[ Page 10427 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Community Care Facility Amendment Act, (Bill 43). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 10427

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 10427

Ms. Smallwood

Gun control. Mr. Davidson –– 10428

B.C. tree-fruit industry. Mr. Rose –– 10429

Contract for dialysis equipment. Mr. Perry –– 10429

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry –– 10429

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10430

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Reid

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Jones

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Serwa

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have great pleasure today in introducing to the House Mario and Marcella Carniel, who are longtime good friends from Burnaby. We've known the Carniels for many years, and I'm very pleased to have them with us today, as well as their sister-in-law Gluliana Carniel and her daughter Toni Trevisan. Visiting them from Italy is their sister-in-law Maria Carniel with Gabriella Durante. I would ask the House to bid welcome to these visitors to this beautiful capital city.

Also with us today visiting from my constituency of Richmond is Roslyn Blute and David Lind, who are hard-working constituents. They are taking in all of the proceedings, in the House. I would ask the House to bid them welcome as well.

MR. REID: I'd like the House to pay a special welcome today to a young lady from Osaka, Japan: Yuki Etori. She's here studying English as a second language at Douglas College. With her is her uncle from Surrey, who is a very strong supporter of government initiatives, Mr. Sam Yamamoto. Would this House give them both a special welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Visiting in your gallery today are two residents of the Okanagan area: Mr. Bob Whitehead, the plant manager at Hiram Walker, and Mr. John Madsen, who is also with Hiram Walker. On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson), I'd like to ask everybody to make them welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a class of approximately 45 grade 7 students from the Parkview Elementary School in Sicamous, who are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. J. Lucas, and several parents. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is Hilary Arnott, who is a legal journalist and editor visiting us from London, England. Would all members please join me in giving her a warm welcome.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Sylvia Bishop, who comes from my hometown Of Delta. I'd like the House to greet her, please.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. a bill intituled Community Care Facility Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes a number of very important changes to the Community Care Facility Act to enhance the health and safety requirements contained in the legislation. This act establishes the basic licensing requirements for facilities throughout British Columbia that offer residential care or day care to either adults or children.

There are four essential areas of change to the Community Care Facility Act contained in this bill. First, the two licensing boards for adult care and child care are being consolidated into one new body, the Community Care Facility Appeal Board.

Second, the position of director of licensing has been created to assume many of the responsibilities of the former licensing boards. Third, the basic licensing functions are being assigned directly to medical health officers to reflect existing practice. Fourth, new powers to appoint the public administrator for a facility have been added.

These amendments are all designed to significantly increase the level of protection afforded to clients of community care facilities. I am pleased to be able to present these amendments to the House, and look forward to fuller discussions on these matters during second reading and Committee of the Whole.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, carrying on with the continuing air saga, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Government Management Services. The guidelines state that air ambulance service is the first priority for the government's jets. Yet yesterday you told the House that the service accounted for only about one-third of all the flights last year.

With those numbers, would the minister not agree that the first priority is clearly not ambulance service at all, but ministerial travel?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, that's your interpretation of what I said. Trips by government air services for ambulance purposes amounted to 38 percent of the air travel in that calendar year. But the first priority of the government aircraft is always for ambulance service. If the aircraft is being used by a minister and is needed for ambulance service, it is taken and used for that purpose.

MR. ROSE: I am prepared to accept that, but I would like it to be confirmed.

I wonder if I could direct a supplementary to the minister, or perhaps even to the Minister of Health.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, temporarily. He sits right across from me.

[ Page 10428 ]

Last year we were told that the government spent $4.4 million to charter air ambulance services. Is either minister prepared to table a list of flight times and dates to ensure British Columbians that ministerial travel was not the reason for the chartering of private air ambulances?

HON. J. JANSEN: There have been a lot of inaccuracies mentioned by the other side of the House — and indeed by the press — concerning the use of government aircraft, particularly as it relates to the air ambulance. My mandate as Minister of Health is to provide the most convenient and quickest mode of transportation which is suited to the local circumstances as possible.

Surprisingly enough, we have a situation in this province where we can't land jet aircraft. We use prop aircraft and helicopters because of shorter runways or the local terrain, and neither of those types of aircraft is available in the government fleet.

It is, however, accurate to say that a majority of the jet flights used are air ambulance flights from the government service. There are priorities. The first is that we get what government aircraft are available, the second is that we look at what is necessary in terms of the aircraft available for the particular use.

MR. ROSE: I am pleased with the answer. I congratulate the minister for the velvet fog emanating from over there. But will he release the list of the flight times and dates? I wonder if he would care to answer that.

HON. J. JANSEN: I think the opposition had three years of flight logs available to them. I can tell you the breakdown, in terms of the amount of work that we do. We use far more prop aircraft and helicopter aircraft than we do jet aircraft, in terms of the local conditions I talked about earlier, so I'm not sure what the member wants beyond that.

MR. ROSE: I don't mean to be unduly persistent about that. I would like an answer, since those charter flights are not among the logs that were released yesterday. That's why we're asking.

I'd like to go back to the Minister of Government Management Services. I want to be very careful about this; I don't want to be an alarmist. But is the minister aware that at least one death last April has been blamed by the family on the unavailability of air ambulance services from Vancouver to Saanich because the planes were being used for ministerial travel?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I take offence at that comment and I'd like to take that question on notice to check that out.

I would indicate, however, that there was a question yesterday or the day before related to a young boy from Kamloops, and there was a comment made that there was a 12-hour delay in terms of that pickup. In fact, what had happened was that at a certain time, 2:37 hours, the request was made for a plane and that was subsequently cancelled at 2:42 hours on the same day. That's some five minutes later. To suggest that the plane was delayed 12 hours is shameful.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Health. While the government air ambulances are being used for political taxis, the only ambulance equipped to provide advanced life support services in Surrey-Delta did not operate for two day shifts on May 31 and June 1 because the Emergency Health Services Commission refused to authorize overtime. I'd like to know if that is acceptable to this minister and if he does not believe that such service should be provided on a 24-hour basis.

HON. J. JANSEN: Again, it is absolute rubbish that one would suggest that those circumstances are in existence. In fact, because we've had shifting problems because of illness and vacation, we have assigned other staff in those slots. But the service has not been interrupted, and it's shameful to suggest otherwise.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would ask the Minister of Health to check with his own staff. I think you will find that, due to the fact there was not authorized overtime, this particular vehicle sat idle for two day shifts, and that on one day there were at least three to four heart-attack victims who had to have a lesser vehicle come to their relief. Providing a lesser vehicle diminishes their chances for recovery, and I'd like the minister to look into it and report back to this House.

[2:15]

GUN CONTROL

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Solicitor General. A growing number of handgun-related offences are taking place throughout British Columbia. Yesterday, for example, a sub-machine-gun was used in the daring escape at the Kent institution. Several handgun-related incidents took place the week before. I'd like to inquire of the Solicitor-General what new steps he has taken to initiate prevention of handguns coming into that element throughout British Columbia. It's an alarming growth.

HON. MR. FRASER: That was a very serious question, and therefore I will give it a very serious answer.

Firstly, gun control is in the purview of the federal authorities. But notwithstanding that, I will assure the member and everyone else that B.C. has taken a very aggressive stand with respect to gun legislation and has been pushing the federal authorities to upgrade their regulations with respect to guns. In particular, it has made a very aggressive effort to push the federal government into controlling semiautomatics, which can be easily converted to automatics. It is also very concerned about the level of gun activity in the province, and will be unrelenting in its pursuit of gun control and regulation within British Columbia.

[ Page 10429 ]

B.C. TREE-FRUIT INDUSTRY

MR. ROSE: I'd like to address a couple of questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. To the minister, welcome back from the Okanagan. I'm pleased to see he's in one piece.

He stated that he's pleased with the Lusztig report tabled by the Provincial Secretary yesterday. The fruit growers, on the other hand, have condemned the report and the minister, stating that if it's adopted it will kill their industry I wonder if the minister has decided to follow the advice of the fruit growers and quit?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, that's an easy answer. No.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, since even the fruit growers can't get rid of him, perhaps I could address this supplementary to him. I wonder if he could assure the House that his government will ignore the report's recommendations, like the government does with the auditor-general's report and many other reports. Has he decided to enter into discussions with the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia for a national apple marketing board such as has been so successful in milk, eggs and turkeys?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Speaker, as you well know — at least I hope that the opposition House leader knows very well — the report was done by an independent commission of inquiry. The report makes a number of recommendations. Those are the recommendations of that commissioner.

We have proceeded to set hearing dates for the industry to make their submissions on the nearly 50 recommendations contained in that report. I will not interfere in any way with the suggestions that come forward to that hearing process. Once that hearing process has had the opportunity to look at the number of recommendations from the industry, the processors, the packing houses, the distribution system and the retail sector, each and every one will be given the opportunity through the several different hearings throughout the areas — including Chilliwack as well as the Okanagan area — to make their point known relative to where they may have some input or concern as to the suggestions and recommendations made by Mr. Lusztig in his commission of inquiry into whether we deal with the supply management issue as it relates to the national farm products marketing act. Only time will tell after the time is given for the input relative to that inquiry.

CONTRACT FOR DIALYSIS EQUIPMENT

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health Can the minister tell the House whether his continuing advisory subcommittee on chronic renal failure was consulted before a contract to provide all government supplies and equipment to home dialysis patients was awarded to Baxter Travenol without a public tender?

HON. J. JANSEN: I have complained in the past about the lack of research by that member opposite in terms of some of the details he presents to this House. The fact of the matter is that that contract was tendered.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary. The contract was renewed without tender. That's what I'm referring to.

Can the minister confirm that his advisory subcommittee had serious concerns about the Baxter Travenol contract including concerns about the quality and safety of the equipment being provided to home peritoneal dialysis patients?

HON. J. JANSEN: If I could get the benefit of the member's research, I'd be pleased to look at the problem he refers to. The information I have is totally contrary to what he has, so I'd be pleased to listen to his side of the information.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Take two aspirins and go to bed.

MR. PERRY: It'll take more than that, unfortunately, to get rid of this cough — maybe a holiday, if the government will call the election. An election campaign would be even better.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY: A new question for the minister. On June 5, the minister again promised to provide me with a copy of Dr. Keon's report on heart surgery waiting-lists. I've been checking my mail daily for this report, and it has not arrived. In contrast, I got a very nice letter from you yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House when I can expect the Keon report that he promised me originally on April 277

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, I know that the member is very keen on getting the Keon report, which is about two years old — for his library, obviously. But I reflected upon his request and also reflected on his lack of clarity in some of his questions in the House, and I've asked staff to give him a bit of an overview of what this report really means to help him understand it.

MR. DAVIDSON: On a point of order, during question period I tried to seek a supplementary on my question. I'd like to know if there is a particular ruling that Mr. Speaker would have that members of the back bench are not allowed supplemental questions, while members of the opposition are allowed sometimes two, three or four. It seems to me that it is patently unfair.

MR. SPEAKER: And the second point of order?

[ Page 10430 ]

MR. PERRY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate your advice. On June 5 — I'm going to refer to Hansard at page 10070 — the minister indicated that the Dr. Keon report was in the mail, and specifically accused me of being too busy with other matters to check my mail. I find it difficult to interpret his answer a few minutes ago otherwise than that his intent was to mislead the House when he answered my question on June 5.

As you know, this is a matter of very serious concern. A patient had died while awaiting heart surgery immediately before I asked the question. I took the minister at his word, honestly. He telephoned me after his remarks in the House to apologize and to admit that he had not mailed the report.

I find this a frank and grotesque abuse of parliamentary privilege. I would request your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the matter. I think it is totally unacceptable in a minister to mislead the House in this way. I'd appreciate your direction on how to follow it up further.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd first like to deal with the point of order raised by the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who shouldn't really need to have the rule explained to him, having previously sat in this chair and deliberated on almost precisely the same matter. However, a quick perusal of the standing orders will indicate that whoever the Speaker recognized as standing is the person who shall be recognized. The issue of supplementaries and who gets to ask supplementaries is entirely at the discretion of the Chair.

In order to make matters perfectly clear, the Chair has been assisted by the opposition, which provides the Chair with a list of questioners. The government has not yet seen fit to do so.

If I could have the next point of order from the Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, continuing on the point of privilege raised by the hon. member, I would suggest that the member must know, although he hasn't been here long enough, that it certainly wasn't a question of privilege. I would ask him to withdraw his final comments about the minister misleading the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When the matter of privilege was brought forward, the member first asked advice from the Chair. The Chair is not in the advice-dispensing department. There are others who will dispense advice, free or otherwise, to members anytime they want it. It's available almost throughout the buildings.

On the matter of privilege that the member raises, the Chair will take it under consideration, review the remarks made both in today's Hansard and in the previous one, and bring a decision back at a future time.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

On vote 26: minister's office, $335,500 (continued).

MS. CULL: I want to talk about issues related to sewage treatment in my community and in other communities throughout British Columbia. As the minister is fully aware, the matter of sewage treatment in greater Victoria is a very serious one in which I believe the public has been well out ahead of locally elected politicians.

We are now in the middle of a major study on sewage treatment in my community, and the first phase of the liquid management plan has called for sewage treatment. I have a number of questions I would like to ask the minister. I'll run through a few of them so that he can note them and then provide me with answers. Then I'd like to follow up with some supplementaries.

First of all, I would like to know how many communities in British Columbia are still discharging raw sewage into local waters. How many municipalities are in violation of their waste disposal permits? Does the minister have environmental impact studies of those communities that are either discharging raw sewage or are in violation of their permits, or where perhaps both situations are occurring at the same time?

I would like to start with those three questions. If I could get some answers, I would go on from there.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would advise the member that we can gather that information together, but there will be quite a few details in it. Some of the material, as you know, is being pumped into oceans. This is under the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have a number of municipalities in the province throughout the interior that are on proper sewage treatment. The ones that aren't are all being looked at and reviewed. If the member would like to continue with some other questions, I will get the list, if she wants them, of every community. But we can probably be here for two days if you want to list every community in the province and what they're doing with their sewage.

MS. CULL: I would like the minister to pursue those questions, because I would like to have some idea of whether the ministry in fact has that information. But I will go on with my question....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We have all that kind of information, and we're quite prepared to make it available to the member. I'll just give you an example: the district of Campbell River, sewage effluent — they are out of compliance; the district of Chilliwack, the town of Creston; the city of Fernie; the greater

[ Page 10431 ]

Vancouver sewage and drainage district; the greater Vancouver sewage and drainage district; the greater Vancouver sewage and drainage district; Powell River Regional District; the city of Penticton: nine at the present time are out of compliance.

[2:30]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll be very brief. I just wanted to make a few comments on this particular budget. I regret that the opposition leader is not here again today, because I was hoping we might have an opportunity to hear from the Leader of the Opposition so that we could compare what the approach might be from his standpoint as opposed to what we've seen here in our province for the past good number of years.

The reason I say that is that in the area of the environment we really have many things to consider. But when we're comparing what's happening today to see how effective it is, we have to look at past practices or experiences. I think we can all agree on that.

I was the mayor in Surrey in 1972-75 when the NDP was government, and I can recall we had a number of debates about environmental issues. Particularly we debated the refinery which was proposed for Surrey; we had some considerable debates about.... Those were the years when we were having some difficulties with septic tank approvals and were looking to get some assistance for sewage treatment installations. During the NDP years I would say we probably had one of the worst records in relative terms to what we've seen in this province for a good while.

I say this because — again I repeat — oftentimes in environmental considerations we have to look at the past to see what was done and then attempt to try to do it better today. So I commend the ministry for the many approaches that have been initiated over the last several years, and, Mr. Minister, I realize that there's much more to be done.

Obviously we'll never have a perfect situation, and we'll continue to hear from the opposition as to how they might do some things more effectively. But I refer them back to the NDP years of '72-75 when I was the mayor in Surrey. They did a dismal job in every respect in controlling those environmental concerns being raised during that particular time.

Now I raise this because I want to get it on record I'm hoping that one day in the not too distant future the Leader of the Opposition may in fact pay us a visit.

Incidentally, that reminds me — how many days can you go and still get paid? This is better than a Senate job. It's ridiculous. We've complained about senators getting paid for just showing up. Well, the Leader of the Opposition is getting paid, and he doesn't even show up. It's absolutely ridiculous. I hate to digress, Mr. Chairman, but something ought to be done about that. We ought to perhaps at some point have a motion specifically dealing with that issue. The Leader of the Opposition is never here.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm very pleased the Premier has actually decided to join us and enter the debate. And we love hearing about the Leader of the Opposition. But I think we're debating the estimates of the Minister of Environment.

If you are concerned about the Leader of the Opposition, call an election, Mr. Premier, and then we'll see you and then the people will have a final decision. Call an election! Call an election!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said, obviously the Leader of the Opposition could have a considerable influence on the environment, and he could do so in part by participating in this debate or any of the debates, which are so important to the people of the province.

This is our job here — to participate in these debates and to offer alternative and constructive suggestions. That's why he's being paid full-time, even though he's hardly ever here.

The second member for Victoria says: "Call an election." Call an election? We're doing great things in this province, and we're continuing to do great things, but an election will be called, my friend, and that'll be history for you. Now on to the estimates.

Again I would reiterate that we certainly want to hear from the opposition as to what constructive alternatives there might be. For my own constituency, I've definitely identified the environmental concerns that have been raised with me by members of the municipal council or others in the community, and I have taken them to the Ministry of Environment. I've presented them to the minister or people in the ministry, and they've always attended to these matters very efficiently and effectively. I'm very pleased about that, and I think we're making great progress. There is much more to be done, Mr. Minister, and I realize that you have a tremendously challenging job.

I'm going to take my place now and listen to some constructive suggestions, hopefully, from the opposition — not a whole lot of negativism and criticism without some constructive suggestions. Then I'll be speaking again.

MS. CULL: I have to thank the Premier for his dissertation on the NDP during 1972-75. I'm sure that during that time you enjoyed being on this side and asking questions — not you personally — and I'm sure you'll get an opportunity soon to be asking questions of government ministers. In the meantime we are asking the questions here.

I might also say just as an aside that the Minister of Environment this morning did thank me this morning for some of the suggestions I was making during estimates. So there are a lot of positive ideas coming from this side of the floor.

I want to clarify the answer the Minister of Environment gave me. Is it correct? I've added this up and counted the greater Vancouver sewage and water districts three times. But is it correct that there are nine communities in British Columbia out of compliance with their waste disposal permits when it

[ Page 10432 ]

comes to sewage? Is that the sum total, or were there others?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The ones that I named are out of compliance, yes.

MS. CULL: Could you tell me how many corporations, pulp mills and others are out of compliance with their waste disposal permits? Is it nine, ten or significantly more? I don't need the precise number if you haven't got the figures there, but I'd like some idea of the relationship.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are approximately 40 if you include pulp mills and other industries.

MS. CULL: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I asked that question because we often hear from members on the other side of the House when we're talking about pollution in the province: "Mat about the municipalities!" When we bring up pulp mills, the municipalities always get lumped into that, and I'm pleased to know that for the most part, out of 145 municipalities or whatever there are now in British Columbia, very few of them are actually out of compliance.

I'd like to go on. I asked about the number of communities that are out of compliance and are discharging raw sewage. I asked the minister whether the ministry itself has any environmental impact studies of the effects of these communities which are out of compliance. I'd like to know whether there are any such studies.

I'd also like to know about the budget increase for waste permit fees. There's an increase in the charge, if I've got it correct, for waste disposal fees. I would like to know how much that is, and what impact that is going to have on municipalities. I know that somewhere along the line we have discussed the amount of money to be raised by this increase in fees, but I don't seem to be able to find it. Could the minister advise me as to how much that is going to be?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: New revenues from increasing the rates, including the municipalities, will equal $2 million in 1990-91 and $6.3 million in 1991-92.

MS. CULL: How much does that pertain to municipalities?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: About $400,000.

MS. CULL: I believe the Ministry of Environment participates with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture to provide funding to municipalities for sewage disposal, treatment collection and other items like that. I believe sewer and water grants is what they are called.

I understand that there is a priority system for ranking applications, and as is natural with any government grant program, applications usually exceed the amount of money that's available. But I understand that there is a priority system, and that projects designed to correct environmental or health hazards get 50 percent funding instead of the 25 percent funding. Is that correct? Do I have the guidelines right on that? Is there ministry analysis that shows what communities are in fact creating an environmental or health hazard? Are there any environmental impacts, for example, of these nine noncompliant communities that are not meeting their disposal permit requirements?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member has stated, we've introduced a high-cost grant program for the municipal treatment upgrading projects which may provide up to 25 percent funding in addition to the 50 percent that comes from the Revenue Sharing Act.

With regard to environmental impact studies, we don't have those as such, but the ministry is monitoring. We will analyze and put in priority the different municipalities that we would look into giving the increased grant to.

I might also mention that when it comes to sewage treatment, the average — or very close to it, anyway — household taxes would be around $200 in the communities that have sewage treatment plants. The city of Victoria is looking at $2 per household right now, and the city of Vancouver is about $37 per household. In a debate of whether the provincial government should be putting up all this money, when it comes to the taxpayers of the province paying, these municipalities should look at getting the levy up in their tax base also. We shouldn't be giving them enough of a grant so they can maintain a tax base of $2 per household for sewage treatment. They have a responsibility, just as the people in Campbell River or Prince George do, to have a system that operates and is good for the environment.

MS. CULL: I'm not sure whether I heard the minister correctly. I believe he said that the program provides 25 percent on top of the 50 percent that is funded. I was under the impression, just from looking at the circular that your ministry — or maybe it was Municipal Affairs — sent to all municipalities, that the minimum is 25 percent, but the maximum is 50. Can it then go up to 75 percent? Is that what the minister is saying — that in certain circumstances the community can get 75 percent funding?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, that's happening right now. In fact, I just signed one off the other day. I think it was Charlie Lake that got 75 percent. When I was talking about environmental impact studies.... When the municipalities are developing their waste management plans, included in that when they come to us is an environmental assessment, which is about the same thing.

MS. CULL: I've been advised by the minister's staff, though, that not all these grants are tied to liquid waste management plans. So in some cases

[ Page 10433 ]

grants are being applied for on the basis of some kind of engineering study, but not on the basis of a liquid waste management plan. If there isn't a liquid waste management plan and the ministry doesn't have its own environmental studies, could the minister tell us what criteria are used to determine which communities will qualify for this enriched assistance up to 75 percent?

MR. REID: While the minister is preparing an answer to that previous question, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple I'd like to direct to the minister about sewage waste, noncompliance and outfalls, etc.

[2:45]

1 know in the last three years.... The Leader of the Opposition isn't here today. I wish he was, because while he was the mayor of the city of Vancouver they agreed to fund a very expensive outfall extension on the Iona treatment plant, which is really a sorting plant. It sorts water from solids, and all the liquid goes right out into Georgia strait. With the extension, that outfall now directs the untreated effluent further south. I can tell you that in the most recent summer White Rock, Crescent Beach, Boundary Bay and Point Roberts areas had the highest coliform counts in their history. I believe that was a direct result of them deflecting that sewage from the Vancouver sewage system further south into beaches around White Rock, Semiahmoo and Boundary Bay.

Mr. Minister, I would like a response from your staff relative to a monitoring of that particular question — because it was asked of me about two months ago — to the GVRD sewage and water waste committee, advising whether in fact that increase in coliform count in Crescent and Semiahmoo Beaches is not a direct result of Vancouver city's sewage outfall being now further south and directing that effluent into those two bays.

I would also question whether, in fact, the city of Victoria's direct untreated effluent into the salt waters of the south end of Vancouver Island does not also create some of the problems for the beaches in and around White Rock, South Surrey, Crescent Beach and Semiahmoo.

I would hope that you have some response to that from your staff relative to whether it's being monitored at the moment. I have a deep concern about it. As you know, I've raised it in the past. I think the question of the two major cities of the province of British Columbia dumping raw effluent into the Georgia strait and using salt water as a treatment for sewage has been outdated for a hundred years.

I agree with you, Mr. Minister, that it's about time the Victoria and Vancouver taxpayers put up $200 a household to clean their effluent before they send it onto the beaches of my constituency.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We should have a vote. I think everybody agrees.

I'll go back to the member from Oak Bay-Gordon Head first. She was talking about the process we use. As she would know, if there is an engineering study, there is an environmental assessment included. We would look at that — I'm talking about putting things in priorities  — and also at the total cost per household for our priorities.

Charlie Lake was a good example, I think. With a 75 percent grant, it's going to cost them in excess of $500 per household in taxes per year to put in the sewage treatment plant. That's with the householder only paying 25 percent. So to help those people get it is a priority to us. They are still paying very high taxes, but we give them a high grant. That's how the money is divided, and we will make our decisions based on those.

With regard to the comments of the member from Surrey-White Rock, I've had numerous meetings with the GVRD and the Capital Regional District and couldn't agree more that we must do something.

Stage one of the waste management plan of the GVRD has been approved. We instructed the GVRD to implement secondary sewage treatment at Annacis and Lulu by the end of '93. We're working with them. That may not be a date they can meet, because of getting equipment, etc., but they've agreed that it has to be done.

We're meeting with them on a regular basis to try to eliminate.... I think everyone in this province or in this room agrees that in the next few years we must be able to say that we finally reached the day when sewage is not going into any stream, ocean, river or lake. We must handle it ourselves and solve the problem.

In this province we have the technology. The technology that we're using in the Okanagan is probably the best in the world, but it doesn't stop us from looking at technologies in other parts of the world and continuing to find better ways to do it.

MS. CULL: A final question to the minister on this subject, with respect to the CRD. I would like to know whether the minister would consider, given that the first phase of the liquid management plan does show concern about the environment from the continued dumping of raw sewage.... Will the CRD then qualify for this higher level of funding — 50 or 75 percent, depending on how the criteria are applied?

Is the CRD one of the communities? You didn't list them as being not in compliance, but I know that there are some outfalls that are not in compliance. One of them is so old that there was never a permit issued for it. Presumably it's out of compliance, because it closes the beach at the end of my street every summer.

I would like to hear from the minister about the priority for the CRD. Is it one of those communities that deserves this higher level of funding?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The reason that you may think — I thought so when I looked at the stats — some of them should be on the list is that you may have a municipality that has a permit to put raw sewage in the ocean, because that's the way it's been for years.

[ Page 10434 ]

You may have considered the situation at Penticton, where they have one of the best systems in the world, and they're out of compliance because they're pumping more into the lake than their permit allows them to. Yet the water that's going in has been treated, and very little damage will be caused. But that's why they're out of compliance with their permit.

Yes, I would say that we are working with the Capital Regional District. We are meeting on a regular basis. They will get full support from my ministry for whatever funding we can get them, whether it's from my ministry or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, when their plans are completed and they come before us.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear that, because for some years now we have been asking for the same kind of financing or funding formula for sewage treatment that existed under the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, which was in place in '72-75 and was repealed sometime in the mid-seventies. I'm not sure of the exact date.

The funding formula was 75 percent from the province, over and above 214 mills. Everyone in this region — particularly in my own constituency, the southern portion of the capital — is yearning for safe, clean beaches. As the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head mentioned, every summer... I don't believe it's just storm-drain pollution; I believe that the millions of litres of raw, untreated effluent that are discharged into the ocean are creating the problem. I agree with the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) that it is an intolerable situation and that an end should be put to it.

The problem here is not the lack of willingness of the citizens of Victoria to pay their fair share for sewage treatment; I believe they are willing. All of the polls that we have seen indicate that people are willing to pay higher property taxes and so on to have a clean, safe maritime environment surrounding our community. We want to see that happen.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is probably aware.... He talked about looking at what happens in other places. We don't have to look very far. We just have to walk down Government Street and look out at the mountains across the strait of Juan de Fuca. By federal legislation it is illegal to discharge raw effluent from a village, a town or a municipality in Washington State. There is no community along the Puget lowlands, or near Port Angeles, Port Townsend or wherever else, that doesn't have primary treatment. By 1995 they will all have secondary treatment

I'm calling on this minister to get tough with the CRD, to bring them into compliance and say: "Yes, we'll pay our fair share. We'll pay 75 percent, if you pick up the rest. We'll have clean water and world showcase beaches for the Commonwealth Games in 1994, and we'll show people what a clean environment really is."

It's totally unacceptable, it's been going on far too long. It's an engineer's solution. You know, the engineers will come up with anything that you tell them to come up with. Right now they've told us that the solution to pollution is dilution. We don't accept it.

Every single beach is posted, and every single one is unsafe with viruses and all sorts of other bacterial whatevers. Do you know, Mr. Chairman — just as a sidebar story — that in the windsurfing magazines, Clover Point is considered to be one of the finest places in North America to windsurf? The canyon of the Columbia River is one, and this is another.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Nothing like this; not as good as this. They come from everywhere. It's on the cover of windsurfing magazines, and people all over the world reading them have no idea that the proposal for the east coast interceptor is to dump 100 million litres of raw, untreated sewage every day off the beach of a major park — right there off Dallas Road, right off Clover Point, right off the beach.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has been running a series of articles. The people of Washington State hold British Columbians and Canadians in high regard. They think we are environmentally more sensitive, more committed and more concerned than they are. They are absolutely shocked to find out that the capital of British Columbia is planning to dump 100 million litres every single day, when the connector is all hooked up.

As I said, the community is yearning for clean water and safe beaches, and they are willing to pay their fair share. It's unfair of that minister to say: "They only pay a sewer connection now." Leadership should be provided to say to the CRD — and of course there are representatives from the Gulf Islands, from Sooke, from all the municipalities....

The tradition has been to throw up a big number to scare the public, to say that it's going to cost X millions of dollars. The fact is: what is the price of a clean, safe maritime environment?

Victoria does not have a long beach. When you go from Foul Bay Road, where the municipality of Oak Bay ends, around through the Inner Harbour to the edge of Vic West where Esquimalt begins, Victoria does not have a lot of shoreline. Why should that shoreline be used as the tail end of the gastrointestinal tract for southern Vancouver Island?

I know the member for Surrey agrees with me, and our colleagues from Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Victoria and Esquimalt are absolutely united. We will help you; we will work with you. We will help you deliver the cheque to the CRD. We will come with the big board that says the percentage to give this region clean water. We can do it soon. We can have our pictures taken together. We can do it in a totally non-partisan way. We don't have to do it as the Premier just did. I wasn't sure whether his remark should be categorized under liquid waste, solid waste or just used hay.

We have a serious problem of water quality in our marine environment in this region, and we would like to work with you. This minister has to say to the

[ Page 10435 ]

local CRD, just as he has to the GVRD.... Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister say that he is laying the wood on the GVRD so that they can get secondary treatment in place. All we've got is primary treatment. It isn't helpful by any stretch of the imagination.

I've talked to health inspectors who say that there is an aerosol effect when the wind is blowing. As I mentioned to you, it is a windsurfing capital. The wind gusts up. I know the members who jog and walk along know how the wind blows up. There's an aerosol effect, and airborne coliform comes up on the windows of the houses and buildings along Dallas Road because of the raw sewage frothing up and being blown up against the city. That's an absolute fact.

[3:00]

This community is going to be showcased to the English-speaking countries of the world; 60 to 70 countries are going to come to this community in 1994. As the minister said, he was looking at 1993 and Vancouver to push the GVRD to get their secondary treatment in place. What better health project than this environmental, ecological monument to show to the world — they are largely poor countries that have water quality problems and so on — than to have proper treatment here in our own capital.

I want the minister to know that he has the support and assistance of the members in this House, whether we sit on this side or on that side. We will work together, but we need his commitment. The community can't bear the financial burden of this on their own. They must have senior government as a major shareholder.

Because this is a deep-water port, we may be able to work together to get some federal assistance. We've heard the Prime Minister, during the last campaign, talk about Halifax harbour and about cleaning up other areas in the country. I'd like to hear from the minister whether he would be willing to have cooperation to get federal assistance — federal dollars — to assist and make this a system that would last well Into the future.

I don't know how the U.S. or Washington governments got so far ahead. I've consulted with Metro Seattle, and I've talked to engineers there. They say that given the population in this region, there's no reason why we couldn't have proper treatment in this area amortized over time. You don't pay for it at the cash register today. You amortize it over time like any other worthwhile project. It's not going to get any cheaper. I think we should get on with it, and I think we should work with the minister.

I've seen him make remarks and point his finger at local people or local MLAs. The time for finger-pointing is over. The time for clean water and sewage treatment for this region is now.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his comments. I would tell him that we will have the stage 1 report with the terms of reference for the stage 2 study in my office by the fail of this year. We have met with the Capital Regional District numerous times. They know my position on sewage going into anywhere. They are proceeding at a very quick pace, and they have the assurances from this government that they will get full support on the programs that we've brought in, especially the ones this year which increase the amounts to complete their projects.

We've been just as tough with them as we have been with the GVRD. I didn't feel I had to write them the same letter, because they came to see me and said: "This is what we're prepared to do. We'll do the studies. We'll get them underway." Their commitment is there. They understand that the public wants it to stop. I don't think it's a political issue from that point of view. Everybody wants it to stop.

With regard to federal assistance, we've talked to the federal government, but it seems that like everything else we do in this country, there are billions available in Quebec for their programs and cleaning up the St. Lawrence, but there's very little — available in British Columbia. They've given us no indication at all that there's any assistance. But in this case, I don't think we can afford to wait. We must go ahead and continue to negotiate with them to see if we can get some funding or at least a cost-sharing program, especially in the areas where it's affecting oceans. It's their responsibility; they should be giving us some assistance. They've done it in other parts of the country.

MR. G. HANSON: Just one quick question. What does the minister think about a target of getting his officials to line up a time-line so it would be feasible to have sewage treatment in this region by August 1994?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I wouldn't want to mislead the member. As I said, we will have the stage 1 report by the fall of this year. The stage 2 report will recommend what we should be doing in the area. Of course — and you would agree I'm sure — there should be full public hearings, cooperation and discussion as to how they should be doing it. It's going to take you through '91. For the three-year construction period, 1994 should be an agreeable date. I would certainly think that with the Commonwealth Games coming to Victoria, it would be a great time to assure everybody that there was no sewage going into our ocean.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister said a moment ago that he didn't think it was a political issue. I think he meant to say that it wasn't a partisan issue. I can think of no greater political issue in our land than the whole question of what we do to our water and our land around our cities.

I just want to say that those of us who represent rural constituencies sometimes get a little annoyed with people from the city, who have a view of what environmental crises are in this province and in this country which is very different from the view that some of us have.

[ Page 10436 ]

If I had to rank the two most serious environmental issues we have to face in this society, number one would be the contamination of our waterways — both salt and freshwater — by human excrement and the industrial wastes that come from our kind of urban society, and secondly, the automobile. If we could deal with those two issues in a comprehensive way, we would be a long way toward dealing with the most serious environmental questions in this province.

I have to say, on behalf of my rural constituents, that they quite often feel a mite annoyed with people from the city who bum carbon fuels in their automobiles and pour their own excrement into the water adjacent to their cities. Then they come up to these rural areas and tell us how to look after our environment. I just want to put that on the record, because a frustration is building in this province that cuts across partisan lines.

There are a wide variety of issues of concern to people in the constituency I represent that come under the aegis of the minister whose estimates we are debating at the moment. Most of those issues have been, in one way or another, canvassed by other members, and I do not intend to repeat them. But for the record, I share a lot of the concerns that have been expressed so far in this estimates debate.

There are two areas I want to talk about. One relates to the constituency that I think too little attention is being paid to by the ministry at the present time, and that's the whole question of conservation officers. The whole conservation officer program has been limited to begin with. The number of people who are out there attempting to look after our fish and game stocks is totally insufficient to begin with. Now there appears to be a movement away from that kind of work and more into compliance for pulp-mill and other pollution permits. I don't knock that, but it's a shame that we have taken away from the conservation officer function.

Poaching is a serious problem in my constituency. There are at least as many animals taken illegally as legally, and we need to really step up our whole conservation officer program. I could make a long speech about it, but I won't. The minister knows the issue. His staff know the issue well, and I want him to know that there is widespread concern about the conservation officer shortage in the northern half of Vancouver Island. I trust that additional staff will be made available. There was a replacement of an empty position some time ago — and I thank the minister for that — but much more needs to be done.

There is only one other issue I want to raise at this stage. Council members in Port Hardy raised with me the other day a question which they asked me to relay directly to you, and I'll do it in this forum rather than informally so that it's clear that it's on the record. They tell me that their licence fee for treatment for their sewage is approximately $5,000 a year The district council of Port Hardy has two treatment plants. They pay $5,000 so they're not putting raw sewage into the water; it's partially treated. As there are about 5,200 people in that community, they pay$1 a head. They tell me — and I find it difficult to believe — that the city of Victoria pays $12,600, which is considerably less than $1 a head for the same fee. And the city of Victoria, of course, pumps untreated sewage into the water. The numbers may not be entirely accurate, but if they're close to being accurate, what's the premise? What's the basis for fees of this sort that bear no relationship whatsoever to either the population or the volume of effluent?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his questions. With regard to the conservation officers, as the member knows, we have 131 conservation officers around the province in 51 different offices, and the time spent in the last year has increased. I agree with him that we did go towards the pulp mills for a while because of the severe problems. But as the member knows, those things are improving. The money's being spent and some of their work is tending to go back the other way. I think that is borne out in the fact that the number of charges and investigations are way up this year on the fish and wildlife side. But we're always reviewing those programs and where people are. We're certainly doing that right now in our ministry.

With regard to Port Hardy, you bring up a very good point. Your figures are correct within a couple of dollars, but I know they're reasonably close, because we looked at this. On January 1 of next year we will be reviewing all those fees and setting them in a more accurate manner, so it's possible theirs could go down and Victoria's could go up. But there's no question that when you get 5,000 people and they're paying $1 a head, and Victoria is paying pennies per head.... That's a problem we have all over the province. Fees, when they were set up originally, were set in a very simplistic manner. People with plants got penalized — not those who had the old permits to pump raw sewage out. So we'll be looking at that and be ready to announce new fees by January, 1991.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all, I want to talk to the minister about guide-outfitters and packers. I am sure you are very well aware of the situation that obtains in British Columbia on the part of the guide-outfitters and perhaps on the part of the packers.

There have been a number of cases in the courts, and there have been decisions. And there certainly is a case to be made for some action on the part of the minister — perhaps legislation. Certainly the way he does regulation may have to be addressed, The B.C. Wildlife Federation has now asked for intervener status in cases that are related to the packing and guide-outfitting activity in any particular area.

Under the Wildlife Act, only guide-outfitters can legally guide individuals for hunting, but packers are allowed to provide other services. They can pack, they can cook, they can do various services. They can do it for anybody, of course, but they generally do it for resident hunters because these services are usually used by hunters. Non-resident hunters have to

[ Page 10437 ]

hire a guide-outfitter because that's under the act, but packers often provide packing services to resident hunters.

The problem, as the packers see it, is that the guide-outfitters are given a territory that should exclude only other guide-outfitters, but the guide outfitters are excluding the packers from those territories. Of course, that's what the court cases have been about.

The Wildlife Federation suggests it is wrong to give anyone control over public access and public activities other than the government, which of course relates to the situation and the case that guide-outfitters make, that they should have more control over what happens in their guiding areas. There are many arguments, Mr. Minister, but what I would like to hear is some response from you about what you see as the area of operation, if you like.

First of all, I shall ask the question: what do you see as the privilege that is given to a guide-outfitter when he is given a territory? What kind of control does that include? Should it include any rights or privileges to grazing land or rights or privileges to exclude other business persons? Or should it give any territorial control to the guide-outfitter except to allow him to carry out his business in that area, and other guide-outfitters will not compete with him there?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member knows, there is a case before the courts. It would be very improper for me.... If I were to stand here and take a position one way or the other, one side would go into court and say: "This is what the government wants us to do." I can tell you that we have been meeting with both sides and my staff, trying to resolve their problems. But until the case comes out of the courts, it's very difficult to discuss certain aspects of what they should or should not be doing.

MS. EDWARDS: I would think it would be quite safe to talk about how the minister feels and how his government feels about the kind of control that could be exercised over such an area, particularly with guide-outfitters, many of whom.... I don't have the statistics at hand. As you know, many of these licences have been paid for with foreign money. Although the guide-outfitters themselves are residents and citizens, a lot of the money involved in the licences is foreign money. The resident hunters who want access to public lands want very clearly to know that they have access to the lands on the grounds on which a normal citizen can pack into the area or can hire someone to pack into the area, without having one resource-user make those kinds of rules.

I might suggest to the minister that in discussions it frequently is suggested that the tenure, if you like, the guide-outfitters are talking about in the worst possible scenario — let me put it — would be the kind of tenure that the government has talked about as tree-farm licences to forest industries, where one user has the control of the territory and others must ask for use and so on. I would like to hear the minister's response to that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: All I would be prepared to say is that we see the guide-outfitters as a legitimate business. We support them and have increased their tenure, and we want them to continue. We are working with them to see that we can have a solution to the problems that are there. But again, it's very difficult for me to state things that could be used in a court case.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister would explain what he meant by saying he would want to increase their tenure.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised it was in the wildlife amendments that we brought in last year.

MS. EDWARDS: Has the minister considered regulating packers?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That is one of the options, but that's the item before the courts.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister support the concept of requiring some measure of Canadian ownership in companies which hold guiding territories?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, not with free trade. We always encourage investment in this country, and under free trade we probably couldn't stop it, if it was in an area we wanted to.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm just curious. As you say that, does that mean you couldn't regulate against foreign capital from other than the U.S. ? Under the free trade agreement.... I understood that was a trade-limiting agreement with the U.S. Does that mean you couldn't regulate against ownership from other countries?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Again, we're in favour of free trade and foreign investment, so we wouldn't do it. I presumed the first question was about the United States.

MS. EDWARDS: It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the question is of free access to public lands, and what I'm hearing from the minister is that there is nothing to say as long as it's under the courts. It's very much an issue to resident hunters who have been limited from going various places, because they can't get to certain areas in this province without the assistance of a packer, for example. They don't necessarily run their own string of packhorses. They may not be hunters; they may be photographers or simply outdoor people or riders or whatever. But the question is: does the minister wholeheartedly support free access, shall I say, of residents to public lands?

[ Page 10438 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I got the question right. First of all, I thought I heard the member say that she didn't want the people to have free access to the land. Then I was going to suggest to her that it wasn't free, that people were licensed, certified and had to pass safety regulations before they could be licensed to go into our lands. Then she asked the question about Canadian citizens. Maybe you could just clarify.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd be pleased to try and lay it out. As I see it, the argument lies in people who use public lands for their own recreation and those who use them for business. The two business groups, as I see them, are the guide-outfitters and the packers. Guide-outfitters have to be licensed. They are in an area; a territory is given them which excludes other guide-outfitters. Now the question is whether you exclude packers.

The other question, then, is for residents who want access to public lands, who sometimes cannot have access or may be limited in their access to public lands if they cannot hire the assistance they need to get there. That is several steps back, as the minister will see. It could mean that they can't get there, because they can't hire a packer, because the territorial route control has been given to the guide-outfitter.

I am just curious to know how the minister feels about access to public lands, and what he wants to give the guide-outfitters in order to exclude other groups — commercial or recreational. I am curious to know how the minister supports recreational access and whether he sees both of the commercial groups I've mentioned being licensed or not. If he's not going to comment on that, then what is the context in which he makes these decisions?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that what we're really getting at here is that the member is trying to get me to make a policy on packers, and I'm not prepared to do that while it's before the courts. I guess the question is: when do packers become guide-outfitters? And that's the debate they're having among themselves.

MR. JONES: I'd like to raise a concern from my constituency. People who live in Burnaby North are pretty happy people. They don't have a lot of concerns, but they do have a couple in the environmental area.

One of them, in particular, is Burrard Inlet tanker traffic. I'd like to spend a couple of minutes and enlighten the minister on this, because given his responses in the past, I think its an area that requires further understanding on his part. The residents of North Burnaby have very serious concerns, and for very good reasons.

We have to look at the history of tanker traffic in the last five years and what is projected for the future. I think we have to have a look at the response of responsible agencies to those concerns and also at the response of the minister in this situation.

Mr. Chairman, in 1984 there were some 61,000 metric tonnes of petroleum product transported through Burrard Inlet. Compare that to today, when there are some 1,240,000 metric tonnes. In that short six-year span we've seen a 2,000 percent increase in the amount of petroleum product transported through those fragile waters. During the same time as this tremendous increase in amount of petroleum product, we've also had a 400 percent increase in the number of tankers.

The port has a pretty good safety record, and although we've had problems, we haven't had disasters or very serious problems. But we have had a tremendous increase in the amount of petroleum product in the last six years. That should ring an alarm bell down in the corner of this House. That should ring an alarm bell for the Minister of Environment, as well as for those people who are concerned. I think it has. But even more important than those increases that have gone on in the past are the projected increases.

We see a present level of six million barrels of petroleum product increasing to 14 million barrels by 1992 — enough to fill an additional 24 tankers and 24 barges as a result of the projections of the Trans Mountain Pipe Line Co.

On top of that, we have a projected increase due to Petro-Canada and their project of adding MTBE to petroleum products to replace lead in gasoline, and that's going to result in another 26 tankers traveling those fragile waters. If a proposed second pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby is constructed, shipments will go from the present six million to 58 million barrels a year — enough to fill another 90 tankers. I don't see any signs of any alarm bells going off yet, but very clearly the minister has to be concerned about this.

What we see is not only a huge increase in the past, but an even larger increase projected for the future. We know the conditions in Burrard Inlet are very special, and we know that the tankers are getting larger. In fact, in February the largest tanker of some 105,000 deadweight tonnes — the largest tanker ever to navigate the Second Narrows — went through that body of water even though, I believe, the limit is supposed to be 90,000 deadweight tonnes.

We have something like 10,000 ships a year call in the port, and only 8 percent of the foreign vessels are safety inspected, despite the fact that the international standard is 25 percent. David Anderson, the person chosen to head up a study on the environmental safety of tanker traffic, describes the Vancouver harbour as a very high-risk port.

Mr. Chairman, the Second Narrows is only 138 metres wide at its narrowest point. It has tides and currents up to six knots. There are many turns and shoals. There is heavy traffic, and it's a very ecologically sensitive area. My constituents want to see that area preserved. They don't want to see it despoiled by the disaster of an oil spill.

[3:30]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page 10439 ]

We had a small oil spill in February, and although it was a very small oil spill there was still a serious impact on the environment there. There were between 500 and 1,000 birds killed with that oil spill. The cost of that cleanup was $1.17 million, and that cleanup occurred in perfect weather conditions. It occurred under ideal conditions, and even at that, it recovered only some 40 percent of the spilled diesel fuel last February.

That's a very minor spill, and I know the minister was there with the Environment Youth Corps and very proud of that. I can tell you that the Environment Youth Corps were not very proud of the government in terms of their treatment of the seriousness of that spill.

We've had a study, and the minister pooh-poohs this study. It was a study as part of a report currently being completed by the States and British Columbia task force on oil spills set up jointly last year by the government of British Columbia and the states of Washington, Oregon, Alaska and California. That was following the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound in Alaska. This study was carried out for the task force by the applied statistics division of Environment Canada, and they used a standard model used by both U.S. and Canadian government agencies to predict oil spills.

Mr. Chairman, this study found that at current tanker traffic levels — and remember, I described the great increase to produce those current levels, but also keep in mind the tremendous projected increase in tanker traffic — the port of Vancouver can expect a serious oil spill of at least 10,000 barrels every five years and a lesser spill of 1,000 barrels within two years. The report that the minister denies exists has not been released, but detailed information on the findings of that report have been leaked.

Very clearly a 10,000-barrel spill in the Vancouver port is some 40 times larger than the February oil spill that I described a few minutes ago. That February oil spill was just some 40 tonnes of diesel fuel. It was quite minor compared to the kind predicted by this study conducted by a task force jointly representing the jurisdictions on the west coast.

So we had a huge increase in the past; we have a huge projected increase. We have a study that is predicting serious consequences. There has been an overwhelming response from a variety of sources — from David Anderson, who the government appointed to look into this matter and who, a year ago in June 1989, called for a ban on further crude exports.

Environmental groups Call For an Inquiry and Burnaby Citizens for Environmental Protection have similarly called for a federal impact study under the federal environment act. As well, a number of other groups have called for that. Municipal councils in Vancouver, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Port Moody that represent the citizens in their jurisdictions — responsible representatives of all political persuasions — have also called for a study and a moratorium until a safe and sustainable level of tanker traffic can be determined.

David Brander-Smith, QC, chairman of the public review panel on tanker safety and marine spills response capability for the federal government, has responded to those calls from those municipal councils and he says:

"After considerable reflection and review, our panel considers that the concerns expressed by these municipalities, as well as others who participated in our public hearings, are warranted. We accept the principle that an environmental assessment of both present and future expansion plans, which would increase tanker barge traffic in this region, be undertaken as quickly as possible. This assessment should examine the effects of increased movements of crude oil and petroleum products through Burrard Inlet and establish a sustainable limit."

So we have environmental groups, we have David Anderson, we have David Brander-Smith, we have all the municipal councils from the regions affected calling for a moratorium on increased tanker traffic and calling for a full environmental impact study.

These are responsible bodies. These are bodies of people of every political persuasion. What is the response of the minister to this situation? Well, the minister says that I invented the study; that I dreamed it up out of thin air. He is basically encouraging increased tanker traffic. He doesn't seem to be behind the call of all these citizens and all these elected bodies for a moratorium. He seems to condone the fact that the petroleum industry is quite capable of managing itself — the same kind of attitude we heard with respect to the prediction that there would be a major oil spill on the coast.

It was predicted that there would be a major oil spill within 241 years, and yet we saw the Exxon Valdez occur within 12 years of that opening. We had all kinds of assurances from the petroleum industry prior to that spill as well.

The citizens that I represent have seen the Grays Harbor disaster and its impact on Vancouver Island; they saw the Exxon Valdez; they saw the small spill in Vancouver harbour; they have seen the spill in Huntington Beach, California; and last week they saw the spill off the Gulf of Mexico.

There was a picture the other day of a sand sculpture and it had the picture of a tanker with a circle and a line through it. It seems to me that this government — and this minister — has its head in the sand with respect to any concern about increased tanker traffic. The potential disaster of an oil spill in this province.... It would be a disaster for the economy of this province; it would be a disaster for the tourist industry; it would be a disaster for my community and the citizens I represent. I would like to ear the minister come out with a little more responsible position in terms of a full impact study conducted under the federal Environment Act, and a moratorium until safe, sustainable levels of tanker traffic can be established.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member over there asked for studies. It's funny that when we do studies here, they ask for action; when we act, they ask for studies.

[ Page 10440 ]

In this case, as he knows, the Premier of this province invited the governors of the states to set up the task force. It was our initiative; it showed leadership. That task force is addressing the issues you are talking about.

As you know, we had the Anderson report. You've got the Brander-Smith federal report, which isn't out yet. It's being studied extremely well by very competent people.

This government has done a number of things. You want to talk about enlightening this minister and enlightening this government. We've done things — hat your party has opposed — which are reducing the amount of oil that comes out of Burrard Inlet. The natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island, which is supported by some members from your side — not all, but some of the enlightened ones — will reduce in great numbers the barges and tankers of oil coming to Vancouver Island and other British Columbia communities.

If you were to place a moratorium, you would be telling the rest of British Columbia to stop all growth, because those communities are getting oil from Burrard Inlet.

MR. JONES: Tell that to the municipalities.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You tell it to the municipalities. Some of the ones I've been to on Vancouver Island can't believe that anyone would put a moratorium on the oil being shipped to their communities — until we at least get the natural gas pipeline. It means that you have to stop growth.

I also would suggest to that member... I'm sure he was at Globe '90. If he had visited the floor and seen some of the equipment that's been developed in British Columbia.... There's a company in North Vancouver that has made a navigation chart that goes on a TV screen; it is fitted on these oil tankers. If it had been installed in the Exxon Valdez, you never would have had the accident, because it has all the safeguards built into it. It's designed by a Canadian, built right in North Vancouver. At Globe '90 contracts were sold to American companies and worldwide companies. It's a new development in navigation shipping. It's tremendous, and the type of thing we should be looking at.

I would also suggest to that member that years ago, before his time in politics, a pipeline down to the United States was proposed for our oil — instead of having ships go through Burrard Inlet. The leader of his party, who was on city council at the time, opposed that. You can't have it both ways. You're not going to turn the tap off. The world wants our oil. It's a major employer. We have to build safeguards.

I will stress again that his party called for a tug to go with ships all the way to the Victoria station When they called for it, we were already doing it. We not only have one tug which was demanded by the Leader of the Opposition; we have four tugs going through that Second Narrows bridge that you talked about. We have two tugs going through the First Narrows with the ships.

When I say "we" here, this is Ports Canada — but our province. There are three ships on standby for cleanup at all times, not the one that was requested. The safeguards are there. That's why we have such a good safety record in the harbour. When the task force makes its recommendations, they'll be made public and open for discussion.

I would also ask this question: would that side be prepared to go to the oil companies and say: "Why don't we stop all the oil tankers? Why don't we go back to the United States and ask them if they want to put a pipeline down below the Gulf Islands and below the San Juans so this whole area can be protected from oil tankers?" Would his party be prepared to support that?

[3:45]

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I have a sneaking suspicion that my constituents aren't going to be very comforted by the minister's answer. My constituents have seen the tremendous increase in tanker traffic in the last six years. I'm amazed at the level of knowledge among residents in that area of projected plans by the petroleum industry to use Burrard Inlet to vastly increase the projected tanker traffic.

The minister wasn't listening. What I was suggesting that he pay attention to was the call for a moratorium not on all tanker traffic, not on all traffic, but just on an increase of that hazardous and dangerous petroleum product going through what's described as probably the most dangerous port in the world for that kind of traffic. We need to look at it.

I don't have all the answers, and the minister certainly doesn't have all the answers. What I'm suggesting we need to do — and I'm pleased that the minister raised Mr. Brander-Smith, because Mr. Brander-Smith is very concerned about the opinions of those municipalities that the minister rejects — is decide what the future of that fragile harbour will be for petroleum products being exported by very large tankers in that ecologically sensitive region of British Columbia.

It's not a major setback for the commerce of the province to slow down a little bit, to have a look at what we can sustain there at a safe level, and plan accordingly. If it results in plans — the kind the minister was throwing up in the air there — then fine, let's have a look at it. But first of all we need not to have a disaster, as is predicted by the report that the minister and his government initiated. What we need to do is take a little pause, a little reflection, a little review. There would a minor impact on the commerce of the province while we did that as a safeguard for the constituents around Vancouver Harbour, North Vancouver, North Burnaby and Port Moody. That's not a lot to ask.

The minister is right. There have been studies. The minister and his government hired David Anderson, who made a number of recommendations. He suggested two things. One was that there be a ban on further crude exports. He is the government's own spokesperson, the government's own expert on this issue. Secondly, he wanted 35 recommendations im-

[ Page 10441 ]

plemented every three weeks, and for any of those that were rejected.... I know the minister is not listening, but this is going to be a question, with one of those little question marks, very shortly. He wanted 35 recommendations every three weeks, and for any of his recommendations that weren't implemented, he wanted written reasons.

We have a study that the government commissioned. It's basically ignoring that study. What are you doing about the David Anderson study? Have you decided to respond to his recommendation that you get on with it and start implementing those recommendations on a regular basis — and for any that aren't implemented provide written reasons? Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The one thing that I think is interesting in this conversation is that we talk about a spill in Vancouver harbour based on whatever method is being used; but it's guessed at. I don't think that report says that there's any less chance of it if there's a moratorium. The moratorium wouldn't stop the prediction that there could be an oil spill.

With regard to the David Anderson report, there were over 100 recommendations. I think that well over 30 of them have been implemented so far. The rest are being looked at. Over half of the recommendations fall under either federal or U.S. jurisdiction, not this province's. They are being looked at by the task force, which consists of our deputy minister and members from California, Washington, Oregon and Alaska. That is being actively pursued. When all of these federal and provincial task forces are complete and we sit down and analyze what is going to be done, I'm sure other aspects of that report will be complete.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On Friday, I believe — or perhaps Thursday — the minister undertook to find some information about bonds for acid-generating mines. I wonder if that information is available now and if the minister would like to share it with us.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The answer is five, and two have bonds for acid-mining drainage.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister can elaborate on the amount of the bonds and why only two have bonds.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The reason is that the other three mines don't have any acid-mine drainage problems. The bonds are $400,000 and $700,000 respectively, and they are under review at present.

MS. A. HAGEN: Like others who are entering the debate this afternoon, I want to raise some matters that are of particular concern in my riding. New Westminster, as the minister well knows, is strategically located on the Fraser River. That body of water is increasingly being affected by developments along the shore.

I want to start off first of all by just raising a brief question about the minister's plans in respect to waste management. New Westminster, being the old city it is, has just one system for the disposal of sewage and surface water, and the effect of that system on Annacis Island, which is the major treatment plant, very often produces concerns about the dilution of effluent flowing into the river. The hilly city means that we're very often in a situation where the amount just of drainage going into that plant — and I'm not sure how much of it is diverted to Annacis and how much to the Lulu Island plant; both of them are affected — has a very real effect on the river.

Could the minister please advise about whether there are any plans to deal with this matter of the separation of sewage and groundwater disposal which affects my city? What kinds of support would be available for the city in undertaking that fairly major project to improve that situation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can advise the member that we have been meeting. I think I've had at least two meetings in my office with the GVRD. We are looking very closely, under a liquid waste management plan, at both areas of storm sewers and other liquid wastes, and that will be part of an overall plan that we'll work on for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Under the federal plan Mr. Bouchard talked about $2 billion for the cleanup of the Fraser River; I was hoping that some of that money may go toward that program to help us do it a little quicker than we could possibly do it ourselves.

MS. A. HAGEN: I take it from that answer that the minister doesn't have a timetable at this point for those improvements or some general time-frame when he would see those improvements taking place.

While I'm discussing this whole issue, could I include in it a question about improvement to at least a secondary stage for the Annacis treatment plant? What may be in the offing for the upgrading of that sewage treatment plant to a higher level of waste management treatment?

HON. MR- REYNOLDS: Our figures here show that the upgrading will be completed by 1993, and I would hope that the other plans could take place very quickly after that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I know time is always of the essence. I would like to pursue that a little further, but I can do that directly with the minister.

The other issue I wanted to raise is the issue of land development along the river. As the minister well knows, there are some very significant projects that are either underway or being contemplated on the banks of the river in my city. There are some policy issues and some legislative issues that I'd like to canvass in respect to those developments in order to know what the ministry may have in mind at this stage for improving the legislation and the regulations that govern development on sites on the river.

[ Page 10442 ]

I know there is floodplain legislation, for example, that would come into play for any rezoning that would occur on Lulu Island, that portion of the city within the riding boundaries. Also, as the minister may know, there's a fairly extensive development which is currently under discussion by the city at the tip of Lulu Island — the Port Royal project, as it is called — on a former industrial site.

There are also proposals for a significant number of apartments east of Eighth Street, the current market, on what was dock land, part of it over water, which I should imagine will require a fairly major amount of fill and drilling, all of which have an effect both on the river and on concerns about the status of the land that is being redeveloped. The land on Lulu Island is industrial land, and we all know that industrial land may or may not have contaminants that are of concern to those people who may at some time be resident on that land.

From my research into this issue, it appears that we really have a kind of legislative vacuum. There's no clear statutory responsibility about who deals with these issues. We have had some practice around the Expo land. I understand from questions we have asked the minister in this House that he has taken responsibility or is the minister responsible for that development.

Vancouver, for example, has a bylaw which states very clearly that the city undertakes no responsibility for advising applicants as to the condition of soil or construction materials present on any site; authority for assessing potential hazards associated with soil contamination lies with the provincial Ministry of Environment. Yet I understand the ministry has no statutorily-based standards to govern contaminated sites.

I know the issue is of concern to all municipalities it's also of concern to the real estate industry, which has caused this issue to be studied and has completed the first phase of that study in a document called "Toxic Real Estate in British Columbia: Identification of Issues," a 1989 report of the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation of Vancouver, Canada. I understand that there are two other volumes on this issue to be published shortly, having to do, I think, with legal liability and some statutory proposals.

As I read this document and look at some of the issues that are coming up in my own riding, it seems to me quite important at this time that we have some knowledge of the Ministry of Environment's responsibility and intent around statutes or regulations in respect of this land so that we know, first of all, that on the sites there is a due process everyone can know and understand, and that in respect to developments along the river there are procedures in place to ensure that damage isn't done to the river and the fishery.

I think these are extremely important issues for us to have some knowledge of in the riding at this time, as we are looking at the approval processes for the development of these properties. I would appreciate comments, insights and direction the minister can provide as to his ministry's involvement and intentions. I think that would be helpful for us at this time.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member brings up a very good point. First of all, I will say that I was in New Westminster at a friend's wedding not too long ago, and that whole development is looking very nice. The redevelopment of the downtown is certainly a great picture for New Westminster.

In the area of contaminated sites, if there was a concern on a piece of property at the present time, it would be up to New Westminster to ask us to look at it, and we would set the standards for remediation which the developer would have to meet before developing the land.

At the present time we are in the process of preparing contaminated sites legislation, which will work in conjunction with the federal program for orphaned sites. It is legislation that we have to have to qualify for assistance from the federal government on some of these things.

[4:00]

My opinion is that we should have a White Paper on the subject so that we get more input from the municipalities and cities around the province. I would hope that we would have that ready in the very near future.

MS. A. HAGEN: Two brief questions. In respect of a site that the city feels it would like to have reviewed and the standards that are set by the ministry, could the ministry advise whether there are any standards for these standards, or does the ministry work on an individual site basis? What is the process here, and is the information available to the public and municipalities about criteria for those standards?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, we do have criteria, and they're available to municipalities and to you if you'd like to see them.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question. I will take the opportunity to follow this up directly with the ministry. In respect of developments that are taking place right on the river, where the very nature of the construction is going to have an effect on the river — it can't help but have an effect, because they're going to be driving piles; there may be fill and a whole range of things — is there legislation or regulation regarding that? Is it shared with the federal ministries? Can the minister provide me with some information regarding his ministry's involvement with that kind of development?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, we are involved; in fact, in different ways. We are involved in diking. Some of those instances require our approval. Also federal Fisheries is involved, and we work very closely with them on those types of developments to make sure that everything is environmentally safe and sound.

[ Page 10443 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Are there provincial regulations or statutes that in any way come into play here, or are these matters governed more by federal bodies?

Let me suggest one area where I anticipate there's going to be a fairly extensive impact on the river, which is a site east of Eighth Street where a number of highrise towers will be built out over the water. Is there a role here that the ministry specifically plays? Is it a regulatory role, or is it governed by some statute that exists within the province?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, if you're talking about the buildings that would protrude over the water or affect them, they would have to get approval under the Water Act. There are regulations, and they would have to go through and meet those. I would assume also that New Westminster would probably have public hearings on that development, at which time I would expect that our people and Fisheries would be there to answer any of the questions, if they were asked to be. But certainly they would have to meet our regulations before they could get the go-ahead.

MR. CASHORE: Just for the information of the Minister of Environment and his staff, I expect to be canvassing a number of items along with my colleague from the Cariboo for the rest of today. My colleague from Prince Rupert will be returning, and I expect that for the first part of tomorrow afternoon — perhaps three-quarters of an hour — we'll be dealing with forest issues that he wants to have some involvement in. Then I hope that we would be able to conclude in a total of an hour and a half to two hours tomorrow afternoon. I know there's no way that I should even attempt — and I'm not attempting in any way — to restrict my government colleagues from participating, but I will do everything I can to canvass the material I have in that time.

I would like to revisit the issue of underground storage tanks, Mr. Chairman. During debate yesterday, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms Cull) referred to some information that has been made available through the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C., which is an organization that not only out of their own interest for their own industry but also out of concern for the province has issued an important and far-reaching report.

Among other things, they point out that leakage of as little as one litre of gasoline could render one million litres of water unfit for drinking, and that significant concentrations of carcinogens such as benzine can persist in drinking water and take many decades to remove.

They also point out that there have been at least 15 reported gasoline leaks in the lower mainland over the past two years. There was one in Kelowna that caused an estimated $300,000 damage to telephone cables. They point out that in many cases the people most affected by the leaks were powerless to obtain compensation for lost time and/or damage to their property. In a number of cases the provincial waste management branch was unable to help with cleanup

They have recommended that as a first step the provincial government should immediately start documenting the status of the underground storage tanks in the province, especially those in sensitive areas. This data could be collected with the cooperation of the industries involved. But it would seem to me that it should not be left to the industry to collect the data with some benign neglect or benevolent approval on the part of government. It would seem from the minister's comments in the House yesterday that indeed the expectation would be to leave it to the industry. I think it's very clear, and the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. makes it very clear, that there must be a much stricter government-centred process of monitoring.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the documented status of underground oil tanks is being done, as the member says, and it's being done by industry. Many times on that side they talk about "polluter pay," and in this case the polluters pay. They're doing it, but we're monitoring it. I think that satisfies me that the job will get done. I guess I have greater faith in the private enterprise system than my friend on the other side.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with faith in the private enterprise system. That is completely a red herring. It's a matter of government fulfilling its regulatory role and creating an even playing field in servicing industry in that way. That's a responsibility that government has. It has nothing to do with failure to trust private industry, and certainly the professional engineers consist of people. I would assume that the vast majority would be people who uphold the principles of private enterprise as I do. Just because I believe that there are situations where government has a responsibility does not mean that I'm opposed to private enterprise. it simply means that there is some disagreement as to where private enterprise should be involved in matters that relate to the public welfare and that require independent monitoring.

The point is made that the issue is so serious and the potential danger to our water supply is so immense that it requires the very careful "hands-on" protection of government through regulation, monitoring and standards. That is absolutely necessary in that process for that point to be made.

The professional engineers point out that as well as documenting the status of underground storage tanks, the province should, as a minimum, adopt the new national environment code of practice for underground storage tanks containing petroleum products for use in the province. I know the minister said yesterday that the code would be adopted in three months. But we have had the experience of Environment ministers in this House promising that information on out-of-compliance polluters would be made available by the end of last summer, for instance. It wasn't; it didn't happen. Even the limited information that this minister has made available has not been adequate and has been done in a manner which

[ Page 10444 ]

indicates that he is going to control the flow of this information and confine it to the 12 worst or something like that.

Here is another case in point. These standards should be adopted immediately. I would point out to the minister that the taxpayers of British Columbia, through their Ministry of Environment, in view of the fact that the Minister of Environment is one of the CCME — the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment — actually participated in developing the standards in that code. British Columbia, I believe — perhaps the minister can confirm this — is the only province in Canada that as of this date has not adopted the code. Would the minister elaborate on his answer of yesterday about British Columbia's role in coming on board with that code? Will he confirm that British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has not come under the code that it actually helped to develop?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think there is a slight misunderstanding, and maybe it's the way it was explained yesterday. The code has been adopted. It's the monitoring that will take about three months. I'm working with our staff to get things coordinated on how they are going to monitor the code. But the code itself has been adopted.

MR. CASHORE: That is interesting information given yesterday's answer that it would be adopted in three months, did the minister really mean that the monitoring would begin in three months?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. CASHORE: Then we still have a problem, because the information I have is that the code has not been adopted. Could the minister advise the House of the date that the code was adopted by British Columbia? Could he also advise me whether a news release was issued at that time informing the public that it had been adopted?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised by my staff that it was adopted immediately the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment agreed to it.

MR. CASHORE: In other words, the government of British Columbia has adopted the code but simply has not started using it.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's being monitored right now. The code is in place and is being monitored, and in about three months' time we should have reports on the monitoring that our staff has been doing.

MR. CASHORE: Oh, so now it isn't that the monitoring is going to begin in about three months as was stated a few moments ago; it is that it is being monitored at this very moment. I assume the minister means that it has been monitored since it was approved by the government and that it is now just a matter of getting the reports of the monitoring in three months. Is that what the minister is saying?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. CASHORE: Well, this is very interesting news, I am sure, to the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia. I don't know if the minister has corresponded with them to update them on their assumption about this situation.

Would the minister advise the House about the process of adoption? Was it simply by being there, or is there a process of adoption whereby the government adopts something through OIC or legislation? Would the minister advise the House if he knows the procedures in any other provinces for adopting this code? In other words, is this the standard for adopting the code?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The fact that we agreed to it at the meeting was the adoption. Nothing else is required. It is much like being at the Globe '90 meeting when we agreed on certain things to do with packaging. It was agreed by all the provinces and was adopted. It becomes part of what we do in this province.

[4:15]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister said:

"With regard to storage tanks, the companies right now are in the process of changing all the tanks in the province. They'll be done in an orderly fashion and be completed within the next couple of years, I would hope. The industry is doing an inventory of all buried private oil tanks in the province. We're working with them on that inventory, and when we've got it complete, if regulations are required, we will do them. But we're hoping that the private sector will end up cleaning it up."

The fact is that there are between 500 and 2,000 abandoned residential underground storage tanks in the province. Who is identifying those 500 to 2,000 abandoned sites? Is the industry in the process of doing that? Is the industry identifying and cataloguing those sites? What reason does the minister have to expect that the industry would necessarily know where those abandoned tanks are?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the answers to the first two questions are yes and yes. The last answer is that the industry put them in. Who better to know where they are than the people who installed them?

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise the House, then, if he has contracted with the industry to address the issue of the abandoned tanks? He's saying: "Yes, the industry is doing the monitoring." Would he advise the House when he initiated the process and contracted with the industry? What entity of the industry is doing the work that the minister has stated is underway? Could we have the names of the companies and the names of the

[ Page 10445 ]

corporations, if they are corporations, that are presently conducting an inventory of these abandoned residential underground storage tanks in the province?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The original agreement was about six months ago. We expect the report to be in our hands in about three months' time. It's being done by an association of the companies in the petroleum industry.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, could the minister name the association? Is it the Petroleum Association? Would the minister agree to table the documents contracting the association to perform this task?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the association is the Canadian Petroleum Producers. We do not have a contract with them; we have an agreement. They'll be reporting back to us in three months.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, would the minister advise the House what the process was that led to this agreement? Was there a letter of intent? Were there letters exchanged authorizing this process to proceed?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Basically it was done through meetings and discussion. No formal document was signed.

MR. CASHORE: I understand that there is a formal inventory process underway. That association agreed at some amorphous time in the past to begin to do a job on behalf of the government. There was never any letter of intent. There was never any minute that one could table. There was never any reference through an OIC or in the Legislature; somehow it just started.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, you don't need OICs and legislation to get everything done. An example is the oil tankers in Burrard Inlet: putting four tugs through the Second Narrows, two tugs through the First Narrows, one tug to Victoria station and three boats in the harbour looking after them and what they're doing. All these conditions were done with agreement with industry. It did not require legislation; it did not require orders-in-council.

This is the same type of agreement. You don't need legislation or orders-in-council to force people to do things. The companies have as much at stake in doing what is good for the environment as anyone else today, as I'm sure the member knows. Everybody wants to get on the environmental bandwagon They're asking what they can do, and in these cases they're doing it.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia make a very clear point with regard to the potential dangers of these underground storage tanks the potential danger to aquifers. It's a very serious thing.

The minister tells me and tells the House that while this privatized process of monitoring is taking place there are no letters of understanding, no document whatsoever that indicates by what process, for what remuneration, by what standards.... What are the expectations of this government with regard to this inventory that the minister has referred to, this monitoring that he says is now taking place?

It should be the simplest thing in the world. The minister knows that in private enterprise when a business deal is made between two entities there is some form of a contract. There is some form of document that indicates what the agreement is, what in this case the industry, the association that the minister referred to, will do on behalf of the government and the people of B.C. and what on the other hand will be the responsibility of the people of B.C. The minister seems to be saying that no such document exists and that it's in the hands of private enterprise, and we just leave it at that.

My question has nothing to do with that ideological discussion about private enterprise. It has everything to do with good business. If something is as serious and important as has been outlined by the professional engineers, then what is the business process whereby this government has facilitated this association to carry out that work on its behalf?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: We make agreements around this province all the time — with farmers. People have codes of ethics, codes of business. We don't need....

MR. CASHORE: Just a shake of the hand.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, a handshake. Just like you do with a parishioner in a church. You say, "Shake my hand," and he'll do something for you. You don't need a contract with everybody in this world. You don't need a piece of legislation to solve every problem in the province.

MR. CASHORE: Not even when it's on behalf of the taxpayers?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The taxpayer saves money when you don't have contracts. The taxpayer has respect for the fact that these people will do their job. The taxpayer knows that this minister went out and did the deal with the people that run the tankers through Burrard Inlet. It didn't cost the taxpayers any money at all — except the salary they pay me — to make a deal, shake their hand. And they've done it.

I'm sure those corporations have memos inside their corporations as to how they're going to do it. But these corporations volunteered to do this job at their expense. It's their business; they should be responsible. I remind the member — he talks all the time about "polluter pay" — that that's exactly what this is. This is the polluter paying for something they did years ago that maybe wasn't considered wrong.

[ Page 10446 ]

Nobody knew what the problems would be. They're helping to clean it up.

That report will be available in about three months' time, and I am sure the member will make a note in his diary to ask me for a copy of it, and I will see that he gets it.

MR. CASHORE: Just one point before the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head asks a question. It isn't that simple: polluter pay. This is an issue of accountability. What is the process whereby there can be accountability, when through some sort of nondescript process on a handshake at some time in the past it was agreed that the inventory would begin on these underground tanks?

We're talking about a very serious problem here, a problem that no less than the Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. has raised. Really, does the minister think that they're going to fail for the kind of explanation that he's giving in the House today? I don't think that explanation would impress the business community or any other community in this province.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Business will stand up and cheer with any member of government, no matter which side they're on or what party they're with, if we cut down the bureaucracy, cut down contracts, cut down delays, just get the job done. That's exactly what's happening in this area. We're getting the job done.

MS. CULL: I'm really impressed. Are you telling me, Mr. Minister, that petroleum companies are going to go around to households that may have had tanks installed 20, 30 or maybe even 40 years ago, that they're no longer supplying oil to, and check that these tanks are there and that they're not creating a problem? Is that what I'm hearing, that the petroleum industry is going to provide a wonderful benefit for no cost to come and check my home to see whether there's an abandoned oil tank in the back yard now that I've converted to gas or electricity or some other form of energy? Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm finally pleased. From the other side I've got somebody who agrees with me.

MS. CULL: I think this is going to be news to some of the companies. I was checking with Chevron again after our discussion yesterday, and they've told me that they have about 70 stations that they operate on a two-party basis. In other words, Chevron supplies the gas but someone else owns the station. They don't have any control over the tanks in these two-party stations. They feel aggrieved that while in the ones they own 100 percent without any sharing they're doing their environmental bit and voluntarily incurring the cost, some of their competitors are not.

There are certainly companies out there who are not going around looking out for the environment, and I would be very surprised indeed to find out that the petroleum industry is going throughout the residential neighbourhoods of British Columbia looking for abandoned oil tanks that may have been put in decades ago by other companies — by other people, maybe by individuals — going to people that they are not even supplying oil to today and looking for these tanks. That's the point that we've been trying to make.

The engineers' association has suggested that anywhere between 500 and 2,000 abandoned tanks have this problem. There are remedies to filling them up or removing them, but they have to be identified and found. I think that the information we have shows that not all the companies are aware of this agreement you say they have with you, and they're not all out there looking for these tanks.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would stress to the member that I have said the association is making a report back to us. They have an association. If somebody in their association wants to give them a hard time or not agree, I guess that's the price they might pay with publicity if they were not to be part of something that was recommended by that association.

MS. CULL: I just wanted to go on with one other point about the discussion I had with Chevron and the code of practice we were talking about earlier. They suggested that the only reason for having it was to have the regulations. Without the regulations to ensure a level playing-field for all the companies, there really isn't any benefit in having the code.

While you say we have the code of environmental practice for these underground storage tanks simply by having participated in the conference, it doesn't seem to mean very much if we're not going to get regulations. I now understand your answer to me yesterday not to mean we are going to see regulations within three months, but just that you are expecting a report back from a coalition of companies.

[4:30]

In the meantime, we will still have various operators delivering oil to tanks that may not be safe. We will have tanks underground that have been abandoned but still have the potential to contaminate the water and the soil. We don't have any regulations. We'll have to rely on the environmental goodwill of those corporations which see it to their advantage to be environmentally safe, but we will not have any way of bringing into line those who do not see it to their advantage.

MR. SERWA: We're talking about underground storage tanks and certainly the pollution hazards that occur with rusted-out and leaking tanks. I just thought I'd like to talk for a couple of minutes on the hazard of leaking underground storage tanks. It is a very real problem, recognizing the number of tanks that are in the province, not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 10447 ]

Several months ago I had the opportunity to talk to the British Columbia Water Well Drilling Association in Kamloops. A number of concerns were expressed with respect to groundwater. Groundwater is going to become increasingly important in the province of British Columbia. There's no question, with our growing population, in spite of our water richness and resources, that in many areas — and certainly the Okanagan is one such area — the use of groundwater is becoming ever more increasing in importance to supplement the waters from our takes in the upper elevations and our lower lakes.

The contamination of this groundwater supply is a very important concern to municipalities, to regional districts, to domestic and irrigation users. A leaking storage tank of fuel oil or gasoline can contaminate groundwater supplies for many years over a very large area. One of the concerns expressed to me specifically was protection of that groundwater supply.

The challenge, of course, is that unless we take action as quickly as we possibly can, the lack of action and the lack of control — not only from concerns with underground storage tanks but also expressed concerns with the drilling of holes of wells that go into the water table — could result in pollution from that source as well. It would take many years at a substantial cost to try and clean up that pollution.

In many cases we will be unable to clean up that type of pollution, with the result that many areas could face serious problems. Groundwater pollution is a serious problem in jurisdictions in Europe, and the potential for that type of problem to become serious in British Columbia is also evident.

One of the things that the ministry and the minister is working on is a collection of information with respect to water wells and the groundwater tables throughout the province and the development of legislation to control the drilling activity into the water table. This certainly came through loud and clear from the discussions I had subsequent to the meeting with the Water Well Drilling Association with their respective concerns. I know that the minister is well aware of this problem, and the ministry is in fact working on developing criteria — an information bank or a data bank — on our underground water resources. I would like the minister to reply briefly to the concern of the Water Well Drilling Association with the potential of pollution to our very valuable underground water resources.

HON. MR REYNOLDS: I'm glad the member brought that up. We have a meeting with those people, and we will have a discussion paper coming out some time in the next two or three weeks.

MS. CULL: I'd like to talk about underground storage tanks that don't hold petroleum products. There have been at least two documented spills involving non-petroleum items. One was a toxic organic liquid that leaked from a tank on Tilbury Island over a period of about eight years. It wasn't detected for eight years as it slowly leaked into sand on the banks of the Fraser River.

The other leak involved toxic wood preservative at a sawmill in Penticton where I understand the leak entered the groundwater and eventually the Okanagan River and resulted in significant cleanup costs to the tune of about $450,000.

Could the minister tell us what the government is doing about tanks that hold non-petroleum products? Is there a similar agreement with a Canadian association of non-petroleum products that is checking these tanks voluntarily at no cost to the public, as seems to be happening with the petroleum industry?

The engineers' study we've been referring to indicates that there may be 8,000 such tanks that could be leaking toxic substances around the province.

MR. RABBITT: How many? Eighty?

MS. CULL: Eight thousand.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, all I could say on that one without.... I don't have any details on the specific case on Tilbury Island, nor do my staff. But in most of these cases it would probably be on private land, and it would be the responsibility of the owner of that land or the company to clean it up. If one was found that was put there a long time ago and the company was no longer around, it would probably qualify under the orphaned-sites cleanup that the federal government has.

MS. CULL: I don't understand the difference between tanks that hold petroleum products and those that hold chemical products — the non-petroleum products. The petroleum tanks that we've been talking about — particularly the domestic ones, but certainly most of the corporate ones — are also on private land. Are you telling us then that homeowners would benefit from such a program? If we've managed to get the petroleum industry to voluntarily go out to homes in British Columbia that they're not providing petroleum products to, in order to ascertain that these tanks are there and to provide whatever kinds of remedial service is needed to clean them up and make them safe, why is there not a similar program for non-petroleum product tanks?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, there is a big difference. When you're talking of the petroleum companies, they may not be selling a product now, but they were at one time. That means we know whose responsibility it is if they're still around.

When you're talking about non-petroleum products, it's not the same type of industry. You're probably talking about a whole bunch of different people and different cases. It may be an individual who had a storage tank for whatever reason. It could have been water held underground. Those are individual cases.

If an industry had a whole bunch of these containers, they would certainly fall under the area of being

[ Page 10448 ]

responsible because they did the polluting, and that's why the federal government has the orphaned site legislation in. If you can't find anybody responsible, there is a fund set up to clean up. But where people and corporations are responsible, they should be responsible for the cleanup.

If somebody finds a tank in the middle of a field here in Oak Bay, and we can prove who did it, they should be the ones charged with the cleanup. If nobody knows who did it, but it should be cleaned up, it has to be cleaned up. That's why there's a fund to help pay for those.

MS. CULL: Is the ministry involved in monitoring or making an inventory of these kinds of underground storage tanks? I guess some of them were even above ground, and it hardly matters which if they're leaking toxic substances. Is the ministry involved in an inventory of those kinds of tanks?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm advised that in a lot of these cases you don't even know where they are unless there's a report. But if there's a report, we will look into it. But we don't have X number of people wandering around the province trying to find tanks that are leaking underground somewhere. In most cases, in today's age, things would have to be permanent, but if it was done 50 years ago, somebody is going to have to bring it to our attention.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Minister, you have said, much to our surprise and contrary to the information we have, that this government has adopted the code that was established by CCME. If you've adopted the code, then you would have to answer the last question in the affirmative: that an active survey and monitoring process was underway to bring about inventory and to ascertain the adequacy of those tanks. You can't have it both ways. If you've adopted the code, then it's underway. But you've just said: "No, it's not underway. We're waiting to find out if somebody had a tank in a field, and then we'll do something about it."

Again, Mr. Minister, the point has been made abundantly clear by the Association of Professional Engineers of British Columbia that we're dealing with a dangerous situation here. We're dealing with tanks sitting in various areas throughout the province that are potentially dangerous to aquifers and to water bodies. The minister says that with the tanks that have to do with the oil industry — whether it's domestic or commercial — there's an inventory underway. We're really interested in the guidelines that set up that inventory, but they haven't been forthcoming.

Since the minister says that they have adopted the code, we would assume then that a process is underway to address this problem — and not a benign process, Mr. Minister  — because the fundamental principle of the CCME code is to recognize that there is a potential danger that must be addressed through inventory and through standards. I can't understand why the minister says the code is being fulfilled with regard to the petroleum tanks but not with regard to tanks containing chemicals, even though there are estimated to be 8,000 of them around the province.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member makes some assumptions that we have staff who are not doing anything. But in a lot of cases we would know where these tanks are already, because they might be under a municipal fire code and some of them would have permits from my ministry, depending on the chemicals. So we already know where they are. We are working on this whole code, but nothing happens overnight, especially in this area where the technology is coming out and we're finding out things at a very fast pace. But to say we're doing nothing about it is just not accurate. I have great confidence that my staff are doing their job in a very proper manner, and in most cases we would have details of these tanks and where they are.

MR. CASHORE: No one is saying anything about your staff not doing their jobs. It has been acknowledged time and time again that your staff are overworked and that they have too many things to do in order to keep up with the environmental needs of the province. There's no doubt about that. We're talking about a very specific issue that has to do with tanks that contain chemicals. The minister has stated that this government has adopted the code put forward by CCME with regard to standards for underground storage tanks. I am just advised by my colleague, who has a copy of the engineers' paper, that it states that every province other than British Columbia has adopted the code by legislation or regulation.

The minister has just stated in the House today that this province has adopted the code. He has also stated that this province has not adopted it by legislation or regulation, but simply by its being there — whereas those other provinces had to have legislation or OIC to adopt the code. I find that very interesting, Mr. Minister. It's an interesting departure from the standards that are being applied by the other provinces.

With regard to the chemical tanks, it's not a matter of the ongoing work of the ministry, which is working very hard; it's a matter of whether there's an inventory currently underway to identify specifically these underground chemical tanks, which is similar to the inventory presently underway, according to the minister, with regard to commercial and domestic petroleum product tanks.

[4:45]

HON. MR REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I can advise the member that some of the regulations with regards to the code have been passed under the Fire Code, and other regulations will be passed in about three months' time, when we have the report. We are progressing at a pace that we think is adequate.

MS. CULL: The technical content of the code includes guidelines for the registration of tank sys-

[ Page 10449 ]

tems, site assessment, design, installation, operation and maintenance of new systems, upgrading existing systems and decommissioning abandoned tanks. Could the minister tell me which of these kinds of guidelines or regulations are in the code that he just referred to — the regulations, I believe, under the Fire Code — and which are going to be coming forward in three months?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll have to take that on notice, because staff here don't have those details. But we can send them to the member. We can send to her the regulations under the Fire Code without any problem at all.

MS. CULL: I've had a look at the Fire Code, and I would appreciate if the minister would ask his staff to assist me in answering the question by pointing out what's in the Fire Code and what you intend to bring forward. If you send me the Fire Code, I know it will be very difficult for me to find these specific references in it. If you ask your staff to have a look at the list I've just read out, I would appreciate knowing what's in place now and what's going to be in place in three months' time.

MR. CASHORE: In the minister's response a moment ago to the question of my colleague from Oak Bay, he said that British Columbia through regulation, I believe, has adopted some of the regulations but not the entire code. I don't want to misrepresent what the minister said, but that was what I understood him to say in response a moment ago. Would he clarify?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I told the member we've adopted the code because we agreed to it at the CCME meeting. We have passed regulations under the Fire Code which are the only ones that are necessary right now. We will pass new regulations as we get further information.

MR. CASHORE: I submit to the minister that you haven't adopted the code. My definition of "adopted" is different from your definition; mine is a parliamentary definition. I put it to you that your government has not adopted the code in the sense that the other provinces of Canada have adopted it. They are not waiting for a report to decide whether or not they will agree to certain portions of it willy-nilly as time goes by, based on some future report. There's a very clear difference there between the behaviour of the province of British Columbia with regard to this code and the behaviour of the other provinces.

I think it's a qualitative difference, a quantitative difference and a significant difference. I would say the minister's use of the word "adopted" is incorrect That's a matter of opinion, but I want to state that on the record. I don't believe by what the minister has explained that this code has been adopted by this province at all.

Passing some regulations that happen to also be in the code is neither here nor there. That's simply stating that the government has chosen what its going to do and what it's path is. Let's be clear about that. That's what the minister has said. While the minister has said that the code has been adopted, I submit that it has not been.

I'll state my understanding of the situation, and the minister can say what his is. But this is my understanding. The industry, in cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, had a program — past tense — a few years ago where all of the above ground bulk storage tanks at key-lock stations were inspected and upgraded if necessary. It's my information that the program came to an end and a databank was created, but that there is no ongoing work being done with regard to that.

Yesterday the minister said: "I can assure the member that they" — meaning the industrial gas storage tanks — "are being monitored, and we will monitor them." He went on to say the same thing he's been saying today: "The companies file reports with us, and we monitor those reports. We do on-site inspections on an ad hoc basis where we want to do them."

The fact is that again, as is the case with the word "code," the minister has a very different understanding of the meaning of "monitoring." Monitoring, in my understanding, implies an active, proactive approach — to go out there and be dealing with the situation, especially where that circumstance is defined as potentially dangerous. It seems to me, therefore, the government is not really participating in any program to inspect, inventory or replace any storage tanks above or below the ground.

When the minister says that the industry is doing an inventory, we cannot get any definition that stands behind that inventory. That is not an inventory; that is something else. That means that something may be happening out there if and when somebody happens to have time for it, if they get around to it. But I can assure you there is nothing that has been said in this House that would assure me or anybody else that this inventory is taking place, and that it's taking place to the standards that are the standards of the code that the minister claims to have adopted.

The fact is there are no regulations for the storage of chemicals, whether above or below the ground. The only powers the minister has are under section 10 of the Waste Management Act, which allows him to act in a specific case but not for the province as a whole. The environment, which the minister through his public relations efforts is saying is so important, is being left to the benign neglect of the industry and the ministry. It means that what we have here is a very hollow process with regard to a potentially extremely dangerous aspect of our province where these underground storage tanks are in danger of contaminating aquifers throughout the province.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: While the member talks about codes and whether he thinks we have a code or we don't have a code, I can tell him that Ontario and Quebec have codes on rubber tires, but we watch them burn every night on the news. You haven't seen

[ Page 10450 ]

that happen in British Columbia because we work with people to solve the problems; we don't use political codes and then do nothing about it.

MR. CASHORE: Are you for the code or against the code?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I don't have to tell you that. If you read the Blues tomorrow and the next day and the next day, you'll see I said we agreed to the code at the meeting, and when we agree to something, that's it. We don't need to do anything else about it.

I would also point out to the member, for his own information, that all chemicals that are special waste must have a permit. So we do not ignore them. My staff have those permits and we do look after them.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to briefly visit an item that was discussed between the minister and the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) on Thursday afternoon.

In Hansard, on page 10350, there was a discussion with regard to milfoil in Okanagan Lake and Osoyoos Lake and elsewhere. The minister said that he i going to be going up to Okanagan Lake with the member for Okanagan North, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. L. Hanson).

I just want to get clarification because the minister said in Hansard to the second member for Boundary Similkameen that he has announced $750,000 to go into the program of milfoil eradication. It was the concern of the member whether that was in last year's budget or this year's budget. My sense of Hansard is that it was stated that it is in this year's budget.

Yet the Morning Star in Vernon of June 10 — which, granted, is four days prior to what the minister said in the House — in a little article with the headline: "Government Won't Pay to Clear Weeds," says:

"The provincial government has decided it will not pay for any weed clearing that occurred in Okanagan and Skaha Lakes last winter. During the winter the weather was mild enough to allow the Okanagan Basin Water Board to roto-till Eurasian milfoil weed. The problem was that the board had already spent its 1989-90 budget. While the board has received provincial funds in the past when they have done this, the government refused this time."

"Okanagan Vernon MLA"  — and it names him — "has been asked by the board to talk to the Ministry of Environment about getting money to cover the costs."

In view of what the minister said in the House, has he decided that the news story is incorrect and the government will be providing that money this fiscal year?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Those are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other.

MR. RABBITT: There has been mention this afternoon of water quality — and of course water is probably this province's greatest asset. As the development of British Columbia goes on, it will become more apparent to those living in this great province of ours that indeed it is a very valuable asset.

The quality of that water varies with the elements of nature and the elements of mankind, and as I have a large number of major watersheds and tributaries that traverse through my riding, I find that's a point which I wish to dwell on for a few moments today.

The question of water quality is one which is very vital. I have communities that are strung along every major water system in the riding. I have communities that have to treat the water in a major way prior to being able to use it — taking it directly from the river systems.

In mentioning that to the minister, I would hope the minister maintains and possibly even tightens some of the requirements for both industry and large municipalities that put effluent into those tributaries. The minister has mentioned the polluter-pay concept and, although I totally adopt and support that concept, I don't think it should be misconstrued as a licence to pollute, as it has been in other jurisdictions.

[5:00]

I would like to commend the ministry on several initiatives. The minister has one of the greatest challenges of any ministry within government today, and I think that both he, and his ministry staff are meeting that challenge.

The recycling aspect of waste management has certainly gained a lot of popularity, even outside government today. Of course, it's nice to see the born-again greenies who have developed not only inside this House but throughout the province. I hope that everybody in this chamber is a born-again conservationist.

As I was out on a task for the ministry a little over a year ago, it was interesting to see the lack of involvement by members of this assembly and also by members of the public and their elected representatives at the municipal level. Since that time, in the past year or year and a half, we have seen a great amount of awareness. That awareness is going to help us establish some good, solid policies for the future.

There are some areas that I wish to ask the minister some specific questions on with regard to the ministry's fish and wildlife program. They have to do with the conservation officers deployed throughout the province. I know that these individuals are being given large areas to look after. I know that with the reorganization that the minister has done, and by adding an ADM to the ministry, we should get a greater focus. I'm wondering if we can possibly get some direction on what the ministry's plans are with the development of that program. It's known by many as the green branch of the ministry. In recent years we've seen them enforcing a lot of regulations over and above conservation.

The Environment Youth Corps has also been an extremely successful program. I believe it has an opportunity to help rural ridings such as Yale-Lillooet. One of the applications now before you that

[ Page 10451 ]

I'm asking you and your ministry to take a strong look at is for the Spences Bridge area. As you may well know, Spences Bridge is known for the Thompson strain of steelhead which is fished there. The current program being applied for will allow the Youth Corps to go in and establish a creel count which will enable us to monitor very closely the limited number of fish there. It will also keep the federal government on side as far as the salmon-fishery sportfishing side of it goes. As the minister may not be aware, we had an ongoing battle for three years with federal Fisheries in order to have any sportfishing of the major salmon runs on that particular Fraser stream. Now that we have it, in order to keep it, we're going to need your support in the form of granting that Youth Corps application.

The final issue I'd like to leave with the minister is due to our having Coquihalla phases 1 and 2 in full-bloom operation, with phase 3 now opening into the Okanagan. We're going to see numbers of people at an unprecedented rate. Many of you may not be aware of it, but the Nicola Valley has always boasted "a lake a day as long as you stay." Although some of us who have lived there a lifetime find that the lakes are limited to the hundreds, they're great fishing lakes and therefore draw lots of people. With lots of people, there are lots of fish caught, and I want to have the commitment from the minister that there will be an adequate restocking program to ensure an adequate amount of fish for the sportfishing public when they come to visit that great little jewel of a riding called Yale-Lillooet.

I'm looking forward to the minister's reply.

HON. MR REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the member can be assured that we'll always make sure there are lots of fish up in Yale-Lillooet, the tip of my present riding, so that when I leave, I can go back up there and fish without being in a conflict.

I thank him for his other comments on the Environment Youth Corps and our new ADM of wildlife. I appreciate them very much, and so does my staff.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise an issue with the minister. Every time I listen to the minister engaging in debate in this House, he says: "We're working on this. We're studying this. We're acting on that." Then we get evidence that suggests that that's not the case, because there seems to be a matter before the minister that he hasn't acted on. I don't expect the minister to know every little creek and stream and river in British Columbia, so I'm just going to put this on the record, ask the minister a question, and make a suggestion to the minister.

I have in my riding the wonderful municipality of Colwood. For some time Colwood has been upset with the Ministry of Environment's unwillingness, as they see it, to deal with the matter of Columbia Ready-Mix discharging material into Colwood Creek. The minister may recall that I corresponded with him on the issue on May 2, 1990, and he replied to me some two weeks later, a letter which I have now forwarded to the city of Colwood. The city of Colwood is frustrated with the Ministry of Environment's inability to deal with the matter of discharges into Colwood Creek because, in their mind, there have been discharges in violation of environmental standards. They have carefully documented them through their engineering department, and on April 11, 1990, the city administrator wrote to me and said:

"I have been directed by the city council to forward the attached report from our municipal engineer for your immediate attention. The council has also requested I convey their extreme dissatisfaction that nothing of consequence has been done by the Ministry of Environment to prevent discharge from the Columbia Ready-Mix Ltd. plant operations from entering Colwood Creek.

"The ministry had advised the city the company has initiated alterations to their system to prevent discharge.... Please note the city has documented these incidents and presented same to the ministry for at least two years, yet the problem persists with little or no tangible action on the part of the ministry.

"Council requests they be advised as to why this situation has been permitted to continue."

The minister did respond to me, and I forwarded a copy of the minister's letter to the city. The city is still not satisfied, and they said to me in their correspondence that they would be happy to provide me with all the material and all their records pertaining to this matter so that I may further press the minister on the issue.

It's one thing to engage in an exchange in the House around the issue, but I suspect it would be something totally different if we were to perhaps meet with the minister. It seems to me that the minister's correspondence in reply to my letter suggests that the ministry is attending to the problem. But I've got a city that says they're not, and they're frustrated with the actions of the ministry. Rather than deal with what can be a very delicate situation here in the House In this fashion, let me just suggest to the minister.... On the one hand we've got the ministry saying it's been resolved, and on the other hand, the city is frustrated. I take it the minister would have no problem with him me and representatives from the city of Colwood meeting to discuss this matter further, so that they can present the case specifically and directly to the minister, with his officials present, and we can get to the bottom of this dispute. I take it the minister's got no objection to that type of arrangement.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his comments. I certainly have no objection at all. As the member knows, I don't know every little creek. But I do remember his creek because I wrote him a letter. My staff advises me that the sampling shows the solid levels were below the levels that are harmful to the fish in the creek, and you and I are not ones who could argue with that. It's a fact, but obviously.... They say the remedial works have been installed at the Columbia Ready-Mix plant to solve the problems. Nevertheless, as the member stated at the very start of his statement, I'm either working, studying or acting. That's true, and we'll act on this

[ Page 10452 ]

one. You set up the meeting and we'll be there, and we'll talk to the people and solve the problem.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has expressed his complete faith in the ability of the private sector to resolve just about every environmental problem that will come before us. The minister has pointed out that the private sector not only does a very good job in doing what the private sector does well, but also should have the responsibility for all the monitoring, all those things that have traditionally been on a level playing-field and done in the public interest where there would be independence of approach.

I would like now to move on to another topic where he could have the opportunity to express his faith in working people as well. Just so the minister hears the point I'm making, I'm putting in contrast the minister's commitment to the private sector — some of which I agree with, some of which I don't — and saying that throughout the debate in which we've been dealing with environmental issues the minister has singled out the private sector as having a great deal of trust of this minister. There are some good things about that, but I'm saying that I would like the minister to also show that kind of trust and faith in the working people of this province and to recognize their right to be a part of providing environmental solutions.

I'm sure the minister is aware that in some jurisdictions there is whistle-blowers' protection. Recently a little pamphlet — it's not so little — came out from the sustainable development committee of the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia branch. I know the minister has a copy of this, although he has been busier than I have, I would expect, and I haven't had an opportunity to read all the way through it. But there's some very good material in here. I think it's appropriate to recognize that if somebody is working in a mill, for instance, and discovers that a solution is being dumped in the middle of the night, contrary to the permit and contrary to the law, and if the employer is trying to get away with that and if there's pressure brought to bear on the worker that that should not be disclosed, then we have this really tragic circumstance where somebody who has knowledge of a polluting act that is harmful to the environment is prevented from making that known to the officials of the ministry at the earliest possible date I'm asking the minister if he would share with the House his thinking on the protection of workers through measures that would protect whistle-blowers, and if he would give us the benefit of his thinking on that?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can tell the critic over there that I have the greatest respect for the working people of this province, especially the people I see in the ministry and in the pulp mills. I've made a point when I'm visiting the pulp mills to ask for a separate and private meeting, if agreeable to the union representatives in all the pulp mills. These have been very fruitful. I've been out on boats with them discussing what they think should be done. I also asked — I'm not sure if it played on TV, but the TV cameras were there — the two union reps in the Crofton mill if whistle-blowing legislation was necessary. They told me it wasn't and that any union member in their facility could say whatever he wanted and would have the full protection of the union.

[5:15]

We probably disagree on the necessity. As the member knows, I'm not a great one to believe in a lot of legislation. I just think it gives lawyers extra work. If we get agreements on things with corporations and the working people, that should solve most of our problems. I've never had a problem working with unions. The restaurant I owned in Vancouver was unionized and very successful. I used to laugh at the people who owned restaurants and said that you couldn't operate a successful restaurant paying union wages. We did. The unions never hurt any business. If business works together with unions, and vice versa, that's what makes our province so successful. That's why this government keeps on getting elected. We get a lot of votes from union workers. They know we respect the work ethic and respect business. If we didn't get their votes, we wouldn't be here on this side of the House.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister is very genuine in what he says about union people. I appreciate that. I have no reason to doubt it.

Also, he stated in the House his appreciation for West Coast Environmental Law, some of whom have been involved in developing this report. They say: "The law of British Columbia provides no protection to employees who disclose violations of environmental law by their employers. At present, a whistleblower could face harassment, dismissal with notice, or possibly a lawsuit from an employer if a complaint has proven groundless." There are people who could really be helping this ministry because they are often the first ones to know when a dangerous thing has happened. It might not even be something that was done wilfully, but whether it was wilful or not is beside the point. If something that's dangerous to the environment is taking place, the first people to know about that should have every encouragement through their right to live and work in a healthy environment and to preserve a healthy environment.

We're not talking about extensive legislation here. As a matter of fact, the sustainable development committee of the Canadian Bar Association is making only a few recommendations. Here's what they are suggesting:

"The government of British Columbia should enact whistle-blower protection legislation to (1) protect employees who report apparent or suspected violations of environmental laws from retaliation, (2) mandate a broad definition of the scope of protected activity, and (3) ensure that whistle-blowers are not stripped of protection due to overly technical requirements."

I'll just follow that up. The minister just said that he met with a union and they said that they didn't think this was necessary. I have in my hand a letter from the recording and corresponding, or correspondence, secretary, Bruce Lyster, of the Canadian Paperworkers' Union — CLC — Local 76 in Powell River.

I can see the minister is grinning that I'm starting to trip over my words.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Not you.

MR. CASHORE: That's not what you're laughing at? Well, If I wasn't talking, I would be laughing at it myself.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: These people heckle me too much, Mr. Chairman. I'll run out of time, and I'll have to go longer tomorrow than I said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CASHORE: This is actually a copy of a letter to the MLA for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). This is what the union says:

"We strongly feel that a worker observing an illegal release of a toxic substance should not have to consider his job security when deciding whether or not to blow the whistle. The average person looks to the government for protection and should not be forced to choose between a clean environment and food for the table."

So while the minister says he has met with trade unions that are opposed to it, here's one that is very clearly in favour of it. Virtually all the unions that I have talked to are in favour of this kind of protection. They make it very clear. They think it would be appropriate, and they would see it as a win-win and an expression that the government recognizes the importance of them being part of the solution, which they very much want to be — and indeed are in many cases.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I guess we could debate this issue back and forth all day long, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's necessary. We can debate it during the next election campaign. When it's over, we'll see what the people think.

MR. SIHOTA: That was an interesting debate between the member and the minister.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How long are you supposed to drag it out?

MR. SIHOTA: Look, I'm not here to drag out the debate. I was very short in terms of my questions to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), and if I may say so, I was rather a model in terms of my approach....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you waiting for your leader to get back?

MR. SIHOTA: No, he's campaigning in your riding today. So he won't be back for a while.

[ Page 10453 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The last time he was up there he drew all of 60 people.

MR. SIHOTA: I think it was 600.

It reminds me of the trip....

MR. RABBITT: Your nose is growing, Pinocchio.

MR. SIHOTA: Settle down over there. I want to ask the minister a question. Let him and me engage in a debate here.

Let me just put a question to you. Surely you have to agree that you can't generalize your conclusion on this matter on the basis of the representations made by a couple of employees at Crofton. Correct?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I have my own opinion; they just happened to confirm it.

MR. SIHOTA: The fact of the matter is that there are some employees out there in British Columbia who are afraid to report. They may have a collective agreement in place; they may not. But let's just deal with the ones who have, because the ones who don't, have worse consequences than the ones who do. Does the minister not think that it would give them a measure of comfort if they knew there was whistleblower legislation in place?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I would assume that anybody who was reporting something that would benefit the environment would not be concerned at all and would be very pleased to inform.

I do not believe that in today's society those things stay secret very long. I know about spills just about the minute they happen. The companies inform us; their permits require it. Today we have the technology. As the member knows, there was a spill in the Nicomekl River just a few days ago. We had it traced back to the gas station within hours without anybody even informing — just by technology.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

So I am not concerned. I don't believe you have to have legislation. In talking to union workers in pulp mills where they have the benefit of their union, I don't think that anyone there would be concerned. In fact, their environment committees are just the opposite. They tell me they are working very closely with management to solve all these problems.

I hear reports the odd time about a leak that took place, and somebody says: "Oh, they're hiding it." We send our people to investigate and find out it's absolutely not true — and not by asking management. We can go right to the source. We have the power; our people have the powers of a policeman. They can put people under oath. When we've tracked down some of these cases, they just don't come out the way the rumours are out there in society. I just don't see the need for that kind of legislation.

[ Page 10454 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Let me put the question again to the minister, because he didn't answer it. Would you not think it would give those — whether unionized or not — a measure of comfort if they knew that this type of legislation was in place to protect them?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: You think that; I don't think it's necessary.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the assumption is that it's a perfect world out there. Let me give the minister an analogy that comes to mind, and that is the matter of human rights legislation. Now you and I both agree, I would think, that not every employer out there discriminates on the basis of age, sex or race. Right? In most cases people are very reasonable, and they don't do that. But there are always exceptions, and because of those exceptions, we implement legislation that gives people a measure of comfort, if I can put it that way.

Does the minister not agree that the same type of philosophy or policy should be in place? It's not legislation that's going to cost you any money, but it's legislation that gives people a measure of protection and comfort. With that analogy in mind, does the minister not agree that it would be appropriate to bring forward that protection?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, if we had legislation for every exception to every rule, we'd have to start importing lawyers from Ontario and other provinces to fill us up with paperwork. I just don't believe that this type of legislation is necessary, nor do I feel it would give anybody any comfort at all. I think the world would keep chugging along, and if somebody sees a problem they would report it if something is an environmental problem in this day and age, everybody's going to report it. I don't see that there's any comfort needed.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe this is part of the philosophical differences that drive us to where we are. Believe me, I don't think that we should be legislating every behaviour known to man. I don't think we should be setting up red tape everywhere. But I think we have to make conscious decisions where there are gaps and where legislative intervention would be appropriate as insurance in society.

A worker — and I've worked in mills and that kind of stuff — sees a lot of stuff that goes on Granted, I did it some time ago when perhaps the environment was not as salient a consideration in the minds of people as it is today; I'll grant the minister that. However, you see all sorts of things, and people are reluctant to report them.

Let me just give you a very simple example of how reluctant they are. I can remember a situation in my riding — I think it occurred about a year or two ago — where an individual had been involved in PCB storage or burying PCB-laden material at the extreme end of my riding. It was a celebrated case. It got all sorts of media attention and all that kind of stuff, because I think one of the local TV stations ended up finding out about it.

What struck me about that situation, in part, was the fact that a former employee of the mill who had instructed him to bury the material in Port Renfrew ultimately came forward and reported it. When he contacted me — and unfortunately he phoned me after he had contacted the press — he called not so much to tell me about what he had done years ago, but for an assurance that this was not in some way going to affect his pension. He had long since retired. He had left the company long ago, and the company had long since abandoned the community.

I think that was a very genuine concern. I gave him an assurance that it was highly unlikely that his pension benefits would be affected, because we all understand that in the realm of all probability, that's not going to happen. But on the other side of the coin, if he had been a current worker, I think he would have been very reluctant to do that.

I had another situation in my riding in Colwood, where the new city hall is. Again, people wanted to mention the fact that there had been material stored there. The CUPE workers chose not to advise me, but by a rather indirect process, the word came through.

I had another situation in my riding several years ago — and the minister may remember it — where there were concerns about the concentration of algae in the Sooke water supply, which, of course, feeds the area here. Again, the workers who were there did not report to me — although I talked to them afterwards — their longstanding knowledge that in the area that had been part of the watershed, there was a car dumped into the water held above the dam which tries to keep the water pure and then releases it into the water supply. It would be corroded, obviously, and would have an effect on the water supply. They would not share information with anybody with respect to the type of activity that was going on up there in terms of the use of pesticides used in the area to spray: on wood — again, because they were concerned about their livelihood.

[5:30]

Those are three real-life examples that have happened in my riding. I don't want to seek to generalize from that experience. I just want the minister, again, to reflect on that. Surely he'd have to agree that those types of considerations have to cross an individual's mind when they decide to report a violation. Should that be a consideration in their mind? I say no, that ought not to be a consideration. It would be a lot easier if we could assure our constituents that it wouldn't be.

With those kinds of real-life examples in mind, can the minister explain then why it is that he says — and I'll say it lightly — that he doesn't think there should be legislation to provide that measure of protection?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, I would just like to make the committee aware that we are not permitted to discuss the necessity for

[ Page 10455 ]

legislation or matters involving legislation during Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I won't discuss the necessity for legislation, because as I've said before, I don't agree that legislation is necessary. I can probably stand here, just like the member, and give examples. I can give examples of loads of employees who call me and tell me something was wrong. They don't want to give me their name. Some do. We check them all out. We even check the rumours out. I check stories from constituents in Howe Sound, where they see some foam on top of the water, and send our people down at great expense, and we find out it's an algae bloom that happens naturally. It looks terrible. Everybody certainly thought it was the Howe Sound pulp mill, but it was an algae bloom. Yet, it got lots of TV coverage, but they never put the show on a few weeks later saying that there was nothing wrong, that it was an algae bloom and happens in the ocean all the time.

We could stand here for days and just debate this issue alone. If the member's bill ever comes up for debate in the House, there will be a vote on it. If it doesn't, there will be a vote in the next election. When it's all over, we can decide who won.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd rather have that election sooner than later, if we would call on you to use your influence to encourage the Premier to call it quickly so we can get on with the resolution of these kinds of issues. And maybe you could be interim leader too, as the House Leader says.

I don't really expect the minister to say: 'Yeah, on reflection I think you're right, and I've changed my mind." In a courtroom you seldom get a witness who, after denying it for days on end on the stand, says: "Yeah, I did it." It just doesn't work that way.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe it is. But all I want to say to the minister is this: I think that you should revisit the issue, in all seriousness. Your ministry would be well advised to take a look at that and acknowledge that it can't hurt but it can help — in terms of legislation. I think the government would be wisely advised if it chose to bring in that form of legislation and protection for workers, because it can only benefit and allow for reporting in those cases, as isolated — if you want to take the minister's point of view — as they may be. Let's take those considerations out of the minds of unionized and non-unionized people in British Columbia.

So all I can ask is for the minister to reflect on the comments and the exchange in this House and see fit to introduce necessary legislation.

I know my colleague from Burnaby has some comments he'd like to raise, Mr. Speaker, so I'll terminate my comments at this stage.

MR. CASHORE: Just a quick question based on a news release that was put out by the ministry on June 20, 1989, "Pulp Mill Testing Announced." It's a short release, so I'll read it.

"The Ministry of Environment has launched a program to test air emissions at six Vancouver Island pulp mills. The program got underway May 23 and will be complete on July 15. Samples will be taken at Crofton, Harmac, Port Alberni, Gold River, Port Alice and Elk Falls to measure emissions of sulphur dioxide, total reduced sulphur (TRS) and particulate matter. Similar stack sampling was conducted in March at three lower mainland pulp mills: Woodfibre, Port Mellon and Powell River.

"The Vancouver Island testing will be carried out by Pacific Testing, a Victoria firm, and Zenon Environmental Laboratories of Vancouver. Details of the tests will be made available upon completion of review and analysis of results by ministry staff."

The question is: why has this not been completed? Why has it not been made available? When will it be made available?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that we did do the testing and that it's completed. We do testing all the time.

MR. CASHORE: Now we know it's completed. It says, "Details of the test will be made available upon completion of review, " and they have not been made available to the public. When will they be made available to the public? Why have they not been made available to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As you know, we're doing my estimates and my ministry for this year. That's a question from last year, so I can't really tell you why things weren't done. But I can tell you, as I have told you before, that we will be having a compliance record come out. When I'm finished with these estimates, I would hope to have it all complete within a week to ten days.

I haven't had a chance to review the material that's been sent to me from the West Coast Environmental Law Association. They've made some recommendations. We shared the methods we were going to use with them and asked for their input, and we will be putting that out regularly. It will include all the pulp mills, municipalities and industries around the province that are not in compliance, and it will explain why.

MR. SIHOTA: I've been following the issue with some interest because it deals with Vancouver Island. I have a question for the minister. Given the fact that the studies are complete.... The public has a right to know this information immediately, I would suggest; at least to know the status of the situation. I can appreciate that the minister may not want to release it now, in the middle of his estimates, but will he undertake to release the information within a week of the conclusion of his estimates?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. JONES: I'd like to raise another area that is of major concern to my constituents. About a year ago I

[ Page 10456 ]

did a poll of people resident in north Burnaby and had quite a strong response in terms of their general concern about the environment. You might imagine that the issue of major concern to those constituents was air quality. Air pollution affects all lower mainland residents, and I think all lower mainland residents have a concern about it. People understand that a major cause of that is the automobile and that the solutions for those problems are long range.

Residents of north Burnaby have a particular concern, in that north Burnaby is home to the petroleum industry in B.C. We know that this is a heavy industry nestled amidst a high-residential area, and residents over the years have had a very strong reaction to having that industry in their midst. Many residents find a tremendous stink as a result of being home to the petroleum industry. Some 1,500 complaints per month go to the GVRD on problems of these kinds in Burnaby.

We do have the four refineries in Burrard Inlet. I'd like to focus on one particular problem associated with air quality and air pollution, the problem of sulphur dioxide in particular, although there certainly are other pollutants. The four refineries on Burrard Inlet dump some 4,740 tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere every year. That is better than half of all the industrial sulphur dioxide pollution in the entire lower mainland. In addition to that, there are other pollutants — 2,000 tonnes of nitrogen oxide and 960 tonnes of particulate matter in addition to 5,400 tonnes of hydrocarbons annually — that are dumped into the atmosphere from these four petroleum refineries. That current level is bad enough, but, just like the increase in the oil tanker traffic, the GVRD forecasts that sulphur oxides are going to increase by some 30 percent by 1995 and by 53 percent by the year 2005.

I raise sulphur dioxide in particular because of a study done by Dr. David Bates, professor emeritus in the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia, who has in his research discovered a link between respiratory problems — asthma in particular — and sulphur dioxide levels in the atmosphere. There are some one million asthma sufferers in this country and some 800,000 — 80 percent of those — happen to be children. On April 13 of this year, a 13-year-old Delta child died as a result of an asthma attack while roller-skating. I'm not suggesting it was a sulphur dioxide problem that produced that death I raise that to point out the seriousness of the issue, which has been ignored for a long time. It's one I don't think we can afford to ignore any longer.

I'm sure the staff with the ministry recognize that when we talk about Dr. David Bates we're talking here about an international expert on air pollution whose study was published in April in the New York-based journal Environmental Research. He has documented in his past research in Toronto, and in Vancouver in particular, hospital visits in nine lower mainland emergency departments. He found a significant association between sulphur dioxide emissions and emergency visits.

The environmental guidelines, as I understand them, are something like 0.14 parts per million. Dr. Bates indicates that levels as low as 0.06 and 0.08 parts per million can result in sending people to the hospital. Since that research, Dr. Bates also indicates that an increase of 0.1 parts per million will produce a 77 percent increase in hospital admissions with acute respiratory disease.

I raised this same issue last year with the then Minister of Environment and urged him to have a look at the then 15-year-old pollution control objectives. I asked him, in addition to looking at those and improving them, to convert them to rigid standards that could be enforced. He indicated last year, in fact, that the ministry was reviewing those standards.

Let me quote from the minister on July 8 last year. He promised: "In September, we will be presenting higher standards to the industry. You are right, they're 15 years old, and they will be addressed."

That was September last year. It was a clear promise of the minister. I think his response indicated that he took this question seriously and that higher standards would be presented to the industry by September of last year. I hope it's only my lack of knowledge of what has happened since that time, because to my knowledge there has been absolutely no movement on the part of this government to produce higher standards, which I think are absolutely essential if we are concerned about the health connection with this kind of air pollution.

[5:45]

At the time that these statements were being made, all comments by the industry were very positive. They appreciate that if the government is willing to set higher standards, they as an industry are quite willing to comply with those standards. They know that the control technology is available, and they indicate that they are willing to do their part. I think the industry is willing to be most responsible in this situation. What's required on the part of the government is to show some leadership and bring in those improved standards. So standards are the first step. I call on the minister to tell me — I hope — that I'm wrong, there has been significant work, there are new standards in place and the industry is going about complying with those standards.

We need those standards, and they have to be in place before the proper monitoring can be done so that deterrents and enforcement of those standards can be in place. We're not just talking about a quality of life issue here; I think it extends that even further. We're talking about a serious issue of human health and air pollution that affects the residents of North Burnaby and the adjoining areas that are home to the petroleum industry. So I would ask the minister if there has been any follow-up to the minister's promise of last year.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll take the member's word for what he said. I can tell him that a proposal call went out. The report was considered substandard by the ministry. Another proposal call went out, and

[ Page 10457 ]

there were no answers to it. So we do not have ready yet the standards that he is talking about.

But I would find it very strange that a company would say they're waiting for us to give them standards so they can be better environmentalists. They should take that responsibility themselves and be putting in the best available equipment.

I would suggest to the member that I'm quite prepared to visit that area with him. Let's go to the plant and ask them. I'd like to ask them: "Why do you have these problems?" I've been by there, and it does stink. There are problems. I used to live out in Port Moody at one time, and it stunk then. We were told then it was the best they could do, and it meant jobs.

I'm told, like you, that there is better equipment today. I would ask that member to talk to Ingrid in my office. Let's go there and have a meeting with them directly and find out what they're doing. I will bring staff along, and we will see what we can do to solve that problem.

MR. JONES: As is often the case, I experience a certain frustration with this kind of communication process across the room.

Perhaps I presented too many ideas at once in my earlier remarks. I don't want to confuse my comments about stink and smell and those quality-of-life issues with the other issue I mentioned, although the electorate are probably more concerned about smells, because they directly experience them in terms of their senses — their noses.

I'm talking about another one that nobody sees it's not brown; nobody smells it, but it's a pollutant in our atmosphere that an acknowledged leading world expert in air pollution has said is linked to respiratory problems — a serious health issue. As far as the industry goes, I think they are working very hard. They are concerned about their corporate image. They live in a highly developed residential area, and I think they're trying very hard to deal with the many complaints that, as I say, come in to the GVRD every month.

That's one thing and I'm sure any visit to the refineries — as I visited them in the last year — will lead the minister to conclude that the industry is being responsible in dealing with that level.

In terms of the second issue, the sulphur dioxide issue, I've got to say to the minister, come on, we're talking about expensive control technology, and they are quite willing to comply. It's the responsibility of the federal and provincial governments to set appropriate standards in terms of the health safety of the citizens of this province. It's not the responsibility of the industry to figure out what those standards should be. Their responsibility is to comply with the standards set by government. The leadership has to come from the provincial and federal governments; it's not going to come from the industry. We can't fault the industry, because they don't know what the appropriate standards are, and it's not their responsibility to find out.

The minister indicated very clearly to me last year that higher standards were forthcoming. He even gave a date, which is rare in this place: September. I visited the refineries last year. They indicated that Ministry of Environment people had been around. They were expecting standards. A proposal call was inadequate, and nobody responded to the second one.

Is that good enough for you, Mr. Minister? Is it good enough to leave at risk probably 100,000 children in British Columbia who are susceptible to respiratory disease? It's just not good enough to leave these standards up in the air — to leave standards that are 15 years old when we know there is new evidence by leading research scientists that the old standards aren't good enough. Your response, Mr. Minister, isn't good enough either.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It may not be good enough for that member, but I'll assure him that we're just as concerned about what is happening there as he is. As he knows, the GVRD has the responsibility in those areas. Maybe we have to take it away from them. We have to make sure....

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It amazes me to think that somebody in a corporation would tell that member. "Oh, we'd love to go spend half a billion dollars to put in the best equipment, but we're waiting for the government to tell us what to do." If they are a responsible corporation, they should want to make sure that their environment image is the best in the world. I'll go there and tell them that. I'm not afraid to tell industry that they are conning you in telling you that they are prepared to do it. If the equipment is there and can be bought, they should be putting it in the damned plant and not making excuses.

MR. CASHORE: This is consistent with what the minister was saying at the time of the infamous statement about eating crabs. I thought he'd learned a lot since then. At that time it was pointed out that what we had to do was trust the industry to monitor itself. He said that he was going to into the boardrooms and the back rooms; he was going to meet with the CEOs, and everything was going to be happy ever after. He received an incredible amount of anger and hostility from people in the fishermen's community, the sports fishermen and the people who live in the area of Howe Sound in his own riding.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Name names.

AN HON. MEMBER: Terry Jacks.

MR. CASHORE: I'm not going to mention Terry Jacks. I know that the Minister of Transport wanted somebody to use the name Terry Jacks to really get the minister going.

[ Page 10458 ]

But the fact is that all throughout these estimates, when it has come down to an issue of keeping a level playing-field, an issue of an appropriate government regulation, the minister has skated around and said: "Trust the private sector. They'll look after it. They should be good corporate citizens. Everything will be okay." The fact is that it's not okay. The fact is that all the indicators are that the serious environmental problems are getting worse. As my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has said, industry itself doesn't agree with the minister.

Industry is saying to the minister and to this government: "You tell us what the standards are, and then we will put the equipment in place that we have to put in place. But we're not going to go out"  — as the minister says —  "and buy some equipment, only to find that two or three months later they put the regulations in place and what this company has invested in is obsolete." That's not fair to business; it's not fair to industry. The minister is talking about a process that simply hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future. It is an abrogation of responsibility by this government.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments, and then we can all go and enjoy some Howe Sound crab for dinner.

I would hope that one of these days that party over there would stop.... You know, in their own brochures they spread the lie that fishing has been banned in Howe Sound. It's not, and I think that's unfortunate. Your brochure does. You didn't say it; I'm saying a brochure your party puts out, the leader of your party. I was up in the interior, in the Kootenays. The opening paragraph: "The Minister of Environment said he'd eat in Howe Sound from an area that has been banned for fishing by the department of health." Well, some of the best fish in this province were caught in Howe Sound and still are — from Sewell's Marina. It's a great industry. Everything you say to knock that affects business in this province and affects tourism. Also, commercial and private prawning are taking place in Howe Sound quite legally, and private crabbing is taking place in Howe Sound quite legally, and people who live there eat the crab every day.

If you want to talk about the people in Howe Sound, let's talk about our friend Terry Jacks, who took out a full-page ad in the paper supporting a candidate opposed to me for my nomination and said: "We're the grass roots. We're going to get it." Mr. Speaker, as I said that evening, I got the grass roots and Terry Jacks can have the grass, and that's the way it is in Howe Sound.

Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed today and I think we've had a good debate.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Reynolds moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.