that had been known for some time to kill fish in trace quantities. That's eight years ago, and we still have not seen enforceable standards that stop the sawmills from using wood preservatives that contain chlorophenates and other toxic preservatives such as TCMTB and copper-8, despite the fact that decent alternatives such as Ecobrite have been available for several years. In 1983 the task force published "recommendations for design and operation," proposing guidelines limiting pentachlorophenol use by the sawmill industry. It should be noted that these are merely recommendations; they are not law. They are not enforced; they are voluntary guidelines. It's a situation of self-policing within the industry. My information is that very few of the sawmills — there are a great many in British Columbia — have voluntarily complied and switched to less harmful alternatives.

On September 15, 1987 — almost two years ago — the minister, with the federal Minister of the Environment, announced a joint action plan establishing maximum discharge levels under the Waste Management Act which would apply both to storm water discharged from sawmills and runoff water from other areas where lumber is stored. The press release and backgrounder used at the time that very dramatic announcement — which was well received by the public — was made stated: "Industries will be expected to take immediate control action and to comply fully by September 1, 1988, or earlier, in cases where facilities are located next to major fishery streams."

At that time an Environment Canada study was released that showed that wood preservatives lethal to fish were pouring into the Fraser River every time it rained. Interim standards were set at that time. Anyway, the deadline expired on September 15, 1988, and there was a little four-inch article, I think, in the Vancouver Sun — it may have been larger, but it certainly didn't have a fanfare — when this minister, along with the federal Minister of the Environment, allowed the deadline to pass not with a bang but with a whimper.

Here again this PR approach was what was oppressing the people of British Columbia. We'd heard that something really tremendous was going to be done, but it didn't happen. We still have not seen any enforceable regulations, nor has the industry been forced to switch to less harmful methods of preserving wood. Many of the sawmills that have switched from using chlorophenols are now using TCMTB or copper-8, which a lot of specialists say are just as harmful if not worse. These chemicals have been known to be acutely toxic to fish. They pour off the wood stacked around the sawmills every time it rains. This results in contaminating soil and flowing into rivers and streams. Even simple measures such as storing wood under roofs or placing drainage basins around storage areas would significantly improve the current situation.

I want to ask the minister how he can justify his incredible inaction in this issue: allowing that deadline to pass, having made a commitment that at that date the regulations would be in place. That date came and went and we're still waiting, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has his information wrong; 95 percent of the sawmilling industry is now off PCP, and that figure will be 100 percent by November 1. I'm surprised he doesn't know that, because we've had a considerable number of meetings with the COFI. It's generally known throughout the industry. I wasn't too happy about missing the September '88 deadline myself, but nevertheless we have achieved compliance now. As I said, 95 percent now, and it has been that way for some time; there's about 5 percent left. They will be out of PCPs by November 1 of this year. They are aware of that; they have no problem with that.

There are a couple of other points I'd like to make. TCMTB and copper-8, although they are poisons — and of course you have to have a poison if you're going to stop fungus formation in the wood — are biodegradable. They are much easier to control and of course much less damaging to the environment.

The other item I want to mention is that we have made serious overtures to the federal government to hurry up in their testing of an American product called NP1. It's a very safe anti-sapstain chemical that is being used in the United States now. It's 100 times less toxic than current chemicals being used in Canada. As soon as Agriculture Canada approves it, we will be using the product in British Columbia. It's environmentally very sound. I'm sure much of the industry will go to that.

What I seek, and of course what I advocate as a member from the central interior, is no sapstain chemicals at all, but in fact proper treating. We have in many instances now in Prince George mills that first of all use a process of testing for moisture content using electrical conductivity. They can quite quickly test for moisture content in the wood as it's coming out of the planer. Then they wax it to stop sapstain from forming. That is, of course, by far the best way and doesn't involve any poisons at all. That's what I would advocate, but that's not achievable in all cases.

Nevertheless, the industry will be off PCPs by November 1, and it is my hope that we can have NP1 quickly approved in Canada, because it's environmentally far safer.

[10:30]

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister tell the House when he is going to announce the up-to-date standards that will apply to this industry that are going to provide the protection that is desperately needed?

[ Page 8220 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm announcing it now, I guess. COFI is aware of it. The standards will need cabinet approval, as these regulations do, but that will proceed in the normal course of ministerial business. The most important thing is that industry has recognized this challenge, has 95 percent met it, and will be in a position by November 1 to be totally in compliance.

MR. CASHORE: That's very interesting, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister saying that he is today going to table these standards so that we and the rest of the people of British Columbia can know what kind of protection is being required for this serious situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wouldn't be prepared to do it today, but they will be public as soon as I can make them public.

MR. CASHORE: You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the way the world ends: not with a bang but with a whimper. We had this dramatic announcement about the way these standards were going to be brought in by a certain deadline, and now we're hearing as a kind of a toss-off here in this House: "I suppose I'm kind of announcing it today."

This is a situation where we're looking at a form of pollution that's killing our fish. It's impacting a major British Columbia industry. It's having a devastating effect on people who consume fish as part of their diet. It's having a potentially serious impact on the sport fishery, which relates to our tourism industry. And on and on. I think we are dealing with a situation here that is extremely serious. For instance, is the minister prepared to announce a requirement that roofs be built over the locations where this lumber is stored and where it is being processed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We don't tell them how they are going to achieve our standards, whether it be a roof, plastic wrap, another chemical treatment or the wax treatment I indicated earlier. We just tell them what standards they have to meet in terms of groundwater discharge, and they can use any remedy they want. We test what's going into the environment. The method the industry uses for controlling what goes into the environment is entirely up to them.

Our concern, as you correctly point out, is what's going into the receiving environment, and if we are happy that our standards are being met in terms of that discharge, then the methodology used to achieve that is entirely up to the company.

MR. CASHORE: Perhaps the minister would tell us if these phantom standards include allowing the mills to use TCMTB or copper-8.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they do.

MR. CASHORE: The information we have is that TCMTB is every bit as dangerous as other toxic substances that the minister is talking about outlawing. Are there any substances whatsoever that the minister is outlawing on these standards that he is referring to?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has that wrong. We have toxicity tables. As I said earlier, TCMTB and copper-8 are biodegradable, so therefore they do not have the impact that PCPs have. But there are standards as to what levels of discharge can be if you are using TCMTB or copper-8, so those are regulated as well. But they are far safer in terms of the environment because, as I said, they are biodegradable.

MR. CASHORE: Will there be a permit system for the sawmills using these chemicals?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, there will be a regulation in place that they will have to meet, and they have indicated they can meet that.

MR. CASHORE: The minister is saying they've indicated that they can meet that. This means very clearly that the minister is leaving this as a self-monitoring process for the industry. Will waste management employees be attending at the mills on a regular basis to take water quality samples, will you be allowing these mills to do the sampling themselves, or will there be sampling and under what conditions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The industry will be monitored by waste management officials. The answer is yes.

MR. CASHORE: Perhaps the minister would tell us a little bit more about that. How often does he anticipate them being on site? Will it be once a month, once a week? Will it be on call? Will it be if a member of the public reports a situation in an adjacent river that concerns them? What will the process be whereby this monitoring will take place? Details, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I guess the member doesn't understand this, but it would be mill-specific. For example, a mill that is using the plastic wrap and the wax coating wouldn't be monitored at all, because there is no poison there. A mill that has sheds and berms and no potential for runoff would not be monitored as much as a mill that did, so waste management officials will make the assessment of how often they should monitor a mill and will do testing of mills that are potential offenders, but ones that are not won't be. That will be a judgment made by the waste management staff as to how often they should monitor a mill, and it will be site specific.

I have the confidence in the staff that they can make that technical assessment as they visit each individual plant, and I am sure the member will agree that that's a technical decision left to staff that's best handled by staff. It is mill-specific, and there's really no other way I can answer that question.

[ Page 8221 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, obviously that's not good enough. There may be mills that adopt a wrapping system or mills that have roofs, but it's still necessary to have people on the site on a regular basis to ensure that the process is operating correctly. How many mills are there in the province? There must be well over 400. There needs to be appropriate monitoring to ensure that the appropriate standards are in place.

Also, the minister seems to be willing to accept the use of TCMTB. On a CBC news program on May 31, it was mentioned that although TCMTB doesn't contain dioxins, you couldn't design a better fish killer, and the fishing industry wants action. Here the minister is saying: "No, this substance is okay as long as they wrap it in plastic." But what happens between the process of this substance being applied and the wrapping? Surely with this substance having such a severe potential impact upon other elements of our precious environment, including impacting an entire industry, that is simply not sufficient to deal with the issue.

How many waste technicians will be required in the waste management branch to set up, monitor and enforce these standards?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, there are standards for TCMTB. The standards are such that any discharge cannot be toxic. I couldn't have it any other way, and when we publish the regulations, you will see that. So the regulations are in place for all of the chemicals that will be used.

There are 69 sawmills, many of which we will not have to monitor, because as I pointed out earlier, they do not use chemicals. They use non-toxic treatments such as the wax that I mentioned. Many will have to be monitored. We will ensure that there are appropriate staff to do that, and they will do that. I trust the staff of the Ministry of Environment to carry out the appropriate testing. If there are any offenders, they will be asked to change or will be shut down. I can assure you that I have no problem in doing that. I have closed down sawmills before for air emission problems and will do so if we have any problems with their sapstain treatment and their discharge into waters.

MR. CASHORE: The fact is, Mr. Minister, that the staff you have now are run off their feet; they can't possibly deal with the situations being brought to their attention. As I pointed out before, in a great many instances it's more than two weeks before there's even a follow-up phone call to somebody who makes a complaint. In some instances there's no follow-up phone call whatsoever or any further contact. There simply aren't enough people to do the job that's required in this province to protect the environment. This sapstain issue is a very serious case in point.

Would the ten new waste technicians you're adding to the enforcement of routine permits, for instance, be people that you see as having a major role in dealing with this area, which is enormous? How much of their time will go into this? What percentage of those ten new waste technicians will go into the monitoring of anti-sapstains?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those decisions are left to the regional manager. I don't think it's appropriate for politicians to tell trained administrative staff how to manage their resources. Every regional manager with the Ministry of Environment will make his own management decisions and will do so quite appropriately. The staff and budgets will be made available to all of them to carry out whatever they feel is appropriate.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that every regional manager in this province is beleaguered and is trying to find out how to deal with the workload and how to deploy staff effectively because of the enormous and increasing demands being placed upon them. Now we have the government grudgingly starting to say that they're coming forward with new standards, which are going to need to be enforced. Doing that is going to add even more pressure on those regional managers. I don't think we are getting any assurance in any way that the staff complement has increased sufficiently to be able to deal with that adequately. I would remind the minister that the waste regulation permit system needs to be in place by January 1, 1990, to meet your own deadline. It just doesn't add up, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to turn now to an issue that relates to a sawmill of Herb Doman's up-Island. Just to give you a little bit of background....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: As my colleague points out, everybody knows Herb.

The evidence came out during a December 1988 hearing before the Nanaimo regional waste manager concerning an individual who had apparently purchased contaminated wood chips from the Doman mill. In reviewing this we're going to take a look at some aspects of that situation that are quite serious. It goes back a long way, and there's been a great deal of correspondence back and forth indicating that the regional waste managers have tried very hard, over a period of time, to get that mill to clean up its act.

[10:45]

If we look at these various memos and letters that have gone back and forth within waste management, it appears that there was a very frustrating situation there for these personnel. For instance, on October 15, 1986, there's a letter that indicates that the waste management branch had knowledge that Doman was dumping contaminated shavings on various farms in the area. There's also a December 23, 1985, letter to Mr. Doman requesting that high-level contaminated sludges be stored until suitable disposal facilities have been identified. On April 22, 1986, there's a letter indicating that: "All sludge cleanup is still being disposed of at Crofton. There are no plans to store sludge on the site at present."

[ Page 8222 ]

This situation is a legacy of the fact that the waste management branch is impotent when it comes to dealing with this type of situation. It's an example that this government is more willing to set up the process so that the polluters are able to get away with being polluters, rather than bringing a situation like this to effective control. Whether that effective control requires prosecution or fines, it does mean that changes have to be made. A situation that goes on year after year — obviously with frustrated ministry employees trying to deal with the situation and getting nowhere — means that there's something terribly wrong within the waste management branch.

Again it goes back to the kinds of political decisions that have impacted the ability of that branch to do its job. The result has been that a lot of time and money has been spent investigating, going through hearing procedures, sending memos back and forth and sending people out to inspect, yet nothing happens. Unless we can see that this sort of thing is going to change, I don't think there's very much hope in all the rhetoric we hear from this government.

I'd like to refer the minister to Hansard of April 17, 1989. At that time I asked a question of the minister, and it went like this:

"Devastating evidence came out during a December 1988 hearing that for at least six years Doman Industries was burning anti-sapstain sludge containing PCPs rather than properly storing it. Your ministry has been aware of these practices since 1982 and on several occasions asked Doman to stop, but these requests were ignored. Why was Doman never charged with any pollution violations over this incident?" 

Still reading from Hansard, Mr. Chairman, the minister replied: "Good question. I will take it as notice and provide the member with an answer." Now is the time for the answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was a hearing by one of our officials, and I'm getting the briefing note on that now. But until I have that information, there's not much more I can provide at this point. That's coming to me quickly, and you will have that information as soon as I get it. The preservation society appealed to the ministry on this issue, and I regret that I can't provide the committee with that evidence at this point, but it will be forthcoming soon.

MR. CASHORE: We'll look forward to that, hopefully as soon as possible.

I would like to refer to a Vancouver Sun article by Glen Bohn, dated April 13, 1989. In the headline it names the minister and says that he promises to name polluting firms. Just to give you some of the background as it is related in this article: the B.C. Environment minister promised Wednesday to name the firms that are dumping more pollutants than allowed. It goes on to say: "'It's appropriate that this information be made public, so industries and municipalities — which are the major offenders — know that the public has that knowledge,' the Environment Minister said." Glen Bohn points out that the pledge that the minister gave came 14 weeks after the Vancouver Sun requested the release of government records that reveal which firms are failing to comply with pollution limits set by B.C. waste management permits. At that time the minister said: "I'm prepared to release the information but not at this time."

The article then went on to refer to two studies that had been done. One was a study by the West Coast Environmental Law Association; another was the Rankin-Brown study, which we've referred to frequently already during these estimates. It has also been pointed out that while the ministry made information available, it was not possible to make the names of the polluting firms available that were the subject of these studies.

It raises the issue, Mr. Chairman, that again the public is being denied knowledge of what is happening to their environment. We find that here the minister makes the announcement, as I said before, that by a certain date in 1988 the sapstain thing would be completed, and that hasn't been the case; and makes the announcement that he was going to name the polluting firms, and that hasn't been done. The public awaits a response from the minister. Just as he announced earlier that he was announcing the sapstain regulations here in the House, maybe he will now take this opportunity to announce who these polluting firms are.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Actually I discussed that a couple of days ago, Mr. Chairman, if the member cares to read Hansard. We have prepared a package with the information that Mr. Bohn and Mr. Andrews are seeking. We are discussing its contents now with the Ministry of Attorney-General. I have told Mr. Andrews and I told Mr. Bohn — I guess I haven't told Glen, because I haven't talked to him lately; I talked to Bill Andrews though on Friday of last week — that the information will be released soon, and when I say "soon," I mean before the summer is over. I have given my undertaking to Mr. Andrews that that will be done as soon as I review the package. I think it's in presentable shape now in terms of what we want to say. I'm not prepared to do it today, but I will do it before the summer is over.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister has said that some of the levels he allows for pollution are site-specific; in other words, it varies from mill to mill or....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that's not what I said.

MS. EDWARDS: All right, then I'll complete my question. What are the criteria, and how is the minister going to reach some criteria for air emissions from pulp mills? There are some questions being asked in my area about air emissions and what the levels should be. Therefore I want to know from the minister whether the criteria are going to be provincewide or whether they are going to be site-specific. What are the criteria going to be? How are you going to decide what level is appropriate for the release of S0₂ and all the other various AOX com-

[ Page 8223 ]

pounds and so on, the things that come out of pulp mill stacks?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, when I mentioned site-specific, I talked about monitoring being site-specific; I didn't say standards would be site-specific. There are British Columbia standards that prevail. The member had asked me about sawmill testing in terms of anti-sapstain runoff, and I said it would be mill-specific. The example I gave is if a mill is not using any toxic chemicals; for example, it is using the wax treatment of protecting the lumber. There is no need to inspect that mill for chemical discharge, because in fact there are no chemicals being used. That's what I meant by site-specific, I hope you understand that. The standards, though, are provincewide; they're not site-specific. Every sawmill must meet them.

Now with respect to ambient air quality, there are measuring devices in and around pulp mills. There are standards set, and the industry must meet those standards — level A, level B. I don't know what mill you're talking about, but if you provide me with the information, I can get some more details for you.

MS. EDWARDS: The mill I'm talking about is of course the Crestbrook Forest Industries mill at Skookumchuck. Currently there is considerable concern among the residents who are affected by the emissions from that mill. They have accurately pointed out — it has not being refuted — that over its 21 years in operation, the mill has grossly exceeded the levels for TRS, up to 300 percent at times; that the particulate permit levels are grossly exceeded on a regular basis, although not constantly; that the electrostatic precipitators are undersized for the current production. They point out that the company has never indicated to the ministry that there is a difference in the amount going through the equipment, which was given a permit for a different tonnage. Perhaps that's not the company's fault. Perhaps they should have been asked by the ministry. Because the precipitators are for approximately 500 tons on average and in fact the mill is putting through 600 to 700 tons on average, the precipitators are inadequate, and on a regular basis the particulate levels that they have been permitted are being exceeded grossly.

First of all, why has that mill never been prosecuted for having exceeded the levels of air emissions over those many years? Secondly, when it has been put to them that they're going to have to do something about their air emissions — were told that it's time to deal with air emissions — the company has said it's going to apply for an increase in the permitted level. I want to know what that involves. Is there a provincial standard or is there not a provincial standard? How does this class A permitted mill get to apply for an increase in the standards that it will have to meet?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: For the benefit of the committee, Crestbrook at Skookumchuck is in compliance with TRS. They have had equipment installations to meet that compliance, and they meet provincial objectives. They are out of compliance on particulate control but have hired consultants to assess and address that problem, and they will be coming into compliance quickly. They are moving to reach that objective. That's the information I have.

[11:00]

MS. EDWARDS: The company is attempting to meet the standards by asking that the standards be doubled. My question is: what is the position of the ministry about the standards? Are the standards solid — not to make a pun — or are they in fact movable?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the standards will not be changed; they are not movable. They will stay in place.

MS. EDWARDS: Is it then fair to say we can be assured that the mill will have to, in some way, meet the standards that are currently in place; that the amount will not be changed and the study that the company has contracted for to indicate whatever it wants to indicate — as I say, to support an application for increasing the level that it would be allowed to emit into air — will not be part of a move and a recognition that perhaps we're purists in the Kootenays, those of us who want to stay at the current standard, and that we should accept something different?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The company will not be allowed to exceed provincial standards. The study they are conducting right now is not to advise them how to double their capacity or double their discharge or double their emissions. The study is to advise them how to meet provincial standards. That's the objective they have to meet, and that's what they are doing now.

MS. EDWARDS: In connection with this, I would like to ask the minister if he has observed recent information that's come out of a scientific symposium on hydrogen sulphicle emissions and the effect that low levels of hydrogen sulphide in the air have on not only humans but animals. There's been some research that has finally gotten down to testing the actual physiological effects on animals. We've gone for years and years assuming that a very low level of hydrogen sulphide exposure is probably okay. We've tested the levels in the air and said: "Well, that's below our standards, and that's okay." But finally, after waiting for many years, we have some concrete evidence, some scientific testing, that exposure to hydrogen sulphide, at very low levels, has extremely harmful health effects on people. It was done in connection with sour gas wells in Alberta, because that's where there is a fairly continuous low-level emission of hydrogen sulphide. But there are those kinds of emissions from pulp mills and other places. Because we're talking about air emissions in pulp mills, my question is: is the minister responding to this new scientific evidence which indicates a fairly

[ Page 8224 ]

substantial danger to people from that kind of emission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The staff advise me that they are aware of the concern. There's a potential for that around pulp mills. Of course, we don't have a gas industry like that in British Columbia. I think most of the gas we have in the north Peace is sweet, not sour. Sour gas is more commonly found in Alberta.

I'm further advised that we have a staff committee with the Ministry of Health to address those concerns. They are being addressed now along with officials from the Ministry of Health.

MS. EDWARDS: I might point out to the minister, who will be involved in this for quite a while, I imagine, that there are a number of exploratory programs looking for sour gas in this province. There are people who are relatively optimistic, even considering the general optimism of people in the gas business. It's very possible that we might have a sour gas industry of a considerably greater extent than we do now.

Besides that, as I pointed out to the minister, it's not just the sour gas industry that has the problem with exposure to hydrogen sulphide. The dangers are somewhat frightening. They have been observed and recorded on people for many years in certain other places. I'm sure, were we to look, we might find that this same thing is happening next to mills such as pulp mills, where there is hydrogen sulphide in the air emission, and gas refineries and so on. There are other places where it is emitted, not just at sour gas wells and gas refineries. It certainly would be in pulp mills.

Do you have any time-frame? You say you are studying it, and that's good; I applaud it. But it seems to me we have to be fairly determined that something is going to be done soon on this problem. The federal standard is for ten parts per million in an eight-hour period. In fact, scientists have found that about one-tenth of that will create severe effects in human lung tissue. My question is: can you give us some time-frame? Can you assure us that we will have some change that comes from this ministry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm advised that this fall we will be meeting with Ministry of Health officials, and with UBC researchers who deal in toxicology, to discuss hydrogen sulphide as well as a variety of other chemicals that are dangerous to human health. That's the first meeting with respect to this issue. I can't tell you where it's going to go from there. The important thing, I guess, for the benefit of this committee, is that we are doing it, and we do recognize the concern.

Coming from a pulp mill community, I've often wondered about this myself. Our own medical health officer is doing some considerable work now with respect to morbidity in the Prince George area, where you do have a large concentration of sawmills. There doesn't appear to be any concrete evidence yet with respect to respiratory illnesses. There are some suggestions that the incidence of hospital admissions or people suffering from chronic respiratory problems might increase as air quality decreases. There's no hard-core or direct correlation that they can pinpoint. They're continuing to work on it.

One other thing I can tell you is that I saw some evidence a couple of years ago, I believe from the B.C. Medical Association, that couldn't really pinpoint any correlation to morbidity in those who had worked in the pulp and paper industry. In other words, they died of the normal things that people die of. There was no connection to any particular symptom that one might think of. Morbidity was the standard thing: heart attack, prostate cancer and that sort of stuff that eventually gets all of us. There was no single connection to any particular ailment.

I'm not trying to be cheery when I say that, because I think, in the interest of human health and a cleaner environment, we should study all industry and do more studies on morbidity. Of course, as medical science improves its testing capacity, and as environmental science improves its testing capacity, we learn more and more about what we are doing in industry, and how to ensure that we have a healthy and safe workplace and province to live in.

I can assure the member that we do work with the Ministry of Health. As I said, we have the symposium at UBC coming this fall to discuss those issues and that particular chemical and others. The more we learn about them, the more we will be applying our own regulations and standards to prevent any hazard to human or animal health or to the health of our environment in general.

MS. EDWARDS: I just want to point out to the minister that talking about health studies and saying that they haven't been related is part of the process sometimes. I would like to put on the record that $3.5 million was spent on a study in Pincher Creek when there was a major concern about the nosebleeds, headaches, inflamed eyes and other symptoms being suffered not only by the people but by the animals in the area. That study said nothing was wrong.

However, since that time the person who conducted the study has admitted that he studied the wrong thing, that he himself would not want to raise his family near a sour gas well or refinery and that the problem was not detected because the scientists went in there, spent a whole lot of money and had the total faith of those of us who think the scientific answer is going to do it, and they studied the wrong thing. So we want to be careful about that.

I also want to suggest that the minister remember that by one report there are 70 Canadian industries — it's not just sour gas wells — where the problem of hydrogen sulphide as emissions can be, and kraft pulp mills are right at the top. Electric plants are another one. The concern there is if the standards right now are ten times higher than they should be, and if there is clear evidence that this could be a major problem where two people die every year in Alberta from exposure to H₂S, that is very likely a

[ Page 8225 ]

calculation that may be made without totally knowing whether or not everyone has died of H₂S exposure.

These are the kinds of dangers that we are looking at, and I would suggest that it's a matter of emergency that the minister look to the levels in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for that observation. I can't comment on the test that was done at Pincher Creek although, having grown up in southern Alberta, I don't see how — the way the wind blows down there — air emissions could be a problem, but obviously they were. They don't have a wind sock at the airport; they have a logging chain, and when the logging chain is horizontal, that means the wind is blowing. If you have ever been to Pincher Creek, I will tell you it's windy.

Seriously, I don't want to be glib on that, but I just thought I'd relate to the committee what the weather is like there.

However, I accept what the member is saying. We will note that concern, and in the case of H₂S we will ensure that we discuss this when we have the toxology discussion with UBC and the Ministry of Health. I give the member my undertaking that it will be done. If information is forthcoming, it will be presented publicly.

MR. CASHORE: I just want to take a moment to reflect and say that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is right. This minister really does have the ability to dance among the cow pies, in terms of the job the government wants him to do, and the way they want him to come up with answers that don't say a heck of a lot but somehow diffuse the subject. I used to think I had the toughest one when I was Social Services critic, but I think this minister is certainly a match.

I want to go on to the subject of the oil industry in Burrard Inlet and the issue of PAHs. As the minister knows, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are number one of the 50 chemicals on the priority substance list of the federal advisory body that put this list together and released it earlier this year. It stated that PAHs are the number one priority chemical in need of environmental regulation.

[11:15]

It's known that it is carcinogenic, There are extremely high levels of fish liver lesions in Burrard Inlet, according to a federal study, and we also know that if there could be a lot more testing done, the body of evidence could well be moving in a direction that would indicate to the public that the situation is much more serious than we actually realize it is at the present time. The fact is that testing is a process that takes a long, long time. It takes a long time to get the results back. In the meantime there's this growing concern among the members of the public with regard to the condition of water such as Burrard Inlet.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Just as a kind of a side point on that, when we constantly hear in the news of fresh disasters — on a global basis, but certainly this is one example, the precancerous lesions in bottom fish in these waters — I think often for all of us our sensitivity to these issues is heightened by the questions that our children ask us. They see these headlines and they watch television, and they're asking us some pretty difficult questions about how we can let this happen and what we're doing to change it. The fact is that any type of action is all too slow. No matter what amount of environmental rhetoric is used, there is a need for an enormous change in terms of indicating that the political will really does exist to address these issues.

My colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) asked a question of the minister in this House a few weeks ago, on June 6. When you read in Hansard the minister's answers to the member's questions, you'd have to wonder if he really remembered a letter that he had signed on April 26 to Mr. Calvin Sandborn of the West Coast Environmental Law Association. In that letter of April 26, the minister indicates plans to do something about the situation, whereas in the response of June 6 to my colleague, he skates around and basically indicates that he doesn't know very much about it. I can understand how that happens. He has to deal with a wide range of issues and sign lots of letters. But let's ask the minister to place this issue very high on his priority list as something that requires not only a kind letter written to Mr. Sandborn but also the kind of action that needs to emanate from that letter.

Mr. Sandborn, when he was contacting the minister on behalf of his client, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, was expressing the union's deep concern about the results of the recent Environment Canada study showing startlingly high levels of idiopathic lesions on fish in Vancouver harbour. He pointed out, as I did, that they're highly carcinogenic. He also points out in the letter that the union understands that the province has been attempting to produce a new set of petroleum industry objectives for the past two years but has not completed the task because of a lack of staffing and adequate resources. That's a real concern — a lack of staffing and adequate resources to deal with this urgent and pressing environmental need.

He goes on to say: "Therefore, the union urges your ministry to promptly allocate adequate staffing and resources, and to promptly produce new petroleum control objectives to deal with the problem of petroleum pollution of Vancouver harbour and elsewhere in B.C. Naturally the objectives should address the PAH problem." If we don't have the staff that can be out there doing the work that needs to be done, then we can't really be coming to terms with this issue.

I would like to quote from the minister's response to that letter and ask the minister how he's coming along with some of these things he said he was going to do. His letter was April 26, and in that letter the minister says: "My ministry has been involved in a number of major programs which will help control

[ Page 8226 ]

PAHs. (1) Setting as one of the highest ministry priorities the enforcement of new and existing waste management permits." Well, we don't have the enforcement of current permits, yet the minister's talking about the enforcement of new permits. Then he says he's participating in a national effort to develop multimedia guidelines for PAHs, including air, water, soil, sediments and other media. Where are they? Then he goes on to say that he's participating in the development of provincial standards for PAHs at contaminated sites containing coal tars. With whom is the minister participating in the development of these provincial standards? What can he tell us about the results of those consultations? When may we expect to see that this letter of April 26 is really something we can believe in and is going to result in something being done?

He says that he's developing a provincial program to address contaminated sites in British Columbia. Again, what is that program and what staffing is required in order to do that?

I'll leave it at that for now, but we'll come back to a few more points he made.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I didn't really appreciate the comment about skating around an issue. The member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) asked me about testing on H₂S, and I said we were doing it. I don't think that's skating. I indicated who was doing it and where it would be done. I think the answer was quite forthright, so these cheap shots about skating are really not serving any useful purpose.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm a good piano player but a lousy dancer — just ask my wife.

Has the member not heard of Expo 86 and the land at False Creek? It has been on the front page for about the last six months. The standards we're putting into place were announced some time ago. We talked about that for the last couple of days. That's what I referred to in terms of contaminated sites.

With respect to Burrard Inlet, in January of this year Environment Canada released a report which identified tumours and lesions on bottom fish, especially in the livers of English sole caught near major industrial outfalls around Burrard Inlet. In February the mayor of Port Moody called a meeting of municipalities surrounding Burrard Inlet. The meeting was attended by the various mayors in the area, GVRD officials, provincial Ministry of Environment officials and federal Department of the Environment officials It was decided by this group that they would go to Seattle to study the U.S. approach to cleaning up Puget Sound, which has the same problem. All information was to be submitted to the GVRD, which would be the lead agency in resolving the issue.

The evidence is this: in terms of major industrial pollutants in Burrard Inlet, they have all been cleaned up by this time. The new petrochemical refinery standards that the member asks about are going to be developed in September. The major areas of concern we have identified are municipal discharges, urban storm runoff and historical sediment contamination. The GVRD has recently announced a preliminary study on Burrard Inlet, with a view to formulating a cleanup strategy. So that is where we are on that issue.

MR. CASHORE: The minister goes on and makes other commitments. But I will just skip over to No. 10, in reference to the point he just made. No. 10, is: "Increasing funding for municipal sewage treatment." Where is that increased funding? How much? Is he going to announce that now as well?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's budget material. It was announced during the budget. I discussed it during the budget debate: $10 million. Then there's an extra amount from Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture; I think $15 million. It's budgeted. It's there.

MR. CASHORE: Does the minister believe that that funding is going to directly be related to this problem?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, they are going to have to identify methodology for cleanup and present a plan to us. They are doing that now. Personally, I've got a bias to using that funding for some of the smaller communities. Creston would be a very good example and some of the smaller communities with municipal sewage problems and communities that don't have quite the taxing base of the GVRD. I believe that larger communities should take that responsibility on themselves. Now that Vancouver has a mayor that will show leadership, I suspect you may see that too.

MR. CASHORE: Does the present provincial permit system for Burrard Inlet refineries — which include Chevron in Burnaby, Esso at Ioco, Petro-Canada in Port Moody, the Shell refinery, plus the Husky refinery in Prince George and Petro-Canada in Taylor — regulate PAHs at the present time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. As I said, we are working on tighter regulations for September.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister tell the House which of these companies are in compliance with their permits?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They would all be in compliance, in terms of my notes on Burrard Inlet. They are all in compliance. I can't think of Husky doing anything in Prince George. As a matter of fact, they are doing some major air work now. In terms of discharge, they would be in compliance. I'll check to see. I doubt if there's anybody under variance. No, none under variance. I would say, generally — and I stand to be corrected and we're going to dig into that

[ Page 8227 ]

now — that they are in compliance with our standards.

MR. JONES: I'm very pleased that the minister is closely looking at standards for the petroleum industry, because as the minister knows, the constituency of North Burnaby is home to the petroleum industry, to tanker traffic, to Westridge terminal — the offloading facility and tank farms — and it's the home to four petroleum industries' refineries on or near the constituency of North Burnaby. I know the minister is Interested in the concerns of the residents of North Burnaby because of the presence of that petroleum industry in my riding.

As we see the need for products increase over time, we also see an increase in the tremendous potential for environmental damage caused by increased use, not only in the lower mainland and British Columbia but also because of export of petroleum products to other parts of the world. As a result of the increased expansion of the Trans Mountain tank farm to add three new tanks, we expect to see an Increase in tanker and barge traffic from 15 tankers per year to 48 tankers per year after the expansion is completed. I think we have a dangerous situation there.

As the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam and the minister were just discussing, the residents of North Burnaby also have serious concerns about the toxins that enter the Burrard Inlet which are producing liver cancers and tumours In bottom-dwelling fish. I'm pleased to hear that the minister shares those concerns and that there appears to be some action. I hope the minister will take a minute to clarify for me in a bit more detail how he sees dealing with that problem, in terms of both the industry and the cleanup of the dangerous chemicals that have already entered Burrard Inlet.

[11:30]

Perhaps the minister could comment in addition on how he sees the possibility of establishing an inventory for Burrard Inlet of the fish habitat and also the effluent that needs to be controlled and the methods of controlling that on the part of the petrochemical industry. The minister perhaps is aware that that area, free from pollution, is a real jewel in the lower mainland of British Columbia in terms of both sport and recreational fishing and other recreational use. I think the kinds of announcements that we've seen, where we see these cancers and tumours, are really symbolic of past negligence on the part of both the federal and provincial governments. I am hopeful that the government does take those concerns seriously and will have definite measures to address them.

I'd like to raise another matter, and I don't know whether it was included in the minister's previous remarks. It Is about a situation that really stinks: that is, the air quality in the constituency of North Burnaby at times really can be best described as a stench. There are times in the year when the GVRD receives some 1,500 complaints per month with respect to the concerns with very noxious smells.People have a very difficult time, particularly in the summer, going out on their patios, even opening their windows. We've had explosions. We've had malfunctions of catalytic crackers that produced a tremendous dust spreading over a wide region of North Burnaby. We've had problems of stench as a result of cleaning storage tanks, and just the normal operation of those storage tanks at times produces very noxious smells as well, to the point where students in the nearby high school are complaining of being nauseous, as well as residents in the area, in their minds, very clearly experiencing health problems as a result of these odours.

The response of the GVRD is that the nose is much more sensitive than any of the metering devices and that these are not serious health problems, particularly when it comes to hydrocarbon air pollution. That may be true, particularly in the short term, but I question whether or not substances that are that noxious to the nose are not in the long term a serious health problem, or at least a serious potential health problem.

I appreciate that from the minister's point of view there are serious jurisdictional questions when you deal with the harbours and the GVRD. The GVRD, Environment Canada and the port authority are involved as well as the Ministry of Environment for the province. But it seems to me that we cannot hide behind jurisdictional questions. There are serious gaps; there are areas where the job is not being done. The province is in a natural position of leadership in the question of the environment, and I am hopeful that leadership will be shown.

I know the minister is aware of a recent study by Dr. David Bates, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of British Columbia, who is an international expert on pollution. Dr. Bates produced something unique recently in his study. I think it's the first time there has even been a study, at least in this area, that showed a relationship between respiratory problems and air pollution from the petroleum industry as well as from the cement manufacturing industry. In that study, which I hope the minister is in the process of reviewing, the connection I mentioned was indicated by Dr. Bates as having a statistical likelihood of only one in 1,000 of being coincidental. A person of Dr. Bates's reputation, who is staking that kind of claim statistically in connecting respiratory illness with pollution from the petroleum industry, has to be taken very seriously by the minister and his ministry.

I think the minister is aware that the petroleum industry produces some 4,100 tonnes of sulphur dioxide annually. It's bad enough that sulphur dioxide produces acid rain, but when it causes — particularly in those times of the year when there is not dispersion — serious health problems among many citizens of this province, then it has to be taken seriously.

I wrote to the minister a month ago asking him to review the Bates study, and I also asked him to update the 15-year-old pollution control objectives governing the petroleum industry. I'm hopeful that

[ Page 8228 ]

the minister's comments a few minutes ago indicated that it was in the works. It seems to me that the citizens, as well as the petroleum industry itself, are on board. It seems that everybody is waiting for some leadership.

With respect to the Bates study, the Sun of June 2, 1989, indicated the position of at least one petroleum refinery in this question. To quote from that individual: "It is widely acknowledged that sulphur dioxide causes respiratory problems." He goes on to say his refinery would be happy to install additional equipment if the study proves there is a correlation between increased hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses and sulphur dioxide emissions. The industry is there; it recognizes the problem. It would be happy to comply if the leadership is shown. If the limits are lowered, "We'll be happy to comply and do what we can to alleviate the problem."

I would like to ask the minister a series of questions. Is he reviewing the Bates study? Is he in the process of updating the 15-year old pollution control objectives governing the petroleum industry? Is he willing to convert those standards and those objectives to standards so they can be enforced by the GVRD? With respect to the petroleum industry as a whole, is he willing to conduct a full environmental study of the petroleum industry, including the dangers of tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet, the dangers of the water pollution in that same inlet and also the adequacy of the air monitoring measures undertaken by the GVRD?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good series of questions by the member for Burnaby North. Let me just run through a couple of things that you might have missed earlier. The petroleum standards are being reviewed now, and there will be changes made in September, I am advised.

If we look at the Burrard Inlet situation — and the mayor I was trying to think of is Driscoll.... He has really been a leader in this whole situation. He's from Port Moody?

MR. ROSE: Port Moody.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He and I have met on a number of occasions with respect to the air quality of the area.

Getting back to the problem of the bottom fish, the fact that it's with sole, which are bottom feeders, tells us it's in the soil, not the water.

We don't have any problem cleaning up industry, and for the large part we have. I am just trying to check all the compliance here. The only thing I see that we've got out of compliance is Chevron, with respect to air emissions. All discharges, though, are well within compliance. That's what my notes indicate. I don't know where we are with Chevron, but I will ensure that I find out about that.

The problem I fear is that now that we know it's in the soil, what do we do about it? We have stopped the accumulation, but the historic problem is there. It is caused by a variety of things: old industry, as you have indicated; lead on the pavement from cars that burn leaded gasoline, and when you get rain it runs off. When we find lead in the soil, that's what we presume the source is. That is going to go away as well, because gradually the country is getting into unleaded gasoline.

But there are some historic problems. That is the real concern I have. That's why the team went to Seattle to look at how they are remedying the historic problem, because it's serious. In terms of modern industry, we can regulate it, and we will, so we are not adding to the load. But getting rid of what is there now is the major problem. We will have to address that, or the problem is going to be around for some time. It may be a natural flushing thing, and over the years the soils will decontaminate. But that's something that takes some years to find out.

With respect to SO₂, we monitor it all the time. I agree that we probably should take more leadership in the air question, although the GVRD has done some very good air work along with the Ministry of Environment, because we have been with them. We have looked primarily at the automobile, which is the major cause of air pollutants anywhere in the world. Wherever you have an industrialized country with a lot of cars, be it Los Angeles, Vancouver or Tokyo, you will always find that air shed problems are caused by the automobile. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that we can't continue to lean on industry and have them clean up as well.

With respect to tanker traffic, we are studying it, of course. David Anderson and the oil spill task force have looked at all tanker traffic in British Columbia, not only in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Georgia but also in Burrard Inlet. He has made some comments about that, and we are on top of that issue and will make appropriate recommendations to the appropriate authorities as we see fit with respect to showing concern about that type of traffic.

Generally, I feel that we are on the right track in terms of identifying this problem in Burnaby and the greater problem of the air shed. I guess we're going to have to not lose sight of the fact that as we go to cleanup, it's going to be expensive, and the taxpayers have to bear that cost. I had quite a few nasty phone calls when we talked about air-emission testing, when we talked about air quality. We were able to pinpoint the automobile. Someone said that if you're going to have an increased program, who's going to pay for it? I said that if gasoline is the problem, then gasoline will pay for addressing the problem, which is the appropriate way of doing it. Of course, that indicates a higher tax on gasoline in that area to address that problem. I had some nasty phone calls on that one, because people think that gasoline is taxed too high now. I did make that statement, and it really is the problem with respect to our airshed.

I will take what the member for Burnaby North has said with some interest. I believe we can certainly improve that area. We will continue as a ministry to work very closely with the GVRD team on the Burrard soils problem and attempt to identify ways

[ Page 8229 ]

of cleaning that up, because we can't have that condition exist.

just to recap what I've said, we can handle industry now. It's looking after the historic problem that's going to be the major expense and the major issue for us to deal with in terms of Burrard Inlet.

[11:45]

MR. JONES: I'd like to thank the minister for his response. The minister has indicated that he is reviewing the standards for the petroleum industry and that we can expect some results of that review in terms of new standards come this September. The minister did indicate that in the area of specific pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, he does see a need for leadership. As I understand it, what we have is that the federal government and other jurisdictions have standards that we accept as objectives rather than specific standards that can be enforced. Can we expect in September, as part of this review, very well-defined standards that can clearly be enforced, hopefully to reduce the amount of sulphur dioxide pollutant that is, according to Dr. Bates, producing respiratory problems?

In addition to establishing those well-defined standards that can be enforced, I'm wondering if at the same time the minister is willing to show leadership to find the gaps in those areas that are not being adequately monitored, those individual pollutants that are not being adequately monitored in the GVRD now. Is he willing to assist the GVRD with his good offices to find the gaps and weaknesses in their air-monitoring program that can be enhanced so that the constituents of North Burnaby have greater confidence that their air quality is being better looked after and we don't receive the 1,500 complaints per month that we have right now?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I agree with what the member has said, and the ministry will undertake that discussion. We will look at gaps, if there are any, in GVRD testing.

Let me tell you about the standards though. The standards are well defined now, but well-defined standards don't mean they're good standards. In September we will be presenting higher standards to the petroleum industry. You're right: they are 15 years old now, but they will be addressed. We of course, as you can appreciate, have been working on the dioxin and sapstain situation, and that has taken a lot of our resources in the last year. But I'm in general agreement with what the member for Burnaby North has suggested, and we'll follow out his suggestions.

I'd like to respond now to an issue that was raised earlier with respect to Cowichan estuary and the Doman sawmill. We issued a waste management permit to allow Doman to burn the dredgeate, but under very rigid conditions. This permit was appealed by an estuary protection society, and was heard by Dr. Rick Wilson, a director of the Ministry of Environment. He heard that appeal on January 5, 1989. His decision was that Doman could burn the dredgeate, but under even stricter conditions than those that were permitted in the original permit. They had examples of the conditions that were put in place by Dr. Wilson on January 5, that Doman had to sample before burning. No burning was allowed of any anti-sapstain-contaminated material. They had to test before they did burn. That was the decision rendered by Dr. Wilson on January 5. Since that date, Doman has not taken advantage of the amendment. They have not done any burning. The dredgeate is simply sitting there. They do have a permit to burn now if they meet our conditions.

I trust that satisfies the member's question.

MR. KEMPF: I don't intend to take up a great deal of time in this minister's estimates, but I have a number of matters which I wish to raise. First I want to make somewhat of a statement.

I know the subject has been well canvassed with respect to the effluents that are being dumped into our waters — rivers, oceans, etc. — by pulp mills, and human waste that is being dumped. I think the dumping of any detrimental effluent into any waterway in British Columbia by any pulp mill operation is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. The profits that pulp companies are racking up In British Columbia, and have been for some time, compared with the return that they are paying to the taxpayer of this province and compared with the return that they are receiving for their end product leaves the government no leeway at all except to come down very hard in the way of fines for those polluters. I commend the minister for the new legislation. I don't think we as the people of British Columbia should give one inch when it comes to requiring those operations to change their process in order that they cease and desist dumping such effluents.

The profits are great. We talk a lot about the profits of sawmill operations; we talk very little about that which pulp operations have and are making in the province of British Columbia. And for any government to stand by and allow the dumping of those kinds of effluents that go into, for example, the Fraser River at Prince George, or into any of our coastal waters, is absolutely and totally unacceptable, and we should come down very heavy on anyone breaking the rules. And those rules should be very stringent. It's all very well to have a new set of fines in place, Mr. Chairman, but unless you levy those fines, unless you insist upon those pulp mills changing their processes and giving them a deadline to do so, it's all for naught. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make that statement at the outset. As I said, it has been well canvassed by other members.

As far as human waste effluents being dumped into our rivers and oceans, that too is absolutely unacceptable. I don't think it's a responsibility of municipalities or regional districts; it's a responsibility that can be placed squarely on the plate of the provincial government. We spend a lot of time in this beautiful city of Victoria as members of this Legislature. It's an absolute crime to fully understand what's being done with the human waste developed by this city — dumped as raw sewage into waters. I'm an

[ Page 8230 ]

ardent fisherman and boater, and I think it's an absolute crime for any provincial government to allow what's happening in the vicinity of our capital city. You need only go at this time of the year to almost any beach you can name to see those beaches posted because of the effluent going into the waters around this city. This is not the only city; most, if not all, of our coastal cities are in the same boat, as is the city of Prince George, as the member very well knows.

I want to dwell for a moment on a very real problem, one which many of our citizens have begun to fight against. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg with respect to it: the very real health problem caused by the spraying of herbicides in our province. I'm going to dwell for quite some time on that subject. I'm going to agree with a very active group in my constituency, which I have met with on a number of occasions recently and which has asked for a moratorium to be placed on the spraying of all herbicides in British Columbia.

I know it's very easy because of the lack of solid information, but what information I've been able to put together shows quite clearly that the people in the Friends of the Environment group in Burns Lake are absolutely correct in demanding of government that a moratorium be placed on the use of herbicides.

HON. J. JANSEN: Farmers too?

MR. KEMPF: If the member's going to speak on this subject, I wish he'd get on his feet, and in the meantime I wish he'd be quiet so that I can speak on it. It's a very serious health problem not only in our province or our country, but all over the world. It's about time that politicians at all levels began to realize that.

I could read a whole lot into the record of this House that I've been able to acquire with respect to the herbicide and pesticide problem — but mostly the herbicide problem, because I see a proliferation of applications by forest companies and B.C. Forest Service to spray those poisons.

HON. J. JANSEN: What poisons?

MR. KEMPF: We'll get to that, Mr. Member. Again, Mr. Chairman, can you bring that Minister of International Business and Immigration to order.

It's a very serious problem in this province and not to be made fun of. I'm sure it won't be made fun of by the Minister Responsible for Environment, particularly a minister coming to the north where we still have clear, pure, unpolluted waters that we can drink. But I can tell you that if we allow the proliferation of the use of herbicides, particularly in our forest operations, we won't have that for very long.

It's a very detailed subject, and one which I wish to spend a lot of time on, and I have other subjects which I wish to canvass. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.