[ Page 1885 ]
Routine Proceedings
Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Dueck
Introduction and first reading –– 1885
Private Members' Statements
Drinking drivers. Mr. Messmer –– 1885
Mr. Sihota
Hon. B.R. Smith
Fair election practices. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1887
Hon. B.R. Smith
Freshwater fish hatcheries. Mr. Peterson –– 1889
Mr. G. Hanson
Hon. Mr. Strachan
Changes in Canada Patent Act. MR. Cashore –– 1890
Hon. Mr. Dueck
Vancouver Museum Foundation Act (Bill PR405). Second reading
Mr. Mowat –– 1892
Mr. Lovick –– 1893
Mr. Mowat –– 1893
Vancouver Museum Foundation Act (Bill PR405). Committee stage. (Mr. Mowat) –– 1893
Third reading
An Act To Incorporate Mission Foundation (Bill PR404). Second reading
Mr. Jacobsen –– 1893
Mr. Rose –– 1893
Mr. Jacobsen –– 1893
An Act To Incorporate Mission Foundation (Bill PR404). Committee stage.
(Mr. Jacobsen) –– 1893
Third reading
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)
On vote 29: minister's office –– 1894
Hon. Mr. Strachan
Ms. Smallwood
Mr. Hewitt
Mr. S.D. Smith
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Williams
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
Prayers.
MR. DE JONG: Seated up in the members' gallery is our youngest daughter, Valerie. I'd like to ask the House to welcome her this morning.
MR. RABBITT: On behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), I am pleased to introduce today seven members from a grade 7 class from Chilliwack Christian School, accompanied by Miss Winnie Langelaar and Miss Lorraine Dykshoorn.
HON. MR. MICHAEL: I rise to make an apology to the House. Late yesterday just at adjournment, I introduced a bill. I had been briefed for the past two days on the Motor Carrier Act, and in entering the House at about seven minutes to six, I was handed a bill to introduce to the House and it was the Motor Vehicle Act, not the Motor Carrier Act. I apologize to the House that in my short summary I gave the summary covering the Motor Carrier Act, not the Motor Vehicle Act, and I sincerely apologize.
Introduction of Bills
VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. DUECK: There are several changes — some administrative, some of a housekeeping nature — but I will refer to some of them. One amendment that's being sought has been requested by a number of people, and I'm referring to the choice of a child's surname.
Another section will deal with the provisions which adopt the Uniform Law Conference of Canada approach to the reporting of the registering of births. This approach allows parents to choose any surname, including a hyphenated or combined surname. This will be retroactive to April 17, 1982, which marks the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Another amendment which would make changes to section 9 of the act involves birth registration of adopted persons. This amendment does not prevent the establishment of a passive adoption agency or registry.
Currently, a medical certificate setting out the actual cause of death must be completed before the burial permit is issued. There'll be some changes to that section. We will go into more detail as we move along.
I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't yet arrived, and was making comments on the very topic that the minister got up and apologized for. I said that it was probably not a great conspiracy to mislead the House, but....
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt. The bill has not been placed on the orders of the day for second reading.
Bill 27 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. ROSE: I'm sorry I jumped the gun. I didn't think I was allowed to speak on a bill that was being introduced, in any event. So it's an example of a triple error all around. I made one; the Chair might have made one — Your Honour, Your Excellency, Your Majesty, and any other grovelling words you might want from me.
I wanted to say that I didn't think the fact that the minister introduced one bill and gave his notes on another was any great conspiracy to mislead the House. It might just have been sloppy work, and we all do that. I think I did it just recently as well. But I am glad that he did apologize and has cleared the matter up. To follow the traditions and rules of the House regarding the House hearing something that is related to the measure, or the House hearing something before the press does is, I think, a very important tradition, and we should be loyal to it.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Statements
DRINKING DRIVERS
MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to be able to give my private member's statement on drinking drivers. Although most people are not aware of it, drinking and driving, or driving while impaired, is the single most serious and costly criminal activity in British Columbia. If you think this is an exaggeration, consider the following: in an average year in British Columbia, about 110 people are murdered, but about 250 people are killed in drinking-driving accidents. Further, in an average year there are about 450 woundings, yet about 7,200 people are injured in drinking-driving accidents.
The impact of this crime on the justice system is staggering. Roughly 22,000 persons are charged under the Criminal Code every year in British Columbia, at a cost of at least $22 million. These charges make up a third of all the Criminal Code cases before the courts. The impact of this crime on our society is almost unfathomable in terms of the agony and the suffering it causes the victims and their families. It is estimated, based on current trends, that one out of every 20 children presently in grade 3 will be killed or injured in a drunk-driving accident during the next ten years. Let me repeat that in another way: 5 percent of today's ten-year-olds will be victims within the next decade.
A final point, for those of you who think in terms of dollars and cents, is that these accidents, injuries and deaths cost the taxpayers $130 million in an average year. Unfortunately, driving while impaired is a crime that is at least in part condoned by our society. A large percentage of our community, including myself, has at one time or another taken the gamble and driven their vehicles after they have consumed alcohol. We don't consider our families or close
[ Page 1886 ]
friends to be criminals when they leave a party or an outdoor barbecue to drive home after they've had a couple of drinks, yet it is frequently these very people who are causing the havoc on our highways or our neighbourhood streets. It is outright mayhem out there at times. Very often the people who are committing this crime get off with a slap on the wrist or no penalty at all.
Some drinking drivers are getting away with murder in their cars, and we all know it. The time has come to put a stop to it. Take the driver in the town of Oliver, who, during a two-month period in 1985, was involved in two accidents. In both cases a passenger was unfortunately killed. In both cases he was charged with impaired driving — driving with a blood alcohol content over .08 — and with criminal negligence. In both cases he was acquitted. The Crown is appealing one of those decisions, and I welcome that response. The question is, would the second accident have happened if we were able to curtail the hours of driving from the time of the first accident until the trial was completed?
Take the drunken driver who killed two teenagers in North Vancouver. He was handed a one-year sentence and a suspension of his licence for three years. This is generally considered a stiff penalty. Yet I believe it really is not appropriate for the unnecessary killing of two innocent people. Typically, this driver will only serve four months of his sentence.
[10:15]
In my constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, Oliver — the town the fellow I described earlier came from — had the highest percentage of alcohol-related car accidents in 1986: some 29.5 percent. This is well above the 1986 provincial average of 13 percent. Also in 1986, the total number of people injured in car accidents in Oliver was 61, of whom 22 were injured because of drinking drivers. In other words, 36 percent of those injured were injured in alcohol-related accidents. Again, this is well over the provincial average of 14 percent. Three people were killed in Oliver in car accidents in 1986, all owing to impaired drivers –– 100 percent. The provincial average is 35 percent. With court decisions such as we've been getting, this shouldn't really come as a surprise.
Of course, things are improving on the provincewide scale. British Columbians are slowly learning. The last Christmas holidays were marked by an amazing event which passed with surprisingly little comment: the number of people charged with drunken driving dropped by about one third. That period also equalled the lowest level of alcohol-related casualty accidents for any period on record in British Columbia. I believe the main reason for this, Mr. Speaker, was the highly successful Counterattack program run under the auspices of the Ministry of Attorney-General. This year is the program's tenth anniversary. It has had a remarkable effect on the number of deaths and injuries due to drunken driving, as well as the attitudes that we have towards driving while impaired.
Since Counterattack began, it is estimated that the injury and death rate in British Columbia has been reduced by about 10 percent per year, mainly because of the media campaign and the roadblock blitzes. Counterattack is a sort of self-defense program that protects society from itself. It is a crime prevention program aimed directly at reducing drinking-driving and the accidents associated with it. It works on a fairly simple premise. When people expect to get arrested and charged by the police on the way home if they've been drinking, they clean up their act. When they figure they can get away with driving while impaired, which is basically any time outside of Christmas and the spring period when Counterattack has its roadblocks out, they just don't worry, and the courts haven't been giving them any reason to worry.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired. If you can wrap it up in half a minute or so....
MR. MESSMER: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the roadblock system should come into force, and we should have this opportunity.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General responds.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm quite happy to wait until the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew speaks, and I'll respond after that.
MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand the procedure, Mr. Speaker; I thought we get to respond next.
I want to thank the member for his thoughtful words. I think everyone in this House is concerned about the level of impairment on the roads, and certainly concerned about drinking and driving.
I want to make a couple of comments in light of the comments made by the previous member. There is no doubt in my mind that the laws in this country as provided under the Criminal Code are relatively strong, and in my view, and certainly in my experience as a lawyer, they do a relatively good job in terms of making sure that people who are on the road who have been charged with these offences are indeed convicted of them.
I guess there's one thing that I want to comment on in particular, which is to come a little to the defence of the judiciary. In my five or six years of experience on these types of matters of criminal law, it's been my experience that the courts have been relatively good in terms of handing out sentences. They have been relatively conscious of public perceptions along the lines that the member raised a minute ago, and accordingly have handed out what I would think would be reasonable, and in some cases what I would consider to be excessive, sentences. Only on occasion have I read about, and only on I think two occasions in my career have I been involved in, situations where I thought the courts were excessively lenient in dealing with drunken driving. It's unfortunate that we tend to hear more about the cases of leniency or questionable leniency in these types of matters, and often do not hear about the situations where I think the courts have been quite fair in handing out sentences and bringing about prohibitions in terms of suspensions of driving privileges. I suspect that that will continue to happen. I think there is a pendulum in the courts that's swinging toward being far firmer on impaired situations than I think the public often understands.
One of the things you have to do if you want to reduce the level of impairment on the roads is limit the amount of accessibility to alcohol. One of the things that concerns me today in this province is a move towards expansion of the availability of alcohol.
At a recent hearing in Prince George, a submission was made by one of the leading gas stations in the community, I believe one that is open for 24 hours, saying they would like to sell alcohol in their convenience store. We're beginning to
[ Page 1887 ]
talk about the availability of beer and wine in corner grocery stores. We're beginning to see the relaxation of opening hours; these shops are open 24 hours in many cases. That, in my mind, speaks against allowing that type of access to liquor, and I would hope that the government, as a part of the broad Counterattack approach, will see fit not to expand availability of alcohol in corner stores and gas stations — where, as someone said, they can get their gas and also get gassed up. I don't think we want to see a movement in this society towards that situation.
There are other situations with alcohol that I think ought to be commented on quickly. They relate, first of all, to health, and the tremendous demands placed on the Ministry of Health because of alcohol abuse in this society. It was interesting to note that the previous member did not mention that, although I suspect that he would agree with my comments.
I made an arrangement with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) for him to make a couple of comments on this, because I know he feels strongly about it. I'll cease now. Perhaps he could have the opportunity to continue.
HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm grateful to the members for Boundary–Similkameen and for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for their very constructive comments on a subject on which I think there is wide bipartisan feeling in this place. It is terribly vital and something that we strive to improve on. We can never do enough to deter the drinking driver.
I must say that the case the member for Boundary–Similkameen brought to the attention of the House is the case of Pinske. Pinske was acquitted of drinking-driving charges and also of a charge of criminal negligence causing death. We have launched an appeal, Mr. Speaker. On May 13 we filed an appeal to the court of appeal asking for a new trial on the acquittal for criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving. That case is still alive, and therefore I will not comment on it. We did not appeal the drinking-driving acquittals, only because we had very clear legal advice that there was no ground of appeal. The trial was held before a jury, and therefore the Crown's right to appeal is limited to an error in law alone, and really limited to an error in the charge. You cannot appeal, even if you're the Crown, from a verdict which is wrong or perverse, or which a reasonable group of jurors ought not to bring in. But we have appealed on the only ground open to us, and that relates to the criminal negligence charge.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Attorney, but our time under standing orders for the response has expired.
HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I haven't responded at all, really. May I have leave to go longer? [Laughter.]
MR. MESSMER: Thank you for the kind words from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and from our Attorney-General. It's nice to hear these professional people responding to the liquor act.
As a non-legal person, I believe that we somehow have to strengthen the laws on drinking-driving. We have to ensure that these laws are properly enforced and that the courts fulfil the responsibility with which they have been entrusted; in other words, the delivery of justice, not simply the technical interpretation of the law, which has no relation to the intended spirit of the legislation. I think that's what most people feel in British Columbia.
I'm also pleased that there's been a new federal program announced that is coming out with $19.5 million toward this fund.
FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES
MR. G. HANSON: I wish there was as wide bipartisan feeling towards the establishment of fair election practices in this province as was indicated in the previous statement with respect to drinking and driving. As all members know, we have inherited a legacy in this province of distortion of the electoral map. I'd like to start my statement by reading from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, section 3: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."
The right to vote is now a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed in the constitution of Canada. So, too, is the right to be treated equally before and under the law, pursuant to subsection 15(l) of the Charter, which says as follows: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
In our submission, the combination of these two constitutional provisions gives each adult citizen of Canada resident in British Columbia the right to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the right to an equal vote in deciding who should form the government of the province. It may well be that underrepresentation of some areas and the corresponding overrepresentation of others is caught by these provisions and is unconstitutional. That argument has yet to be tested in the courts of Canada, although a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a quote from Chief Justice Warren in the United States in 1964. He says: "The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
My point in quoting from those sections is that what we have in the province of British Columbia on June 19, 1987, is what appears to be a missed opportunity by the newly elected government sitting opposite. As I said earlier, we have a legacy of political distortion in the map that presently forms the basis upon which we come to this assembly. It is so distorted that the B.C. Civil Liberties case with respect to the dual-member ridings is being taken before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let me give you some examples of what will occur in the event that the newly established commission — which, I might add, was established without consultation from this side of the House — which really should have been replaced by an independent electoral commission answerable to all members of this House.... That would be the more appropriate structure that should have been established. Instead, to address a particular anomalous situation of dual-member ridings.... Prince Edward Island is the only other
[ Page 1888 ]
province in Canada that has dual-member ridings. In that small province, every member of the Legislature is within a couple of hours drive of his or her residence.
A province of this size — three-quarters of a million square miles.... Let me just give you an example of what will occur if the commissioner simply divides the dual member ridings presently in place. There are 17 dual-member ridings in the province of British Columbia, and the terms of reference indicate some impact on the contiguous ridings. Let me point out that it is clear from the examination of the population returns from the 1986 census that the division of the 17 double-member ridings in the province within the present boundaries would merely continue the present inequities. It would create many new constituencies that are well below the provincial average in population.
If, for example, Cariboo, which is presently a two-member riding, were made into two equally populated constituencies, each Cariboo MLA would represent 31,253 people, while the neighbouring MLA in Prince George South would represent 49,950, a difference of some 18,000 individuals. Let's take the example of Langley. A similar division would mean two Langley constituencies would each have 35,229 people, compared to the three seats in neighbouring Surrey with 68,347, 61,000 and 66,000 respectively.
[10:30]
What we are trying to point out to this House is that the presently mandated commission will simply aggravate and exacerbate the political distortions that presently exist. We are hoping, in our submission to Judge Fisher, that he will see his mandate in as broad terms as possible to try to take into account the inequities that we see we are in due course to receive.
Upon hearing about the establishment of the commission in the throne speech, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and myself as the debate leader for our side of the House visited the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) to ascertain what the terms of reference would be for Chief Justice Fisher. We put forward suggestions that, within the narrow mandate given Mr. Fisher, perhaps would enable some remedial action to be taken that would expand those terms of reference. For example, let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, and I know this is a great deal of information to try and handle in just a few minutes, but....
In my concluding remarks I will indicate how the matter should have been dealt with.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't want any time taken away from the next speaker, but I feel compelled to bring to the attention of members standing order 25A which deals with private members' statements. It has been very difficult to adjudicate that which has been said, but there is one particular portion which states what the statements shall consist of. As you all recall, hon. members, this was an amendment to the standing orders which came out of committee on which there were members from both sides. So just let me read this to you. It says: "Statements and discussions under this standing order. . .shall not anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for consideration by the House, in respect to which a notice of motion has been previously given and not withdrawn." I just bring that to everyone's attention. Now if we can have the....
MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that standing order and I would just like to advise the Chair that I am cognizant of the fact that there is a Bill 28 that is before the House. But my remarks are not directed to Bill 28 but simply to the principles of fair election practices and the commission that has been established by the Provincial Secretary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is another order that relates to matters which are under consideration by a royal commission. It doesn't state that debates on those matters will be disallowed, but it does state that they will be very limited in that respect.
So having said that and not wanting to take from the time of whoever is going to respond to this, the Chair will recognize the Attorney-General.
HON. B.R. SMITH: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) would have said that he would thank you for the interesting comments that were made. In the fullness of time these matters will be addressed by the electoral boundaries commissioner, but you have raised some matters dealing with the Charter of Rights, and if your arguments were to prevail before the courts, then presumably the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), for one, would be very disappointed because his riding would disappear. Many ridings across the country provincially and federally would no doubt disappear. Probably the province of Prince Edward Island would no longer have a rationale.
We have historic differences in representation in this province and in this country, and I hope that those who interpret our Charter of Rights will not slavishly follow American decisions or try to transform our constitution into the American constitution. I don't think it was the intention of the drafters of the accord in 1981 that we would end up with some kind of equal rights amendment that would mean that one vote here is worth one vote everywhere else, or that we were a country or a province in which rep by pop was entrenched in the lower House as part of the constitution.
We are a country which takes into account historic differences, geographical isolation, the tremendous resources of the province of British Columbia in remote areas and how the people in those areas have to be reflected in their representation, not just on a one-man-one-vote basis, but on the basis of their differences, their history and their resources. We have never had a homogenized approach, a rep by pop, a slavish doctrinaire approach to representation like the members opposite bring to bear in this House. So I am absolutely delighted that we don't have, and I hope that the courts will not decide in their wisdom that they are going to rewrite history and the electoral map of this country in the interests of doctrinaire arguments like we heard opposite.
MR. G. HANSON: Well, it remains to be seen by the Supreme Court of Canada, because the fact is that section 1 of the Charter of Rights does not allow a variation in population to be unjustifiable and arbitrary and certainly of the type that we have a long history of in this province — of having our voting rights, our right to enfranchisement, distorted by political interference.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue by saying that when the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I were made aware of the terms of reference of the commissioner, we visited the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and asked that the following be done. I'm sure that all members of the House will see that this would certainly
[ Page 1889 ]
enhance the process and make it more fair than it presently appears to be.
We asked that the commissioner hold a series of hearings throughout the province; that upon conclusion of those hearings, an interim report be submitted to the Legislature, and then to an all-party committee of this House; that the interim report be reviewed by the all-party committee of this House with the understanding that the committee may order a further follow-up hearing by the commissioner; that a final report be submitted to the same all-party committee of the Legislature; that in order to ensure integrity and full confidence in that report, it receive the unanimous consent of that committee; and that upon unanimous approval of the committee, the report be referred to the House and implemented in the Legislature. Those simple provisions would make the members of this House equal partners in the development of the rules of the game so that we did not have the political distortion that we have inherited as a legacy in this province.
Mr. Speaker, I have a bill that I'm going to be presenting in this House that would provide for an independent electoral commission, separate from party politics, to serve the public and ensure maximum enfranchisement. There would be a full enumeration from the time the writ is dropped.
Recently, the chief electoral officer, who under our provisions would be appointed by an all-party committee of the Legislature in the same way that the ombudsman and the auditor-general are, to serve the public and to serve this House, indicated that to do a full enumeration would take nine weeks. Nine weeks is beyond the duration of the national elections of Canada. It's simply ludicrous to propose that it would take nine weeks to do an enumeration in the province of British Columbia so that everyone who is eligible to exercise the franchise could be on the voters' list.
We want to see 18-year-olds have the vote, as they have in every other province in Canada. They can vote federally, but they can't vote for their own provincial legislators. We want to see a number of other fine-tuning provisions that are in the bill.
I see my time is just about up. I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. I know I sound a bit like a stuck record on this subject, but I can't imagine anything more fundamental and basic than the rules of the democratic game to make sure that the people of the province have the opportunity to elect the government of their choice.
FRESHWATER FISH HATCHERIES
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to address the subject of freshwater fish hatcheries in British Columbia, and perhaps suggest more involvement from the private sector in the production of fish for freshwater sport fishing.
In Langley we probably have six or seven private commercial fish farms. In B.C., I believe we have somewhere around 173 fish farms. At this point, the commercial freshwater fish farms and the provincial government hatcheries have no direct connection.
Perhaps I could give you just a little bit of background information. Sport fishing in British Columbia, beside being an industry — if I can call it an industry — has a lot of excitement to it. I'm somewhat of an ardent fisherman myself. When you set that fly out onto a river or some water, and that fish rises and you set that hook, with your light tackle and the excitement of the battle with the fish.... It's something I've enjoyed doing for many, many years; it's something I don't want to lose, nor do I want my children to lose it. So I really must commend the government on the job they've done in ensuring that we have adequate stock in our lakes, rivers and streams for recreational use.
Presently in British Columbia there are eight provincial hatcheries, of which three are under contract. They're all there exclusively for stocking public waters. Five are government-operated. They are located at Duncan, Abbotsford, Summerland, Wardner — which is in the Kootenays — and Clinton. The three private sector contract-operated hatcheries are at Skaha, south of Penticton; the Peace Canyon near Hudson Hope; and Hill Creek, near the Arrow Lakes.
Maybe I can relate some economic aspects of the sport fishery in British Columbia. The estimated total catch of hatchery fish is about two million annually, which is 25 percent of the total sport-fishing catch. It is estimated that in 1985 there were in excess of 360,000 licensed anglers in British Columbia, of which almost 283,000 or 79 percent were residents of British Columbia and 21 percent were nonresidents. As you can see, there are a lot of people who get a lot of enjoyment from it, besides contributing to our economic base. Clearly this indicates there's potential for future positive growth in the sport-fishing industry in British Columbia.
The economic activity generated by freshwater sport fishing for 1985 included direct expenditures of $144.1 million for trip costs, such as lodging, gas, food, etc., which worked out to an average of about $459 per angler. In addition to that, in 1985 there was $159.5 million spent by anglers on capital expenditures and major purchases, such as boats, motors, etc. So as we can see, freshwater fishing already directly and indirectly contributes millions of dollars to the provincial economy. Clearly, the freshwater fishery has a positive, direct impact on the tourist industry, and by further developing and promoting this natural resource we can continue to enjoy the economic benefits of this growth industry.
[10:45]
But it's more than just economic benefits. There's a recreation benefit; there's the educational benefit. There's a certain mystique, when you visit a fish hatchery, that I very much enjoy: watching fish in their natural environment, the production of them, etc. Again, I really would like to commend the government and the Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for what they've done to date.
But I still think there's room for an increased role of the private sector in the production of fish for the sport fishery. As I said, the government-operated fish hatcheries perform a valuable service in terms of fish enhancement, education and tourism. But if we can consider allowing the private sector to have an increased opportunity to stock public waters, I think we might be on the right track. I feel it's important for a number of reasons. It would allow the government to deal effectively with fluctuations in the sport fishery and fish stock demands. When demand increases, it is economically unfeasible for the government to spend the money on capital costs associated with fish hatchery construction. It makes better economic sense to allow the private sector to fill in the production gaps, as opposed to having the government construct additional hatcheries. Some of the commercial fish farms have the necessary infrastructure required to undertake such projects, and as I noted earlier, there are some 173
[ Page 1890 ]
existing ones in the province. So the commercial fish operators already have the expertise in the growth of sea stock.
They would have no trouble adapting to serving the sport fishing industry. I realize that wild eggs are used, and I think that's a good idea, but I see no problem in putting out contracts. The government could provide them to private sector hatcheries or private fish-farms to produce these eggs.
For the time being I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.
MR. G. HANSON: I, too, and many members on this side of the House enjoy and have high regard for the sport fishery, both saltwater and freshwater. Most of us spend more time practising fishing than actually catching. I'm looking forward to the pink-salmon season which is coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait this late August and early September.
Interjection.
MR. G. HANSON: Well, we'll probably miss that; we'll be here, Mr. Speaker.
I listened carefully to the member's remarks, and I think he would agree with me that the sport fishery in this province — certainly in the freshwater area — is declining in quantity and quality. We have a history in this province of money that has been set aside for nursery capacity, restocking and stream enhancement, etc., somehow getting scooped into other programs and not being held in the trust relationship that it's supposed to be when it's initially taken from the sport anglers and so on in their licensing fees.
B.C. is blessed with an abundance of clean and pristine freshwater lakes, and everything should be done to keep it that way. We should take advantage of this natural resource, Mr. Member, to develop a coordinated freshwater fishery enhancement industry in this province, with hatcheries that would serve regional areas, lakes, and be small in size. They could be stocking lakes and streams within a fairly small designated area. Development of such a program should be done as part of regionally based economic strategies.
Yes, the tourism dollar around fisheries is very strong. The interest in terms of residents, fishing and lifestyle is also an important economic factor, and everything should be done to make that as secure an industry as possible.
There are obvious and significant tourist benefits from such a coordinated strategy. A coordinated approach would approach development of destination fishing resorts and bring in significant tourist capital. Such a program could have the following benefits. It would enhance an existing industry, one which is renewable and environmentally safe. It is a labour-intensive area and offers significant job-creation opportunities through infrastructure construction, as well as permanent jobs through employment in the hatcheries — suppliers, outfitters, resorts, guides, etc.
Such a program could have the following components: (1) the establishment of a network of small hatcheries designed to meet the needs of the surrounding lakes and streams. What we've had in the past, Mr. Member, is a consolidation of closing down small hatcheries into a more centralized approach. (2) An expanded program of habitat enhancement designed by local biologists familiar with the area, and greatly expanded research with the utilization of our universities and colleges. 3) Increased access to fishing sites and development of facilities at these sites in an environmentally acceptable manner.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we are certainly supportive of building the freshwater sports fishery into a strong and viable industry. We feel it requires more planning, it requires more funding priority, and involves certainly more of a priority in terms of water quality and environmental quality. But we believe the future is very positive if we look forward to a coordinated approach.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I have to disagree with what the member said about declining fish stocks. In fact, we're increasing the provincial hatchery system provincewide. It allows for about 450,000 people to sport fish in fresh water, and it is quite a remarkable industry.
In terms of what the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) said, I would like to point out that we operate nine hatcheries. Three of the smaller hatcheries are operated by contract. They are Hill Creek, Peace Canyon and Skaha.
We have a policy in British Columbia that's renowned throughout North America in that we do not use domestic stock. We use wild stock in all cases, and this is far better for the angler. It's more expensive but it allows for a far better game fish, and for that we are renowned throughout North America.
The program is highly integrated with fish moved along hatcheries to maximize total production of the species and size requested by regional fishery managers. I can tell you that in 1986 we liberated 11 million fish in nearly 900 waters, and we collected 19 million eggs. So it's a remarkable system in the province of British Columbia, and one that we should all be proud of.
MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to thank both the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) for their remarks. I can see that in terms of the sports fishery, on both sides of the House it's of some concern to all of us and we all really appreciate it, though perhaps the perception of what's been done and what's not been done is a little different. However, the fact is that I think we all have the same objective in mind, and I appreciate that.
I would like to suggest.... Again, let me bring up these approximately 173 privately owned fish farms in British Columbia which are scattered all over the place. I think there's a real window of opportunity for the family-owned, small-business fish farms to provide additional sports-fish stock for British Columbia, and for our tourists to enjoy. As I said earlier, it would negate the need for capital investment on behalf of the government, but it still would provide additional fish stock for our sports fishery.
May I suggest that the Ministry of Environment could perhaps come up with some sort of tender, just on an experimental basis, where wild eggs would be supplied to these farms. The farms themselves would have to be disease tested and everything else. Let's try it. If there's nothing ventured, there's nothing gained. I think it's a real opportunity for us, and for small businesses and small farms, to contribute significantly to the first-class, world sports fishery that we have in British Columbia.
CHANGES IN CANADA PATENT ACT
MR. CASHORE: On December 8 last, I sent a telegram to the Premier asking the Premier to support the NDP position with regard to Bill C-22, changes in the Canada Patent
[ Page 1891 ]
Act. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) has just suggested to me that we call that bill catch-22, and I think that's very appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in response to my wire, a week later the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) issued a press release stating in fact that he is in support of the position that we have been advocating, which is to oppose the changes in the federal Patent Act. Therefore the comments that I am making today are not controversial in terms of this government. The government has stated very clearly that they agree with the position the NDP caucus in Ottawa and the NDP caucus here take on this issue.
I do want to say, though, that the Minister of Health flubbed an opportunity to stand up for British Columbians when he failed to show up at the Senate hearings that were held at the Empress Hotel — just across the road — a few days ago. I will come back to that later, but I think this is a very serious issue for B.C., and it is one that requires very vigorous response from that ministry. For instance, if we become concerned about the loss of millions of dollars of revenue to forest companies.... That's certainly a cause for concern. What we are looking at here will represent by 1995 an additional cost to Pharmacare for British Columbians of some $75 million in that one year, so we are looking at big bucks here, Mr. Speaker.
Just what kinds of changes are we looking at in the Patent Act, which has worked so well for so many years, since 1969? We're looking at changes that have been brought about by the very powerful lobby of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association. This lobby is one of the most well-heeled in Ottawa. I can set the scene a bit by describing a big, black limousine pulling up in front of the headquarters of the National Anti-Poverty Organization to lobby Patrick Johnston. The people who emerged from that limousine were in fur coats, and here the people were going, in their opulence, to call upon the National Anti-Poverty Organization to support what they were doing.
Just what are they doing? Since the Tories have gone along with what they propose, they will have ten-year protection for the multinationals with regard to their new products. This will result in a loss of competition from generic drugs and an increase in cost for all Canadians. It will also benefit the rich, because of the ten years for which patents are protected. It will mean that certain new cures, say for cancer, will be available to those who have the money to pay for the drug, but will not be available to low-income people. It also means that there will be problems for everyone other than the rich, because of the increased costs.
When Senator Perrault was here a few days ago, he told me that the multinational drug manufacturers have the second-highest profit margin of any industry in Canada, yet these people are asking for more.
Mr. Speaker, the B.C. budget indicates that this government has already decided to roll over and play dead on this issue. It's not just the minister not showing up at the hearing; this government has built into the B.C. budget the means whereby they're going to try to anticipate these extra costs. They've done this, as we all know, in the ways in which user fees have been slapped on, the ways in which there are increases in medical services premiums. The most blatant indication is the increase from $200 to $275 for the deductible, and seniors having to pay 75 percent of dispensing fees up to $125 — all this in anticipation of a bill that has not passed through the Senate yet. I think this is shameful, Mr. Speaker.
When I called on the minister in this House to explain his absence, he pointed out to me that he didn't know about it. I said that I found that beyond comprehension. The minister responded that I didn't need to get sore with him, and that he was being fairly honest with me. Mr. Speaker, I think this may be the first time in the history of this House that the Speaker may have had to consider calling a member to withdraw unparliamentary language that he'd used about himself. The hon. minister stated to me that he was being fairly honest with me on this issue; I would think that our standard in this House is to be completely honest on such an issue.
[11:00]
I would call on the minister now, when he makes his response, to be completely honest with this House with regard to why this government has decided to roll over and play dead on this issue, why it has not attended the hearing. Will the minister indicate to this House exactly what this government has done to...?
MR. REE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the member is not relevant to the subject matter he has put in private members' statements, and also is implying that a minister of the Crown would not be honest in this House. All hon. members, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, are honest. Possibly the member could withdraw any such untoward impugnment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think the Chair will decide when a member will be asked to withdraw. It was certainly, in the opinion of the Chair, let's say uncalled for, but not quite beyond the bounds, I don't believe. Maybe the member would like to continue. He has a minute or half a minute left.
MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having noticed that the red light just went on, do I lose my time of speaking when other members of the House call a point of order?
DEPUTY SPEAKER: You'll be able to finish when the minister has completed responding to your first statement.
MR. CASHORE: I take it by this that I have about half a minute left.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please take his chair?
The Minister of Health, please.
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I think members' statements should refrain from debating, and it came pretty close to debating, to accusing, to where I should in fact get up and defend myself. I don't think that's the purpose of members' statements.
However, I will clear up the one statement made that I was fairly honest with him. I suppose I should have said that I was fairly open in my response. The fairly honest was an incorrect term to use, and if that is so objectionable to the member, I will apologize to him.
Another statement was made that we increased MSP payments or user charges. The payment to MSP is consistent
[ Page 1892 ]
with the 40 to 60 percent differential, and it has remained that way for a long, long time. User fees were not put into place because of the Patent Act. It was something we had to do to bring in some revenue.
Also, at this particular hearing.... I will state again what I said before, and I'm not trying to defend myself except to answer the questions that were raised. My ministry was not informed at any time of that meeting. I was not aware of it, and I stand by that statement. That's why I didn't attend. However, I understand that the chairman at that time did mention to the hon. member that they were very well aware of the British Columbia stand. I do not argue with the opposition stand on this particular issue at all. I'm on the same side of the fence on this particular issue, so I'm not going to respond in that regard.
However, I do have to clear up the area where he mentioned that we were negligent in not being at this meeting. Unless you are informed of certain meetings, it's very difficult to anticipate where and when they will be held. I should also mention that perhaps I'm somewhat busier than he is, and perhaps he can follow these thing a little closer. It has to be brought to my attention, and perhaps that's why — because no one did. And I did not read the paper and find out that this meeting was in fact scheduled.
I'm referring to a letter that I wrote to Hon. Harvie Andre and Hon. Jake Epp, and I'll just read parts of it:
"I am concerned that the proposed amendments would result in increased costs to consumers and to governments, with no guarantee of a significant increase in research and development. I am also concerned that proposed federal compensation would not be adequate. It is my view that the present compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act are effective in moderating pharmaceutical prices and ought to be retained. However," — and this was one thing we added — "should the federal government proceed with the proposed amendments to the Patent Act, provision ought to be made for provincial representation on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board."
We asked for this. The reply was that it would be considered and an advisory committee would bring forward names. We have no guarantee that we will be sitting on that review board, but we hope we can.
We are not rolling over and playing dead; we made our voices very plain and clear. As a matter of fact, I have met with most of the province's PC caucus members. We had a meeting with our cabinet and caucus members, and at that time I made my statement very clear to them and asked that they reconsider.
In closing I should say that the member is a bit argumentative. I have no argument on the total implication and his view on it, but I do take exception to the fact of his needling me and saying I'm not doing my part. I think he's wrong in that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time that the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam lost due to the point of order being raised will be given during this period.
MR. CASHORE: The issue here today is the impact of C-22 on the people of British Columbia, and therefore the issue is whether or not this government is willing to stand up and fight on behalf of the people of British Columbia. When the minister says: "I don't have time to read the paper," I find that incredible. Does the minister not recognize that he has a complete infrastructure within his ministry? He has the whole ministry to be there knowing when the hon. senators are coming into this province and to be advising the minister of this.
Also, what the people of British Columbia are calling for is not a few namby-pamby letters to be written off to the Hon. Andre. They are asking for a ministry that will stand up and fight for them.
I want to point out to the minister that when he says to me,"I don't know why you're getting sore at me," I am not getting sore at the minister personally. I am getting sore at the whole Ministry of Health for failing to be on top of this issue. We talk about the loss of millions of dollars of revenue in the forest industry. What about the additional $75 million this is going to cost British Columbians? Don't we care about that? Isn't somebody in your ministry dealing with that every day? They should be, if they're not. That's a very serious and important economic issue. It's an incredible admission when this minister tells me that they didn't read about it in the newspaper.
We're talking here about an issue where the Ministry of Health and the government have decided to go along with the NDP on an NDP position, but that kind of lip service is not enough. What is called for is a vigorous defence of the people of British Columbia. Just what is this going to be costing the people of Canada in the year 1995? An additional $650 million; we're talking big bucks. And what has been promised on behalf of the powerful multinational pharmaceutical corporations? What have they promised? They have promised nothing. They have given vague promises in vague letters, but the weak-kneed Tories — and the minister has stated that his people have met with the Tory members — are supporting this legislation. You didn't have much influence with them, did you? You didn't have much influence with your friends in the Tory caucus in Ottawa.
What has happened as a result of their going along with this situation is that they have accepted the Trojan Horse of a research bonanza. There won't be a research bonanza, because it's not entrenched in the legislation, and also the legislation fails to define the meaning of "research." So it's absolutely meaningless. They've given it away. And the people of British Columbia are going to be paying — if there is job creation — for job creation within 100 miles of Toronto and of Montreal. That is where those jobs will be located. What will be the benefits to the people of British Columbia? This is something that all of us should be very concerned about and should be dealing with in a very vigorous way.
The minister has not told us of any kind of powerful delegation — an all-party delegation — going back to Ottawa to lobby with the Commons during the committee stage. I never thought that I would see the day that I, as a New Democrat, would be appealing to the Canadian Senate to save us on a matter such as this.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have some private members' issues that I wish to introduce now. Second reading of Bill PR405.
VANCOUVER MUSEUM FOUNDATION ACT
MR. MOWAT: I rise on the act to incorporate the Vancouver Museum. Mr. Speaker, this act creates a perpetual body to
[ Page 1893 ]
encourage and receive donations to be used for the development of collections, the capital needs and the development of endowment funds for the Vancouver Museum and other associated institutions in the greater Vancouver region. The greater Vancouver area has a number of first-class, internationally respected museums that represent all facets of our rich cultural and historical heritage — science and technology, anthropology, art, and maritime history. In order to ensure that these facilities retain their first-class status, the Vancouver Museum Foundation, a non-profit corporation, will encourage, receive, administer and distribute donations to these facilities.
The board of directors will be made up of not more than 14 individuals who are residents of British Columbia. Directors will include the mayor of the city of Vancouver, the chairperson of the board of school trustees of School District 39 and the chairperson of the Vancouver Museum.
I move that the bill now be read a second time.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no difficulty at all in accepting and endorsing the initiative embedded in Bill PR405, the Vancouver Museum Foundation Act. Indeed, we would like to state for the record that we are also supportive of any initiatives that do something towards the preservation of our culture and our heritage. We are therefore pleased to rise in support of the bill.
Motion approved.
MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I move, with leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill PR405, Vancouver Museum Foundation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
VANCOUVER MUSEUM FOUNDATION ACT
The House in committee on Bill PR405; Mrs. Gran in the chair.
Sections 1 to 47 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Preamble approved.
MR. MOWAT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
[11:15]
Bill PR405, Vancouver Museum Foundation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE MISSION FOUNDATION
MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to provide an opportunity for the people of the community of Mission to contribute to their community and to provide for the needs of people; educational and scientific research; and recreational, heritage, cultural or charitable purposes.
I think this is a very good bill. It shows the ultimate in citizenship. I move that it be read a second time.
MR. ROSE: I take pleasure in supporting the bill, Mr. Speaker. As someone who grew up and was educated in Mission.... My mother still lives in Mission. Naturally I'm interested in my mission towards Mission.
But under "Objects of the foundation," I think it would be remiss of me if I didn't mention something that concerns me a little bit about object (a) in section 5. I wonder if it would be appropriate in this modern day and age to have an objective of "providing care for needy men, women and children, and in particular for the sick, aged, destitute and helpless." It seems to me that those are words from another age: the tin-cup age, the poorhouse age, the soup-kitchen age and even the food bank age. I think that we should be well past that in a society with an advanced welfare state. So while that may seem innocent enough in there, I wonder if it doesn't reveal an attitude that, while humane, is maybe a little bit archaic in our society. If it's for a short-term thing, a crisis or that sort of thing, I've no objection to it.
But I rather like object (d), for instance: "promoting recreational activities and the conservation of human, heritage...." We have a very good start being made in Mission by Mrs. Norma Kenney and her committee on the restoration of the Oblate Fathers' mission, a Catholic residential school from which Mission derives its name. It was allowed to be bulldozed out of existence in one period, and now we're beginning to celebrate the fact that it is part of our heritage. Those whole grounds, with the assistance of the local people and the provincial government, are being restored, if not in their entirety. at least enough so that we can be proud of that kind of past.
Anyway, in saying that, I think there's no difficulty in having the support of this side. I just hope that item (a) of the objects will never have to be used.
Motion approved.
MR. JACOBSEN: I ask leave to refer Bill PR404 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill PR404, An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE MISSION FOUNDATION
The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mrs. Gran in the chair.
Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
[ Page 1894 ]
Title approved.
MR. JACOBSEN: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Bill PR404, An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, in entering into my estimates, I would be remiss if I didn't offer congratulations and best wishes, and acknowledge the remarkable work done by Ben Marr, the former deputy minister of this ministry. I'm sure I speak for former ministers, the current Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), our Deputy Speaker, and those of us who have had the good fortune to work with Mr. Marr. He was the first deputy of that ministry, which began some 11 years ago, and he provided excellent direction in bringing the ministry together. Not to acknowledge him at the outset would be inappropriate.
MR. CLARK: Who appointed him?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: He was appointed by Bill Bennett.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The ministry came into being in 1976.
I also acknowledge the presence of my current deputy, Tom Johnson.
Now we'll get into the history, since it was questioned. Madam Chairman, it is 11 years since the ministry was created, and I'd like to briefly review those 11 years, as a way of providing insight into this government's appreciation of the formidable job of maintaining a healthy environment and delivery of services to our citizens, who depend on a wide range of environmental resources.
The ministry was created by the Ministry of Environment Act, which received royal assent on March 18, 1976. This new ministry brought together a number of existing services and branches to form a single agency with the mandate of the management and protection of land, air and water resources of our province.
In December 1978 Premier Bill Bennett announced major changes in cabinet responsibilities and extensive reorganizational changes within ministries. The impact of this action was to transfer several responsibilities of other ministries to the Ministry of Environment, while shifting responsibility for lands to the newly formed Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. These changes resulted in the broadening of the mandate of the ministry; the ministry's new mandate now consisted of the maintenance of the province's resources for the health, safety and well-being of the people in the province and the fish and wildlife therein.
Along with the reorganization of ministry responsibilities, the ministry embarked on a major internal reorganization, designed to reflect the ministry's new integrated resource management role and decentralize the environmental planning process, to allow a greater regional focus. This major decentralization took place between 1978 and 1982. The more recent transfer to the ministry of the parks branch and outdoor recreation brought an important and compatible activity to the ministry. The recreational fisheries and wildlife were, as you know, associated with the parks program during the sixties and seventies in the former Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.
With that said, Madam Chairman, I'd like to comment to the committee that this Ministry of Environment and Parks has 1,800 employees and a variety of programs: everything from wildlife protection to sewage treatment. I'll advise the critic that if we can follow some agenda — and I'll leave the agenda to my critic, to advise us what areas she wishes to discuss — it would be most appreciated by me. Given that program agenda in terms of debate on this vote, it would allow us to have the appropriate officials ready, so information can be brought to the committee on any questions they might want to ask. The member is well aware that we deal with fisheries, wildlife, waste management, water, air, pesticides, enforcement, parks; so there are lots of things we can discuss. It's really a ministry that covers the whole province and how all of the environment is handled in the province, and if we can organize our agenda, I'm sure it would allow the committee to proceed further.
Members will no doubt be aware that recently we entered into discussions with the government of Canada on the issue of South Moresby. I'm sure all members are aware of that issue. I can tell you at the outset that we still hold out hope for establishing a large federal park as we offered to the government of Canada. Negotiations have not ceased. I indicated to the House yesterday, in answer to a question, that we would certainly keep all options open, and that cabinet would be discussing this further on Wednesday. It is our hope that the government of Canada will recognize the responsibility we have to the British Columbia taxpayer and the British Columbia resource industry, and in doing so will see their way clear to ensuring that we have fair and adequate compensation with respect to settlement of the South Moresby federal park. That term "fair and adequate compensation" came from the House of Commons when they had their one-day debate on the issue of South Moresby, and we sincerely hope that the Prime Minister and those negotiating on his behalf will recognize our concern and the reasons that we presented our case.
Just while on the issue of South Moresby — then I'll take my place and let my critic address the committee — I want to assure the committee that the government of British Columbia acted in very good faith on this issue. We put together the Wilderness Advisory Committee two years ago. It went around the province. It viewed 24 sites. It made very good recommendations to the government of British Columbia, and we intended to follow those through. One of the recommendations dealing with South Moresby was the setting of
[ Page 1895 ]
boundaries for a full federal park. We were quite prepared to go with those boundaries and with that Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation, and that offer was presented to the federal environment minister on February 18 this year.
Regrettably, the federal minister turned down that offer from B.C. on the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation for a federal park. That was regrettable, but the province of British Columbia asked the government of Canada what they further wanted. Boundaries were explained to us. They saw a bigger park, so we agreed to that. On April 8 I presented to Mr. McMillan the B.C. position, including boundaries that were quite extensive. They were essentially from Tangil south, and included everything south of Tangil, including Lyell Island. There was a price tag involved, because there would be a large loss to the economy of British Columbia if that area was totally alienated for federal park purposes. One of the sticking points in that offer to Mr. McMillan was that we asked for ten years of transitional logging on Lyell Island. That would be to recognize that there was a heavy investment in that area. There was a tree-farm licence, there was another timber licence, and there was an economy at Sandspit that had to continue.
[11:30]
The federal minister quite correctly indicated that they could not accept logging to continue within the boundaries of a federal park, and we recognized that. It's not within their legislation, and it would not be appropriate for that type of activity to continue in a federal park. So on May 15 we resubmitted a position to the government of Canada, saying: "We recognize that you will find the logging in such a federal park not appropriate — we recognize that concern — so we will take the transitional logging factor out of the equation. But we will ask that you appoint a national accounting firm, someone with national prominence and expertise, to go in and assess what the economic loss to the principal players would be, and to look after that economic loss. We will not take a position on what the dollar amount should be. We think it's fair that we send this to a recognized third party who can offer expert opinion on the loss to the province and the loss to Frank Beban, Western Forest Products and, in a smaller case, MacMillan Bloedel, and that you look after that economic loss to those players."
We further said that we would be prepared as a province to contribute $8 million to that fund. This would allow the fund administrator, the accounting firm, to immediately begin taking care of the costs of having Frank Beban's workers displaced from the area and to look after all of the economic problems that those people face, many of whom have been laid off since March 17, when we ceased the cutting permit. We asked Canada to look after that economic deficit.
We thought we had some agreement. The last time the Premier was in Ottawa there appeared to be agreement in principle to the British Columbia position. It subsequently seemed to fall apart. We were promised that officials would come out here, and they didn't. We then received information and a counter-offer that was far short of what we thought was appropriate compensation, particularly for the workers employed in that area. It was on the basis of that that we announced that if it was to fail, we would go with the provincial Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendations for a park, which would be still quite remarkable — 85 percent of the federal size of the park — and would maintain all of the good recreation park components on a South Moresby provincial park. We would not deviate at all from the recommendation of the Wilderness Advisory Committee in establishing such a provincial park.
In closing on this note, Madam Chairman, I have to advise the committee again that the government of British Columbia in no way — at least as of today — sees this as final. We welcome further discussions with the government of Canada. We welcome the Prime Minister getting back to the Premier, or the federal Minister of Environment contacting me. We are still prepared to deliberate on this and to discuss what offers they have, but our bottom line essentially is that we have to recognize that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia for a very valuable resource, and a responsibility to tenure-holders in that area. We can't just put people out of work and break contracts, and I'm sure all members of the committee appreciate that.
With that said, I'll take my place and welcome the comments from my critic.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I too would like to wish Mr. Ben Marr happiness in his retirement, and to welcome Mr. Johnson to the post.
I'd be glad to indicate to the minister, as we go along, some of the issues in the agenda that I have. At this point — and as the minister will well recognize — this ministry is perhaps the busiest ministry since the government took power last November. All you have to do is look through the newspaper now to see that every single issue has something happening in the environment and/or in the ministry. So as far as the agenda goes at this point, what I'd like to deal with beyond my introductory statement is wilderness and parks, and from that point go into waste management, dealing with both solid waste and special waste. There will be other issues, but I think those two are a good starting point.
I'd like to start off by making some comments about the overall ministry and respond to some of the initial comments that the minister has made. The minister referred to the role of his ministry as maintaining a healthy environment. While I recognize that the minister is fairly new to that portfolio, I hope that that will mean that he can put his stamp on the ministry and would at this point at least be considering the role of the ministry in light of our changing society.
I'd like to refer first to a United Nations study called "Our Common Future: From One Earth to One World," done by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Some really interesting comments are made, and I think this report in general has major significance to the planning of economic development, and in particular to environmental ministries throughout the world. The report comments that since the Second World War, governments, pressured by their citizens, saw the need to clean up the mess — talking about the impact that some of the economic development had on the environment at that time — so they established environmental ministries and agencies to do this clean-up. The report goes on to talk about the environmental ministries in that light: that in essence the ministries we have are mop-up ministries. They're ministries to try to deal with the impact of economic development. It talks about the work as necessary after-the-fact repairs to damages: reforestation, reclaiming desert land, rebuilding urban developments, restoring natural habitat and rehabilitating wild lands.
I think the comments there fairly reflect what goes on in this province. The challenge is to change that. The challenge is to recognize that not only the preservation of our planet but
[ Page 1896 ]
indeed another economic view demands that we see the Ministry of Environment being in the initial planning stages of economic development, rather than reacting to developments that have already taken place — a process of dealing with not only development that is seen as the number one priority, being sustainable development where the costs of that development are not borne in either clean-up or regulation.... What we are looking at is development that is compatible. What we are pushing for is development that sees respect for the environment and sustainability as a cost of doing business. That would mean a reorganization of the ministry.
I am hoping to proceed through the estimates, looking at the estimates in that framework. If the ministry has been and is currently a clean-up ministry that is trying to deal with the health of the environment, how are we doing there? Are we doing our job? Is the ministry on top of the clean-up job? How does that relate to and how can we change the work that the ministry does with the view of this ministry as an initial economic development ministry, a ministry that looks at a sustainable future?
I would like to point out, as the report goes on to say, that given this view — as I began to say — not only does this deal with a sustainable future, but indeed it deals with a future that is productive and provides jobs and economic growth. On the ultimate balance sheet and the gross national product or the gross provincial product, given a model that starts at the Ministry of Environment, with this we can put in place a new plan for B.C. that is sustainable, that is productive and that puts people to work doing jobs that are compatible with this planet and with human habitat.
With that, I would like to ask the minister, in the way of notice.... When we are dealing with waste management issues in particular, I would like the minister to be able to respond to the auditor-general's report of 1981. There was an audit during that time of the waste management systems of the Ministry of Environment, and several recommendations were brought forward in the auditor-general's report. I would like to have a progress report to let us know how the ministry is doing.
On the estimates, what I foresee happening is that we will have the bulk of the debate for the estimates under the minister's office; we will deal with most of the items under vote 29. I reserve the right to discuss issues that come up under individual votes, but at this point I don't predict having to do this.
I am now taking a look at the budget for the Ministry of Environment and notice in particular that there has been a significant increase for the minister's office. The question to the minister would be whether or not that deals with the addition of Parks as part of the ministry.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The increase, which is $15,083, is attributable to classification adjustments, pay increases and increases in employee benefits. That answers your first question. There was not an FTE increase, I believe, in the minister's office due to the size of the enlargement of the ministry, but these are negotiated increases for staff.
I'd like to respond in a general way to the general comments made by the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley. You're right; since the end of the war and, I guess, more particularly when North America and the western world entered into the boom years of the fifties, sixties and seventies, we realized that we were sliding down the banister into trouble if we didn't clean up the environment and if we continually allowed the smoke-stack industries to flourish and just go helter-skelter in terms of development. Society recognized that. Industry recognized it as well. There is a cost to doing business in North America. There is an environmental cost that's particularly recognized, I think, in Canada. I would say that Canadians take a cherished view of their environment. So industry had to adapt to changing times and a very changing attitude on the part of people as to what they expect. We do now expect that we will have clean air, water, lakes and streams, and that we can fish and know that the fish we're taking are edible and don't glow in the dark. We recognize the problems such as have existed in the heavy industrialized areas of eastern Canada and even more so in the eastern United States. Canadians, and British Columbians in particular, are aware that there is a price for clean air and clean water, and they recognize that cost. So does industry.
[11:45]
It's interesting; as members will know, I represent Prince George, and I met with some pulp and paper officials some time ago — well before coming into this ministry — and they told me that in terms of dollar value, they have spent as much money improving pollution-control equipment on their mill as they originally spent building the mill in the 1960s. Inflation kind of skews those numbers. Nevertheless, that's a remarkable statement to make. Industry recognizes that to carry on business in the province of British Columbia, they must gear to the regulations we have now.
The member has indicated that we're a mop-up ministry, and I guess to some degree we are. But I also want to point out to the committee that we are in fact very proactive in terms of the way we regulate and what we will allow to happen. This ministry is named in the Utilities Commission Act, for example, and nothing can really.... Major projects must be vetted through this ministry, and in some sections I must give approval for certain facets of development contained in the Utilities Commission Act. So we have, by legislation, indicated that the Ministry of Environment and Parks, and particularly the minister, has a proactive role to play and must be involved in industrial development.
So you're right; we are cleaning up to some degree. We don't have a big mess to clean up, such as what might exist in the eastern United States or in eastern Canada, but we are quite proactive in terms of developing projects. For example, I'll cite the Okanagan water quality project. We brought phosphate and nitrate levels to better levels in Okanagan Lake. We've spent $4.5 million of government money upgrading the sewage systems.
That's the only thing wrong — I'll tell you parenthetically — with this ministry. It's "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures great and small," and "the birds and the bees," and I really enjoy that. But inevitably when I go to a town I'm trotted off by city council to see their sewage treatment plant — normally right after lunch. That isn't the most pleasant experience in the world, but they're quite proud of what they've done and we're quite proud of the way we've been able to help communities, particularly in the Okanagan, clean up their sewage and address their sewage problems. That's a problem we all face. But as I said earlier, there's a price for clean water, and there's a price when you have rapid population growth. We have to face that.
In terms of other proactive items, just generally: we put a 2 cents per litre tax on leaded gas. That was our suggestion
[ Page 1897 ]
for the budget. Of course, the Minister of Finance never minds increasing taxes, but we saw environmental reasons for doing that. It has been noted across Canada that we have taken that initiative, recognizing that that amount of lead pollution in the environment is critical. It is particularly critical in Vancouver, with the large number of cars and the sometime inversions.
We have committed a lot of money. As a matter of fact, in terms of natural habitat I have a $2 million JobTrac item in my ministry where various enhancement societies will, through JobTrac, undertake environmental enhancement. We believe that as a ministry we have — as the member indicated — a clean-up role, but also a very proactive role in addressing what the public expects of the environment.
It's interesting that there was a survey done by one of the national pollsters that indicated that the environment is one of the long-range concerns of all Canadians; as a matter of fact, it's number one. It ranks ahead of unemployment. I guess they see unemployment as being something that we'll always have, but in terms of the environment, the majority of Canadians indicated that that is their large concern. I believe that was a Decima poll. It indicates that society in the 1980s recognizes that we have to look after our Mother Earth, our air, water and land. That's encouraging to see.
MR. WILLIAMS: That should hang heavy on your shoulders.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes, it does, thank you.
MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, I think what I'll do is get the agreements dealt with and then we'll talk a little bit about the disagreements.
I think the point is well made that in a province like this the Environment ministry should be an enjoyable ministry. We should be really pleased to be able to look at the tremendous resources that we have and become involved in saving those resources and making the best use of them for B.C. However, part of the task that I saw before me, in dealing with the information of the estimates, was how to deal with the reality; how to deal with the devastation and some of the very serious problems that we have in this province; how to ensure that the message coming out of this look at the estimates wasn't as desperate as some of the information would indicate.
That is one of the reasons why I've chosen to try to frame the estimates in a proactive way. While the minister talks about the proactive work that the ministry has undertaken through the utilities acts, for instance — all the developments have to be vetted through the ministry — I don't believe for a moment that that is proactive. What that is doing is saying that, given the Site C dam, for instance, the ministry will become involved and will make a decision about how we can minimize the impact on the environment. What I am saying — and I think this is a really good place to start, as far as this whole discussion of economic development goes — is that on energy issues, for instance, we should be talking a lot more about conservation. When we're talking about waste management issues, we should be talking a lot more about alternate use, source reduction, conservation. That is the kind of leadership, the kind of changing view of the world, that the Ministry of Environment could take and is not taking at this time.
We will have lots of time to go through each of those items, in particular on those major projects, and the consultation that the Ministry of Environment has had on waste management in particular. I think the different view of the world is what I'm talking about: conservation, the view that says that any development must be compatible and must deal with a sustainable future, not be a quick hit.
The minister referred to the Okanagan water quality program and how unpleasant it is to have to, as one of his responsibilities, deal with issues of sewage disposal. However, the whole issue of waste management is a tremendous challenge, and I look forward to dealing with that.
The minister raised the issue of leaded gas and the tax. Again, I don't believe for a moment that is a proactive view. That is a reactive view: we have a problem; we're trying to deal with it. Again, it points out the whole focus of the ministry.
I'd like to move on a little bit, unless....
Interjection.
MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay, I'll give the member another opportunity on this point of economic development.
MR. HEWITT: Madam Chairman, I won't be long. I appreciate that the members opposite would like to cover a number of their points, but I did want to comment about my constituency primarily, firstly to compliment the Ministry of Environment for identifying that the Okanagan Valley and the Okanagan watershed is an environmentally sensitive area. We rely a great deal on our water system, our water quality. As you know, agriculture and tourism are the two major industries in the area, and the assistance to communities with regard to funding of sewage treatment plants, recognizing that environmentally sensitive area, is certainly appreciated by the communities in my constituency.
I did want to cover two or three other items. One deals with the statement that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) made this morning about private fish hatcheries. Mr. Minister, I think we can do a lot in developing fish stocks through the private fish hatchery system. We have one off Skaha Lake just by Okanagan Falls, run by a gentleman by the name of Rev. Derek Salter. He has had a contract for a number of years with the Ministry of Environment and I think does a first-rate job. If I can extend an invitation to you to visit that area....
I think one of things it does is to raise fish stock adjacent to where they will be released. In other words, it's like getting the right type of tree planted in the forest, so that you have the seed and the seedling acclimatized to a particular area. I think it is the same for the trout. If we can have those fish hatcheries close by and then release the fish into the waters of the Okanagan watershed, we'll have good fish stock for the recreation fishing industry. Also, it's efficient, I think, and effective. And it creates jobs in the area, and that's important as well.
Now to the issues. I have two major ones; they both deal with weeds. One is knapweed, which is on the land and impacts on our agriculture industry. The other is Eurasian milfoil, which is equally disastrous and impacts on our lake system. Mr. Minister, we've tried to address the question of knapweed through regional districts and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries over the years. I don't think we have really achieved much success. We try, the money is spent, but
[ Page 1898 ]
I'm not sure if we're on the right track. I would just ask that you, as minister, really give it a push and make sure that every effort is made to try to get some type of control on knapweed. Otherwise, the ranching industry in my constituency, particularly in the Boundary country, is going to be severely impacted. It's severely impacted now, but it's getting to a point where all you can see is the knapweed bushes as opposed to any grass on a lot of the rangeland.
MR. WILLIAMS: Is that your new riding?
MR. HEWITT: It could well be, yes. The other weed, equally as obnoxious, is the Eurasian water milfoil. Mr. Minister, I know again that you people have provided funding. There have been harvesting programs, assistance to communities, to regional districts, but we really haven't even addressed the cosmetic part of the problem.
I would only ask that through your ministry and staff you have somebody get on site at a small lake called Vaseux Lake, which is south of Penticton near Oliver, which is now, believe it or not, pretty well covered. I think if you took a canoe out on it, you could get your canoe stuck on top of the milfoil and you couldn't get if off. If you fell into the water you would probably drown because you couldn't swim, the weed is so thick. The government also has a provincial campsite which has a beautiful camping area, a beautiful beach area for the families, but they don't swim there anymore because the milfoil is right up to the shore.
I would just ask that those two noxious weeds be addressed and you attempt to do a greater job of harvesting, of cleaning the lakefront in the Okanagan Valley, particularly in the southern part of the Okanagan, and that you attempt to deal with the knapweed problem with regard to its impact on the ranching industry in my area.
With that, Mr. Minister, I thank you for the efforts that you've made in the past, and I know you will continue to do a great job in the future. Now I believe somebody wishes to make an introduction.
[12:00]
Leave granted.
MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and myself, I'd like to welcome teacher Keith Rogalsky, 22 grade 7 students and four adults visiting us today from Highland Park Elementary School in Pitt Meadows. Would the House please welcome them.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd just like to respond to the first member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and thank him for his comments. In terms of Okanagan water quality, we've spent an awful lot of money there and we recognize we have a responsibility to do so. Knapweed is more a concern that should be addressed by the Ministry of Agriculture, although it to some degree reflects on us because we have some concern about herbicides.
It's interesting, just as an aside; all of you are familiar with the new cover of the telephone book this year. It's a beautiful shot of the Robson Valley, which is in my riding, and the ditch is just full of thistles. Why on earth they ever put that on a telephone book is beyond me, but it does indicate that we do have some serious problems in British Columbia.
Milfoil is a very difficult one. It's very difficult to stay ahead of, as the member has indicated. We have $147,000 in a program in the Okanagan this year, and it's a cost-shared basis. We'd like to do more, but then we'd like to do more for everybody, and that is our limit this year. I guess we will continue to put money into the control mechanisms that we have now. We will hope that better techniques for control can be developed over the years, but it's a problem we've inherited.
The Eurasian milfoil finds the Okanagan a very, very attractive place to live and to flourish, and it's doing its best to stay alive as we do our best to keep it down. But we do recognize the concern that is expressed in the Okanagan and also in the Shuswap area with milfoil.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Coliform? Coliform counts? Okay.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but we're talking about milfoil, and it's a problem.
MR. S.D. SMITH: In relation to vote 29, there are two or three things that I would like to raise. First of all, I'd like to commend you for the designations of the wildlife habitat, particularly on the north side of Kamloops Lake and in the Tranquille Range.
I'd like to raise a couple of matters with you with respect to Wells Gray Park. The first and most important one — and I'm delighted to see the gentleman next to you in this regard — is the need to pave the road into Wells Gray Park, at least to Helmcken Falls. The reason is that the bus-tour companies are simply not using that facility and the opportunities presented by that park and that tremendous falls in the way they ought to. They aren't specifically because there is a need to improve the road to the extent of providing a hard surface for it. It's most of the way up now, within eight or nine clicks of the park entrance, and then there's a similar amount from there on into Helmcken. I would urge you provide some improvement to the extent that you can within your own ministry.
There may be some ways in which dust control measures could be provided within the park itself, towards Clearwater Lake, which would have the same effect. To the extent that you can do it within your own ministry, I would urge you to do so; and to the extent that it's a matter for your colleague in Transportation and Highways, I would urge you to recommend to him that that be done as well. It would enhance the use of that park greatly, and it would also provide tremendous economic potential for that Clearwater area especially. And it would develop the opportunity for the Brewster company and others to bring their tours down from Jasper into that area. They're now coming from Mount Robson, but there are not as many of them coming on further as there ought to be.
The second consideration I would like you to give with regard to the park is that the community association in Blue River has proposed and sent along a number of suggestions to develop a network of hiking trails into that wilderness area, especially on the south side of the Murtle. I met with them some time ago and happily endorsed what they want to do, because it's a good program, it's consistent with your own overall plan for that park, and it's something that would give Blue River an opportunity to be a little bit of a staging area for
[ Page 1899 ]
access into the park by those kinds of users. I would commend to you serious consideration of that. It's not a high-cost matter, but it is something that would generate a fair amount of traffic for Blue River — and that community needs it. It's an initiative that has been generated by the community. They're prepared to put their time, labour and energy into it. It's something that I think you should give some very active consideration to.
Finally, I would like to raise a question for you with respect to the water comptroller function of the ministry. It relates specifically to the Rose Hill water system within the boundaries of the city of Kamloops. That system is not functioning properly. That system today is shut off — in a period when there is a tremendous fire hazard in that area. There has been a problem this year with fire, but over the last 18 months there has been a deterioration of the service from that system. A number of orders have been issued through the comptroller's office to correct the problem. My concern is that those orders, while they get issued, don't seem to get enforced. I think if you're going to issue orders, you'd better enforce them. If you don't enforce orders, then you're going to render it impossible to enforce them down the road when you come to the conclusion that it's time to do so. It is a matter that requires immediate attention. It requires tighter enforcement of those orders, and it requires that action be taken straight away to protect those residents from the fire hazard — which isn't simply hypothetical; it's real, and it's there now. I would urge you to take steps to correct that particular situation without further delay.
MR. LOVICK: Madam Chairman, it's interesting that the last two speakers have demonstrated, in all earnestness and sincerity on their part, what I think is the fundamental predicament facing the ministry. I want to address that predicament briefly. It is the regular, perfectly legitimate demands for short-term solutions to pressing problems now.
I am tempted to throw in my own number of problems from my own constituency in terms of things that I think the ministry ought to be addressing. Most of those fall under the heading of "solid waste disposal," and that is a problem that is endemic throughout the province, I am sure, and one that I know my colleague for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley, our debate leader, is going to address in detail. So I won't touch that now. Instead, I make that point only to demonstrate what I think is a predicament we must come to terms with and one I have sympathy with the ministry for grappling with. That predicament is that all of the demands are right now. Everybody wants to solve current pressing problems.
The danger, of course, is that what gets lost in that process is the longer-term, final and fundamental question about where we are going and whether we can sustain the kind of growth patterns and developments given the assumptions we are presently working under. I am intrigued to note that there are so many young people in the Legislature today, Madam Chairman. I think that is worth noting, because if anybody has a sense of the predicament, it is surely young people who have seen the legacy that other generations have created for them and who are concerned about that legacy and wonder whether we can sustain the planet, given the kinds of assumptions we have been working under and given the kinds of developments we seem irrevocably committed to.
I want to suggest that the Environment ministry — perhaps uniquely among government ministries — has a duty to do what politicians normally don't have the luxury of doing: namely, to look a little beyond this horizon to the future. If there were ever a single ministry in government that ought to be futuristic, that ought to be far-sighted, that ought to be proactive, surely it must be the Ministry of Environment. I would like to think that the Ministry of Environment ought to — in a more perfect world, in a more ideal context — have a larger budget and be a more aggressive and advocating kind of ministry, as opposed to a reacting ministry and, dare I say, if not a minor player, at least not one of the major players in the government scheme of things.
I would suggest, for example, that the Environment ministry ought to be of necessity part of any economic development discussions. I would suggest that the Environment ministry ought to be one of the major generators when we talk about economic development and future policies.
MR. WILLIAMS: It used to be, but it ain't any more.
MR. LOVICK: My colleague for Vancouver East says it used to have that role and perhaps does not have it any more. I think that is worth developing for just a moment, because I want to try something out on the minister. I think he will agree with me that strange things have happened under the heading "environment and ecology issues" over the last, lo, these roughly 15 years.
We all recall in the great trauma of oil shock of the early seventies, and for the roughly 10 years leading up to that event, that the primary issue that everybody talked about and that everybody was concerned about was the environment. That is when we had this incredible outpouring of literature, this incredible outpouring of books, most of which are things that people of my generation grew up on, things like Closing Circle, Can Mankind Survive? and Has Man a Future?
My concern is that that kind of paramountcy of environmental issues frankly seems to me a thing of the past. Rather, what we assume is that we have arrived somehow at a plateau of understanding where it is a given that we are all concerned about the environment. I fear that that is a dangerous and probably erroneous assumption. I don't think we have arrived at that plateau of understanding. I think rather what happened is that the panic of the early seventies is over. It is curious that in the eighties when we had the great economic recession we all know about, the environmental issues got lost in the shuffle. They didn't come back.
I don't know at the moment whether they are coming back. I think perhaps for younger people there is that kind of understanding and concern, but I suspect for the — may I use the term — older generations, environment is accepted as a given "Well, we are doing what we do." My concern, and it's the concern that has been picked up by the United Nations and other more futuristic organizations, is simply that we have forgotten the agenda, and the agenda is as pressing and as urgent as it ever was 20 years ago — indeed, more so.
Let me just share with the House, if I might, Madam Chairman, the opening paragraph of the Brundtland report. Brundtland, of course, is the president of Norway, who headed up the world commission alluded to earlier, which produced the document called "Our Common Future — From One Earth to One World: an Overview." The first paragraph in the report is so significant, and it's the message that I think we have lost sight of.
[12:15]
"In the middle of the twentieth century we saw our planet from space for the first time. Historians may
[ Page 1900 ]
eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on thought than did the Copernican revolution of the sixteenth century, which upset the human self-image by revealing that the earth is not the centre of the universe. From space we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery and soil. Humanity's inability to fit its activities into that pattern is changing planetary systems fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized and managed."
That's pretty powerful and emphatic stuff, written in 1987. We could, of course — and I think the minister would agree with me — quote half a dozen books written in the 1960s and the 1970s that made that point precisely. The issue, though, is: why must the world commission put it in such terms today? I suggest the reason is precisely the one I was alluding to earlier: we have forgotten a bit; we have taken for granted.
My conclusion in these remarks is simply that if there were ever an area for the Ministry of Environment to challenge, to take on and to embrace, it is surely a policy with a view to that future. It is not just solving the problems in Kalamalka Lake or in the Okanagan Lakes; not dealing with the fact that the Peerless Road incinerator in Ladysmith isn't adequate and is low-tech as opposed to high-tech; not worrying just about the fact that if we're trying to get a new waste disposal site in Nanaimo, we'd better not put it too close to the lakes in the area of extension, because we've already got a problem with leachates in the water system, thank you very much; not just with those immediate and pressing concerns that are legitimate and do indeed require our attention, but rather with a view to saying: "Where will we be a hundred years from now?" Because we must be guided by that sense of hope; we must be guided by the sense that there is indeed a future, and we have an obligation to protect and to work for that future.
I hope the ministry, then, will consider those things as part of its mandate, and try to expand and enlarge its mandate so that it does indeed become part of the job of government.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I could make some responses. First of all, to the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), I appreciate your concern with respect to Wells Gray and the paving. Part of the responsibility is mine, and others will be with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I can tell you that when Mr. Johnson first came to the ministry, he wanted to pave every park; he said it would keep the dust down. But I had to talk him out of it.
On your proposition with respect to the Blue River path, the work being done is consistent with our policy, and we will endeavour to address that. That's a very good suggestion. With respect to Rose Hill waterworks, it would be our wish that the city of Kamloops take that utility over, but I don't think they're going to. There are some legal problems too, I'll advise the committee. I don't know what else I can say about it. Rose Hill is within the boundaries of Kamloops. We hope that we can get this problem resolved, because it has been ongoing and it is fraught with some problems. The fees are high, and it's really not the best situation.
I'm pleased to hear the comments of the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) with respect to Brundtland. That commission was in Victoria last year, and the former minister entertained them and explained what is done in this ministry.
I should tell the committee that there have been some comments about assessment and planning and being proactive and that type of thing. We do have 30 people in the assessment and planning branch of the ministry. That's a sizeable commitment to that type of endeavour and to ensuring that we're doing the right thing. I can also advise the committee that a Minister of Environment is always on the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, and the deputy is on the deputies' committee on economic development. So we're very much aware of all economic development proposals that come to the government of British Columbia, and we're very much a part of that planning process. As I indicated earlier on the Utilities Commission, we are involved by statute; we have to be there. At the cabinet level we're made aware of any potential development in the province and play a great role in assisting in that planning.
To the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), I don't think we have reached a plateau. I recognize your concern. You and I went through the days of reading Silent Spring, that type of thing, and we were made aware. Society was made aware of the trouble we could get ourselves into unless we changed our attitudes and woke up to what was happening in the world around us. But I don't think there's a plateau. As a matter of fact, maybe it's because I'm more sensitive to it, but I think there's an ever-increasing awareness of the environment. Look at the very heavily polluted industrial area of the eastern United States, and at Love Canal and that type of predicament. Everyone realizes that we just can't allow that to happen in British Columbia. We've got a remarkable resource to protect.
So I don't think the plateau is there. I think our knowledge, our concern, our sophistication in understanding the environment, is increasing every day. If you and I go back, Mr. Member, to the other movie.... In the college movement in 1973-74, when we were having our fun with the respective debating teams, I wonder if "catalytic converter" was a common expression, as it is today. Ecosystem: I don't think we thought of those things. "Leachate" was not a commonly used word. In other words, our whole vocabulary has changed. I know that as a student of language you'll appreciate that a change in vocabulary indicates a change of interest in what you're thinking about. Really, there has been quite a remarkable increase in sophistication in the attitudes of people, so I can't accept the plateau argument. I would argue that the public is becoming more and more sophisticated every day with respect to environmental issues.
MR. S.D. SMITH: Madam Chairman, I am truly well aware of all the movement to and fro as to whether the appropriate authorities to run that particular water system would be the city of Kamloops or the local residents' association or the developer or the ministry. But my point was this. The ministry, or at least the water comptroller's office, has issued orders with respect to that water system, instructing that certain things be done. Those orders are being defied. They are not being complied with. The things that are being instructed to be done by the force of that office are not being followed.
As a result of them not being followed, people's safety is in jeopardy. There is a fire hazard in the area. There is legitimate concern by the people living there. What is required to solve that immediate problem is to enforce the
[ Page 1901 ]
orders that are being issued. One does not have to make any decisions about the proprietorship of the water system in order to enforce the orders that are issued by the comptroller.
We have statutory systems in this province to regulate, manage and ensure that utilities provide the service for which they are getting paid. That is not happening. It is not a question of who ought to or ought not to own the water system. The water system is in place. There have been certain problems over the last little while. The comptroller's office has issued orders instructing that those problems be corrected, and they are not being enforced. So I urge you to urge your officials, wherever they may be, that if they are going to make orders, for goodness' sake, enforce the blessed orders.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will advise the member that a note was just passed to me from outside that staff are now taking all legal acceptable action to provide a water supply to the customers. I don't know what more I can say at this point, because I am not aware of exactly what action they are taking. But given the emergent situation, I can advise the committee that we are acting immediately to try to address the problem of Rose Hill.
Parenthetically, I heard some heckling from the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who has reached that plateau in terms of thinking what the Ministry of Environment does — one of the finer minds of the 1960s. This is not just a water management ministry, Mr. Member — $70 million of a $100 million budget is for air management, recreational fish, pesticide control, waste management, wildlife management, surveys and resource mapping, and parks and outdoor recreation. Maybe you could look at the estimates, and have someone add those numbers up for you, if you can't do it yourself. It will indicate to you that there are many, many other factors, features and programs in this ministry, and that water management and water resources are a small part.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to, I guess early on, express my frustration. All of the issues that have been raised here are very important ones, and on the agenda that I am trying to follow, we will get to some of those issues, although I recognize that I can't even begin to touch on all of them.
Before leaving this initial comment, I'd like to ask the minister to indicate where in his budget the information services or publicity budget is. Several weeks ago in the House we heard one of the other ministers referring to budgets in each and every ministry that deal with information services for the government — that there isn't any one overall budget; each ministry has information services.
From there I'd like to go on to the issue of South Moresby, and some of the comments that the minister made. I'd like to start off by quoting the report on our common future that we've been talking about all morning, and the quote that I'd like to put on the record is this:
"The diversity of species is necessary for the formal functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. The genetic material in wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the world economy in the form of improved crop species, new drugs and medicines and raw materials for industry. But utility aside, there are also moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic and purely scientific reasons for conserving wild beings."
I want to use that as the opening statement for what is happening in this province in regard to parks in general, and specifically on the Moresby issue.
What we have been dealing with for the last couple of weeks is the fumbling and the potential breakdown of negotiations with the federal government over the national park reserve in South Moresby. People in this province are very concerned and outraged. Yesterday I dealt with several different phone calls in my office from people who were feeling quite desperate at the potential loss of South Moresby.
[12:30]
The message the provincial government gave to the people of this province with the boundary changes of our parks over the last couple of months has indicated a total lack of respect for our parks system. When a previous Minister of Environment makes jokes like,"Now we can honestly say there is no mining in our parks," it is totally and completely unacceptable. The reason there was no mining in the parks was that they cut out the heart of parks throughout this province. We will deal with that whole issue at some length.
The point I'm making is that the province has no confidence in this ministry and its ability to preserve the heritage of the park in South Moresby, when the minister himself and other members of the government have talked about the ongoing logging and mining in South Moresby should a provincial park be formed.
This government has shown that it does not have a commitment, from day one, to a national park reserve. We had the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) going up to the Queen Charlottes and saying that he didn't think there was much tourist potential up there because it rained all the time, and it was very difficult to get to. Well, what does the Minister of Tourism think a rain forest is if it doesn't rain all the time? A couple of weeks ago we had the Minister of Environment prepared to put a dollar sign on an endangered species; he was prepared to issue permits that would allow people to go to Graham Island and disturb each and every nest of falcons to get their ten falcons. We were pleased to see that the minister backed away from that and denied those permits, but again it indicates the government's commitment to that park and to wilderness, and its commitment to a national park reserve.
I am concerned that what is happening with the negotiations going on with the federal government is that the provincial government is trying to price itself right out of the ball park.
The government clearly has a very narrow perspective about what is good for this province, what is good for the Ministry of Environment, and the preservation of habitat and heritage in this province. I refer to a statement made by the Minister of Forests, who talked in the last question period about a potential $200 per cubic metre to the province for economic activity. I just want to give some figures to the Minister of Environment. These come from the Island Protection Society and can be verified by a court case that was undertaken by them in the last few years.
Western Forest Products suggested that South Moresby's supply was 15 to 20 percent of its pulp mill requirements, and that the viability of those mills was in jeopardy if the area was made into a park. Yet scrutiny of recent court affidavits — and this is the court case I referred to — and examination of the South Moresby planning team report show that South Moresby can only supply 6 percent of those mills' requirements. In addition, those mills — Western Forest Products
[ Page 1902 ]
and its conglomerate — are exporting large quantities of raw logs out of this province. In addition, Western Forest Products has maintained, in public statements, that the timber from South Moresby is worth $45 million annually, and that there is no way the province can afford to compensate them for forgoing such benefits. Again quoting from the Islands Protection Society, this is the most bizarre of all Western Forest Products' claims. This works out to over $250 per cubic metre of wood, when court affidavits clearly show that the value is $26 per cubic metre. In its own affidavit, Western Forest Products states the value to be $57 per cubic metre.
I want to know from the Minister of Environment, since he has been involved in negotiations, whose interest he is serving, why he is upping the ante, why he is seeking compensation for these special interests and ignoring the interests of the people of B.C., ignoring the interests of over 2,000 Haida who have their ancestral home there. I want the minister not only to tell us who he's representing, but I want him also to explain how that compensation, when he talks about the 70 loggers and those jobs, will be shared. I want the minister to tell us how he is committed to this program.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I bet I'm the only Socred cabinet minister ever to have Jack Munro on my side and Gorde Hunter not. I mean, that is curious.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Exactly. The only endangered species on South Moresby are the loggers, Madam Member. I'll say that for openers.
Now you ask about the $200 per cubic metre figure. That is a standard evaluation made from the stump to the finished product, and my source is Les Reed. If you have a better source than Professor Reed, please bring it to the committee and we'll discuss it. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that I'm in opposition to what Professor Reed says with respect to the economic value of that resource.
You mentioned that you had lots of phone calls yesterday. So did I. Did you explain, or can you explain, the boundaries of the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation for a provincial park? Can you? I don't know, and I doubt it, but I have a map which I will show you if you wish to see it. It's quite remarkable. It maintains all the features that we would want to have in a park. It's 85 percent of what we had offered to Canada, and I have no problem defending it.
The 15 percent excluded are the high productivity islands, and you're right, it's a rain forest. That's why trees grow. There's a 60-year cycle there, and we just can't give that resource away. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia; not a responsibility to any special interest group, but a responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Further, we have a responsibility to a tree farm licence which was given by the government of British Columbia, and we're not in the business of going around breaking contracts willy-nilly. You offer a contract, you stick with it.
I'd like to speak briefly to the falcons. First of all, that chick hunt was not to take place in a park; it was on Graham Island. Secondly, it was to be supervised by conservation officers and officials from the ministry. Seventeen nests would be inspected, and in the case where there were three chicks to a nest, one would be taken. Those were the rules. If there were not three chicks in the nest, then no chick would be taken. The reason for that is because quite often in a three chick nest, one of the chicks will die. Do you understand that? If there are two, you leave them alone.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to see you backed away from it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure. There was a biological reason for that. Because of the human presence, because of the anticipated commotion that could occur, one had to recognize that it was not the best biology in the world to have that. But that's not from taking chicks; it's because of the human presence.
I want to further advise the member that the weekend of June 5 is sort of the window of opportunity, if you're looking at this type of thing. Next year I have instructed staff to meet with the falcon industry, the Haida and the people who are concerned about this type of thing, and if we can get some sort of agreement on taking chicks, we will. If we can't get an agreement with all the constituent players, then there won't be any falcon chicks taken. But I do recognize — and I'll tell the committee — that this one was done in just a bit of haste. I think that we could have handled it better by having a far earlier consultation with all the constituent groups. That is my plan for next year. I give you my commitment that if we don't reach agreement in our February meetings — or whenever they occur, but well before June — then we will not proceed with that "downie hunt." That's what they're called, by the way: "downies," because they have down.
I think that explains it for me — for this point. I am back to South Moresby. I have no problem with the British Columbia position. We've simply taken the stance that we're going to have to protect the working men and women of this province. We're going to have to protect the rights of this province to issue a licence. We're going to have to protect a contract, and we have a responsibility to the taxpayer of British Columbia.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No apologies.
Interjections.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's typical of the environment around here. But anyway, the member for Surrey made the point that these timber companies have in the past grabbed numbers out of the air and have admitted that they have grabbed them out of the air. So, for example, the impact on their pulp mills.... They multiplied by about three or four in terms of negative impact on their pulp mills.
Okay, respond to that. Go ahead. You've got an answer — deliver it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you, Mr. Member, you have made my point. People grab numbers out of the air, right? Is that what you said? That's why we asked for an independent determination by a national accounting firm, because people can grab numbers out of the air. You can grab them, I can grab them, the forest company can, Jack Munro can, anybody can. But we want expert third-party opinion, and that is part of our negotiation.
[ Page 1903 ]
MR. WILLIAMS: What independent evaluation, Mr. Minister, did you ever undertake in terms of those timber values? Who did you hire?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: We haven't hired anyone yet because Canada has not agreed....
Interjections.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are the windows open? I hear seagulls.
Canada has not agreed to that independent determination. I told you that yesterday; you can look it up in the Blues. When Canada agrees to how the compensation will be paid, when they agree to that independent determination, when they agree to our proposal, that company will be hired to make that independent determination.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is certainly not my advice from the federal spokespeople that I have talked to, Mr. Minister. They have indicated to me that they have never had any problem with that question, and that they currently have no problem whatsoever with that question. They have obtained independent advice. They have carried out three different methodologies in terms of estimating those values of Crown, public timber in British Columbia. They feel satisfied with the kind of parameters that they ended up with in terms of the numbers.
In the final conversation between Mr. Mazankowski and the Premier, it is my understanding that they even agreed to go beyond the numbers that you people were happy to live with — or were arguing for expanding, rather. They indicated that you could stay with your $8 million maximum, provided the increased cost of compensation came out of the $50 million that was to be used as a special fund for development in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
It is very clear where the pressure is coming from in this exercise, in terms of ballooning the payments to the logging companies. Mr. Minister, it is unprecedented that contractors would be compensated to the degree you're talking about here. It is absolutely unprecedented. Do you agree?
Interjection.
MR. WILLIAMS: What's he got? What's his contract? Is he good for a year or two in terms of his deal with Western Forest Products? You asked them for a wish-list, didn't you, Mr. Minister? You asked them for a wish-list in terms of numbers, didn't you? A wish-list from the forest companies. What are their wish-list numbers, Mr. Minister? Isn't it true that Western Forest Products is talking about $50 million? Isn't it true that Mr. Beban is talking about many millions as his wish-list? Isn't it true that many of these people around this issue are the ones who were delegates to your convention last fall? Isn't that true? Isn't it true that your Premier was up in that country on the weekend, and talked with those folks, and it all fell apart after he came back? Isn't that part of the picture, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh? Well, what numbers were you packing around, then, Mr. Minister? Why are you having so much trouble with this question of compensation? Why?
[12:45]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll repeat this. You can look at the Blues for my answer from yesterday, but in terms of a wish-list, in terms of compensating those interests that are there and have remarkable investments in machinery, staff, buildings, equipment, families, homes and trailers.... You've obviously never been there. There is no wish-list by the government of British Columbia. None was ever suggested. There is a recommendation.
We have taken the position that with respect to the activity and the tree-farm licence on Lyell Island, we will ask Canada to appoint a national accounting firm to determine the economic loss to those parties. What could be fairer?
Let me give you an analogy. We could consider this expropriation, right? Canada has asked to take land, equipment, buildings, economy, a business....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's Crown land.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: But it's not Crown logging trucks, it's not Crown trailers that people live in, it's not Crown schools that Frank Beban.... It's not Crown; it's owned by him.
Now I'll give you an analogy: what if we wanted to come and expropriate the NDP bingo hall in Nanaimo?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not on Crown land, is it?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's an asset owned by your party. If we wanted to expropriate that, you would ask for fair and adequate compensation, and you would ask for an appraiser, wouldn't you? You would ask for some expert opinion that was not the government, that was not representing you, but in fact was expert, outside opinion that would come in and make a fair appraisal of what the loss was to you.
All we are asking the federal government to do is to contract someone with the expertise to offer and suggest a fair and adequate compensation to the interests that are lost to the people who live there, to the people who have been out of work since March 17, whom you don't seem to care about — the fallers who have been unemployed. In the cases of some of the older people who will never work again, we have asked for a severance package for them. Those are in our terms. Don't you care about employees? We have asked that the accounting firm determine the loss of breaking a TFL. Don't you care about contracts that are in place? You can't just break them willy-nilly. Fair and adequate compensation has to be delivered, and my position is that fair and adequate compensation can only be determined by an outside source.
I am not going to make a wish-list. I am not going to make up numbers. I don't believe the federal government should make a wish-list or make up numbers. They should do it fairly and squarely by having an outside expert determine it.
MR. WILLIAMS: Don't talk about a federal wish-list, Mr. Minister. The people that came with the rubber numbers to the table were you people over there. You are the ones who delivered the rubber numbers to that table. We are talking about an unprecedented offer in the history of this nation that exceeds the price paid for all national parks in the history of Canada, or something of that scale. You can have all of your little whispers you like with your deputy, who feeds you your little political lines. What we have had....
[ Page 1904 ]
Interjections.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Order. Hon. member, would you please take your seat. You made one comment that the Chair has some difficulty, with: "political lies." I would ask you to withdraw.
MR. BLENCOE: Lines, lines.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Lines? I'm sorry, hon. member. Please continue.
HON. B.R. SMITH: On a point of order, I think that it was offensive, Madam Chairman, because it suggested that the deputy, who can't defend himself, was feeding political lines to the minister. I don't think that is what the member would have intended.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. Would the member please continue?
MR. WILLIAMS: I am certainly willing to withdraw that point.
The federal government people have made it abundantly clear, certainly in our conversations with them, that they have no trouble with independent analysis of those numbers. So I don't know why you are doing a dance about that.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you're the one....
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. They went through three different types of methodology to come up with the numbers, and were satisfied that $31 million was the maximum.
You know, I don't understand this dance. There's a kind of fog machine going on over there around this issue. You used the example of the bingo hall as a comparison. Let's understand what we're talking about here. Ninety-five percent of the lands of British Columbia are publicly owned Crown lands. That's not the fee-simple, private-ownership land that houses and bingo halls are on. Don't mislead the public. That is not comparable at all. You know that, and your staff knows that, and it is not a valid argument at all.
Let's get it straight. These lands were not paid for. Historically in this province all that is looked at in the transfer of these assets is the question of plant and equipment. That was the pattern until a decade ago, under a minister of this government who seemed to see it a little differently. Historically, the transfer of these lands required that the transfer price always be just plant, equipment and business value, and not the public land. Only in recent years has this administration, and this current administration, talked in terms of compensation for public lands — and these are indeed public lands. So don't tell us about the little private home and the bingo hall; that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about public lands that these people are going to get $31 million for — or more, if we take the arguments you people have been making.
How do these numbers come up, anyway? Why are these such huge balloon numbers? The minister shrugs. He doesn't seem to understand.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's the federal government's determination.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. The minister doesn't understand the economics of it. It's because we don't charge what the trees are worth in the form of stumpage. The licence starts ballooning in value because we undercharge for the trees. Got that?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a different ministry.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, a different ministry. No, this government can determine the rules for stumpage any day of the week. Your minister, talking in Prince George recently..... Two people in Prince George indicated that stumpage was going to go up.
AN HON. MEMBER: Order!
MR. WILLIAMS: Don't talk about order. We're talking about value, and this is relevant to value. He is talking about bumping the stumpage up about $115 million above the $350 million that you're getting in export money. That's getting to be about half a billion a year. As soon as you start collecting half a billion a year in this province — new money for our trees that we sell when they're cut down — then those balloon numbers for licences start deflating. That's the automatic economic impact — automatic — in terms of the balloon value of those timber licences. It's totally in your hands. Even given the balloon figures, the feds are saying: "Thirty-one is max, and we're not worried about it." So don't do your fog machine dance around this issue. It's clear that there's a problem here. It's clear that you're using rubber numbers, that you have not been serious in your negotiations with the feds, and that you're using other big numbers that are not supportable.
What is essentially happening is that there isn't development in the Charlottes, there are no sawmills in the Charlottes, there is no local employment other than the logging. You've got a golden opportunity here to rebuild that economy. It's essentially a log export economy, and you're turning your back on a major opportunity for all of British Columbia, all of Canada. It doesn't behoove you or the Premier to do the anti-Canada number around this important issue.
MS. SMALLWOOD: If the minister would like to respond, I would just like a minute at the end to make a comment.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It does require responding. The other factor of Canada's position back to us was that we had asked, because we estimated a $40 million loss in terms of annual allowable cut if we went for the whole South Moresby park proposal — the one that Mr. McMillan requested, in which we've said this is it — that the province of British Columbia would take a $40 million hit annually forever. Members are aware of what an annual allowable cut is and what it's worth to the provincial economy. I explained that earlier.
MR. WILLIAMS: Logging exports.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you can argue that with Les Reed, but those are numbers that we're prepared to stay with. So we said: "Canada, if you would set up a trust fund for other silviculture work on the Queen Charlottes and the
[ Page 1905 ]
rest of the west coast, and we would like you to contribute $10 million for ten years to that trust fund. If you will set up that trust fund, we can mitigate some of the loss to the province of B.C." They came back with a $50 million offer, which indicated nothing to the trust fund, but indicated that they would do airports and docks, which they normally do anyway. It's just part of their regional development. So that was far short.
Now, one other thing....
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: One moment, please. Hold it! I listened to you. We've talked about balloons and rubber numbers and all that sort of stuff, and I think you're stretching it.
If the federal government is so convinced that in fact the economic impact on them from this independent determination will only be $31 million, then they should be prepared to enter into having that independent determination done. It's a golden opportunity for them. Yet they have told us that they want us to take 25 percent of whatever the determination is over and above that $31 million.
MR. WILLIAMS: It came out of that fifty, and you know it.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the 75 percent comes out of the fifty.
If Canada is so convinced that their number is right and low, then they should have no problem at all accepting the document that I gave them on May 15, and which your leader has seen. You might ask him if he would want to verify your arguments. I realize he's keeping this in confidence, but maybe he could, some way or another, verify your arguments.
I see the critic wants to rise, so I'll take my place.
MS. SMALLWOOD: I really take exception to some of the comments that the minister constantly tries to make about our party and our leader, and all the rest of it. Stop playing petty politics with this important issue. This is an important issue for all the people of B.C. and all the people of Canada. The government has not shown a commitment to this program. The government continues to rely on petty fed-bashing, continues to talk about the potential of 70 jobs. We want those 70 people — or those 70 families — dealt with fairly, but we want a national park reserve there. We want you to pay attention to the 2,000 Haida who have their ancestral home there. And we want you to stop messing with the numbers. I think there are enough numbers in the public view now that it's very clear you're dealing with this in a less than straightforward way.
I also want to point out — and draw it back to my initial comments — that what we are seeing from the Ministry of Environment is short-term gain for long-term pain. If the minister was talking about proactive development, he would be acknowledging the value that this would bring to the province of B.C., and indeed to the world, because we would be preserving a world gem. We would be providing many more long-term jobs to the people of B.C. that would be far more sustainable than ravaging the forest on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and I would like to leave that as my last wrap-up. I'm sure that the next time estimates come before us we'll have additional opportunity to explore the issues of South Moresby.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: Opposition House Leader? Oh, I'm sorry, government House Leader.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm beginning to feel that way! After all, I'm the only one here with Jack Munro on my side.
Seriously, I want to talk about a commitment. We've added one million hectares to the park and wilderness system over the past year. The provincial South Moresby addition, which we will put in place, is about 100,000 hectares. It's the size of Prince Edward Island. It's going to be a remarkable park, so don't take that....
MS. SMALLWOOD: National?
[1:00]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no, the national is about 125,000 — not much bigger. The provincial park is 85 percent of what the national park would be. I'll send you a map so you can understand what it is.
With that said, Madam Chairman, gosh, it's been a wonderful morning. The time is drawing nigh, and we all have travel plans, so I'll wish everyone a very fond weekend. Have a nice time; see you Monday.
I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.