[ Page 10459 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 42).

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 10459

Oral Questions

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Rose –– 10459

Mr. Lovick

Effect of floods on Okanagan tourism. Mr. Chalmers –– 10460

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Lovick –– 10460

Reimbursement of expenses for medical treatment. Mr. Perry –– 10460

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Perry –– 10461

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 10462

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

On vote 26: minister's office –– 10462

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Perry

Mr. Miller

Park Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 25). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Messmer) –– 10486

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Edwards

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Perry

Third reading

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1990

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have three very prominent Victoria businessmen. I wonder if the House would please welcome David Nicholson, Barry Foss and Peter Dale.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are four young British Columbians who are going to see a great deal of our province over the next several months. These four young women, all graduates of the BCIT tourism marketing program, will serve as the Music '91 mall show touring hosts. Over the course of the summer they will visit 16 communities with a touring show promoting next year's Music '91 celebrations — our province's biggest single tourism promotion since Expo 86.

These young people — field supervisor Lori De Cou from Vancouver and hostesses Heather Usher of Victoria, Sandra Morin of Powell River and Erin Ormond of Nelson — are here for a training course to help prepare them for the tour. These people will be fine young ambassadors for the year of music in our province. I would like all members of the House to join me in making them very welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary in the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. They are here because they have formed a club — I guess that is the best way to describe it — around environmental issues. They are here not so much to watch question period, as to watch the debates during the Ministry of Environment estimates, which I'm sure will be controlled and tempered so that they can enjoy it. So would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to the students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in addition to wishing to welcome Bishop Snowden, who offered prayers for us here this afternoon, I would like to welcome to the gallery Marjorie Snowden, who is, of course, from Kamloops. She has been involved tremendously in many, many community activities, but most especially I would like to welcome her here and acknowledge her presence for her very, very important work with the hospice society in Kamloops. Would the House join me in welcoming Marjorie Snowden, please.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two visitors from the constituency to the north of Nanaimo, but I have a hunch that my colleague across the way, the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), hasn't seen them. So I'll take it upon myself to introduce and make welcome Mr. Ian Terry, the chair of the Regional District of Nanaimo, and Mr. Barry Johnston, a Parksville alderman. I'll ask the members to please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, brevity is actually the hallmark of a properly done introduction, and without political remarks being made on either side.

Introduction of Bills

ACCOUNTANTS (CERTIFIED GENERAL)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accountants (Certified General) Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. As indicated in the title, this is an amendment bill. It amends the certified general accountants' act to make it equivalent, in terms of discipline procedures and also the membership procedures of its council, to the chartered accountants' act. The CGAs sought these amendments. That is essentially the essence of this bill.

Bill 42 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, subsequent to question period yesterday the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) raised an alleged matter of privilege. I have examined the material put forward by the hon. member and I am unable to find any basis for a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Government Management Services. Before releasing the government flight logs, the minister stated that she was convinced that no one would find any evidence of abuse in the air service. The logs, however, show clearly that you and your colleagues are using air ambulance jets as political taxis, at a cost of more than $100,000 in solo flights in the first three months of this year alone. Does the minister still insist that no minister has abused the privileges of government air services?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, the assumptions being made by the NDP are incorrect. The hypocrisy that exists on that side of the House over air services astounds me.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll withdraw "hypocrisy, " but let me tell you, hon. members, that the policy framework for government air services hasn't

[ Page 10460 ]

changed in the years since the NDP were in power. I want to remind those members.... And I'm not criticizing, because those members well know the difficulty of ministers trying to serve a province as big as British Columbia. But let me tell you that many years ago — and again, I'm not criticizing — an Hon. P.F. Young, who I'm sure you're familiar with: January 2, 3, 8, 10, 13, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 1975. That same minister and others — oh, an Hon. G.V. Lauk; I'm sure you know who that is — January 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27, 31 — all to and from the same places. So give me a break.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In addition to all that, the word "hypocritical" is not unparliamentary and need not be withdrawn. However, since there are a number of members wishing to assist the Chair in asking members to withdraw and members are offering unsolicited withdrawals, perhaps we'll proceed on that basis. However, Hansard need not record them.

MR. LOVICK: To the same minister, who asks that we give her a break, we will indeed when she gives a break to the people and puts an end to this abuse.

Mr. Speaker, the logs show 100 solo flights between Victoria and cabinet-member ridings in the first three months of this year alone. And on February 2 we had the ridiculous spectacle of two ministers taking the same jet to the same place but on separate trips within two hours of each other, at a cost of some $3,000. The question to the minister is just this: does the minister not agree that this constitutes an abuse of the air service?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer is no.

EFFECT OF FLOODS ON
OKANAGAN TOURISM

MR. CHALMERS: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. It has been well known and well publicized that we've had flood conditions in the Okanagan for the last few weeks, but it has been so well publicized that it has been driving tourists away. Some hotel operators tell me they are down 25 percent, and cancellations are coming in because of the adverse publicity. I'd like to ask the minister what he is doing or what he is prepared to do to counteract that situation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, that's a very good question, but I would urge the member, first of all, to perhaps spend a bit of time talking to his local weather reporter, to see that the problem areas are more specifically described rather than generalized as the entire Okanagan Valley under flood. Indeed, the member has a very good point: those flooding problems are very site-specific, but the reporters are not reporting it in that manner.

I can report to the House that we certainly have a well-prepared advertising program underway — radio and TV releases. We will be working with the nine tourist regions, mainly the Okanagan-Similkameen tourist region. I can assure all members of the House that we will be doing a good job for tourism and bringing back the massive flow of tourists to the great Okanagan Valley once again. Thanks for the question.

[2:15]

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. LOVICK: Again to the Minister of Government Management Services. Does the minister not think that scheduling six separate flights using four different jets in one day to bring six cabinet ministers back to Victoria is really an abuse of the air service?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have a feeling that during my estimates later on today we'll be talking about these issues, but in the interest of open government and open opposition, I am wondering where the flight logs are for the Leader of the Opposition.

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

MR. PERRY: To the Minister of Health. In mid-May, Mrs. Doris Currie of Port Coquitlam required urgent radiotherapy for breast cancer. Faced with a six- to eight-week delay in treatment In British Columbia, she flew to Edmonton, where she received prompt treatment. She has now been denied reimbursement for her $294 airfare. Will the minister tell this House by what sort of twisted logic he denies women transportation for life-saving medical treatment while at the same time government jets have flown a minister's spouse and children to a weekend holiday in Vanderhoof?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm very pleased that the member brought up the need for additional radiotherapy units in the province of British Columbia. We are, as the member opposite is aware, supplying the additional capacity in British Columbia of 13 more units over the next few years. The day before yesterday we announced In Kamloops the two additional units that will be made available there. I can certainly look into the specific details of the case.

The concern I have is that we get questions in this House.Yesterday I had a question from the opposition House Leader. He didn't want to be an alarmist, but he was concerned that a Saltspring Island resident died as a result of non-availability of aircraft. When we contacted him for details, he refused to supply them. Unless I can get specific names and details of the cases, I can't look into those situations. But I would be pleased to do that for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. PERRY: A question, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Currie phoned the Health ministry on May 31 and, when

[ Page 10461 ]

told she would not be reimbursed, she asked: "Do you mean I might have to die on the waiting-list?" She was told, "Unfortunately, that sometimes happens," by one of the minister's own officials.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names.

MR. PERRY: The question is: is it the minister's policy that the flagrant abuse of the ambulance by his colleagues takes precedence over the legitimate health needs of a woman like Mrs. Currie?

HON. J. JANSEN: Unless the member opposite can give me the name of the official who made that comment, I ask him to withdraw it immediately.

MR. PERRY: I will provide the name to the minister if he wishes, but perhaps he would like to have it directly from the woman concerned.

A new question for the Minister of Government Management Services.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: I have asked for a withdrawal of his statement unless the member would supply a name so that I could respond. I would ask him to now reveal that name, and if he doesn't reveal the name he can withdraw his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Where an unparliamentary remark has been made, a withdrawal can be asked for. However, I don't believe this is an unparliamentary remark. It may be a remark which people find offensive, but it doesn't....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It doesn't reflect on a member of this House. If there are other points of order, I would ask that we save them until the end of question period, because the time of question period is fixed. I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to continue with his questions.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I'll give the minister the phone number of Mrs. Currie in Port Coquitlam, which is 941-3776. Perhaps he'll follow it up.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. PERRY: I have a new question for the Minister of Government Management Services. This government has denied $294 in travel costs to a woman with a life-threatening illness who needed to fly out of province for urgent treatment that was not available in British Columbia. The minister has stood in this House and defended a government that sees no problem in flying a minister's family for a weekend holiday. Can the minister not, for once, admit that her air service policies and her government have failed completely to serve the real interests of British Columbia citizens and taxpayers?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the member is misleading the House when he talks about a holiday. Mr. Member, I believe that that is a very unfair and unparliamentary thing to say. You are dealing with whether or not spouses are allowed to travel, and certainly they are within the policy, as they were within the policy of the NDP. I have instances all through the logs where NDP spouses traveled with the ministers.

Again, let's think about what you are saying before you do it in the interest of politics. You are being hypocrites.

MR. SPEAKER: I must now ask the minister to stand and withdraw the word "hypocrites." "Hypocritical" is not unparliamentary, but "hypocrites" is.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly withdraw the word "hypocrites" and add....

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's nothing to be added to it. Thank you, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, because of all the interruptions in question period, I hope that we might extend the time at least by a minute.

To the minister of government air services, let me remind the minister of the three stated objectives of the government's air services policy:

1. Ensure the economic and efficient use of government air services. Has the government passed or failed this test?

2. Provide direction to ministries on the appropriate use of government air services. Has the government passed or failed this test?

3. To ensure coordination and uniformity in the application of government air services. Have you passed or failed this test?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question is: where is the itinerary for the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The bell terminated question period.

I might remind members that it's inappropriate to ask questions about legislation that is currently before the House. Some of you may wish to peruse Bill 1 before asking these questions and see how it applies.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I take objection to a remark made by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey during question period. That remark had to do with families going home for weekends to take vacations. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you would take that remark under advisement and perhaps see fit to ask

[ Page 10462 ]

that member to put a withdrawal in Hansard. I can say that I travel home quite regularly with my wife — as a matter of fact, according to this morning's paper, nine times in one month. But I can say that it's always on the business of my constituents within my constituency or for the constituency of the province of British Columbia, and I take particular offence at that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is not possible to ask for a withdrawal of a remark that a member finds offensive. On that basis, members could ask for withdrawal of virtually everything said in this House. There are, however, matters which are of a personal nature when one reflects on an individual member. On that basis, I will review the remarks and bring back a decision later.

MR. ROSE: I have a point of order concerning a charge made by the Minister of Health a moment ago. He charged that I would not provide his office with the name of the person mentioned in the question yesterday. I didn't have clearance for that at the time. I do now, and I'll be pleased to supply the name to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Native Affairs for the year ending March 31, 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the next order of business, I would remind all members that tomorrow morning the House sits at 10 o'clock, and question period will also be at 10 o'clock tomorrow. If members need any further Information about the rest of tomorrow's proceedings, it's available through my office.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today about 40 grade 7 students. They're just coming into the House now. Their teacher is Mr J. Mills. They are from Hatzic Elementary School. I'd like the House to give them a good, warm welcome.

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)

MR. CASHORE: Before I begin, I stated yesterday that I thought we would be able to conclude by about 4 o'clock. I had not anticipated taking as long as we did on the oil storage tanks yesterday. I will still try to be as concise as I can, but I'm sure it's going to take somewhat longer than that. I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn now to the minister's major project review process, which has been announced in recent months. I believe it's generally understood that the major project review process is an effort to ensure that major projects such as pulp mills and other kinds of industrial development — dams, bridges, etc. — will undergo an appropriate process of examination prior to being approved for construction and operation. We certainly do agree with that intent. However, we have looked at the major project review process that has been put forward by this minister, and we see some flaws in it. We wish to draw that to his attention.

[2:30]

We all know, Mr. Chairman, of the way in which projects in Saskatchewan and Alberta have been bogged down and terminated by the courts. And we all understand the desire of the province to avoid that happening here. It can be very disruptive to the development of commerce and of important projects within the province. So we understand why that is a concern. But the best way of addressing that concern is to make sure that we do it right from the very beginning. And doing it right means putting into place the kind of review process that entrenches in legislation the principles that are going to make it work so that we don't end up becoming bogged down foolishly and unnecessarily in costly litigation. Indeed, during the term of this government there have been unnecessary court procedures, court costs and litigation. This has almost been a hallmark of this government. We can understand that the government is perhaps finally seeing the light and wanting to change that. Therefore we feel that it's extremely important that three principles be in place, among others, as this process is undertaken.

The first principle is adequate opportunity for the public to be meaningfully involved in the process — at all stages — so that in keeping with the Brundtland report the people of this province do have an opportunity to exercise their democratic right to give meaningful and helpful input into that process, to comment on what the proponent is proposing and not only to suggest changes but to put forward those questions that need to be addressed — questions which sometimes require technical expertise. This is the principle of public participation, Mr. Chairman.

There is also the principle of independence of assessment, so that it isn't the proponent's people who are assessing the validity of the review but the people with expertise — people who can examine the proponent's position and protect the public interest by protecting our rivers, our oceans, the land base, the air that we breathe, the flora and the fauna from possible effects of acid rain, etc. That's the second principle.

Mr. Chairman, the third principle is that the intervener funding should be available to those legitimate interveners who would go through an appropriate process of having that funding made available. The suggestion is not that it be made available

[ Page 10463 ]

willy-nilly to anybody who walks in or fills out a form but that there would be an appropriate process to address the issue of intervener funding.

The MPRP was born in a questionable process, because it did not fulfil all of the requirements of those three principles I have just enunciated in the development of the MPRP. Mr. Chairman, it would have been so helpful to the people of British Columbia to have those principles in place when the MPRP itself was being developed. Therefore we have a communication of March 26 that went to the Minister of Environment from Westcoast Environmental Law Association, over the signature of Anne Hillyer. They sent along their critique to the minister at that time; and some of the points they have raised have been addressed since then. But they said that there was "no opportunity for input from public interest groups into the development of the MPRP." That's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because the day has to stop where government and public officials and cabinet ministers give lip service to a process, but when it comes down to brass tacks, we discover that that process really isn't in place at all.

I just want to review some points of weakness that we find with the MPRP, and perhaps the minister would like to comment on them. The first is that the MPRP has no legal status, no legislative authority. It's a working policy of government, and it is not a legally enforceable environmental review process MPRP's clout is that no provincial permits will be issued unless approved by the review process. But future compliance is not enforceable; it still depends on the ineffective hodgepodge collection of provincial regulations which everybody knows aren't really working.

The MPRP is limited in scope and does not apply to existing industrial facilities or to ongoing or new policies and programs. It's not applicable to all projects. Separate review processes already exist for mine projects, energy projects, allocation of harvesting rights to Crown timber and proposals to establish ski hills on Crown lands. All review processes should be under one umbrella; they should be under one piece of review legislation. If all of this was brought under one umbrella, it would be good not only for the public interest of the average British Columbian, but also for the proponents. It should be a matter of high import on the government's agenda to ensure a cohesive and unified approach to the review of all projects.

Mr. Chairman, under the MPRP, there's no mechanism to provide for a fair and full review of a proposed project. The opportunity for public input is limited to written responses as part of the prospectus stage. Then a one-week public information session is on the proposal as part of the stage one review, and only if considered necessary by the steering committee will a public hearing be held at the stage two review.

Mr. Chairman, I know the minister will say that the steering committee will consist of good people who will do a good job, but we've seen the recent history of the problems with people on the Environmental Appeal Board not operating in a fair and equitable manner. And in that case, the minister has pointed out that new people have been appointed. But again there have to be standards in place that ensure that it is done appropriately.

The MPRP has no appeal mechanism for either public or project proponents. If this were entrenched in law, that in itself would be ultra vires because it is a right to have an appeal for something that is legally sanctioned.

As I said before, the MPRP has no provision for intervener funding, and approval under MPRP does not constitute approval under the federal environmental assessment review process, meaning that there's no guarantee for a proponent that it will not later be subject to EARP. That can be an unnecessary cost or a duplication. Where the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other federal legislation obtains, it could lead us into costly court procedures.

Mr. Chairman, MPRP applies only to major projects submitting their permit applications after February 19, 1990. That means that some projects that were underway prior to that, but nevertheless requiring that review, are eliminated from that process. There's a different process going on in their case.

Those are some pretty significant points at issue with the MPRP. It indicates, in my view, that the MPRP is there as window-dressing, as public relations and to prove it's doing what it purports to do, but it doesn't really deliver. It cannot deliver. It does not have the legislative base; it does not have the principles that should be there to uphold environmental protection for the 1990s and beyond.

I would like to ask the minister, when he is commenting.... It's difficult to word this question and be parliamentary, but I would like to ask the minister if he has considered plans to entrench the MPRP in legislation. Maybe some note is being taken of some of these questions. That's one.

I'd also like to know if the government will establish an independent panel to function on these boards. Has the minister considered putting in place an appeal mechanism which, if he were to entrench this in law, I believe would be required by law? I would like to ask the minister if he has considered making intervener funding available to protect the public interest. I know that on other issues when we've asked him about intervener funding, his answer has been no, but I want him to put it on the record. So I'll listen now to what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would also welcome the students from Esquimalt who are here to listen to this good debate today. I would say to the member that the major project review process is working extremely well in this province. It's being looked at very closely by the federal government which, as you know, has observer status in the meetings. It's co-chaired by Environment and Economic Development. As you know, out of it so far we have Celgar and the ferrochromium plant both going to public hearings through the major project review process, and yet

[ Page 10464 ]

even your own member from that area would like to see us get on with the project. The fact is that it's going to be a much cleaner pulp mill when it's finished than it has ever been. This process seems to work extremely well.

I will repeat as often as you want that intervener funding is not part of our government's policy. We run a province with a 4 cents debt per capita. The federal government has a 35 cents debt per capita. Maybe there's a good reason for that. We just don't believe that it's necessary, and that's the policy of the government.

The mine development review process is one of the most popular things in the world; we get people coming here all the time to look at how it's done. In fact, if you want to go even further, with TFLs, we had a Finnish group here the other day who were telling us that they are going to be logging in the Soviet Union and that they are using the British Columbia TFL example. That's what they sold to the Russians as the best way to do things. There we've got a bunch of socialists copying British Columbia, which I find rather different, but they are.

I don't know what more I can say. The major project review process is working well. There is an appeal process through the Environmental Appeal Board. I know some of the members who have been on that board have not been happy in the past. I don't think I need to go today into the details of the person we appointed as chairperson of that appeal board. She has all the credentials. Some of the other people we've appointed, like Olga Barratt, have tremendous credentials. I'm sure they will do a very fair job.

MR. CASHORE: These debates have been quite cordial, but I do have to say that sometimes I think the minister says the first thing that comes into his head. He just said that the process has been working well. How does he know it has been working well? There hasn't been any opportunity for it to bear fruit. It hasn't been in existence long enough for the minister to be able to say that it's working well. He says that it's working well because he wants to say that it's working well, but he has no evidence to say it's working well. We can't even say that the jury is out, because the evidence isn't in. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make that point.

MR. SIHOTA: In listening to this debate, I was taken by the minister's comments with respect to intervener funding. I want to comment on that briefly and then pose a question to the minister.

I think the minister understands that what often happens is that there is a proposal in a community for some type of project — be it a pulp mill or a ferrochromium plant, to use examples that we've seen — and citizens are concerned about the prospect of an industry coming into their community and the effect that that may have on air and water quality and the general environment in the area. Citizens then usually make a decision to petition or to go to a public hearing where the matter is going to be approved or rejected. Those hearings, particularly when you get in front of something like the Environmental Appeal Board, are very technical, and they require expert evidence, lawyers and resources that....

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure the Premier doesn't like lawyers, but that's his bias. The fact of the matter is that we....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Some lawyers.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me guess who is on the top of your list here, Mr. Premier. I was wondering if Robert Bourassa is a lawyer, but I guess not. I wouldn't put him in there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He is a lawyer.

MR. SIHOTA: He is? Or is he an economist? In any event, let me just get back to my point.

What happens is that the apparatus we set up to evaluate projects is very complicated. Citizens who get together don't have the necessary skills or the knowledge to be able to appear in front of a judicial or quasi-judicial body such as the Environmental Appeal Board. They are not aware of all the precedents. They don't understand all the technical language around chemical reports and effluents. They don't even always understand — in the fashion that I don't — the various measurements and measurement techniques and the various nuances that experts can put on their evidence about why a situation should occur or not.

On one hand you've got appearing in front of a board a group of people who are relatively unsophisticated, but on the other hand you have the applicant, which is a large company that wants to put in a pulp mill, has millions of dollars of resources, can hire the best lawyers, the best chemists, the best engineers, the best technical advisers. There's an inequality there at the hearing. One side has far greater resources representing it than, usually, the citizens' group has. That, in my mind, speaks in favour of the need to balance the playing field so that both of the groups that are appearing in front of the group that's going to decide whether or not to allow for a pulp mill, or whatever, are at balance and that there's a quality of influencing power on both sides.

When the minister says that he would not approve intervener funding for those types of groups I've just outlined, I am at a loss to understand the explanation. He made reference to the federal deficit. I'm wondering if the minister's explanation is due to dollars and if that's the sole reason he doesn't think the government should move in this direction. Alternatively, is it based on other policy considerations? Or is it based on both? I'd like an explanation from the minister for why he rejects the concept of intervener funding.

[ Page 10465 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to comment not only on what the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew said, but on the critic for the NDP, who says we like the process and it hasn't gone on. It has gone on. What I am telling him is that I like the process because it is working well so far. I don't know what he is really getting at, because he is saying that if they allow a project to go ahead, it obviously doesn't work, or.... I don't know what he is saying, but I'm telling him that it is working extremely well so far.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talks about citizens, their rights and what they can do. You know, citizens can go to the public hearings at no cost with no problem at all. They can go to their city council. We have more elected people in more levels of government that most areas of the world. But certainly they can go to their city council at no cost and give their opinions.

Council in any community can hire staff and experts to do what they want them to do. That's available to the average citizen. They can go to the appeal board — for which lawyers are not required — at no cost.

I would suggest that the ferrochromium plant is a good example of the system and how it works. As you know, the federal government and our government agreed on a chairman and a couple of other individuals who were independents to review the process, and we paid for their experts. But it is done in a proper businesslike manner, not in a circus atmosphere that some of these hearings can get into. This matter is working very well. I think there is excellent public input, and that's our government policy. You may disagree with it, but that's the policy and we think it works well.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that people can go, and he is right. You can go to all of these venues — be it public hearings, city councils or appeal boards — at no cost. It doesn't cost you anything to be a spectator and to watch what transpires. I guess it doesn't cost you anything to be able to stand up and express your opinion.

However, if you want to influence the system, there are costs. Whether it's a simple matter of going to a water board and saying, "Look, we think...." In the 17-mile area of my riding we have citizens who don't have water. They have to take water out of the creek. They are not hooked into the Sooke water system. So in the summer when the creek gets contaminated, they have to make other arrangements for their water. A simple example. They go to the water board, which is.... I wouldn't put it in the genre of environmental appeal boards, but it is a very simple setup at the water board. But they are met there with bureaucrats who say it's going to cost so much for them to put it in a pipe, and it's going to cost so much to do the blasting and all that kind of stuff. And here are engineering studies which show that it is going to cost $10 million — to use that example — to put in about a mile's worth of pipe. It boggles the mind to think that it's going to cost $10 million to do it.

I'm not asking the minister to express an opinion on that example. What I am saying is that if you want to counter the opinion that it's going to cost $10 million, you need to have the technical ability to be able to show why it's not going to cost $10 million and why you don't need the sophisticated engineering work that the water board is proposing.

In addition — to go to a different level — if you go to the Environmental Appeal Board, it doesn't cost you anything to watch what's going on. But if you are a citizen and you speak out, you may want to cross-examine the expert from the company who says it's fine to put these chemicals in the water. A lot of people don't have cross-examination skills. It would assist them if they had a lawyer to be able to cross-examine them, and I'm not saying that because it would benefit my profession. You can come back and say that to me. I'm not here standing up speaking in favour of lawyers. I am just saying that people don't have that skill. So you can show up at no cost, but if you want to influence the system, you need costs. Right?

Suppose you want to cross-examine their chemist, who says, "No, it's no problem if we put all of these chemicals into the water," and the board says: "Well, that's fine; we've heard what you have to say in cross-examination, but do you have any experts that counter their opinion?" You know experts don't come free; you have to pay for people who take time out of their lives to attend to give expert evidence.

Those are all examples. It is very easy to say that you can do it at no cost — to show up. But if you want to influence the system, there is a cost, because that's what we've set up. We've set up quasi-judicial systems, and you can't ask one group to go in front of a judge with its hand tied behind its back. You can't do that. There has to be an equality of resources on both sides.

I want to ask the minister the same question, because I think he avoided the answer. Is it because of policy reasons — and, if so, what are they — or is it because of cost exclusively, or both, that you choose not to go towards intervener status?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's because we don't believe in that process the way you've described it. In a small area, $10 million is not a small amount of money. If we allowed everybody in this world to hire a lawyer every time they wanted to fight something, I don't know what the costs would be. Heaven forbid! We have enough problems with health care today and the costs going up. We can't afford to be doing it everywhere. Again I say that you have elected officials.

However, with regard to the major project review process, we did appoint Mr. Williams, who's a lawyer. I have nothing against lawyers as such. I just wonder how much of that $10 million worth of pipeline is in legal fees for documents and protection and everything else people are doing. As you and I both know, if we could get that contract for one mile of pipeline, we could form a partnership and both leave here tomorrow. We could lay the pipeline and live happily

[ Page 10466 ]

every after, because there's no way that one mile of a pipeline can cost that kind of money. But when Mr. Williams and the two independent people sitting on the panel called in their experts, the experts were there and available for questioning by the public.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says we've set up this process. You have. You've set up a quasi-judicial process. I've been to these hearings. I can remember a case from very early on when I was elected. I guess this is a small issue in the overall world, but someone wanted to put a townhouse development next to Spencer School in Langford, and the question was whether the drainage from the townhouse development would settle in a pond and saturate the fields at Spencer School and have adverse effects. They were concerned that because there are no sewers, effluent would collect around the school and create a health hazard. I remember sitting through those hearings. If you've got a developer with all sorts of money and citizens with all sorts of concerns, it's very difficult for the citizens to provide persuasive technical evidence to demonstrate that their concerns are valid — in this case, that effluent would show up at Spencer School.

In fact, if you took a look at cost, Mr. Minister, there's a lot of cost — I won't say there's more — associated with uninformed people going to a hearing and taking up time expressing an opinion that may not have any foundation. You can get through a hearing a lot more quickly if the people have their experts in place, have their evidence organized and can proceed efficiently through a hearing. Sometimes I feel for the people who have to sit through these hearings and listen to people who aren't prepared to proceed. There is a lot of time and cost associated with that. You have to consider that when you look at the dollars and cents.

I'm not saying that people ought to be able to go out willy-nilly and hire a lawyer every time they have an environmental concern. I'm saying that there ought to be a process that would allow people to procure that funding through a mechanism that decides by way of application. You fill out an application form, you lay out what the project is, and a decision is made.

Other jurisdictions have public defender systems where lawyers are available to help people out on environmental matters. I'm saying that there are all sorts of options in terms of what government can do. But I would beg to differ, because I now sense that your opposition to what I'm saying is not based exclusively on cost but also on the process and the policy that you subscribe to versus the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier just can't say something nice. He said: "I can't stand him." Look, I'm not even yelling at the guy today; I'm being pretty nice to him. But if you've got to go to your office, go, so we can have our debate in here.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, you know full well that yesterday I was in the same temperament in here. Now you've knocked me off my thought pattern.

I sense that your concerns are not so much cost as they are policy, although there may be an amalgam there. From the policy point of view, you've set up — appropriately, in my mind — a quasi-judicial process, just like going to court, where you have two, three, four or five people on a panel making a decision on whether something should happen. Inevitably they are going to have to hear argument from both sides. The moment you set up a quasi-judicial process in society, you've got to make sure that people can work within that framework. And they can't if they don't have the tools that dovetail in with that framework.

It's incorrect for you, Mr. Minister, to say that as a matter of policy you don't think it's needed. People can show up and look at the one example — the ferrochromium plant. It just ain't that simple. People need the tools to be able to deal with the system. If you want to set up that kind of system, you've got to provide people with the tools. Otherwise the inevitable result is that the deep pockets will win. The people who have the financial wherewithal to make all the appropriate stances in front of the appeal board will win. I haven't looked at the results, but I would venture to say that in the cases I've described, the person with the deep pockets, the applicant — usually the industry — will succeed in its endeavour.

[3:00]

Your process is correct, but you haven't given people the tools to adequately take advantage of that process. And I say that if you're going to reject giving people the tools, then you're making a fundamental policy error. As I said yesterday, I don't expect you to reverse your position right here, but I think you should, and I think you should do it real quick, because you've got to realize that the system can't work the way you've got it. If your bias is to say yes, we want industry, and we're going to set up a system that is sort of an artificial vetting process to allow for it to happen, then you've achieved your goal by not giving citizens the tools. But if your goal is really to have deep, sophisticated, technical, meaningful dialogue about whether an industry should come in, then you've got to give people the ability to engage in that dialogue. Again I've got to say that you're wrong, and I think you should reconsider.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his comments. I couldn't help but think, as I was sitting here, that it's like going to church. I appreciate the message, as I do the minister's every Sunday, but I don't always agree with everything he says.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a number of concerns about the major project review process, and some of them deal as well with the intervener funding. But I wanted to start with some other questions of the minister.

[ Page 10467 ]

I'd like to point out first of all that in the discussion of what is a major project and then the actual list of what kinds of things constitute a major project.... Why has the minister not included in that list such things as golf courses on private land? I know that golf courses, ski resorts and that kind of thing on Crown lands are there, but they're not included and neither are major resorts.

This may seem to the minister like something that doesn't need a review here, but I'll tell you that it can create some major problems with resource allocation and resource use in our part of the province. When golf courses go in and they begin to be subject to review because they want to be out of the agricultural land reserve, and the Land Commission says no and then the cabinet says yes, I think it's a very clear case that these things have some major implications and that they should be subject to review and to public statement. As you know, the reviews that come through some of these processes are not available; access is not available to people in all parts of the province.

I might also mention to the minister that you could have such a thing as a major tourist resort and it may sound to you like something that doesn't conflict, but when you plunk it down in the middle of a major game migration route, as the Panorama ski resort was, you have some problems. These are not included here, and I'd like to ask why.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can send the member — I'm not sure if she has it — a copy of the guidelines. On page 13 it says quite plainly: "The Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development may require projects and industries that are not listed below to be subject to the MPRP if they believe that the potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts of the projects warrant such action."

MS. EDWARDS: That certainly brings me to the next question, even if it's not an adequate answer, in my view. There are many situations in which this review is not required, and the decision as to whether or not it shall be required is.... Some are automatically excluded because they're not on the list; some of them may come up if the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development requires it. But it has been suggested to me, Mr. Minister — and I think it is a rather excellent suggestion — that all of the major projects.... Perhaps we could make some designation other than the ones that are here, because we should include other projects that could have major impacts on resources and the use of resources by other stakeholders.

Has the minister considered having a situation where a municipality or regional district could initiate a major review? They probably know it's going to go on and could initiate it. That is not even discussed here. It's not written out in the guidelines, and as my colleague has already pointed out, it's certainly not legislated.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Again, page 13 says basically what you were saying at the start of your comments. There's nothing to stop a municipality, village or city from doing their own review of any project within their boundaries, and also nothing to stop them from writing to me as Minister of Environment with a city council motion saying: "We believe this project should go under this process and would like it to go under the process." We would then take it to the committee. As you know, our policy in this government is to go through the different levels. If you got a recommendation from that level of government, it would be very difficult not to review it.

MS. EDWARDS: I find the minister's last statement very difficult to believe. There are a number of situations where what regional or municipal governments want is not necessarily reflected in what the provincial government decides to do.

Vis-à-vis the two examples that I gave you, I might mention that the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture as well as Environment Canada and the federal environment assessment review office are all included in the steering committee, but the Ministry of Tourism is not. This is not going to cut as wide a swath as the minister suggests it will.

Even if the minister were to accept the recommendation of a regional district or a municipality, there is no requirement at all that the minister pay any attention. That seems to me a shortcoming in the bill.

Regarding the other suggestion that the minister makes, which is that the municipal government or the regional government have hearings of their own, surely that's not what the minister intends.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS:Mr. Chairman, municipalities have hearings of their own. They have them every week. If you bring in a golf course proposal — a lot of them are being proposed around the province, as you know, and a number in your area — they go through that process. Those are hearings, the council hearings. If they want it to go to the next step and recommend to us that we take a look at it, I see no reason why we wouldn't give that approval.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister isn't aware that there are large areas in the province that aren't zoned at all. They have no zoning whatsoever, so the regional process is not likely to be invoked when a proposal is made for the kind of development that could very easily have a major effect on the use of a resource in the area. I put that to the minister and I hope he will consider it.

I move on to the point about the approval in principle which would, or could, be given to a project. At whatever point the approval in principle is given, that approval in principle is valid for five years. Mr. Minister, even most variances from the board of variance are not good for five years. That's an extremely long time to suppose that any decision that is made is going to be the same the next time

[ Page 10468 ]

around. It would be much more reasonable to suggest two years, and if after that anything happened, there would be at least a review and update process. Certainly after that the whole ambience of the area, the whole resource context may be changed. I wonder if the minister has thought that perhaps five years is a long, long period of time for approval in principle.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the problem that you have, depending on the size of the projects.... For instance, I remember having the GVRD in my office a few weeks ago talking about their sewage treatment plants. It's going to take five years to do the project. A ferrochromium plant takes probably a good two to three years to build. Your five years, in that context of a very major project, is not that long.

With regard to things changing, yes, they do. Our permits change and our regulations change. Pulp mills right now are going through a process of down to 2.5 by '91 and 1.5 by '94. Who knows whether in the next couple of years, with increased technology, those things may change. Things are changing all the time, and our permit regulations change.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misunderstood me. That's five years without starting the project, and it's still good for five years even if they haven't started the project. If they don't start the project, I can see no reason at all to have that approval in principle extended. If they're in progress, obviously that's something different. But five years, if they haven't even made an effort to begin, is not something, as I say, that even boards of variance normally allow. I would like the minister to respond on that, but I'll go ahead with another question.

I would like to make the comment that 30 days for local review and comment is much too short. I put that in context with the same situation that my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was talking about. There is no intervener funding. The people are faced with perhaps a very highly technical issue, and you allow only 30 days. It is far, far too short. It's too short if the interveners want to have technical advice. It may simply initiate a situation where they give up before they start. So I wonder why 30 days. Is there some great rush? If we go through this too fast and the public is opposed, you know yourself that there will be far more fuss and there will be political action, whether it's within the hearing or not. Thirty days is not necessarily going to allow the kind of preparation of an intervention that might be needed.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the 30 days only applies to the prospectus stage, which is the initial stage. Again, I stress that the people appointed to the panel are experts. They hire experts. We fund that, which is a form of intervener funding.

Then you have the public hearings. The ferrochromium plant's been going at least three months now. I mean, we get the complaints from the other end, from industry, saying: "How long is this going to last?" We're talking about multimillions or billions of dollars for some of these projects. How long do we have to wait to get them started?

The biggest concern in Celgar — as you know; talk to your own member — is the delays. The delays may cause the expansion to be halted because of the way the money's going right now. Who knows what's going to happen to this country after this weekend? You could lose the impetus. If that project had started when they wanted to start it, it might be nearly complete by now — which that member was in support of. But we've got a process. It's now going to public hearing. I don't know how we could do it much differently.

I know we have a difference, but I'm telling you that that's what we looked at and that's our policy. You have a different policy, and that's fine too.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to carry on just for a moment about intervener funding, because appointing a board is not intervention. The minister is pushing far too far to suggest that that's the case.

Just in the most recent few years of my experience of public hearings, I might suggest first of all the Courtenay hearing by the Utilities Commission where the chairman of the Utilities Commission said that had he been able to under the law, he would have wanted to provide some funding for the intervention that had been made. He commented about the fact that the very limited number of people in the Comox Valley had to pay a large amount of money to bring an expert in from California to counter the arrayed forces of B.C. Hydro, with all the technical resources in the world that you need to prove the case that was being put by B.C. Hydro. You had these few hundred people from the Comox Valley trying to counter it. The chairman of the Utilities Commission said that he would have funded intervener funding if he could have.

[3:15]

The same thing happened at little wee itsy Elko in my riding, where they opposed the burning of some soap in a beehive burner that did not meet the standards. The people in that area — fewer people — had to hire a lawyer and an expert to go into that hearing even at the waste management branch appeal level.

I would like to mention the Cranbrook PCB storage case, which was about to go to the Environmental Appeal Board. Yes, we had a municipal government in there spending money, but we also had another group who could not possibly have argued the case for PCB storage without some major technical advice.

I would also like to tell the minister that I have sat on appeal boards long enough to know you don't always want a lawyer arguing your case. In fact, sometimes you say: "Please get an expert. Don't get a lawyer." But that says nothing about intervener funding, because when you are dealing with technical issues, you need technical support.

I think saying that you have appointed a board to hear it is not adequate to suggest that there's been

[ Page 10469 ]

any kind of intervention by a cause that the people may want.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll just mention that not only did we appoint the panel, but the panel was given money to hire experts. Those experts are hired on behalf of the people who want to come and ask questions. That's what they're hired for. The people can also come.

In the case that you mentioned —maybe in your own constituency — to our staff and the ministry, that's what staff is for. They can provide those people with the information they require.

MR. CASHORE: Yesterday I mentioned Law Reform for Sustainable Development In B.C. It's a booklet about the sustainable development committee of the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia branch, and it has an excellent little handbook on environmental protection for the 1990s and beyond. I don't know if the minister has had a chance to read it yet, but if he persists on the tack of standing up against intervener funding, standing up against independence of review, standing up against reasonable opportunity for the public to participate in the process, he's going in a direction that's going to get him into difficulty.

It simply is not acceptable in terms of environmental expectations. There is an expectation on the part of the public that this type of environmental regulation be done right, that it be done appropriately and that we not try to hoodwink the public by pretending to do it properly when we really aren't.

I want to point out that in that little document by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, they make many points. On page 116 they say: "MPRP should have a mechanism for appeal of the decision of the steering committee to the Environmental Appeal Board." They say right there that there should be a mechanism for that. I just want to ask the minister if he would comment on that specific point. This is a recommendation from a group that the minister says he has a great deal of respect for.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I do have respect for some of the work they do, just like I have respect for some of the work that Greenpeace does. As the member knows, both organizations have the ability to raise money with tax deductions. I was reading in the paper that Greenpeace will get about $125 million this year to fund their operations. They certainly appear at most of these meetings. Intervener funding is available in Canada through those types of sources, and also through the source I just mentioned. Our major review process, the panel, can hire experts, and those experts can be used by the citizens. That's the way it should be.

That's our policy. It disagrees with yours, but we quite often have those disagreements.

MR. CASHORE: I didn't get what the minister said about the appeal process. Did you refer to the appeal process in your answer just now? He mentioned intervener funding. Did you just now give your thoughts on there being an appeal? Would you give your thoughts on that? That's one of the specific recommendations made by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Appeal to what?

MR. CASHORE: That there be an opportunity for appeal of the decision of the steering committee to the Environmental Appeal Board.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: They can make an appeal on a permit if it's granted. I feel that's adequate enough.

MR. CASHORE: That could be a permit to begin construction that has come through the MPRP? Let the record show that the minister is nodding in the affirmative.

The other point is -just to reiterate to the minister - that there is no legislative authority for the MPRP, and I hope that he'll do something about that.

I'd like to move on to another topic. This refers to an area that's in the minister's riding, but I don't think it will be in the riding that he's running in. I may be incorrect about that. It's about Britannia Beach. I don't think that will be in the new area that the minister seeks to represent. Anyway, it's in the area he represents now.

We know that in Britannia Beach there's Britannia Creek. Britannia Creek was at one time a salmon spawning stream, and because of copper leachate from the Britannia copper mine that was there for many years, that salmon-spawning stream was wiped out for the purpose of regeneration of salmon. It's my understanding that it was Kennecott Copper that owned the mine and created the mess. Given that he has stated we should be going after polluters to make them have their just deserts and pay for the environmental problems they have inflicted, I would like to put a couple of other items to the minister.

It's my understanding there is compensation available under the federal Fisheries Act; that, for instance, the minister could seek compensation using the federal Fisheries Act to go after the company that caused the pollution. The reason I'm going slow is that I know the minister is consulting, and I want him to hear the points I'm making as well.

It's also my understanding that if the mine closed prior to 1967 — I believe it did, but haven't been able to pin that down; perhaps some of the minister's advisers know the answer to that question — the provincial Pollution Control Act would not apply, because presumably it came into effect at that time. I'm sure the minister's advisers know the answer to that.

So assuming, therefore, that the only recourse is under the federal Fisheries Act, I want to ask the minister if in or about 1976 — that's when the Social Credit government came back into power — reciprocal federal-provincial letters of agreement were written to the effect that if the province did not lay

[ Page 10470 ]

charges, the federal government would not override. I want to ask the minister if there are letters in existence working out that type of arrangement between the federal and provincial governments. I'll just hear what the minister has to say.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I know that we stray sometimes from the estimates in one year, but, boy, going back to 1976 is a long way, and my staff has no recollection of seeing any letter like that. I certainly have not seen that, nor have I heard of it. I have discussed this issue many times with constituents of mine, as the member I am sure can imagine, and I know our staff is looking at some of the funding we have for acid mine drainage and is looking at cleaning up that area. As the member knows, the shares of the company have been sold in that area, and if there's a major development taking place, it will all have to be looked at at the time.

MR. CASHORE: Will the minister confirm that it's also his understanding that the mine closed prior to 1967, and therefore compensation under the provincial Pollution Control Act does not apply? Assuming that to be the case, would the minister confirm or tell the House what is being done or has been done to make use of the existing laws of the land to go after the polluter and get compensation?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I might advise the member that he talked earlier about salmon going up the stream, and that a few years ago the salmon weren't going up the stream to the Woodfibre mill anymore, and they are again. As the member may or may not be aware, we blew the dam at that creek no more than a couple of years ago. I was there the day after they did it. They got a little exuberant, really blew it and did a good job of cleaning out the channel. But now that the dam has been opened up, it would not surprise me at all to see the fish start going back up that creek again. They were not going across on the other side either, but they probably will.

We don't have the information here about 1976, but I can assure the member that my staff will do a search of the files and if there's anything in those areas, inform him. We are working right now on the process of looking into the cleanup.

MR. CASHORE: Is the minister seeking through those channels that are available to recover the costs of that cleanup by having the polluter pay wherever he or she may be, in whatever manifestation of that company it may be, given that this is a principle that has been affirmed by this government?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: As the member said, that is the principle, and we always work on that principle.

MR. CASHORE: I assume from that answer that there are active efforts now underway to go after that polluter and recover the costs, since, as the minister points out, some efforts are now underway to recover that channel.

The minister is nodding in the affirmative. I'll say that for the record so he doesn't have to get up and say it again. If I'm wrong, then he can correct me.

I would like to ask the minister what his position is with regard to another pulp mill on Howe Sound at Britannia.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: There are no applications at the present time for any pulp mills in that area.

MR. CASHORE: According to the minister's friend Terry Jacks, the minister has been quoted as saying it's an ideal place for.... Wait a minute; that's the wrong quote.

He has been quoted as saying that it's good news for the community — the concept of a pulp mill at Britannia Beach. Does the minister feel that Howe Sound can bear the consequences of another pulp mill at this time?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Just two things. I know you slipped out the first one, and Mr. Jacks is quoted as saying I said that Howe Sound was an ideal place for a petrochemical plant. That's an absolute lie. He knows it, and he keeps on spreading it around. But it's for his own benefit.

With regard to the pulp mill, in 1983 or 1984, when Makin Pulp and Paper first announced they would build a closed-loop pulp mill with no pollution going into the water, there was great excitement in the area because— as the member remembers — at that time there was 25 percent unemployment in the area, and we were looking for industries that would employ people.

That project, for whatever reason, has not proceeded. I agree with those who would prefer to see Howe Sound as a recreational area, especially since we have had such success with Whistler, the proposal for the ski areas in Garibaldi and all of those tourism attractions.

I am excited about the proposals for the new development in the Britannia Beach area, and I would expect that a lot of that property that has been looked at for industrial purposes will probably now be reverting to recreational purposes. I would certainly be the biggest supporter of that.

MR. CASHORE: I thank the minister for that answer. It was the answer I was hoping he would give.

[3:30]

My own opinion is that Howe Sound should not be put in a position of bearing any more of the brunt of that kind of industry. Even though the minister talks about improvements— closed-loop and that sort of thing — we still have stories of spills in the night. We still have unproven technology.

It's still a future hope, and I think any thought of putting such an additional burden on Howe Sound at the present time would certainly be untimely. I am glad that, under this questioning, the minister has

[ Page 10471 ]

come forward and stated unequivocally that he would prefer to see the recreational attributes of Howe Sound enhanced at this time. I think that's appropriate.

I would like to turn to a story that was in the news in September. The minister often states that he is not really responsible for what happened in the ministry prior to becoming the minister. But as I said at the outset of the estimates, I am referring to the minister in his capacity as the Minister of Environment and not him personally. I think there are questions that go back in history and have to do with people of a bygone day who maybe forgot they had inherited the future from their children. Therefore all these kinds of questions are quite relevant.

This refers to a Mr. E. Livingston, who has an engineering degree and is with Pacific Hydrology Consultants Ltd. Mr. Livingston tells me that he is a professional engineer and hydrologist, and he has practised in B.C. for a great many years — since 1950. He worked for the provincial government for what is now the Ministry of Environment from 1961 to 1967 — before it was the Ministry of Environment— as head of the groundwater division. Let it be said that he knows of which he speaks.

Now he is expressing some real concerns about the way in which temporary dumping is taking place in the province. First of all, dumping is being done by people who look upon the province as a garbage dump and just dump wherever they want. Approval is being given — or permits — to allow that kind of dumping to carry on in a particular case.

In the instance he has referred to — it is very well documented, and I believe he has sent copies of this information to the ministry — he points out a sequence of events. He goes into a great deal of detail. The sequence of events is over two pages, and it goes from January 4, 1989, until September 12, 1989.

Basically it goes like this. On January 4, 1989, he discovered that dumping was going on at a dump site in the city of Kelowna and that it later operated under a letter of approval from the Ministry of Environment. That letter of approval that eventually was given was dated July 21. So he first became aware of this on January 4. He informed the Ministry of Environment in Penticton. He also stated that considering the geology of the area and the proximity of the Glenmore-Ellison Improvement District's well, the site was very inappropriate and the dumping should be stopped. Then on May 23 — and you'll notice that most of these conversations are initiated by him — he again visited the site and noticed that there was much more rubbish on the site and no fence or sign. May 24: he phoned Mr. Al Kohut, acting head of the Ministry of Environment groundwater section, with a degree in engineering, to discuss the situation at the dump. May 25, 1989: he phoned Mr. R.H. Ferguson, director of waste management, and discussed the situation at length, emphasizing the unusual geological conditions which make the site particularly inappropriate for dumping. June 6: he visited the site and found that an embankment of earth had been placed along the road to prevent further dumping.

On August 22 he visited the site and found that the embankment had been removed. August 24: he phoned Mr. Ferguson again and informed him that dumping had resumed at the site; Mr. Ferguson said that the waste management branch had issued a permit to allow dumping at that site. In reply to Livingston's question as to why this had been done, Mr. Ferguson said that the waste management branch regional manager in Penticton had investigated the site, conferred with the dumper and issued a permit. Mr. Livingston once again stated that he felt the site was inappropriate. Again I point out that he's doing that from a professional perspective as a hydrologist and engineer. August 29, 1989: he again visited the site and took photographs; the amount of rubbish was greater. September 6, 1989: he phoned Mr. Ferguson and requested more information.

On September 6 he phoned Mr. Nickel, regional waste manager in Penticton. In answer to a question, Mr. Nickel said that he was not sure whether the dump was operating under a permit or an approval, but thought he recalled signing an approval. He said that the groundwater section of the ministry had not been consulted about the dump site. Mr. Nickel agreed to send a copy of the approval and a list of those who had been notified about the operation. September 12: a copy of the approval was received by Mr. Livingston; it shows that approval was granted on July 21, 1989, to continue dumping for one year, starting July 19.

My first question is: could the minister give us an update on the situation? And would he advise the House if a permit to dump on that site is still in existence?

HON. MR- REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, before I answer the member's question, I'm sure members wouldn't mind if I made an introduction. I would like the House to welcome Miss Doris Zurcher, the teacher of the Signal Hill Elementary School in Pemberton, British Columbia, and 30 of the grade 4 and grade 5 students here to the House.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the letters, I'm informed by my parliamentary secretary, who knows the Kelowna area very well, that the restriction on that dump site was for inert building material, and that is what is on the site. It has been checked out and there is not a problem. So there was a follow-up there.

I can assure the member that on these dump sites all around the province we have a number of people checking them at all times. We take it very seriously. As I know the member is aware, just in the last couple of weeks, through an undercover operation, we have laid charges against a person and a company in Langley which could amount to a fine of up to $1 million for illegal dumping. We are taking it very seriously, and we always appreciate the efforts of people like Mr. Livingston and the information that they give us.

[ Page 10472 ]

MR. CASHORE: I would point out that Mr. Livingston has pointed out that this particular dump site, which is supposed to receive only building construction waste, is located very close to another well-operated landfill. It's just a short drive away. I'm just perusing my notes here to try to find out the actual distance; I may find it. But he states that it's not very far.

MR. SERWA: It's quite some distance.

MR. CASHORE: About how far?

MR. SERWA: The landfill will not accept that type of building material — concrete and lumber, etc.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. first member for Okanagan South is helpful here. He said that the landfill will not accept this kind of material — another problem. It's located 2.4 kilometres from a large, properly operated landfill near the north end of the Glenmore Valley.

MR. SERWA: That's as the crow flies, but there's no road there.

MR. CASHORE: That's as the crow flies, but there's no road there, the hon. member says. So we still have the view that it's quite a little drive. We don't know how long the drive would be.

The point, though, that this engineer makes — and I remind the minister that he's a hydrologist — is that the hydrology of the area is such that it's his professional opinion that to have a dump in such an area is a potential danger to the groundwater. He also makes the point that since such dump sites are not monitored in any thorough way — I'm sure people in the ministry go out and look at it once in a while, but....

It's almost a standard within the province that when people who are having a problem getting rid of what they want to get rid of see things being dumped, they help themselves to the site. It's at that point where it becomes a bit of a Pandora's box because you get things being dumped that are not in the terms of that temporary permit. That's where the problem starts to develop and where it does become a very clear leachate threat for the aquifer.

I don't think, therefore, that anything the minister has said would give comfort to Mr. Livingston or to anybody who reads through what Mr. Livingston has pointed out carefully. The only solution, unless one can deny the points that Mr. Livingston is making, is that there should not be a landfill at that place.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The landfill is for inert building material. If it's inert, the restriction is there. There's nothing leaching; it's impossible If it's inert.

Granted you can have a situation anywhere around the province where people could try to illegally dump. If that's happening, as I mentioned earlier, we are using undercover groups to find out this information, and I can assure the member and the public that if they know of illegal dumps, we want to know about them. We'll find the people; we'll charge them, and they'll pay heavy fines, because illegal dumping is unacceptable. This is also why we've got such major recycling on In the province: most of this material should be recycled and not dumped.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE: As the minister knows, when he referred to the meeting in Langley the other night and to the charges that have finally been laid there, the people in Langley waited ten years for the Ministry of Environment conservation officer service to gather the evidence to support charges. During those ten years those people put up with a great deal of discomfort. If the minister thinks that certain terms In a temporary permit are going to bring comfort to people.... They're not.

Can the minister advise the House what efforts, if any, are taking place to find a better location to dump those materials that is not in such an environmentally fragile place, as outlined by Mr. Livingston, especially since it is not monitored 24 hours a day and leaves itself wide open to the dumping of inappropriate substances. Also, as has been pointed out by officials from the Ministry of Environment to the Forest Resources Commission, the Ministry of Environment is short-staffed when it comes to being able to monitor all the situations throughout the province that require monitoring.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would suggest to that member that some of the recycling programs that we're promoting in this province will solve a lot of these problems. We are working with every regional district to look at a recycling process not only for household waste but also for industrial waste. There are some very successful programs operating around the province.

I've been assured by the first member for Okanagan South, who is from Kelowna and who is also my parliamentary secretary, that the type of material you're talking about going into this landfill is not going into that landfill. It's inert. It's being monitored. If there were problems In the past, they're not happening now. I can assure the member that if we have any suggestions from anyone about these sites....

The one in Langley may have taken a long time, but we also believe in a system where you must have documented evidence. There's no sense going to court with a weak case.

[3:45]

MR. CASHORE: Again, anybody who reads Mr. Livingston's letter to the minister would disagree with the minister and be of the opinion that he would not go there with a weak case. However, the minister's comments are on the record. I would think it would have been encouraging to the people of the area if he had said that efforts are underway to

[ Page 10473 ]

relocate that site where it could be under better surveillance, given the environmental sensitivity of the area, which the minister didn't really refer to, and given the susceptibility of that area, where leachate could be produced and could go into the aquifer. I'd also point out that there is a picture that Mr. Livingston sent, showing quite a thick pile of rubble in that location. There definitely could be a leachate problem from what one sees in that picture.

Just to get off that topic for a moment, I'd like to turn to another issue: the Tatshenshini River, North America's wildest river, as one environmental group says. It flows through the Yukon and the northwest comer of British Columbia and then through Alaska's Glacier Bay National Monument to empty into the Pacific Ocean. I'm sure the minister is aware that the Yukon government has stated its opinion that that project should not go ahead. They have taken a stand to protect the wilderness Tatshenshini River. The government in the Yukon called on the federal government to put a moratorium on mineral activity on this unique river until the Kluane land use plan is developed. In the Yukon submission to the planning process, they recommended that the Tatshenshini get long-term protection. I'd also point out that I believe similar action has been taken on the part of the Alaska government, which has also expressed a great deal of concern.

I would think that unless we have an appropriate process in place, we're in for big trouble with international courts, not to mention our own national courts, if we don't get up to speed on that issue pretty quickly. We recognize there are a number of values involved there. One is that the Geddes Windy Craggy open-pit copper mine, with the road building that would be involved.... There is an approval process that they are entering into now. I know the minister will speak again, glowingly, about the mines process for this type of thing.

I think we need to get some leadership from this government at this time that states very clearly that from the perspective of the Minister of Environment at the very least, this issue is going to be dealt with very carefully. I'd like to hear the minister articulate some values with regard to the Tatshenshini that will send out a clear message that it's going to be very difficult to proceed, given the various natural amenities and given some of the values that have been outlined by a great many environmentally appropriate groups.

It's a trans-boundary river which provides important salmon-spawning and juvenile-rearing habitat. I'm sure we wouldn't want the Americans conducting an activity that might despoil one of the rivers which we look to as a source of food production and important to the food chain.

I just want the minister to know that we've taken a position on this: that the natural amenities of the area deserve very careful consideration and the most stringent type of process; that there should be a thorough, long-term benefit-cost evaluation; that the International Joint Commission should conduct a thorough study of the proposal, given the significance of the Tatshenshini as an international river; and further, that the recently stated position of the Alaska government opposing the proposal should be seen as adding urgency to the need for careful international discussion.

The review process must be at least equivalent to the requirements of the federal environmental assessment review process, and it must be done in such away, again, that it upholds those principles that we referred to in the debate a little while ago with regard to intervener funding, with regard to adequate public opportunity to be meaningfully involved in the discussions relating to that project, and with regard to independence of review of what the proponent is bringing forward.

I would like to ask the minister in his comments to refer to meetings he may have had and commitments he may have made to the various environmental groups who, I'm sure, have contacted him on this issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's interesting to hear the comments of the member. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have this project under the mine review process. It will receive a thorough review. The people in my ministry are very much involved. As the member knows, there have already been numerous public meetings. In fact, there were meetings held between the Yukon, Alaska, British Columbia and other concerned people. This will get a thorough review. I don't know what more I can add to that.

MR. CASHORE: It's the position of our caucus that British Columbia should enter the Canadian heritage rivers system. The fact is that B.C. is one of only two provinces in Canada not participating in the heritage rivers system. The Tatshenshini would, I believe, be the number one candidate to come under the purview of the Canadian heritage rivers system, a program of national importance that recognizes rivers with significant natural heritage and recreation values. That's something we stand for, and I think it would be appropriate for the government of British Columbia to get on board and then do what is necessary to make it clear that on a national basis we in British Columbia support the Canadian national heritage rivers system, and that we would look upon the Tatshenshini as being a number one candidate for that designation.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for his comments. I can't help but think, when we talk about some of these things that are set up: another good federal government bureaucracy. Maybe there's a good reason why this province isn't part of that system.

I know my colleague the Minister of Parks (Hon. Mr. Messmer) is making a presentation to cabinet in the next little while, and I'll wait until I hear his presentation. But I really have to wonder, when some of these projects are set up. We do the greatest job in Canada on tourism in this province right now. We

[ Page 10474 ]

don't need a lot of assistance in those areas from the federal government.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Just for the record, the Minister of Tourism has indeed flown the Tatshenshini River just a few weeks ago by helicopter — pretty well the entire length and breadth of the river. I've had a firsthand look at it. I was well briefed all along the way on the importance of that system for tourism in British Columbia. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the House that the Minister of Tourism will be making a very strong and determined representation on behalf of all those interest groups to his cabinet colleagues when the time arises.

MR. CASHORE: I was pleased to hear that comment from the Minister of Tourism, and I think it would be appropriate for the Minister of Environment to get on board with that initiative and send a very clear message that this government places the value on the Tatshenshini that will preserve its tourism and wilderness values as a very high priority.

A few comments now, Mr. Chairman, on the recently announced recycling program of the Minister of Environment, just to get some of our thoughts onto the record. I've been through the document, and there are some things I really like about it. I think it's quite well presented. I think anybody who reads through this will learn a lot about recycling, and I think it's worthwhile. It's a far better use of the educational dollar than pictures of the minister on television or in newspapers that arrive at our houses. I'm sure the minister will agree that this Is a far more appropriate use of those dollars.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That's your opinion.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, that's my opinion, hon. member, and that's where we differ. Some provinces wouldn't have a person who's a candidate for the Social Credit Party also on ads that are on television at great cost. In terms of the sophistication of those ads.... I usually judge ads on television by comparing them to the standard of the beer company ads and the B.C. Tel ads. In my opinion those are the most sophisticated ads on television. That's not a value judgment about their message. I would say that the taxpayer resources that went into producing the ads that feature the Minister of Environment, who would like to be the Premier very soon....

MR. SERWA: John, you don't do things like that.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, I do. The hon. member says I don't do things like that. I do do things like that, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you'd call that confessional, but yes, I do, hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this is a much better use of taxpayers' dollars: truly an educational document which contains some helpful information similar to some of the points mentioned by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) yesterday. That's about the only complimentary thing I'm going to say, but I thought I should say it.

The fact is, though, that it does have some problems. Number one, it doesn't have the kind of funding in place that's really going to enable the various parts of the province to have the financial resource that is needed in order to get the kind of comprehensive plans in place that the government is calling for, even though it's on quite a lengthy timetable.

The program seeks to recognize the importance of replacing our disposable society with an environmentally sustainable one, but in contrast to the New Democratic Party plan, the government's recycling plans remain flawed. Under the MSWM program, each regional district in the province is required to complete a solid waste management plan by December 31, 1995. That's more than four years from now.

That's an awfully long time, given that there's such an urgent need. We have to put that in the context of Bill 38, the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act. This government wants to get that up and running right away, because they see that as the solution. But they fail to recognize that in using that approach, they're not really giving more than lip-service to getting recycling going. Therefore they're starting with the wrong priority.

The government's program says it aims to reduce waste by 50 percent by the year 2000, but the government plan does not include audits of industrial and commercial wastes. If that's not included, then the plan is not holistic. It doesn't include the whole area that needs to be dealt with.

Also, the government's plan includes specific actions that could be taken to increase recycling through public awareness, such as the document I referred to. But the plan does not mention ways to encourage or to force recycling in the industrial and corporate sectors. It doesn't address that. We can't just hope, as the minister has said time and again during his estimates, that the private sector has become so good since this minister became minister, that all he has to do is go into the boardrooms and talk to the chief executive officers, and everything will be all right.

[4:00]

While there's a targeting of the consumer, there isn't a concomitant targeting of other sectors of the community. The government's five-year program does not include limits to be imposed on the production of goods and materials for public use in order to reduce the environmental impact associated with disposal. For instance, overpackaging must be reduced. That has to be addressed, and on a very quick timetable. The cradle-to-grave responsibility for the production of that which goes into our waste stream and causes problems for us is simply not addressed in any meaningful way in this program.

In addition to that, the government to date has failed to support and develop markets for recycled materials. This program includes a statement that market development is important, and that it will

[ Page 10475 ]

increase volume of both supply and demand of waste materials. But no plans as to how this will be done are included in the program. So I'd like the minister to address that.

Also, there's no assurance that it will aim to ensure that recycled products are cheaper to purchase than non-recycled. On that point, we have a situation where we could find that environmentalism is available only to yuppies and not to low-income people. You can get the green ads from the supermarkets, go in and buy the brown coffee filters or unbleached paper towels that cost more. But when you think of the single parent trying to raise a family and having to go flat-out between a job and maintaining responsibilities for that family, that person doesn't have the luxury of being able to find affordable, environmentally appropriate goods. So the cost of these goods should reflect their environmental appropriateness, and that should be recognized.

I guess the major difference between our approach and this government's approach is that our approach will be to establish a provincewide recycling program that will not be grandfathered or grandmothered. The Socreds seem content with a piecemeal approach municipality by municipality, but not with the real coordination to get it going and make it work. It's similar to the forestry valley-by-valley approach to carving up our watersheds.

Now when it comes to waste, we leave it to the municipalities one at a time, but there's no comprehensive plan or coordinated planning. This plan that the government is putting forward pays lip-service to that, but when you try to find the substance that says how that is actually going to happen, it ain't there.

Mr. Chairman, we plan to create two provincial authorities: the B.C. recycling agency and a waste reduction division of the Ministry of Environment. Between these two authorities, these issues will be addressed in a way that's useful to the public.

The government's plans involve a complicated financial assistance program that will require going through four people — the head, the manager, the director and the minister— before acceptance is given or not. Then when it is given, it's questionable whether or not it's adequate. I don't know if the minister has any comments to that.

I decided to say that all at one time in order to save time. But I'm sure that in the Blues tomorrow, I'll be able to read the minister's two-sentence reply.

MS. EDWARDS: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, before the minister gives his exciting response to my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the House to join me in the very rare pleasure of having a class of students from my riding here in the Legislature.

I have a group of almost 50 grade 7 students from Highlands Elementary School in Cranbrook with their teachers Brian Hamagami and Ron Tornicki, and several adults. I would ask the members to help me welcome them.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll try and just take the two sentences. I want to thank the NDP critic for his comments on our TV ads. They must be good, because if they weren't, there wouldn't be any comments about them. He compares them to the beer ads and B.C. Tel ads. I couldn't help thinking, watching those B.C. Tel ads, that the one they have on right now is one of the worst ads I've ever seen on TV. It really reminds me of a bunch of vultures. That's like your policy for garbage. The vultures go around, pick it up and drop it somewhere. We believe in the more high-tech approach, and you're back to the old approach.

The member made a comment about me wanting to be Premier. I want to assure him that he does not have to fear that. We have the greatest Premier in all of Canada sitting right here in front of me. He's probably going to win the next two or three elections, and I'll be too old to even try for the job by that time. I'll be ready to retire and....

MR. CASHORE: The choir didn't join in there.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Oh, listen. He says: "The choir didn't join in." I'll tell you, every member on this side owes their election to the Premier of this province, who has done the greatest job of any Premier in Canada.

I'll get off that political stuff. I want to make sure we talk a bit about what the member said. He said the funding was not enough. It's a $150 million program, and it's going to work. He talked about the NDP recycling plan. I think the NDP recycling plan is to send Dave Barrett, Dave Stupich and Bob Skelly to Ottawa.

The member has a brochure over there. The people of the constituencies out there in the province can phone the hotline to find out how to recycle, and can talk to the Recycling Council of B.C. about the great job this government is doing in spreading recycling right across British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE: I wasn't referring to the ad about the vultures; I don't like that one either. But I do like the one that says: "Got a friend; not the usual kind." I like that one; I'll put that on the record.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to pick up on a point the minister just made. He said $150 million. That's over five years, as I understand it. Again he's putting all the eggs — or most of the eggs, if they ever do get around to spending the money — into the basket of resource recovery plants and who knows what other really high-tech solution to what the minister sees as the problem.

There has been a lot of news about the minister seeking the support of the GVRD and the CRD and other places to try to get his resource recovery plants up and running. It's interesting that through the public process, citizen groups managed to convince

[ Page 10476 ]

the members of Vancouver city council to totally reverse their position on the issue of resource recovery plants — I might add, to reverse their position from the one held by the minister. And the vast majority of people on city council — I think all but two — have completely turned away from what the minister is promoting, even to the point of turning down the money he is offering to try to get these people on board. They are saying: "No, Mr. Minister, you don't suck us into your game that way. We have certain things to do first. We have to get our blue box program up and running and functioning properly first."

So here's the minister flogging this issue, because he wants to be able to transfer public funds into low-cost loans to the private sector so it can get these white elephants going. Then the public is left with the residual costs of cleaning up the rest after friends and insiders have received the opportunity to cream the profits off the top of waste management, using public funds to a great extent.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Just a short note so as not to keep the debate on this going forever. It is interesting to me that some people in the GVRD, where they have a big massive burner, would want to turn down something that would recycle garbage instead of putting it in the burner. But it never amazes me what people will do when a couple of hundred people come out to a meeting, especially just a few months before an election.

MR. CASHORE: Well, Mr. Minister, there are a lot of people in this province who uphold the values of a public process. Comments such as the one you just made simply denigrate the value of people within that process. The record shows that. I appreciate the minister stating that so baldly and in such a straightforward way, but I really cannot see how a statement like that can help the minister in any way, shape or form except with a handful of people who are already on his side.

Be that as it may, I think we have to realize that resource recovery plants have some problems that have not been addressed. One is that they tend to put the main effort into getting that process up and running instead of the other processes of recycling and finding markets for the recycled goods.

Resource recovery plants, especially the ones the minister believes in, end up producing RDF or refuse-derived fuel — a mixture of plastics, paper and other substances that are burnable. It's my information that the burning of those substances does create some very serious problems and that they become much more toxic in combination than if burned separately.

Resource recovery plants aren't incinerators, but they produce a system that delays the burning of garbage. The burning of that garbage then finds its way into a cement plant, or whatever kind of plant it may be. It might even go across a border. It might fit into the minister's plans for trading toxic waste, I don't know. But there are big problems relating to that technology, and I don't hear the minister addressing those problems.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would hope that the member opposite would go to some of the areas of the world where they're using resource recovery plants. There's nothing in our program that downgrades the blue box system or the three Rs. The idea is to make sure that we're not putting it in landfills after we do that. He knows full well that no matter where in the world they're recycling with blue boxes, green boxes, clear plastic bags or whatever it may be, the percentage they are collecting at the front end is a very small amount compared to the total.

The resource recovery plant will take the remainder of that. It can take the wood, the metal, the boxes and the plastics. No plastic needs to reach the end if you have a proper sorting system. We saw one in Iowa that was actually taking household batteries — a major problem in our incinerator in Burnaby right now — out of the system and pulverizing them, the steel going back into a steel mill and the insides being sold as a chemical to somewhere else. This is high technology.

The member talks about insiders and friends. I don't know anybody in that business. There are people who are out looking at technology and trying to do what they think is a good job for the citizens of British Columbia. I would suggest very strongly that he take the time to talk to some of the people — and to talk to Bill Fornich, who is from his party, about some of the trips he's made to look at some of these plants. Yes, they do work, and it's just part of a system.

If I could believe that we could sort at source and stop 65 percent of the garbage tomorrow, I'd say: "Hallelujah!" But as Minister of Environment, I also have to be responsible to the people outside Burns Bog who are sitting there with that smell, stench and the leachate, saying: "What are you going to do to stop the garbage from going into that landfill? What are you going to do to clean up the garbage we've been putting in there for generations?" To do that, we need high technology.

MR. CASHORE: The minister mentioned the batteries and the problem they caused with the Burnaby incinerator. That's a good case in point. There should be a process that the government is facilitating to get those batteries out of the waste stream. In the meantime that toxic ash is coming out to the Coquitlam landfill. When that $75 million incinerator was put in, it was seen as state of the art, and we got all kinds of assurances from all the technical people that there wasn't going to be a problem. Now the people of Coquitlam have to accept that problem in the form of the grate ash and the fly ash, which is the most toxic of those two kinds of ashes. It ends up in that landfill in an earthquake zone on the banks of two rivers. That's not very reassuring, Mr. Minister.

The minister talks about resource recovery plants, but he hasn't commented on the RDF. Could he advise the House as to the industrial plants in British

[ Page 10477 ]

Columbia that he would see as being markets for the refuse-derived fuel that would come out of resource recovery plants?

[4:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The plant in Nanaimo, I understand, has a contract with a cement kiln in the lower mainland. I can assure that member that they will meet all the permits that we have in that plant right now. I can assure the member that I've seen tests where the material is properly sorted at the front end. The material that they're burning in cement kilns right now is a lot worse than any of the refuse-derived fuel that is coming from some of the refuse plants.

MR. CASHORE: I'm sure the minister is aware that these plants, such as he has described, do not have the same pollution standards as even the Burnaby incinerator. They don't have the same "state-of-the-art" scrubbers and that sort of thing. That's not very reassuring.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to turn very briefly to one aspect of solid waste management and say that when you are involved in this process, you hear different rumours. I've heard two different kinds of rumours with regard to the direction the minister is moving on the deposit system. The minister is aware that our position is that the deposit system should be expanded, that it should truly be a deposit system and that it should cover a great many items in the waste stream that do not require a deposit. My own feeling is that we should develop some kind of system of deposit to force the manufacturers to take back the little batteries that would be collected in the household.

The minister is aware, I'm sure, of the success of the beer industry's deposit system This is different from the soft-drink industry's system, which is a refund system. It's my understanding that bottle returns — the most environmentally appropriate, given that they are reused several times — has a 95 percent success rate in getting those bottles back into that system. There's a somewhat smaller success with cans, which are in the neighbourhood of 75 percent With the soft-drink industry, it's much less.

I understand that the soft-drink industry — I should maybe be mentioning more industries — are lobbying the government to get out of that altogether They are willing to give some money to try to make sure all of the cans and bottles go into the blue box without there being a deposit. My opinion is that that would be a disaster.

I've heard rumours that the minister supports strengthening the deposit system and expanding it to some other products. I've also heard rumours the other way. I think this would be an appropriate time for the minister to enlighten the House and the people of British Columbia with regard to his thinking on this issue.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'm very pleased to see that the member likes the deposit system. I happen to like it myself, as I'm sure he's aware. I don't know where he'd hear the rumour from the other side, other than the fact that I've got an open mind on the issue. My own opinion is that the expansion of the deposit system would be very good. I would very much like to receive a list of items you think we should put on a deposit system. I happen to think household batteries wouldn't be a bad idea either.

I committed myself to have public meetings and stakeholder meetings. We've had two of them so far. We've had both sides extremely well represented. I've now asked staff to prepare a brief for myself with the recommendations and what the impact would be. I will be going to Ontario and Alberta In August with representatives of environmental groups and the bottling industry to look at how both systems work.

As you know, Ontario took the deposits off with great sums of money donated by the pop companies and newspapers. I hear from some sides that it's working extremely well. They're getting it all back in the blue box. Yet I know other sides have sent me clippings from the Toronto paper saying that metro Toronto is telling the provincial government to put them back on the deposit system because of litter problems. We're going to go to Alberta. They have a full deposit system. Once I've had a chance to do that, I hope sometime in the fall to make a recommendation to cabinet and have a policy brought forward.

MR. CASHORE: The soft-drink industry receives a windfall profit on unreclaimed containers, given that that's a refund system. There are different estimates as to how much that might be.

HON. MR. FRASER: Here we go: windfall profits.

MR. CASHORE: Be careful, because the minister just nodded in agreement to what I said. Be awfully careful that you don't find yourself coming up with a great big conflict in cabinet on this issue.

The fact is that some of that windfall profit should be appropriated by the government and used to apply to environmental issues. That would be appropriate.

To move on to another topic, I wrote to the minister on February 8 concerning a constituent who had found some documents in Como Lake. At that time, I communicated with the minister's staff. I didn't take a position on it pro or con. I asked the minister to conduct an investigation. The gist of what was being said as a result of finding those documents was that there was a memo referring to the shipping of low-level PCP-contaminated hog fuel being shipped to the Cache Creek area. I asked that the investigation would seek to ascertain the source of the memo and to conduct appropriate testing at the landfill site to ascertain whether or not the terms of the permit had been exceeded and to review the kinds of substances that are included in the shipments to the landfill. Can the minister update us on the status of that?

[ Page 10478 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I do not have a report, nor would I expect to get one from the RCMP with regard to their investigation. I know there was an investigation on how material went missing, because there was a break-in at the plant, but I don't have that.

I can assure the member that I have the assurance from my staff that no product classified as a special waste is going to the landfill site in Cache Creek.

MR. CASHORE: I want to refer momentarily to a topic that the minister brought up a little while ago. There was an announcement, I believe on June 5, that a charge was laid against an individual at the Stelter farm. The farm had been an apparent source of annoyance for people living in that area because of the stench and because of various alleged activities in order to discuss that issue, one would have to become downright scatological. But suffice it to say, there were accusations that waste from septic tanks was being dumped on a farmer's field and that it was being used to spread on other fields. The thoughts of what might get into the food chain, and also the discomfort of people living in that area.... That went on for ten years.

It's interesting. When I went out there and met with those people, I listened to their tale of woe. I didn't find this out from these people, but I do believe that the final straw that resulted in the resignation of Doug Adolph was when what you'd almost call a Keystone Kops experience with trying to get the evidence kind of fell apart.

Because he didn't have enough of the CO staff that's necessary to do the investigative work that needed to be done, we had to wait ten years to get a charge on that situation. That's why those people had to go through such discomfort all that time, and we still don't know if that's going to be dealt with.

It was interesting that we got an announcement about that. It was a surprise to people who were attending a public meeting on June 15, which was being held to try to enhance the chances for the Social Credit MLA for that area.

The fact is that it's really shameful we have to wait for that type of an event to get some action that would give hope to their people that their cry for help, which has gone on for ten years, would be heard.

I understand that other concerns which were expressed to the minister that night were the number of golf courses that are going in because of the OIC that has allowed golf courses on agricultural land; oil and gas drilling; and loss of agricultural land.

While I'm glad the minister was able to make that announcement, I'm going to be watching that very closely. I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I want to say to the member on the other side that he can talk about something taking ten years to be done, but it only came to my attention six months ago.

1 can tell him that Doug Adolph was unsuccessful in being able to lay a charge against these people because he couldn't present enough evidence to Crown counsel. Other people were because I gave them support, let them go undercover and spent some money to get them.

I hope they pay the heaviest fine they can for that kind of pollution. My staff know I feel that way. You can talk about the past all you want, but I feel very strongly about industry or Individuals who pollute and break the law. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. That's why we've increased the fines to $3 million, and in this case a $1 million maximum fine.

I didn't release it on the 15th; we released it a few days earlier. Somebody asked me the question, and I repeated it that night.

MR. CASHORE: The fact is, Mr. Minister, that there still aren't enough conservation officers in the province to do the backup work that needs to be done. It's all very well to say that this happened when this minister arrived on the scene. The fact is that this story is just one example of something that's being played out throughout this province. There aren't enough conservation officers.

Last year we were told that we got 29 new conservation officers. What that really was was that there were 13 already hired, then two more, and three went to the lower mainland. Of the other nine, two were appointed to the northern region, and there were two native conservation officers. But 15 of those, according to our calculations, were actually backup staff, clerical workers and waste management technicians.

The fact is that the majority of this work has gone into pollution control, which is still over-worked and over-burdened, and very little of it has gone into supporting the need for wildlife enforcement. That's really difficult. Prior to 1989 there were about 104 COs; now there are 130. It's inadequate; there simply weren't enough to cover the needs.

Look at Vancouver Island, for instance. There aren't the people available to attend to situations when they develop. We've had to have people come all the way from Duncan to deal with a cougar problem here in Victoria. There was somebody in Esquimalt several months ago who was attacked by a raccoon. An elderly couple were getting of their car. They fell out, and the woman broke her hip. They were told, after several phone calls, that to be able to deal with that they'd have to bring a conservation officer all the way from Duncan. That's simply inappropriate, Mr. Minister. I have here a letter from Joe Saysall of Duncan, who writes to the minister as much as he writes to me.

[4:30]

We have 130 conservation officers in British Columbia, which, with our wonderful scenery and all of our wildlife, is the most beautiful province in Canada. We all agree on that point. But in Alberta they have 180; in Ontario, 300; in Quebec, 225, This government is simply not giving to this work the

[ Page 10479 ]

people who are able to fulfil the task. It's rather unfortunate that somebody like Doug Adolph would find, for whatever reason, that he could not continue in that service after giving good service for a great many years. For the minister to stand up in this House and somehow blame him for the benign neglect of this government, which has resulted in failure to prosecute and bring these polluters to justice, is really not appropriate. It's not becoming to this minister to criticize Doug Adolph. He should be thanked for the service he has given, and there should be some recognition that he has paid a heavy price for working under very difficult circumstances. Did you wish to comment on that?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised by the staff that the member made some statements that the administration staff are backup. They are related to enforcement; they're part of enforcement; they're trained in enforcement. We sent seven people up north — not two, as he said. And we do have a conservation officer based in Victoria. In his own figures he says Ontario has 300, and we've got 131. Well, they've got three times the population. So I don't think we're doing too badly. If you take a look at Ontario, with its population and size, and see that they've got only 300 and we've got 131, I don't think it's a good comparison.

MR. CASHORE: Since the minister chooses to be selective in his comparison, would he also comment on the comparison with Alberta, where the number is 180?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Alberta has a debt of about 12 cents per capita, and a major deficit too.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister just said that environmental protection is expendable on the basis of that kind of cost analysis, which means that he doesn't really understand the meaning of sustainable development.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to ask the minister whether he thinks that dioxins, or 2, 4, 7, 7-TCDD, as an example, is a human carcinogen.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to get into a debate with the member, who is a doctor, on what he might consider one or not. I can only go on the basis of the material I've received, and I've received materials on both sides. In fact, I've just received a document today that's about six or eight pages long that I've sent off to Bill Andrews at the West Coast Environmental Law Association to ask for his comments. It's from Washington, done by highly reputable scientists, who are saying that they do not feel that the initial concerns of dioxins being a major world carcinogen are as accurate as they originally were. I think there's a great debate, and I wouldn't want anybody to think, by what I'm saying, that I have no concerns about them. I think we all have concerns about them, but there is a good public debate out there on the topic.

MR. PERRY: Having listened to the minister a moment ago, I wrote down something he said, roughly paraphrasing: "I feel very strongly about industries that pollute and break the law." He looked like he meant it. I wonder if he can explain why one of his first acts as the new Minister of Environment was to invite reporters and others to eat crabs from Howe Sound, which were widely suspected to be contaminated by dioxins.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would hope that the member, who has a good education as a doctor, would know that it wasn't one of my first acts; it was a statement I made when asked a very simple question by a reporter: "Would you eat a crab from Howe Sound?" I said yes, I would, and the federal health officer said the same thing. The facts are: commercial crabbing only is banned in Howe Sound; commercial prawning is still legal; commercial fishing, private fishing and private crabbing are still quite legal. I have friends and neighbours who take crab out of Howe Sound every day of the year when in season and eat them and don't consider it a concern. The dioxins are not in the meat of the crab; they're in the pancreas of the crab, as I'm sure the hon. member the doctor is aware. So to use that statement....

As I mentioned yesterday, the brochure of the NDP, put out by the leader of the party, who talks about honesty in government, has a bold statement that fishing is banned in Howe Sound. Fishing is not banned in Howe Sound, and I hope that the party will change that brochure. Just to take a cheap shot and make an issue out of something.... It is not illegal to eat crabs from Howe Sound, and as long as that's the case, I will continue to eat them and enjoy them.

MR. PERRY: I haven't seen the brochure in question, so I can't comment on that.

I want to take the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Legislative Assembly some new evidence that has emerged in the field. I'm relieved that the minister recognizes that there is still a great deal of scientific uncertainty in this area. I've personally reviewed the issue a number of times in the last two years, and each time I review it, the facts seem to be changing. But I want to draw to his attention and to that of the House and the public of British Columbia, through this forum, a document published about a month ago by Prof. David W. Schindler, Killam Memorial professor of ecology in the departments of zoology and botany at the University of Alberta. It's entitled "A Critique of Proposed Federal Regulations for Pulp and Paper Effluents, and Recent Evidence Implicating Dioxins as Hazards to Human Health."

[ Page 10480 ]

Professor Schindler was perhaps the authority on the ecological effects of acid rain on Canadian lakes. He may have been the single scientist who did the most to draw to the public attention and to the attention of government in Canada and in the United States the widespread environmental effects of acid rain. He is a very distinguished scientist. This presentation was made to a federal agency in May, and although I have not received the entire report, I commend it to the minister. When I receive it, I'll be happy to draw it to the ministry's attention. I'd like to read brief extracts into the record. I think the implications are obvious. At page 4 of the summary of the document, under the heading "Protection of Human Health," Professor Schindler writes:

"Presentations to the Alberta Pacific review board' — a board reviewing proposals for major new pulp mills in Alberta on the Athabasca River concerning the effects of dioxins, furans and other chlorinated organic compounds on human health are already out of date."

This is written, Mr. Chairman, in May of this year, and the presentations had been made in late 1989. I resume the quotation:

"In part this is because of new studies, but in addition, several studies of two populations exposed to dioxins, which purported to show that dioxin exposure did not have significant health effects on humans, have recently been exposed as fraudulent."

I resume at page 5 of that document:

"In the past few months, several published studies of human exposure to dioxins have been shown to be based on data that was first 'cooked,' i.e. fraudulently manipulated. In brief, the studies were based on two populations of workers exposed to dioxins, one in the U.S.A. and the other in West Germany. It is now known that industry scientists eliminated data for cancer deaths from the exposed populations, added cancer deaths to the control group, or 'padded' exposed groups with unexposed individuals in order to 'prove' that dioxin exposures did not harm humans. Tragically, many court decisions to disallow compensation to workers exposed to dioxins appear to have relied on publications based on this erroneous database.

"New analyses of the same databases, after fraudulent alterations have been removed, indicate rather high rates of cancer death, substantial increases in heart disease and some evidence for neurological disorders caused by dioxin exposure."

He continues in this view and concludes:

"In brief, within the last few months the world view of dioxins has changed from that of a compound of questionable toxicity to that of an extreme human carcinogen."

He makes a number of other comments. He goes on to point out:

"The new information on dioxin has caused concern in the United States Environmental Protection Agency that its recently revised restrictions are too lax, even though they are much more stringent than current Canadian standards."

One of the major points that he makes in this paper is that exposure of aboriginal Canadians to dioxins, furans and other chlorinated organics may be seriously underestimated. He points out at page 7 of this document:

"However, recent detailed studies by Dr. Eleanor Wein and her colleagues of the University of Alberta's Boreal Institute have provided quantitative estimates of fish consumption for two northern communities, Fort Chipewyan and Fort Smith."

He continues:

"...Health and Welfare Canada state that the maximum desirable intake as dioxin equivalents is ten picograms per kilogram of body weight." — I believe that's per day. — "When Dr. Wein's data are used as a basis, it is obvious that current Health and Welfare guidelines of 20 parts per trillion as dioxin equivalents would allow native people to consume amounts in excess of this value. Indeed, in the vicinity of bleached-kraft mills already on the Peace and Athabaska Rivers, persons consuming as much fish as these aboriginal populations would be consuming several times the maximum desirable levels of these substances."

Note that when the original standards were set by the joint Health and Welfare Canada and Environment Canada committee in 1983, conservative proponents on that committee had argued for a standard ten times stricter or tenfold lower than the standard eventually adopted.

Professor Schindler points out that for native people:

"It must be emphasized that these calculations are based on consumption of fish alone, and that the high frequency of use of other aquatic mammals and birds by native populations makes it extremely likely that the actual dioxins and furans consumed are even higher...and that these calculations are for average natives, not for individuals who consume exceptionally large quantities of fish.

"In brief, hundreds of thousands of people in northern Canada could be exposed to high levels of dioxins, furans; and other toxic chlorinated organic compounds in Canada."

May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that he's not specifically referring to British Columbia, although some of the contamination in the Peace-Athabasca system comes from a British Columbia pulp mill at Mackenzie. But there's no reason that I'm aware of to think that native people in northern British Columbia may not be exposed to similar hazards, and in fact there's reason, from the data released at this time last year on trout, Dolly Varden, char and salmon in the Fraser River near Quesnel, to be very concerned.

Dr. Schindler also points out that the two compounds, 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD and 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDF, are the most dangerous known dioxin and the comparable furan.

I quote again:

"Several hundred other chlorinated organic compounds as well as many other toxic substances occur in pulp mill effluents. Many are known to be carcinogens or mutagens, which would be expected to add to the toxicity of effluents. For most, toxicity and environmental behaviour are poorly known."

He reviews as well the regulations for dioxin and furan discharges in other countries and points out that standards in most jurisdictions in the U.S.

"...are much more stringent than either current or proposed Canadian standards. In jurisdictions where effluents are regulated at the plant, such as Sweden,

[ Page 10481 ]

regulations are already more stringent than proposed for Canada and are targeted to become tougher still. Obviously, if the proposed regulations are adopted, Canadian regulations will be far more lax than those imposed elsewhere."

To be fair, again he gives the pulp and paper industry considerable credit for improving their process and is optimistic that they can continue to do go, but his conclusion is:

"Altogether, evidence is increasing rapidly indicating that dioxins, furans and other chlorinated organic compounds pose extreme risks to human health as well as to the environment. As a result, allowing discharges of chlorinated organic substances from new industries should be prevented."

Note that he is talking not only about dioxins and furans but about the much wider category of chlorinated organics.

[4:45]

I want to very briefly mention that Dr. Schindler is an aquatic biologist, not a human toxicologist, and his principal concerns are on the ecological relationships of such compounds in the environment. He points out that proposed toxicity tests cited before the Alberta Pacific review board are "preposterous." I quote from his paper, page 2:

"According to the test procedures it would be possible for 49 percent of even...insensitive creatures" — such as Daphnia magna or rainbow trout — "to die during testing and still the effluents would be regarded as acceptable. I submit that this is not adequate protection for either sensitive species or for humans. It would be far better to perform long-term tests in the actual river, using long-term accumulation of chlorinated organic compounds, enzyme bioassays or similar tests of long-term, chronic exposure in order to assess the effects of effluents."

What am I getting at? I've read a lot of technical material into the record. I hope this will increase its accessibility to the public around the province. The point that Professor Schindler is making is that knowledge is changing extremely rapidly in this field, and that there are good reasons to question whether present standards are appropriate, whether even our testing procedures are appropriate, and whether we should be reassured, for example, by the knowledge — constructive as it is — that pulp mills are markedly reducing their effluents of dioxins and furans at a time when they continue to emit large amounts of other chlorinated organic compounds and when the dwell time of the originally recognized toxic compounds such as dioxins and furans may be very long in the bottom sediments. For example, Professor Schindler tells me that the half-life may be in the order of 12 years. Therefore these compounds that have accumulated in the aquatic environment will remain there for much of our lifetimes.

This leads me to some very important questions for the minister. What steps has he taken, or does he plan, to ensure that the public will have confidence, in this rapidly changing scientific environment, that current standards for chlorinated organics of all sorts are the best desirable standards to protect the public? The second question will be: what steps does the ministry plan to supplement or add to the relatively modest studies undertaken by the federal Departments of the Environment and Fisheries of potential exposure of human beings, particularly native Indian people around the province, to chlorinated organics in the food chain?

The third question is: what plans does the ministry have to undertake longer-term ecological studies of these compounds, so that we learn where they are going in the environment, whether we can relax and assume that the Fraser River or Howe Sound will flush themselves out or whether we should begin to be worried about recreational consumption of crabs in Howe Sound?

I recognize these are very difficult questions. I am asking the minister — and in effect his staff — how they plan to satisfy public concerns which are going to be extremely difficult to satisfy. What assurance will we have that in a year or two we won't find ourselves thinking that those standards looked pretty good at the time, but in retrospect they were totally unreasonably lax?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I listened with interest to the comments of Professor Schindler, and I mentioned to the member that he talks about crabs in Howe Sound. In the last ten days since I've been up here in the House, I notice that his cold hasn't gone yet. I should feed him some crabs from Howe Sound, because I haven't had a cold in ten years. Maybe it's something in the crabs I'm eating; I don't know what it is.

You asked about the steps to ensure public confidence. We are implementing the standards right now that my predecessor announced with regard to pulp mills: secondary treatment in every plant by the end of 1991 and the levels by 1994.

1 know from information I've read — from both polls outside and polls that your party has done where I've listened — that the public will accept things as long as we tell them we're moving forward. I think the standards we are putting forward are the best that we can put forward. I take it from experts in my own staff who have degrees and professorships also, They tell us what they think. The standards that we are proposing here are the toughest in the world. The 1.5 is tougher than anything in Sweden right now, which is considered by many to be the best in the world. So when we've reached those steps, I think that's adding to the public confidence.

I agree with the member that there have to be long-term ecological studies. There have to be studies on the effect of these things on human beings. We would hope that the federal government, through their health department, will be doing some ongoing testing. We are talking to the University of British Columbia in our chairs-for-excellence program, so we are hoping to work like we have for waste water and get a program with regard to these levels.

I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who is a doctor and the critic for the New Democrats.... We've got a Round Table in this province which has people on it from all sides of the political spectrum, people from the industries, scien-

[ Page 10482 ]

tists and everybody else. This would be a good question to throw to the Round Table and let them use their dispute mechanism to bring in outside advisers, hire some scientists and get an answer back from them, so that it's not coming from this side or that side.

I don't think it's a political issue. I think it's one where we will have to know that we have done the best job possible. I would just like to know if they think that would be a good way to handle it.

MR. PERRY: It's an interesting suggestion. I wouldn't presume to answer in a field that concerns my colleague as our representative. But it's an interesting idea, and I certainly don't see any immediate objection to it. It sounds like a good idea.

I have two very brief questions. Has the Ministry of Environment had any role in assessing the proposals by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for mining in the Skagit Valley recreation area?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Personally, no.

MR. PERRY: Can the minister clarify whether the Ministry of Environment has had any input into the proposals for mining by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the Skagit Valley recreation area?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised by the staff that they have no personal knowledge. There could have been some technical things done at certain levels of staff, but they have no knowledge of it at this level.

MR. PERRY: Maybe I can just ask by way of a suggestion, since this is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the International joint Commission among others.... It might be worth looking at it.

A similar question. Has the ministry had any involvement in the development plan of the legislation and park proposal for the Carmanah Valley with respect to the endangered species thought to be in the valley: the marbled murrelet, the spotted owl and other potentially endangered species which may reside or reproduce in the Carmanah Valley?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am advised that we have had many discussions with Parks and other ministries with regard to those areas.

MR. PERRY: Just one final question, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister be prepared to provide my colleague the environment critic from Maillardville-Coquitlam or the House with a summary of any input regarding endangered species before the debate on the legislation of that park proposal?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: If he can advise me what he would like, we will seek to give him whatever information we can.

MR. CASHORE: I want to apologize to the minister and his staff for this taking longer than I had said yesterday afternoon. I have eliminated some of the....

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Well, all your help over there is just going to drag it on.

I have set aside some of the items I was going to raise; we'll do that through correspondence.

There are a couple of things I want to deal with before my friend from Prince Rupert has some comments. One is with regard to Boundary Bay. This matter was canvassed in the House during last year's estimates, but the fact is that there are many ways we could come at this issue. There's the issue of the OIC on golf courses and questions of what the minister's position is on that and how he can accept the impact that that has had environmentally. But the issue I want to focus in on is the wildlife issue in Boundary Bay.

Boundary Bay is a vital link on the Pacific flyway. It's the only major link that's unprotected. In the Copper Valley in Alaska over 300,000 acres are protected. In San Francisco Bay in the United States 32,000 acres are protected. In Boundary Bay approximately 100 acres are protected. It's the home-resting area for 1.4 million birds and 310 species. It has the largest number of wintering raptors — that's hawks, eagles and owls — and shore birds and waterfowl in Canada.

Only 1 percent of the Fraser River Delta is protected for wildlife use. Boundary Bay is the most important coastal bay for shore birds and waterfowl on the coast of British Columbia. The Canadian Wildlife Service recommends that a belt of farmland on the landward side of the dikes around Boundary Bay and south of Highway 99 should be secured for waterfowl, shore birds, gulls, herons and raptors.

In August 1988 the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau contacted the Premier of this province to voice concern over proposed developments adjacent to Boundary Bay. According to an article in their newsletter, they were encouraged to receive replies from both the Premier and the Minister of Environment in which they acknowledged the conservation value of this area and stated their intention to press for Ramsar designation to provide international support for conservation activities.

The people in Boundary Bay and the many environmental groups including the one I just noted believe that this government has not kept faith with the stated intent that they received from the Premier and the Minister of Environment at that time. They are renewing a call to the government of British Columbia to follow through on what they believe was going to be done in good faith.

They want protection of the Pacific flyway. In other words, Boundary Bay should be declared a Ramsar site, which would make it a wetland of international importance according to the Ramsar convention. Also the provincial government should

[ Page 10483 ]

be protecting backup lands by disallowing non-agricultural developments.

Then, again, they are calling for the protection of the agricultural land reserve. So this process to allow golf courses, which has set loose a whole number of activities that have had their problem with land speculation, is creating a severe environmental threat for this area and for the protection of this wildlife.

Then there's the importance of funding for the environmental study which the provincial government should be supporting and assisting. There should be a study of Boundary Bay and the floodplain. There should be recognition of the entire Fraser River delta as we come to dealing with these issues.

I want to say that we could go on at great length with this issue, and I will be corresponding with the minister, but I would like to see some indication that this government is going to come through with protecting that area for the fragile wildlife resource. That is such an important area for birds all the way from Siberia down to South America.

[5:00]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can advise the member — maybe he already knows this, but if not — that there's a two-year wildlife study going on in that area. It's about a year into the study. It's being done in conjunction with Canadian Wildlife. The municipality of Delta is being fed that information as we go along.

MR. MILLER: I wanted to ask the minister some questions with regard to the role of the ministry, particularly some questions focusing on the submission to the Forest Resources Commission. I should say at the outset that many of us were alarmed at the paper that was discovered in October 1988, generated from within the ministry, that pointed to very low morale, senior people within the ministry indicating they'd rarely been worse off, insufficient staff or funds in the fish and wildlife branch to do even a passable job of commenting on forestry and mining activities, declining morale in our own staff, and the impression at the working level that the Ministry of Environment is a second-class ministry. I am sure the minister has seen the papers and is familiar with it.

Looking at some of the comments in the submission, there are some specific statements, and I want to get a bit of a feel for what's behind them. For example, the ministry brief talks about the area that's clearcut: 88 percent of the logging in B.C., 215,000 hectares, is clearcut. Is it the ministry's view that there needs to be a change in that?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The member started reading from a paper or a letter from October 1988 and talked about low morale and a second-class.... I can assure him that since then things have drastically improved — if that was the case at that time. The deputy minister and assistant deputies, who are here, and the regional director are hard-working people. I haven't noticed any low morale since I took over the ministry. I don't know where that's from.

With regard to the submission made by my deputy to the Forest Resources Commission, I don't think we made any recommendations about clearcut; we just pointed out the facts.

 MR. MILLER: I appreciate that the minister and the staff with him are all new, and maybe in their view things have changed. Let us hope that that is the case.

It's a very good observation that clearcutting is 88 percent and 215,000 hectares. Further on, the specific sentence that comes out of the report is: "Methods of partial-retention logging will soften the impact of cutting and provide more habitat for forest-dwelling species." Is that something you want to happen?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: That was a recommendation by the deputy to the forestry commission, yes.

MR. MILLER: It wasn't just a casual observation that this is a fact; you would actually like to see a change. I go back to my first question. Could you advise what kind of change you would like to see? Is there a reduced percentage you would like to see, rather than 88? Would you like a limit on the size of clearcuts?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: A lot of this is under review by the forestry commission, and the member can interview the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) when he comes up for his estimates. He can go through a lot of those things with him. My deputy made a statement to the forestry commission, and I will have my discussions with the Minister of Forests and let him announce what the policies of the government will be in that area.

MR. MILLER: The specific statement from the report from your deputy is: "Fragmentation of the forest must be reduced to protect specialist forest dwelling species from habitat loss resulting from excessive rates of logging." Could the minister explain what this means?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I guess, Mr. Chairman, it means exactly what it says. I could also show him letters I got today from people in my own constituency who are saying that a lot of what is being said in these issues of the spotted owl and other things is being overstated. The statement says what it says.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: I just want to be correct. Is the minister saying that the paper presented by his deputy is overstating the case?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: No.

MR. MILLER: He did talk about the case being overstated, and the document says: "Fragmentation

[ Page 10484 ]

of the forest must be reduced...." Could the minister advise if he has any idea to what extent that must take place? Could he advise the House if the ministry is prepared to make a statement that there is excessive logging, where it is taking place and to what extent it's taking place? Has the ministry made specific recommendations for it to be reduced?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The statement was a technical one. My staff are working with the Ministry of Forests and making recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Forests will announce his policies when all those discussions are finalized.

MR. MILLER: It's not a technical statement at all. It's a very simple and straightforward statement: the forest is being fragmented; it has to stop; it has to be reduced to protect habitat; there's excessive logging. There's nothing technical at all about the statement. What I was hoping to get out of the minister is a little more backup as to why his ministry would be prepared to make that kind of statement. Why you're not prepared to stand in the House and amplify on that is, quite frankly, a bit strange, Mr. Minister.

Moving on to further statements made in the brief by your ministry, you state: "Research in the northwest United States is providing a new scientific understanding of the ecological processes that drive the evolution of our forests." Can you explain why Washington State, which is minuscule in terms of their forest resource, does this kind of research and British Columbia does not?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It is done here. We don't go around with our heads in the sand. We talk to other jurisdictions. As I mentioned earlier, in the Soviet Union.... The Finns who were over here a few days ago were telling us how their TFLs were planned after those in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: The facts speak for themselves. The research is being done in Washington and not in British Columbia, and we are a huge forest economy. That speaks volumes about the inactivity of this government.

Point 2 on page 3 of your brief states: "The ministry processes in the order of 8,000 forest management referrals annually." I refer to the document I quoted at the outset. How many people are involved in approving those referrals?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Eighty to 100 people.

MR. MILLER: Is that an increase from the 14 or so that used to do it?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: It's never been 14.

MR. MILLER: Does the minister consider that number of staff sufficient to process that number of logging plans?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I've had no complaints from my staff about not having enough people to get their work done in that area.

MR. MILLER: That can be a pretty risky business, Mr. Minister, as you well know. In fact, I was just reading a document from somebody who was fired from your ministry for being a little bit too outspoken.

Could the minister advise whether or not the forest licensees are still the lead agency with regard to these referrals?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Would you repeat that?

MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise whether or not the forest licensees are still the lead agency when it comes to these referrals? In other words, do they pilot the application through the referrals?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes.

MR. MILLER: Is that not a contradiction of an earlier statement made by the Minister of Forests that that practice would cease — a specific memo issued by the Deputy Minister of Forests that the government was backing off that policy because it was politically unacceptable? They were supposed to go back to the policy of having at least a ministry agency be the lead agency in terms of shopping the application through the various processes, rather than giving the licensees what I think is the unique opportunity to use creativity, or whatever you want to call it, in terms of getting those referrals through.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: With all due respect, I think that question should go to the Minister of Forests.

MR. MILLER: The minister has no opinion.

On page 5 of your brief, the statement is: "The Ministries of Forests and Environment are drafting a forest development review process which will provide a structured review of forest resource allocations such as pulpwood agreements."

British Columbia is on the verge of dealing with some massive pulpwood agreements — massive giveaways, in my view. Will those be halted while this review process that's referred to in your brief is put n place — in other words, put the cart before the horse?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I advise that they have been delayed.

MR. MILLER: A lot of concern has been expressed to me in my constituency about trading in bear parts. There was the case of a Canadian citizen from Terrace, I believe, who was arrested in California. He received approval in British Columbia to take these bear parts down, but clearly contravened or ran afoul of U.S. legislation. Has the minister anything to offer

[ Page 10485 ]

in terms of advising people in British Columbia that this abhorrent practice will be eliminated?

I don't mind giving my personal view. We don't often think of it, but I think there are some questions of morality in terms of killing. I'm a fisherman, although I never get out and I never catch anything. I don't mind catching a fish to eat, but I have some concern about whether or not we should be trophy fishing, although I realize that there's a push — if you like — to support that. I find this practice to be absolutely abhorrent. In fact, I don't know how you could possibly distinguish between trophy hunting — and why somebody would want to hunt a bear trophy is beyond me — and simply going out and engaging in a commercial activity; in other words, killing that bear for its attendant parts, which are presumably in demand in some parts of the world.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can advise the member that I share some of his concerns. I expect to be taking an order-in-council before cabinet within the next couple of weeks.

MR. MILLER: I thank the minister for that answer.

I'm trying to move through this as quickly as I can. With regard to the problem that people in very small rural locations find themselves with when it comes to recycling, I've written the minister on a couple of occasions with regard to the school students in Port Simpson and Sandspit, and people in Klemtu — a very small community in the mid-coast of British Columbia — all of whom are faced with an obstacle that they can't overcome in terms of trying to recycle. They simply can't transport recyclable goods.

It's come to my attention this past weekend that a local freight company in the Charlottes has made an offer. I don't know if it has reached the minister's level; I haven't had time to bring it forward before today. It's a freight company that is prepared to transport recyclable goods to Prince Rupert. I'm pleased to say that Prince Rupert has just opened a recycling depot. It has been supported by the municipality, I believe, to the tune of about $40,000. They will be approaching this government for financial support, and I fully expect and would be pleased to hear the minister say that they would get it. But this transportation company is prepared to transport goods on the ferry and are asking for some concession.

[5:15]

Is there anything that the minister has done or is doing in terms of these small communities? Although they're very small, they are nonetheless just as concerned. Quite often the impact of garbage is greater in those communities, because they have fewer resources and fewer places where they can landfill this kind of recyclable material. Could the minister advise what's happening in that regard?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, our staff is meeting with regional districts around the province The problem you bring out is one of the largest ones we have: to try to find how to get those small communities' material into a transfer station. We're working very closely, as I say, with the regional districts to solve that problem. We're also working with a number of transportation companies and large food chains that tend to come back with empty trucks from a lot of those areas, to see if we can get it back into the Okanagan or the lower mainland where the source of recycling is. I would expect that in the next few months we'll have a lot of these programs ready to go. I support the depots; that's part of our program.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Finally, Mr. Chairman. You sound like you're tired.

I'd like to ask the minister to give us an update on the Khutzeymateen. As the minister is aware, there has been an ongoing study of the area. It's an area that I would point out was recommended as an ecological reserve, not because of some group out there in British Columbia but because the people within the ministry thought that it was an ideal candidate. It was generated from within the ministry, and that was a long time ago: back in 1974, I believe. It is an important area. I've talked to some of the people who are doing work in there. They consider it a critical grizzly bear habitat.

I've received some further correspondence in terms of the area just north of the Khutzeymateen, the Kwinamass, which again is a wonderful area, not just for the grizzly bear habit but obviously for all those other things that go with it: the richness of the streams in terms of their salmon-bearing capability. The studies have been going on now since 1987. I was under the impression that it would be three years, and I would think we're getting close to the point when we should make a determination. Again, I don't mind offering my opinion. Based on the people I have talked to so far, the area is an excellent candidate and should in fact be made into an ecological reserve. I'd ask the minister to comment on that.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I understand from my staff that we're in the second year of a three-year study. They now have 11 bears collared and tracked and they know their patterns, but the study has one more year to go.

Vote 26 approved.

Vote 27: ministry operations, $113,756,500 — approved.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

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

[ Page 10486 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 25.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. GABELMANN: Under section 16, which is the schedule, I want to refer to Strathcona Park — as I'm sure the minister anticipated — which is in schedule C, I believe, on page 60 of the bill. I don't think we need to refer to the bill as much as just to go through a number of issues relating to Strathcona Park.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The first thing I want to say.... I think this has been said before in the House and elsewhere. Given that we are now at — for some of us, anyway — this historic moment when we're actually enacting by legislation the boundaries for Strathcona Park, it needs to be said that since the illegal activity near the Westmin Resources mining operation a couple of winters ago, the government's change in approach to dealing with Strathcona Park has been much welcomed. It has been, finally, a good process. First of all, the committee which produced the report "Strathcona Park. Restoring the Balance" did good work. It needs to be commended in a public forum such as this. Following that, the committee the minister's predecessor appointed, the Strathcona Park Steering Committee, also did good work. The public representatives and the majority of the committee who were public servants, I think, did good work.

My impression of the experience gained by the public servants in that process was that they learned something too about how valuable public input is and how constructive it can be In producing recommendations which have public support and public confidence and lead to a conclusion such as this, where we have, so far at least, very good results.

The process is not complete by a long way. I want to take some time, not to belabour this, but to go through some of the remaining issues.

It could be argued that much of what I want to talk about in terms of the boundary issues on Strathcona Park can be and should be left to the public process. I have thought hard about that issue and wondered whether it's appropriate, In fact, to raise these issues in the House, I decided that it was — not in an extensive way, but to highlight for the minister on the record some of the concerns that are yet to be addressed. I'd like to go through some of these issues, and I understand my colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) will want to do some of that too in the part of the park that affects the Alberni constituency.

I thought a logical way of proceeding with this would be to take the implementation report of the Strathcona Park Steering Committee and to go through some of the issues that they draw to the minister's attention.

In their summary of public comments they talk about the three "park study areas:" the Megin, Mount Matchlee and White Ridge areas. They say that immediate action is required on evaluation of these park study areas, and then in the recommendations they say that these should be the subject of separate evaluations by the Ministry of Parks — that is, separate from the master plan.

I wonder if the minister can give us his sense of direction on that issue. If these areas are not going to be part of the recommendations, they shouldn't be part of the master plan study.

My first question is: does the minister intend to follow that recommendation and conduct separate studies on these areas — separate from the master plan and separate in terms of each of the three areas?

HON. MR. MESSMER: On the White Ridge and Mount Matchlee study areas, I am told that the study should be completed in 1991. That is an in-house study with Forests. The Megin study area should start in 1991. Yes, that is outside of the master planning process that we described earlier.

MR. GABELMANN: The Matchlee and White Ridge studies will be completed by 1991. Are they underway now? And if so, what form is that study taking?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Yes, they are underway now, and they are scheduled to be completed by 1991. The Megin study will start in 1991 after these two are completed.

MR. GABELMANN: How are the studies being conducted? Don't give me names necessarily, but who is doing them? What is the public process and all of that?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'm told that they are in-house, meaning Parks and Forests in the preliminary work, and then we'll go public once that preliminary work has been established.

MR. GABELMANN: Does "going public" mean prior to the completion date of '91? The minister nods his head in the affirmative.

Has that public process been designed as yet? Is there any overall sense of how that will be conducted?

HON. MR. MESSMER: No, it hasn't been decided as yet, but I think it's very safe to say, especially in the case of Strathcona, that it will be a fair and open public process, certainly before any conclusions are arrived at. We all learn, as you said earlier.

[ Page 10487 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, we do all learn. I appreciate that and just confirm it by saying that a full and fair public process prior to the completion of those study areas is absolutely essential. I can sense from the smile on the minister's face that he understands that and clearly agrees.

The Megin is starting in '91? I understand you've got a limited staff and you're not going to be able to do all three with any proper process if you do them all at the same time. Given that Megin starts in '91, what kind of time-frame are you looking at there? Is that a one-year or a two-year process? Any idea yet? And what happens to that block of land? Is it frozen in the meantime, or what happens in terms of mineral claims that might be potential, and obviously the logging issues that occur in there?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Again, I'm told that it's part of the Clayoquot study that's going on right now. No, there are no restrictions at this time on that particular piece of property. Again, we're working with forestry on it, but the study should start in 1991.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure I got enough of an answer from that point. For argument's sake, let's say that the study wouldn't be completed until 1993. Is it possible that any alienation that could affect a decision that the study comes up with could occur in that study area between now and 1993? Or will the government put in place a policy that will preclude any further alienation in that area?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Parks will certainly be communicating with Forests and also with Mines on this particular subject. The Clayoquot Sound task force has been advised of our intentions on this.

[5:30]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I won't pursue it other than to alert us to the problems that could come from that if it isn't handled properly. The same too applies in the White Ridge and Matchlee area although, of course, the time limits are less there. I understand you have cooperation from CPFP at least in terms of their TFL and whatever.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll go on, but the minister may want to comment on that as well.

In the recommendations from the implementation committee, they suggested negotiations be reactivated with Mac-Blo to conclude an exchange that would eliminate the company's tenures that remain in the park boundaries. Is that underway now? What's the status? What's happening?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Yes, those negotiations are going on right now. As you are aware, there are 1,500 hectares controlled by MacMillan Bloedel in that area. The 10,000 hectares were set aside as exchange lands so that negotiations could commence and go on. As you are probably aware, when we made the statement we said that negotiations would start immediately. Those contacts have been made, and negotiations are proceeding.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to be clear on this. Maybe I should know, but you have to know a lot of things in this job, and sometimes I don't. The 10,000 hectares that the minister referred to that are being used for exchange lands: was that block of land previously within the park and now is not? Or is the land situated somewhere else?

HON. MR. MESSMER: The land was previously in the park. I believe it's referred to as the Ash area. It was recommended that it be taken out by Larkin in his recommendations.

MR. GABELMANN: To help people who don't know where the Ash area is, we're talking about the southeast corner of the park, that original triangular portion that was just a line on a map 77 or 78 years ago — whatever it might be. That's the extent of the 10,000 hectares.

Because the implementation committee members were not allowed to have much public discussion during their process — they largely kept their discussions to themselves — can the minister advise me on the southern boundary of Strathcona Park? Where there was a straight line, Larkin recommended a line that had the park coming down as far as Great Central Lake. It was sort of wavy along the bottom until it passed Bedwell and rejoined the original straight line. That was Larkin's recommendation. The legislation that we're debating — and the implementation report — recommended going back to the original straight line. I wonder if the minister can tell us why that decision was made.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, to start with the exchange lands, there was also a portion up in the northwest portion which is known as, I believe, the Heber valley, which is also part of it. That's just for clarification.

The other portion you're talking about that was not included in the new boundaries of Strathcona Park was in the southwest area. That was not included because of the heavy mineralization that was thought to be in that area. The decision was not to include this area within Strathcona Park. It's a very, very small area, but rather than having it included, they decided not to. I believe it's 760 hectares.

MR. GABELMANN: Larkin recommended, among other things in the southern boundary, that Great Central Lake be allowed to touch the park, as it were, so there would be access. I should leave this to the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), but I'll just go through it once, and he can come in after me.

Drinkwater Creek, which is an important element of the park, actually flows through this area the minister was just talking about. Was the heavy mineralization also a concern in the Drinkwater

[ Page 10488 ]

basin, and if not, was any consideration given to allowing that linkage with Great Central Lake?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any discussion that took place. I've just asked my deputy, and he's not aware of any discussion that took place on that specific piece of property you're referring to. However, having said that, I would be glad to get back to you at a later date with the information, if there's any available.

MR. GABELMANN: That's fine; I appreciate that. In fact, it would be really useful, in terms of this public process, if the minister could have his staff prepare a brief letter which would outline some of the rationale used by the committee in preparing Its implementation report, because there were variations — from Larkin, in particular. Larkin's was a more public process than the implementation report. So it would be useful to have some of the rationalizations —as much as that's possible to do — briefly spelled out in written form. I'd appreciate the minister's undertaking to do that.

I'd like to move counter-clockwise up towards the Forbidden Plateau area, Mount Washington and along that area. We're looking here at Fletcher Challenge's lands. We may as well go all the way up to Elk Mountain and include that whole side of the park, because Fletcher Challenge is involved here.

It's my understanding that the difficulty with Fletcher Challenge — and before that with BCFP, and part of it with the Crown forest and another part — was the inability to find exchange lands of equal value or of equal use in terms of the logs that might be available. There is obviously a strategy in terms of exchange lands that suit the southern boundary. You have the Ranald Creek and the Mount Heber exchange lands. Is the minister satisfied that all of the concerns identified by the implementation report, including Elk Mountain, Mount Flannigan, Mount Adrian, Willemar and Forbush Lakes and Paradise Meadows...? With all those lands, do you have enough exchange land to begin this negotiation in a serious way?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure we do have enough, and I'm sure our staff don't know if we have enough. We're fairly confident, though, that there's going to be considerable more value in exchange lands than will be required to compensate MacMillan Bloedel for its tenures. We do know we will have a surplus, and that will be part of the negotiations with Fletcher Challenge on the eastern boundary. As you know, that is part of the request of the committee that will be dealing with the exchange lands on our behalf.

MR. GABELMANN: Maybe I didn't hear properly The last few words were that on your behalf, the committee will be....

HON. MR. MESSMER: The staff.

MR. GABELMANN: The staff will be dealing with it, because the committee is defunct now. Okay, I may have misunderstood that. So your staff will be in discussion with the companies and, of course, the Forest Service in terms of identifying.... Right.

Would it be fair to assume that the only real trade possibility for Fletcher Challenge is the Ranald Creek area? Given their centres of operation and where they operate essentially, are there any other reasonable areas that you have open? I'm treading carefully here, because obviously you're going to be in negotiations, and I don't want to get into discussions that may prejudice any of that. I'm just curious. I fear that we are not going to be able to properly complete this process, for lack of adequate exchange land, so I'm just trying to sort out whether the Fletcher Challenge discussions are limited to the Ranald Creek area.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Island has certainly made a very good point; there's no doubt about that. I guess what I can say on behalf of the ministry is that we are now appraising the values of the property we're looking at. I suppose it's also fair to say that if we feel that those lands are important to add to it, there may have to be something added to the value of exchange lands already here. We will have to face that issue. But it's a very good point.

MR. GABELMANN: The toughest question that the implementation committee faced, I suspect, was the question of priorities. They faced it by agreeing not to prioritize, as I understand what they did; that is, in terms of what's more important: is Elk Mountain more important than Mount Adrian or Mount Flannigan or Paradise Meadows or the lakes? What process is going to be used to make a determination as to whether Elk Mountain, for example, which is so important to Strathcona Park Lodge, would be a higher priority than the others? How are those decisions going to be grappled with?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I guess the process that correctly answers this is one that I think you and I agree on; that is, the master planning process. While the negotiations are going on, I think you'll see the master planning process going on at the same time for Strathcona Park. That in itself should be a public process that avails us of what the thoughts are within the large community of those people who are interested.

I believe, and I'm told, if you talk about Elk Mountain, that that particular piece was never originally considered to be a high priority, I suppose you would say, in the same avenues as the rest.

It will be necessary, again, for us as a ministry to listen to the public through the master planning process.

MR. GABELMANN: I've just learned something. I had understood, perhaps incorrectly, from what I thought I was being told by Parks staff, that the master plan would be a public process and all of that,

[ Page 10489 ]

but it would be limited to those areas within the park. I just need to clarify that, first of all.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I suppose that's partially correct. In other words, those are the areas we are looking into, and that is Strathcona Park as a park. But at the same time, these other areas will certainly be discussed at the master planning process. That is information that's always taken with great interest at all master planning processes. There cannot be strictly a fine line on a boundary as there can be in some other cases.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't expect other members of the House to be particularly interested in this discussion, but I hope members will bear with me; we won't take forever. You can understand that this has been a very important issue In our part of the province, so we will probably take until 6 o'clock on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: I second closure.

MR. GABELMANN: I should hope not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fortunately, the Chair didn't hear the member.

MR. GABELMANN: The public process, which is good, for developing a master plan is going to take some time. There are some very difficult and complicated issues. But in the meantime, the logging company and the people who depend upon the fibre in those areas are going to be getting pretty antsy about it.

BCFP — and now Fletcher Challenge — have been very good about holding back on their logging plans on Elk Mountain. After a number of requests from many of us, they have said: "Okay. We'll wait one more year before we proceed." That's not going to last too much longer. Elk Mountain, I recognize, was not identified as a high priority by Larkin. There was no expression of priority in the Implementation recommendations — in terms of the public stuff, anyway.

But you need to understand that.... I don't mean that disparagingly. All of us need to understand that Elk Mountain is the focal entry point for Strathcona Park on the main highway access to the park. When you drive along Upper Campbell Lake and past Strathcona Park Lodge — entering the park — your windshield in your car is filled primarily with Elk Mountain. That is going to be logged.

People who go to that area — whether they go to Strathcona Park Lodge to participate in the activities of the education centre there, or if they are going to Buttle Lake — assume that Elk Mountain is in the park. If it gets logged, it will clearly not be much of an entrance to the park. I think it's a high priority from two important perspectives. I want to argue — even though I know some of the staff in the ministry don't agree with me — that it's a high priority for two reasons.

[5:45]

Firstly, it is the entry point — visually — to the park for many of the park users. Secondly, it is important to a very successful small business — Strathcona Park Lodge — which sits on the lake and looks out over the lake to Elk Mountain itself. If that mountain is — God forbid — clearcut, that will be a very poor advertisement for this province and for the business of that resort, which provides a great service to tourists, to British Columbians and to our community.

I appeal to the minister to pay particular attention to that concern. I recognize that the implementation committee report recommends that perhaps some selective logging can take place on that mountain. Perhaps it can; some of the loggers tell me they can do it — technically. So that may well be an option, but I hope it's the second option. I hope more attention is given to attempting to make a trade with Fletcher Challenge on that particular property.

There are a whole bunch of other issues, but I'm conscious of not taking too much time with this and I appreciate the minister's approach to this.

I need to spend a few minutes on the mine. There is no mining in provincial parks, but that's not true. We have a mine here in the middle of this provincial park, this provincial class A park, even though there's a line drawn around the mining property. The Westmin Resources mine has expanded underground. The new ore body that they opened a few years ago has been accessed underground from the original site, essentially. The boundary lines for their operation are on the surface of the ground, obviously. How deep into the ground do these boundary lines go? I think the minister knows what I'm asking when I ask that.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I asked the same question, and the answer that I received was that they cannot exceed the boundaries of the park in depth. In other words, simply because you're underneath the ground doesn't mean you can go into the Cream Silver property, if that's what you're referring to and leading that way. So I asked the question. I don't have a document to back that up as proof; I simply requested the information and that's the answer I got.

MR. GABELMANN: Is the minister satisfied that there is in fact legal surety on that point? If the mine were to extend — I guess they call them drift tunnels; I don't know the jargon — and go beyond, what legal authority would the ministry have or would we all have?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I don't have that, but I would be pleased to get a legal opinion for you and send it back for your information. As I said, that was given to me verbally, and probably we should have it on file anyway.

MR. GABELMANN: On that point — and I appreciate that, too — if the legal opinion suggests that you don't have legal surety now or that there is some doubt about it, may I also request that there be some legislative initiative taken to ensure that kind of legal

[ Page 10490 ]

surety. I'll just make that statement and trust that it will come.

Let's deal, first of all, with getting the opinion and see where we go from there. Does that same prohibition that appears to be in place apply to ventilation shafts?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'd have to get back to you on that one. It's a little beyond my technical ability to know whether or not that is the same — if you are referring to the noisy ones that are at Westmin; I'm not sure that you are. I can tell you the work they are now doing to reduce the noise was contracted out to a rather large company. Unfortunately, it didn't work, the noise was still there. They have gone back to ensure environmental standards and make sure the noise that comes out of this particular machine they had installed is corrected.

I can assure you that we've had dialogue with them. I honestly believe they are trying to cut down as much of the noise as they can through the ventilation. However, that doesn't answer your first question. I'd have to get back to you on that.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister answered my next question, which I hadn't asked yet. I'll just lay out my concern with the other question. It may well be that if the mine comes right up to the boundary underground, they may need to have ventilation shafts that go into the park itself. I trust and hope — I more than hope — that there is no way they can extend those ventilation shafts into the park area. By that I don't just mean the physical location of the hole in the ground where the air goes through but also the noise. The noise pollution is worse than the actual hole In the ground where you'd have your ventilation shaft. If you hike four or five hours past that ventilation shaft, you still hear the noise pollution in that park. The minister knows that. The previous ministers were trying to deal with this. I really urge that they get on with it. We'll leave that at that point and have it noted.

I have two other issues — very quickly, so the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) can get some time at this. The rent or the lease fee or whatever Hydro pays for its lines through the park — and Highways don't pay for their highway through the park — is an issue. I wonder why Hydro gets such a cheap price for its line through that park. If that was a piece of private property and Hydro had put a line through like that, they would have to pay a heck of a lot more for that right-of-way than they do for the park right-of-way. It seems to me the principle should be the same, that they should be paying the same rate they would pay if that was private property.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I think it was a point that was made by Larkin. There is correspondence on it at the present time. It's certainly something that we're looking into. There's no doubt that the system in this case is not perfect, and is one that we are and will be dealing with.

MR. GABELMANN: The final point for now is the level of Buttle Lake, which obviously fluctuates dramatically as a result of the three dams downstream: John Hart, Strathcona and Ladore. Is the question of the relative stability of that water level part of the master plan process, or are there separate discussions going on between the ministry and Hydro? How is that issue being addressed?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'm told that staff are meeting with Hydro at the present time, but that it's also part of the master planning process — that ongoing process that takes place.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. Three years ago at our first session, the then Minister of Parks assured me that we would have Newgate Park named as a class A park. I searched the schedule and found no reference to Newgate Park. The fact of the matter is that in that area, surveys have indicated that the people there do not want a — what shall I say — highly controlled park. Mr. Minister, I know you've seen the area. What I'm concerned about is that the park be at least named so we know the boundaries and so it is established right in the legislation that Newgate Park exists. I know the minister has been doing some negotiating. I know that sometimes he may tell me it's just going to make negotiations harder with B.C. Hydro, which has done some work there and has perhaps promised to do some more. But I question the minister as to why there is no designation of boundaries for Newgate Park.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'm not sure that that really affects this bill; nevertheless I'll answer it.

You're right, I was up there last week to take a look at it. I believe it's a reserve rather than a park. We also have a B.C. park on the same property, or close to it, and private enterprise operates a campground in the same area.

I believe the proposal in Newgate — you can correct me if I'm wrong — was really for a boat launching site, along with cooperation from Hydro. We've looked at it. My staff tell me that we've talked to them just recently. I'm not sure it is a top priority at the present time.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to remind the minister that the previous minister said he would designate it as a class A park three years ago. To be very crass and point out what happened, it was after that that B.C. Hydro said it might be interested. Immediately the parks branch, which is always strapped for funds, Mr. Minister.... I don't want to talk about that here, because what we're talking about is boundaries. I'm talking about a promise that there would be a class A park, and I want to know why that class A park's boundaries have not been designated in this bill.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, even if it was a class A park, there would have to be a master planning process before it got into this bill that we're

[ Page 10491 ]

discussing today. First, it would have to be made a park; secondly, it would have to go through the master planning process; and then hopefully it would be added to the schedules that we're talking about today. I think it's best that we answer that question in the estimates, with your approval.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have to congratulate the minister for putting together this report, and also those people who took part in the Strathcona Park Advisory Committee.

I have a number of areas of concern, particularly in the lower area that affects my riding. As the minister is aware, the Clayoquot Sound task force is studying the area around the southern and western portions of Strathcona Park, and that area is now under a moratorium and will be until about the fall of this year. So those areas won't be affected by the park boundaries proposed in the bill.

However, a number of areas that are of concern are those that are under further study, particularly the lower Bedwell-Ursus area, which contains some six million cubic metres of wood, and the Megin area, which has some 12.5 million cubic metres of timber in It. Various other areas in tree-farm licence 44 are presently tied up in moratoriums; that, of course, is of great concern to a community that relies for 85 percent of its economic activity on the forest use. I wonder if the minister would have some idea as to when we could have a result on the areas under study, so that the process of planning for keeping those mills and those workers going.... MacMillan Bloedel, which operates in the area, of course, is interested because they are planning on making some major investments both in retooling and in the environmental field, and they don't want to make those investments if they are not going to have access to that timber supply area.

[6:00]

HON. MR. MESSMER: What we have been saying is that there is a fine line between the environment and the economy. Certainly the study that is continuing in the Megin study area really dictates that same philosophy.

You weren't in the House a little bit earlier, but I answered a question on the White Ridge study area , which will be finished in the year 1991 — and the same for Mount Matchlee.

The Megin study area that you are referring to specifically will be started in 1991, so it will probably take a little bit longer than the first two. But I want to thank you for those comments. Certainly we all have to exist, and it's the purpose of the study to be able to talk to people within the field.

I would also like to note at this time a slight error that was picked out by the member for Alberni, which is that tree-farm licences 21 and 20 — I think it shows as 21 in the legislation — have been combined together and are no longer 21 and 20; they are now 44. So I thank you for that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: If the minister can supply it, would really like a timetable as to when the Megin and Ursus-Bedwell studies will be complete, because it is critical to the planning that's taking place in the Alberni area now. We have closures planned for the plywood mill, a mill at Somass and one of the kraft mills at the pulp mill. So it becomes very critical to us to find out exactly when those decisions will be made.

HON. MR MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I would simply be repeating myself on the subject. I've already repeated it earlier, and I'm sure that the member for North Island who spoke on it may have some different viewpoints on the same situation. However, having said that, I think the explanation is there.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The parts of the Ash River area that were removed from the park and logged are now proposed to be put back in; that's good to see. However, since the logging that took place there, no reforestation has taken place. Is the Parks ministry going to wait for natural regeneration to take place? Or once this is included in the park, are we going to send crews in to reforest the area so that it — as they say — "greens up" quicker?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I'm sorry. Is the area that you're referring to within the park? If it's outside the park, of course, the Ministry of Forests looks after it. It's going back in?

MR. GABELMANN: It's going back in.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, I am told that we continually work with the Ministry of Forests on these subjects.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Come on, I want to get out of here. Are you going to reforest them or aren't you? Or are you going to wait for natural regeneration to take place?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the analogy to this is the Hope-Princeton. Remember the fire in 1948 or 1949 on the Hope-Princeton? We went 25 years before that greened up. The comparable situation here that we're talking about is within a park. In this case it wasn't a fire; it was logged. Are there going to be some human activities to green it up, or are we going to wait for nature like we did on the Hope-Princeton?

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Chairman, to answer the question, we would have to review the area to determine the type of zoning we would want within the area, depending upon whether it was reforestation for recreation or it should be left as it is today. Because after all, there are certain areas within the wilderness parks where we believe that if it's burned out, it should stay as is. So each one is completely different. Certainly we'd be glad to take a look at this and give you a decision.

[ Page 10492 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister, and I hope that he does in fact go and look at the area. I've hiked extensively in the park, and I hope that regeneration takes place. In the future I hope that it becomes part of the master plan, when these issues are brought forward, so that we don't end up with areas being removed from the park, logged off and put back in and left that way for generations.

On the human activity within the park, there are a number of areas where there has been mining activity. I have letters here from my constituents complaining about the equipment and the mess that was left behind, and I just wondered if you're going to go back, now that we've included these areas in the park, and remove the equipment that was left behind — the cables, the equipment, the tarps, the plastic — and clean up those areas.

HON. MR. MESSMER: As you know, when it comes to parks, certainly we'll be going in there and cleaning it up so that it's attractive for the visitors to British Columbia. We feel that we have the nicest parks in all of Canada, so we wouldn't be leaving things lying around for a long time. I suppose there are certain financial restraints within every ministry, and certainly we have them within Parks — and priorities as to what we should be doing. But if it's unsightly and if it's at all possible for us to go in, we'll be doing that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for that. I have one more question on the mining issue. There are mining claims in the park, and I just wondered if there was a plan in place to work out the compensation for those claims and what that process was. And will the mines be paying for the cleanup? Or in this case, will Parks be paying for that cleanup?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I think it's a combination of the companies and the government — some of the companies and some of the government individuals that are In there. Yes, there are claims within Strathcona Park — if that's the one you're referring to. Negotiations are going on with the holders of those claims. That is done by us through the Attorney-General's department. We, of course, use for assistance the experts within Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and if necessary we bring in outside consultants. But it's an ongoing process to be able to obtain those claims back for British Columbia.

MR. PERRY: I have a very brief point, which may seem like a technical one. But it's a rather important one about the boundaries of E.C. Manning Park. I'm afraid I rushed in. I didn't realize we were doing the bill this afternoon, and I couldn't bring my map and file with me. There is a place known as the "Hole in the Doughnut" near the western border of Manning Park, which is Skagit provincial forest. It's described as the Hole in the Doughnut in the vernacular, because it's left out of conservation status, surrounded by Manning Park on the east and north in that small tongue of the park that goes to the west, and by the Skagit Valley recreation area to the south.

I think it's a historical accident that the "Hole in the Doughnut" is left there in the Skagit provincial forest, but it's because that area faces the southern transprovincial highway near Rhododendron Flats, where the highway turns north from the Sumallo River and starts to run steeply uphill. Any logging in that area would have dramatic implications for Manning Provincial Park, the Skagit Valley recreation area and the Skagit River, an international river in which the International Joint Commission holds a substantial interest, as does the United States National Park Service. I wonder if the minister can explain whether any consideration was given in the drafting of these boundaries to including the Hole in the Doughnut within either Manning Park or the Skagit Valley recreation area.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I will certainly take notice of your remarks. I'm told that it's not in the park; consequently it's not in this legislation. However, I can assure you that we'll take a look at it.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MESSMER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

Bill 25, Park Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Park Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.