1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 4, Number 4
[ Page 2201 ]
The House met at 2:03 p.m.
D. Jarvis: I'd like the members of the House to welcome two guests of mine: Mr. Rod Helyar, who was active in my organization during the last election and did a fine job; and Mlle. France Gingras from Montreal.
G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the Legislature two constituents of mine and a guest of theirs: Mr. Wright Smith and Mrs. Monica Smith, and visiting them from Bolton, Lancashire, is their sister-in-law, Mavis McNanus. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to a longstanding public servant who taught the member for Vancouver-Burrard and me -- when we were sharing an office -- and members before that, all that we know about serving the public: my executive assistant, Thelma Pankiw. She is here with Carolyn Jerome, who is a member of the executive of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. Would you welcome the two sitting up in the gallery.
P. Dueck: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House Pastor Lennox of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church from our area. On behalf of my colleague from Abbotsford and me, I'd like the House to wish him welcome.
F. Gingell: In the members' gallery today are two old friends from Great Britain, David and Olive Holloway. They are here in Canada to attend the reunion of the Empire Air Training Scheme, where many people from all over the world will be coming, to be held later this month in Winnipeg.
Hon. T. Perry: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to those hon. members who don't already know him Prof. Paul Tennant of the University of British Columbia, who not only runs the internship program here but has been the instructor for many of us. I suppose he looks down with some sadness at how little he achieved in teaching us, but he did his best, and we did our best.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask all of my fellow members today to welcome a constituent of mine to the House from West Vancouver, Mr. Richard Wright.
VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains several provisions relating to the Vancouver Charter. Individually the amendments are minor; however, collectively the provisions represent a significant modernization of the provincial legislation affecting the city of Vancouver.
These amendments will eliminate or amend many petty annoyances and outdated provisions of the Vancouver Charter that have been frustrating Vancouver's elected officials for many years. The changes address such areas as gender-neutral language in the Charter and the setting of fees and charges for subdivision approvals and for work on unsafe buildings. Many of these provisions are similar to the modernization amendments to the Municipal Act, which I introduced in the House recently and the Legislature passed last night.
This legislation also provides additional powers for Vancouver to deal with the issues that are particularly important to the city, such as enabling it to actively promote bicycle transportation in conjunction with the development and redevelopment of buildings in the city of Vancouver. The amendments will result in more efficient and effective local government for the people of Vancouver.
Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
NANAIMO NDP FINANCES
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. The official opposition has uncovered financial statements of the Nanaimo NDP which clearly show the presence of bingo money in the debenture holdings of the NDP. In light of the fact that the minister is currently in charge of the Ernst and Young review of these matters of bingo, will the minister agree that the financial records of the Nanaimo NDP association be included in the Ernst and Young review?
Hon. L. Boone: As the opposition leader should know by now, the Ernst and Young review of the bingo operation is not under this minister's control but under the Attorney General's. This minister has indicated that we will be making an appointment of a separate investigator and will be bringing that name forward to the Legislature soon. At that point in time, that person or company will be responsible for bringing forth all that information to the Legislature.
G. Wilson: Supplementary, Madam Speaker, to the Attorney General.
The official opposition is extremely concerned with the presence of charitable moneys in the financial records of a political party. In light of this fact, will the minister increase the scope of the Gaming Commission audit to include the activities of the B.C. Tomorrow committee, which was admitted by Mr. Dave Stupich to be an arm of the NDP from 1970 to 1988, as it held bingo licences in the province of British Columbia?
[ Page 2202 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, members should know that following the Vancouver Sun's stories on this issue ten or 11 days ago, the Gaming Commission, which is an independent commission -- not a branch or arm of government, but an independent commission -- ordered, of its own volition, an audit through an accounting firm. That was done independent of government. The terms of reference are established by the Gaming Commission, and I do not direct independent commissions as to how they should conduct their inquiries.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary, then, to the Premier. Does the Premier share my concern that charitable moneys are showing up in the records of a political party? And would the Premier not agree that he should use whatever powers are available to him in his office to make sure that the widest scope in this investigation be undertaken, so that the complete records of both the Nanaimo NDP and the B.C. Tomorrow committee will be thoroughly and completely reviewed, and will be available for public review and consideration at the conclusion of that investigation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the members of the House would agree that there are three substantive investigations taking place now. One is being conducted by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Hughes, on the issue of constituency allowances. Another is being conducted independently by the Gaming Commission. There is an audit taking place of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Society by an internationally recognized accounting firm, Ernst and Young. As well, an investigator has been appointed under the Society Act to look at the society. So there are three substantive processes under way that will get at the truth of this matter, and I think the member should let those processes take place now.
GAMBLING MACHINES
L. Fox: My question today, hon. Speaker, goes to the minister responsible for lotteries. I have in my possession a copy of a letter to the Lottery Corporation from the Cluculz Lake Community Recreation Association. This society, like many others, is concerned about the amount of time it's taken for the Lottery Corporation to pay back that society for the pull-tab machines and the money they have invested. Can the minister advise us what the policy is with regards to the buy-back of these machines and whether the societies affected will recover their money as promised a few months ago?
[2:15]
Hon. L. Boone: I thank the member for that question. The Lottery Corporation is currently dealing with all these issues, including giving back to the many societies that had pull-tabs the six-month portion of the income they would have had if that program had been maintained. And we still have some that we are processing there. With regard to the machines, I know that many societies have contacted the corporation and have made arrangements to have those machines purchased from them. I'm not aware of the details of the society that you're talking about. But if you would like to hand that information over to me, I'd be more than happy to look into it and see what we can do to expedite matters for that group.
L. Fox: The February 15 issue of Gaming and Wagering Business quotes the president of the B.C. Lottery Corporation as saying: "The electronic bingos, VLTs, will likely be expanded as a source of revenue for governments. This decision would be extremely harmful to many societies that depend on gaming proceeds and would expand electronic gaming throughout B.C. considerably." Will the minister tell us how many VLT machines the Lottery Corporation has either purchased or ordered?
Hon. L. Boone: We have purchased no VLTs. In fact, that issue has not even been brought to cabinet yet. As I've stated previously, the Attorney General's and my ministry are looking into this issue. We will be bringing a report to cabinet in the near future, and a decision will be made on VLTs at that time. At this point in time, no decision by this government has been made with regard to VLTs.
GAMING POLICY
L. Fox: This question is to the minister responsible for the Gaming Commission. I have in my hand a briefing note of April 27 from the Gaming Commission, which recommends that an independent review of gambling should be initiated through a two-phase plan that would involve wide consultation. Can the minister tell us whether these recommendations have been accepted, and whether they will be implemented before any legislation on gaming regulations is introduced?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I don't believe it's my job to remind the Chair that the question is out of order. But even though it's future policy, I would be prepared to indicate to the House that from the first day we were sworn in, we have been concerned about many of the gambling issues. I've certainly been concerned about many of the issues in and around gambling in this province. We need to do a lot of work in respect to developing policy. We have, for example, no legislation in this province governing casino and bingo gambling.
An Hon. Member: Yes, we've noted that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right. And we need to get on with those issues. As the Minister of Government Services has indicated, we are in the process of putting together a comprehensive approach to this issue. It will include public consultation -- if that was the member's question. We're determined to ensure that gambling and all of the elements around it are governed appropriately and properly, and in the public interest, in this province.
[ Page 2203 ]
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
V. Anderson: My question is to the Premier. Having a real interest in the importance of charities in B.C. maintaining their credibility and realizing that questions about the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society have challenged this credibility, if any of the current investigations show that charities have lost money, will the Premier use all avenues available to him to ensure that these moneys are paid back?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair notes that that is a hypothetical question. If he chooses, he could form another question that would be in order.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. If the minister is really interested in negotiating with doctors, why did she introduce Bills 13 and 14 without any consultation?
Hon. E. Cull: Bills 13 and 14 were introduced by the Minister of Finance. They were budget bills.
L. Reid: Is the minister's last-minute turnaround on these bills simply a public relations exercise designed to give the appearance that she's willing to negotiate with doctors, despite the fact that she intends to ram the same changes through under the guise of a new Medical Service Act?
Hon. E. Cull: I thank the member for the opportunity to speak on this question. I met with the B.C. Medical Association executive on March 27, the day after the bills were introduced in this House by the Minister of Finance. At that point I said to them that we were insistent on the global budget, but all else was negotiable. Since March 27, all else has been negotiable.
I have met with the BCMA executive on five separate occasions and have spent many hours talking to them about alternatives. I have received correspondence, I have talked to physicians, and have now put forward a number of, I think, very innovative and creative solutions to achieve our needs. These solutions, which I think will be watched all over Canada as really in the forefront of changing the way we manage health care, do not contain the provisions that were in Bill 13. They contain comanagement of the health care system by a three-party commission composed of doctors, government and the public.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
L. Reid: The Minister of Health knew there would be political fallout from these bills. Now she's saying that the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for a media campaign to cover her tracks. How can she justify this type of spending on the back of the taxpayer?
Hon. E. Cull: I made it very clear yesterday, when I spoke in the press conference, that we have no intention of launching a campaign along the lines of what the BCMA has been putting out in the last couple of weeks -- $3 million of doctors' money spent on their advertising. However, it's clear from the statements that have been made by the BCMA in their advertising campaign that they have not been willing to tell the public, or their members, that we have been discussing alternatives, we have offered them a fair cost-shared pension plan, and we are willing to comanage almost $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money with doctors. If the BCMA leadership will not tell their members and the public that, then it is my responsibility to do so.
HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES' SETTLEMENT
L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It was recently announced that the HEU had agreed to accept the proposed settlement that was recommended. Can the minister tell the House what the total dollar cost of that settlement is, as well as the percentage increase that would apply to the wages that already exist?
Hon. E. Cull: I think that question would be better put to the Minister of Labour. I don't have those figures in my head, but promise to get those back to you as soon as I can get them.
The Speaker: Are you taking that question on notice, hon. minister?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I am, hon. Speaker.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS
L. Hanson: It was reported in the media today that the minister had suggested that, because of the dispute and the process the doctors are going through in their advertising campaign, it may be necessary for the government to embark on its own media campaign. Can the minister advise the House what sort of budget she has set aside for that purpose?
Hon. E. Cull: As I just said to the previous questioner, there is no campaign. But I will be taking the opportunity -- surely, hon. member, you don't believe everything you read in the newspapers -- to set the record straight for the public through an advertisement that will be appearing in newspapers over the next couple of days. The budget will be less than $100,000, which is 3 percent of what the BCMA has spent on their advertising.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I apologize to the House for inadvertently answering questions yesterday which I thought I had taken on notice but hadn't. Today I'm going to answer some questions that I did take on notice.
On Tuesday I took on notice the following question from the member for Surrey-White Rock. Referring to a 1990 letter from the MLA for Nanaimo to the Gaming
[ Page 2204 ]
Commission supporting a bingo licence application by the NCHS, the member asked if I was aware of any other members of the NDP caucus or the executive council who have written letters supporting the restoration of the bingo licence for the NCHS. I can now advise the member for Surrey-White Rock that, after having my staff check the records of my office and asking Mr. Macintosh of the Gaming Commission to review his records, the answer is no.
A second question was also taken on notice, which was: "Can he confirm that the member for Nanaimo is a past director of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society?" The answer is yes, the member for Nanaimo was a director of NCHS between 1980 and 1982.
L. Fox tabled documents asked for by the Minister of Government Services.
D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: In the galleries today are classes visiting from Kent Elementary School. There are 80 students altogether in the precincts today. We have 40 in the gallery now, and there will be about 40 more around 3 p.m. They're accompanied by Mr. Dumas and Mr. Gallamore. I feel it is very important that students from the constituency I represent come to speak with me and bring me their concerns. I ask the House to make them welcome.
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my pleasure to remind the members of the House that this is Environment Week in British Columbia and in Canada. Tomorrow, June 5, is recognized by people around the world as Environment Day. While Environment Week and Environment Day are by no means the only days of the year when our people work for environmental improvement, they present unique opportunities for people of all ages to work together to become aware of global concerns, and to participate in environmental projects within their communities. It is particularly appropriate that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which also commemorates the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm conference, begins this week.
Many of today's global environmental problems were first given public profile at that event. These issues were urgent then, and they are even more urgent today. Delegates from around the world, both from government and non-government organizations, are converging in Rio to discuss the problems that threaten our planet. Their task is to try to reach a consensus on a multitude of environmental, social and economic issues that can be translated into a workable plan for sustainable development.
As our government's representative, and as a member of the Canadian delegation, I will be representing British Columbia's commitment to a proactive role in resolving global and regional environmental problems and achieving sustainability. Our government also believes that by participating in this way we can build awareness within the province of the summit's importance as it relates to B.C.'s unique ecological diversity and economic potential.
I also hope to bring home a better understanding of the relationship between global and regional sustainability, and of the link among environmental issues, urbanization and international equity. We also believe that we can make a positive contribution to the dialogue taking place at the conference. B.C. is playing an active role in the research and development of products and methods that address environmental problems. We have valuable information to contribute.
[2:30]
Universal awareness and a hopeful attitude are vital to the resolution of environmental problems, and, judging by the level of activity across B.C. this week, it is clear that the people of our province are concerned about the future of our planet. Sharing this concern, the government is involved in events throughout the province. Actions and initiatives that contribute to environmental improvement are being highlighted this week.
The week began with a joint federal-provincial announcement on the protection of the unique habitat for orcas in Johnstone Strait. The bottom line is that we protect the orcas -- through measures that include a five-year moratorium on logging in the lower Tsitika and the Schmidt Creek drainage.
On Tuesday we announced that $200,000 in solid waste grants have been issued so far this year to help municipalities develop and implement local recycling programs.
On Wednesday, Clean Air Day, we honoured the winners of the minister's environmental awards, once again highlighting the enduring dedication and accomplishments of individuals, organizations and companies throughout British Columbia.
This morning, as you know, it was announced that the Khutzeymateen will be protected. I'm extremely happy about this announcement, and have some personal background, having been in the Khutzeymateen on more than one occasion in the early 1960s when I lived in that area. We believe this is good news, not only for the grizzly bear, Ursus horribilis, but also for the many people who have advocated the protection of this valley as an area of outstanding ecological significance.
Announcements and activities will continue from now through June 7. Schools, organizations and communities across the province are hosting a myriad of fascinating events. I encourage all members to participate in Environment Week activities at home, in their constituencies, this day, this week and throughout the year.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to start my reply by congratulating the minister on his decisions with regard to the Tsitika and the Khutzeymateen. I think they were very good decisions, and I would like to urge him to reconsider
[ Page 2205 ]
the Blue Lead Creek area as an area that he might want to extend some consideration to.
As we stand here in Environment Week, it's very fitting that we've spent the week on Environment estimates, with regard to the budget. I've addressed many things with the minister during the Environment estimates. One thing that I would really urge the minister to consider is an environmental bill of rights that would entrench the rights of B.C.'ers to clean air and water. That would be the founding principle on which we build all our resulting legislation and regulations with regard to the environment.
When the minister is in Rio dealing with global issues, I would encourage him to deal with them with an eye to some of the changes that need to be made with regard to our provincial legislation and the infrastructure we've set up in the province.
I canvassed the minister at great length about sustainable cities and about the need to develop them in British Columbia so we have a system whereby cities are developed in a way that is environmentally friendly. The minister could work with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Transportation to make sure that we cut down on the need for the massive use of automobiles. While we still have a fossil-fuel-burning system -- the day will come when we will no longer rely on fossil fuels -- we should lessen the need for some roadways by building village nodes and sustainable cities.
We should make sure that we move away from some of the infrastructure that we have for dealing with sewage waste, to some of the advanced technology that we have in that area for the treatment of waste; and that we try to keep our water clean by not outletting all our waste into waters. Even with treatment, this is not a logical method for dealing with things, when the technology is not only available but less expensive.
I have canvassed many issues with the minister during the Environment estimates. At this time I would really like to encourage the minister, seeing as it is Environment Week and he has indicated he doesn't have an isolated budget for research and development, to take some time to build on the already very valuable research that's out there and to really look at some of the important issues, at how they can be solved with the technology that we have and at how we can put money into these things and really build for the future.
With that, I hope that this Environment Week, with this new government, will see us starting on a path that will lead in a new direction with regard to the environment in British Columbia.
R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Social Credit caucus to the ministerial statement by the Environment minister. It is a fitting reminder to all of us that it is Environment Week and that tomorrow, June 5, is being recognized around the world as World Environment Day.
As all of us realize, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development commenced in Rio de Janeiro this week -- a conference at which British Columbia will be well represented by the Environment minister and his staff. We wish him well in his endeavours on behalf of all British Columbians.
The environment as we know it today is constantly changing, changing in some ways that will forever affect each one of us now and certainly our children and their children in the future. The care of our environment is something that all of us, regardless of political stripe, must take seriously. Awareness of the environment must go hand in hand with our awareness of industry and its ability to cope with new regulations. Industry must be able to continue to supply the wealth and jobs needed to sustain our economy and permit us to continue receiving the benefits we enjoy.
We ask the minister to reiterate to the conference delegates that British Columbia silviculture, forest practices and environmental record establish some of the best standards in all of North America. We will, however, always endeavour to improve in any way possible the respect for the environment by our resource industries. Government, industry, technology and citizens can hopefully work together to come to the best possible solutions for everyone involved. The conference in Rio de Janeiro and the continuing increasing awareness of the citizens in British Columbia and the Environment ministry are all significant steps in the right direction towards the betterment of our environment. We must all remember that we are only stewards of this land. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to pass to our children a planet that is fit to live on, and an environment which is fit to live in.
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted this afternoon to call Bill Pr401, An Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation, standing in the name of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE
THE COQUITLAM FOUNDATION
B. Copping: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
I was very pleased to introduce this bill to the House. It's a very straightforward bill, so I don't think I will belabour it. It was referred, as all private bills are, to the appropriate select standing committee, an all-party committee, where it has now been passed, and it's back in the House.
As I had said earlier, the petitioners are well known to the community. This is a grass-roots bill, so it's nice to see. It is basically comprised, as I say, of people representing groups and organizations, as well as elected people in the district: the Chamber of Commerce president, the mayor of Coquitlam and the chairperson of the school board. I think that we all recognize the good work that the Vancouver Foundation has done, and subsequently the Mission and Chilliwack Foundations after which this bill was fashioned.
This bill basically does two things. It creates a perpetual trust fund for purposes of charities for many good things, whether they be for medical research,
[ Page 2206 ]
scientific research, educational value, to help the needy and the underprivileged. It also serves as a vehicle for people within the community to provide something tangible to the community, whether in the form of a donation or a legacy. I would find it very difficult for anybody to find opposition to this bill.
Bill Pr401, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
AN ACT TO INCORPORATE
THE COQUITLAM FOUNDATION
The House in committee on Bill Pr401; D. Streifel in the chair.
Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Preamble approved.
B. Copping: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill Pr401, an Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Bill Pr402, standing in the name of the member for Port Coquitlam.
VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ACT
M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Hon. Speaker, this bill, the Vancouver School of Theology Act, is in itself a parable of our times. This act sets out a reform of an institution that had become outdated in terms of its mode of governance. You had a school of 250 students that was governed by an unelected body of 60 senators -- one senator for every four students.
This original act covered the Vancouver School of Theology, which was formed in 1971 when two separate founding religions came together to try and form a more perfect confederation. The original act that was granted to them by the Crown created a bicameral system of a senate and a board of governors. It functioned very well for the first ten years or so. But as I stated, it became vastly out of date. It didn't keep up with the times and needed to be reformed. All that's required to change this senate is the unanimity of this House.
[2:45]
The Vancouver School of Theology has consulted with both distinctive groups, the Anglican Church and the Union College. It's held countless committee meetings. There were 193 committee meetings last year to make sure that the members affected by the change in the status governing them were fully consulted at all levels. There was great participation by, as I said, the two governing bodies, the students, the faculty and the senators themselves. At the end of this process, which has taken some three years and countless committee meetings, they have agreed to create a new act: Vancouver School of Theology Act. It will eliminate the senate. It will no longer require 16 meetings a year by the board of governors; they'll only be required to meet three times a year. No longer will the school principal be writing the agenda for next month's meeting at the same time he's typing up the minutes of last month's meeting. No longer will the school have to hold an extraordinary general meeting that has no powers to do anything.
This act shows what happens when men and women consult with each other and come up with a new system of governance that somehow manages to keep all the different and distinctive parts of their society happy. So it's with great pleasure that I sponsor this bill.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to rise to speak on this bill. Just for the benefit of members of the House and for those observing this process on private bills, I would like to note that both this bill and the previous private bill, which has of course been approved in the House, have already gone through a process of review by a select standing committee of this Legislature. That's a process that works well. The select standing committee that I refer to is the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. These two private bills have gone through that process, and all members of the House, I believe, support this bill, as we did the previous bill.
Hon. Speaker, I might note just out of passing interest that these are the only two items that have been referred to that standing committee in this session, although we do hope to have other matters referred. The name of the committee is Parliamentary Reform. There are issues of parliamentary reform, of course, that we look forward to having referred to the committee. Ethical conducts....
The Speaker: On second reading of the bill, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I was just referring to the fact that bills have gone through this committee. One of the matters that the committee deals with is ethical conduct. We hope to review the ethical conduct of members as well.
With those few words, I'd like to indicate that we wholly support this bill in second reading.
V. Anderson: I rise to support the bill. I have to comment that the previous speaker was commenting on the number of meetings. Being on the faculty, I sat in on the meetings when the Vancouver School of Theology came into being, with the union of the Anglican Theological College and Union College. I know what he means by the number of meetings that brought what he called a very inoperative, out-of-date place into being.
[ Page 2207 ]
However, it did the job, and it moved us ahead. We're very delighted that the denominations of not only Anglican and United but Presbyterian and others have joined together in this way to undertake this extension of the Vancouver School of Theology in our communities.
Motion approved.
Bill Pr402, Vancouver School of Theology Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
VANCOUVER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ACT
The House in committee on Bill Pr402; D. Streifel in the chair.
Sections 1 to 34 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
M. Farnworth: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill Pr402, Vancouver School of Theology Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A, Ministry of Agriculture; in section B, Ministry of Environment.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
On vote 33: ministry operations, $223,985,021 (continued)
Hon. W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise this afternoon on the Environment estimates, particularly the Lands and Parks section of our discussion.
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for deferring, at least for a moment. We were going to be advised when the official opposition was ready to go into the Lands and Parks section, and I was going to make an opening statement, which I held over from my opening statement at the beginning of the estimates. Perhaps the hon. member could advise if their caucus wishes to get into the Lands part of that process now.
Hon. W. Hurd: It was my understanding, in discussions with the Environment critic, that after covering earth, air, water, food and energy, we would finally get to Lands and Parks this afternoon. I stand ready to debate those particular estimates in the minister's budget, and I would certainly be happy to yield the floor to the minister for a statement on Lands and Parks.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would assume from the comments just made by the hon. member that you would prefer that we do both Lands and Parks at the same time now. Is that correct? So we could have officials come in for both the Lands and Parks sections.
I would like to make some comments about what I believe to be one of the most important programs in this government: management of Crown lands and land-related information. We are indeed fortunate that most of the land base of British Columbia is owned by the public. In fact, better than 90 percent of the land base of our great province is Crown land. B.C. Lands consists of eight regional offices located across the province, as well as a headquarters group that includes lands policy, real estate services, surveyor general, and surveys and resource mapping.
B.C. Lands of my ministry serves the people of B.C by managing and allocating public land to ensure access for conservation, settlement, recreation, and development, in a manner sensitive to environmental needs and sustainability. I am proud to say that B.C. Lands is a leader in developing programs to fit the needs of British Columbia for the 1990s. It consists of a team of 450 individuals dedicated to serving the public as stewards of the land base, and managers of land information. B.C. Lands maintains the Crown land registry, which is the record of all Crown land surface rights in the province. It also maintains standards for topographic and cadastral mapping throughout the province -- and just so that there's no confusion, that's not a Gracie Fields song, when we talk about cadastral mapping.
One of the major achievements of the Lands program is the terrain resource information management program, or TRIM, which, coupled with cadastre, forms the basis for all natural resource inventory data management in the province. The TRIM program has been very successful in meeting government requirements for high-quality resource management data. In addition, it has created jobs within the province and stimulated the creation of exportable technology. Development of the land information infrastructure system is continuing and will, when completed, provide a compatible governmentwide directory of land-related information. This new system will allow government to respond more effectively to land use issues, aboriginal land claims and environmental emergencies. This system is one of the most important steps to a more integrated and responsible style of resource management.
Satellite imagery mapping is another leading-edge activity with B.C. Lands, which will lead to better information about the province we live in by combining existing topographical maps with satellite images.
[ Page 2208 ]
Currently being tested on Vancouver Island, this process will provide much more sophisticated information about land-covering and usage across the province.
The B.C. Lands program is also responsible for the Crown lands special account, whose major purpose includes stimulation of regional growth through preparation, marketing and sale or lease of Crown lands and to acquire lands to meet various government needs including conservation. The account will generate a net of about $41 million in 1992-93.
The Crown land account plays a vital role in promoting sustainable development of this province. I am pleased to report that it has received authority to spend an additional $300,000 this year to upgrade the Crown land registry system in order to ensure that it continues to support efficient collection of revenue from Crown land sales and leases throughout the province.
Since we are going to be covering parks at this time, I will continue with that. I would like to indicate while I'm still on the Crown land section that we have present assistant deputy minister, Mr. Frank Edgell, and Mr. Jack Hall, senior staff in the Lands branch.
With regard to parks, last fall I was very fortunate to be assigned a program area that, in its tradition in achievement, has become the envy of its counterpart programs across the nation. Of course, I speak of B.C. Parks. The system is one that many of us use for recreation and enjoyment throughout the year. We also look to the Parks professionals to guide us in our decisions about the protection of many B.C. landscapes and other sensitive protected areas.
B.C. Parks consists of three regional offices located in Vancouver, Prince George and Kamloops and a headquarters program management section that includes planning and conservation services and visitor services. The Parks division works very closely with many agencies, including the B.C. fish and wildlife department, in identifying and protecting the natural values that are important to us today and will continue to be important for all future generations.
[3:00]
As you have seen from our discussions, we care deeply about the environment, and we are working very hard to ensure that the natural diversity is protected. We have set a clear goal and announced a timetable to double our protected areas by the year 2000. This is an ambitious goal and will involve all British Columbians. The B.C. Parks division will spend the next fiscal year beginning to translate that goal into action. Currently we protect 6.5 percent of the province, so we have set ourselves a difficult challenge. But in accordance with our commitment to be proactive and manage our future, we have created a plan to look at all issues and arrive at a fair and balanced set of solutions. Accordingly, as I have previously mentioned, as an important first step we created the Commission on Resources and Environment to set the framework for comprehensive land use decisions. Then we announced the development of the protected area strategy. This strategy will coordinate all protected area planning so it is dealt with through the land use process, which will be overseen by the Commission on Resources and Environment.
The initial component of this strategy is Parks and Wilderness for the 90s. We have now listed 184 important areas which will be considered for possible designation by the year 2000. This will be the major planning task for B.C. Parks this year, but we should not overlook the fact that there were over 20 million day visitors and 2.4 million overnight campers, all of whom were attended to in the professional service-oriented style that B.C. Parks are famous for. Their total commitment to a quality park system is something I am very proud to be a part of, and I know this House will join me in thanking them for their commitment to maintaining, protecting and further developing the very best park system in the world.
I am pleased to report that even in these difficult fiscal times, Treasury Board maintains a $3 million budget for the purchase of important fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, we were provided with $750,000 and three full-time employees to ensure the protection of newly designated high-use parks such as Dianisio Point, Botanical Beach, Raft Cove Park and a number of others.
I am also pleased to report that in accordance with our commitment to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, we have received $1.25 million and 12 full-time employees to ensure that a careful, fully considered, properly resourced, and therefore successful consultative process is implemented with the maximum possible public input.
We have assistant deputy minister Mr. Jake Masselink with us, who is ADM in charge of Parks, and I now look forward to questions from the hon. critic from across the House.
W. Hurd: I want to express appreciation to the minister for those remarks on Lands and Parks. As he has said, there is quite a large component of public ownership of the land base in British Columbia, which does afford this province unique opportunities to manage those lands for the benefit of all British Columbians.
He certainly has identified some critical issues -- the land use disputes, which will continue to affect decisions by his ministry to double the land base for parks in British Columbia. Certainly that's a goal that the Liberal opposition is fully supportive of, and it recognizes that this budget is an important first step in realizing that important goal. We are also encouraged to see the move on Crown lands for an integrated approach, integrated land use and integrating resource values, and we feel it is an important step as well. As the minister has indicated, given the budget limitations, being able to maintain a good budget for Lands and Parks is of great encouragement to the opposition.
Just to kick off the questions on the park issue, the minister has announced doubling of parklands in British Columbia by the year 2000, but if our reading of the budget is correct, has allocated approximately $3 million for acquisition this year. The opposition is somewhat concerned that we may lose out on some opportunities to secure parkland with this type of
[ Page 2209 ]
acquisition budget. The loss of Parksville Flats on Vancouver Island was certainly a critical blow to people in that area; one of the most important bird sanctuaries on Vancouver Island.
Perhaps the minister could explain to the committee what percentage of the proposed park areas he's identified for study are already owned by the Crown; which of them will require acquisition costs; and given what appears to be a somewhat meagre allocation for that in this fiscal year, how he intends to achieve the doubling in the next few fiscal years.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the support of the hon. member for having financial resources for acquisition of park and wilderness areas. I would make it very clear that the commitment to double the area is the commitment to double park and wilderness areas; we're not only looking at parks in that scenario.
In answer to the question about the percentage of the study areas that are Crown land, the answer is over 95 percent. It could be as high as 98 or 99 percent, but we know it's over 95 percent. That's a good question, because it gives me an opportunity to make it very, very clear that we're looking at land that is already within the provincial resource base. It's also part of a heritage that the people of the province own.
As I said before, we have $3 million for acquisition. Of course, I would like it to be more. And I do take the member's point that as we address this ambitious goal, there will be -- yes, in some areas -- some financial needs. The money that is there now is money that we see as being available for those areas that we look at in consultation with the habitat conservation fund, for instance. There are so many lands that we would like to acquire that are important habitat, we have to set them in order of priority in order to be able to address that -- Parksville Flats is a good example. While we were unsuccessful in our efforts working with the public to secure the Flats, and while we continue to be in discussion with the people of that area with regard to some continuing possibilities, it would be much better if some of these important land use decisions could be made at a time involving the province, municipalities and regional districts so that zoning is such that it doesn't end up resulting in really valuable land for habitat purposes being affected by an increase in price that becomes prohibitive in terms of acquisition. The main point being, yes, it is an ambitious plan. The good news is that well over 95 percent of the land area being studied already belongs to the province.
W. Hurd: It's encouraging to hear that so much of the study area is within the public purview or ownership.
My next question would logically lead to the existence of resource claims in some of the wilderness areas. As the minister is aware, while logging is not allowed in wilderness areas, mineral extraction is. We're just wondering if he has built into his budget any assumption that there may be compensation required. Or would that be the responsibility of another ministry? Is it within his purview to identify the costs associated with doubling parklands in connection with extinguishing claims on minerals in wilderness areas?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is being reviewed by Mr. Schwindt under the auspices of a different ministry. The answer to the question is no. We don't have money budgeted for compensation.
With regard to the matter we were canvassing earlier, I should add that any land that we purchase for fish and wildlife usually involves other partners. Sometimes those partners will be the lead agency in negotiating for what I think are obvious reasons. These could include Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Trust, the Wildlife Habitat fund and so forth.
W. Hurd: As the Minister is aware, a number of environmental groups in the province have expressed some concerns about the study areas that have been identified for preservation, particularly whether they represent a broad scope of biodiversity or a broad enough reflection of the various wilderness values in the province. Can the minister outline what types of steps may be taken during this fiscal year in terms of building on these study areas to address the concerns of some of the representatives of the environmental movement, who have suggested that there is too high a reflection of mountaintops in these wilderness proposals and not enough in valley bottoms and other areas of the province?
Perhaps he can explain to the committee how the additional study areas beyond the Parks Plan 90 were arrived at, and whether he's confident that the concerns of the environmental movement are groundless, and that these wilderness areas represent the broad spectrum of biodiverse regions in the province that deserve to be protected by a public policy.
Hon. J. Cashore: We've made it clear right from the beginning that we believe that the work that the Valhalla Wilderness Society did in helping to set the parameters for this consultation process has been invaluable. We're very pleased that within the ministry we have participated fully, through Provincial Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, in an excellent review process.
In the present study areas that we are looking at, over 75 percent of those areas are also on the other maps that have been put forward.
With regard to the question about rocks and ice, let's remember that the goal is to try to save representative ecosystems. In order to deal with the question of rock and ice, it would be helpful if a specific area could be identified. I think, hon. member, when you review the map we've put forward with the study areas outlined, you'd be hard pressed to say: "No, that area shouldn't be on there." It is true that there's bound to be some controversy around some areas where there's a multiplicity of expectations coming from the body politic. But we're very pleased that we have put forward a land base there, a forest study that's driven by time in terms of having made a commitment to make certain decisions by certain dates.
[3:15]
[ Page 2210 ]
This will enable us to achieve the goal and the commitment that we have made. So unless I can hear something more specific about an area that shouldn't be on there, I would just have to say that the vast majority of the proposals that came forward from the Valhalla Society are on there, plus a great many more.
W. Hurd: I think the part of the concern being expressed as well in connection with the study area is that in some cases logging is continuing in the areas immediately surrounding these parks. In connection with the areas that have been identified as study areas or wilderness areas, has the ministry identified any areas that particularly require buffer zones for logging activity right up to the boundaries of the study area? Or is the ministry convinced that the concerns of such organizations as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee on this particular issue are groundless, and that there's no need to examine the current logging activities, which in some cases are within a few kilometres of these wilderness boundary areas? Has there been any plan by the minister to identify the types of logging occurring around the immediate study areas, particularly in the areas identified as fairly ecologically sensitive?
Hon. J. Cashore: The issue of buffers is included within the study area process, and so the process we have designed incorporates the consideration of buffer areas. It is an inter-agency process. I'm sure the hon. member can appreciate, given his critic roles, which include both forestry and parks and lands, that there's a real need to address the issues of balance on the multiplicity of expectations that people often have for a particular area.
When we look at the list attendant to the protected-area strategy map, we should remember that it's not a definitive list and is an initial step. It's a dynamic process. So those are nominated areas, and because of that dynamic process, some of those areas could come off. Other areas that aren't on the map now could be added on. The fact that decisions are going to be made does not mean in every case that there will be a decision that that particular area will become a park or an ecological reserve. It might actually come off the map. It's a study process for protected areas that enables people with expertise from both government and environmental groups, as well as those who have concerns from other interests, to have input into that process. Again, I think it's a process that's working, and it's going to serve us well.
W. Hurd: Further to the designated study areas, one of the most important values in the province is public access to these areas. The opposition is curious as to whether the value of public accessibility to recreationists has been built into this particular study. Has that component gone into assessing the viability and importance of these particular wilderness areas, for example, in terms of mountaintops and that type of percentage addition to the 12 percent study area? There seems to be some concern being expressed to the opposition that some of the areas being identified for wilderness preservation have limited public access, if any. This gets back to the question of valley bottoms versus mountaintops again. Has the importance of giving the people of the province access to their wilderness areas been built into this particular study proposal?
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that that is an absolutely fundamental issue in the study area process. It's an issue that has to be fundamental, along with other fundamental issues. For instance, there's the issue of public access, as the member said. But there are also those situations that have to be pillars of this process where the wilderness would be protected from people. In other words, the intent would be that there not be access. I guess it raises a bit of a philosophical question, and that is: do we see it as important that wilderness be preserved for wilderness's sake in some cases? That's a vital question that we have to address in a meaningful way. Certainly the issue about access is important. That's why I said this morning that we need to be doing good work with regional districts and municipal governments.
There are those who point out that surrounding the lower mainland, for instance, are some outstanding wilderness areas where we could have some of the greatest considerations about access. Tweedsmuir Park, for instance, is a beautiful area, but how many British Columbians will ever be able to afford to go up there and enjoy that beautiful part of our province? A lot of people could have access to some pocket wilderness areas. We should also be looking at that in proximity to our urban areas. We need a wide variety of values nurturing this process so that we come up with the best possible solutions. That's why there are provisions in the designation of an ecological reserve that would actually help to protect an area from people.
One of the considerations around the announcement this morning about the Khutzymateen is: would it be an ecological reserve or a wildlife management area; just what would the designation be? In reviewing that and coming to that conclusion, we have to recognize the extent to which the grizzlies need to be protected from people. The other is also true: people need to be protected from the grizzlies.
W. Hurd: I'd just like to further explore this aspect of wilderness areas in the province. As the minister well knows, sometimes the only visitors to these areas are prospectors and geological surveyors working on behalf of the mining industry. As the minister also well knows, the ore bodies in the province are created by God, not by planting or any other means. I just wonder if the minister has any advice to those individuals who are expending their resources to look at mineral claims in wilderness areas in light of the fact that they are now or may be designated for study areas. Would he recommend that they cease for the duration of the study period because the funds that they may expend will not be returned to them in any way? Is that an issue that he's talked about with the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? Just to give some
[ Page 2211 ]
direction to the prospectors and mining interests in the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: The study team reviews those values. That's part of the process built into the protected area strategy, so that's how that is covered. Have I discussed this with the Minister of Mines? The answer is yes. We have had very thorough discussion on this, both one to one and also in cabinet, in CCSD.
The hon. member has referred to back-country activities, and I think he's aware that there has been a major study going on and a public consultation with regard to access connected with back-country recreation -- commercial back-country recreation activities -- and that's an important component of all of this as well. We expect to be moving to a further phase of that process before very long.
W. Hurd: Just in connection with the overlapping responsibilities between ministries, we're particularly interested in the impact of the protected areas with respect to aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. Has the minister any figures on what impact his plan has on the Indian land claims? How much would the proposed park areas conflict with the existing land claims in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's without prejudice to land claims.
W. Hurd: Just with respect to the wilderness recreation proposals -- which I understand are becoming a major issue in the province -- how many wilderness recreation proposals would be currently on the books with these study areas, and would they be in the same general category or the same situation as the mining interests in the province in terms of developing plans for their activities on areas that were designated for study?
Hon. J. Cashore: The study process will determine whether it's going to be a forest recreation area, a park, a wildlife management area, an ecological reserve, or whether it may come off the list. That process will also be informative in terms of what might be added to the list.
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister with respect to Cypress Provincial Park, most of which lies in my constituency. The question here really relates to the current plans for possible further development in this provincial park. The minister, I am sure, is aware that this park has a very interesting history, going back some 20 years. This is one of the provincial parks that is extremely well used because of its proximity to a major urban area in southwestern British Columbia. So this park has a tremendous number of visitors every year.
Of course, my concern for the minister is really: who's in charge with the development of Cypress Provincial Park? Is it the ministry? Is the ministry in charge of developing a master plan? Is Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd., which has developed a master concept plan -- quite an interesting plan, and they've had some public consultation on it -- and is the developer that is running the recreation facilities in the park, in charge of this process?
Certainly there are many people in the area who are very concerned, including groups like the Friends of Cypress and other groups who have made representation, I know, to the minister, and certainly to myself and other MLAs, and certainly the MLAs on the North Shore in particular. But there is a concern about who's in charge of the process, who is driving it. Is the ministry in charge? Is the private developer in charge? Is anyone in charge? I'd like to put that question to the minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's the responsibility of the provincial government to draft the master plan. We're driving the process. Cypress Bowl Recreations Ltd. has input into that in the recreation area, but it's subject to the master plan, which we are driving.
D. Mitchell: On this question of Cypress Provincial Park, I'm pleased to hear the minister indicate that there is someone in charge, and it is the ministry. I believe it is the ministry's responsibility. There is some concern, however, about further development in this park. We've heard that concern expressed with respect to so many provincial parks in the province. This is a particularly sensitive one because of where it's situated. Many residents in the whole lower mainland area would love to have further access to the park, but there are many who are concerned about preserving its wilderness qualities for hiking and exploring the trails and keeping it pristine rather than having further development. On the other hand, the developers come up with some plans that are worthy of consideration. I'm wondering if the minister can tell this committee at this time whether he as minister has a particular view as to whether or not further development in Cypress Provincial Park is desirable at this time.
Hon. J. Cashore: That will be determined by a public process, which I know the hon. member will want to participate in.
[3:30]
D. Mitchell: I'm going to move on to another issue that also affects my constituency. That's with respect to a proposal that was recently turned down by the ministry. I'm referring to the Garibaldi Alpen Resorts proposal at Brohm Ridge. This is a very interesting proposal that would have had tremendous benefits for the community of Squamish and residents of the Sea to Sky corridor. A very ambitious project was proposed by some developers, the Garibaldi Alpen group, to develop a ski resort, an alpine village and residential developments for perhaps thousands of people. The community of Squamish and people in the regional district of the area were certainly excited about the prospect of that kind of development taking place. It was turned down by the minister of Crown lands earlier this spring. I'm wondering if the minister, for the record, could inform this committee as to the specific reasons that the proposal was turned down, and also if
[ Page 2212 ]
there is any possibility of an appeal in the process, of looking at the developer coming back with another proposal.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we've been joined by Mr. Derek Thompson, our director of planning and conservation. He had a major role in the planning of Parks Plan '90. I'm glad that he's joined us here in the House.
With regard to Garibaldi Alpen, as the member knows -- we've discussed this privately -- I've tried as much as possible to reassure him with regard to the process that was underway. This process has gone on for quite some time. The lands branch reviewed this project on the basis of very valid criteria. Given that the goal of the project was to establish a four-seasons destination resort, it became very clear that there was a great discrepancy between the figures that the proponent put forward to state the case for the viability of the project and the figures that our ministry came to realize were more valid, based on a consultant's report -- actually two consultants' reports.
I know that this is of concern to the people of the area who thought that this was going to be bringing in a great deal more development. But, hon. member, we have a responsibility with regard to the stewardship of land. Therefore it's incumbent on us not to be approving the use of Crown land for projects that we don't believe can work. I know it has been said that further financial arrangements could have been made to ensure that the taxpayer wouldn't be left having to pay for it, but that was not in the material that we looked at. Also, even if that were the case, as a matter of policy you would still have to manage the stewardship of the land based on what's right and appropriate, not based on how much money a proponent has -- even if they did have that amount of money.
I have handled this in a very open manner. I've met with Mr. Richter and his proponents. I released a copy of the report upon which we based our decision. That has not been done before. I've met with the mayor and representatives of Squamish. Present at the meeting were representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Tourism and my own ministry. We assured Mayor Tobus that we were willing to work with them with regard to how we could mutually partner in economic development and tourism initiatives. We gave him the answer that I'm again giving you now: no, there's not an appeal for that project.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments. He referred to two studies that had been conducted. Certainly I'm familiar with the Sno-e consultants' report that was done on this project, and I'd appreciate knowing if he could provide for members of the committee the name of the other study that was conducted. I don't know if that one was ever made public.
Further to that, just for clarification.... The minister has indicated that he is certainly open to proposals and that he has a responsibility with respect to the stewardship of Crown lands. Certainly I would respect that. I believe that is his responsibility, and I would urge him to follow and preserve that responsibility. But he said that this particular proposal was unacceptable for reasons that had been made public, and that there has been consultation. Accepting that, can the minister indicate whether or not he is averse to any further proposals for development in the Brohm Ridge area? Is there a possibility that another proposal might be successful? If this one was rejected, does that open up or at least keep alive the possibility that another proposal for development in the Brohm Ridge area could be successful at some point? If there is no appeal process, could another proposal at least be entertained?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the last question, the answer is yes. Circumstances could change in time, or there could be a different concept. Those are possibilities.
The other thing I'd like to point out is that D.R. Matthews was the name of the firm that did the other report. It worked like this: the ministry had a report and the proponent had a report; those two reports did not agree; therefore we went to a third study as a second opinion.
D. Mitchell: For clarification, was the third study the Sno-e consultants' report? Is that right, or have I got the chronology mixed up here?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Sno-e report was commissioned when there was disagreement between the ministry and the proponent.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the Sno-e engineering consultants' report, one aspect about the release of that report disturbed me. It was a comment that the minister made, which was referred to in news media reports, in response to questions from some residents in Squamish as to whether or not there was a conflict with a consultant associated with Whistler -- which is also in my constituency -- passing judgment on a project proposed for Squamish. There was a suggestion that perhaps there was some conflict there because of potential competition between Squamish and Whistler. The minister responded to that in the news media. I quote from a Vancouver Sun article on April 4, 1992, when he said: "It's certainly the kind of question I would have asked in opposition."
That's an interesting quote, but it's not a constructive one, because it pits one community against another. That's certainly not what we want to achieve in British Columbia. It's certainly not what I want to achieve, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, for an area where communities are trying to work together to find areas of cooperation and mutual synergy for development -- not to pit communities against each other.
I would ask the minister if he could simply comment as to whether or not, in his view, there was any potential conflict between Squamish and Whistler and clear the air on this whole issue with respect to the Sno-e engineering consultants' report.
[ Page 2213 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Absolutely not. As the member well knows, in this business you often have your statements taken out of context. I have no apology for being open and saying that's the type of question I would have asked in opposition. It was a legitimate question. It was certainly not germane to the important part of the story. I was saying to the reporter that I thought it was a good question, and I then responded to it.
The fact is that there was nothing in that interview that could possibly be construed as setting those two communities in conflict. The point that I did make was that the consultant, who happened to be seen as being connected with Whistler, was a professional, and as such, it behooved him to behave in a professional manner, because the livelihood of that company would depend on it. That was the point. As you well know, that was also the point that I made in clarification in a letter to the editor to clear that matter up. Now it's on record here.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that. The purpose for raising the question in this committee is to get it on the record, because I think it's important. If one lesson comes out of it for me -- and I hope the minister learns the same lesson -- it's that one must be careful with comments one makes to the media, because they can be misinterpreted. That comment was certainly perceived in the communities that I represent as being quite inflammatory, in the sense that it was encouraging people to pit communities against each other in a very destructive manner. The minister should choose his words more carefully in the future, especially when the future and livelihood of communities are at stake.
One final question on the Garibaldi Alpen project. The minister has indicated that he is certainly open to further proposals and has not closed the door on other proposals coming forward. Another proposal is brewing, and the minister is probably aware of it. There has been consultation between the original proponent, whose proposal has been rejected, and the municipality of Squamish. This proposal would include having the municipality of Squamish make a proposal to assume jurisdiction, I suppose one could say, over the Crown land that is to be developed and to allow the municipality, in turn, to deal with potential developers in the future. I wonder if the minister can indicate, for the benefit of members of this committee, whether or not the ministry would be amenable to that kind of proposal, to that kind of use of Crown land: to work with the municipality at that level and allow the municipality, in turn, to deal with private developers.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have received some communication on that, and we're in the process of developing our response.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate that a response is forthcoming, and we all look forward to what it will be. But in principle, could the minister indicate if this is the kind of approach his ministry would be willing to consider: working with the municipality, transferring control over Crown land to a municipality and allowing the municipality to, in turn, assume control over possible development of that land? Are there precedents for that in British Columbia? Is that the kind of approach that this ministry is likely to accept in principle, without referring to the specifics of this particular case?
Hon. J. Cashore: There are no precedents in British Columbia for this kind of project. With regard to the principle, I think I stated the principle in a previous answer a few minutes ago. The only thing I would add to that is that in this particular situation, we think that development of a tourism strategy, where the municipality is involved, is an important step.
D. Mitchell: I'm not really sure what the minister's response means. I guess we'll just have to look forward to how he responds in this particular case and, from that, try to extrapolate what those principles are that he referred to. I'm not sure that I can find them, but I'll go back and check through the record afterward to see if there is an underlying principle there. It's not obvious to me.
Hon. J. Cashore: If I could repeat what I said a few moments ago, I've stated that the ministry, along with other ministries, is willing to work with local people. I stated the principle of openness, in the fact that we released the information. I stated the principle of consultation, in that we met with the proponent and also with Mayor Tobus and his council.
With regard to the question of whether this precludes other possibilities, I've answered that. I've said no, it doesn't preclude other possibilities. But the Lands part of the ministry has a responsibility to respond to whatever proposals come forward in an informed and appropriate manner. The principles of stewardship of the land base of the province are absolutely fundamental. I've stated those principles, but I'm glad to state them again.
D. Mitchell: I understood those principles, but my confusion was with respect to -- for the minister's benefit -- whether or not those principles of stewardship could be transferred from the ministry to a municipal level of government. The minister has indicated that there is no precedent for that in British Columbia, but I'm wondering whether or not that is the kind of approach this minister would be in agreement with. Would the minister be willing to consider transferring his stewardship responsibility over Crown land from his ministry to a municipal level of government?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, there is no precedent for that. As the member knows, there are certain criteria whereby free Crown grants are sometimes a matter of transfer. The member might want to review it in that context, but there is no precedent for that. That's not to say that it's not within the realm of possibility; I can't say off the top of my head.
[ Page 2214 ]
D. Mitchell: I have one other question I have for the minister. With respect to the Garibaldi Alpen project, we've talked about the hiring of consultants. I have a question with respect to the hiring of consultants and contractors by the ministry, and what the policy and practice is with respect to that. I know the ministry has a very competent staff, but I know that it engages consultants and contractors from time to time in a number of different ways. I wonder if the minister could comment on this. I don't want to go into something that I think would be out of order, but I'll just say for the sake of reference that there is a question on the order paper of this House asking for a list of all the consultants and contractors who were hired since the minister was sworn into office on November 5, 1991, until the eve of the session, March 16. We're hoping that question will be answered in due course, and we've had some assurances that it would be. The answers haven't been forthcoming, however. I'm wondering if the minister can commit to this committee today to provide to members of this House a list of all the consultants and contractors who were hired from the period of March 17, the day this session started, until the present, looking at the same criteria as those in the question on the order paper of this House.
Hon. J. Cashore: I won't respond to the order paper question, but the process that the ministry uses is a bid process. A consultant who is hired goes through an appropriate bidding process.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the process is open, and because it is open, perhaps the minister would see nothing wrong with providing to members of the committee a list of all the consultants and contractors who have been engaged by his ministry from March 17 until the present day. Could I ask for that commitment from the minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: I've already answered that.
D. Mitchell: I don't believe I have received an answer to this question. The question is with respect to consultants and/or contractors engaged by the ministry that he is responsible for. The minister has indicated to us today that it is an open bidding process, so presumably he would have nothing to hide. Would he provide a list to this committee? If he doesn't have it with him today, I would be pleased if he would simply commit that he will get that to us: a list of all....
F. Gingell: April 1, this year.
D. Mitchell: Let's say March 17 might be one date. We could go from April 1 if the minister wants, but up until the present day -- a list of all the contractors and consultants hired.
Hon. J. Cashore: All of this information comes out in the public accounts. With regard to issues of access to information, that's subject to legislation that's before the House. There could be instances where a minister or a ministry would decide to release information prior to that, and I would have to take that under advisement. I'm not prepared to say one way or the other right now. But the information does come forward under the public accounts.
D. Mitchell: I'm fully aware that the material does become available eventually, in good time, in the public accounts, but I'm asking the question today, and I'm asking it here. The minister has indicated that it's an open process. Presumably then he would have nothing to hide.
In the spirit of the freedom-of-information legislation, which has been tabled in this House -- and this government claims to be an open government -- if it's an open process, surely there would be nothing wrong with providing, or committing to provide now -- not next year in Public Accounts, but now -- a list of all the consultants and contractors engaged by his ministry.
If the minister has a problem with that, could he tell us what his difficulty is? Because I can't imagine what the problem would be.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll work on that, and in time if we're able to make something available to the hon. member earlier, we will do so.
D. Mitchell: The minister is saying: "Well, I'll think about it, and I'll get back to you." But we're here today reviewing his budget for the 1992 fiscal year. We're here reviewing his budget, and he's asking us to approve his budget. We're here expressing our grievances before we're going to grant supply to this minister so that he can spend the taxpayers' dollars. And what does he do? He answers the question by indicating that he'll get back to me maybe perhaps one day. I'll just ask the question one more time.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, with all respect, I don't think that the member should berate me for just having indicated that while there's no statutory requirement for me to issue something prior to the Public Accounts, I've stated that in good faith I will look into the matter. I'll review it, and if I'm able to make that information available at an earlier date, I will. So I don't think there's any point in getting all hot and bothered about it. I'll do the best I can.
D. Mitchell: I agree with the minister: we should resist becoming hot and bothered. The session is getting late, and the minster is on his way to Rio, where he is going to get hot and perhaps a little bothered. I for one believe he should go to Rio. Unlike some other members of the House and perhaps some members of the news media who have urged him not to go and stay home, I think he should go, but I think first we should approve his budget. I think that would be very useful and constructive. I'm simply seeking a commitment -- not some vague ambiguous statement that he will look into it and get back to me. That's not the kind of commitment I'm looking for from the minister, and it's not the kind of commitment we should expect.
It's a very simple question. I would just seek a little firmer commitment from the minister. Could he commit
[ Page 2215 ]
to provide us with a list of all the consultants and contractors engaged by his ministry? He said it's an open process. If he has nothing to hide, then why not agree today to provide that information to us -- not consider getting back to us, but agree to give it to us? We know that the material comes out in Public Accounts next year; we'd like to have the material now if we could, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Hon. member, it's my opinion that your questioning is becoming repetitious and tedious, according to standing orders. I believe the minister has answered the question, so could we please proceed.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: My constituency -- and you're fully aware of it -- covers a tremendous area of northern British Columbia. We have numerous guiding and fly-in fishing businesses. I would like to know if the same rules and regulations apply to guides and outfitters as to sport guide-in fishermen for the purpose of building cabins on remote lakes.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, for guide-outfitters to have a cabin, they have to have a guide-outfitting licence. For others, they don't.
R. Neufeld: For guided fly-in fishing, you need a licence for that also if you're going to guide people and fish in remote lakes, as I understand it.
Specifically, I have a constituent who has applied for land to build cabins so he can facilitate his fly-in fishing people. He does fly an awful lot of people into the north, based out of Muncho Lake; they come from all over the world to fly into different lakes. He's applied for leases on Denetiah Lake, South Gataga, Maxhamish Lake, Frog River and Netson Lake for the purposes of building a cabin so the fishermen have some shelter. He has actually been fishing on Maxhamish Lake commercially and flying people in there for about 11 years. But he's been turned down on a number of occasions from your Fort St. John office. He's a little concerned that the ministry still allows the guiding industry to build cabins on remote lakes, but he is not allowed to build cabins on some of the lakes that he's applied for. He'd like to know why. He understands also that because of the backcountry things that are going on, it becomes very difficult. He says that after 11 years, he should be able to make some headway so he can do some planning; at the present time he can't plan. He's kind of caught short there.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member has really answered the question for me. Pending the outcome of the process on commercial back country recreation, we are not accepting applications. It's unfortunate that your constituent is caught in that, because as you have said, he has been in this process for, I think, 11 years. However, it's my understanding that that is how our policy is taking place at this present time, and until we complete that process, we are not going to be processing any applications.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I understand where the ministry is coming from. However, during that time there has been tenure granted to some guide-outfitters to build different cabins. I'm not sure where, what lakes or what areas, but my constituent says that if you're going to allow the guide-outfitters -- he says -- that they are mostly owned by people from abroad -- to build cabins on some of these lakes, why not him? They all fit under the same thing. It's all the back country thing that is being held up, but those are still allowed to go ahead.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. member, that's a good example of the kind of difficult situation that we're trying to resolve in this process. I would like to recommend that we arrange for you to meet with senior staff and give you an opportunity to outline that specific concern. Among other things, I think it will help us in terms of being aware of the array of problems that are being encountered out there.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I'll do that.
The other question I have concerning that same constituent is the construction of a floatplane base on Parker Lake, which is actually close to Fort Nelson. Parker Lake is not what you would call a lake like you see in the Okanagan or a lake down here. Parker Lake is actually some real swamp land. It's a very shallow lake. The road was basically built in there by a contractor many years ago to use as a floatplane base. Through time they have coerced the regional district into doing some grading, and local contractors have hauled an awful lot of gravel and spent some time on that road.
This certain person, who of course uses float planes, needed a place to base from, so he uses Parker Lake. He says that he went to Lands and talked to them about how he would build a float plane base at this lake. It's not an extensive base, but it does have walkways out into the water so that you can both get out to your plane and load without getting wet. I think he went to considerable expense to do this. Now it's not policed by anyone -- it's about ten miles out of town. There are some people that live closer, but they don't police it. So he uses it, and so do a lot of other people. It's also an emergency place. When he received his bill from Lands for the use of the lake.... I just want to read a paragraph here -- it's from the Fort St. John office -- so you understand: "I have received your letter of February 5 with a cheque for $1,160.95 for the Parker Lake tenures. I understand that you do not agree with the valuation, but I have again reviewed the file and believe that we have determined a fair market value for the upland and waterfront lot."
It sounds like we're talking about a pretty fancy place, but we're not. He's disputing that it's a little bit out of line. He said that if he could rent space at the airport, which he does for his wheeled aircraft, it's cheaper than that. So he says: "I went to all the expense to build everything there, and it could get vandalized, and other people use it, yet I have to pay this rent." There's no way that he mans it so that he can charge other people. So he feels that maybe it's just a little bit unfair; in fact, he thought that half of that would
[ Page 2216 ]
probably be more than sufficient. And it's a service, I guess, provided to the general public.
Hon. J. Cashore: The first point is that there is a valuation appeal process. If there's a dispute, there's a process whereby it can be appealed through an independent process. He also has the option of charging other users. With regard to the specific point, it may be that the hon. member would like to discuss that on the occasion that he meets with staff in terms of the intricacies of this particular situation.
R. Neufeld: One other question that's always been a burning issue in my constituency is over what's going to be done between the guides and outfitters and the packers? What kind of regulations, if any, are we going to put in place between those two? It does cause an awful lot of problems from both sides. I'm not standing on one side or the other, but the fact remains that there is a tremendous amount of conflict and friction between the two, and we do need some regulations to take care of it. Those same people tell me that they want less regulations, but here they want regulations to take care of some of their problems. Does the ministry have any idea on that?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has identified one of the real tough problems. It's a very difficult issue. It's under very intensive review. It involves both the Environment and Lands parts of the ministry. There's a lot of intense work going on in trying to sort this out. At this point we're not able to come forward with clear and concise answers to your questions, but we hope to be doing that. We hope to get this matter resolved, but it is a really difficult one.
R. Neufeld: It definitely is. I certainly don't begrudge your job on that one, because it is a difficult one. I look forward to a ruling on it so that we can carry on.
I have one other question. It's the last one, and it's not predicated on some of the questions that were asked by the member from the opposition on contracts and that type of thing. Quite a while ago, probably over a month, I wrote a letter to your ministry requesting just some information on how you tendered helicopter time, specifically in my constituency. I'm not concerned about the rest of the province on that, other than a number of helicopter outfits in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. Some of them have contacted me to say that they don't seem to be able to bid on any work or get very much of it, compared to what's happening. So I would just like some clarification on it or how you do that.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm informed that it is tendered, but we don't always go with the lowest bid. There are factors that have to be considered in accepting the tender. We are going to be responding to you and we're preparing that response, but that's about all I can say for now.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that answer. It's just that in my constituency the oil patch is a little slow, and also forestry, and of course all of these companies depend heavily on that, along with government work. So they would like to see it spread around a little bit more, because they're all competent, and I think probably when you come down to it, the rates are almost all the same for the same type of helicopter with different companies. That was the main reason for asking the question.
F. Gingell: I have asked you questions with regard to the Roberts Bank backup lands on two previous occasions. Now we've got to the time where it's going to be dealt with, and I've already asked most of my questions. But you will remember that I spoke first of all about the proposition, as it has now been clearly determined by the Vancouver Port Corporation that they wouldn't require these lands and they have made that commitment in a very unequivocal manner, that there was a possibility that they could be sold back to the original owners from whom they were expropriated.
The second question that I asked: if they couldn't be sold back, could the terms of the leasehold interest or the leases be changed so the cancellability clause or the fact that the lease can be cancelled on one year's notice be taken out of them so it will be reasonable and proper that good soil management practices take place?
My understanding of your responses to both those questions was that another study is being done, a study that will be fairly broad in dealing with all the questions of those Delta lands. Could you just respond to that to set the groundwork?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's being reviewed by the ministry with Agriculture and with the tenants. I believe that's the extent of the information we have at this time.
F. Gingell: One of the other alternatives I would ask you to consider, if the land isn't going to be sold back, is that the administration, if not the title, be handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture, because they will clearly have a better understanding of the needs of farmers and be more sympathetic to the concerns that farmers have with regard to soil management practices, ditching, drainage, irrigation and all those other programs which the Ministry of Agriculture gets involved in, very often with municipal and federal cooperation.
Hon. J. Cashore: In response to that, it's my position that it's not subject to what ministry is involved but subject to the policy of government. The role of Crown Lands is simply to administer in the context of government policy. I think our government has a very strong record with regard to land use policy.
F. Gingell: One other matter that is of concern to Delta farmers is the matter of the wildlife habitat replacement proposal that arises with respect to the construction of the third runway at the Vancouver
[ Page 2217 ]
International Airport. A copy of a letter written by the Delta Farmers' Institute to Transport Canada dated March 3, 1992, was sent to you. Will you consider the proposals outlined in that letter and show your support by championing their position with the federal authorities, who, after all, are the people who have the end role in this matter?
Hon. J. Cashore: I understand the letter was from the Delta Farmers' Institute. I'm advised that we're consulting possible options, but we haven't made a decision on it.
F. Gingell: One other question with respect to your responsibility on parks -- actually two or three items. Number one is that there has been a discussion and a proposal for some time now to improve and develop facilities on the south side of the B.C. Ferry causeway at Tsawwassen. It is being used as a park now. If you ever happen to catch the Friday afternoon or weekend ferry over to Tsawwassen, you will see what is going on. Could you please advise me where on your priority list that that particular project sits?
Hon. J. Cashore: That apparently is currently part of a B.C. Ferries' lease. It is not on our study area list, so we don't have any plans at the present time.
F. Gingell: When you were speaking earlier about government policy and the fact that it didn't matter whether the backup lands were in the hands of Crown lands or Agriculture and that we should consider it all one, did that mean that the same principle would not apply here? I appreciate that it is probably federal land that is leased to B.C. Ferries. If we are talking about park needs, surely it is so massively used that it's clearly a regional or a provincewide facility, even though it hasn't been developed in any way. Surely the fact that that land may be leased by B.C. Ferries from Crown federal.... The provincial parks could play a role. I know it's something that would show a great return in usage.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our position is that that's a regional use, and it's more likely and more appropriately addressed as a regional consideration. The terms of the lease are that that's under the control of B.C. Ferries. As I have said before with regard to Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, it is a study area list, and that's not on the list. I have also said that some areas will be added and some will be removed, because that's a dynamic process. It's possible that there might be letters indicating interest in that area. Our position is more inclined to encourage, if there is some thought of park status there, that it be considered on a regional basis.
[4:15]
F. Gingell: Perhaps we could get some dynamics going this afternoon and add it to the list. I really do think that it is a major facility that would well be part of your study. On that same subject of your study list, could you advise me if any thought has been given in your ministry with respect to the well-known lands that are involved in the Spetifore ALR property that is part of my Delta South constituency, specifically the land on the eastern side of Boundary Bay Road that sits between the golf course, the Guichon farm and the waterfront?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's private land. We don't have any jurisdiction over it. Some of the factors there would probably be addressed in the Boundary Bay area study that I was talking about earlier, but that remains to be seen.
With regard to the earlier point about the ferry causeway, I think we need to make a distinction here between a park and a campground. That's used mainly as a campground, and I don't think it really fits the criteria that we would look at when we're thinking of a park or any of our other designations.
W. Hurd: I'll continue briefly with the designated study area -- the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s plan. In light of the considerable impact that the Schwindt commission recommendations may have on the minister's budget -- particularly this strategy to increase the size of parks and wilderness preservation in the province -- is it the intention of the ministry to make any presentations to the Schwindt commission regarding compensation issues on lands that may be affected in this particular area?
Hon. J. Cashore: At this point the Schwindt commission has not approached us, and we have not discussed it with them.
W. Hurd: I'm looking at some of the areas that have been designated for a decision under the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s plan. There are considerable tracts of wilderness area which we would assume will overlap mineral land claims on the part of some companies in the province. How many claims are we dealing with here in terms of the areas that are designated to be decided upon as early as 1993? Surely the minister must have a grasp on the areas for which the government, depending on the recommendations of the Schwindt commission, may end up having to compensate resource holders in some small way. Assuming the results of the Schwindt commission, would those compensation claims be applicable to his ministry in the current fiscal year?
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have that information with us, but I'll make a commitment on the record that we will get it for the hon. member within two weeks.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions on the corporate inventory initiative. Can the minister explain which projects in Lands and Parks are going to be funded in the current fiscal year under funds available from this particular initiative?
Hon. J. Cashore: That information is on its way. I'll have to answer that question later.
W. Hurd: Does the minister have any information on what portion of the $10 million fund will be
[ Page 2218 ]
available to his ministry during the current fiscal year? We're curious as to what process the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development may use in the allocation of these funds, given the number of ministries that are lined up to receive funds under this $10 million initiative.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment will receive about $4.4 million and 12 full-time employees. This is the portion that will be directly apportioned through the Ministry of Environment.
W. Hurd: Further with the corporate inventory initiative, can the minister explain to the committee if this is a perpetual fund, or is it merely a one-shot deal available to his ministry? I note that the funds -- if my reading of the parameters is correct -- are to develop inventory projects. Is that how his ministry intends to use these funds -- an inventory-type of initiative?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
W. Hurd: We'll look forward to receiving a list of those projects from the minister in the coming weeks.
Perhaps in the interest of speeding things up I can address a line of questioning on the rather considerable increase in fees for the use of provincial parks in the province. Once we get past the July 1 holiday, all members of the House will be the recipients of a number of letters on this particular issue.
As the minister may be aware, I have addressed correspondence to his ministry on this issue, and I certainly appreciated receiving a response on this particular important issue. As a critic for Forests and for Lands and Parks, I continue to receive letters from the public, who are concerned about the impact of these particular increases.
I was struck in particular by one letter I received from an individual who owns an 11-year-old pickup truck and a 15-year-old eight-foot camper, and whose greatest enjoyment in the spring, summer and fall was touring Vancouver Island, with a few trips to the southern Interior. They pointed out that: "We prefer to stay at the provincial sites, because utility hook-ups are not necessary to us, and we don't mind the pit toilets." However, our rates are now higher than those charged by private operators offering water, hydro hook-ups and all the same amenities that Parks offers -- tables, fire pits and firewood, for example. Most of the private parks, according to this letter writer, have hot showers and flush toilets.
These particular individuals are seniors, whose pensions are not indexed and who are feeling the effects of the double whammy from these park increases and from rather dramatic increases in ferry fares and ICBC rates. I think they raise a legitimate point in this question. Was there any thought by the ministry of developing a different fee structure for British Columbians, particularly for seniors who would be fairly heavy users of these facilities -- and have been in the past -- as opposed to outside visitors? Was there any thought in the ministry of providing a made-in-B.C. policy for applying these parks fees in the upcoming fiscal year?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question as to whether there is any consideration of preferential rates for British Columbians, the answer is no. I would point out to the hon. member that the 1992 fee increase ranges from 9 to 13 percent, depending on the fee level. This is significantly lower than the 19 percent increase in the British Columbia consumer price index since 1987, which was the last time that there was an across-the-board fee increase. I would point out to the hon. member that the fees were set in recognition of the fee structures of the commercial campgrounds. We feel that we as a province have a responsibility to recognize those commercial campgrounds as being a viable business, and there was a problem before that we were causing some of them problems in terms of them being able to manage their accounts and show a reasonable return on their investment, because the provincial fees if they are not kept in sync will undercut them. Our information is that our fees, taken on the average, are appropriate in relation to those other fees.
Also with regard to seniors, yes, we have received some complaints about that and it's an issue that we're watching carefully, but we've also had input from seniors who have said to us that they feel that they are capable of paying the fee. There's also a reduced fee for seniors in the shoulder season. I take this concern seriously, but it is the policy of government to charge an appropriate fee as a means of helping to appropriately maintain those campgrounds. We believe this is good management because we have not been raising this every year. We've kept it down as much as we possibly could, but it behooved us to make this increase during this year.
W. Hurd: I believe the letter writers and others I have received make valid points, however, when they suggest that the ministry should have compared the services available in provincial parks to those private operators. Has the ministry, in deciding on these rather draconian increases for seniors, recognized the fact that they may not be providing the same level of service as private parks, and wouldn't it then be logical to assume that the people who do use provincial parks will either be driven south of the border or will use the private parks on a much higher incremental basis, because they do enjoy these amenities which these rather seasoned travellers suggest are not available in provincial parks?
I'm a little curious. Surely the maintenance of the park not only depends on the fees charged but the number of people using the parks, and if we see a rather dramatic drop in favour of private facilities, wouldn't that have an impact of dramatically reducing the revenues from provincial parks and therefore threaten their viability just as much?
Hon. J. Cashore: In California, Washington State and Oregon it's my understanding that they're charging at the rate of what the market will bear, and they're having 100 percent occupancy in their campgrounds in California. I want to repeat what I said a few moments
[ Page 2219 ]
ago, and that is that these prices were set with complete awareness of the prices being charged in the commercial campgrounds, and that was one of the factors that was important in setting the rates. We think that we're holding the rate at a very reasonable level in British Columbia, but we do recognize that there have been complaints. We're not trying to deny that. We'll take that into consideration, but we think the rate that has been set is the appropriate one.
[4:30]
W. Hurd: I'm certainly somewhat disappointed to hear the minister suggest that British Columbians don't deserve a break in their own parks. Surely there should be some admission by the minister that out-of-province visitors should possibly pay a little more for the use of these parks, as they don't make as many frequent trips to British Columbia and often come in motor homes and other vehicles and tend to spend longer in the parks. Is the minister willing to at least examine the ratio of usage between British Columbians in their own parks and those out-of-province visitors to determine if British Columbians aren't in fact subsidizing the people who use these facilities?
Hon. J. Cashore: This suggestion comes up from time to time. It was tried in Oregon. They had to cancel it, and the reason for that is interesting: Oregonians then had to pay a premium price when they went to other states. Therefore there will be a reaction when you try that kind of approach.
Fundamentally, hon. member, I disagree with you. We should have a one-price policy. I don't think that British Columbians would look upon that as being unfair. In the concept of tourism, we need to be providing services that recognize that this is a destination location for a great many people. We want to see them continuing to stimulate our economy.
I want to clarify that when I stated earlier that California is charging what the market will bear, that certainly is not what I'm advocating. We're advocating trying to have a price that's realistic, in recognition of the costs of operating campgrounds.
W. Hurd: I don't want to belabour the point about increases for parks. I'm sure that the minister will be hearing from many other concerned British Columbians after July 1. I will leave it to them to point out the error of this particular policy.
I have a few additional questions on Lands and Parks. I want to briefly revisit the aboriginal issue. The minister talked about the study areas that he has identified -- the 12 percent not compromising the land claims issue in any way. Will aboriginal people continue to have fishing and hunting rights in these particular areas until the aboriginal question is resolved? I ask that question particularly in light of the announcement this morning about the grizzly bear designated area. I suppose that is somewhat unique for the province, because it does represent a preserve specifically for one indigenous wildlife species. Will aboriginal people continue to have their access to these areas for their long-standing traditions of hunting and fishing?
Hon. J. Cashore: Natives will participate in developing guidelines for each study area, along with the study process. With regard to the specifics on the Khutzemateen, the answer is yes. The Git'tsiis tribe of the Port Simpson people, who are part of the Tsimshian nation, will continue to have their traditional activity. By making the announcement that we made today, we are concerned that it will attract a lot of attention to the area. Therefore we have to look at possible interim measures pursuant to the ultimate designation that will be decided.
With regard to this issue, I'd like to mention that this is one of the most creative areas in which we have the opportunity of working on plans with native people. It could be a good model for our land claims process. For instance, the Nisga'a lava bed park, which we dedicated a few weeks ago, was an excellent example. Chief Alvin McKay on behalf of the Nisga'a nation and myself on behalf of the B.C. government dedicated a park which is really on a sacred area where about 250 years ago a volcano caused the death of about 2,000 people who lived in villages. The logo of the native people is on the plaque that we unveiled along with the B.C. government plaque. We're now in the process of developing a management plan which will ensure that they are a very fundamental part of managing a process jointly with the province. It will be helpful in terms of awareness, education and understanding of their culture and their values. It's something that we can look toward as a model for that type of activity. A further example that I'm very interested in is one that I have discussed with Chief Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn band, who has an area of interest in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. He has also been active in a very helpful way in indicating an interest in a partnership approach. I think there's a real opportunity with the native issue.
L. Hanson: In the Parks part of your ministry, do you have a policy that under some extreme circumstances would allow for, as an example.... Maybe I should go back a little bit and explain.
Our forests have some enemies -- mostly in the form of insects -- and some of them are badly damaged by them. Unfortunately, those insects don't know where the park boundaries start. In class A parks, does the ministry have an ability under special circumstances to log, if necessary, for the protection of the rest of the park?
Hon. J. Cashore: We permit logging if it enhances the park, and we do so in consultation with the Ministry of Forests. It has happened in Manning Park.
L. Hanson: Manning Park is, in fact, a class A park. Would that same philosophy apply to blowdown and that sort of thing?
Hon. J. Cashore: It could, but it would be subject to a lot of technical input from biologists. The reason is that in some areas of the province our wilderness is still in a somewhat balanced and unmanaged state. It would have to be recognized that blowdown is part of the natural evolution of the ecosystem, so each situation
[ Page 2220 ]
would be different and based on the values for which that particular park is intended.
W. Hurd: I have just a few more brief questions on Lands and Parks, recognizing the minister is anxious to head to Rio.
I had a particular interest in the Islands Trust situation on the Gulf Islands archipelago. I'm sure the minister is aware of the concern of that level of government about the designation of areas in the Gulf Islands for protection, respecting the fact that in this particular unique region there may be a need for an even greater percentage of preservation than the 12 percent provincial average. Can the minister share with the committee any ideas or recommendations that his ministry has about the Gulf Islands? Is he intending to hold meetings with the Islands Trust in the near future, as that body has some fairly grave concerns about land issues on the islands?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the answer is yes. We are working with them, and we do wish to include them in the planning process with regard to the study areas.
W. Hurd: Further to the Islands Trust, does the minister have a proposal before him from the Islands Trust pertaining to areas that they are anxious to see some action taken on by the ministry? Have they presented that type of plan to him, and has he made any commitments under his ministry vote this year to take action on some of these rather critical areas, particularly the issue on Galiano?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have committed to meet with officials from the Islands Trust within the near future about some general land issues there. With regard to your question about Galiano, I'll have to check on that one.
W. Hurd: As the minister may be aware, the issue on Galiano involves private lands that are under the control of a forestry company, MacMillan Bloedel. There is some concern that this particular area may be designated for housing or some other use. I think what the Islands Trust is looking for from the minister is some sort of commitment to designate a general classification for these lands, even though they may be in private hands. If he can provide some information on this issue to the committee in the future, it would certainly be appreciated.
I have just a few additional issues with respect to Crown lands. We're particularly interested in the dispensation of Crown lands, particularly for forestry woodlots. Is the minister actively working with the Minister of Forests to assist individuals in assembling enough Crown land to take advantage of the rather generous federal programs available for woodlot creation, given the fact that the commission by Mr. Sandy Peel identified considerable opportunities for private woodlot programs and the important role that the minister responsible for Crown lands could play in that process?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we work as a referral agency, but the lead role is in the Ministry of Forests with regard to the forestry woodlot program.
With regard to Galiano, our staff at the regional level are in regular contact with the Galiano people on this point. I'd remind the hon. member that our ministry purchased Dionisio Point from Mac-Blo last year. There are continued discussions, but we haven't had any further resolve on that issue coming out of the regional office discussions that I referred to.
W. Hurd: Just one final question. I note that under vote 33, the minister also has responsibility for the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act. I must confess, as the critic, that I'm not as apprised of the issues in this particular area as I possibly should be. In light of the incidents that have occurred with these particular rafting outfits, is he planning to review this act in the coming fiscal year with the aim of drafting new regulations in connection with river rafting activities? I recognize this represents future policy, but it does fall under vote 33. Can he share with the committee any ideas he has about the current river rafting safety act and whether there are changes that might be necessary?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I don't think we have to talk about that in the context of future policy; it came up in 1987. The guidelines and the regulations are working well. There were incidents precipitating them at the time, and some tragic situations had occurred. I'm going to be river rafting this summer on the Tatshenshini, along with my wife. I understand there's one day there that's really quite exciting.
L. Fox: Wear your life jacket.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will wear life jackets and rain clothes.
Hon. member, if you have a situation to bring to our attention that we should be reviewing, we would be glad to do that. It's our understanding in the ministry that the present regulations are working effectively.
[4:45]
W. Hurd: I had nothing else really regarding Parks and Lands, and I understand that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to return at this time to an environment issue. I certainly respect that and cede the floor to the hon. member to do that.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I did want to come back to one matter that was raised earlier, with the minister's indulgence, and to correct the record on this matter. It's a matter that I believe is of grave importance to British Columbians and certainly to coastal British Columbians. It has to do with the Ministry of Environment's involvement in ocean dumping of toxic wastes.
I read from a letter from Mr. Heskin, director of Pacific and Yukon region, Environment Canada, that states clearly that a permit under this act is required to dispose of any substance in the sea. It says: "Disposal of toxic wastes, including discharges from land-based sources, is generally controlled in B.C. by permits
[ Page 2221 ]
issued pursuant to provincial legislation such as the Waste Management Act, and for hazardous or special waste, the special waste regulation." It suggests also that ocean dumping applications are referred to a number of review agencies, which includes three federal agencies and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, and that there is a high level of scientific input -- oceanographic, fisheries, biological and engineering -- that is put in place.
It suggests also that the provincial Ministry of Environment will have the authority within the permitting process to specify dumping at a designated site which has been chosen for the particular materials to be disposed of. There are also -- in an earlier question that the minister was unable to answer, our research has now determined the answer for us -- 29 such registered sites in the province of British Columbia. These range from Howe Sound all the way north to Campbell River and beyond. These sites are currently taking not only dredged material from harbours, but a whole variety of different materials from land-based operations that include everything from wood waste to supplementary waste from various industrial activities, logging activities and pulp-milling activities. These also include a significant number of heavy metals with respect to some of the more polluting ones, with lead and cadmium being of particular concern.
I return to this question where the minister said he had no authority or input, and I suggest that his ministry does have permitting input. I asked to what extent the minister first of all will allow the continuation of ocean dumping of toxic waste material in British Columbia, and to what extent those wastes are examined and reviewed by ministry officials prior to any permit being issued for a currently registered federal dump site -- one of the 29.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have input, but not authority. We make input into the decision that is made by the federal government. We don't have the authority. The authority is a federal authority. What the hon. member has stated does not contradict anything that has been stated in the House.
G. Wilson: Prior to any dumping, it says here that these wastes are frequently materials associated with dredging programs, which was the case in the recent activity in Howe Sound to which this letter referred with respect to cadmium. And it says that in order for this to be done there must be a permit issued by the Ministry of Environment. If a permit isn't issued, then presumably there would be some signal to the Ministry of Environment or Environment Canada that they can't dump.
Hon. J. Cashore: We are not aware of the permit that Environment Canada is referring to in that letter. If we are to stand corrected, we will do so, but on the basis of the information that our staff have at this present time, that does not fit with their understanding of the requirements and of the permitting process. If it turns out on reviewing this situation that I am incorrect, I will correct the record in the House.
G. Wilson: Thank you, and I appreciate that from the minister, because we would like to get this matter cleared up. Clearly that is the indication that we have received in this documentation.
I wonder then, just in a final question on this matter, if the minister might inform us as to whether or not his ministry approves of toxic dumping in the 29 approved marine dumping sites, and whether or not he's prepared to take issue with the federal government and Environment Canada to have those sites terminated.
Hon. J. Cashore: The federal regulations don't allow toxic dumping.
G. Wilson: Federal regulations do allow toxic dumping, and the regulations are governed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act -- and it's part 4 of the act, to help the minister. That act essentially requires also that a provincial permit be issued. There are 29 registered dump sites. If the minister would like, I can supply him with the maps of exactly where they are in British Columbia, and with a list of what has gone into those dump sites over the last little while. It is clearly allowed under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Will the minister intercede to see whether or not he can close these dump sites to protect us from having any more toxic materials dumped into the Georgia strait and Howe Sound region?
Hon. J. Cashore: When our ministry was dealing with what is now the Concord site, the rules were that nothing could be dealt with other than what was referred to as native till. That which was classified as toxic was not allowed to go out to those sites. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to toxic dumping, and I haven't seen the document which he has in his hand, so it's possible that I could stand corrected. But I am not aware of the term "toxic dumping" being a standard of the federal government, because I believe the use of the word "toxic" is defined with regard to an accepted definition based on analysis. Therefore the dumping that goes on, which I have some concerns about, is not technically, to my knowledge, defined as toxic dumping, using that word "toxic" as a technical term that fits into an accepted definition.
G. Wilson: I would be happy to supply the information that we have with respect to the report. The report I refer to here is a report done by Mr. D. L. Sullivan. It was completed in March '87. This particular one is "Compilation and Assessment of Research, Monitoring and Dumping Information for Active Dump Sites on the British Columbia and Yukon Coasts from 1979 to 1987." It was prepared by the Pacific Region Ocean Dumping Advisory Committee. It talks about sampling toxic material. In the Port Mellon region, for example, on page 1, it says that there was material done with respect to dredged material going in from the mill, some of which was "toxic" and some which was "non-toxic." It goes on to talk about some of the various materials that are in there. This is not new; this has been going on for a long time. These sites, which are legally registered federal toxic marine dumpsites on the coast
[ Page 2222 ]
of British Columbia, have been the subject of some considerable concern to a lot of communities, especially in the Georgia Basin and Howe Sound, where shellfish fisheries have been closed down as a result of extreme contaminants, in particular heavy metals.
Again, I'm prepared to send this material through to the minister. But I'm astounded that the minister is not aware that there are licensed toxic dumping sites off the coast of British Columbia nor what the permitting process for them is.
Hon. J. Cashore: The question here is whether it's defined as a toxic dumpsite. In the parts of the literature that was read in that last reading, the words "toxic" and "dumpsite" were not put together, although the hon. member did refer.... I think it's important that we deal with what is actually stated. Since I haven't seen the document yet, there could be a point here that it will behoove me to respond to. There was one reference to "toxic" in what was read, and that referred to a sampling of toxic material back in 1987. It's my understanding -- it's not only my understanding, but a fact -- that the Ministry of Environment, in its land-based and advisory role, has been involved in significantly tightening up on the whole issue of the classification and disposition of soil. I'm saying we could stand corrected, but it is our understanding that those dumpsites being referred to are ocean dumpsites, and I do not believe that they would be classified as ocean toxic dumpsites. I have never heard it put together in that configuration. I think we need to accept the fact that the word "toxic" is being used as a technical term that is subject to a definition of what scientists -- and there would be a schedule somewhere in the federal literature that would outline this -- would say was classified as toxic in those circumstances.
With regard to the issue of glacial till being taken out to those dumpsites, that activity is going on. But I can tell you, hon. member, that we as government are opposed to any toxic dumping in the ocean. That's our position: we're opposed to it. But until we see the letter that you have there.... I would suggest that it would be helpful to also see it in the context of 1992 material. That would be much more helpful to us in being able to respond. I do think, though, that if the member has been using the term "toxic dumpsite" as though it is an official designation when in fact that is not what is stated in the literature he has there, it would be helpful if he would clarify that.
G. Wilson: I concede on that point. They are called ocean dumpsites, and those ocean dumpsites are used somewhat exclusively to receive toxic materials that cannot go into landfill sites, because they're not permitted to do so. Therefore they do receive a high level of material that has trace metal concentrations of such things as cadmium, lead, copper and zinc. They also have a series of other, somewhat volatile, organic contents and high levels of mercury, and mercury contamination along with cadmium. Those are the areas in which I have some concern.
I have absolutely no concern for glacial till, and I don't know where the minister thinks that glacial till is a problem for us. But I do have some concerns about trace metals. So without wanting to get into a long debate as to whether or not they're toxic dumpsites, I'll concede. They're ocean dumpsites, and they are used to receive toxic material.
With respect to the 1992 evidence, that is precisely why I have raised it in this estimates session of this Legislature. I am not the Minister of Environment. I do not have the staff of the Minister of Environment with me to tell me what is going on in 1992. However, if the minister would like us to do the research and provide him with the information for 1992, we would be happy to do that also. But what we would like an answer to is whether this minister is prepared to take issue with 29 registered ocean dumpsites on the coast of British Columbia that are currently being used with respect to high levels of contaminated materials from trace metals and other "toxic" material.
[5:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: What might have been the case in 1987 is not the case now, as I understand it. So unless we have some information from 1992 that shows otherwise, we would have to recognize that prior to '86 -- the building of Expo -- the officials in the Ministry of Environment expressed very grave concern over the fact that some of the Expo land was being dumped at that time. That led to a process that has resulted in a very serious tightening up of the requirements, to the extent that the provincial government has the authority to do so. I think that the way in which this has been put before the House has -- not intentionally -- been somewhat misleading in the way in which it was phrased.
Now that we've clarified that what we're talking about here are ocean dumpsites, I still have concern with it, but it clarifies that technically these are not "toxic" dumpsites. Part of this issue clearly involves the federal government, and to the extent it involves the provincial government, the provincial government has had significant input in terms of getting those practices changed.
G. Wilson: My last question on this matter. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry permitted in November of last year -- or taking it in a broader spectrum, sometime between the middle of June and the end of November last year -- the disposal of dredged material from the inner Vancouver harbour in the Thornbrough Channel ocean dumpsite, which is off Port Mellon?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll have to get information on that. We don't have that with us.
L. Fox: I have two very brief questions, one to do with the Lands segment of your ministry, and the other to do with the Parks segment. The Lands one first. The minister will be aware of this, I'm sure, because I wrote him a letter on April 23 with respect to the policy which doesn't allow individuals to purchase their leaseheld land unless they are serviced by a recognized and
[ Page 2223 ]
maintained Ministry of Highways road. Given that there are many individuals on leased property that is serviced by other roads, is that policy currently being reviewed with the idea that perhaps there may be opportunities for individuals to purchase their lands if they are on forestry roads or other resource roads?
Hon. J. Cashore: Could I ask the member to clarify whether he's talking about shore lots or agricultural....?
L. Fox: What I'm talking about is usually lots that are in very remote areas. This particular case, which I made the minister aware of, was on a road which until 1990 had Highways designation, but a decision in 1990 by the Ministry of Highways to no longer maintain that road negated his opportunity to purchase that land.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding, hon. member -- if I'm properly aware of the designation that you're referring to -- that these leases are subject to Land Title Act requirements, and those requirements do require a certain standard of road access under the present designation.
L. Fox: I'm aware of that. That's why I asked if there was any consideration being given to review this requirement, because of the opportunity in many areas of the province to be served by roads other than Highways roads.
Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes, I am willing to review that. I think we should look into that, because times change and needs change. I don't even know if this applies, but I know of some places where there is rural-zoned land -- this wouldn't be leased land in this instance -- where there are some requirements with regard to roads that are very intrusive, which would be less intrusive if there could be some control over where the homes were built and that sort of thing. I'd be willing to look at that.
L. Fox: I have one final question that deals with Tweedsmuir Park. The minister may be aware -- I'm sure his staff is -- that there has been a significant initiative taken by the residents in and around the Nechako and the lakes district to improve access to Ootsa Lake for canoeing and developing campsites and other kinds of development, including trails. Are there any dollars in your budget this year for the Tweedsmuir Park development?
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have those details with us here, but we will get them for you within a week. How do I follow through on that? I'm going to be in Rio. But contact our Parks branch and we will have that for you.
Vote 33 approved.
Vote 34: corporate inventory initiative, $10 million -- approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 29.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 29; R. Kasper in the chair.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
J. Tyabji: I propose an amendment to section 6, in the proposed section 16, by adding the following subsections, as submitted to the Clerk:
"(6.1) Notwithstanding subsection (6), an operational certificate must be issued in accordance with an approved waste management plan and must not conflict with the waste management plan in any substantive fashion.
"(10.1) Notwithstanding subsection (10), if a permit or approval contains any provision which conflicts with a requirement of an approved waste management plan, that provision of the permit or approval which conflicts does not apply after the waste management plan is approved."
And in the proposed section 16.1(3)(c) by deleting "which covers" and substituting "which applies to"
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I will not oppose this amendment.
Amendment approved.
Section 6 as amended approved.
Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
J. Tyabji: I just want to make note of the fact that the Liberal opposition has submitted an amendment to section 13 with regard to the municipality being fined only in the event that it contravenes an accepted waste management plan, rather than being fined in the event of it not meeting the minister's deadline. That is because the Liberal Party does not believe it's fair to pass on to the municipal taxpayers the $300,000 fine in the event that municipal or regional district administrations do not meet the minister's deadline.
[5:15]
[ Page 2224 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: We have provision under this act to extend the deadline if necessary.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
L. Hanson: We have no difficulty with the principle of the bill, as we stated in second reading, but section 15 appears to give the executive council an awful lot of leeway in establishing deposits, the charges for those deposits and how materials are to be disposed of, etc. We've had a number of representations from various industry people who are concerned with what might come from this, so our party must oppose this section of the bill until more specifics are given to us.
There was a paper on container deposits circulated some time ago, with a suggestion on how they might be handled. While I know that that paper is not necessarily what might come about as a result of this section, there are a number of things suggested in that paper that would be very onerous to some parts of the container business. As the minister is probably aware, I have a glass-manufacturing plant in my constituency. The concern they have voiced to me is that the proposal that is put forward, even though this legislation does not include it, would enable the ministry to put those proposals in place, and they would be seriously detrimental to that manufacturing process. It would provide a prejudice against bottles because of the cost that's suggested in there.
Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to clarify that the point refers to the proposal but not to the legislation. The proposal is still in the process of review. It's a long way from being brought forward. It's not imminent. We continue to consult with stakeholder groups.
It's kind of interesting that those stakeholders who disagree with us say: "You haven't consulted." We say that we have consulted, and then they say, "Yes, but you haven't listened." The fact is that we have consulted. There have been times when it's been quite contentious; that is true. We know that they've been around talking to MLAs and members of the House. Be that as it may, this is the enabling legislation, and it's not the proposal.
L. Hanson: The minister has expressed our concerns very clearly. This section of the act empowers the minister to put those conditions in place. While I recognize that the paper that was circulated is certainly not government policy -- it's a request for consultation -- the authority it gives and the contents of that paper suggest that the legislation should include what the ministry intends to do with that more specifically than just simply giving the authority to the minister.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll just take this opportunity to point out that in British Columbia, just in dealing with the returns on beer bottles and cans, we get 92 percent returns on the cans and 98 percent on the bottles. In the Ontario system the figure is 20 to 30 percent on all cans. It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges there. The fact is that the percentage they get back in Ontario is really very much a failure when you consider the goal of trying to remove those items from the waste stream.
L. Hanson: I recognize that the Ontario system has not been terribly successful and that the system in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to reusable bottles, has been quite successful in the percentage that is returned. If the ministry were, as a result of this legislation, to put in place the conditions as are suggested in that report, such as the differential in the service fee -- the return on a bottle is 4 cents, where the return on an aluminum can is 1 cent -- that presents a bias towards the use of one container or the other, because it is a cost to the manufacturer. Therefore, until those things are decided, we have difficulty supporting this section of the legislation.
J. Tyabji: On a point of order, much as I'd love to sit and debate the details of policy on a beautiful day like this, we're in committee stage on the legislation. Seeing that the hour is late and that we may want to have this pass, perhaps we could discuss the legislation as it is specifically laid out in the bill.
The Chair: That's a point well taken. I would hope that all members of the House recognize that.
L. Hanson: Hon. Chairman, I suggest to you that that is a difficult point of order for me to accept, because I'm simply suggesting that that section of the act is not acceptable to us -- and the reasons that it isn't acceptable to us -- and that we are going to vote against it.
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, I'll be very brief. I rise in support of this section, and I want to reassure hon. members from personal experience over the last three years that the minister is a reasonable man -- so are we all, all reasonable men and women, and will remain so. I, for one, am very proud of the minister's accomplishments. We no longer have for a minister the wimp of waste management, but rather a minister who understands the wisdom of the three Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. I think this is a very bright day for British Columbia. This section embodies much of the work that the hon. minister did over the last three years in coming to grips with real issues in British Columbia, and I'm proud to support this section.
L. Fox: I think the fellow from Okanagan-Vernon made it very clear that we did not argue against the intent of this section. What we're really concerned about are the authority it will give the ministry and the unknowns out there with respect to what the initiative really will be. Perhaps I could be somewhat comforted if the minister would assure us that this would be referred to the standing committee prior to implementation, so that all parties might have an opportunity to
[ Page 2225 ]
give input into what would come under this particular section.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll commit to continuing good process.
J. Tyabji: Very briefly, I want it to be on record that the Liberal opposition opposes the details of some of these subsections: subsection (d), where we had tried to amend it to take out "prohibiting"; subsection (e), where we had originally tried to amend it to take out "shape"; and particularly subsection (i), where I would like to urge the minister not to implement the part that refers to distributors or users of packaging in the areas where you have a B.C. cottage industry that would be affected with regard to conducting environmental life cycle profiles. I thank the minister for accepting our amendments, and I appreciate his willingness to deal in a constructive manner with the opposition that we put forward. However, we will still be on record as being in opposition to the bill because the amendments to change the nature of the bill were not accepted.
[5:30]
Section 15 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Petter | Marzari | Boone |
| Edwards | Cashore | Charbonneau |
| Jackson | Beattie | Schreck |
| Lortie | MacPhail | Lali |
| Conroy | Miller | Smallwood |
| Hagen | Harcourt | Gabelmann |
| Clark | Zirnhelt | Perry |
| B. Jones | Copping | Lovick |
| Hammell | Farnworth | Dosanjh |
| O'Neill | Doyle | Hartley |
| Streifel | Lord | Krog |
| Randall | Garden | Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
| NAYS -- 15 |
||
|
Farrell-Collins |
Tyabji |
Reid |
|
Wilson |
Cowie |
Warnke |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
De Jong |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Dalton |
|
Anderson |
Chisholm |
Jarvis |
Section 16 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 29, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave of the House now, Hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 29, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. G. Clark: We wish the minister well in his deliberations in Rio de Janeiro.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
[ Page 2226 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:56 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
On vote 13: minister's office, $282,139 (continued).
R. Chisholm: These are basically one-line questions, and I hope you have the answers. How many fish-farms are licensed and operating in inland waters at present?
Hon. B. Barlee: Two.
R. Chisholm: How many would be operating in coastal waters under licence at present?
Hon. B. Barlee: Approximately 120.
R. Chisholm: Other than salmon, what species of finfish are being fish-farmed at present?
Hon. B. Barlee: Trout, and some look at sablefish as well.
R. Chisholm: What type of shellfish are we fish-farming at present, and to what degree?
Hon. B. Barlee: Oysters, clams, mussels and scallops.
A. Warnke: Just prior to adjournment, I put forward a question to the minister. I just arrived a few minutes ago. If the minister has provided that answer, I would be willing to forgo.
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially the stocks are in good shape. Certainly salmon, herring and groundfish are in very good shape. This is monitored, by the way.
There is at present a moratorium on abalone. We're looking at two in specific areas: coho and chinook. In some areas they are a little endangered, so we're watching that extremely closely.
[3:00]
A. Warnke: I want to turn to something else, too. Indeed, the minister did touch on it briefly, and I would like some elaboration. Obviously part of the budget might be targeted for the purposes of promotion, because, as the minister pointed out briefly this morning and perhaps on other occasions, the government plays a very active role in promoting our fish products abroad. The minister mentioned this morning the promoting of our products in Asia, specifically in Japan, and as well, I suspect, in the United States and elsewhere. I would appreciate the minister outlining as much as possible the budget allocated for the promotion of these products. I suppose what is in the back of many taxpayers' minds is the active involvement of the government when they go abroad -- the travel that's involved not only for the minister, but perhaps for staff and so forth; the amount allocated for advertising; and in addition to that, the focus on particular markets and on how the ministry sees the role of government. Perhaps we could start with a more general perspective of the ministry's involvement in promotion, and work toward the specifics.
Hon. B. Barlee: Through B.C. Trade, about $200,000 this year. I think they used $80,000 of that to promote salmon in Australia, which is a market for us. Of course, we're doing very well in some of the other markets. We do well in Hong Kong. We do exceptionally well in Japan -- not that we can't do better. If I recall correctly, I believe that compared to the United States, we have about one-fifth of the total seafood market in Japan. The United States has about nine times our population, so we're doing better. We're looking for more. We think our reputation is better; we think we have a better product; we think we're processing better. That's why I'm going back, on this initial trip, to Japan and Hong Kong. Then we'll be going to Scotland and Norway to pick up some different ideas in that area, probably much later on in the year.
We believe -- and I think rightly so -- that this is an area of potential economic growth. We think that we can help some of the small towns in the coastal regions and on both coasts of Vancouver Island. We're looking at this particular area to pick up some of that economic slack, and we're making some progress with it. It's not easy. We have significant competition from Chile and the United States, and some from China and Japan itself. So we're aware of our competitors, what they're trying to do, what they are doing and what we anticipate they'll do in the future.
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, I suppose the minister points out the nature of the competition between ourselves and the United States. Obviously the ministry is aware of certain elements of that competition. But in particular what are our greatest areas of competition with American products? Is the government in a position to really do something about out-competing the Americans in this area?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a general question. Really, it's right across the board: scallops, clams, mussels, salmon, groundfish and hake. All of the varieties come in. In almost every instance they have stocks of the same fish, groundfish and shellfish that we have. Our waters may be more attractive to some, but they still have representatives of that in the United States on their coastal waters.
A. Warnke: That really does help to clarify it. Obviously our waters are different from the United States' waters, but it is interesting to have that answer put forward.
[ Page 2227 ]
I realize that in my initial elaborate question on this particular section I asked a lot of questions, so perhaps we can narrow it to the specific. I'm thinking of the advertising, particularly abroad and so forth. Are the British Columbia government and the ministry actively involved in the advertisement of our products? How does that work? Are we leaving it totally up to the private sector?
Hon. B. Barlee: That $200,000 is part of it. We believe that those people who are well versed in the industry are probably wiser spending that money than we are. They usually match it. They have a significant amount of money to pick their markets. They have the advantage of asking some of the experts on my staff where we think they should go. Indeed, we provide that expertise, but we don't tell them where they have to advertise. They may choose to put some of that money into England, where we're doing very well. Canadian salmon have always done well -- specifically, British Columbia salmon. In another year, they may elect to go to the United States, where we have some advantages. In this last instance we mentioned, they chose Australia. That is up to the individual groups in that sector to make the eventual decision.
A. Warnke: I would also like to perhaps explore how the ministry focuses in on markets and their involvement in articulating where the markets are and so forth. Japan is a fairly large community. I guess it's the procedure, the process involved in articulating where the markets are, and the extent to which the ministry is involved in that.
Hon. B. Barlee: We do several things. We look at the various countries and see what the per-capita consumption of fish products is. In Japan it's exceedingly high, and they favour certain types, whether it's surimi or salmon or whatever. So if they favour that species, we make sure we get the very best product to them. In some instances, they send representatives over to watch how we are processing it. That is probably a good thing, because we are building up a position of trust with Japan. We certainly have that position already in Hong Kong and are concentrating on some of the other areas of South-East Asia as well, which I think you will agree is probably a good idea, partly because they're growing faster than any other area in the world, and are able to afford exotic species, whereas they may not be able to afford them in other parts of the world. So we're concentrating on where we may have a niche market, where we may have an advantage -- any of the options and alternatives.
I think, generally speaking, we're doing fairly well on it. We have two full-time employees doing this -- watching those markets all the time. They confer with me steadily. I think we're heading in the right direction. We haven't solved all the problems -- I'll be quite candid about that -- but we're looking at them extremely closely. For instance, Chile was not even on the market about ten years ago. They are significant competitors now, doing a very good job. We're watching where they're coming in and what species they're coming in with, and trying to combat their economic strategy. I must say that their economic strategy is quite impressive.
Of course, we have a Salmon Marketing Council as well, and it has been very active. I meet with them a number of times during the year. My ADMs and my directors meet with them constantly as well. Mr. Culbertson, who is my ADM in this area, is quite well versed in that. I think all parties will agree that we're concerned about this area. We think it's an area of natural growth. We think it's an area that has not been utilized as much as it should have been in the past, and we're getting past those hoops.
R. Chisholm: Are there presently any ongoing studies on aquaculture? Is there a moratorium planned for the aquaculture industry in the future? Or are we to rely on the industry's assessment of aquaculture in this province?
Hon. B. Barlee: We're spending about three-quarters of a million dollars on the industry this year, and about $200,000 of that is on aquaculture research. Considering the limited funds available to Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that's a significant step for us. We think it is proactive money, however. I think it's money well spent. We have a number of experts who are participating in that.
R. Chisholm: When the NDP was in opposition, they were very concerned about fish-farming in this province. They were so concerned, they made demands on the previous government. I would like to read a letter outlining some of the demands that were made at the time. I'll quote from a letter from the hon. Premier. He stated: "...a moratorium on any future expansion of aquaculture, until the environmental and fisheries impact has been determined and appropriate regulations are in place." You've been in government six months and this has not happened, hon. minister.
I'll read another letter to you. It comes from the B.C. environment branch: "In the same letter you ask for confirmation of our policy related to culturing of exotics such as Atlantic salmon and arctic char. I confirm that the fisheries program is not prepared to accept the culture of Atlantic salmon other than those current isolated locations on coastal British Columbia."
I'll quote another letter while I'm at it. This one comes from the Minister of Environment. He states: "We continue to take the position that there should be no further expansion of this industry until appropriate environmental studies have been concluded."
I do believe that all of these protestations by different members of your government and the bureaucracy are stating that the moratorium should be in place now and we should be studying this industry to see what impact it's going to have on our inland waters.
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially I think the Premier is giving me some latitude in this area. We are reviewing the proposed legislation, and we have initiated a review of the current administration of finfish aquaculture, which again I think is a step in the right direction, and
[ Page 2228 ]
of the critical environmental, social and economic issues involved. When this review is completed, we will look very closely at it. We have an Aquaculture Industry Advisory Council, as you probably are aware, which is composed of a number of experts in the field, individuals who've had in some instances decades of experience studying specific species. So I think that we're looking very closely at this. We're also looking at the interaction between environment and aquaculture. We're looking far afield. We're looking in all parts of Canada and other parts of the world to see if that interaction is acceptable.
We know, for instance, that there has been some comment on marine anemia. Marine anemia is common to most salmonids, so it's common to the Pacific and the Atlantic salmon types. There is some cause for concern. We've had it here for ten years, though, and generally speaking it's worked out quite well.
R. Chisholm: We are not against the aquaculture industry. As a matter of fact, we're very much for it. The problem is that this industry ran before it could crawl or walk, and we now have a potential disaster on our hands. These particular people in your government stated that we needed a moratorium. The Minister of Environment is clearly recommending against going ahead with aquaculture until we have one. How can we be secure in knowing that what the experts recommend will not be tossed aside? Why is the minister still going ahead with this and ignoring the recommendations of the experts? I'm talking about the people in the Department of Environment and in his own Ministry of Environment.
[3:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: There may be a potential disaster; there always is. But we haven't had a disaster in ten years. That's a decade, which I think is indicative that we're going in the right direction. For instance, when we look at all the policies we follow, we're following them very closely. Imported eggs are held in quarantine; there's a fine example. Then they're inspected by the Department of Fisheries. We're going through all the right steps. That's why we haven't had a disaster. I think that we have been extremely careful. There are some individuals who are questioning that. As far as we're concerned, they have no cause for concern.
G. Wilson: With respect to aquaculture, it's interesting to note that the minister says that we haven't had a disaster. Maybe not an environmental one, but I think there have been a few financial disasters in this industry over the last ten years, especially those who were doing more farming on the Vancouver Stock Exchange than they were in the ocean.
So the minister knows where I'm going in my line of questioning, I'd like to outline some of the issues that are of particular concern. I'd like to talk specifically and strictly on finfish aquaculture; then I would like to talk a little about shellfish aquaculture; at the end I'd like to talk a little about research and development, and where this industry is going.
As the minister may be aware -- and certainly members of his staff who know me from another life -- I've been fairly actively involved in this industry in terms of local government administering the very quickly rising level of aquaculture. Some of the problems that were very clear were with respect to the interjurisdictional matters between the Ministry of Lands, which was involved with giving out permits for foreshores; the Ministry of Environment, which was required to give permits for waste management; and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible in large measure for product development. Then two federal ministries were equally involved: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and, of course, the Department of the Environment. On top of that, we had other jurisdictional concerns, which the minister will be aware of. Forests was very concerned, because potential log-dump sites were being taken up with net pens and all of this kind of thing.
I wonder what the minister is able to tell us, with respect to aquaculture, about what the government is doing to try and streamline this process. The ombudsman's report on this was fairly clear in terms of process, but it didn't really talk about restructuring the way we might work governmentally so that we can eliminate two things: firstly, a tremendous amount of hassle for the investor; and secondly, some really serious problems with interjurisdictional conflict between local and provincial governments. I wonder if you could comment on that.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. B. Barlee: I should comment, briefly, of course, that we're both aware that in 1988 and 1989 there was a financial shakedown, and a number of companies hit the rocks on that. Unfortunately, a lot of those companies were mining the Vancouver Stock Exchange rather than the oceans, the high seas, and the result was predictable. About 27 farms went down because of that; fortunately, only three in 1991. So we're really over the hump on that. About half of them have been repurchased by other companies. I think that this business is getting back on a reasonable footing. The shakedown was not exclusive to British Columbia. It happened significantly in Norway, as well, and in other parts of the world. There had been a great abundance of salmon produced in the fish-farms around the world. We've watched that very closely.
However, we have some distinct advantages. One is that we have some of the most natural areas in the world for rearing shellfish and fish. We really have. It's because of temperatures, the configurations of the islands, the Inside Passage and so on. That's why we think we're well positioned.
There are some jurisdictional battles. This is cross-jurisdictional, not just cross-national. We have some problems with DFO occasionally -- not very many; we try to cooperate. We find that cooperation is being returned. Being a new government, we're sorting out those problems with several other ministries, specifically Environment. I think it will be about a year before we get them completely sorted out. We have commit-
[ Page 2229 ]
tees that have members of both ministries on them, which is very important. They're trying to resolve their particular issues, and we're flagging issues that may impact upon the aquaculture and fisheries areas that we're concerned with.
G. Wilson: I've waited a long time to be able to stand as an elected member of the provincial government and directly ask a minister this question in estimates. If it's an unfair question, please rule it out of order. That's fair; everybody else has.
My question tends to be somewhat philosophical. When we have the finest natural fish-farm in the world off our doorstep and a fish with the very good manners to come back to where it started so we can catch it, why do we want to spend a lot of money, time and energy trying to domesticate this wild species and raise it in a net pen, and trying to grow it, especially in light of the fact that there have been so many problems in trying to do it with Pacific salmon? I recognize that Atlantic salmon tend to be a hardier species of fish. I have sought long and hard an answer to that question.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are several reasons. I'll go beyond advice from my ministry in some respects, which I've been known to do before. The farm fish give you a steady supply. You can count on that supply. If you have orders around the world, which we have.... For instance, I was just up looking at a fish-farm on the east coast of Vancouver Island, and they have orders going virtually every day to Los Angeles and San Francisco. They want security of supply. The farm fish allows that. The wild fish are an admirable species, but they do not give you that absolute certainty of supply.
We also have another problem with the wild species, in that we have fisheries treaties with the United States. The United States has had 17 treaties, and in the last few years they've broken 13. They always want more of our fish. Usually, when it comes to hitting against our American counterparts, they flex their economic muscles and are invariably successful. I don't care whether we're talking about the Pacific Salmon Treaty or the A-B line. We have to fight very hard to maintain our position. We're having a battle with them right now.
Farm fish give us this fallback position of having that continuance of supply, which I think we need.
G. Wilson: Certainly I can attest that if the minister was ever to check my record of catching salmon, he would know that the certainty of supply from the wild stock is not great for me, I'll tell you that. I suspect that if you wanted to put a price per pound on my efforts it would be in the hundreds of dollars.
Nevertheless, I think that that is probably one of the better answers I've managed to get. It does raise another question. It has to do, again, with the direction in which Fisheries and Food, as part of your ministry, combines with that. Essentially it has to do with market price, not only of aquaculture, and therefore farm-raised fish, but what it means to the commercial price if you take a product that has, for the last X number of years -- 60, 80, 100 or whatever -- been largely governed by scarcity of supply and put it in guaranteed supply. Surely that is going to create a fluctuation in price. The price is going to fall. What happens to the commercial fishermen? How do we maintain the price of farm-raised salmon, given that the rising cost of production seems to be there?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there are several reasons. One is that we are small producers of farmed salmon. Scotland, Norway, Chile, the United States.... There are dozens of countries and thousands of companies producing farmed salmon. To maintain our position in the marketplace it's almost a protective measure. I'm not saying it's the most satisfactory measure, but it is almost a protective measure. We have certain contracts to fill. For instance, in the United States, which I briefly alluded to, certain companies have to fill those contracts. If we fail in those contracts, we will not get the order. We will slip in our competitive position. I know people who have a preference: wild salmon over farm salmon.
I'm looking at it as part of the overall mosaic, the whole package. It isn't a perfect package, but I believe it's the way we have to go. I've looked at it very closely, because I've had some questions to ask as well, both of my ministry staff and of the industry generally. I think, on balance, it's a reasonable move to make.
G. Wilson: A once-noted promoter of this industry -- and I'm sure members of your staff will know exactly who I'm referring to when I give you this quote -- said: "Commercial fishermen are the buffalo hunters of the 1980s and nineties." He suggested that farm fish were the way to go. He raised an interesting point. This really comes to the question of the money that's going into research. The suggestion was -- and I think it has some merit -- that if we start to raise farm fish, not only do we guarantee the supply but we tend to standardize the product in terms of its size, weight and production. You end up with a relatively standardized product, which then makes the wild fishery quite un-standard -- I don't know if there's such a word, but it's not standard.
An Hon. Member: Non-standard.
Hon. B. Barlee: Substandard.
M. Farnworth: It's never substandard -- not B.C. fish.
G. Wilson: I wouldn't think that it's substandard. In fact, I would argue quite the contrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't measure up, so to speak.
If we start to develop specialized markets, which seems to be the high end of the aquaculture market -- the white tablecloth market, or the restaurant market -- what do we do with a long-standing industry in the province which supports the livelihoods of not only the people in the industry, but an awful lot of people that are ancillary to the industry in a lot of coastal communities in British Columbia? That tends to generate a lot of fear and concern among trollers especially, who are competing on the fresh market for salmon.
[ Page 2230 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question, and it gives us some concern. For instance, I was just mentioning Chile, our great competitor to the south. Chile is now providing about.... Salmon is now the standard in Japan. That's their farm product. It is the standard. When I go and visit the fish-farms, they get an order for 100 cases of seven-pound salmon, and that's what they have to produce.
So we have an option, and the options are not good. One of the options is that we can get out of the farm market, which would limit our market significantly -- there's no doubt about it.
[3:30]
We feel there are other ways we can go. We feel that there are certain people who will only accept wild fish. There's not much doubt about that. There are some people who prefer wild fish. If you ask the Indians, they say: "Well, I can tell you the difference between a wild fish and a tame fish." So I said: "Oh, sure you can!" And you can, because they have bigger fins and bigger tails because they're swimming in the wild and swimming upstream, etc., and so on. Definitely there's room for both.
The wild fish tend to be canned and frozen, as we well know. There's still a market there. I'm inclined to think that market will never disappear. I'm inclined to think that restaurants do specify seven-pound fish. I think that the average consumer does not. So I would concur that the market is still there. But to protect ourselves, we have to defend both markets. We can't abandon one completely, because there are a number of jobs on the line. There are 1,900 jobs directly related to the fishing industry, and probably a spinoff of another 1,200 -- so that would be 3,100 jobs. So we've got about 4,000 jobs there, and we have to keep that delicate balance between both, which I think we're trying to do.
G. Wilson: Well, fair enough. That's an answer that's certainly worth debating, but there's merit in what you say.
Given that, let's take a look at your ministry's involvement in the management of aquaculture in the province. As we all know, one of the major problems has been the question of waste management. We put this to the Minister of Environment in the Environment estimates, because I'm well aware that the actual handling of waste coming from it is a problem -- without much success, I would point out, since he suggested I talk to you about it.
We know that there have been some innovative approaches to waste management, not the least of which was a term that was, I thought, quite clever, in terms of guise, for the salmon that were facing mortality and dying in the net pens. Upon inspection of one particular farm site, where a large number of salmon had been subject to algae bloom and were dying, the farmer told me: no, they were not dying; they were just slow swimmers. I thought that that was somewhat unique.
M. Farnworth: They swim upside down, too, right?
G. Wilson: Right. They were being trained in acrobatics, and that's why they were....
Getting rid of these fish is a real problem because they clog up municipal landfills. I think we've gone a long way in doing some work to get around that. I can certainly congratulate ministry staff for their action on that.
Nevertheless, it's also a cost, and it's going to be a cost at the municipal level as well as the provincial level. It's one that many municipalities feel they shouldn't bear, because it's an industry that doesn't pay tax, in large measure, on capital improvements on the water -- which we'd like to see changed, by the way, and we'll talk about that in a minute.
I wonder if the minister has some thoughts about what we might do. It's not inconceivable that there may be another industry that could be generated out of these slow-swimming fish.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's a good point. We have been proactive on this; we really have. I think we've taken the lead. I can read you some of the details. Essentially they revolve around UBC. Our ministry, through the sustainable environment fund, has provided $300,000; Employment and Immigration Canada, $430,000; and the fish processors, salmon farmers and UBC, $225,000 -- that's not far off a million dollars -- to build an environmentally responsible fish-waste composting facility in the Oyster River area on upper Vancouver Island.
We also have the non-profit Pacific Bio-waste Recovery Society. It has been incorporated to oversee the design of that facility, and MAFF is represented on the society's board of directors. We are monitoring its progress. I think we're in the forefront of areas that have done this. We've had public hearings on it; we've had hundreds of people attend the hearings. Generally speaking, I think that this biowaste move is, again, proactive.
G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, the answer to your note is yes. It's an inside story, so to speak.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I know all about morts and trucks and the Sunshine Coast Highway -- let me put it to you that way.
It's really impressive to see that kind of money going into that work, because it is something that's urgently and critically needed. Are there dollars currently available in the fish-farming community for the transport of morts from farms? I know a number of vessels were being specialized for the carrying and production of morts, to try and get the illegal disposal and dumping terminated. I wonder if that's underway.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, all those costs.... We do some of the research costs, that's all. The actual cost of transporting is borne by the individual entrepreneur.
G. Wilson: Can you tell me if, in the current regulation, your ministry governs those morts and their
[ Page 2231 ]
disposal? Or is that governed under the Ministry of Environment? Or is it part of a waste management plan of Environment Canada?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially that comes under the Ministry of Environment. We have some input. I believe they took it over three years ago, in 1989.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the answer. I couldn't get it earlier today in the Environment estimates, but that's good.
I wonder if we could move, then, to the second phase and the question of aquaculture development. It pertains to the size of farms and whether or not the ministry considers that there is an optimum size. There was a lot of discussion about size and siting regulation, in terms of the proximity of one farm to the other. I wonder also if there's been any further research done with respect to the potential impact on shellfish culture and the proximity of net pens to shellfish beds. I know there was a fair bit of work underway in '89, and I haven't seen any conclusion of those reports.
Hon. B. Barlee: We already have some of our experts working on that, and have had for some time now. We are monitoring that interaction.
G. Wilson: The regulation that was put in place then -- I think largely as a result of the ombudsman's report with respect to minimum site distances -- is still in effect, and there has been no upgrading of that regulation. Is that true?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially there hasn't been any change in the regulations. We're looking at it. There hasn't been any significant concern from specific sections of the industry; there may be one or two individuals. If that concern evidences itself, we will follow that more closely.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we can move on to matters of disease, especially research into various diseases that affect fish. One of the problems, it would seem, that has been outlined.... You mentioned marine anemia being a problem. A number of other problems have been found, BKD, or bacterial kidney disease, being one. Some of the diseases which seem to be external to fish have been created in large measure by overcrowding in net pens. I wonder if there is any thinking now on the question of density of fish within farms, and the extent to which bacterial agents might be used to get rid of disease or antibiotics might be used in the production of farm fish, either directly in the feed or through direct application to the water. Is there any update on that?
Hon. B. Barlee: A couple of things, first of all. As for bacterial kidney disease and marine anemia, the beautiful thing about it is that it is almost self-monitoring, because of the entrepreneurial inclination of those salmon farmers. They know that if they're not careful in the net pen they will suffer significant losses. That is more or less curing itself, but that isn't all we're doing. We have an Aquaculture Industry Advisory Council that reports to us continually, and have spent significant amounts of money on that. We are looking very closely at the interaction between aquaculture and the environment, and the aquaculture and fisheries program. We have extension services. We have a shellfish development program, and we are really taking most of the steps the member would anticipate we would be taking.
G. Wilson: What about the application of antibiotic in the feed? There was, and there continues to be, some concern with respect to the extent to which antibiotics are used in fish-farm feed, the extent to which antibiotics can be applied, and the number of days that fish have to be removed from these antibiotics prior to going to market. I recognize that there are regulations in place, and I know what the regulations stipulate. What concerns me is that there doesn't seem to be a host of inspectors out there making sure that that is the case. I wonder if the minister can address that.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've done two things here. First of all, fish are taken from the fish-farms and inspected regularly to see if there is a higher buildup of residue affected by this than there should be. Secondly, all fish food is monitored by a professional veterinarian under Agriculture Canada and under the Feeds Act. We're being pretty careful. The Feeds Act governs it, and we make sure that's followed up by examining farm fish that come out of the various areas.
G. Wilson: If the minister doesn't know this, maybe it is something you might be able to provide me with through some form of follow-up: What is the number of inspectors available within your ministry, and what regions or areas are covered by direct inspection? Is it a hit-and-miss thing, or is it something you do on the basis of monitoring the actual fish in the pens, to try and get there just ahead of market? Do you do it when it's on the way to market? How does that work?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have three full-time vets working, mostly on Vancouver Island. With my ministry that's a significant number of individuals, and that's virtually all they do. They're inspecting those fish all the time. I think that the results so far have been very satisfactory. Any time they come across any problematic areas, they flag them immediately.
G. Wilson: I thought I understood the minister to say that there were three vets or inspectors.
Hon. B. Barlee: Inspectors.
G. Wilson: How do they determine whether or not there is any residual antibiotic in the fish? What is the method and process of inspection?
Hon. B. Barlee: We do a couple of things. First of all, there are mandatory records that each fish-farm must fill out. On top of that, we systematically sample all fish-farms, and they don't know when we're coming. They take a salmon out of those fish-farms, and it will
[ Page 2232 ]
be done in a federal laboratory. This is very carefully done. I think that's why we haven't had a lot of problems.
[3:45]
W. Hartley: I don't want to interrupt the flow of these discussions, but perhaps I could ask if it would be in order to go on to another subject for a moment.
The Chair: The member has the floor.
W. Hartley: It's to do with blueberry farming in the constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. It also sometimes uses nets as well, so it's not totally off the subject. Right now there's a great debate in the municipality of Pitt Meadows in regard to the use of crop guns in blueberry farming. We've had real conflict between the neighbours of the area and the farmers. They're fairly substantial farms, up to 400 acres, and nets are ruled out in regard to farms of these size when you start to pay $800 to $1,000 an acre for netting. The use of crop guns is essential to maintaining their crops each year, and at this time the community -- the farmers and the other people in the community -- is trying to work together and has put together a committee that is looking at the whole subject. As well, Ministry of Agriculture staff are helping those people, being very helpful and very positive in trying to come to some kind of solution.
The solution is there, I'm sure, with science as it is these days. What they're dealing with out there, I believe, are guns that operate from photocells, so they are virtually going off from sunup to sundown. The committee members have come up with the suggestion that perhaps there are motion detectors that could be built in to these guns, so they wouldn't have to go off all day long, but would only go off when necessary. Some suggestions are coming forward that are very good in that way.
What's required for this group to be successful is some research and development, some professional evaluation of a scientific nature that would bring them to a satisfactory conclusion, so they could be ready for when the blueberries ripen in July. I'd ask the minister to consider this, or perhaps he has the information whereby we could help these people.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm always concerned about blueberries. We grow some of the finest in the world. My troubleshooter -- excuse the pun -- Mr. Tom Pringle, and some of the staff are working on this, and we think there's some middle ground here. We think there's a compromise. It's not easy, because the same thing happens in various parts of the province, especially where people move next to the farm gate. It won't be resolved overnight. We're looking for solutions. We think we'll probably find some, hopefully before the blueberry production is over.
These discussions are ongoing, and I think you will find my ministry is right in the centre of them. We don't always resolve the case satisfactorily for both sides. I think it will require a little more research on that particular problem. If the member would care to get back to me on it, we'll follow that up even more than we have. I think we're following it up fairly well right now.
G. Wilson: That didn't disrupt the flow at all: bluebacks, blueberries -- it's all food. Let me move to the question of shellfish. I only have about four or five minutes more of questions, if other members who want to ask questions could bear with me.
With respect to the shellfish industry, there seems to be a growing problem with respect to marine pollutants that have caused a wide number of closures by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Many of them are dioxin-related, and many of them are also related to high coliform as a result of coastal septic fields and other kinds of waste. Can the minister tell us what his ministry is doing anything with respect to this, and whether of not this is exclusively considered a federal matter under DFO? Is there some kind of program to try and deal with the question of shellfish?
Hon. B. Barlee: There's good and bad news. The bad is that there are areas affected by both dioxins and high coliform counts, as we both know. The good thing is that the shellfish aquaculture industry is really a watchdog. When something starts going wrong down there, we know exactly, and we know where to go. We move in on other ministries or the federal government and say: look, our shellfish are affected in this area. Some areas of British Columbia have been literally closed for decades because of this problem. We are working on this continuously with DFO, with the Ministry of Environment and sometimes with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It's kind of a cross-jurisdictional thing.
We are the watchdogs and can tell when that water is becoming polluted. When we do, we move on it immediately. We've actually improved the situation in certain areas of Vancouver Island. In other areas, it's going again. However, we are able to monitor that to come very close to seeing what's happening to this finite resource. That is why we're very, very careful about watching what is happening in the shellfish industry. With the cooperation of these other agencies as well as the federal government, we think we're making some progress.
G. Wilson: I would concur that the shellfish is a little bit like the canary of the foreshore: the first sign, and we will definitely see it. The difficulty is that there are a lot of dead canaries out there. It seems that what we have to do is start to take some action to deal with the source of a lot of this pollution. However, I've recently met with a number of commercial growers. Their concern is that in areas where there is testing underway, there has been marking of shellfish for a significant number of years where no testing was previously done. It's a question of knowing whether or not we are reacting or overreacting to baseline levels of pollutants that have been in existence through natural form. We don't really know to the extent to which these have increased or not increased, if we don't have a baseline to work on.
[ Page 2233 ]
I wonder if your ministry has plans to put together the research that would be needed to be done, especially in areas such as Okeover Arm, which is a very large shellfish production area. There's a number on the coast where we can actually start to do some ongoing baseline survey work so that we have a better profile of what exists at various times of the years and over a number of years.
Hon. B. Barlee: We have ongoing discussions with the Shellfish Growers Association, which I think is very important. Secondly, the Ministry of Environment has taken a number of steps to reduce the effluent coming out of the pulp mills, which I think is very important. No doubt a significant portion of that problem is emanating from that particular source. This is something that we are concerned about. We haven't got all the answers, but we're moving into various areas, such as the other ministries to make sure that it is carefully monitored.
Forestry. There are some concerns there as well. Hopefully, we'll turn the corner on that. I don't think we're going to turn the corner on that this year, but it's not that we're unaware of it. We're putting a few more funds to it and will be targeting more funds to it as the years go on, because we are losing a few areas. We're getting a few back, but we're losing some areas where there hasn't been careful monitoring. We're also in contact with the DFO.
G. Wilson: Just three more questions. With respect to moneys that are dedicated toward research, I wonder what involvement, if indeed there is any involvement within the dollars that are assigned to aquaculture for genetic research in the province of British Columbia.... I wonder what the minister's thinking is on the matter of genetic research, in terms of trying to produce -- I think the term was coined in 1989 or 1990 -- super salmon. That is essentially a salmon that is, if I can use a poultry term, caponized, and as a result loses its instinct to take off and come back, but rather hangs around and just gets big and fat.
Hon. B. Barlee: Most of this research is done through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They have 1,200 or 1,300 employees and are heavily funded, and it falls under their mandate especially, more particularly than ours. We have funded some projects under the Science Council of British Columbia. In 1991, Drs. McEarlane, Kitts, Groves, Vielkind, Winsby, Liao, Law, Petrell, McKeown, Beames, Iwama.... The list goes on and on. The awards run from about $92,000 right down to about $9,000 or $10,000.
We have this ongoing work in various areas, and we're quite careful that this funding continues to go on, because we are aware of the economic impact of this area and the potential growth. Although most of it is carried by the federal government -- and indeed it should be, because they govern this more than we do -- we're getting increasingly into the picture, as far as both FTEs and money are concerned.
G. Wilson: Do I take it from that that your ministry endorses, supports and is proactive with respect to genetic engineering of Pacific salmon?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's something we have not taken any specific stand on. I have some reservations on that personally, and I'm not the only one. Some of the scientific community does as well, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows. We're adopting a very close wait-and-see attitude, looking at all the evidence that's coming in, not being in any great rush to jump on board that particular issue.
G. Wilson: A very careful answer from the minister, I must say.
My last question -- once again, if the minister or the Chair feel it's out of order, that's fine -- has to do with his ministry and the current round of constitutional negotiations. How would the minister feel about the province having exclusive jurisdiction over the fishery in a manner similar to what it has over forestry?
Hon. B. Barlee: It is on the table. There have been some moves by the federal government to off-load a little bit. I will be discussing this with the Fisheries ministers of the Maritimes in July -- actually, just about a month from today. It's a precedent we have to be very careful of. If the federal government off-loads on us, they would probably want us to take the full financial impact, and we're not quite willing to accept that. We think there would have to be a reasonable trade-off. But again, I'm willing to discuss this with my counterparts across the country.
G. Wilson: In closing, I'd just like to thank the minister for his forthright and concise answers to the questions that I've put to him. I think it was a useful exchange from my point of view; I hope it was from his. I would also offer that if he needs company on that trip to the Maritimes, I know at least one person who wouldn't mind joining him.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to take this opportunity to enter the debate on aquaculture, because I have a considerable number on both sides of the issue in my riding -- not only the fishermen but also those involved in aquaculture. I'm wondering whether the minister has received much pressure from another segment of the industry, the sport fishing industry, in terms of the question of farm fish versus wild fish, and the merits of Atlantic salmon versus Pacific salmon. Whether he's received pressure on that or not, over the longer term you're going to see potential for phasing out commercial fishing of the wild chinook stocks, and seeing that perhaps allocated more and more to aquaculture, and in turn allowing greater access to the chinook resource by the sport fishermen. Their argument is that they're bringing more dollars into the province.
[4:00]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. B. Barlee: Like many other parts of my ministry, with 175 different commodity groups, we
[ Page 2234 ]
have three different views of that. Sport fishermen would love it. The commercial fishermen would eat me up. The Americans would love it. It goes on and on.
When the Americans come into our waters, do you know they don't even pay any fee? We can't go down to the state of Washington; they charge us. That is not under my jurisdiction. I'd charge them the world, but it doesn't come under my jurisdiction. We're pressuring the feds on this right now.
Again, you have a third party, a fourth party and a fifth party, and we have to keep that delicate balance between all of those parties. So far we're walking that tightrope fairly well, but I don't say I won't fall off sometime. Of course, I get a barrage and a deluge of letters from the sport fishermen. That is followed by the commercial fishermen. Again, I go back onto the balancing rope.
R. Chisholm: With all the antibiotics and antifouling chemicals and what not that are used in fish-farming, is there a study ongoing on the effects on the human species? Is there going to be a study on that?
Hon. B. Barlee: There is steady testing done in laboratories governed and monitored by the federal government, to make sure that they do not surpass any of the thresholds that would be harmful to the human species.
R. Chisholm: There is concern in the Ucluelet area that Kennedy Lake will soon contain Atlantic salmon and become part of the aquaculture industry. Has there been any proposal to bring Atlantic salmon to that lake? Are there any other lakes on the Island or the mainland, and what are those lakes by name?
Hon. B. Barlee: Kennedy Lake actually has been removed from that list of candidate lakes. There was some concern locally. We listened carefully, as we usually do, and decided it was part of the due process. We decided to take it off the list.
R. Chisholm: The rest of the question, hon. minister, was: what other lakes on the Island and the mainland have Atlantic salmon? Would you name them, please?
Hon. B. Barlee: I actually forgot the names. The other two lakes where Atlantic salmon are being reared are Georgie and Lois.
R. Chisholm: Have there been studies on the effect on the ecosystem in the lakes of the massive amount of effluent coming from these fish-farms?
Hon. B. Barlee: There are 16 other lakes that have net cages. This is monitored by Environment and DFO, so it is not under our aegis. They are continuing to do the monitoring in that area.
R. Chisholm: In reference to fish-farms, there is an environmental rule from MOE that states that they have to be at least one kilometre away from natural waterways. Can you tell me if any of them are one kilometre away from the natural waterways?
Hon. B. Barlee: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a very precise and concise atlas. We use their information from that atlas to make sure it falls within those guidelines.
R. Chisholm: I gather from your answer that there is none within the one kilometre guideline.
What has been the combined effort of the Ministries of Environment to encourage utilization of exhausted quarries and ponds instead of lakes?
Hon. B. Barlee: A number of trout farms in the interior of British Columbia and elsewhere use dugouts for fish-farming. As far as I know, they haven't gone to quarries. They may, but there wouldn't be a heck of a lot of difference between dugouts and quarries.
R. Chisholm: I suggest to the minister that that would be a good possibility for escapement purposes. There are a lot of old quarries on the Island -- for instance, on Texada Island -- that could be utilized for that purpose.
Hon. B. Barlee: Mining quarries are the best.
R. Chisholm: With Skookumchuck Salmon Farms Ltd., there was an extinguishment of the outstanding principal owing. I'd like to know what happened to this particular farm, and why they had the blessing of having their debts removed.
Hon. B. Barlee: Any debts in the fish-farming area were not through my ministry. My ministry has a very enviable record. This was through a different ministry -- the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Unfortunately, they took some significant hits on that. We didn't take any at all. Our record, as far as debts are concerned, is perhaps unsurpassed in government.
R. Chisholm: There's a question of bankruptcy with fish-farms and the financial resources required to restore the environment once the farms have gone out of operation. What forms of financial security are these farms required to pay? Is it adequate to actually fix up the environment in the surrounding area?
Hon. B. Barlee: They have a cash bond with the Ministry of Environment. Of those farms that went out of business in 1988, 1989 and 1990 or '91, about half are being picked up again by other outfits or other business concerns. There was really a shakedown in the industry, and it has reasserted itself reasonably well.
R. Chisholm: In what amount is this bond? Is it adequate to clean up the area?
Hon. B. Barlee: I can't answer that precisely, because it does not come through our ministry. It would
[ Page 2235 ]
have to be answered more correctly by the Ministry of Environment.
R. Chisholm: My apologies on that one.
There is a problem with the escapement of Atlantic salmon, who are devouring the natural species of the area, and there is another problem of the natural species swimming by the pens and being devoured by the same species. There is a solution to that, which is a silk screen. Are you proposing that the fish-farms utilize this method of keeping the natural species out?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, previous laboratory attempts to crossbreed Atlantic and Pacific salmon have simply not worked. They have failed in every instance. The notes I have here say that Atlantic salmon generally have the same feeding patterns as other salmonids. There's not much doubt about that at all. It is highly unlikely that Atlantic salmon would become established in this way if they did escape, based on past failures to introduce them to B.C. and in many other areas of the world.
I think this is overexaggerated by those who have an inclination to dislike Atlantic salmon. I think it has been generally resolved. We have watched it extremely closely over the last five or six years that we've been rearing a number of Atlantic salmon. The reason Atlantic salmon are accepted by most of the industry is that they grow much faster, and they are very healthy and quite hardy fish.
R. Chisholm: I'm not worried about the Atlantic salmon interbreeding with our form of salmon here; I'm worried about them eating everything in their path. At the end of some of the rivers coming out onto the coastline, you have fish-farms. Out of those rivers come our natural species of fish. These fish have a tendency to eat anything that swims by. I just wonder if there's any means of stopping this problem.
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe that the hon. member for Chilliwack answered that previously. We are not allowed to have any fish-farms near the mouths of rivers, and we do not. So they would not be feeding on species that come out of the rivers, because we are not allowed to have fish-farms in the immediate vicinity.
R. Chisholm: In the lakes, hon. minister, there are other species. At the end of the rivers and in the fjords a mile or a kilometre away, there are fish-farms. These same species swim by to go up-river, and other species swim by. That's what I'm referring to. I'm saying that the silk screens could prevent the Atlantic salmon from eating everything that swims by.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think, again, that that is a misconception carried by some of the public. We have studied a number of other species, and the farm salmon do not eat them. The farm salmon specifically feed on pellets and fish food. Our information and our research is rather extensive.... We do not think that is a significant problem. Secondly, the number of Atlantics that escape is minimal now. I think it was higher some years ago. There seems to be no indication in either British Columbia or Washington State that that is a problem.
R. Chisholm: With the parasites that the salmon have carried and the disasters that they have had in Norway, have we done any studies on what could happen here in British Columbia?
Hon. B. Barlee: There's only one area, and that is sea lice. We're doing extensive research and experiments on that. So far we're getting back the results and monitoring them very closely.
H. De Jong: Since I haven't done any fishing in the last little while, and certainly not today....
Hon. B. Barlee: You can go fishing now.
H. De Jong: I'll just try and do a little right now.
Our caucus, as well as the government caucus, I'm sure, had a visit from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union some time ago. They're making certain requests of the government, and certainly of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to establish some legislation to avoid fish from B.C. fishboats, you might say, going to the United States for processing. That's the main concern they expressed to us. There is also a Fisheries Council. My first question is really whether the Fisheries Council is equally concerned and whether they have expressed that concern to the minister as strongly as the fishermen's union has.
[4:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially the Americans are operating under the Magnuson Act. We would have to have an equivalent act federally, which we do not have. All of those groups, as you probably have well guessed, have contacted me and my ministry. It's a concern of ours, of course, that the processing is carried on in that manner. But again, essentially that is not under the aegis, the jurisdiction or the mandate of my ministry, although we have flagged it with the federal authorities.
H. De Jong: I understand that since it is not under the mandate of the minister, it is not under the mandate of the British Columbia government, either, to establish legislation which may be contradictory to the free trade agreement and everything that goes along with that agreement. I believe that what is happening is one of the weak points of the free trade agreement and certainly should have been avoided at the start.
Those are really all the questions I have on Fisheries, other than to say that when the minister goes and visits Japan -- next week, I think he said, or next month...
Hon. B. Barlee: Next week.
H. De Jong: ...I would suggest that he take some good samples of smoked salmon along, so that it's not just a Buy B.C. program, but so that we have the Buy B.C. program expanded to Japan as well as to other countries.
[ Page 2236 ]
I have one question on the beverage container issue. I'm sure the minister has his concerns about what is being proposed to the Ministry of Environment. I guess we're sort of mixing ministries here, but I do want to ask a couple of questions on this of the minister. In a copy of a letter I have here from Sun-Rype Products, it says: "The proposal" -- I understand it's the proposal to have certain restrictions or conditions put on the beverage container recovery system....
The Chair: Hon. member, I would caution you that we're treading on the area of future legislation and policy. I would caution you to keep questions within the bounds of the minister's operations, if you would, please.
H. De Jong: I will certainly try and do that, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is not prepared to answer the question, then I will know where to go with the question next.
My question really is that it states here that this is, in reality, as they see it, "a tax initiative dressed up in environmental packaging." I tend to disagree with that statement to some degree. But at the same time there is a real concern not only by the fruit industry and the fruit processors, but by the dairy industry and other industries that have similar packaging, about the deposit system that is proposed. I would like to ask the minister....
The Chair: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, this line of questioning clearly is not related to the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture. It deals with Bill 29, which is before the House. I urge you to rule this line of questioning out of order.
The Chair: The point of order is well taken. Hon. member for Abbotsford, I would request that you go on to a new line of questioning and refrain from discussing legislation, please.
H. De Jong: I would, then, like to ask the minister whether the ministry has made some attempt to prepare the agriculture industry for the changes that are contemplated by the government in packaging.
The Chair: Hon. member, your question is out of order.
Vote 13 approved.
Vote 14: ministry operations, $63,885,472 -- approved.
Vote 15: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,860,009 -- approved.
Vote 16: British Columbia Marketing Board, $469,380 -- approved.
Vote 17: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, $3,820,000 -- approved.
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:22 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada