Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1992

Volume 7, Number 14

[ Page 4621 ]

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Private Members' Statements

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE
CANNERY CLOSING IN STEVESTON

A. Warnke: Upon returning to the House, I want to extend my greetings to the Finance minister. He looks in very good shape and, no doubt, in top form to respond in whatever way he can today. It's good to see him back.

Hon. Speaker, we've heard many different types of members' statements in the past year. I must admit at the outset that the kinds I enjoy the most are the philosophical ones. But there are other types of statements as well. I don't intend to give a comprehensive list of them, but among the other types are the concerns for particular issues. The philosophical debates and the debates on concerns for particular issues have been very stimulating. I commend the hon. members for their statements.

Another type is the concerns for the community. Those are interesting as well. While I may like philosophical statements, I have a certain concern I want to bring to the attention of hon. members about a particular problem in my community. I believe it has an effect throughout the province and perhaps our country.

As a background, the B.C. Packers announced the closing of their Imperial Fish Plant canning line. With the closing of the canning line, not only are the jobs going to be affected, but it is the closing of an era as well. It's interesting that the history of canning in Steveston is 100 years old. Indeed, Steveston has a tremendous fishing heritage. Just as we've reached the point in the 1980s and 1990s of recognizing that we have this heritage, suddenly -- and dramatically, in some ways -- we've reached the end of an era.

It's almost inconceivable to think that the annual festival in Steveston, the Salmon Festival, will somehow be blunted by the fact that we will not be canning salmon. The two seem to go hand in hand. It's like having a Grey Cup with no football, and other sorts of analogies. It is indeed an end of an era, and it is a sorry end, for 50 full-time workers will be adversely affected. They will be laid off from their jobs. And if that isn't enough, hon. Speaker, up to 300 seasonal workers stand to lose their jobs. There's an interesting aspect to this, because sometimes we think about seasonal workers as just being part-time anyway. Sometimes they're students just trying to pick up an extra dollar and so forth. But the fact that there are 300 seasonal workers who stand to lose their jobs is more than something that's just part-time. Indeed, most of these workers -- nearly all of them -- see this as their livelihood. For them, that income is as important as a full-time worker's, and they cannot live without it.

Richmond has recently been adversely hit in different ways, and the most spectacular, in terms of the headlines, has been the controversy surrounding Canadian Airlines International, which is going to have a tremendously adverse effect in Richmond -- no doubt about it. But the closing of the Imperial plant in my community also has a tremendous impact on the community, not in terms of lost jobs alone but in terms of the psychological impact on that community.

What is to be done? Maybe it's worthwhile to reflect on a couple of things. In the last three minutes I will cover what is to be done. But imagine what we've had occur in this century: a number of canneries along the Fraser River -- 30 of them at the peak, not that long ago, just a few decades ago -- now reduced to nothing. What has been done? I have to say that when I talk to the officials of British Columbia Packers.... The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I did get together, and I commend the minister for allowing me to become part of that, because it does affect my community. We have found that it was not just another problem that emerged and needs money, or something like that.

Recent governments, not only this government in the last few months -- and I commend the minister what he has tried to do -- but the previous Social Credit government and particularly the former Premier of this province, Mr. Vander Zalm, who was an MLA for that area.... The company repeatedly told the Social Credit government and told Premier Vander Zalm that something had to be done. It was repeated over and over again five and six years in a row that something had to be done. The neglect by the previous Social Credit governments, particularly under Premier Vander Zalm, is something that we have to draw attention to -- neglect of the company and neglect of the community. I hope that never happens again.

It is a provincial government problem and a federal government problem. When the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, John Crosbie, recently toured the area, he did not even go to the extent of meeting these people who are going to be adversely affected. In my view, that is no way to face this particular problem. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, to their credit, did discuss this with me, and they have four provisions. I intend to bring this to the attention of the House later on.

D. Miller: I certainly appreciate what the member has said -- and some of the suggestions -- with respect to the fish-processing industry in this province. I'm looking forward to the specifics that he will offer after I have spoken.

But I wanted to comment briefly. Certainly I don't think many members would be more aware than me, since I come from Prince Rupert, of the importance of fish processing to this province. I have consistently, since I've been here, talked about that. This industry in British Columbia contributes about $1 billion to the economy of this province and, quite frankly, has been ignored in some cases. I share the member's concern about the lack of action by the previous administration. Certainly as an opposition member at that time, I questioned the then Premier as to why there was no effort on the part of British Columbia to secure the same

[ Page 4622 ]

kinds of provisions that five other provinces in Canada obtained prior to the signing of the FTA: that is, the right to control the export of unprocessed fish.

I would draw members' attention as well to some comments I made not long ago in the House on the issue of global trade. I think it's important that members should understand the difference between the interests of capital when it comes to global trade and national interests when it comes to resources. It is my strongly held view that there is nothing wrong with any nation developing natural resource policies that support, among other things, issues relating to employment and the environment -- and clearly the environment is an issue when it comes to our fisheries resource -- and particularly issues relative to the employment of indigenous people. These provisions are contained in GATT, and I don't think that Canada has done nearly a good enough job in terms of exploring them.

On the issue of seasonal work, the member is clearly correct. Too often people view seasonal work as simply a fill-in. Seasonal work in the fish-processing industry is the lifeblood of many thousands of men and women in this province. Quite frankly, when it comes to looking at alternatives, in some cases the opportunities are fairly narrow. Fish-processing is, indeed, an important part of our heritage. I would commend a book by Gladys Blyth on fish-processing plants in British Columbia. As the member has indicated, there may have been some 30-odd on the Fraser. In the North Coast, there were at least that many on the Skeena and some of the estuaries.

[10:15]

It is not the end of an era, however, even though we regret the passing of this plant. We've identified some of the reasons for that and the inaction on the part of previous administrations that has perhaps led to it. But it is not the end of an era. In my view, the British Columbia fish-processing industry is unique. We have a very high-quality resource in our fish. We have a very highly skilled workforce -- comparable to anywhere in the world -- and, I might add, a well-paid workforce. For members who have been arguing against unions in the last few days, these are highly paid workers represented by a very strong union. We have combined those elements to produce an industry that is unparalleled in the world and sells a product that demands the highest prices in the world. All of our efforts should be concentrated on making sure that this industry adapts to change, survives and prospers well into the future.

The other thing we can do in terms of British Columbia workers who are impacted is to ensure that this economy continues to thrive. The Minister of Finance and the Premier described how the B.C. economy is outperforming other economies in Canada. We think it will continue to do that. We think it's important to create new jobs and to control the size of the deficit, which is why we've resisted some of the cries from the opposition benches to simply expand that deficit. We think that the overall economy allows us to deal with these kinds of situations in a better way.

I certainly share that member's condemnation of the previous administration in terms of their lack of foresight.

C. Serwa: What have you done?

D. Miller: I'm being heckled unmercifully by the hon. member in front.

There was a lack of foresight in terms of dealing with the working people of this province, who were affected by those decisions, and in dealing with industry, which is so vital and contributes over a billion dollars to our economy. As I said, I could speak for much longer.

The Speaker: Your time has expired, hon. member.

D. Miller: I am interested in hearing the specific suggestions that this member will advance in his rebuttal.

A. Warnke: I want to thank the member for North Coast, because I recognize that his community of Prince Rupert benefits to a considerable degree from some consolidation of the canning industry there -- some would say at the expense of Steveston. Yet the member for North Coast has extended concerns as well. Indeed, I would agree with most of the comments.

I do believe that it is necessary for the federal and provincial governments to readdress the problems in front of us. There are ways we could do it. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union have actually put forward some interesting proposals, which we could take a look at in addition to some other proposals. I suggest that perhaps we should have some sort of investigation into the cannery closures. I would suggest, too, that we should examine the whole principle that fish caught in Canada not necessarily be automatically considered processed in Canada. There should be some guarantees in place that fish caught in Canada are not to be processed in the United States.

I would also suggest a benefit package for the workers facing early retirement. Let's face it -- they are facing early retirement. You cannot simply take people who are in their fifties, and there are many people who are in their fifties and early sixties in this situation now.... What we really need now is to encourage some sort of package for those workers facing early retirement, and a retraining program wherever possible.

We do need an independent committee to examine the future of the industry. Indeed, when we reflect on the forest industry as well as the fishing industry, I think both of them demand some sort of attention. We need to take an inventory, examine where we are in those industries, so that we can then make wise decisions. We need the call for a sustainable fishing industry.

I would like to mention also that companies are sometimes persuaded, through economic decisions, to get involved in real estate transactions and so forth, as is the case here. I understand that there has been an application for rezoning from industrial to residential. I think it is extremely necessary for municipal and city governments to really analyze the kinds of decisions that they make from pier property to some sort of industrial property. We need an emphasis on residential property.

[ Page 4623 ]

PROPAGANDA

J. Tyabji: I left the title of the discussion deliberately open, because there are so many different facets of propaganda that pervade this society. We've seen in the last week or so some disturbing developments in Surrey, where we've had people who subscribe to what I think could be seen as the proliferation of hate literature and the proliferation of information that is not in the best interests of the public. We've seen that happening in Surrey, and we see it happening to some extent all around us through various forms of media, whether that be through television, radio or newspapers, where we see misrepresentations or stereotyping or caricatures being used to perpetuate myths, whether they are about a race of people or a gender, or about a part of the world. I think we too often put these things aside, and we accept the stereotypes. We buy into them -- and I think that's unfortunate.

I wanted to put forward the issue of propaganda, because I've had a number of letters at the constituency level on the issue of representations of women and children. That's one area, whether it be through pornography or commercials or whatever kinds of packaging you want to put it in. The letters are calling for stronger action, and certainly for stronger action from the government. However, based on some of the activities that have taken place in the House, I'm not sure that this is the right government to address these things to. But the kinds of requests that are coming forward are that we look at the way in which we put forward the acceptable levels of stereotypes, the acceptable levels of pornography, and at the way in which it all is pervasive in society.

When we see things happening as they are in Surrey, where we see hate literature being distributed, where we see people coming forward saying that it is acceptable to have a preconceived notion about a group of people, that not only is it acceptable to have that preconceived notion but that that notion can then be used to separate all of us in society, to segment us, to break us apart and in that way enhance antagonism between those groups.... I think it is extremely important for us as legislators to not just debate the issues but to bring them forward in terms of legislation, to be on the leading edge of what the public wants done. I've had representations from constituents who say that it is not enough to have some nebulous concept of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, but that we should come forward, and we should actually have a good grasp of what it is doing to our young people, to the generation coming forward, and how our representations in some of the very powerful forms of media, whether that be television or newspaper, radio or novels, whether that be fictional writing....

I think that is why the developments in Surrey are most disturbing. Not only are we seeing racism being perpetuated through literature, not only are we seeing activities going on that enhance the problems between groups, that encourage young children to have hatred and antagonistic feelings for people on the basis of their skin colour, but we see it happening at a level where minds are just forming and these people are at a very vulnerable part of their lives. They're just about at the stage where they have a concrete world view that's coalescing around their conceptions of what society should be and what is acceptable.

As a House, whether through the select standing committees -- that might not be a subject we should deal with today -- or at another level, we should come together in a non-partisan way to look at these issues and go forward with the highest intentions. With those intentions, we should recognize that there are things going around, whether they be in Surrey or the interior. Unfortunately, we have towns in the interior where the aboriginal people are viewed in a suspicious or hostile light because there isn't enough communication or interaction. There's a lot of misrepresentation on all sides of what the other group is like, and you get an "us and them" scenario developing in those situations.

Whether propaganda be word of mouth or through the media, we as legislators should not only recognize it, but take action against it. We should be moving forward, because we have the ability to do so. We should try to break down all the barriers that exist in a lack of understanding, because it is through that lack of understanding that we have hostilities develop, and as a society we become dysfunctional.

The last comment I'd like to make is that for those of you in the House who have never experienced what it's like to be prejudged on the basis of skin colour or on your last name being hard to spell.... I had a friend who told me that he could understand what it might have been like, because when he was younger he used to be overweight. My comment is that you might be able to lose the weight, but you can't get out of your skin. Although you might understand what it is like to be ostracized, teased or even prejudged -- even if it's being prejudged, and someone thinks that's a generous way of dealing with you -- it gives one a sense of disquiet and discomfort that those barriers are there because of a lack of understanding. We have to bring those barriers down; ultimately, whatever each of us is born with is what we have to live with. As a society, we should try to understand what each of us has to work with, take the barriers down, become as functional as possible and deal with propaganda in whatever form it manifests itself -- through word of mouth, hate literature or pornography.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and respond to the comments of the member for Okanagan East. The subject of propaganda is a very interesting one, because it covers some very wide parameters from those who would see the activities of government, organizations or business in light of information that's disseminated as propaganda, to the extremism that was articulated and epitomized by the activities of Nazi Germany and Joseph Goebbels, to a wide range in between. On the one, you have the sum of activities of government, which are open to criticism, and in a free and democratic society, that type of propaganda will always be seen for what it is. When you have a society that has a free and open press that is pluralistic in terms of its political system, where people are encouraged to

[ Page 4624 ]

question, probe and ask questions, the propaganda of government will always be seen for that.

Far more insidious and much more dangerous is hate propaganda: the propaganda that is put out by those who are determined, for whatever twisted reason, to categorize, stigmatize and denigrate groups or individuals on the basis of some preconceived notion. What's important is not only that governments do things, such as implement a Human Rights Act and a Council of Human Rights that have the teeth to go and fight this type of activity, but that each of us as individuals in society go forward and challenge these sorts of activities whenever we come across them. Don't accept them, because these people feed and grow on silence.

[10:30]

Governments can have -- as we have -- programs in the schools, community standards, legislation with teeth and law enforcement agencies. But unless individuals themselves take a stand and challenge these people, they will continue to disseminate their hatred. Too often we look at hate propaganda on the basis of weirdos south of the border, with their computer lines and telephone messages coming up here. But it's more than that. It's the individual who judges others on the basis of skin colour, sexual orientation or gender -- who tells a snide joke or makes a snide remark that's left unchallenged. When someone wears a white ribbon, as most of us did in the last few weeks, or a red ribbon, as many people did on World AIDS Day, some snide remarks go unchallenged. It's the responsibility of each of us to challenge those people. By doing so, we are giving a message: we are not going to stand for what you are saying.

We wear a white ribbon not only to say that we're opposed to violence against women but that we're opposed to the sexism that creates that condition. When you wear a red ribbon, you are saying that not only are you concerned about AIDS but you're concerned about the homophobia that too often stigmatizes that disease. When we say to a racist joke that we don't find it amusing, we're saying no to centuries of ingrained thinking. We say: "No, it is time to change." That is the most important thing each of us can do.

I know my time has expired. I feel very strongly on this issue. I look forward to the response from the hon. member for Okanagan East.

J. Tyabji: I welcome the words from the member for Port Coquitlam. I have to agree that there's no question that hate propaganda is the very worst form of propaganda, but anything that influences people to make decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make we should find unacceptable, particularly when it takes them in a direction that should be unacceptable to a right-thinking society that welcomes treating people as equals, without discrimination.

I'd like to share with the House an interesting.... There is a young lady in Creston who happens to be Canadian-born to parents from India. Her parents are still very much part of the Indian culture. She writes a column for the Creston newspaper. Actually, her column was so moving that the Vancouver Sun picked it up when she wrote what it was like for her to grow up as a visible minority, where her mind was Canadian but her family was from India. Although she didn't understand a lot of her parent's culture, she had to subscribe to it. For example, although her personal choice was to be vegetarian, people automatically assumed that it had some religious significance, and would embarrass her by falling over themselves to compensate for not having recognized it in the first place. It made her very uncomfortable. What that makes me think is that throughout the province, in small communities, whether that be in the interior or in the north, we see the opportunity as British Columbians and as Canadians to have these different groups come together, and to have them interact in a very positive way.

The great hope that I see in Canada is the opportunity we have to build a society like no other in the world, where we've brought people from every walk of life, from every part of the world. It will be one where we all unify in a fight to provide equality of opportunity, equality of condition, where we can bring them together and give us all the same platform from which to work, and where we can fight to understand each other and to extend that understanding into relationships which make our society as a whole stronger and an example for the rest of the world.

I think that's the opportunity we have here, and I urge the Legislature to take that opportunity forward, to fight propaganda wherever it exists, and to work as hard as possible to break down the barriers that currently exist between all of our peoples, because that's what all of the people of British Columbia are. They are our peoples. We are their elected representatives. We are not only their voice in the House, but we are their representation in legislation. I urge the House to let that manifest itself in terms of the kinds of laws that we set.

J. MacPhail: I request leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to point out to the House that in the gallery today are two wonderful people from Richmond, Elmer and Kathleen Doyle, long-time contributors to the community not only in Vancouver but also in Richmond. They also have the special recognition of being the parents of our caucus executive director, Elaine Doyle. Would the House please make them welcome.

CHANGING THE CYCLE OF CHILD POVERTY

J. Pement: Before I launch into my topic this morning, I'd like to congratulate the Speaker on her endeavours to raise funds and her campaign for raising funds for the relief in Somalia. Also I encourage our members and others to contribute to that campaign and remember the dire situation of those people and the children of that country. If we do not recognize the global situation we're in and countries that are having these difficulties, then we do not recognize what's

[ Page 4625 ]

happening as well in our own country, in our own province, our own communities and towns. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for that.

I rise today to bring to the attention of this Legislature the issue of child poverty in our nation and province. On November 24, 1989, all three major political parties in the House of Commons voted in agreement on the following resolution: "To seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000."

I regret that the report provided by Campaign 2000 shows that the focus on the issue has become somewhat blurred. I think it is our duty as legislators and citizens of this country to ensure that the priorities of government, from the local level through to the national level, be vigilant of the policies and legislation that affect our children.

Campaign 2000 is an umbrella organization of social policy groups from across Canada. This non-partisan national movement is committed to securing the full implementation of that House of Commons resolution of November 24, 1989. The report shows that, unfortunately, one in six Canadian children are living in poverty. This number does not include native children, nor young people 17 years or older. The poverty rate in single-parent households is high in Canada, as compared to other industrial countries. The polarization of incomes between rich and poor is extreme and ever-growing. Campaign 2000 reported that newborn babies from the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada have a shorter life expectancy than those from the richest neighbourhoods, a difference of 3.7 or 4 years.

At this time of year when people are looking to the holiday season and thinking in terms of sharing, with all of us contributing to campaigns and drives, particularly the food banks, I think we should be reminded that the first food bank opened in Canada in 1981. Unfortunately -- in some cases fortunately for those in need -- by August 1992 there were 342 food banks in Canada registered with the Canadian Association of Food Banks. It's something for us to think about as we approach this special season of the year. Two-thirds of all food bank recipients are children, and that equates to about 700,000 children. In 1991 one out of every nine children in Canada needed to use the food banks at least once.

There's also the issue of housing. Of all Canadian children, 10 percent are living in a poor housing situation. As we are all aware, these social conditions lead to health and education concerns. Again, we're still looking at a high school dropout rate of 16- and 17-year-olds that is approximately twice as high among poor children as those who are not. The number of children on social assistance in Canada has increased again and again. We still haven't dealt with the systems that have put our children in that situation.

The current situation of a child in poverty is intolerable, particularly in Canada where we are resource rich, and particularly in B.C. where we are even more resource rich. The number of children in poverty has been approximately one million over the last several years. The report that Campaign 2000 put forward states that poor families, as well as middle-class families, have experienced a decline in their share of the total income. Of course, it also impacts on the children of this nation and province.

There are many arguments as to what the poverty level is, and many statistics point out these different levels. It depends whether it's on a national, provincial or regional basis that these levels are defined. The issue is that the eradication of poverty must be the priority of governments, legislatures and communities. The issue is not the level; the issue is how to get rid of poverty.

Through the ministries, our government has been introducing policies and programs that I feel have begun to break this persistent cycle and have been quietly working away in interministerial situations to relieve children in poverty situations. Through the Education ministry we continue to provide equal and quality access to education programs so that we can hopefully prepare these children, encourage them to stay in school and get them into the world of work in order to break that poverty cycle.

There are interministry protocols for public schools which provide support for all children. Some schools are now looking at putting social workers within the school community so that children have the opportunity to access the social worker and get the help that is needed as soon as possible.

In the rural part of our province, particularly in the north, the Ministry of Education has a system of writing off student loans for teachers who stay in rural areas. This of course also provides access beyond the more populated portions of our province.

The school meal program is a very important part of assisting children who are going without meals, without their breakfast. So far $11.6 million has been provided, and approximately one-third of those funds has gone to rural schools. I think that's very important as well.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time has expired.

J. Pement: I will finish with some more information afterwards.

[10:45]

H. De Jong: I've been listening very closely to the views of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine about how to relieve poverty. I sense that she's mainly talking about one type of poverty, financial poverty, and certainly that's very important, and it should never be minimized.

However, there are other types of poverty as well, such as moral and spiritual poverty. Over the last ten to 20 years much emphasis has been placed on the financial success of the individual. It's probably true that in many ways that was necessary. We live in a competitive society. It's necessary to be successful in order to look after the financial needs of the family and those around us.

If everyone were financially successful, would that eliminate all the problems? My opinion is that it may not. We should ask ourselves how this materialistic drive has affected society and, more particularly, the

[ Page 4626 ]

family, which has always been considered the strength of a community, as well as of a nation. There is no doubt that families, and particularly our youth, are facing many challenges today such as drugs and alcohol. Is economic prosperity going to provide the necessary shield and protection from all the other challenges, particularly those where the moral and spiritual values of the individual, families and communities are attacked?

I was talking to a senior member in our church some time ago, and he explained to me the sacrifices he made on behalf of his children during the Dirty Thirties in terms of what was not allowed in the family -- no sugar in coffee or tea and butter only on one slice of bread in a sandwich, and many other measures -- in order to be able to pay the dues in their church so that they could retain the pastor and their youth could get a proper education.

I've attended many anniversaries. I've heard many young people respond to their parents: "We did not always appreciate the measures of correction, the advice and counselling that was provided, or the presents we had hoped for but did not receive on special occasions. But now we realize and deeply appreciate your well-meant actions, advice and your inability to give us the presents that we had hoped for. We now want to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for what you have done so that we have learned to live with others around us and the difficulties that we are coping with in the present day. We now appreciate the moral and spiritual values you have always taught us, with a great sense of concern and love for our future well-being."

Hon. Speaker, the other day we had a beautiful ceremony in the foyer here around the lighting of the Christmas tree. I want to read one verse from a very well-known Christmas song, as we're entering the Christmas season. It's the third stanza of the song entitled "Once in Royal David's City," and it goes as follows:

For he is our childhood's pattern Day by day like us he grew He was little, weak and helpless Tears and smiles like us he knew And he feeleth for our sadness And he shareth in our gladness.

Hon. Speaker, as we enter this season and the new year, I'm sure all the members in this House share my concern and would want to give that special message to all parents to give our children an extra hug of love -- and what that love really means.

J. Pement: I join the comments of the member opposite. I agree that the spiritual side of children and families is very important, and values are much revered in many of our family units. But we have to also take a look at what is happening in the realities of the world.

We have been cut back on our federal transfer payments, and it has adversely affected these families. It cannot be allowed to happen without at least some comment. I really have problems when our economists talk about trickle-down economics. The cutback on transfer payments has caused this province a cutback of $1.3 billion in those programs to help people develop their children in their spiritual, emotional, physical needs. This is not trickle-down economics; this is the impact of economics that we have to deal with. These are the realities of the situation, and these are the realities that we as legislators have to deal with in terms of how best to put on programs for children.

My message today is that if we can put the eradication of poverty at the top of the list when we develop policy and legislation, and if we can focus on the poverty that we find children in and look at the policies and legislation we are developing to best ensure that we meet the needs of these children, then we have done far more than any prior government has.

I feel that this government has done that; it has started to break that cycle. I encourage our governments to continue to do so, and I encourage the other side of the House to ensure that when they get up to speak on issues, they put the eradication of poverty and the children of this province first.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

The House adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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