Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1992

Volume 4, Number 3

[ Page 2175 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this morning I would like to introduce a grade 5 class from Braefoot Elementary School. I think they're just coming into the public gallery with their teacher, Ms. Sweeney.

Hon. G. Clark: The shortest introduction period on record.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to call Committee of Supply, both sections. In Section A will be the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and in Section B, in the House here, will be the Ministry of Environment.

The House in Committee Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

On vote 32: minister's office, $347,279 (continued).

C. Serwa: I recognize that the minister is not able to be in the forum at the moment. I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary had matters that he wanted to inform us of. Perhaps he could elaborate on his task force throughout the province until the minister is able to attend the forum.

D. Lovick: I welcome the invitation and thank the member opposite for his courtesy. You will recall that I did that at some length a few days ago. I have just been rushing around to consult other members of the House to see if they wanted to use this opportunity to raise some questions for the minister. I have three requests at least. So with all due deference -- I hope my colleague will understand -- I'm going to defer to my colleagues and give them the opportunity to raise some matters. But I thank the member for the invitation and certainly will accept another, should the need arise.

F. Garden: I do have a couple of questions for the minister. I presume they will be relayed, and I will get some kind of formal reply at a later date. I know, based on the discussions yesterday, that we were talking more about environmental matters than the subject I am going to raise right now, but it's nonetheless within the jurisdiction of the minister, and it's very important.

One of my constituents has brought to my attention the subject of trails or roads going through Crown lands. Crown lands have been granted to some individuals as leaseholds. One of the statutes that were written in 1969 states:

"Where Crown lands are disposed of by Her Majesty in right of the province by Crown grant and the map or plan annexed to the grant shows any road coloured, outlined or otherwise designated thereon in a colour other than red, the road shall be deemed to be 60 feet in width, unless there is express provision in the grant to the contrary" -- and the final, important part -- "and no part of the road shall pass to the Crown grantee."

I've found that the policing of this particular portion is very lax in many instances. One that was just recently brought to my attention was that if someone has been granted the Crown land and they take it upon themselves to close off that road, notwithstanding the fact that people have been using it for years, the Crown does not get involved in reopening the road.

We have a situation close to Quesnel with a road that's been there for years. It's been well established that the road was through the Crown land before it was even given to a lessee, and it was down to a very beautiful part of the Cottonwood River. Along comes a lessee who starts closing the road off and threatening people who are going down the road. My constituent and a few others made some inquiries at the Lands branch, and they got a weird reply. This is Crown land we're talking about. It was never ceded to the lessee in any way, shape or form. They got a reply in this form -- proving that public access through privately owned land existed prior to the Crown grant. When they're saying privately owned, it's when it's been granted to the lessee by the Crown.

It's often a difficult task. Each Crown-granted piece of land may or may not have certain provisos pertaining to the existing and former roads. But the bottom line is that if the road existed prior to the grant being given, there is no way that the lessee can close it. Then it goes on to say that the Crown won't get involved in proving this. If you or I or any of our constituents decide they want to take advantage of that trail as they've done for years, they'll find it closed off. They're then informed: "It must emphasized that the breach of a road or a trail clause within a Crown grant is a civil matter, and remedial action must be initiated by a private citizen before the courts."

C. Serwa: The government should resign over this.

F. Garden: I'll tell you that it's absolutely ludicrous, my friend, that something which belongs to us -- we're the Crown; we own it.... If somebody decides to close it off and I want to walk down that trail, I have got to start a court action, which could be costly if you're stubborn enough and you want to do it and be a hero and take on the world.

[10:15]

Interjection.

F. Garden: Yes, you'd be absolutely sure of knives in your back and everything, you know. It could be terrible. But all I'm pointing out is a tremendous fallacy in this particular piece of law. I see no reason in the world for it. I think about the only duty that a citizen or a group of citizens has is to report that, and then the officials from the Crown should be down there making sure that that road's kept open and that that person abides by the terms of the lease, or the Crown starts making moves to remove that lease from them. At the very least they should make sure the road is kept open. There is just no way that I or any other constituent 

[ Page 2176 ]

should be in court fighting over a piece of Crown land. That's the Crown's duty, and should be policed.

That takes me on to another matter along the same type of a situation. This is farmers owning land in the Cariboo and up north. They tend many times to get permission to raise or lower the level of water on a particular piece of their land, usually by damming it. A lot of it used to be natural: there'd be a creek, and the beavers would dam it for them, and the farmers would use the water underneath, the flooded water, for watering their crops. It is conceded that everything below the natural high level watermark is Crown land, and over the years many leases have been granted to farmers allowing them to flood. They've taken that for granted, and even though that water level may lower later in the summer because they've used it, that land below the natural boundaries is still Crown land.

I got into the middle of a tremendous dispute between two ranchers in my area because, for whatever reasons, they never did get the water back up to the level that it had always been; that they'd been granted in a lease. I found out that these two farmers were left to battle this out in the courts, and although it was Crown land -- everything below that water -- the Crown backed off and wouldn't have any part of it. It's much the same thing as this trail situation, where two neighbours are at one another's throat, and the Crown is saying: "Oh, well, we're taking a hands-off approach, because it's kind of dicey where that high and low level mark is."

They should have been in there with their surveyor from the surveyor general's office, proving before the courts what was and what wasn't Crown land. It shouldn't have been up to these two farmers to expend their funds fighting over something that could be Crown land. So I am suggesting that this be brought to the attention of the minister. It's a tremendous fallacy in the law, and it puts tremendous expense on ordinary citizens when that shouldn't happen.

C. Serwa: It's a very interesting discussion on a very important subject, which is access. Of course, the novel thing this morning is a member on the government side hammering his own government -- and rightfully so.

Public access is the issue that the member has brought up. It is, of course, very important. There has been an erosion, an encroachment on the right of the public to access.

The member has spoken very correctly on agricultural leases, and there are concerns there. Originally, when the tree-farm licences were brought in, there were gates that were put up, and at that time the public was restricted from accessing Crown land.

We're all very concerned. I appreciate the member bringing up that topic this morning for the awareness of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. We're continually going to be threatened in that particular manner. We must be zealous in the protection. I really believe that the Crown must become involved and enunciate clearly that agricultural leases are primarily agricultural leases for agricultural purposes. It's not freehold land; it's not deeded land with clear title. There has to be the right to public access for different uses on that land.

Certainly there are problems. There are problems with the ranching community. Cattle rustling is still an event that occurs in the province; sometimes vandalism to property, equipment and buildings still occurs. Nevertheless, there are other remedies to reduce that. The appropriate remedy is not to restrict public access. I would support the statement of the member for Cariboo North with his concerns regarding access. I would hope that the minister is also cognizant of the importance of ensuring that public access, whether to lakes, to streams, to Crown-owned assets, resources, or lands, is not restricted because of agricultural leases or industrial uses; that the public continue to have the right of access to public-owned lands.

L. Krog: I very much appreciate this unexpected opportunity to address a few remarks through you this morning to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, the member for Nanaimo. In particular, what I want to raise this morning before the House is the issue of the acquisition of lands that are environmentally sensitive, and in particular two areas of my constituency: Hamilton Marsh, as it has become known, or Hamilton Swamp, as it is known to those of who have lived there for some time; and Rowbotham Ridge. These are two unique areas, unfortunately in the hands of private owners, and in particular in both instances, forest companies, with the obvious right to log both lands and land surrounding the marsh and Rowbotham Lake.

I note with interest the moneys budgeted within the statements in the estimates of the Minister of Environment. The government is moving forward, and I commend the government for moving forward, on the issue of converting existing Crown land to parkland and dealing with it in that way, but I am concerned that sufficient funds have not been set aside to deal with those areas, particularly areas within growing population areas like my own constituency, where money has not been set aside to assist the local community in partnership and in conjunction with what this government and party promised through the election to acquire in partnership lands such as those that I have mentioned.

I think it is becoming readily apparent to those living on Vancouver Island, and the members for the Okanagan area are equally aware, that as population continues to grow significantly in those areas, small parcels of land -- which are expensive, of course -- are becoming increasingly important for public use for the necessity of green space and the health of our communities.

I would hope that inasmuch as I know the Minister of Environment is working very, very hard, and inasmuch as they are doing great things, in my view, for the people of British Columbia, they will start to consider planning for a partnership program involving municipal governments, regional district governments and local groups and societies in a very specific program which would be directed at the acquisition of private land -- not Crown land -- in those areas where 

[ Page 2177 ]

there is not sufficient Crown land for the creation of parks and green spaces. I respectfully suggest to the Minister of Environment that those are the kinds of progressive steps that people expect. As well, they are necessary for areas like the city of Nanaimo. Within its environs the city of Nanaimo does unfortunately not have the amount and volume of Crown land that many other municipal jurisdictions have. Accordingly, opportunity for the city of Nanaimo to acquire -- through the good offices of the provincial government -- land for park use within the city is simply not there.

I refer in particular to district lot 56. This has been raised by one of my constituents, Bill Holdom, a hardworking alderman and now councillor, I am happy to say, for the city of Nanaimo. Others -- including Barbara Hourston -- are working very hard to see that district lot 56 is preserved for the use of the citizens of Nanaimo. It is one of the only significant pieces of land within the city jurisdiction that will be available for park. I would say that that is a second stage, but I would respectfully suggest that the provincial government has to consider movement in this area. I know that negotiations are ongoing, but I would appreciate hearing as soon as possible from the hon. parliamentary secretary or directly from the minister on the status of those negotiations, so that the citizens of Nanaimo might be encouraged and look forward to what I think would be a very worthwhile project for the provincial government in conjunction with the city of Nanaimo.

D. Lovick: I can't presume to answer the specific questions on the minister's behalf; however, I have noted them and will refer them to him and will get more detailed answers in terms of government's future plans and policies and proposals.

The member raises an absolutely crucial issue. It's what in the trade is referred to as "sprawl." Sprawl is urban development that encroaches on lands that we used to think were protected and would remain in some kind of natural state. There are about four areas of the province that are subject to sprawl. One of the significant ones is eastern Vancouver Island, stretching from roughly Duncan all the way up to Campbell River.

I'm happy to note -- the member may not be aware of this -- that about a week ago the Premier made a formal announcement to the effect that regional planning would be reintroduced at the local level. You will recall that that function disappeared about ten years ago in the wave of what at the time was referred to as the "restraint program." I think most of us recognize that without that regional planning facility we're in major trouble. The area of the province that I come from, eastern Vancouver Island, and the area my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum comes from, is absolutely one of the most crucial and the most threatened and the most vulnerable at the moment.

It's worth noting, and I almost feel the need to say this for the record, that when the member talks about Nanaimo and the efforts to get the district lot 56 campaign, presently spearheaded by our mutual friend, Ald. Bill Holdom -- or now more appropriately named councillor -- it isn't the case that he is talking about my constituency and that I have not been fighting the good fight; rather it's the case that we share the community of Nanaimo and parts of the city of Nanaimo between us. I feel the need to emphasize that.

The matter of what we do in terms of acquiring those sensitive lands.... The member's quite correct: it isn't simply a matter of saying that we've got Crown lands in reserve and therefore we can use them. A good number of places in the province, and Nanaimo is a classic example.... In order to find some green space and some parkland, we have to purchase it from private interests. The difficulty -- and the member well knows this because of his own heroic efforts to do something in the community of Parksville to try and get what was referred to as the Parksville flats preserved -- is that with a very finite pot of money, you can only buy so many. Then the question becomes: what is the mechanism or process that you set in place in order to find out which ones will we save and which ones will we have to let go by?

The problem is exacerbated and compounded, though. If you tell the world that you intend to preserve property X, and you say, "Yes, our community wants that property, to protect its integrity and vision for the future," given the reality of the marketplace, suddenly the price of that property will rise exponentially. It will go through the ceiling, in fact. That is precisely the difficulty that we in the ministry have found ourselves in when it comes to a property like Parksville and the Parksville flats.

The advisers to the ministry made it very clear that other properties were also competing for scarce resources. Some other properties apparently had a larger number of values that were unique and had to be preserved, and therefore they ranked higher on the priority list. The difficulty, however -- and I say this for the public record and for the members' benefit -- was that the minister wasn't able to tell him what other properties had higher priority simply because the price of those other properties would then go through the ceiling. The difficulty is that the member simply had to say: "I'm sorry, I can't deliver on what I think is a valuable, worthwhile and necessary piece of land for my own constituency." I felt real sympathy for the member in that particular issue, because what he was doing was representing his constituents in the best tradition of this province -- namely, to go out and fight your very best and your very hardest on behalf of your constituents for what you deem to be a worthwhile project.

In any event, those aren't definitive answers to your questions, but I hope they provide you some comfort. You can be assured that I will pass on your remarks and specific requests to the minister. I'm sure you will get a more formal response.

J. Beattie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: Hon. Chair, it's my pleasure to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming the grade 6 class and several adults from Champlain 

[ Page 2178 ]

Heights Elementary School in Vancouver, with their teacher, Mr. J. Lepper.

[10:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, may I too ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will take the opportunity provided by my colleague to interrupt proceedings today to introduce my grade 8 math teacher. Mr. John Piazza is in the gallery. Welcome, John.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, it's an opportunity to rise at this time and talk on similar lines as my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum about some of the land use issues that I think are important in terms of environmental quality in my riding.

One of the initiatives the minister has taken that I'd like him to comment on -- I think it's extremely important, because it affects not only my riding and his riding -- is the protected area strategy. One of the areas that have been outlined is Burke Mountain. Under the process that has been established, the decision date is scheduled for 1993.

Burke Mountain is a significant natural area in my constituency. It's the dominant feature of the landscape, and for over 25 years the constituents in my riding have been working extremely hard to get it declared a protected area of some sort. A lot of us are hoping that it ends up as a provincial park. It's one of those areas under increasing threat, as members have talked about, in terms of urban sprawl. We've heard about Vancouver Island, and we've heard about the Okanagan, and nowhere is this probably even more true than on the lower mainland and in particular the eastern suburbs, which have considerable housing development taking place. The pressure on Crown lands there is increasing as each year goes by, as the private lands are developed and as the more suitable Crown lands are also developed.

Burke Mountain is extremely important to the residents of my constituency, because it forms part of a chain. When you look at the protected areas strategy on a provincewide basis, one of the interesting things you see is that it starts to link up previously isolated pockets of land. One of the problems that environmentalists and conservationists have long recognized is that setting aside areas of land is a great thing, but if they're isolated, the wildlife populations also become isolated and eventually inbred. There has to be some linkage of these areas so that you can allow for diversity in the gene pool. This is important not only in terms of wildlife such as ungulates, which I know are very important to the member for Okanagan West, but for plant species as well. On the lower mainland, it's more difficult to ensure that areas are linked, because you have a host of different land uses. There is Crown land, private land and regional district lands. My riding possesses a really unique opportunity to start developing strategy to link some of these areas and the different government agencies to ensure the land is preserved not only for wildlife and recreation, so there is a multiple-use strategy taking place, but so that you're also ensuring the protection of biodiversity.

As I said, we have Burke Mountain, which is the largest piece of Crown land that we're looking for in terms of becoming a park. It links up to some privately owned lands such as the McLelland property, which is now owned by the Nature Trust and is being leased to the GVRD park system. That also is adjacent to the Minnekhada park system.

The city of Port Coquitlam has preserved the Coquitlam River Valley, and that comes under the jurisdiction of the valley. This too will link up with Burke Mountain and will then come down into Colony Farm, which I hope the Environment ministry is working on in terms of a land use strategy, because this is a real jewel among Crown lands. It's a complex, diverse habitat: old field habitat, river estuarine marsh habitat and second-growth forest habitat. It's an area that the constituents of Port Coquitlam are extremely concerned about.

Another area that the member for Parksville addressed was private lands that are being encroached upon. While I recognize we don't have an endless pot of money to go out and purchase private lands, I think we have to start to look at some way, whether it's in partnerships or by encouraging independent bodies such as the Nature Trust to start to pick up some of these threatened lands, to add them into our.... It is a patchwork, but it's a patchwork that's connected. You may have a series of different owners of the land, but the integrity of the land is not jeopardized.

One piece that I think is central to this is Douglas Island in my own constituency. This is a real example of how governments need to work together. Douglas Island is the largest undiked estuarine island in the Fraser Valley. It's at the confluence of the Pitt and Fraser Rivers. There's no residence on it at the present time. It's privately owned by Canfor. It has basically been used up to the present time for log storage, and log storage has in fact helped to protect the environmental integrity of the island, because it has discouraged people from getting onto the island and doing things that could cause environmental damage. But what's happening with the increasing pressure in terms of growth is that you have developers looking at this island and saying, "Gee, maybe it's a place where we could do some developing."

The GVRD is looking to divest itself of those areas that have hitherto been unorganized, and they have been encouraging municipalities to take them over. So the municipality of Port Coquitlam made application to take over Douglas Island, and this application has been approved. But one of the problems is that the municipality now has to zone that land. Ideally, it should be in a zoning that protects its natural integrity, because there's no reason for it to be developed. It has never been earmarked for development. It has existed for the purpose of log storage, and its value has been based on log storage. Canfor has at various times had this piece of land up for sale. Initially it was around $350,000. Two or three years ago it was up to about $2.5 million. It's in 

[ Page 2179 ]

an area that's expensive, but groups such as the Nature Trust can purchase it.

When the city of Port Coquitlam came along and decided to rezone it, they put an RS2 -- a residential zoning -- on it. They're saying that this is to protect it and to ensure control by the municipality on the type of development that takes place. But what this does is increase the market value, because it sends out the wrong signals to developers. The current asking price for this piece of land is some $7 million, which puts it out of the range of all but those who have the money to do a large-scale development.

I'm hoping that the Ministry of Environment is reviewing this rezoning application in consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Hopefully they can work with the city of Port Coquitlam to come up with an alternative to this RS-2 zoning. The direction that the province has to go in more and more is to sit down with some of the municipalities and say: "Look, these are environmentally sensitive lands." Maybe we need to work toward some sort of environmentally friendly zoning that recognizes what is at stake here and at the same time allows groups such as the Nature Trust of Canada and Ducks Unlimited to come into the picture and say: "Look, the province does not have the money at this time, but we have private resources that we can bring in to help protect some of these private lands." I think this is an issue that is going to be of increasing importance as the years go by, and it's one that I hope the Ministry of Environment and the government will start to address.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's good to be back in the House, and even though I haven't heard all the comments made this morning, I will be reading them -- those I missed -- and responding to those hon. members.

I think I heard most of what the hon. member for Port Coquitlam had to say. I won't comment on all of the points, because I think they were all good points, but I'm very pleased that he mentioned the designation of Burke Mountain-Pinecone Lake as a designated study area in the protected area strategy, and that decision is to be made by 1993. We certainly appreciate the work of the Burke Mountain naturalists and people like Mark Haddock and others in drawing attention to the importance of that area.

I don't know if it might be considered in the category of a pocket wilderness or simply an area that's close to a tremendous amount of urban population. So often our park and wilderness areas, whatever the designation, are far from population, and therefore a lot of people never really have an opportunity to experience some of that treasure which is part of the province. So I think it behooves us to be looking at appropriate areas that are in proximity to our population base. I would also want to recognize the role of the GVRD and Rick Hankin as we look together at such areas.

I know there has been a trend in recent years that class C parks, which are by and large in proximity to the urban centres, would be passed over to the local regional districts. That's a policy that we might want to review. The fact is, I don't think we have any class C parks left, except for perhaps one exception.

We do look forward to the continued study with local input, and I know that the member for Port Coquitlam has a great deal of interest in that area, has spent a lot of time in that area, and will be very helpful to us in deciding on that designation.

Vote 32 approved.

On vote 33: ministry operations, $223,985,021.

J. Tyabji: As the minister is aware, I've been unable to attend the estimates discussion because of something with regard to Bill 29. There are definitely a number of questions that we would like to address. I had a discussion with the minister's parliamentary secretary to ensure that we would not close the Environment estimates.

[10:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that the previous vote does not preclude the continuation of the estimates.

The Chair: That's correct.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I didn't ask the question yesterday, but I did touch briefly on the matter of the 4,212 acres of prime agricultural farmland in Delta that was expropriated from Delta farmers in 1969 for backup lands for the Roberts Bank port development. At that time, when the Social Credit government of the day dispossessed farmers of their homesteads and land, it was clearly stated that the purpose of the expropriation was to provide land for the Roberts Bank port backup. The port of Vancouver has recently announced an intention to develop the third and fourth pods of the Roberts Bank port for a container terminal, and have started talking to the community and the municipality about that development.

In a specific discussion on the subject with officials from the Vancouver Port Corporation, I asked them about their intentions with regard to warehouse and other forms of intermodal facility developments in relation to that container port. They have given a clear and unequivocal statement that they will not be requiring any part of those lands.

During the Agriculture estimates I asked some questions of the minister with respect to these lands, and the concerns of the farmers who are presently leasing them. It seems to me that perhaps the greatest signal that can be given that these lands are for agriculture, and the original intention of acquiring them for industrial development, could be to allow these lands now to be sold back to the original property owners, if they are willing to purchase them. I know that in many cases the original owners are still living in their homes on those lands, and they and their families are still farming them.

I would appreciate a response on that subject.

[ Page 2180 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all I would like to apologize to the Environment critic. I was not aware that the people who were in the House were not authorized to carry on, so I made the assumption, when that vote was called, that they were in charge -- that you had people in the House who were in charge. That was an incorrect assumption, which I should not have made. But there's no harm done, because we still have this vote under which we can continue to canvass the estimates. My incorrect assumption was that somehow a decision was made that it would be allowed to go through at that time. I apologize for that, because that was incorrect.

With regard to the backup lands, I think the best answer, hon. member, is that there is a process underway now which will require a study of the environmental, agricultural and economic aspects of that area, including the backup lands. There is some discussion taking place as to whether or not the major study should be purely environmental. On the one hand, that is being advocated by some people. On the other hand, another position -- and it's the one I'm leaning toward -- is that any such study should cover all the aspects under one umbrella, so all the interactions between environment and economy, etc. can be dealt with in that process. The question that the member is raising, therefore, with regard to the ultimate disposition of those backup lands, would be subject to that process. There will be a study process announced to resolve that and other issues. It will be announced to deal with the whole area of that region, and it will be included within the parameters of that study.

F. Gingell: The minister is probably aware that one study has just been completed by the Ministry of Agriculture with federal concerns, which clearly identified the problems of farmers within a community like Delta, with the pressures coming from urban encroachment. The concern I have, Mr. Minister, is that we are going into yet another study -- we tend to be studying ourselves to death -- and in the meantime the farmers do have some concerns on their long-term tenancy. Although all of the leases are long-term -- relatively long-term, some of them even as long as 20 years -- with five-year rent periods, there is still a provision in every single one of those leases that they can be cancelled on one year's notice. The concern that many of the farmers have, and have expressed, is that with a one-year cancellable clause there is little incentive for them to reinvest in good soil management practices. We have to stop mining our sustainable resources -- the ones that can be renewed -- and good, prime agricultural farmland certainly is one of those sustainable resources. So to encourage the farmers leasing those lands to reinvest in good soil management practices, would it be possible now, Mr. Minister, to take the cancellable provisions out of those leases so that the farmers know that they have tenure?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question that falls squarely within the Lands aspect of the ministry. I would prefer to defer answering that until I'm able to consult with Lands' staff. It's my understanding that at some point I will be advised when the agenda shifts into Lands. I do recognize that there's an environmental aspect to the concern, but it is specifically a question about leases. Therefore I would prefer to be able to deal with that at that time. If it is the desire of the environment critic, I'd be glad to introduce the Lands' part at this point. There may be some value in that. We could also keep Environment staff in the chamber. We recognize that you're still tidying up some areas there too.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to go to the subject of irradiated food. It's a very difficult subject as to how we deal with irradiated food. I wonder if the minister is considering looking at -- in conjunction with the Minister of Health -- the whole issue of pesticides and irradiated food, because there are a lot of these new processes that aren't really tehnically covered in any areas. In things like his Environmental Protection Act, is he...? I know that the enabling bill that is before us, which will soon be an act, will allow for the labelling of any products at the minister's discretion. I'm wondering if the minister is planning to put forward some kind of proposal to actually have irradiated foods labelled or in the future to have a higher profile of organic food labelling -- that kind of public communication tool.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would certainly be willing to consult with Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health on that issue. There might be some connection here in the legislation that the member has referred to.

J. Tyabji: With regard to the Environmental Protection Act that the minister is putting together over the next year in consultation with the public, is this minister planning to include an ethics portion? This goes back to some of our talk yesterday that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena brought up with regard to zoos in parks, water treatment and these kinds of things. The minister had a lengthy response to that. This is always a difficult area no matter what ministry one is dealing with. However, with regard to environmental ethics, is he thinking of an environmental ethics code?

Hon. J. Cashore: Implicitly if not explicitly, but there will be a purposes section. I'm skating close to the edge here, because I'm out of order in talking about future legislation. However, I don't want to be difficult. Ethics is a very important part of what we do as a body politic. We have technology advancing at the speed of a rocket train, and our ability to think ethicly and act morally is in the horse-and-buggy era. So the fact that we would put out statements of purposes is a beginning. But if I had my way, we would be spending a lot more time on ethical and value clarification in all aspects of what we do. I think the fact that there is an environmental perspective in virtually every ministry of government is an indication of.... If I say that environment is concomitant with economy, it's also concomitant with ethics.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to get to the last heading under Environment with regard to energy and technology, 

[ Page 2181 ]

and that would also include education. With regard to education, the minister has made previous references to the Ecosaurus program and some other programs that the ministry is doing in conjunction with the existing educational infrastructure. I wonder if the minister would expand on his educational programs: what levels of schools he's dealing with, what kind of information is being passed on and what the concrete goals and objectives of his program are for the next year.

[11:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The eco-education program is a joint project between the ministries of Environment and Education. At the present time it's primarily focused on primary grades in the schools. But the facilities that we have available within the ministry to promote environmental education are also seen throughout the province. If an organization is having an environmental fair, for instance, we will see that the resources of that process are made available. A good example was at Globe '92 during the Eco fest. It was just phenomenally successful, when you saw the numbers of parents and children who came to the provincial government display and participated in the Ecosaurus activities, which provided hands-on opportunities to not only talk about recycling but to practise it.

The philosophy of environmental education has to be field-oriented and hands-on. It also has to recognize and respect that children are not there as vessels to be filled, but as participants who also have a teaching role. The best possible educational values have to be applied in any environmental education, and we are certainly continuing to work towards that goal. It would be wonderful if we had enough resources to do a lot more in that area. We'll continue to advocate for that.

J. Tyabji: Is the minister planning to expand -- not from a financial position, but through the educational structure -- and bring some of the information on some of the very critical issues that this ministry has access to to high school and college students or to some of the existing school student associations? As the minister is aware, many high schools around the province have very in-depth environmental programs, which the teachers are doing. Obviously, through his ministry, he has a lot of resources that he can offer to the high schools.

I'd also like to canvass the minister's opinion with regard to the daily ultraviolet radiation readings that the CBC is giving out. Is the minister doing anything through his ministry and the educational system to, first of all, inform students as to why this is an important concept to understand and why it's critical that, as we all become more aware of the increasing dangers of ultraviolet radiation, students should be well informed as a preventive measure?

Hon. J. Cashore: Regional staff are certainly available to participate in educational activities at schools. That includes our wildlife staff and biologists, and where some salmon enhancement programs are taking place there are active hands-on interactions. One thing that I have learned from visiting our staff around the province is that they are very community-oriented, and they put in an incredible amount of volunteer time in many cases. Obviously they believe the point that's been made about the importance of education. Also, I think that the environmental achievement awards that were announced yesterday fit in with this goal. Indeed, there were two awards to groups that were involved in education. One group from Fort St. John had done some outstanding work. Obviously that's symbolic, but it's an opportunity to encourage that kind of activity.

I do want to point out, though, that we look upon everything that we do within the Ministry of the Environment as having an educational function to it, but when it gets into the area of formal education, obviously the Minister of Education has a primary role there.

J. Tyabji: Considering that the minister and I are in agreement that he has a primary role in terms of education, is he doing anything to encourage his regional staff to go to the schools -- particularly in the area of ozone depletion and the resulting increase in ultra-violet radiation? I'm sure the minister is aware that yesterday's CBC reading on ultra-violet radiation was 7.5 for Victoria and Vancouver, which puts us in the high zone. If he has been following that, that's a daily reading and it fluctuates considerably. Most people aren't even aware that that reading is there, and probably a good portion of those who see that aren't aware of the implications of the reading.

I'm wondering if the minister is doing something to broaden the base of awareness, or if he considers this to be an important task. Is he going to try to do something? I know from my own experience with Environment Week and Earth Day and speaking to the high schools that there is a great deal of confusion out there as to the difference between global warming and ozone depletion. It would be very important for his staff to reach out to the community, whether it be by allowing the teachers to have access to the resources or in whatever manner the minister sees fit. Is he taking a leadership role in terms of atmospheric problems and the education of children?

Hon. J. Cashore: As I have said before, yes to all of those points.

J. Tyabji: I would like something more specific. Does the minister have anything more specific on education with regard to ultra-violet radiation?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the member will read the Blues for the comments that I've made over the last ten minutes, she will find a number of specifics there. I've mentioned, just to very briefly recap, that I've been out around the province visiting staff, encouraging them in their outreach to schools and to education programs, that I have recognized the importance of education. I don't think I have said anything that is in conflict with what the member has said. She is stating some very well-stated truths, but I think they are obvious truths. I'm not sure how they relate to the estimates.

[ Page 2182 ]

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

J. Tyabji: I'd like to switch to the energy part of this -- research and development. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much of his budget is going towards research and development.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't hesitate to say that that is not something that one can quantify, given that research and development is virtually a component of every aspect of the budget and a number of programs. Just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, one major example is the $10 million that's going towards catching up on resource inventory. Another major example is the research that's involved in the fish and wildlife biology area and in the environmental protection strategy. All of these things are significant parts of research and development, but the budget is not laid out in such a way that one could take that $240 some-odd million budget and say that X is for research and development. It just doesn't work that way. We have biologists working with the ministry who, as part of their professional development, are constantly keeping up on research and development issues. They're reading the literature and working with libraries. All of these things are involved in the total scenario of research and development. There is no question that research and development is important. I continue to advocate for that and to support our people in that.

J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that there is no money being allocated for research and development into alternate technology with regard to energy sources, alternative fuels for cars, geothermal energy or any of these kinds of non-polluting alternatives to fossil fuels?

Hon. J. Cashore: These are in the budgets of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Advanced Education, Training and Technology. My ministry works with those ministries. I don't know if the member asked those questions when those estimates were before the House.

Again, I think I've answered very specifically that our ministry is involved in research and development. Insofar as those programs are taking place on an intraministerial basis, it is also significant that our staff are involved in working with those ministries and bring their expertise to them.

There's $100,000 going into the work that we're doing on alternative fuels with regard to research and clean air. There is research and development taking place, as I said before, in a great many areas within our ministry.

J. Tyabji: The official opposition has asked those questions in the other ministries, and it seems that there is no commitment in terms of research and development funding for non-polluting alternatives to the existing systems. As I mentioned to the minister earlier, there is definitely a need to develop a plan for sustainable cities. I think B.C. has an opportunity through the Environment ministry, and it's a perfectly legitimate goal for the Environment minister to want to be on the leading edge of environmental technology.

There is really no ministry that any of these belong to, because there's so much overlap. With regard to some of the non-polluting alternatives like solar energy, surely the minister isn't suggesting that's not in his ministry, because the use of solar energy is definitely an environmental solution.

I'd like to read the minister a quote from Omni magazine of May, 1991, about fossil fuels: "Quite likely, the long-term solutions to the energy crisis will involve a sweeping move away from the carbon-based fuels that energized human development from prehistoric times to the industrial age." I would put to the minister that that is definitely something that he should be taking an interest in, even if he's working with the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology on that.

I see the Minister for Municipal Affairs here. I was talking to him about sustainable cities, and he didn't have any answers for me there. A lot of that was being passed on to the Environment minister, and the Environment minister is passing it back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Perhaps he should have a joint committee of ministers to deal with the issue of sustainability so that you could at least decide which portfolios these issues are in. There's no question that some of the solar and wind-generating energy options are under the Environment ministry.

I'd like to read again from the same article: "Power from solar and wind-generating facilities is competitive with, and in the near future will be cheaper than, the same electricity produced by traditional generating plants." I hope the minister is paying attention, because the fact that solar and wind-generating facilities are competitive with the existing ones means that it's not even an economic issue to not allow a switch from the current energy sources to solar and wind-generating energy sources. Somebody has to take the initiative on that side of the House with regard to alternative energy sources.

I think the minister should be aware that there are some things with regard to the natural gas initiatives that definitely come under his ministry. We had the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove talking about natural gas storage sites and how that might affect his ministry. There's no question that there is overlap with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but I understand there is no isolated budget in her ministry either for research and development. My question to the minister: is he aware of any isolated funds that are related to alternative energy sources, whichever ministry they might be in, for research and development? Surely these are concerns to the Minister of Environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, integrated is better than isolated. We have funds in the ministry that are integrated, and we integrate with other ministries. It's not correct to say that we don't have interministerial committees. We do at the deputy level, and also in the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development. It is really stretching a point to suggest that this is not the case. If the way the official opposition wants to go is to 

[ Page 2183 ]

have isolated funds, that's something they can put out there. I have said in response to the question that there are initiatives we are taking in the area of achieving clean air, and there are attendant studies that go on within that process. I'll leave it at that.

F. Randall: Could I have leave for an introduction?

Leave granted.

F. Randall: In the gallery this morning we have 62 grade 6 students from Clinton Elementary School. They are accompanied by teachers Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Cronkhite, along with five adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

[11:15]

J. Tyabji: One of the last energy sources that I'd like to deal with is with regard to geothermal energy. I know there is obviously a definite overlap, but there's an interest to the Minister of Environment with regard to geothermal energy. It doesn't cost a lot of money. Is the minister taking any initiative with regard to geothermal energy and the advancement of this?

The Chair: Hon. member, could you please try to address your questions and remarks to the environmental aspects of energy in the concerns you have. I'm having a hard time clarifying which direction you're heading. We're dealing with estimates in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and ministry operations.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, the minister is referring to general revenues that are being used for some form of research within his ministry. I'm trying to figure out, first of all, if there is no money allocated in isolation for research and development into alternate energy sources, which I believe is a function of the Environment minister for looking for alternatives to polluting sources, then has he at least developed some kind of policy initiatives within his ministry? My understanding is that there is a lot of flexibility with regard to estimates to at least determine.... If there's no money going into it, is the minister at least making some inquiries into some of the existing projects with regard to geothermal energy in this province? The minister would definitely have an interest in seeing them go ahead because they are non-polluting.

My understanding is that the Environment minister is an umbrella minister and he takes into account many other ministries. That's where I'm coming from. There's one in Lillooet, for example, and there's also one that was started by the Canadian Crew Energy Corp. If the minister is interested, those are two things at least that I would encourage him to pursue. Maybe he has already met with these people, because he is going to Rio. As the minister is going to Rio on international environmental issues, the very least I can assume is that he's also interested in the international environmental issues that deal with non-polluting energy sources. If that's not the case, then he shouldn't be participating in an international forum for those kinds of subjects. We have to go beyond, and we have to recognize that the Environment minister obviously overlaps with all the other ministries. I don't think it's enough to just say, "Well, that's in the Energy portfolio, that's in the Municipal Affairs portfolio," as it deals with the environment. It's definitely, I think, in the interest of the environment -- just as he's going to Rio to look at atmospheric issues and global concerns -- for the minister to be looking in his own back yard at these kinds of non-polluting energy sources.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that any reading of my comments throughout these estimates would find that that's not an appropriate interpretation of the responses that I have been giving in the estimates whenever the issue has come up, whether it had to do with air quality issues or whether it had to do with energy issues. I have given a great deal of latitude in terms of responding to issues to do with bills before the House, and responding to issues to do with other ministries. I have answered those questions, even though they were clearly out of order, and I put myself out of order by responding to them; but I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can.

But frankly, the interpretation of what I have said is incorrect; I'm most concerned about the issues to which the hon. member is referring. Our ministry is involved in consultation with other ministries. With regard to the professional development of our staff in terms of relating to these issues, there's an interconnection among a wide variety of ways in which these are being addressed.

When she talks about thermal energy, that's an important issue. She talked about windmills; that's important. I've talked about that too. Now with regard to thermal energy, there is a study on Meager Creek. It's being conducted by another ministry. Again, I'm out of order right now in talking about this; but our ministry is in contact with that ministry on that issue.

Hon. member, the people who read Hansard and watch the debate form their own judgment about who is saying what and how it's being said. No amount of your reinterpretation is going to be the final word, because the word speaks for itself.

G. Wilson: I have questions that relate to three specific issues, and I will outline what those topic areas are and proceed through them that way so staff members accompanying you might be able to order whatever materials they have to be able to respond.

The first is with respect to marine pollution, marine dumping and estuary management. I recognize in raising this that there is a joint responsibility with respect to federal and provincial jurisdictions here, and so I'm well aware that there are some concerns there.

The second area I'd like to talk a little bit about is with respect to the environmental assessment and environmental protection portions under the ministerial operations description. It has to do with environmental analysis, particularly with large freshwater bodies, but also some estuaries and some foreshore 

[ Page 2184 ]

regions in the province, with respect to activities licensed under the Ministry of Environment.

The third area has to do with the upcoming world conference which the minister is going to be travelling to.

Having said that then, I shall start. My first question to the minister is: how many licensed ocean dumping sites are there in British Columbia? What are the regulations with respect to the provision of licences your ministry provides for the dumping of material? What kind of environmental assessment is done, and how frequently, at each of the sites that you identify?

Hon. J. Cashore: I responded to a question yesterday with regard to federal-provincial jurisdiction. I made that very clear. This is a question that is in the purview of the federal government. I've also stated, as I've said time and time again, that the Environment ministry is concerned about these issues and is in consultation with the federal government about them. The question is clearly out of order.

G. Wilson: Will the minister tell us who provides the permit for the dumping? Is that done by the federal government, or is it done by the provincial government?

Hon. J. Cashore: I answered that question a few moments ago; I answered it yesterday. The answer is Environment Canada.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might elaborate a little bit on this. It seems to me that in the proposition for the removal of toxic substances, industrial wastes and hazardous materials from landfill and industrial sites, they are put on barges to go to registered ocean dumpsites, which are under federal regulation, and a provincial permit is required for that to happen. If that is not so, then perhaps the minister could advise us on what measures are taken with respect to the permitting and analysis process of what goes into it. If not, why is your ministry spending money doing research and analysis into trace minerals that are found in those dumpsites?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm glad to hear the acknowledgment that we are doing research and analysis. We do that research and analysis because it's our responsibility, as I said yesterday, with regard to land-based activities. There is an interface; the hon. member is absolutely correct. We are dealing with that fact. We're not saying that we are ignoring the fact. We're acknowledging the federal jurisdiction in this area. It is a problem; I've never tried to say it isn't a problem. It's a problem that I am paying a lot of attention to. I don't think it's too creative to suggest that somehow we have a jurisdiction where that jurisdiction doesn't exist. That comes under the issue of some of the constitutional discussions. That's certainly an important area. Yes, there is research and analysis with regard to the movement and classification of soils and how those are categorized. It's a serious problem, and nobody's ever said it isn't.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might shed a little light on this then. Insofar as there are conflicting jurisdictions, which we are aware of -- the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and the provincial Ministry of Environment -- when inner harbour dredging is done and heavy metals are taken out of the inner harbour of Vancouver, put on barges and taken off and dumped in Howe Sound, can the minister tell us at what level his ministry becomes involved in that? At what level does his ministry determine what materials are in the toxic-dump material that's going down? Does his ministry do any analysis whatsoever of the dumpsite that may exist in the Howe Sound region?

Hon. J. Cashore: Our permitting requirement is for any direct discharge from land to the marine environment. With regard to materials that are dredged out of tidewater and replaced to another place in tidewater, that is clearly jurisdictionally in the area of the federal government. It's my understanding, though, that if it were on a river, the provincial government would have a role there, since that would be described as land-based.

G. Wilson: I guess a lot has changed in the last seven months, which we'll have to take a look at.

With respect to effluent materials that are currently being deposited in the Squamish estuary, which are commonly being found to originate through surface industrial activity in the Fraser River estuary, a number of fairly substantive studies have been underway for a long period of time with respect to putting in place an integrated management plan for these estuaries, in which this ministry in a former government -- although we've not seen any evidence in this particular government today -- has been involved. Can the minister tell us what moneys are available under either environmental protection or environmental assessment? What dollars are now dedicated for the kind of research that is continuing with respect to the potential cleanup in the Squamish estuary and specifically the Fraser River estuaries, as those are two ongoing studies that his ministry has had involvement with?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are involved in both the Squamish and the Fraser basin. I am told the total administrative costs are in the area of $0.5 million. I would also add that we recently signed the Fraser basin management agreement which, as I said in quite extensive debate yesterday, will involve $100 million from the Green Plan. It will also involve over the five-year period, when you add the spending of the municipalities and the provincial government, close to $1 billion.

As I said yesterday, in case you didn't have the opportunity to apprise yourself of that information, there will be a management board headed by Tony Dorcey that will be heading up a process that will have input from a wide range of interests including municipal, provincial and federal, as well as native people. That management board will have the key role in 

[ Page 2185 ]

apportioning how those moneys are to be spent over that five-year period.

G. Wilson: Are the moneys that the minister identifies under administration costs going directly into environmental assessment in those areas? If so, what work is underway, and when can we expect to see some results from the work that is underway?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those moneys are going into that process, and the work is underway and is ongoing. You will see the results emerging in due course.

G. Wilson: I wonder if I could press through you, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to be a little more specific here. Yesterday we had awards handed out, and the Save Howe Sound Society was introduced and applauded by this minister. They've been doing great work in the Howe Sound region, which is, of course, very much affected by the Squamish estuary. I wonder if the minister could be just a little more specific with respect to exactly what work is underway. What analysis is being done? To what extent are we looking at pollutants that are

G. Wilson: I wonder if I could press for the minister to be a bit more specific here. Yesterday we had awards handed out, and the Save Howe Sound Society was here and was introduced and applauded by this minister. They have been doing great work in the Howe Sound region, which of course is very much affected by the Squamish estuary. I wonder if the minister could be just a little more specific with respect to exactly what work is underway, what analysis is being done, to what extent we are looking at industrially based pollutants and to what extent we are looking at natural environmental degradation as a result of the erosion that's occurring because of upland development that is not industrially based and is, in fact, residentially based. I wonder if the minister could tell us specifically to what extent we're looking at that, and how much money we're dedicating to looking at it.

Hon. J. Cashore: Ongoing work is taking place. It's being carried out appropriately between both the federal and provincial governments. That's all I'm able to say at this time.

G. Wilson: I take it, then, that the minister doesn't know, and perhaps the minister might get his staff to reply in some detail, through some form of correspondence, so that we can have some understanding of what is going on.

[11:30]

I wonder if I could move on to matters that have arisen over the last five months in which the Ministry of Environment has been doing some work. I wonder if we can get an update on this. It has to do with the development of the aquaculture industry, which I realize the minister will be quick to tell me lies under the jurisdiction of Agriculture and Fisheries. I understand it has that component. However, if we look at the work done on an integrated management strategy for the Sechelt Inlet study as one example -- and there are many others -- the one ministry that was a key in terms of being absent in this discussion and in looking at the overall assessment and potential impact of this industry was the Ministry of Environment. Despite a great deal of pressure on the former government to get the Ministry of Environment actively working on estuary management and especially on inland bodies of water, such as you'd find in the Port Alberni area, the Sechelt Inlet area and Okeover Arm -- and I could go on and on -- the Ministry of Environment made a conscious decision at that time not to involve itself in any baseline work on habitat management.

Given that it was one of the promises made by this government in the election, could the minister tell us how much money he's put into this kind of work and study, and when we can expect to see direct participation of Ministry of Environment personnel in the ongoing work with respect to habitat and estuary management?

Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition hasn't had time -- I know he's very busy -- to be advised of the matters that have been covered in the House. Yesterday during estimates we covered this thoroughly.

G. Wilson: I have been apprised, and I've read Hansard, and this was not covered yesterday in the estimates. Because I don't wish to waste everybody's time, I will take it again that the minister simply doesn't know. It's becoming a kind of repeating response.

If I could move, then, to environmental protection and the question of aquaculture again, it is the provincial Ministry of Environment, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that is permitting the disposal of waste from fish-farm-based effluent, as well as a permitting process for effluent that goes into the water from processing plants. Maybe I can elaborate for the minister. When you're growing a fish and it doesn't eat the food that you put in the water, the food falls to the bottom as waste and creates a habitat problem. When that fish is big enough, you put it into a plant and gut it and clean it. We don't want to eat the intestines and the blood, so they're flushed out of a pipe into the water. That also requires the provincial Ministry of Environment to issue a permit.

Can the minister tell us what upgrading of regulation has taken place with respect to these plants? Have the recommendations in the ombudsman's report, which dealt specifically with this matter, been undertaken by the Ministry of Environment? If so, how does that inspection take place, and at what cost with respect to this minister's estimates?

Hon. J. Cashore: We permit fish processing plants. Agricultural operations are subject to regulation. There is a general regulation dealing with the issue of agricultural waste.

G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us how many officers he has doing inspection of existing permits with respect to marine waste generated from either industr-

[ Page 2186 ]

ial activity on the shore or aquaculture, land-based or water-based? How many officers has he got out there? How often do they go out and inspect? What enforcement powers do they have, particularly with respect to the waste I've just been talking about?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is a very intricate question. It's something like the question asked earlier about separating out research. The best guess we have is around six, if you were to add it up in FTEs. That's just a guess.

G. Wilson: I would have thought maybe just counting the names on your payroll might be one way to get that information. I don't know how complicated that can be.

Let's move on, if we can. The minister is about to embark on a trip to Rio. I wonder if he can tell us how much it will cost, how many people are going with him, who they are and what the minister specifically hopes to accomplish by this trip.

Hon. J. Cashore: I did talk about Rio yesterday. The people who will be going with me include Jamie Alley, our director of legislation and policy. He has an excellent background in working with previous Ministers of Environment at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and is very familiar with the global issues and the process leading from B.C. through Canada to UNCED and has good contacts in that field. Also attending from British Columbia will be Mr. John Cuthbert, the chief forester. Their costs, I believe, will be handled as part of their ministry, as opposed to the minister's office. The cost for my travel and the fact that we will be hosting a reception for the B.C. delegates.... I would have to get an update on those figures, but I believe it's in the area of $10,000.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister can tell us what is planned, what specific sessions he's going to be attending and what the focus of them is, given that this is a very wide-ranging conference. It's international in its perspective, and it deals primarily with north-south relations. To my certain knowledge, there are only two other jurisdictions outside of the federal government that are sending people, at least to date. Both are Premiers going down there with very specific issues in mind, one being Mr. Filmon from Manitoba, the other being Premier Wells from Newfoundland. I understand that Prince Edward Island is considering sending down a delegation, but I don't believe that very many provinces are.

I wonder if the minister could just elaborate a little about exactly what he intends to look at down there, what sessions he intends to participate in and what the thrust of his discussions will be with respect to matters of environment in B.C.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I commented on the thrust yesterday. The persons that the Leader of the Opposition referred to are going to be there. Gilbert Clements will be there representing the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. He's the Minister of the Environment from Prince Edward Island. Mr. Paradis, the Minister of the Environment in Quebec, will be there.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: The information I have is that he will be, but I could stand corrected. The information I have is that the Northwest Territories will be represented there. If the intent of the question is to ask why B.C. would be represented when other jurisdictions aren't represented, I think the answer is self-evident. B.C. has an incredibly significant role in terms of the environment on a global scale. There's a great deal of attention focused on British Columbia, and British Columbia has a lot to offer.

Given the comments from the various members that were made in the House following my statement the other day, I would have assumed that I go there with a great deal of encouragement and support. It is appropriate to be canvassing the range of issues that we will be dealing with there. I go as an official member of the Canadian delegation, as an official representative of the British Columbia government and as the special guest of Maurice Strong, who asked me attend as his special guest prior to my being added to the Canadian delegation.

To repeat very briefly what I've said: I go there to learn in terms of the entire global issue, not only personally but to learn on behalf of British Columbians. As I've said so many times, and I repeat this theme: when we're talking about sustainable development, we also have to recognize that that includes the incredible issue of world poverty. We have to factor that into our deliberations as we try to address that.

We also go there recognizing that there are things for us to learn about the world community. I'm quite disturbed by what I've been learning -- just realizing, as I said before, that a road is being built from the airport into Rio that's causing the destruction of shantytowns. There's a backdrop to this scenario. That certainly is one that challenges us with the enormity of the problems.

On the other hand, we go there with what we can share. British Columbia has shown leadership in the two Globe conferences. In the desire to host Globe '94 in two years, we're obviously recognized worldwide as being a very significant area of the world environmentally. As I said yesterday, I believe the presence of Maurice Strong, who is moving into the Vancouver area, will be an important part of that.

We in British Columbia have an opportunity to develop a vision in terms of the two major thrusts of our environmental work. One is dealing with prevention, and the other is crisis intervention. The research and development that you referred to earlier relates to both of those areas. We have a lot to contribute there. Part of the partnership and the teamwork on that also involves our three universities in a very fundamental way, as well as our technical schools. I think we are going to be in a very good position to be able to export environmentally gentle and benign expertise that can be 

[ Page 2187 ]

beneficial in many parts of the world. We can only do that if we seek to do it on a partnership basis.

I think the third major thrust in going to the UNCED conference is to work very hard and effectively to ensure that the best possible declarations and agreements can be achieved; and again, in trying to accomplish that, that has to be done in the context of recognizing the kinds of tensions that exist between the north and the south: recognizing the kinds of problems that exist because of the position being taken by the Americans, and the key and powerful role that they have within that.

Some of the positions that Canada is taking are not as strong as I would like them to be, but I think we have to take a look at what is happening in Rio not as a be-all and end-all but as a beginning, as a very important step towards some further significant decisions that have to be made. The path ahead is not easy; I don't hear anybody saying that. It's an increadible challenge. But I would like to think that as our young people acknowledge this process going on, they would see from their leaders that it's in the context of hope and not in the context of despair. I think that all of us have a responsibility to help deal with that.

[11:45]

Having said that, we are taking the initiatives that we have taken in British Columbia proudly: the Commission on Resources and Environment, the protected areas strategy, the work that's being done towards a forest practices act and the old-growth strategy project. That is only to mention a few of the initiatives. Again, without getting out of order in talking about legislation, we have very ambitious and intense consultative processes underway towards totally revamping the environmental legislation in the province. We have taken significant action with regard to the issue of water, how we ensure water quality, how we deal with the impending issue of water exports and how we deal with that in the difficult context of the GATT and the free trade agreement.

Finally, I acknowledge that I took in very good faith the expressions of goodwill that came from the two parties opposite in the House.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we can come back to matters of the estimates now.

With respect to this trip....

Hon. R. Blencoe: You asked the question. What are you talking about?

G. Wilson: The Minister of Municipal Affairs said I asked a question -- this is true. What I asked was: what specific sessions was the minister going to? Maybe that was an oversight in the answer.

I wonder if we could now turn specifically to the question of the perception of....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Well, you'll have an opportunity, as soon as I've asked this question.

How much attention, what kind of money...? Is there any brochure or any kind of material that's being presented to counter the popular opinion that seems to have been generated worldwide that this is the Brazil of the north? Can the minister tell us what he is going to do to dissuade the people there that that is so? What kind of documentation is he going to be taking with him? I would assume that Mr. Cuthbert's attendance would assist in that. Of course, all of us, on all sides of this House, want to make sure that we protect and maintain this most vital industry. Maybe the minister can tell us specifically what he is going to do with respect to trying to get some facts on the table there.

Hon. J. Cashore: Move away from slogans and into facts, as the member says; take forward the very ambitious agenda that this government has brought forward; spell out the way in which we have emerged with the Commission on Resources and Environment and the protected areas strategy; make it very clear that in a very brief time this government has taken major steps toward turning around what all too often has been a conflict-oriented approach to land use planning; and move that toward a process that brings people to the table and a recognition that we have a long way to go. If you will pardon the expression, we aren't out of the woods, and no one has ever said that we aren't still going to have problems. The key and fundamental fact is that this government, through its work in a short period of time, has provided a way for British Columbians to come together and cooperate and plan on the basis of sustainable development principles. That is a new opportunity, because people have been getting awfully tired of the conflict, the name-calling and the procedures that are not environmentally friendly.

I have to tell you that recently I was a speaker on a panel that was planned in the lower mainland. Of the seven people on the panel, all were men who were my age or younger, but not that much younger. That in itself is not environmentally friendly, because it doesn't express the concerns of 50 percent of the population, for one thing. So when we go to Rio, I think we have to express the values that are going to help us move together as a world community, and recognize that 50 percent of the population, the women of planet Earth, have a major role to play in putting the new agenda on the table. I for one want to help facilitate that. I think it's incredibly important that, as we go into that process, we recognize that north and south each have a lot to offer each other, and it has to be in the context of a growing awareness. I think that's incredibly important. I could go on and on, but it's getting close to the hour, and the member probably has some other questions.

G. Wilson: In another forum I would gladly take the opportunity to sit down and debate the whole concept of sustainable development and the extent to which breathing air affects women differently than men. Nevertheless, we can get into all those kinds of issues later.

I wonder if I can come back to some specific questions that have to do with the Ministry of Environment and the lack of regulation and enforcement in 

[ Page 2188 ]

previous governments. I'm speaking specifically with respect to people whose income has been negatively impacted by the government's inability or what has been seen to be an undesirable effect by a government to enforce environment pollution regulations. Where there is evidence to suggest that a livelihood has been detrimentally affected, because the Ministry of Environment in either past governments or this government has not enforced existing regulations, does this minister see that it is a role within his ministry to provide assistance to those people who wish to litigate against either industry or government with respect to the income they have lost as a result of a lack of enforcement procedures?

Hon. J. Cashore: We don't see it as our role to finance litigation. The broad issue with regard to compensation is under review. That's all I'm going to say about that.

In terms of enforcement, we have canvassed this widely. The Leader of the Opposition has raised questions about this government's record in terms of enforcement. We have nothing to be ashamed of there. Hon. member, if you were to compare enforcement results today with three years ago, you would see that there has been a quantum leap. However, as I have said before, they are very expensive dollars no matter how much we take in that way, and we need an array of both carrot and stick approaches in order to be able to deal with this effectively. Effective enforcement is an important pillar in that process, but if we put all our eggs in that basket we're going to fail.

G. Wilson: It appears that this whole question is a sensitive one. I know that I have raised this in Energy estimates as well as with the Attorney General in his estimates. It seems that there isn't a great deal of direction coming from the government at this time with respect to that, but I wonder if within the ministry.... This is directly within this minister's jurisdiction and comes back again to the questions I was talking about with respect to ocean dumping, which the minister says his ministry doesn't permit, which I find interesting.

With respect to the application, use and registry of herbicides and pesticides in the agriculture industry, I realize this matter has been raised already with you. But the permitting process once again lies within provincial jurisdiction. The famed assault on the Asian gypsy moth was something that was permitted through your jurisdiction. We have now, at least in two instances that I am well aware of, situations where environmental review and environmental impact has not taken place prior to industrial activity being established, and the ensuing pollution that has resulted has caused loss of income. Both instances have occurred among aboriginal people in British Columbia. I canvassed intensely the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs during his estimates, and he assured me that this was a matter I should raise in the Environment estimates. The Attorney General also assured me this was a matter I should raise in the Environment estimates, so I raise it in the Environment estimates.

What provision is there in this ministerial set of estimates for dollars that are set aside for (1) environmental impact study and (2) ongoing assessment of pollution impact on matters such as the shellfish industry or the freshwater river fishery, in two instances, one being with respect to the Nechako and the other with respect to marine shellfish industries in Okeover Arm? Thirdly, what assistance is this ministry going to provide with respect to litigation? It may not be in a direct provision of dollars with respect to the litigation. What assistance is this ministry going to provide by simply making documents available on environmental impacts? That would be most useful in a legal case that might be made where livelihoods are lost. To what extent does this ministry have money set aside? To what extent are their people working on this? How can the minister shine light on what is a very critical and pressing issue for many British Columbians?

Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time the proponent does the environmental assessment. Our ministry reviews it. Mr. Doug Dryden of our ministry coordinates that review process.

The total is $1.5 million.

G. Wilson: Does the minister feel that having a proponent do the environmental review with ministry personnel simply having to make an assessment on the basis of the review is a proper way to proceed? If he does, can the minister tell us to what extent he believes his ministry ultimately has some fiduciary responsibility to those people who are under his trusteeship, given the license that would ultimately be given to his ministry as a result of whatever decisions are made on the review?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have already canvassed that.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Blencoe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Page 2189 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 10:19 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

On vote 13: minister's office, $282,139 (continued).

R. Chisholm: I have approximately half a dozen questions on Agriculture, and I think there are a couple of questions around the table. Possibly we can go on to Fisheries after that.

For my first question, I'd like to ask on behalf of the Okanagan tree fruit growers why the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is still in existence when it's doing the same job as the ministry itself. What do you see this authority doing?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I see the authority as, to some degree, a stand-alone Crown; that's quite important. Secondly, I think there are other factors that should be put into this equation. One is that the authority is composed of about 12 directors and a chairman. Most of those individuals are from the Okanagan. Their headquarters is in the research station at Summerland, which I think gives them a significant advantage. When you're headquartered in the area that is immediately affected.... That is the direction that we want to go in.

The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is simply part of our long-term strategic plan for the Okanagan. We feel that the OVTFA will carry out the policies directed by the ministry, and they do report directly to me. That's very important. I think it's an advantage to have them centred in the valley, where they have more of a hands-on approach to what is happening in the tree-fruit industry, which is perhaps going to be impacted significantly by GATT, and if the NAFTA comes down as well. Generally, on balance, it's the best of both worlds.

R. Chisholm: With reference to the $30 million in grants to the Okanagan tree-fruit growers, they were supposed to receive 7.8 cents per pound for fancy and extra-fancy fruit. So far, in '91 they've received 3.9 cents and 1.1 cents in '92, which doesn't add up to the 7.8 cents; it adds up to 5 cents. When will these farmers receive the remainder of this grant?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a reasonable question. Perhaps it requires a more wide-ranging answer.

First of all, a promise of 7.8 cents a pound was made. I think that promise was made January 26, 1990. The tree-fruit growers say: "You owe us 2.8 cents a pound." If you examine that January 26, 1990, statement, a number of things were not there. For instance, we put $3.6 million into the sterile insect release program; that's an extra $3.6 million. That's the first thing.

Let's look at it a little closer. There was no mention at all of soft fruits. A significant number of those orchardists in the Okanagan were hard hit, so I included the soft fruits in this equation. They got between $3 million and $4 million; that's an extra $3 million or $4 million.

Let's look at something else. There was no mention of replant in this program we advanced. I said: "Gosh, those guys who have looked well down into the twenty-first century deserve something." They did. Those who replanted in '85, '86, '87, '88 and '89 were essentially going out on their own -- as entrepreneurs should. They were saying, "Look, we're going to replant Empires, golden Galas, or Fujis," or whatever they wanted to replant. They were trying to position themselves without any help from the government. I thought that in all fairness they should not be cut out of the equation, so we allowed them $3.95 million -- almost $4 million. That's about $10 million more. When you include that, and add that onto the 5 cents a pound, you come up almost to the 7.8 cents a pound.

R. Chisholm: Firstly, hon. minister, the sterile insect release program was negotiated above and beyond that. It wasn't part of the $30 million agreement. That was done by the Social Credit Party and then by yourselves.

We'll get down to the $3.95 million for the 1,750 acres that have been applied for, which is $750 an acre; they're now talking about bringing it to $950 an acre. That would leave extra money in that fund, which could be brought up to $2,000 an acre. Considering that the $2 million provincial and federal grant is $3,000 an acre, why is this not happening? Why is the money not used to increase the amount per acre to the farmers out of that program?

Hon. B. Barlee: I partially answered that before, in that this was never in the original equation. That $3.95 million was added, was accepted by Treasury Board as looking, I think, at a far-reaching proposal. This was a strategy we should have adopted years ago. It gets away from the ad hoc payments. We did include $750 per acre, which probably did not meet their expenses over those five years. I'm quite willing to accept that.

When you're an entrepreneur -- and most farmers are entrepreneurs -- you have to make a business decision. Most of the individuals who did make that decision to change from, say, Red Delicious and Golden Delicious into the more exotic varieties are now much better situated than they were in 1985 and 1987. They're really on the edge of doing exceptionally well; in fact, some of them are doing exceptionally well. I have access to some of their records.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I don't think you answered the question, hon. minister. The question was: are you going to increase the amount per acre to the grower from $750 to $950? Or are you going to increase 

[ Page 2190 ]

it and utilize the fund up to $2,000, which the fund could afford, or is that money just going to go back into the coffers? Could I get a short answer on that?

The second part of the question is that to replant an acre costs approximately $12,000.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: We won't quibble over a couple of thousand dollars, hon. minister. Either way, the growers can't afford it. The problem is that if they get $3,000 from the federal government, for instance, that leaves a $9,000 shortfall. The banks won't even look at them. If they head up to 50 percent, the banks would possibly look at them; at that point, bankers will. What are you going to do about this situation? These funds are being underutilized because they are being mismanaged.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think we have to understand that we try to cooperate with the federal government. We cooperate with the federal government Department of Agriculture, and we work hand in hand. For instance, on the sterile insect release program, we're fifty-fifty partners. The federal government has made it very clear that they are not willing to go above a maximum of $3,500 per acre. The federal government also contributed $3.6 million to the sterile insect release program; they participate in our other programs as well. That is a guideline they have laid down. We actually have quite a good relationship with the federal government as far as the Tree Fruit Authority and the tree-fruit situation in the Okanagan are concerned.

We have a five-year strategy. Replanting is not just for one year. We have to take the long-term benefits into consideration. The banks are generally onside. They have realized that the farmer is really a pretty good risk.

R. Chisholm: I suggest, hon. minister, that you go back to the federal government and inform them that the growers cannot afford the $9,000 they have to invest. They can't get it from the bankers. If you want to get proof of that, go talk to David Hobson.

Back to the other fund -- the $3.95 million. What are you going to do to increase the amount per acre from provincial funding up to $2,000?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, those funds will continue to be used for long-term renovation, which I think is very important. We're looking down the road five, ten, 15 years.

By the way, I talked with David Hobson yesterday at 4:10, I believe. I'm in contact with the BCFGA as well. We're also going to Treasury Board tomorrow concerning the long-term development and strategy of the OVTFA.

R. Chisholm: It seems I'm not getting anywhere with this one. I'll leave it for a while.

[10:30]

Hon. minister, I suggest that you go back and take a look at our province. I suggest that we cannot be dictated to by Ontario and the federal government as to how our agricultural policy is going to go. I suggest that you talk to them again. In reference to the $3.95 million, it might be wise to look into that a bit more.

School lunch programs. Are they using B.C. products, or are they not? Could I have a short answer, hon. minister?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've made a significant number of strides in the direction of promoting B.C. products. If the member goes to the dining-room, he will notice that most of the products available in the members' dining-room are from B.C. All 16 wines, for instance, are British Columbia wines. That was not the case before. I must credit the former Speaker. We got together on this, and he agreed that there should be many more British Columbia products. We follow that practically full-scale just now. I think that this is a step in the right direction.

As far as school lunches are concerned, we have written to the Minister of Education about using British Columbia products in school lunches. So we're following that up as well.

R. Chisholm: When will we actually see the Buy B.C. program put into place? Do we have an actual date now? I asked you previously, but I did not get a date.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we're making fairly good strides on that. We're working with the B.C. Food Marketing Council now, which is almost 100 separate companies. This is really quite new. These individuals are very keen. We are following up a proposal which they have made concerning a number of stores on Vancouver Island. We're going to launch a very serious pilot project, probably within the next three or four months, in one of the major chain stores here to see how the public accepts British Columbia products when we give them a high profile. I think that's one of the first steps we have in a Buy B.C. project.

R. Chisholm: Is there any way possible of speeding this Buy B.C. program up, considering the situation with the Saanich vegetable growers, the Cloverdale vegetable growers, the Okanagan tree-fruit growers and the grain farmers? I think we have to put in a little bit more emphasis and money, and speed the process up, so that we get some results from it immediately, before we lose these farmers.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a reasonable question. I think we should give you a little indication of where we're going on this. We have examined five other jurisdictions across the country and in the United States. Out of these five jurisdictions, only one works reasonably well. Ontario has a "Try to Buy Ontario" program -- and that's what we call a pull strategy -- which has not worked. It's the same with New Brunswick and Alberta.

Then we went into the United States to examine their thrust. The state of Washington was somewhat successful, although not very much. The state of Oregon, however, was way ahead of it. They tried a combined push-pull strategy, getting all the players at the table, which is very necessary.

[ Page 2191 ]

In other words, if you were to launch a Buy B.C. program, it cannot simply be a program that is televised in B.C., the government pats itself on the back, and it's a stop-start program. It has to be a long-term program. It has to be year to year. We intend to carry that through.

But to carry it through coherently, you have to have every player there -- that means right from the farm labourer through to the producer, the wholesaler, the processor, the retailer, and even the mayors of the cities. We have made all those contacts. Just about everybody is on board. That's a first for us. It's very important. You have to build that industry partnership before you build anything else. First of all, government is generally not trusted by industry. We have to get them onside. They are coming onside. I thought it could be accomplished within six months. It probably can't be accomplished within six months; it will probably take a somewhat longer time than that.

The key is that we've got to get it right. If we launch a program of say $2 million, we can access probably another $8 million from industry. That's why we have to have them at the table. That's $10 million instead of $2 million, and only 20 percent of that is taxpayers' money.

R. Chisholm: Generally, the public is ignorant about the farming situation and the farming economy. In this program, is there a facet to educate the general public as to the state of the farming industry and the benefits of having farmers and agriculture in our province? To what extent is this done?

Hon. B. Barlee: We're working in several areas here. We're working directly with the Council of Marketing Boards on this. That's very important. They realize the importance of it -- some funds available. We have also been in contact with the Ministry of Advanced Education, which realizes the importance of educating the public. We're going in several directions here.

R. Chisholm: Now onto another area, hon. minister. Is your ministry looking into the area of sod farms and the removal of the topsoil from these farms and how they are going to replace it in the future?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is not perceived as a major problem. It may become a major problem; it is not at the present time. As you well know, we have 175 different commodity groups. Sod farming is one of those that impacts on us somewhat, although not as much as most of the major groups.

R. Chisholm: I gather by that answer that you are keeping a close tab on it, though.

Hon. B. Barlee: Most definitely.

R. Chisholm: To another area. Up in the Peace River area there is some concern about foreign enterprises buying up the area. Are you keeping an eye on this situation, too?

Hon. B. Barlee: I just happen to have the exact figures. In 1982, 33 percent of the Peace River farms were owned by foreigners. That has since come down to about 24 to 25 percent -- I think I'll be borne out in that figure. That seems to be decreasing, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at look at it. A lot of foreign money moved into the Peace River country and stayed there; they moved out, but the foreign money stayed there. The land is still there, so we didn't lose a lot in the transaction.

R. Chisholm: The minister has stressed the need for provincial assistance for fruit growers in the province, who have received about 20 times more in provincial support than grain farmers in the last 15 years. Is it the minister's opinion that it is more important to prepare the fruit industry for the next century than to prepare the grain and fine seed industry? Is it not as important to put the grain and fine seed industry back on its feet, as well as the Cloverdale and the Saanich vegetable industry? For the past 15 years it has seemed to be a priority of provincial governments just to emphasize the tree-fruit growers.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that is an overstatement from the hon. member. First of all, in 1991-92 the grain growers in the Peace River country will receive just over $14 million. I know that they have been hard-pressed. That's a case that is well made by them. I was just meeting with them, in fact, about four days ago. I don't avoid Peace River; I like the Peace River country. I realize and those farmers in the Peace River country realize that we have to go in a different direction. That is why we are working in several areas in that Peace River country. We are looking at the various types of grains they are growing and at what alternatives and what options we have.

The SPARK study, which was a study commissioned by our government -- $250,000 came directly out of my ministry -- indicates through at least a cursory examination that the Peace River country is probably in a better position than anywhere else in western North America to raise cattle. They are looking very seriously at this. There are other alternatives, too. We know the number of proposals put forth. We followed up on the fescue problem, which by the way is not going to solve all our problems -- it's probably a total sale of about $600,000; we thought it might be $1.5 million.

Some of those Peace River farmers have been in significant difficulty. They are getting a reasonable number of funds this year from the federal and the provincial government. Some of those payments, unfortunately, are much later than they should be. In that respect, we've been very hard after the federal government.

R. Chisholm: This province invests less in the farmer and in agriculture than any other province in Canada. There is a lot of talk about a level playing-field between producers in Canada and elsewhere in the world, primarily in the U.S. Will the minister create a level playing-field for grain farmers, for instance, in Peace River, as it relates to the difference in input costs between B.C. and Alberta, by supporting them to the 

[ Page 2192 ]

extent the Alberta government does with their grain sector?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are working on this all the time -- realizing that out of our 175 groups, maybe eight are in some difficulty. When I look at the overall impact on farmers in British Columbia, there were 23 bankruptcies in 1990 and 21 in 1991. This record is unequalled anywhere in Canada; no other province can touch it.

R. Chisholm: I'm not going to argue with the hon. minister about bankruptcies in this province and what not. Just wait for the bankruptcies that will come out of Cloverdale and the grain growers in the near future.

The NDP, particularly the hon. minister, promised to increase the Agriculture budget substantially. As a matter of fact, he said he would double it in the first year. We are now faced with a further reduction to the Agriculture budget. Is the NDP government going to abandon all the promises and policies on agriculture that they made during the election? The agricultural industry is in crisis: with GATT; free trade; the cost of the industry itself. The industry needs the leadership of the minister, his ministry and this government. Will the minister be more open and responsive to the various segments of the agricultural industry and be more equitable with all components of the agricultural industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a rather wide-ranging question. I'll pick out what I want to answer on that.

First of all, I think you mentioned the GATT. Nobody across the country led the charge on the GATT more than I. We focused the federal government's attention on the seriousness of the GATT situation, specifically on several areas. Supply management, which was one of them, is about 41 percent of our total farm receipts -- about $450 million in British Columbia. We also focused the federal government's attention on the free trade agreement, which you also alluded to. The free trade agreement was a bad agreement. We think that the Americans should be forced -- and there are ways of forcing them -- to come to the table again and to recognize that the free trade agreement was generally a bad deal for Canada. The GATT will be a worse deal, and NAFTA will be a far worse deal. They get worse as they go along -- first you have the free trade agreement, then you have the GATT and then you have the NAFTA. What the Americans did not accomplish in the free trade agreement, they want out of the GATT. What they won't get under the GATT, they want under the NAFTA. What they don't get under the NAFTA and the GATT and the free trade agreement, they want out of countervailing or harassment at the border, and it goes on and on. I'm the point man against the Americans. I think we're making some progress. They do not respect weakness, and we have not shown much weakness in that area.

J. Weisgerber: I think I would like to start just commenting a little bit on the grain situation, recognizing that the member for Peace River North explored that issue in some detail. However, the minister again suggests that $14 million is coming into the Peace. He knows most of it is federal money; he knows there is very little contribution from the province to a very serious situation. I'd like to remind the minister again that the programs in 1988 and '89, and again in 1990, were all approved by Treasury Board after the budget had been tabled. The feed grain assistance program, the extension of the program, the provincial contribution to the western grain and oilseeds programs were all initiatives that the Minister of Agriculture of the day took to Treasury Board after the budget had been tabled, and they were necessary programs.

[10:45]

My point is that there is at least as serious a situation in the grain industry today as there was in those years when the Ministers of Agriculture went to Treasury Board and found support for the grain industry. I was interested also to hear that the minister was preparing to go to Treasury Board. I'm also aware the Premier is going to Fort St. John, I believe tomorrow, and I expect he will have an opportunity to meet grain farmers at that time. I hope the outcome will be that the Premier will meet with them and will have a high-profile promise, because that, in the minister's words, seems to be what motivates the ministry and its decisions on the industries that are going to be supported. The minister has told us a number of times that it was a high-profile promise that underlined the assistance for the tree-fruit industry.

Does the minister see an opportunity to go back to Treasury Board? Is he willing to go back and raise the issue of assistance for grain farmers?

Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the member knows that it is customary to go to Treasury Board once. I went to Treasury Board once on behalf of the Peace River farmers, both the NFU and the grain growers. It is seldom that you go to Treasury Board twice. I went to Treasury Board twice on the same matter. It is almost unheard of -- you become almost persona non grata -- to go three times. I achieved that unique status. I regret that I was not successful, and I think the grain growers regret it. But I have noted that the grain growers, who are hard pressed in many instances, as we both know.... I know a number of the grain growers. They have given me the benefit of the doubt, partly because they realize that the ad hoc payments of the past, followed by the former government, are not the direction this government is going. We are going towards a more strategy-oriented future, and ad hoc simply does not work. It has not worked in the Peace River country, and it won't work elsewhere. We have to look way down the road, right into the next 15, 20 or 30 years.

There's an element of truth in what the member says. Of that $14 million, just over $2 million was provincial money. That's about 15 percent. It's not enough; I'm quite aware of that. But I have a continuing relationship with both the NFU and the grain growers, and I think they understand the direction I'm going.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure what the rules are in your Treasury Board, and I suspect they change from 

[ Page 2193 ]

government to government. In the previous government, if you were determined to get a project through, you went back as often as you had to, and if you had to go to cabinet or the Premier instead of Treasury Board, those options were open to you. I suspect that the answer that you went to Treasury Board three times may give some comfort to some people, but what the minister failed to note was that if in fact this was a high-priority item for him, then his colleagues didn't serve him very well by turning him down three times. That speaks for itself. If the minister has the clout in cabinet that he pretends to have, and if he went back three times, then it would seem to me that with $2 million or $3 million or $4 million he would have been successful.

The minister says he likes to look down the road 15 or 20 years, and that's an admirable thing to do. But it reminds you of the story of the swamp and the alligators. It's very difficult if you're in a farm business, and if the banker is threatening to foreclose then a 20-year plan tends to give very cold comfort to you. That situation exists in the Peace, and I think we both recognize it. I hope the minister does, anyway; he has met often enough with Peace River grain farmers to know the situation and to know they need help -- not 20 years from now, not five years from now, but today. If it can be part of a long-term strategy, that's wonderful, but I'm sure he would recognize and acknowledge that the help is needed today.

But I want to move on from that. It has been talked about, and I don't think you're going to agree today to anything that I would like to see. I have no illusions about that.

The fescue situation offers a greater potential, perhaps, than the minister suggested in his comments. I did a considerable amount of work along with the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Forests in the previous government. I believe there is a real opportunity in British Columbia for the use of these grasses in the area of reforestation and silviculture. I think that if you were to really use grass as a brush control mechanism in reforestation and silviculture, the market would be many times the $1.5 million that the minister suggests isn't possible. I think there's a huge potential there, and I hope sincerely that the government, with its various opportunities, is looking at something more than simply replacing B.C. fescue with the fescue that's now being brought in from Oregon and used.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fair and intelligent question. We followed this up quite closely. First of all, it isn't the $1.5 million we were led to believe it was. It is immediately, to the various ministries affected, about $350,000, and probably another quarter of a million dollars to the various independent contractors in the various areas.

However, I would agree that there is some more potential there. In that respect, we have approached Forests, Environment and Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. We've approached all three ministries and have received replies from them. We're working hand in glove with them. If the potential is there, we will realize it.

J. Weisgerber: That's a fair undertaking. I'd like to see some more research. I would like to see the use of grass as a replacement for herbicides extended. I think the market now is pretty much restricted to roadsides and some other applications. I think there is a real opportunity there. I will be satisfied with your undertaking to work with the ministry to expand it.

I'd like to just talk for a couple of minutes about bison farming in the Peace. I want to start by acknowledging the fact that the minister recently met with Mr. Carlson, the president of the Peace Country Bison Association and, I believe, was able to obtain some government support for research in the area of bison production through Northern Lights College. I'd like to thank the minister for the time and for his success within his own ministry in getting a difficult problem solved. Having said that, I would like to ask the minister whether he has any plans or sees any possibility in the near future of moving bison out of the game farm classification. The previous government was successful in moving game farming from Environment to Agriculture, and that was a positive step. But I believe that there are strong arguments to be made now for moving bison out of the game farming classification or, at the very minimum, establishing a separate set of regulations for bison farming. I wonder if the minister might have any comments about his plans in that regard.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the game farm problem with the bison is longstanding. I believe the member for Peace River South was on that original committee. As you know, there are many factors that bear on that problem.

I did not meet with Mr. Carlson the last time I was up. I met him the time before. He did meet last time, however, with Tom Pringle, one of my ADMs, who is my troubleshooter up there. I did meet with other individuals there, including Bob Trail, who is probably a relation, which is strange. I've got more relations wandering around this country than you could shake a stick at, and some of them don't hurt.

The bison thing. We think, first of all, that there are lots of possibility there. They were included under the Game Farm Act. Both the opposition members -- we were opposition at the time -- and the government members were included on this advisory committee. We are looking at it, but we haven't made any specific determination. But we are always reviewing these things when they're brought up, especially by people in the business.

J. Weisgerber: I'm wondering, then, if the minister understands the rationale for bison ranchers wanting to move their livestock from the Game Farm Act. It seems to me that the difficulty is the amount of recordkeeping that is required under the act. That in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that in order to keep accurate records on the bison they have to be handled a lot, and bison, by their nature, don't flourish 

[ Page 2194 ]

when they're being handled a lot. They stress to a degree that's not found in any other animal that I'm aware of. Research that I looked at recently indicated that when bison are handled, they lose as much as 7 percent of their body weight and don't regain it. It's not a stress situation where there's a water loss and the animal bounces back in a couple of days. Bison undergo tremendous stress when they're being handled. The requirements of this act make it necessary for a farmer to continually bring his animals in, inspect them, tag them and number them. This is proving to be significantly detrimental to the economic viability of buffalo ranching. What makes it particularly difficult is that British Columbia is the only province in the country that requires this degree of handling and recordkeeping. In fact, in Alberta, which is the most direct competition, there are very few regulations around buffalo ranching. I wonder if the minister understands the concerns and appreciates what these guys are trying to achieve in deregulating their industry.

[11:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, I have a reasonable knowledge of both plains bison and wood bison. I have followed them because I'm kind of a student of the old west. I can give you a lot of information which would be irrelevant at this point, so I'll resist that impulse.

The original act, of course, was supported by the Game Farming Advisory Council, which was composed of the BCFA, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, MOE, my ministry and the game farmers. That's not to say that we're not willing to review that act. There may be advantages under the act for them, because there are certain market advantages under a game farm act.

Tom Pringle is going up again this week to see Ross Carlson. We're on top of that issue. I'm not saying we're resolving it overnight, but we are reviewing it. We're examining it; we're listening to them. It was not of our making. It was the making of the original government, so that's why we're reviewing it very closely.

J. Weisgerber: I've never heard us referred to as the original government, but I suppose when you look at the many years of government in British Columbia, one would be led to think we were the original government -- and perhaps the ultimate government.

I don't expect the minister to solve the problem overnight. I think what's absolutely necessary is an understanding of the issue in the executive branch of the ministry and a willingness to understand that there should be a differentiation between reindeer and fallow deer, which are clearly game animals, and bison, which shouldn't be totally removed from the act. There should be some differentiation in regulation as it applies to them. Clearly the problems you're trying to solve with the Game Farm Act don't apply to bison in many instances. You're looking at a different set of problems.

Hon. B. Barlee: A different set of horns.

J. Weisgerber: You're looking at a different set of horns as well.

The reality is that the fencing issue is not necessarily identical.

Most important is this question of recordkeeping. I really want to underline that it's causing.... One bison ranch in British Columbia has the potential in the very near future of becoming the largest in the country. I can tell you sincerely that the operator is considering whether he should continue to expand his operation in Dawson Creek, or whether he should look to the area ten miles to the east, where there is no government regulation. It's a business decision that he's going to make soon; it's a business decision that many other investors are going to make soon.

There needs to be diversification in the Peace River country. This industry has significant potential. A modification of the regulations could help achieve that. That's what we're looking for. I'm not expecting it to happen overnight, but if someone were actively working at it, I think it would give a great deal of comfort to everybody involved.

Hon. B. Barlee: Those are thoughtful comments. I'm willing to accept most of them; we're willing to look at those points. That's why my troubleshooter is going back this week.

There is a slaughterhouse, I believe, proposed to be built in Dawson Creek. The individual who is the principal behind that says that the present Game Farm Act may be an advantage for him in marketing that.

The other thing is that there is a reporting system that requires them to report four times a year. That's what you're alluding to. That is very onerous. We agree, so we're going back to look at one of those things specifically -- looking at the slaughtering thing, looking at the problems they're having with reporting. However, we do think there should be government regulations. If the member wishes to contact me in a week or ten days, I will perhaps have a more complete answer; but we have not avoided that and we're looking at it very closely.

H. De Jong: I have a couple of questions to follow up earlier discussion this morning about the tree-fruit industry, the replant program and everything that is under the umbrella of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. As the minister is undoubtedly aware, the tree-fruit industry, particularly the apple segment, was very interested in getting into a supply management system a couple of years ago. In fact, they were quite determined to proceed on that. At that time it was very well indicated to them that this could lead to some problems as well in terms of the GATT agreement, and so on. In fact, the apple industry was quite different because of its large export activities and the potential for exports, which are very important to the apple industry. With the change that is occurring through the replant program, because undoubtedly it'll provide a substantial change to the industry in terms of more different types of apples -- perhaps more attractive or palatable types of apples for the consuming public -- is the industry still pursuing the idea of a supply management system? And what is the minister's feeling 

[ Page 2195 ]

at the present time on such an approach, if in fact it's still pursued by the industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: A thoughtful question. I think the member realizes that the industry is aware that the GATT will have significant impact if the negotiations are concluded in the spring of 1993. If they are, then that would be under the GATT, and we would not be allowed to proceed. However, the industry is playing it both ways. They are going to take a vote in December, anticipating that perhaps the GATT will not be carried through. We're making all that information available to the growers, and that's part of the OVTFA mandate. I think most of them are aware of it. So it's more or less a standstill sort of proposition right now.

Referring to their ability to trade overseas, of course, we follow that up continually. We have good contacts. In fact, one of them I'm meeting tomorrow -- a man called Alick Glass, who sells Red Delicious at about $3 million at a time, and orders them from us for sale in England. We're keeping these contacts up. We're naturally aware of the implications of the GATT, because I've been following them very, very closely.

H. De Jong: Again on the supply management systems. Generally those commodities managed by a supply management system have had no government assistance of any kind directly to the industry. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, of course.... The majority of moneys that are being made available to the authority for various purposes -- education and replant programs -- I think would be spent in that area, but also diversification of markets within Canada, as well as outside. Does the minister really feel, even though the industry may wish to vote in favour of a supply management system because they feel it would give them greater security -- I think that's the basic reason they would want to proceed with it -- that in light of the moneys provided and the program that was initiated two years ago being a ten-year program for the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, that the ministry would lend its support to such a request?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, that's a difficult question, as you're quite aware. We are not, for instance, going to influence or attempt to influence the vote in December of this year, nor is it our responsibility to influence that vote. We've advised the industry of our policy, and there will be no financial support if supply management comes in. Industry in the Okanagan is divided on it, I believe. This is from a personal point of view, and I haven't the faintest idea how they're going to vote.

H. De Jong: Would it then be fair to say that the minister would follow the same type of criteria? Suppose that the industry would vote to have a supply management program, as is happening with other supply management products which are tied into the countervail, the GATT agreement and everything else, which does provide its own problems, recognizing the history of the fruit industry being 45 or 50 percent for export purposes.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, that's prejudging. I cannot anticipate how they're going to vote. However, there's another factor that I should have perhaps mentioned: it does require a national vote as well. So those growers from Ontario, the Annapolis Valley and so on would also have a vote. It's very difficult for me to give you a precise answer on that, because I don't know how they're going to go.

H. De Jong: I would understand then, even if the Okanagan tree-fruit growers voted in favour of going into a management system, that it would not be a management system in British Columbia alone, but would have to come under a national umbrella before the minister would agree to such a setup.

To get into another area, I'm sure the minister has heard of some problems over the last few days in regard to the Birchwood dealings with the British Columbia Milk Board. What does the minister know about it, and what are his thoughts on the supply of quota as negotiated by the British Columbia Milk Board to Birchwood Dairies?

Hon. B. Barlee: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the Birchwood case, which is very involved. There is an agreement, however, between the Milk Board and Birchwood; this is about a five-year agreement. Birchwood will be purchasing a quota and will be dropping their case against the Milk Board. They will be complying with all of the rules and regulations that are laid down by the Milk Board.

[11:15]

H. De Jong: Again, to be more specific, when is Birchwood Dairies required to purchase their quota? If this quota is allowed to be purchased over a four-or five-year period, are they given interim quotas to allow shipments?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, in the interim period.... In that five years, it's my understanding that Birchwood is required to purchase 600 litres of MSQ per year. That would be 3,000 litres over the five-year span. In the interim period that comes from Birchwood, but at the end of five years that must come from the pool at large.

H. De Jong: I understand that this arose out of a situation to provide a specific product, which is considered a new product, to a somewhat quasi-religious organization for a specific purpose. It's a particular kind of food that they use in certain ceremonies, I understand. Also, about three years ago the Canadian Dairy Commission allocated a special quota to be distributed to the dairy industry, not specifically to one farm where a manufacturer processed a new product that hadn't been processed before in British Columbia. Given this situation, is this specific quota allocation on the basis of that new product? Or is it in addition to the quota that would have been allocated because of this new product to supply Birchwood Dairies with an additional MSQ? A further question is: is the 600 litres, which amounts to 

[ Page 2196 ]

2,400 or 3,000 litres over a five-year period, on a daily basis?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member knows that this is essentially a Milk Board problem. Under their administration they are allowed to deal with it. You're basically talking about the dairy product innovation program. The Milk Board is sending out a newsletter to all of its members explaining the various terms which they have arrived at with Birchwood.

It is true that one of the products is called leban, and that is for the orthodox Jewish community. Again, however, that is essentially a Milk Board question. If you wish to have more information, we will be delighted to provide that, probably within ten days.

H. De Jong: I'm not going to question this any further, hon. Chair, but I do have a few comments to make. It should be noted that Birchwood Dairies used to be Crown Farms. They saw fit to sell their fluid quota some years ago. They went into a manufacturing plant and selling ice cream and what have you, which was all, as I understand, within the regulations that were available to them at the time.

However, the farming community, because of a number of incidents that have happened.... We all know about the number of shippers that have shipped outside of the so-called system, supplying a market outside of the Canadian Dairy Commission's territory. It has been questioned on many occasions as to whether this is actually happening. At the earlier discussions, I brought up the issue of renting quotas out that were gained through being on the waiting-list. This incident, coupled with what has already happened a little while ago.... The farming community, in general, is getting very uneasy -- to say it in very mild terms. In fact, they're very upset with the operations of the Milk Board. It would seem that the farming community has lost faith in the Milk Board to administer the supply management program, which has worked so well in this province for many years. I know that when you have a system in place, there is always a tendency to abuse it. I believe that the system has been abused to the fullest at present and for some time in the future.

I think the latest action being approved by the Milk Board as a solution to the court case problem stinks to high heaven, and the farming community thinks so to. I know there are two different dairy committees in British Columbia, one consisting mainly of the independents and the other of the cooperatives. That is a difficult situation for any ministry or Milk Board to deal with; I acknowledge that. I think that if the dairy community is to be represented by a committee that works for the industry, then it should be impartial, whether it's the independents or from the cooperatives' standpoint.

If there is anything that can be done to urge the dairy industry to form one committee and bring its concerns forward on a united basis, rather than on a divided basis, as at present.... Having such an industry will not be good for this province. On the other hand, I would also encourage the minister to look very strongly at an elected Milk Board.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that once the industry comes to a conclusion on how to handle the independents along with the supply management producers, we would most definitely consider that proposal. I should perhaps emphasize that the throne speech on March 17, if I remember correctly, indicated that we are behind supply management. I have indicated that from Ottawa to Quebec City to Toronto. I believe the member knows that I have been a firm supporter of supply management.

H. De Jong: I appreciate that.

Hon. B. Barlee: I appreciate the comment. It is not a perfect system, but it is certainly preferable to anything I have ever seen. It gives the public a high-standard product. It returns a reasonable profit to the farmer. Our food prices are among the lowest in the world; they are the second-lowest in the world. It means that the public does not pay a subsidy, so there is a slight difference. I think it serves us extremely well.

The Milk Board, as you know, is presently appointed. Two of the three people on the Milk Board are milk producers. I assume that they were trying to find some common ground. I should say that the Birchwood was allowed back in under a very strict condition that they follow all the rules and regulations. But we are monitoring this, as I believe the member knows, very closely.

I am aware of the problems, and you, of course, are very well versed in those problems. I acknowledge your concerns. We're looking at them, and we'll be following them up.

H. De Jong: A final comment is that I recognize what the minister has said, and I think the farmers would recognize, too, what you have said. However, I think the very point that is hurting the industry right now and hurting the assurance that the farmers have had for such a long time, being in the supply management system that has worked so well for many years, is the fact that special privileges are seen to be granted to Birchwood Dairies to avoid further court action.

Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member and I both know that this is a very divisive issue within the dairy industry. We are trying -- and I'm using all of my good offices -- to encourage unity within the industry. As we both know, it's not an easy task. It's a very difficult task. There is a fundamental division between the dairy co-ops and the independents. We are trying to get them together for the benefit of the industry at large, while still maintaining our posture and our belief in the ultimate importance of the supply management system.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to go from horns to something with fins on it. The first couple of questions I've got are basically just information questions to see if you're addressing these issues with the federal government. They're basically federal problems, but they affect the provincial citizens.

The first one I'd like to address is one on the North Coast Crab Fishermen's Association. You might have 

[ Page 2197 ]

heard of it; you might have heard of the problem where DFO is arbitrarily closing commercial crab-fishing areas due to native pressures. The problem is that the commercial fishermen see this as an unwarranted reallocation of the resource. I'm referring to them, and I quote:

"...our position in this regard is simple and on record: no reallocation of the fisheries resource base should occur without compensation to those affected. The requirements of the food fishery can continue to be met without closing down the commercial fishery. But instead of trying to work out a reasonable solution, DFO has gone so far out of its way to placate natives that they have actually made policy decisions that threaten the livelihoods of 75 crab fishermen and their families."

[11:30]

They need your help, hon. minister. Your voice on their behalf carries clout. Commercial fishermen were promised by DFO that decisions such as the ones they have just taken would be done so only after full consultation with the industry. Instead of seeking advice from the industry on alternatives, instead of entering into discussions and consultation with the North Coast Crab Fishermen's Association and/or the Crab Advisory Board, DFO simply acted on its own and instituted closures. Have you talked to the hon. federal minister about this situation, hon. minister?

Hon. B. Barlee: That is a good question from the hon. member for Chilliwack. First of all, I think the member knows that this is a DFO problem. This a shared jurisdiction, but it is essentially within their mandate to do that. We have been in contact with them. We have also been in contact with the third parties. What they are doing is acknowledging the first nations' legitimate and historical rights in that very small area. It does impact. Wherever it impacts upon third parties, we make sure that we have a continuing consultative process with DFO.

We have about 42 fisheries officers altogether. We're doing a pretty good job. We are flagging any issues that come down the pipe that are hitting upon third parties, which this particular issue does. As for that area where they have impacted some of those people, we are starting to contact or introduce a closer relationship with DFO. In fact, I met with some of them last week. Generally speaking, we are doing quite well. In fact, my deputy minister is meeting with the federal deputy minister tomorrow. A number of these issues will be brought up. These aren't issues that have escaped our attention. Mind you, they are not within our specific mandate at the present time.

R. Chisholm: The second statement is a federal issue, but again, it affects our provincial citizens and the value-added end of the industry on shore. This comes from the Pacific Gillnetter Association in Port Hardy. They are stating that on April 8, the CFV Shannon Joy landed 27,000 pounds of halibut; the vessel quota only allowed 24,000 pounds to be taken. The DFO did not bother to enforce the regulations. Without the willingness of the department to enforce its own regulations, the halibut fishery is seriously threatened. At stake is a tremendous loss of investment fishermen have made in money, time and effort. Also the future sustainable harvest of the resource is endangered, as is the preservation of the market value of the legally caught fish, by turning a blind eye to quota violations by a select group of the commercial fishing community.

Is the hon. minister addressing this problem and, if not, will he address this problem with the federal minister? Will he try to rectify the situation and ask DFO to enforce the regulations in place?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the halibut fishery is under the ITQ, which is a new sort of arrangement, and they do allow slight overages. I believe the member mentioned 24,000 and 27,000; that would be considered a slight overage. Again, not under the jurisdiction of the province or my ministry, but definitely under the jurisdiction of DFO. I don't think that in this case they were too far out. That would be considered about a 12 percent overage. It isn't spectacular, and they would probably allow that.

R. Chisholm: Those two letters -- I don't know if the minister has received them....

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: I will give you copies so you can peruse them.

Hon. minister, how many FTE's are in this Fisheries department? How many FTE's would there be in the aquaculture department?

Hon. B. Barlee: My original statement was correct. We have 42 in the Fisheries area. Out of that about 18 are in aquaculture. So it's just slightly under half -- about 46 percent, if my mathematical calculation is correct.

R. Chisholm: Out of the 42, how many are field workers, or how many are flying a desk, so to speak?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll give the member for Chilliwack some level of comfort here. I was out just this week. Practically all my officers up-Island are in the field; they are not riding a desk and filling out a major number of reports. I met some of them right in the field, to be quite candid. They're doing an excellent job. We have about 12 in Courtenay alone. These people are not placed in Victoria; the majority of them are out there. Some of those in Victoria are actually going out to various areas not serviced or covered by Courtenay.

R. Chisholm: What is the total budget for Fisheries?

Hon. B. Barlee: I'll break the figures down, because they don't come up in that specific way. The total figure is $5.356 million. Take about $1.2 million out for food industry, and it comes down to not quite $4.25 million.

[ Page 2198 ]

R. Chisholm: I presume that's just for the fisheries, not the aquaculture industry.

Hon. B. Barlee: The total is for both.

R. Chisholm: How much of this is directed towards the inland fisheries? It would be the aquaculture that isn't on the coastline.

Hon. B. Barlee: There's a little bit of trout-farming inland, so a very small percentage, probably 1 percent or under, would be allocated to that.

R. Chisholm: How much of this budget is directed towards research?

Hon. B. Barlee: We generally put somewhere between $750,000 and $800,000 into research. Considering my ministry, that's a significant amount in the specific area. Not quite 20 percent of that $4.2 million goes into research, so it is significant.

R. Chisholm: How much of this budget would go towards enhancing or attracting value-added industries to our fisheries?

Hon. B. Barlee: I can't give you the exact dollar, but the figure would be around $250,000. On top of that, you would have to add some promotional trips. For instance, I'm leaving next week -- a week today, in fact -- for Japan. We'll be touring Hokkaido and Sapporo and going into Hong Kong to promote our fish products, which are well received in Japan. It would not come under that; it would be in addition to the $250,000 that we've allocated.

R. Chisholm: Does this ministry make loans to groups or companies to develop value-added industries -- for instance, the hake industry? Do you have that facility?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've done quite a bit in the hake area. What they really want is an increase in the 6,000 tonnes. We increased it to between 25,000 and 30,000 tonnes in one year, a significant impact on the industry as a whole. They're quite prepared to fund this by themselves, so we do not give them any help. The help they needed was a surety of stock and supply, and they now have that surety fourfold what they had last year.

R. Chisholm: I don't believe that was the question, hon. minister. The question is: do you have the facility to loan moneys to corporations or companies to develop value-added industries in this province?

Hon. B. Barlee: No, we do not. We do not back companies for value-added. That's a decision they must make. However, we do give them the advantage of our technology and our expertise in the area, along with DFO. I think that's probably the best way to go. We do not want to take a chance to finance companies that perhaps have not done their work. I think it's going down in the right direction. We encourage their federal dollars through ISTC. This is essentially a fish-diversification program. We got, by the way, about 43 percent of the national budget of $13 million, so we picked up between $5 million and $6 million from the federals in this area, which helped significantly.

R. Chisholm: Back to the hake. You may remember my earlier questions, hon. minister. You were getting the quota increased to 25,000, or were attempting to do this. Has the hon. federal minister seen fit to increase our quota to 25,000?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes. There was a press release by the Hon. John Crosbie on April 15, 1992. We had met him just prior to that, and both the Premier and I pressured him significantly on the increase in hake production, which we felt would increase jobs on the British Columbia coast -- somewhere around 400. We were very successful in this campaign. The federal Fisheries minister came through in the clutch for us, and the hake allowance has been increased, as I say, almost fourfold, which gives us a significant area where we have additional jobs, mostly on Vancouver Island.

R. Chisholm: The town of Ucluelet has requested $6 million. I realize you don't have it in your budget, but have you been discussing with other ministers to see if that money can be forthcoming to enhance their infrastructure to develop the value-added process, so that we can develop and actually process the 25,000 metric tonnes? At the present time we can only process 6,000.

Hon. B. Barlee: We're ahead on that one, I think. We've developed an interministry committee. One of those major players in that interministry committee is Economic Development under the Hon. David Zirnhelt, so this would more properly come under his purview. As far as Ucluelet is concerned.... I've been up there, of course -- the first minister up there in 17 years. I'm aware of the situation. They gave me all the background. We're aware of it. We are following it up through this interministry committee.

R. Chisholm: What has the minister done to assist the development of the processing of salmon in British Columbia? Jobs are being lost to Americans. They are setting up processing plants to process our resource, which Canadians have maintained. What action are you taking to develop the salmon processing industry in British Columbia? What action has the minister taken to develop a complete onshore processing industry in British Columbia?

[11:45]

Hon. B. Barlee: I met with all the industry leaders on Monday, so it wasn't too long ago -- within about 48 hours. We're discussing that very problem. They have a Salmon Marketing Council. I believe they have put up somewhere around $500,000 or more themselves. We're stressing the importance of marketing all across the scope, whether it's for internal markets within Canada or external markets that would be overseas or in the 

[ Page 2199 ]

United States. I think the industry is onside with us. I'm meeting with them continually. We have a council that's working very well.

R. Chisholm: The federal government has licensed processing plants in the United States to process our fish. What is the minister going to do regarding this deplorable situation that is stealing jobs and economic stability from British Columbians? What will you be doing to protect the fish-processing industry in British Columbia? Will you reintroduce the proposed processing act, which was introduced last session by one of your former colleagues? It was called Bill M206.

Hon. B. Barlee: I would be rather surprised if the federal government were allowed to license plants in the United States. If they are, it's a new one for me. There's a U.S. federal statute, so this goes right across the line. It is not, again, under our jurisdiction. Anytime there's processing in the United States, we worry about the loss of Canadian jobs. Again, that is essentially under federal jurisdiction. We use our good offices and have been successful. I think the hake example is typical. We are making inroads on the federal scene, and certainly we're working more closely with the federal Fisheries officers and with the hierarchy of the federal Fisheries department than we were previously.

A. Warnke: There is a comment I'd like to make, but so that we follow the flow of the questioning here perhaps I'll ask the second question I had in mind first. I was very interested in the minister's remarks in responding to my colleague from Chilliwack, who asked specifically what is being done in the ministry with regard to salmon-fishing and developing the industry and so forth, particularly the processing industry.

The reason I have a particular interest in this area is that in my own riding of Richmond-Steveston, as I am sure the minister is aware, we have acute problems with regard to canning and processing. To be fair to the minister, I would like to get some idea just what kind of strategy the ministry is embarking on in terms of addressing the canning and fishing industry, which has some impact on the Steveston fishing community.

The Minister's Response Is: "Well, we have a council and so forth." I fully understand that and the $0.5 million allocated to that, but the member for Chilliwack did mention what specific action is being taken, and the minister did say: "Well, it's working very well." So I'd like to examine the anatomy of what is working very well and what steps the ministry is taking with regard to enhancing the processing industry here.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are several things that have to be mentioned here.

Essentially the salmon industry was simply not included in the free trade agreement, and it was very, very difficult. We have since tried to make up some of that lost ground from, I think, a disadvantageous position, in that it is not under our jurisdiction and we are trying to make that part of our jurisdiction.

We have made, as I alluded to before, significant strides in the hake area. What we have is a system of priorities. We're working all the way down the line. We have lost jobs in Steveston; that is not our fault. That is essentially the federal government's fault, because they did not include that in one of the points they should have made when they concluded the free trade agreement with the United States. We are doing some development and development plans with industry. We have a full policy review; we are pressing the federal government continually, and I think that the area where we made significant gains in the hake is an example. I think the federal government is now listening to us much more closely than they were. We haven't resolved all the problems, and we think it will take some time to resolve, because the Americans, under the free trade agreement, are allowed to land Canadian fish to process them. I'm tackling that all the time. I'm the point man against the United States for a number of reasons -- everyone knows that -- and that's one of them.

A. Warnke: Actually, it is something along that line that I was seeking from the minister.

The first point that I really want to make is that many people say: "Well, why shouldn't fisheries come under the exclusive jurisdiction of either the federal government or the provincial government?" There is some sort of overlap or redundancy, and perhaps it should be emphasized very strongly that this is a clear example where you need fishing interests under both the federal and the provincial government, because, clearly, they are national interests. The hon. minister has made reference to the free trade agreement, where the national government must be involved, and then there is the provincial government, which, as the minister has clearly outlined, also needs some sort of control over the fishing industry. So it's not a case of redundancy, as many people try to put it; it's that the federal and the provincial governments come at the same problem from different angles, and I see that as essential. I would reinforce that as much as possible.

I do want to get at something a little specific in terms of the processing industry, with regard to fish stocks. What does the minister see, or what, in his assessment, is the situation with regard to the fish available for the fishing industry? There is some contention here as well on outside interests coming in, not only foreign interests but perhaps domestically speaking too. There is some interference here. Could the minister make an assessment of where we are in terms of fish stocks and, of course, what the fishing industry has?

Hon. B. Barlee: I would prefer to answer that after 12 o'clock, if I could. I'll give you our thoughts on that then. But because of the late hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada