1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 12
[ Page 6603 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to introduce 50 grade 7 students from Langley Meadows Elementary School in my riding of Langley. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Luongo, and a number of adult supervisors. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the Legislature a group of grade 11 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk Senior School, which is in Victoria-Beacon Hill. They are accompanied by Mr. Kirby, their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.
1993 SEA TO SEA COMMEMORATION
P. Ramsey: In 1793 Alexander Mackenzie completed the first recorded crossing of the North American continent, a journey which was possible only with the assistance of the aboriginal people who accompanied and at times guided him. In three summers of hard travelling, his party paddled, portaged and hiked over 8,800 kilometres of river, lake and trail, from Montreal to the Pacific Ocean.
This summer marks the 200th anniversary of that epic trip, and people in communities all along the route Mackenzie travelled will be marking that anniversary in a variety of ways. Starting in Taylor on May 29 and ending on July 24 at Bella Coola, communities will commemorate the events of 200 years ago with everything from historic exhibits to costume balls; from festivals and fireworks to canoe races; from posters and interpretive trail guides to traditional salmon feasts; and from demonstrations of eighteenth-century voyageur skills to exhibits of original art, which interprets sections of Mackenzie's overland trip to Bella Coola.
As we look back two centuries and consider the importance of Mackenzie's trip, we must remember that although British Columbians may agree on what happened in 1793, they may also have very different views about the significance of those events. From the viewpoint of the eighteenth-century explorers -- the Europeans who felt they were discovering and exploring a brand new world -- Mackenzie's expedition was one more very successful step. And for the North West Company -- that giant fur-trading firm in which he was a partner -- it was a very profitable step. But the aboriginal people, through whose traditional territories Mackenzie passed, didn't feel they needed to be discovered or explored. For them, Mackenzie's expedition marked the start of contact with forces which were, in many ways, incredibly destructive to their independence and their way of life.
This is Aboriginal Awareness Week in British Columbia. Also, this week our Legislature passed an historic bill creating a modern Treaty Commission. As the 1993 Sea-to-Sea Commemoration begins this week, I think we need to be aware that this summer different British Columbians will be looking back at 1793 through very different eyes.
During the past year, I chaired the Sea-to-Sea advisory committee established by the Ministry of Government Services and had the privilege of working with individuals, organizations and communities that have planned this summer's activities. Our committee sought to support events which would commemorate the encounter between cultures which took place in 1793, and which would encourage a better understanding and cooperation between those cultures. We wanted to encourage events that would expand an awareness of our history; celebrate the rich first nations heritage along Mackenzie's route and create permanent legacies in communities along that route; and, of course, recognize the accomplishment of Mackenzie's expedition. Quite frankly, we had more good proposals put forward than we could possibly support.
Essential to the Sea-to-Sea Commemoration will be a re-enactment of Mackenzie's expedition itself. Supported by the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association, and led by students and staff from Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario, that expedition finished its second summer of travel at Peace River, Alberta, last August. Less than two weeks ago, on May 16, they pushed off on the final leg of that trip. As a canoer myself, I'm amazed at what they're going to be attempting in the next ten weeks. They will be paddling, pushing and portaging: up the Peace River -- note that that's up -- up the Parsnip River, across the Arctic-Pacific divide, down James Creek and Herrick Creek, and down the McGregor and Fraser Rivers to Quesnel.
Then they get to hike for two weeks through the traditional aboriginal trade route, which Mackenzie used. It's called the Carrier-Nuxalk Grease Trail, and it linked the Carrier people of the interior with the Nuxalk people at Bella Coola. I guess Mackenzie could be said to be the first tourist to use it; I'm sure he won't be the last.
The last piece of his journey in the re-enactment will be two or three days of ocean paddling to the site where Mackenzie, in his words, mixed up some vermilion in melted grease and described, in large characters on the southeast face of the rock, "Alexander Mackenzie, from Canada by land, 22nd July, 1793."
I want to invite all members of this House and all British Columbians to participate in the exciting events planned for the next two months. Come to Taylor tomorrow to welcome the Sea-to-Sea expedition to British Columbia, or to the Northern Rivers Festival in Prince George from June 26 to 28, or to the opening of the Canada Sea-to-Sea Park in Bella Coola on July 24. Come to any of the other events that are planned in communities across central British Columbia, but do come -- whether you're a descendant of the English traders who paid for and profited from Mackenzie's trip, whether you're a descendant of the French-
[ Page 6604 ]
Canadian voyageurs who provided much of the muscle power for that trip, or whether your ancestry is that of the first nations, with whom Mackenzie came into contact and who assisted him in his travels. Come and commemorate the history we have shared; come and dedicate ourselves to the future we will also share.
C. Serwa: I'm very pleased with the member's statement this morning with respect to Sir Alexander Mackenzie. I'm particularly pleased because I have worked very hard to raise the profile of this very issue. On May 11, 1990, I delivered in this Legislature a private member's statement -- "Canada Sea to Sea -- the Past, the Present and Beyond" -- on this very same, and very important, topic.
Sir Alexander Mackenzie made the first transcontinental crossing of North America, preceding the Lewis and Clark expedition across the United States. The member for Prince George North is absolutely correct in indicating that Sir Alexander Mackenzie lived off the land and worked with the aboriginal peoples in order to make that crossing, whereas the Lewis and Clark expedition was fundamentally a military-supported expedition that had far greater resources, and we hear a great deal more about it. Nevertheless, this tying up of Canada with the overland crossing was exceedingly important to us. It marked our beginnings both as a member of the British Empire and the Commonwealth and as the Confederation of Canada.
British Columbia is particularly fortunate to celebrate two bicentennials: Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Captain Vancouver. There was a great deal of interest; I think there were five different nations at that particular time looking at the northwest coast of North America. It is because of Sir Alexander Mackenzie and Captain Vancouver that we are what we are: we are named British Columbia and we are very proud. As well, we are very proud of the parliamentary tradition we have received from the British Commonwealth.
[10:15]
A great deal of volunteer effort has gone into this crossing of Canada. In all honesty, the crossing by Sir Alexander Mackenzie is more aptly named from sea to sea to sea, because he took a wrong turn and went north right to the Arctic Ocean before he came back, and then took the Blackwater River aboriginal trade route to the west coast. We owe a great deal to individuals like Sir Alexander Mackenzie.
We also recognize the great heritage the member mentioned with respect to the aboriginal peoples and the diversity of those peoples in British Columbia. Of the 11 families of native languages that exist throughout Canada, seven of those language families are unique to British Columbia and two in the northeast portion of British Columbia are shared by the rest of Canada. So it shows the richness and cultural diversity of that heritage.
Under Premier Vander Zalm's government, recognition of the importance of aboriginal issues inspired the direction of the former administration to make more progress in resolving cut-off land claims and initiating the land claim treaty process that was recently announced. I served as chair of the committee with respect to native language, heritage and culture, recognizing full well that we all require a foundation on which to stand. All of us have mother countries that we can relate to as far as our language, heritage and culture are concerned. The aboriginal people have this as their land. It seemed to us that the very foundation and essence that was so terribly important for the aboriginal people was not only the resolution of land claims and aboriginal rights but the reintroduction of the value and importance of the their language, heritage and culture.
Even in our health care system we've adopted what the aboriginal people have always said: total health is both mental and spiritual, and the true health of a person is physical and emotional. I think there have been benefits. I don't think it's all been devastation on one part; rather, it's a mutual transaction, and a transmission of ideas and value systems. We're all enriched by what has transpired in history. We join with the rest of B.C. in the celebration, and I understand that this weekend there is a very major celebration in Fort St. John.
P. Ramsey: I want to thank the member for Okanagan West for his very thoughtful and insightful remarks on the events that we're commemorating this summer.
I just want to add a couple of things. First, as chair of the Sea-to-Sea advisory committee, I want to thank all those who served on that with me. We had representatives of the Carrier and Nuxalk peoples. We had representatives of the Forests, Environment, Aboriginal Affairs and Government Services ministries work on putting these events together. Most importantly, I think, we had people who are concerned with and pay continuous attention to the history of our country -- in particular, the Alexander Mackenzie Trail Association and others who led the charge a while ago to have that Carrier-Nuxalk Grease Trail gazetted as a heritage trail in the province and recognized as part of our history. I found them an incredibly vibrant and exciting group of people to work with, and some of their excitement about this year's events rubbed off on me.
I also want to comment on one other aspect of this re-enactment of the Mackenzie expedition. The member mentioned that Mackenzie's trip to the Pacific was his second try. The first time he took a wrong turn and ended up going down the Mackenzie River to the Arctic Ocean. In short, he got lost. What he did after that is most revealing -- I surely didn't know this before. He said: "I need better training in navigation." He returned to England, took some training in navigation, and then came back to Canada in 1791 to try again. The second time he did indeed succeed in making it to the Pacific. He never did find the Northwest Passage, which didn't exist anyway; but through his re-education, he did succeed in crossing the continent. The students who are recreating his voyage are urging children to stay in school. They are using Mackenzie as an example of the benefits of education. I think that's a marvellous add-on to the 1993 Sea-to-Sea Commemoration.
We are the descendants of our forebears. History lives in us and through us. It's good to remind
[ Page 6605 ]
ourselves of that in this House and through the 1993 Sea-to-Sea Commemoration.
CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
V. Anderson: For many of us in Canada, Canadian citizenship is something we take for granted, and we have never really done much thinking about it. But when one attends one of the citizenship ceremonies, where those who have come to this country in recent times come and make their commitment to Canada and give their affirmation, you see tears on their faces and their excitement at the opportunity to join us by taking out Canadian citizenship. It makes one reflect and think more seriously about that which is part of our heritage, a gift that we have been born with, but which we do not necessarily share with one another in our everyday lives.
In 1947 the Canadian Citizenship Act came into being. It was a farsighted document, and the act declares that all Canadians, whether they are citizens by birth or by choice, have the same status, rights and responsibilities in this country. We are reminded that this was a unique act, because at that time no other nation in the world gave this degree of equality in citizenship to all its immigrants.
Just to remind myself, I reflected on a dictionary definition of citizenship. The citizen is "a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to its protection." Citizenship is also: "The quality of one's individual response to membership within a community." Within this definition of citizenship, and under the Canadian Citizenship Act, we are reminded not only of rights, but also of responsibilities. As the judge of the citizenship court reminds the people of their rights of citizenship, each and every time they are also reminded of the responsibilities that go with that citizenship: the responsibilities to contribute to their community, to work with their fellow citizens, to vote in elections, and to build a common community of people which serves not only the citizens of Canada, but the citizens of the world in which we live.
Citizenship has taken on a new meaning in our time. At one time citizenship seemed to be that which built barriers around you; you lived within those barriers and you were a citizen of that country. Citizenship now means that there are more open doors. Citizenship means that we share in our rights and responsibilities to other people of the world, hoping that they will also have in their citizenship -- wherever they may live -- the same kinds of rights and responsibilities.
As citizens of Canada we have taken on a particular role in peacekeeping around the world. More recently, the nations of the world have come together and begun to suggest that not only do we have responsibility as citizens for peacekeeping in our land and in other lands, but we also have a responsibility for peacemaking, both within our land and others. It is that balance of rights and responsibilities that brings home a definition of citizenship for all of us.
The majority of the people in the multicultural group I work with have taken out Canadian citizenship by choice. But there are those -- like the Canadians of Japanese descent -- who stress that once they have taken out citizenship, they are all equally Canadians. Japanese, German, British, or whatever descent it might be, we are equally Canadians. Yet we have not come to that understanding. So often we look at the outward semblance of a person and assume that they have come from someplace else, rather than that they were born in this land and are citizens by birth. We have an equality of citizenship in this land that we must take into consideration.
However, one of the realities is that many of our young people have not had the opportunity to appreciate or understand the citizenship that is theirs. Those who come newly into our land bring an understanding that they receive as they go to citizenship classes and prepare for their affirmation, and as they make their vows. Within our own country we do not have to go through that process, and unfortunately, many of our people, particularly our children, are denied the opportunity to understand citizenship and the gift that it is for all of us.
I trust and hope that in our legislative undertakings we will look more closely at all of our activities, particularly in our educational system, to provide opportunities to take more seriously an understanding of the meaning of Canadian citizenship and of our rights and responsibilities because of it. If we would do that within our schools, we would prepare Canadians much more effectively to live as world citizens in the time now before us. I feel we have overlooked this opportunity. It is something all of us must begin to look at again and share with our youth so that they can have pride in and understanding of who we are as Canadians within our country of Canada.
J. Doyle: I would agree with the words of the member for Vancouver-Langara. What is a Canadian citizen? When we feel down, or when we're having a bad day, Canadians should take a look at other countries in the world that would hope to have only our few problems. We have no problems compared to most other countries in the world.
Last evening, I and 20 other MLAs had the chance to spend some time with our first nations people. It was a most valuable evening that we spent, and I would encourage the people of our province to spend time with our first nations people. They have a lot to offer us about citizenship and helping one another.
We are, as the member for Vancouver-Langara mentioned, a peaceful people. We've been wearing the blue hats of the United Nations for the last 40 years in, for instance, Cyprus and the Middle East. We are peacekeepers of long standing. We should also be proud of our multicultural society. All people have much to offer when they arrive in Canada. The ethnic background of those people makes us a richer country by the mix that it has in our society.
[10:30]
For me as a new Canadian of 25 years, one thing that I appreciate most -- growing up in a place like Northern Ireland -- is the religious freedom we have in our country, and the clear separation of church and
[ Page 6606 ]
state. For instance, our judges in our courts are appointed for their ability, not for their political or religious beliefs. To me, this is most important in our country. In Northern Ireland, the idea of people of different religions getting married.... Some years ago, when I was mayor of Golden, I was asked to speak in a world day of prayer for peace in Northern Ireland. The minister of the church, Rev. Allan Dixon, is of Irish descent, and because we are of different religious backgrounds, my chance of meeting this very fine man in Northern Ireland, if we still were residents there, would be almost nil. To me, that's the richness of Canada and what we have in Canada.
I think the 75 people in this House represent most of our population, and that says a lot about our country and about the people who live in British Columbia.
In the 25 years that I have lived in Canada, my saddest day as a resident and citizen of Canada was when the War Measures Act was proclaimed and my rights and the rights of all Canadians were taken away. This is the kind of thing that we, as legislators, must guard against. Most of us elected people must make sure that this does not happen again.
What does our British Columbia government do to help new Canadians? This year, there's $2 million given to 40 non-profit groups to assist in the settlement of new immigrants. This is up from $1.5 million last year. To me, this is money well spent and most important. Let us welcome new Canadians to our communities.
Let us remember that we in this House -- or our families or forefathers -- were once new Canadians too, and got off the boat or the plane. I know when I arrived here in 1967, I was made to feel at home and welcome in Canada. It is one of the best countries in the world, and we must appreciate that. How many other countries in the world would give a chance to the 25 percent of people in this Legislature who arrived in Canada in their lifetimes. We can be elected to any office, including the highest office in our country. That says a lot about Canada.
We are a proud nation and have a lot to be proud of as Canadians, but we must always keep our guard up to protect what we have as Canadians and remember that it's most important to pass that on to those that follow us.
V. Anderson: I thank the government member for his response. I'm interested that he has been here 25 years from his native Northern Ireland. My grandparents came from Northern Ireland many more years before that, and I've always -- jokingly perhaps -- been able to claim that it's because of that heritage that I can so often get the cart before the horse in many of the things that I do.
It's a very serious undertaking for us here in Canada to be aware of the validity and heritage of the citizenship that we have and share with other people around the world. I cannot stress too much that, recognizing the aboriginal heritage which has preceded all of us, we need to be very careful in how we understand the multicultural mix within our country. I'm interested that in 1991 the federal Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship came into being. To me, it's logical to have put these two emphases together in one branch, because it enables us to realize that the meaning of our citizenship continues to grow and expand.
It is a major concern of mine that within our educational system and the activities of our Legislature and government we do not often enough express our citizenship in a way that might be understood by coming generations. So I trust that we will all be concerned in our activities, and particularly in our educational activities, to focus upon the meaning and expression of citizenship as a value above many other values in our life. Citizenship expresses our ability to live together in community, one with the other -- not only our rights but also our responsibilities. Often we talk about the rights of citizenship, but even more important are the responsibilities that we have to one another as citizens.
When in a marriage ceremony the two parties covenant with each other, each takes on responsibility for the other. In the covenanting ceremony, as I would call it, through which we welcome new citizens into Canada, we recognize our responsibility to them as well as theirs to us.
SHUSWAP LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
F. Jackson: This statement is my contribution to Aboriginal Awareness Week, which is happening in this International Year for the World's Indigenous People. I am very pleased to able to do this. I hope that the awareness week and the year of indigenous people focus on what we have managed to do to each other on this planet throughout history as we've searched for territory and wealth and power.
It's been a universal theme of history that as groups of people developed, they expanded and searched for new territory and new sources of wealth. This happened particularly throughout Europe and the Far East, but it also happened in smaller countries and communities. It happened to my Scottish ancestors when, at the hands of the English, after the battle of Culloden, we lost the right to our language, to our culture and even to wear our tartan.
For the native people of this country, similar things have happened. For the Shuswap, the Secwepemc Kucw, who have been in British Columbia for thousands of years, the results of colonization were just as dramatic. As recently as 1960, the girls of Kamloops residential school were rightly famous for their dancing. But it was Scottish reels and Irish jigs that they were dancing, rather than those from their own culture. Most of the settlers who came to this country, and particularly to British Columbia and the Kamloops area, viewed these people as pagan. As a result, most of their culture was almost lost.
Hon. Speaker, we have a lot to put right. The Indian Act of 1876 shattered the lives of aboriginal people in this country. Colonial and provincial legislation made it possible for any non-Indian simply to occupy up to 320 acres of land that was part of the aboriginal people's tribal homelands. In British Columbia, Governor Trutch forbade native people the right to pre-empt land the
[ Page 6607 ]
way the settlers had. In other words, he removed their right to their own land. Religious ceremonies were outlawed, and the Indian Act made it impossible for aboriginal people to take part in the political and economic life springing up around the bounds of their reservations. It seems almost inconceivable today that these people, the original people of this country, had no vote in federal elections until 1960. For the best part of 100 years native people had no voice in shaping either legislation or the policies that affected their lives. Four generations of native people were subjected to residential schools in British Columbia, where they were forced to abandon their language and were dissuaded from identifying with the lifestyles and values of their parents.
No one in this House was party to that legislation, but we have to deal with the consequences, and it falls on us to put to work a process to make it right. For me, the Treaty Commission Act, which was passed in this House this week, will go some way towards putting it right.
There are major hopes for native culture in Kamloops, where the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society has for over a decade been working to preserve the language and culture of the Shuswap nation. It has forged a remarkable partnership with Simon Fraser University that has prospered for five years. What started cautiously as an experiment to see if it would work is no longer an experiment. It has worked well, and the program offers a model of partnership based on mutual respect and trust, and a sharing of not only the goals but also the efforts in bringing about the necessary resources to make the programs work.
Last fall Chief Ron Ignace, president of the cultural society, and Dr. William Saywell, the Simon Fraser University president, renewed that agreement for a further five years. That partnership is now an integral part of the university's program, with regular full-time tenure in the university and a minor in first nations studies which will begin in Kamloops this fall.
Last month the society received a grant from the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council to help renovate the museum, the office and the cultural facilities. These facilities are in the same premises as the old residential school, and it's hard to imagine a better or more appropriate change of use. Present among the people who use this facility today are students whose parents spent time at the resident school. They have painful memories still of how they were treated there -- of running away, being caught, and being strapped and punished -- all for what they were and what they believed in.
The evolution of the building use symbolizes the way attitudes are changing in our society, and that is long overdue. This building once represented an attitude towards native culture and native people that was for the most part profoundly negative, but that attitude is changing. There is much work to be done, however, with the programs and the institutions that have been put in place today to effect a completely different balance than they had in the past. The culture, the language and the heritage are being renewed, re-examined and passed down to the children.
It is clear from this examination of the culture that these people survived....
Time up, hon. Speaker?
The Speaker: I do regret, hon. member, that your time is up, but you will have an opportunity later to reply.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson bringing this topic forward today, in a week in which we have been putting emphasis on aboriginal expression and validities within our province and across Canada. It's very important that he should focus on the language and culture of the people, because those are the symbols through which the life of the people is expressed. When these symbols are taken away, such as the ability to use your language, then your very thought forms, processes of understanding and being able to express the meaning, purpose and validity of your style of living are taken away. It's important that the Shuswap peoples, and others like them, should have the opportunity and encouragement to recover their language and culture and to bring that expression into our modern day.
[10:45]
One of the unfortunate things that seems to be happening, though, is that while we are encouraging groups like the Shuswap people to recover their culture, in the process they are living in two cultures -- theirs and the other culture around them -- and not too many people in the other culture are also learning to understand and appreciate the language and culture of the Shuswap people. If we are truly going to have interaction between our cultures so that we can cooperate and work together, we need to be able to understand the thinking processes of both. Therefore we have to be able to live their culture, not only theoretically, by expressing our encouragement, but also practically, by becoming part of that culture so that we can fully appreciate it.
The Shuswap people have had a difficult time because of our colonization of those lands. There were 30 bands at one point, but 13 of those have become extinct, largely due to diphtheria, pneumonia and tuberculosis -- the white person's diseases that were inflicted upon them. Because of them welcoming us and guiding us across this new land, they have suffered, as was indicated earlier this morning. Instead of being thanked, they were often punished. In 1860 there were 7,100 Shuswap people; currently there are about 6,100. They are one of the communities that has yet to expand and grow, whereas many other aboriginal communities in our country have grown over a period of time.
It is a disgrace that they were not allowed to speak their languages and develop their culture within the residential schools where they lived. They were indoctrinated into another language and a culture that was foreign to the one they knew. It is to their credit that in spite of that, they were able to maintain a great deal of their validity and inherent values. Now, as they return to their family life, they are able to build upon these again. We must give credit to their elders, who
[ Page 6608 ]
persevered in the ways they knew and the values inherent to their way of life. When the opportunity came again, they passed those on to their families.
We must recognize that when we deprived those children of the opportunity to live and grow in their family structure and to learn by example and observation, by being with their parents, their families and their grandparents day in and day out, we deprived them of much of their future. We need to support them as they recover that future. Language and culture are so important, not only for the Shuswap people themselves but for their ability to share with us values and traditions that will be beneficial to us as we live together with them.
I thank the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson for bringing this forward today and reminding us of the heritage, language and culture which is of benefit not only to the Shuswap people, but to all of us as they share their gifts among us.
F. Jackson: I'd like to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to get back into my statement. When he talked about the interaction between the non-natives and the natives in Kamloops, along with the expansion of the museum is a heritage park, which is to be located at the northeast junction of the river. New pit houses will be built in that heritage park as well as some excavations done to original pit houses, so that people can see the archaeology of the site. This site also has a walkway which will depict various cultural activities of the Shuswap people, and there will be demonstrations of how they gathered food.
The Shuswap people were nomadic to a certain extent, and they travelled in order to maintain their food. They were also very much environmentally conscious, because they managed to do this and keep in balance with the society around them. It gives us a great opportunity to see how they managed to do this and try and put their impressions and capabilities into our service for sustainable development so that we can use the way they lived to enhance the way that we all shall live in the future.
I would like to read a couple of things from an address by the Shuswap people to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910. Early on, the address says: "We want you to be interested in us, to understand more fully the conditions under which we live." And I think if we do that, we will better understand ourselves. One of the later paragraphs in the address is: "We demand that our land question be settled, and ask that treaties be made between the government and each of our tribes, in the same manner as accomplished with Indian tribes of other provinces of Canada." I think our Treaty Commission should work well towards achieving the demands of the last paragraph. And I hope that the end of Aboriginal Awareness Week does not mean the end to what we're trying to do here.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to be back to deliver in the chamber today a private member's statement on private property rights.
Interjections.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the remarks from the members opposite.
It is appropriate for us to ask a fundamental question about private property rights, not only in the province of British Columbia but in Canada. People assume that private property is the house and the plot of ground around their home which they mow every day and to which they assume they have unlimited access. But I think it's important for us to define -- or for governments to assist in defining -- exactly what private property is and how, as government, we can protect the inalienable rights of private property.
Private property was not mentioned in the Charlottetown accord. It has not been mentioned in a number of constitutional discussions -- federal-provincial agreements between Canada and British Columbia -- and I think it's a sore point with many Canadians that private property rights, unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are not enshrined in constitutional law in our country. In defining private property rights, I think it's absolutely essential to have a charter like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals in our society to own private property. Private property is not just land. It can be the rights that the Crown grants to harvest timber and to mine minerals. It can be the money that people have in safe-deposit boxes. A whole range of types of private property need to be defined and protected.
The reason we need this type of protection is that if it's left solely in the hands of government to define private property, there is a tendency for government to enact legislation and bring forth taxation policies that erode the rights of private property owners. There's a tendency, for example, for government to bring forth restrictive legislation on expropriation and in some cases to deny access to the courts that would rule on whether or not the rights of private property holders have been violated. It's often not intentional -- or sometimes not intentional -- for governments to do this. It's the reason we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. People who feel that their rights have been violated have the right of appeal to the courts, who then interpret the Charter and provide direction to governments as to what they need to do to bring laws and legislation in line with respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What kinds of additional actions can governments take that will erode private property rights? One of the key issues, I think, is taxation. We have a longstanding principle in our country of taxing the earnings and the wealth creation of individuals and corporations. We understand that if a person or a corporation earns $2 and is in a 50 percent income tax bracket, they will pay $1 to the provincial and federal governments and have $1 left to form the basis for their private property. We accept the fact that if they invest that dollar and earn a return, they will pay tax based on the rate of return. But in my view, the original amount, the dollar that you had after paying the level of taxation, should form part of your private property and be inviolate from further
[ Page 6609 ]
taxation by government. If there was a charter of private property rights that enabled people to appeal these kinds of decisions through the court system, and appeal them with specific remedies and items laid down, then I believe strongly that direction could be given, and governments, in drafting policies, would be guided by the inalienable rights of private property.
I would also like to make a case for the inclusion in private property rights of resource holders who have been granted by licence an ability to harvest timber and mine the land for resources. They are able to take that licence and go to a financial institution and borrow money against it. One of the key reasons that private property rights need to be protected is that the property that you have can be used to acquire financing to buy an additional residence -- for example, to create a business. I think governments need to be guided as to what they do in either taxing or expropriating private property, because it has such a ripple effect on the ability of individuals and corporations to create wealth in our society.
Private property clearly has value. It is able to create additional value and additional economic opportunities. It is obviously underprotected in our society. People assume, I believe, that they have inalienable rights to private property and security of private property, when in fact they do not exist. I believe it is something that needs to be in the forefront of future discussions on constitutional reform in our country. Many people regret that in our rush to deal with constitutional issues related to aboriginal people and to the separation of powers between the provinces and the federal government, we have not addressed the fundamental private property rights that should be held and guaranteed for every Canadian citizen.
So, hon. Speaker, I wrap up by saying that I believe the issue is too important to be left to the interpretations of government alone. In this week, when the Legislature passed the historic Treaty Commission Act, it's also particularly important for us to recognize that we all have rights in our society, and that private property should be one of the key rights that everyone holds.
[11:00]
J. MacPhail: I listened with great interest to the member opposite talking about constitutional changes and private property rights, and referring to these in the context of the Charlottetown accord. I must say that his view of what Canadians want differs very much from my memory of the discussions around private property rights. That issue was put on the agenda of the constitutional discussions very early on, and, I might add, was removed from the agenda very early on too. There was absolutely no support, either from the broad majority of Canadian citizens or from the broad ideological range of Canadian governments, for any entrenchment of private property rights.
I sense that what the member opposite describes is not Canadian. It is just not the way we do our business in terms of private property rights. I must also inform him that the kind of private property rights entrenchment he talks about as "inalienable" is not a term that applies to parliamentary or British-based common law. What he asks for is entrenched via the Magna Carta. He may not remember that because it was from the thirteenth century. The entrenchment of private property rights has indeed existed since the Magna Carta was put in place and -- guess what -- we don't need to reinvent the Magna Carta just because he objects to some taxation of property.
I might also add that the greatest opponents to the entrenchment of private property rights are our municipal governments, and with very good reason. In our society we are now living on top of and right next door to each other. What I do on my property may affect my neighbour. We need to have some regulation around that. That's what municipal governments do by way of zoning laws, environmental laws and health and safety laws so that the greater good of society is protected. Would the member opposite say that since I own a mine, I'm allowed to kill people down in it because I don't want to have health and safety regulations? No, hon. Speaker, that's not what we want in terms of the way we use and value our properties.
But let me reassure him. It is everyone's position in Canada that if you buy and own land, and have fee simple rights to that land, it is yours. The Magna Carta entrenched the position that governments cannot expropriate without compensation, and there is no one in this government who would argue with that. That has always been our policy.
He raises the issue of taxation on assets. I'm sure that he is probably upset by the corporate capital tax. It is, of course, deficit-driven and not ideologically driven. Such a tax exists across the ideological ranges of governments in Canada, and our tax certainly falls well within the middle range of those kinds of taxation issues. I know also that the member opposite is concerned about the issue of tree farm licences. Tree farm licences are not private property rights. Our government wants to make sure that forest land management issues are for the greater good of all British Columbians and not just for the company that happens to own the tree farm licence at the time.
I see my time has run out, and I thank the members for listening.
W. Hurd: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings for that information on the Magna Carta. Perhaps I could direct her attention to a more recent document. Above all else, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right of individuals to interpretation by the courts in the event their rights are violated.
The suggestion by the member that the government of the day is not denying court access for expropriation is completely incorrect. One of the first bills the government brought forward was Bill 32, which sought to expropriate without compensation. I find it rather interesting that an attempt is now being made in this chamber to reinvent history, but I suppose it's the same type of attempt that was made prior to the Charlottetown accord. The people of Canada dealt with that attempt to reinvent history in the only way they could, which is at the ballot box. One hopes that in the
[ Page 6610 ]
next election they will support any government which is prepared to put the rights of private property down and -- more important than that -- accept the long-standing principle of separation of powers, which guarantees individuals the right to have interpretations by government examined by a court of law and ruled on accordingly. Any government or institution that violates that principle will not be accepted by the people of this province, or of any other jurisdiction in this country.
Hon. D. Marzari: By consent, I call Committee of Supply B for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, in committee room B only for today.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Streifel in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
J. Tyabji: Although we've reached the water section of the state-of-the-environment report, I defer to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, who has a question on air emissions from a previous section of the report.
A. Cowie: I thank my colleague for allowing me to ask this question. I have conferred with the minister's staff who are in the hallway, in case he wants to confer with them.
I have had a number of questions from constituents in my riding regarding the proposed incinerator at the UBC campus. I wonder if the minister could give me the current status of that facility.
Hon. J. Cashore: That project is on hold, pending the results of a process which was launched with the involvement of the waste reduction commissioner, who is specializing in hazardous waste and biomedical waste issues. The project will be subject to a comprehensive approach that will be forthcoming as a result of the review process being carried out by that office.
A. Cowie: I wonder if the minister could give me some guideline as to when we might be getting a report on this.
Hon. J. Cashore: Approximately two to three months.
A. Cowie: Thank you very much. That, I think, should allay any fears of the residents in my riding. I can tell them that there will be a report in four months or so.
J. Tyabji: Yesterday in our discussions about air emissions and the clean air strategy that's coming out, we canvassed the section on alternative forestry practices, which would have economic sustainability as one focus, but also a different approach to the way in which forestry practices are conducted. This would cut out the necessity for large-scale slash burning that we've seen in the past. As the minister knows, I am strongly advocating that we move away from large-scale slash burning as a method of forest control and regeneration. To that end we have discussed some of the alternative methods that are coming forward, and I had committed to table in the House the documents that I have relating to this. So I have in front of me four documents, and I will give a little bit of background on each before tabling them.
The first is "The Synopsis of the Business Strategy for Eco Forests Inc.," which was presented at the Earth Summit in 1992; this is an updated edition which is very current -- it's from April 20, 1993 -- and it's "The Global Strategy for Restructuring the Forest Industry." It talks about training and development, silviculture, sustained yields and these kinds of things. There's an executive summary as well. I would like to preface this by saying that I am not necessarily advocating any one of these, but since the minister had asked for some of the alternatives, here are some of them.
In addition to that, there's a report from the Ecoforestry Institute which I will table as well. There's a publication called Cascadia Wild. The purpose of that, as we talked about yesterday, is borderless environment and the fact that air and water don't recognize international boundaries. There is a series of publications which have been edited by Mitch Friedman and Paul Lindholdt. They will be coming out in hardcover form shortly. This is the preview of the book that will be published. So the Ministry of Environment will get a bit of a jump on that. It talks about ecosystem management. Lastly, there's the Wildlands Project, which is called Wild Earth: Plotting a North American Wilderness Recovery.
All of these are either directly or tangentially related to the discussion that we had yesterday with regard to a clean air strategy and cutting down on air emissions -- most particularly the ecoforest incorporated strategy for the forest industry.
I can also provide more research on some of the forestry practices. In fact, the Ministry of Forests has been provided with a strategy for harvesting the south slopes of the Okanagan Valley by one company, Smoody Logging, which I think has an economically sustainable method for resource extraction that provides for a very different method of forestry management. I would encourage the Ministry of Environment staff to obtain that report from the Ministry of Forests.
So with that, I would like to table these documents.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: If I can't table them in committee, then because I have committed to get them to the Minister of Environment, I will have them sent by a Page. Anyone who wants to receive copies can contact the Ministry of Environment staff.
[ Page 6611 ]
Yesterday as we were ending up, we had a submission from the third party Environment critic that the method I was using, as the lead critic for going through the state-of-the-environment report, was not something that he found to be acceptable. From my perspective, I think it explains perhaps why we didn't have a state-of-the-environment report under the Social Credit government.
So that I can outline the strategy, the idea is that in the state-of-the-environment report we have a comprehensive overview of the issues, and the inventory and the research that's available, specifically tailored to British Columbia. I don't intend to spend a lot of time on the latter part of the report, because it does get into more detail than we need, most particularly on the six ecoprovinces. I think that goes beyond the scope of this debate. Certainly as we approach the issues of air and water and resource management, this is an excellent starting point.
[11:15]
With that in mind, we had been talking specifically about surface water and the philosophies behind it, and I know that the Minister of Environment has said there is a discussion paper on water. In the last part of yesterday's debate we were talking about a strategy for water use that would take into account some of the limits to growth outlined by the state-of-the-environment report. We had ended in a fairly heated debate as to what there is and what there is not with regard to a strategy. First of all, I'd like to canvass whether or not there has been a debate within the Ministry of Environment to assess water quantity. Secondly, is there currently an inventory taking place of groundwater and the aquifers that we potentially have access to?
Hon. J. Cashore: There's a limited inventory because we're preparing for the new groundwater legislation.
J. Tyabji: I understand that there's a very limited inventory right now, and I know that legislation is coming. It's my understanding that the legislation won't be out until the spring of 1994. Based on my own research, and as confirmed by the state-of-the-environment report in the sections about groundwater, it's very clear, as it states here, that 9 percent of our water consumption comes from groundwater and aquifers. However, what isn't clear is what the inventory is. I'm trying to find out whether the Ministry of Environment has a plan to take inventory of the aquifers. Although 9 percent of what we consume is coming from the aquifers, I'm not clear as to what percent of our overall water inventory is represented by aquifers.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the 1993-94 budget the hydrology branch is completing 15 groundwater quality assessments and 20 quantity assessments; it will collect and process water level data from 150 observation wells; and it will complete 800 person-days of river surveys, including river profiles, cross-sections, and lake and reservoir bathymetry.
J. Tyabji: When we're talking about groundwater, on page 30 of the state-of-the-environment report it says there's no indication that it's a depletion of the aquifers. In the 20 quantity assessments being conducted, is there also going to be an assessment of whether or not the industrial and residential tapping of that groundwater results in a net loss to the aquifer?
Hon. J. Cashore: Also on Vancouver Island, through the corporate resource inventory initiative, there will be a project that provides for the mapping of watersheds and known aquifers, and groundwater recharge areas will be located. Summaries of low flow and hydrologic data will be prepared. Water shortage areas and impact on fisheries and other resources will be identified.
Hon. Chair, I answered the question in my comments yesterday and also in stating a few moments ago that these are the inventory processes that are presently underway. Following the stewardship of the water discussion paper that will lead to water legislation will be the new regime in which the inventory work that needs to be done will be done in a timely and appropriate manner to catch up on the backlog -- very necessary within this province. However, I don't think I need repeat the extensive comments I made on this yesterday.
J. Tyabji: I understand it has been addressed through the legislation that will be coming out. I do recognize, as I said yesterday, that there has been virtually a vacuum with regard to water legislation, as there has been a vacuum with regard to inventory. But as we stand now, we're not sure whether or not the industrial use of those aquifers is resulting in a net loss. The reason this question is particularly relevant is that the largest aquifer in the United States, which is pre-ice age -- it was left from the last glaciation -- has had an annual net loss to the extent that they're going to lose the ability to tap from that aquifer. That is why there is so much pressure on B.C.'s water right now and why there has been such a heated debate with regard to the NAFTA as it relates to water resources. If water is going to be treated as a good by the federal government under the free trade agreement and NAFTA, if we don't first of all have an adequate inventory of our groundwater and if we don't know if there is a net loss, then we're not going to be sure if we're losing sovereignty over water that we haven't had a chance to control.
As outlined in the state-of-the-environment report under figure 2.28, industry is the largest single user of groundwater, at 55 percent; followed by agriculture, 20 percent; and municipal, 18 percent. We can track how much they're pulling out, but we can't track how much is left behind and whether or not the continual renewal of that aquifer is significant enough to replace what is being tapped out of it. It is important to know if the inventory being conducted on the 20 aquifers is going to take into account the net loss. That's a critical point.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is repeating a number of points I made yesterday. I want her to know that we also have the records from well logs, which also
[ Page 6612 ]
assist us with inventory data. On the question of net loss, I made it very clear yesterday that we have to catch up in a number of areas. I also said yesterday that the current water legislation in the province is inadequate. It deals with allocation; it doesn't deal with quality. Therefore the points being made are actually points I made yesterday.
R. Chisholm: The new code of waste management practice for livestock and poultry ranchers requires that farmers store manure in a way that no pollution can occur. For instance, we know that nitrates from the Fraser Valley are very high in the aquifer. This is a very costly proposition for agriculture and for farmers. Is a plan being considered by this ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture to assist farmers with major capital expenditures? If so, when is that going to happen? If they are not going to do that, could you please comment?
Hon. J. Cashore: That question, relating to a capital expenditure, should be appropriately put to the Minister of Agriculture.
R. Chisholm: The Environment 2001 initiative wants to exert more control over water use, both surface water and groundwater. I want to know if the government intends to control dugouts, wells or springs that have been developed by homeowners or landowners specifically for agriculture use. Do you foresee governments trying to control that source of water?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to dugouts, the answer is no; we don't have input into that. With regard to streams, under the present legislation we are required to regulate. However, under the water discussion paper we will be looking at new ways of approaching that, which will be cognizant of the kinds of issues the hon. member is raising, to ensure that we are sensitive to some of the very valid points he's making about the agricultural community.
R. Chisholm: The last point I'd like a comment on, hon. minister, is natural springs that are on a property and have been developed by the individual homeowner or farm owner in question.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our ministry has discretionary rights not to license in such a circumstance.
R. Chisholm: To change the subject and talk about aquaculture, which comes under agriculture but does affect the environment greatly, are your ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture discussing how and where future fish farms will be developed and how they'll affect the streams that run into different fjords in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
R. Chisholm: Within these discussions are there any plans to move the fish farms farther out to sea, rather than having them at the mouths of streams that empty into the ocean? Since the effluent seems to be affecting different things, like shellfish and the natural species, are we going to have and maintain fish farms adjacent to the coastline?
Hon. J. Cashore: I should point out that the major involvement of this ministry with regard to aquaculture has to do with the leasing responsibilities of the Crown lands branch. These questions would be more appropriately dealt with under the agreement whereby we would have officials present from that branch at that time. I realize, however, that the hon. member is making a point that has more to do with environmental quality than it has to do with land allocations. I do recognize that, and the answer again is yes. There is a jurisdictional matter with regard to salt water there, which means that the federal government has a major responsibility. But as a member of government, I have an understandable interest in water quality issues, and while I'm not going to specifically answer a question that should be put to the Minister of Agriculture, I assure the member that I am in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, and that the staff of the two ministries are in consultation on these and other matters.
R. Chisholm: A last question on this subject, hon. minister. It seems that we are introducing species like Atlantic salmon to the west coast, and it not being a natural fish here, we don't know what affect it will have on the natural species in this province. Is your ministry doing a study of how these interact with each other?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are monitoring this very carefully, along with Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We are keeping up to date on the current literature and any available studies on this. I don't have a specific study that I can cite at the present time, but we are very concerned about this issue, and there is a lot of attention being given to it among the various agencies of government, both federal and provincial. I agree with the hon. member that this is a significant issue. I understand that there have been some Atlantic salmon showing up in some rivers, and, in the opinion of some wildlife biologists, they are in a spawning state. This is somewhat interesting in view of the fact that there was an experimental program that ended, I think, back in the 1970s due to lack of funds. I believe it was in the Alberni Inlet where there was an unsuccessful attempt to actually find out if Atlantic salmon could survive in B.C. waters. But it is a very serious concern and it is being watched carefully.
There are some aspects of the point the hon. member is making that we might want to canvass when we have staff here from Lands, and I do know that there is also the question of the decision that was made by the previous government to allow some rearing in fresh water bodies, which has caused a great deal of concern on behalf of the community that enjoys the sports fishing because of the possibility of escape. But we do have to recognize that there is an economic potential here which is also important to the province, so it's one
[ Page 6613 ]
of those areas where there has to be careful monitoring and balance.
R. Chisholm: My next question refers to the lakes where these Atlantic salmon are. Can you give us an update on the state of these fish farms and how they have affected those lakes and the streams coming off them?
Hon. J. Cashore: At present, to the best of my knowledge, the only lakes in the province that are being used for the rearing of Atlantic salmon are Georgie Lake in northern Vancouver Island and Lois Lake near Powell River.
[11:30]
R. Chisholm: Those lakes have been used for a couple of years now. Can you tell us exactly what is the status of those fish farms? Have they been successful, or are we having problems with the species natural to the surrounding waters?
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have that data with us in the House at present, but we will get it and bring it back.
R. Chisholm: We know that the pulp mills are polluting the coastline, causing shellfish closures, and we have sewage problems. I know where we are with the pulp mills, but how exactly does the sewage end of it affect the shellfish closures? How are we going to rectify it, and will it be in the near future?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is a very complex question. We have canvassed quite a lot of it in the earlier sessions of these estimates. The hon. member is aware that we have brought in very strong standards for pulp mills. With regard to the industry's success in achieving the 1.5 AOX designation by the year 1995, the information I have is that the industry is to be congratulated. It has done very well and in most instances will come in ahead, so we're very pleased about that. There is still the challenge of trying to get everybody working together successfully toward achieving zero AOX by the year 2002. Again, there was a wide-ranging discussion of that issue yesterday.
I would like to say that the market situation in Europe and elsewhere is such that the industry is complaining much less. In some instances, it is talking about the tough standards we have here in British Columbia to indicate to international markets that we are environmentally friendly in this regard. So an environmental and an economic issue are both important here.
With regard to the sewage issue, the hon. member asks for the exact status of how we're doing, and that's an enormous question. My role as the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is to sign off a liquid waste management plan with the various regional districts throughout the province. There are some areas of the province where tertiary treatment has been achieved because of special circumstances in those areas. There are areas where there is still raw sewage going out into the receiving environment, Victoria being the largest such area and the one that is the most notorious.
There is a great deal of discussion, again, around the issue of a precautionary principle in this regard. Officials in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and in the various regional districts are working in a number of areas to bring these liquid waste plans into effect; some are already in effect. Given the cost factors, we can't do them all in one year. They have to be staged in a reasonable way, so we are working diligently at that. Two of the most significant issues in the province today -- given the state of the strait of Georgia -- are the Victoria sewage and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, with special concern for the Iona and Annacis Island plants.
Since it is often indicated that there is controversy between myself and the Capital Regional District on this issue, the positive things we say about some exemplary work that has been done by the Capital Regional District in waste management is often not reported. They have made some good progress with regard to addressing issues of sewage outfalls. More work has yet to be done, but they have made some very worthwhile accomplishments in that area. It's rather unfortunate -- given the heat they are taking internationally -- that they don't get much public credit for some of their accomplishments.
We in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks do not want to function in a context of controversy in this situation. We want to get on with it. With regard to the Capital Regional District, we believe that the time frame we have outlined is a good point at which we can work out a plan with the officials of the CRD. I think if the politicians would get out of the way, those good people who work for the ministry and the CRD would work out the plan, and would do it very well. In fact, they are meeting quite regularly on this issue.
With regard to the CRD, I have stated that there should be secondary treatment -- or its equivalent -- in place within 15 years; primary treatment within 9 years; and there should be immediate efforts towards beginning land assembly and starting to develop a local fund which would enable the cost of infrastructure as we move along that time line.
R. Chisholm: I hope my last question to the minister is not off the topic. Does the minister have an update on the Queen Charlotte City commercial fishing plant proposal? The last I heard, they were awaiting approval from your ministry as to when they could go ahead.
Hon. J. Cashore: We'll have to get back to the hon. member on that question. I don't have data available on that at this moment.
L. Fox: I think it was a great admission by the minister a few moments ago when he suggested that if he as a politician got out of the way of the process that it would probably happen. I could only expand that by saying that if all that side of the House were to be removed, perhaps we might get on with things.
[ Page 6614 ]
I want to revisit an item that I understand was canvassed at some length a few days ago. An article in the Vancouver Sun today encourages me to ask some questions. I am referring to the case tried in Smithers where Judge Govan threw out nine of 12 charges against one non-white hunter because the five Indian hunters who were with him did not have charges laid against them. The judge ruled that the law could not be discriminatory, based on the race of an individual.
In this very generalized discussion, and given this new ruling, I think it's only fair that we look at where this ministry is going with respect to laying charges against the aboriginal people of B.C. Is his ministry going to appeal this case, based on his government's philosophy of not laying the charges. I would ask the minister if he wants to respond.
The Chair: Just before the minister responds, the Chair would like to caution the committee. The Chair itself is not aware of the matter, but if there is a possibility that it could become sub judice, I would hope that members would comment with that in mind.
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the advice that the hon. Chair has just given, so I will not be commenting at this time. This matter could be the subject of an appeal application, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
L. Fox: I think the minister would concur that this precedent is in fact a very significant one. Certainly I think that it not being dealt with would negate the ability of this ministry to enforce those laws on any infractions of the hunting laws. So I look forward to the minister making a public statement on exactly what the action of the ministry is going to be, given this latest ruling. I'll leave it at that, since I too want to respect the system.
I do have a couple of questions that pertain directly to my own riding. One is in the area of agriculture. As I understand it, a year ago the ministry and the agricultural community agreed that the agricultural community would police its environmental problems. So my question has to do with this. Recently there has been a case out of the Prince George office where in fact the Ministry of Environment negated that agreement by getting directly involved in a complaint of a specific rancher, and in fact has failed to follow the process that was agreed to between the agricultural community and the Minister of Environment. That is of concern to me and to the cattle industry. Is the ministry at the present time looking at something different than what was agreed to a year ago between those two agencies?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are trying to develop responsible stewardship within the industry. We are not looking at changes to the agreement that was made a year ago, but I think it's very important that we go about this in a consultative way, which we are seeking to do.
L. Fox: I can only suggest that as I understand the process, the agricultural industry has developed their own inspectors within regions, and when a complaint is laid, the complainant's name is given to those inspectors so that they can talk to the complainant about their concerns. From that they do their inspection and make their report back to the association and also to the Minister of Environment.
In this particular case, the employee of the Environment ministry has done the report and accepted the complaint, but not made that complainant's name available to those inspectors of the cattle industry, and in effect has reduced their ability to do their job. And I would think, given this kind of situation, that there should be some form of communication between the ministry and your officers to reiterate the agreement and the process, so that the farmers can feel comfortable that their agreement is being lived up to.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, obviously I don't know the specifics of the issues that the hon. member is bringing forward. If there is a failure to follow through on the appropriate policy, then of course I'm very concerned about that, and I would like to look into it. I would like the hon. member to provide in detail the specifics of this situation, either in writing or in a meeting with an official of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, so that we can look into it. If this is an instance of the policy not being properly followed, then I very much appreciate the hon. member bringing it to our attention, because we should deal with it appropriately.
[11:45]
L. Fox: I'm waiting for a fax which outlines all the specifics, and I'll make that available to the minister.
I want to talk a little bit about beehive burners. If this has been canvassed before, I apologize, but there is a specific problem within the community that I live in. Assurances were given some years ago that beehive burners were going to be phased out, thereby limiting the ash which falls into people's yards on a regular basis with the prevailing winds. At one point, there was an initiative for cogeneration which would have utilized that waste. Those cogeneration initiatives, because of the lack of an energy policy encouraging the purchase of electricity from the private sector, have basically been put on hold. What action has the ministry taken with respect to beehive burners given that those alternatives are now not available?
Hon. J. Cashore: It may be overstating the case to say that alternatives such as cogeneration are not going to be available. Of course, the whole issue of the follow-up on the energy policy comes under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. But looking at issue of independent power, I have made the point all along -- and I think that the government has made the point all along -- that we have to consider environmental evaluations in making these decisions. That has to be part and parcel of the general framework in which we consider independent power. The point that I have often made, and indeed have made in these estimates already, is that if you have a project that can potentially resolve three environmental problems at
[ Page 6615 ]
one time, that has to be looked upon not only as having an environmental value but also as having a potential economic benefit. I think we have to look very carefully at co-generation as a very real and viable option but, because a number of complex issues have to be factored in when you are resolving that question, it has to be subject to a comprehensive way of dealing with it. In terms of the environmental problems that could be resolved, there's the wood waste problem, the leachate problem and the air quality problem. That stacks some economic environmental values on the side of considering co-gen.
I've also pointed out that in Oregon there is an industry that has developed around the remanufacture of wood waste, right down to very small particles of wood. They have produced this industry in Oregon and that's a good thing. What helped to produce the industry was environmental regulation. But now that they have the industry they have a problem with a shortage of wood supply. So when we're looking at wood waste, we need to ask whether there is an economic opportunity for a small business that should also be considered. I believe that several months ago I met with people who have been favouring a co-gen plant in the area you referred to. I know I've met with the people from the Houston area who have favoured the co-gen plant. A number of these projects are being put forward throughout the province, but a lot of policy work has to be done to make sure we do it right.
L. Fox: I just have a couple more very brief questions. I was interested in the answer with respect to the co-gen, but I believe economics will play a role in whether the best use of that wood waste is for co-generation or for some value-added product. And I don't know that any government policy directing it one way or the other is going to be successful. Obviously the environmental movement has promoted that initiative in Oregon, subtracting a good amount of the timber available to that industry and putting it in reserves, therefore lessening the ability of those respective mills to continue to operate. So they've had to look at more utilization. And I know the minister will want to respond to that; it kind of follows in the same vein.
Let me approach the other issue that has been detrimental to the agricultural industry in my region. I know the minister has received several letters on the burning policy brought into being last year. Obviously, that burning policy was an urban, not a rural, policy. I had assurances from the Agriculture minister over two months ago that that policy was going to be revamped to better reflect the region's needs. Obviously, when you're cleaning an agricultural lease, a ten cubic metre pile per hectare is not something which is achievable, or even affordable, by the agricultural community. But I was told only recently by the Agriculture minister that your ministry is holding up the renewing or changing of that policy. Would the minister like to respond to those two questions?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sure that the hon. member is very busy -- as all of us are -- and probably hasn't had time to read many of the news releases coming across his desk, but we have brought in a regulation that has set aside the ten-cubic-metre situation that the hon. member refers to, and I believe that regulation resolves the problem.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: When did it come in? I would say about seven weeks ago. Also, I think the member would be pleased to know that the regulation facilitates the development of a code of practice, which will be developed, again, involving consultation with the very groups that he's concerned about. This code of practice will help us to address the very important air quality issue, but in a way that doesn't create unnecessary problems for the farming community.
L. Fox: I only want to suggest that, in speaking to the Agriculture minister two days ago, he wasn't aware of the change, and he is also very busy. But only two days ago he informed me that it was your ministry holding up the development of the policy. So if there's some misunderstanding, it's not only me; it's also the Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think it's appropriate to make such a statement when the hon. Minister of Agriculture isn't in the House to speak for himself. I really do think it's inappropriate to impute words to a member of the House when that member is not in a position to at least respond and state their understanding of what the individual had said. Whatever the case may be, since this hon. member has a backlog and has difficulty getting through all of the material on his desk, we will send a copy to him so that he can see it on Monday.
L. Fox: Thank you. I wasn't imputing anything. I was only pointing out that the issue was still up in the air as far as the minister was concerned. If the minister wants to take shots at me, I could take shots right back. He tried to point out that I don't read my mail, which is totally incorrect. However, I'll leave that.
I have one more issue I spoke to this minister in last year's estimates about, and to my knowledge it has not been resolved: old service station sites and the fact that many of them are tied up and cannot be sold because of lack of consistent goalposts to describe what is acceptable in terms of groundwater levels of contamination or contamination within the dirt. Has there been any progress made with respect to this issue?
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member took anything I said as a shot, I apologize. What I did say was that I recognize the hon. member is very busy and probably doesn't have time to read all of the material that comes over his desk. Anybody seeing the comment of the hon. member on television might wonder why anybody does not manage to read everything that comes across the desk. It is a fact that there is a mountain of material that comes across our desks. So there is absolutely no intent whatsoever to take a shot at this hon. member. I am constantly being asked
[ Page 6616 ]
questions about information on my desk that I haven't got to yet. There was absolutely no intent to do that.
In the same vein, I would assume that the hon. member hasn't yet had time to read all of the bills that have been tabled in the House. If he would read a bill that I recently tabled -- the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1993 -- he would find that there is a section which deals with one part of the issue that the hon. member is referring to. This is future policy, so I know I'm verging on being out of order here. The other part of that issue is going to be addressed in the contaminated sites act, and that is soon to be brought forward.
J. Tyabji: It does get a little bit frustrating. I understand that some of the members can't be here for the debate, but we did canvass many of these things over the last few days, most particularly the one about jurisdiction with regard to aboriginal people. I would encourage all members from all sides of the House to review Hansard before participating so that we can proceed with some of the other issues. We've got a lot of ground to cover.
I'd like to close with the hydrological studies. There were 15 mentioned with regard to water quality, and 20 were mentioned with regard to water quantity. Perhaps, for the purposes of this debate proceeding, it is possible to obtain copies of the parameters by which those hydrological studies have been commissioned. When I was talking about net loss, I know that the Environment critic for the Socred Party was talking about simple subtraction of the volume versus the volume extracted. It's not quite that simple, because we know that the renewal sources for the groundwater aquifers are often hard to trace and that they vary from one year to the next. What has to be done, actually, is an annual monitoring of the aquifers to see if there is any net loss. So that we don't end up with a continued debate within the House, is it possible to get copies of the parameters by which the studies were commissioned? That's the first question.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to arrange to have this hon. member meet with our hydrology staff so they can address that. I would also like to advise the hon. member that she really doesn't have to wait for estimates to ask for such information or to ask to meet with staff. We'd be glad, any time during the year, to set up an appointment to discuss these issues.
I would like to return to something I said a moment ago in response to the member for Prince George-Omineca. I think something I said indicated that one of the two bills I referred to hadn't been introduced yet. Bills 25 and 26 have actually both been introduced by me, but Bill 26 contains most of the legislation that deals with that issue.
J. Tyabji: I know that we don't have to wait for estimates for this. However, as the minister is aware, the process of paper-shuffling is very long and involved, and we can often get answers much more quickly through the estimates. For those that take a bit more time, I'm quite happy to do through the traditional paper-shuffle. As well, a number of people have canvassed this, whether it be government policy, government direction or because they are upset about the government direction. I'd like to get to those issues a bit later in the debate, as far as an issue-by-issue question and answer. Then based on that, we can go back to the paper-shuffle. But I think this is a bit more efficient in terms of the time of the staff and the minister.
[12:00]
The second question with regard to the hydrological studies is: at the conclusion of them, will they be made public? Are they going to be public recommendations? Or will it be like much of the data provided for the state-of-the-environment report -- something that will go into the information banks of the ministry?
Hon. J. Cashore: Subject to the freedom-of-information legislation that this government has, which is the best in North America, they will be made public.
Also, with regard to paper-shuffling, I don't know what I said that could possibly have caused the member to think I was talking about paper-shuffling. I suggested that we arrange a meeting, at the earliest opportunity, between her and officials within our ministry. Again, I would say to the hon. member that the feedback I have had is that when MLAs have requested a meeting with our officials, we have done everything we could to arrange that at the earliest opportunity. Therefore I would be very pleased to arrange such a meeting, where many of these questions could be addressed.
J. Tyabji: For the minister's information, as far as I'm concerned, the paper-shuffle is what I refer to when -- as the minister knows -- we correspond back and forth on certain policies and directions of the government. That's just a euphemism for what we do.
Further to that, I don't think the minister would pretend that dialogue with his staff -- as excellent and efficient as they are -- can substitute for asking the minister directly for his interpretation and philosophy and for the procedures and direction of his ministry. I don't assume that the staff can speak on behalf of the minister. I know that they can speak on behalf of things they've commissioned. But with regard to what the minister's direction is, I prefer to hear it from the minister, either through the debate or through what I call the paper-shuffle. That's a bit irreverent on my part.
The member for Chilliwack talked a bit about fish farms. I know that we have an inherent problem in the way the government is set up. I'm not faulting the minister for it; I'm sure he agrees with me. Certain things fall under several jurisdictions -- federal and provincial, the added equation of the aboriginal, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests. There are all kinds of overlapping jurisdictions. However, with regard to the fish farms, the Ministry of Environment has a lot of jurisdiction with regard to the potential environmental impacts -- whether that be water quality or the ecosystem intervention of the fish farms -- which I have great concern with.
[ Page 6617 ]
I want to draw attention to some correspondence the minister and his staff have been receiving from the rain coast research group in Simoom Sound on the northern part of Vancouver Island. I know that the minister's staff and the minister himself have been canvassed at some length by one of the biologists there, Alexandra Morton, who, in her research on whales, has been monitoring the effects of fish farms on the ecosystem. I have become extremely concerned with what's happening there. As the member for Chilliwack mentioned, Atlantic salmon has been introduced to the coast; but we also have a change in the water ecosystem and some of the problems associated with fish farms, whether it's potential viral problems or problems with sea lice.
The reason I bring this up specifically is that if we look to the international arena for similar examples of the impact of fish farms on the environment, there is a very serious problem off the coast of Ireland, where sea trout and salmon have virtually disappeared. There's a debate, of course. Just as we have here, on the one hand there are the economic benefits of the fish farms, and on the other, the economic benefits of the wild fish industry. There are early indications that we may end up in a situation very similar to the one in Ireland. Is the minister aware of the problems in Galway Bay, and is his ministry using international examples of where fish farms have interrupted the natural ecosystem as information on the potential for problems in the North Island and coastal areas?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have travelled to North Island and met with some of the first nations groups there with regard to some of their concerns about this issue. It certainly is controversial. We are monitoring it, as I said before. We're very concerned about it. Between ourselves, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Fisheries Canada we are looking at all aspects of it. The concerns being expressed are real concerns, and we are seeking to address them appropriately. Any suggestions from members of the House would be considered helpful. I think, though, that the suggestions should be in the context of recognizing the importance of environmental protection, and they should also incorporate the concern with regard to the economic viability of the industry. It is an industry that does seek to be an appropriate family of good corporate citizens.
I've met with the industry and the seafood society. I've had a letter from Ms. Morton, and we are looking at all aspects of it. It certainly is something that has a great deal of public interest.
J. Tyabji: That's very helpful. I hope the minister is working with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well. I would also say that the people who have the fish farms are acting in good faith. When they put forward the capital investment in fish farms, they do so within the rules as they exist. However, this is such a new field that there wasn't the environmental evidence to suggest further regulation.
A letter went to the staff of the Ministry of Environment that I don't think the minister has seen. I'm not sure if he has seen the submissions with it with regard to Ireland. I'm happy to provide a copy of the background data. I just want to read a couple of paragraphs into the record. This is from Alexandra Morton in North Island:
"The situation here is extremely alarming. The sports fishermen who arrive every year are finding no fish this year. If this trend continues, and there is no way of knowing if it will, these waters could experience conditions already underway in western Ireland and northwest Scotland. In Ireland they write: `This region is the heartland of Ireland's game fishing. It was a sudden and almost total wipe-out, not merely a decline. The affected region represents less than 10 percent of Ireland's coastline. Since the mid-eighties, however, two-thirds of Ireland's salmon farms have set up in this area. Every major inlet from Clew Bay to Galway Bay now contains one or more salmon farms.'
"It is the same here where prawn fishermen, salmon fishermen, lodge owners, DFO field biologists, myself a marine mammal scientist and others can see deadly ramifications to the intense fish farming effort in these waters." She goes on from there to talk about the unregulated form of aquaculture and to say that there is a problem with the interruption of the coastline.
The quote that she'd given with regard to what's happening in Ireland is backed up by a panel of 21 top marine scientists who spent three years researching the fish farm situation off the coast of Ireland. Out of that panel of 21, 20 of them indicated that the fish farms were the cause of the virtual wipe-out of the salmon and the sea trout there; the one who didn't was employed by the fish farm companies and was the representative of those companies on the panel. I'm quite happy to provide this background information if it's not already in the minister's hands.
I would be very interested to hear what discussions are being undertaken by the Ministry of Environment in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to being sensitive to the fish farms, but also bringing in regulation or monitoring or some form of change in the way the fish farms are operating so we don't have the same problem as Ireland.
Hon. J. Cashore: We'll send the hon. member a copy of our response to the letter she just read into the record.
With regard to the question of what are we doing in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the federal Department of Fisheries, I've already answered that question. I've said there's extensive consultation. We're in constant contact, and I think there's nothing more to be said about that.
H. De Jong: It's indeed a pleasure to participate for little while in these discussions on the environment, which is certainly a very important part of our lives. I can appreciate the difficulty of dealing with environmental situations because there is always another side to such things as to how far we can go, when we should stop, and how we can repair certain situations that perhaps shouldn't have occurred in the past.
The first question I would like to ask the minister is regarding the Nooksack River. The minister is well
[ Page 6618 ]
aware of the flooding of the Nooksack River that took place a couple of years ago in Sumas Prairie. There have been numerous meetings since between the United States representatives and the British Columbia representatives, and I've seen some of the ministry personnel at these meetings, which I appreciate. But sometimes when you come to these meetings you begin to wonder whether the political interest is as strong on the U.S. side as it is on the British Columbia side.
Certainly any change that would have to be made to the Nooksack River could have an effect on a larger populated area in Washington, and I suppose the politicians are trying to put this into the hands of the bureaucrats more or less to find some small ways of changing a bridge, or the abutments or the pillars of a bridge in the river. When you sit at these meetings you say: "Well, if that's all they can think of doing, what is the point of continuing to meet with them?" At the same time I appreciate the continuation of these meetings. But I would just like to know from the minister what progress has been made to date, or what we can expect to hear from Washington in the near future. There is certainly a concern on the part of the residents and the farmers in Sumas Prairie.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is right; we still have good cooperation at the staff level. Our deputy minister is on the B.C.-Washington Environmental Cooperation Council. The fact that the deputy minister attends those meetings is an indication of the high importance that I, as the minister, and our ministry places on this issue. I do share the member's frustration. Because most of the cards are south of the line, we do have this problem. For instance, in recognizing the need to get some dredging done in that river, there is apparently some concern that it might have an impact on the homeowners in Bellingham Bay at the estuary of the river. I can also tell the hon. member that the Premier has raised this issue with both the outgoing Governor and the new Governor of Washington State. It is on a list of significant environmental issues that we are seeking to address together.
[12:15]
I also want to advise the member that every year in late October, November and early December, I keep my fingers crossed when fall storms come along, and hope that we won't have a repeat of what happened in 1990 and 1991. We have looked at some of the infrastructures in that area that could be impacted if there was a repeat of those floods. We are not only looking at our prime agricultural land, which is important; we are also looking at the Trans-Canada Highway, gas pipelines and other infrastructures. So it is certainly a very difficult situation.
On many occasions I have met with Mayor Ferguson of Abbotsford. If we get together at the opening of a hatchery, for instance, we end up talking about the Nooksack River. We are doing everything humanly possible within this ministry to move that issue forward and get the cooperation from Washington State necessary to resolve that problem. I don't want to simplify the problem, but a lot of it has to do with their willingness to do the dredging that is required to prevent further flooding.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the minister's answer and the input and efforts that are continually being put forth. I hope those efforts will continue in the future. Any meeting that I can attend, I will do so as the local representative.
This brings me to the other point. While the minister is very supportive of the dredging of the Nooksack River -- because that is the only answer, along with some diking that is required, to bring the water down faster to the ocean -- we have a similar problem in the Chilliwack River valley. The Chilliwack River, the Vedder Canal and the Vedder River are no different from the Nooksack River in that overall aspect.
I realize that a study has been completed on the Chilliwack River valley by Mr. Hay. There are a number of recommendations in the study, but it lacks that basic principle of bringing back the river bottom, you might say, to what it was 15 to 20 years ago. We have the same type of buildup of gravel in that river as there is in the Nooksack River. There are millions of dollars' worth of good gravel which could be used in the building industry, rather than mining gravel out of the hillsides, and if done in an appropriate way, I don't think it would be endangering the fish habitat at all. The study is very weak on this point. I am sure that the minister has been updated on the main points of the study. I understand a meeting is scheduled in the early part of June with the Chilliwack River Valley Ratepayers' Association, and I appreciate that that meeting is finally taking place. However, I would like to know what is in the proposed budget to start the work that is anticipated from the recommendations of the Hay study of the Chilliwack River?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think I need to say much with regard to the content of this issue, because the hon. member has done an excellent job of outlining the current status of the study and the process on the recommendations. This is an issue that we must work on very carefully with Fisheries and Oceans, because, as the hon. member points out, when it comes to dredging the gravel, there are concerns about how that may impact spawning channels and the "reds," as they're called in the trade.
With regard to the question of dollars allocated to that mitigation work in this fiscal year, I don't have that information with me. It could be that dollars are not allocated for this year, but we will try to get back to you on that. We don't have that information with us in the House at this time.
H. De Jong: I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't know the dollar amounts, but at the same time I hope that he would be able to find some dollars so that at least some of the work can be started this year. I'm sure the minister has received letters similar to the copies I have received. The residents are really concerned that nothing may be done before next fall. Even though there may not have been floods in the last couple of years, the buildup of the banks is continuing.
[ Page 6619 ]
Certainly there isn't as much room for volume flow in the river today as there was three years ago, and everybody knows that, because no substantial amount of gravel has been removed from that river. If those mitigation measures, as the minister calls them, could be done properly -- with time limits acceptable to gravel operators, so that they could at least stockpile the gravel on the higher levels -- I believe that much of the work could be done from the revenues that can be derived from that river.
I know that the minister is concerned about the federal officials, but surely the fish are the same. Why are the regulations so different? We've been battling this for years now. We talk about the federal government providing all this money for the Green Plan for the maintenance of the Fraser River, to which this one is a tributary. It's a really good spawning ground. The Chilliwack River has always been a haven for sport fishermen, and I hope it will continue to be. I believe if we look at the overall economic spinoffs that come from the Chilliwack River, surely it deserves more attention than a vague answer that there may not be any money this year.
Again, I must emphasize that I don't believe it takes any additional money if the proper approach is taken in removing the gravel and providing the necessary spawning channels. The way the river has been going, I'm sure more fish eggs are lost in that river at present, with the way it has been built up, than would be lost if it was cleaned out. I believe there would be an enhancement to the fish stocks as such. Perhaps the minister wants to comment.
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for the points that he's making. I think that he's making some very astute observations and suggestions.
With regard to the June meeting with the ratepayers that the hon. member refers to, that's a significant meeting where a number of these issues are going to be addressed. It's premature right now to say exactly what should be done with regard to some of these specific suggestions, but we need to be moving in that direction.
Also, our assistant deputy minister in environmental management will be meeting with Mayor Ferguson on June 9 to discuss the issues and recommendations in the report. With regard to the allocation of dollars for that project, we will have to come back with that information, which I will seek to have available early next week in response to the question. And I think I need to state the caveat that the government has been trying very hard to cut costs, and when you do cut costs there's some pain that ends up impacting on all of us in our various areas. Having said that, we will try to get that information.
H. De Jong: On the subject of nitrate levels, I know that there has been some concern about this. I also know that many of these concerns have been perhaps not totally removed, but they have been looked at and they have been acted upon. There have been a number of farmers who probably were guilty of some very poor farm practices, you might say, which in fact did allow filtration into the aquifer system of the Abbotsford-Matsqui area.
But we must also consider that the farming community is under continual pressure to produce more in order to make things pay. We know that land prices and taxes are rising, that there are increased taxes and that new taxes are being added, and it's all a cost to the producer. While 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre may have done back in the seventies, it may now take 150 or 175 pounds of nitrogen to get the production in order to cover the costs of working that same acre of land. I suppose that in the long run some more nitrogen will be lost into ditches and streams. But at the same time, this farmer has no other option, because if he doesn't use fertilizer, he will be out of business before very long.
We can talk about increasing nitrogen levels -- and I suppose we have to be concerned about that. But at the same time, most of the farming areas in the Abbotsford-Matsqui area, with the exception of a few small pockets, have community water systems, so the effect on the health issue isn't there in a direct sense. This brings me, really, to the point of asking: how far does the Ministry of Environment want to push the farmer in a direction he cannot go?
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, the hon. member is making some very good points that outline how difficult this issue is. A number of points were made. With regard to this issue, the Ministries of Agriculture, Health and Environment released a report about two months ago that addresses the issue of nitrates and pesticide residues. I don't know if the hon. member has had an opportunity to see that. If not, we should make that available to him.
With regard to the way this issue impacts the community water supply, there are still legitimate groundwater concerns that have to be monitored, and they have to be appropriately addressed. So that is a good example of the kind of issue that we need to address in coming up with an appropriate water quality approach in this province. We are working on it, and I think I would have to leave my comments at that.
[12:30]
H. De Jong: I will end my questions today, but I will have some more next week. I do want to ask one more question on the situation of water management, under the category of water management planning and in-stream users.
In the district of Matsqui, some years ago, we applied for an ARDSA program. The key to getting the ARDSA program so that the farms of the Matsqui prairie lowlands could be properly drained was the highest rate of return on value. I note that there is a discussion paper in your ministry dealing with water allocation which brings back the highest value. From a farming point of view, if they had simply used the return on the land as a cost recovery index, against the cost that would be incurred on the installation of an ARDSA program...it would have been very difficult to do this simply on a return of value. What was totally minimized by the ministries at the time -- it was a federal-provincial program -- was the actual value of
[ Page 6620 ]
the land being increased according to whether it was drained properly or improperly. And you simply could not go on a cost return basis in order to establish that. Finally, when it came through, the farmers were most happy to bear the cost of that ARDSA installation, because they knew it would not only increase the production and improve the quality of the crop, but also improve the quality of the land. And the land is the basic issue.
We now deal with a similar matter in a somewhat different way. But surely the Minister of Environment isn't intending, because there's ranching land worth only $150, $250 or perhaps even $1,000 per acre compared to $20,000 an acre for land closely related to an urban area up in the Okanagan or elsewhere, to then say this land has only so much value in comparison to the ultimate use that this water could have, and these areas shouldn't have this water. Is that the intent, hon. minister, of this highest-value distribution of water?
Hon. J. Cashore: In developing an appropriate pricing policy, we have to look at the various ways that are available. In order to do that appropriately, we have to look at an array of suggestions. I think it would be very premature to extrapolate from whatever information the hon. member is referring to that this is a becoming a hard-and-fast policy. Obviously, as I've said many times, we're going through a process of consultation based on a discussion paper, so it's premature to make that type of an assumption at this point. Obviously the point that he's making, the concern that he's raising, will be raised in the context of the discussion process that we are soon to be launching.
D. Jarvis: We're all probably aware, and you more so, of the low storage content of most of our reservoirs around the province -- in the lakes and everything. I want to canvass an aspect of the southeast corner, in the Kootenays, with regard to areas such as Lake Koocanusa and the Kootenay River that are drying up. There's irreparable damage being caused to riverbanks and the sides of lakes, and there is loss of fish habitat and loss of the kokanee and cutthroat, etc., that are going through the turbines. I appreciate that it's basically a Hydro problem. But do you have any input with Hydro with regard to the fact that the wild-range animals are being disrupted because of the Americans drawing off all that water?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. We're meeting with B.C. Hydro next week on this very issue.
D. Jarvis: I was just wondering if you have any specific proposals that you're going to suggest to them -- a way of rectifying the draw-off -- because come June 1, which is or in the next couple of days, they're going to be drawing off more water. It's down to the 150-foot level of Lake Koocanusa now, and it'll go right down to a streambed if it's not stopped.
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be premature for me to comment on any specific proposals at this time. We have the ESOR operations review, which is dealing with both the energy and environmental needs. Staff from our ministry and from Hydro are working together on the very issue that the hon. member outlined. So it is being addressed by people who have expertise in the area. The issue is clearly before us. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, as I have said, is meeting with B.C. Hydro on a diligent and timely basis to address the issue.
D. Jarvis: Probably the only way it can be addressed properly is that they need more water in the area. I was wondering whether you would recommend that they prepare to draw on the reservoirs, such as Duncan and Arrow Lakes.
Hon. J. Cashore: I will certainly take the hon. member's points and recommendations under consideration.
D. Jarvis: Is your ministry having any input into the committees that are now reviewing the Columbia River Treaty's repatriation?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are working with the Ministry of Energy on that.
R. Chisholm: Why are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks not coordinated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to health and safety regulations? Currently, a processing plant must pass inspections from the Ministries of Health and Environment as well as Agriculture. Couldn't some tasks be combined in order to save time and energy?
Hon. J. Cashore: I must confess that I don't have an answer. I really don't know the parameters of the question. The hon. member would need to make more information available so that we can identify what is needed to respond.
R. Chisholm: What I'm referring to is that when a plant opens, it has to go through your department for a certain amount of regulation, and through Health and Agriculture for a certain amount. Couldn't it be combined in some way to make it a little more efficient and a little less time- and energy-consuming? The way things are now, between these three ministries it takes forever and a day to start up a project.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the approach the hon. member is suggesting, I think it makes a great deal of sense. It behooves government to always be looking for ways to make our planning and regulatory work less confusing to the public and more efficient. If there is a specific example of where that is not happening -- and I notice the member is eager to rise to his feet, so I think he probably does have a specific example -- we will certainly take that information and seek to find out why that cooperation isn't happening, if it's not, and we will address it. Certainly we in government should be seeking to harmonize and find ways of making these regulatory processes function to fulfil their purpose. At the same time, we should be diligent about that and not cause unnecessary delays.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, when you get back to the Queen Charlotte City commercial fishing plant
[ Page 6621 ]
proposal, take a look at these same types of regulations. This is what is creating the havoc and the waiting time; and of course, jobs and that type of thing are not being created due to this being held up by the bureaucracy.
I'll go on to another area, though. Organic farming and gardening has provided safe food. Is your ministry looking into ways of enhancing this type of agriculture and assisting these people to get into organic farming, considering that there seems to be an ever-growing market for that type of food? It gets rid of the pesticides and herbicides that are partially contaminating our aquifers.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's an interesting question in light of the previous question. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I think it behooves us not to get into a regulatory morass, where we have several different ministries having a regulatory function for organic farming.
Having said that, we have recently released the pest management guidelines, which function jointly between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Environment. Through those guidelines we are seeking to help some aspects of the organic farming industry in that regard. But again, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food appropriately has the lead role in this, and we appropriately keep a watching brief and are in consultation.
R. Chisholm: The reason I ask that of this minister, of course, is that nitrates and pesticide contamination come under page 31 of your study, and page 66, where it says that we need to control pesticides and herbicides. So it's a joint effort between Agriculture and Environment, I would think.
On another question, water taxes and licence fees for cattlemen have gone up 97 percent in the last two years, which is a great weight when you consider that this industry is very close to demise in this province due to the costs. Are you expecting to see any more increase in licence fees, especially at a time when there are droughts and not that much water available?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that's a question of future policy.
[12:45]
R. Chisholm: It may be future policy to the minister, but unfortunately for the cattlemen, it's present policy when they are going bankrupt. They really do need to know where they are going to get the water and what it's going to cost them, especially when all the other fees have increased.
Another question to the minister. Prior to this government getting into power they made a promise, promise No. 34, which stated: "We will declare a moratorium on new aquaculture ventures and increase support for salmonid enhancement programs." One point to you, hon. minister. Since that promise, we haven't had the moratorium, and I kind of wonder why, considering that it affects the environment a great deal, as we've already talked about. We have had 70 increases of licences, and we have renewed 26 more licences. We still have not had the moratorium. We've had quarantines on fish farms. We have had an increase of 50 percent in the Atlantic salmon introduced to B.C. waters in the same time frame. I'm just wondering, hon. minister, if we are ever going to see a moratorium or a study as to what effects aquaculture will have on our environment in this province. I realize this is a shining star in the way of an industry; this is a way of the future. But we have to crawl before we walk and we have to walk before we run. And we haven't seemed to have done either very well with the previous government or with this one.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I am advised that we do have a regulation requiring that aquaculture environmental monitoring data be reported to the ministry.
With regard to the commitments the government made in coming to power, I would point out that we are only 18 months into a mandate. The hon. member says that we must crawl before we can walk. We're doing things one step at a time. We have no apology whatsoever with regard to the enormous number of very significant environmental initiatives we have accomplished in the very short time we've been government. As a matter of fact, no government could ever claim the quality and quantity of environmental measures -- set-asides for natural habitat and some very significant initiatives with regard to environmental protection.
It reminds me of the poet Robert Frost's line: "But I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep." We have a long way to go, hon. member. We are getting there appropriately, with careful planning, being cognizant of the many issues we have to be cognizant of as we move forward in these areas.
R. Chisholm: Considering that you promised the moratorium, I suggest you should have had the moratorium prior to issuing seven new licences. You don't put the cart before the horse. You don't close the barn doors after the horse has left. That's how you do it, hon. minister; and as far as your other members are concerned, that would be leadership.
The second part of the question was: what is this ministry doing -- if you're involved at all -- about salmonoid enhancement programs? Also, what are you doing about the trout hatchery programs?
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be helpful if the hon. member could be more specific, instead of asking such a broad, generalized question as what we are doing about the salmonoid program. I don't even know what a salmonoid program is. I've heard of salmonid enhancement programs, but....
R. Chisholm: Well, just to embarrass the minister a little bit more.... Promise No. 34 says -- and I'll quote to you your writing:
"We will fight to protect B.C.'s fishing industry threatened by the Mulroney trade deal. When they supported the Mulroney trade deal, the Vander Zalm Socreds also joined Ottawa in abandoning B.C.'s fishing industry. A New Democrat government will provide leadership in working with all sectors of the industry to
[ Page 6622 ]
conserve our fishery and to protect the jobs and communities which depend upon it."
The last statement should be very interesting to you, hon. minister. "We will declare a moratorium on new aquaculture ventures and increase support for salmonoid enhancement programs." Those are your words; that's your document, hon. minister. I am asking you what you are doing about the salmon enhancement program, which has been cut by this government since you've come into power. What are you going to do about it, and where is the moratorium -- before you put in new licences?
Hon. J. Cashore: There's no attempt to disagree with the fact that allocations of money toward fisheries enhancement programs have been cut. That is a fact. That's out there; it's information before the public. If the hon. member reads the budget information that was made available to him several months ago, he will see that he has that information.
As a matter of fact, I have to tell hon. members that I'm surprised, given the article that's in the Vancouver Sun today, that the opposition's been dithering around on some stream-of-consciousness questions when there's the article in the paper by Mark Hume. I'll read the headline. It says: "Cutback in Budget Means 100 Lakes Won't Get Trout." I can't imagine why the Liberal opposition hasn't been asking questions about this right off the bat, having this opportunity in estimates today.
I'm prepared to stand up here and say that as the minister I'm in a very awkward situation, having had to accept this cut in our budget, because I think these programs are very important. But at the same time we've listened to the Liberal opposition stand in this House saying, on the one hand, spend, spend, spend, and on the other hand, cut, cut, cut. Now maybe we can hear from them about how they want to be able to get out of the taxi on both sides at the same time -- since we want to carry on the tradition of mixing metaphors here this morning.
J. Tyabji: I think it's a very strange day when we have the Minister of Environment waving newspaper articles and trying to direct a strategy for Environment estimates. The minister is well aware, because he's received written correspondence from me inquiring about the situation with regard to government fish farms and the regulation of the fish farms.... With regard to the article in the Vancouver Sun today, that's something I think there has to be some background research on, because we've had serious problems with viral outbreaks at some of the enhancement areas. That was my last correspondence to the minister on that. I thought it was only responsible not to play cheap politics in the estimates and bring up a newspaper article. I'm waiting for a written response from the minister on the inquiries that I made very specifically as to whether or not this government is concerned about the repeated viral outbreaks. Are any background biological studies being done? I did not bring up the article in today's Sun in deference to the minister and in recognition of the important issues that we have to cover.
Seeing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived.
J. Tyabji: I guess the government would like us to remind them about the broken promise with regard to the proposed moratorium on aquaculture ventures. I'm happy to do that for another three minutes. I thought the minister had had enough for one day.
The member for Chilliwack drew to the minister's attention the fact that this government, before they were elected, promised a moratorium on fish farms. Recognizing that further licences for fish farms have recently been granted, the minister is trying to say that the government has followed a step-by-step process on aquaculture ventures. That clearly is not the case. We on the opposition side are wondering whether the minister thinks they've been through the process of crawling, walking and then running. In a vacuum of biological studies to say that the ecosystem can be protected with fish farms operating on the coast, why are fish farm licences still being granted, given that this government promised they wouldn't do that?
That's a valid question, and it was asked by the member for Chilliwack. The minister has the audacity to stand up and quote Robert Frost as far as having promises to keep. Yes, this government has promises to keep. One is environmental responsibility. The Robert Frost poem I would like to bring forward is "The Road Not Taken": "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both...." This government promised during the election that one road would be followed; clearly they have gone in the other direction since the election. It's inexcusable. It's irresponsible. There are going to be dramatic impacts on the ecosystem because of the continued granting of fish farm licences.
Since the minister wanted to continue that line of inquiry, I'm happy to do so. I'm happy to stay after one o'clock to ask him about some accountability in terms of what is happening to the environment with the continued operation and enhancement of the fish farm industry in a vacuum of biological research which says that's it safe.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's interesting that so many of the questions this morning should probably have been put to other ministers, whether that be the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or whomever.
We've canvassed this issue. If the member wants to continue with her stream of consciousness, she may carry on.
J. Tyabji: Given the seriousness of the problems in front of us, I think it is regrettable that we haven't had an answer from the minister as to why they broke the promise for a moratorium on granting fish farm licences. There is evidence to suggest that there's been ecosystem interference by the existing farms. There are international examples of devastation because of the fish farm industry being over-concentrated in one area. It is truly unfortunate that the Minister of Environment
[ Page 6623 ]
has not provided those answers but has tried to pass the buck to other ministries. Everyone recognizes that the regulation and preservation of the ecosystems of this province is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Environment.
There are overlapping jurisdictions with other ministries, but the Ministry of Environment is the umbrella ministry that is ultimately responsible for the environment. It's extremely unfortunate that the minister is trying to make light of the things that we brought forward today.
Originally we brought them forward in a conciliatory tone with a lot of inquiries. I have tried to make letter inquiries so that we don't end up in controversial debate that doesn't advance the public interest. It does advance the public interest to find out why the moratorium promise wasn't kept, why licences continue to be granted and why there is no biological study saying fish farms are safe.
Hon. J. Cashore: These questions were answered 20 minutes ago in this House. There's no need to answer them again.
R. Chisholm: The minister has said that this is not his area of responsibility. I just wonder why he signed a document saying 'Minister's Message' at the front of this book. On page 35, it starts talking about aquaculture. If some areas are not his responsibility, why would he even stop to debate them with us? Hon. minister, my question to you is: if this isn't your area of responsibility, and the Minister of Agriculture says exactly the same thing when we ask him a question, just who the heck is responsible over on that side, in the government?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that really is a pathetic question. The Liberal opposition has been using...
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: ...the Ministry of Environment's state-of-the-environment report, in lieu of having done primary research to enable them....
[1:00]
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. member....
An Hon. Member: Yes, sir.
The Chair: I must bring you to order. The hon. member knows full well that he should not speak from his seat. Members are to be recognized before they are to speak in debate, and the hon. member is clearly out of order. I would warn the hon. member that if he persists with this behaviour, he is going to be asked to leave the chamber.
Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was responding to a question about the state-of-the-environment report. The hon. member who asked the question about the state-of-the-environment report said something to this effect: how can the Minister of Environment not agree that something that's referred to in the state-of-the-environment report is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment? The fact is, hon. member, there are responsibilities allocated to several ministers within government. Yes, the state-of-the-environment report was produced by the Ministry of Environment, but with input from many ministries within government. The juxtaposition that the hon. member puts forward -- that somehow the issue reported on would be, de facto, in the mandate of the Ministry of Environment -- is preposterous. It is not necessarily so.
Hon. Chair, anybody observing the debates that have taken place in this House today and in the Douglas Fir Room will acknowledge readily that the ministers have given a great deal of leeway in answering some of these questions. Indeed, on some occasions the Chair has advised and admonished ministers, saying that, in some instances, we are answering questions that appropriately should be put to other ministers. I want to point out that I was the opposition Environment critic for three years and never would I walk into the House, randomly read from a report that somebody else had produced and carry on a stream-of-consciousness reflection, in lieu of having incisive questions that related to the issues of the day.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
Would the hon. minister please come to order. I would warn the hon. minister that while his remarks may be of interest, they are inappropriate in light of the guidelines in the standing orders with respect to when we are in committee.
All members should realize that we cannot maintain order if we are allowed too much latitude, although it has been the practice of the House to allow reasonable latitude in order that members may function spontaneously. But clearly we have overstepped those parameters this afternoon.
G. Farrell-Collins: With due regard to your comments, I intend to be very brief. I would just put on the record that from time to time throughout the estimates process, it is often very difficult to receive answers from ministers. They very often defer the question to other ministers.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Patience, please, people. I think it's important that it be on....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Has the member risen on a point of order?
G. Farrell-Collins: No, I'm speaking to the estimates, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair would ask that all members, when speaking on the estimates, stick strictly to the matter which is before us. If there is a matter to be dealt with regarding the
[ Page 6624 ]
standing orders and the practices of the House, the Chair will address those matters, with the guidance of the committee.
Would the hon. member please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly, all that is needed for the public to be able to analyze this minister's estimates and to know what this minister is responsible for and what things he is in fact dealing with within his ministry is that he answer the questions pertaining to his ministry and that the other ministers answer the questions pertaining to theirs. It's important for the public interest that they do that and that they do not refer those questions to other ministers.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report remarkable progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: This has been a very productive week. I'd like to take this opportunity to wish all members an enjoyable long weekend -- I'm sorry, an enjoyable weekend; it's not long.
With that said, I move the House adjourn until 2 o'clock Monday or at the call of the Chair.
K. Jones: You can't resolve the education problem?
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm going to ask the hon. House Leader to repeat the motion. It appears that some members may not have heard the motion.
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe the member from Surrey didn't want to go back home, and I can understand why his constituents....
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm going to call the hon. member to order so that we can hear the motion.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until 2 o'clock Monday or at the earlier call of the Chair.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:06 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]