1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 8
[ Page 10067 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some residents of Coquitlam concerned about funding to construct schools for School District 43. The petition reads that: "We the undersigned are petitioning the provincial government to release funds to construct schools for School District No. 43 in Coquitlam."
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, I call the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates; in Committee B, I call the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House, on the first occasion in my experience, to deal with environment issues and to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism. The mandate of the ministry is to improve the quality of our environment in British Columbia. There are challenges in terms of the areas that we as a ministry believe require attention and where British Columbians indicate that attention is required.
In addition to that, it seems to me that we ought to also recognize the remarkable progress this administration has made in its first two years of dealing with environmental issues. I must say that I am very fortunate to have followed in the rather large footsteps of the former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks: my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. He did some significant and pioneering work with regard to environmental matters in British Columbia. In fact, the track record that my colleague established with regard to environmental issues really puts B.C. at the forefront of environmental regulation, policy and protection in Canada. No other province in this country can boast the environmental track record that we have here in British Columbia. I think that my predecessor did an outstanding job of making sure that the environment ethic that is so strongly felt by British Columbians is interwoven into policy decisions made by government around environmental matters.
As a consequence of that pioneering work, my predecessor made sure that British Columbia has the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards in North America -- and, some would argue, in the world. In fact, I see a former Minister of Environment smiling over there; I'm sure that he knows of the controversy that occurred when his government tried to change the standards. The standards right now are 1.5 AOX per tonne: a world-leading standard. At the time our administration brought those standards in, they were questioned by the industry. The industry said it couldn't happen, it was going to be too expensive and there wasn't any scientific basis for implementing those regulations. One of the more pleasurable duties that I had this year as Minister of the Environment was to actually congratulate the industry at a meeting in Port Mellon for not only achieving our standards but also exceeding those standards. The industry average is now about 1.4 AOX per tonne. They have made a commitment of $1.4 billion in expenditures necessary to bring us up to that standard. Now British Columbia can not only say that it has the toughest standards, but we can also show that industry has come through in terms of meeting them. My hat is off to the industry for being able to achieve that, and my hat is off to the environmental movement in British Columbia for encouraging government to establish those standards.
We have a standard that requires the discharge level to be at zero by the year 2002. Again, I hear the industry saying that it can't be done, that it's going to cost too much and that it's scientifically impossible to achieve. I've heard that before. I want to make it clear to all hon. members that this government is committed to meeting the challenge of zero discharge, and there will be no wobbling on the part of this government in terms of achieving that goal.
My colleague the former Minister of Environment, much to his credit, also made sure that the province brought forward the toughest standards in North America with regard to CFCs. We all know that CFCs have a significant negative impact on the ozone layer, and we also know about the impact on our health by the depletion of the ozone layer around the globe. Consequently, as a government we felt that we had to take initiative and leadership in developing the toughest standards in North America with regard to CFCs. We've done that, and we're proud of it. Our plan with regard to CFCs is, again, something we're totally committed to. Again, there will be no wavering on the part of this administration.
Shortly after I had the occasion to take over the responsibilities of Minister of Environment -- I left the labour environment and moved into this field -- I indicated that I was not pleased with the past practices that related to forest activity in British Columbia. As I indicated at the time, we have had a history of inadequate management of our forests, and we are seeing the impact of that now. We are seeing some of the assaults in Europe -- misguided as many of them are -- in terms of our products being boycotted. We have witnessed tremendous job loss and dislocation in resource communities throughout the province over the last decade, in particular in communities where companies have logged and left.
We need to radically change the way in which we deal with our forests. I'm pleased that I, in conjunction with my seatmate in the House, the Minister of Forests, have been working closely to establish B.C.'s first forest practices code. For the first time in the history of British Columbia we will actually have a document that lays out the way in which logging can occur in this province and, more importantly, that materially changes the way in which we manage our forests. For the first time in the history of our province we will have a code -- 419 new guidelines -- backed up by tough enforcement by both the Ministry of Forests and my ministry. I'd be delighted during the course of estimates to amplify the role that my ministry will be playing so that we not only respond to that overwhelming desire on the part of British Columbians to change the way in which we manage
[ Page 10068 ]
our forests but we also back it up by making sure that the appropriate enforcement is occurring in the field.
[10:15]
It seems to me that by bringing in the new Forest Practices Code, we will be responding to strong public sentiment. I saw that yesterday when I was speaking at Esquimalt Secondary to a lot of the students in my constituency, who obviously have a very strong environmental ethic. Most British Columbians are inclined to change the way we manage our forests, because we've seen too many images of poor forest practices in the past: roads that have collapsed, streams that have been impacted and fish habitat that has been destroyed. In my view, we will also be giving industry a shield against many of the attacks that are occurring overseas. If industry can say, "Our government has brought forward a new Forest Practices Code, which places new onuses and obligations on the industry," that is the best sales tool in meeting the attacks that are occurring in Europe. So the introduction of a new Forest Practices Code in British Columbia has benefits both domestically and internationally. We're very excited about proposing B.C.'s first forest practices code, which changes the way in which we manage our forests and is backed up with tough enforcement.
I'm delighted with last week's announcement of the forest renewal plan. It's a plan to make sure that we reverse the trend toward job loss in the forest industry and tend to our forests in a far more productive and sensitive way, by making provision for a fund that is supported by environmentalists and the forest industry. We have established a fund that will allow us, in a holistic way, to deal with the forest resources that we have inherited in British Columbia. It will allow us to do the work that we need to do in silviculture, replanting and reharvesting the forest base in the province. It will allow us to do the commercial thinning that is long overdue. More importantly, it will allow us to create jobs in the area of value-added manufacturing.
There is tremendous potential in our forest resource. We are privileged to be living in British Columbia and to have access to the environment that we have, the kinds of resources that environment provides to our people, and the kinds of employment opportunities it provides. By taking this broader approach in the forest renewal plan, we are saying to resource communities throughout the province that we're on their side, that we believe in community stability and that we can establish a scheme of sustainability in forest communities. Not only are we speaking to the need to preserve good, well-paying jobs throughout British Columbia, but on the other side of the coin we are indicating in a very powerful way that the environmental ethic is a cornerstone of the development of these policies. So we are working toward a balance between forest and the environment, which I think most British Columbians want.
One way to achieve that balance is to make sure that we engage in proper land use planning in British Columbia. That leads me to the discussion about CORE -- the protected areas strategy -- which is a significant area of activity on the part of the officials in my ministry. We try to engage in proper land use planning throughout British Columbia, much the same way as a municipality may zone lands within its own jurisdiction, where it decides what is to be set aside for industrial, commercial, housing or parks purposes. We are trying to take an overview of the map of the province, particularly with regard to Vancouver Island, which I know is of particular concern to you, hon. Chair, as well as to the Cariboo and the Kootenays. We try to zone the map of those regions so that people in British Columbia know which lands are being set aside for forest purpose, which lands are to be dedicated for park and which lands can be put aside for other uses.
The protected areas and the CORE strategies are significant in meeting with communities and trying to meet the difficult challenges of land use planning. They move us away from valley-by-valley conflict and allow us to engage in the kind of overview planning which has been missing for so long in this province. I look forward to discussing with colleagues in this Legislature the enormous challenges that face this government as a consequence of the CORE and protected areas strategies.
One of the commitments we made -- and which we're very serious about -- is doubling the number of parks and wilderness areas in British Columbia on a representative basis to 12 percent from the current 6 percent. As a government, we believe that more areas in this province can be set aside, particularly as parks. I'm pleased to say that between 1972 and 1975, the former NDP administration doubled protected areas from roughly 3 percent to roughly 6 percent. We have indicated that we would like to take it from 6 percent to 12 percent. Already this government has made some remarkable decisions in that regard.
The determination we made with regard to Tatshenshini and the setting aside of that park was long overdue. It protects one of British Columbia's most unique areas. It is a decision which we have been applauded for on an international basis, and a decision which we take a lot of pride in as an administration. I know that members of the opposition suggested last year that we should allow mining in that park. I can assure all hon. members that will not occur. We established a world-class park.
One of the privileges I had -- I believe around January -- was to be up in Williams Lake with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, who is the MLA for that area -- Cariboo South. We established one of British Columbia's most significant parks in the Chilko Lake area. What is significant about the establishment of that park is not so much that it was established but that it was a product of consensus, where environmentalists, loggers, the mining industry and others -- natives, in particular -- met and decided that area should be set aside as a park. I must say that I was surprised with some of the reaction we received afterwards. Although I did not fully appreciate the beauty of the area, others had. I remember the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, for example, putting out a press release indicating it was the Banff or Lake Louise of British Columbia. That's an apt description of the quality of the area that we put aside.
We also are committed to putting aside significant green spaces as parks in urban areas. There is no better example of that than in the remarkable, unprecedented historical decision that we've just made as a government in setting aside lands at Gowlland Range, Tod Inlet and on the Fama lands at Mount Finlayson just outside of Victoria. It is a remarkable area of immense environmental value to the people of British Columbia and the greater Victoria area. On a personal basis, it's a decision that I am very proud of, and which would not have been possible without the strong support of my colleagues from southern Vancouver Island. All of those New Democrat members from this area worked aggressively to realize that legacy, and the Commonwealth Nature Legacy will serve generations to come. As I have said on many occasions, we are blessed with our environment in British Columbia. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit an environment that is as safe, clean and bountiful as the one that we have enjoyed on Vancouver Island. The decision with regard to Gowlland ensures that
[ Page 10069 ]
future generations will be able to enjoy the treasures of that area forever.
Our activities have not been restricted to southern Vancouver Island. We have established the south Okanagan management area outside of Osoyoos, where I believe about 33 percent -- I'm working from memory there -- of the red-listed endangered species reside. We have protected those species through the establishment of the south Okanagan wildlife management area decision, which I had the privilege to announce, along with my colleague the Minister of Tourism -- the MLA for that area -- and the representative from Penticton.
Again, I must congratulate my colleague from Nelson-Creston, who was very vigorous in lobbying for the establishment of the Creston Valley wildlife management area. The regional minister -- the Minister of Energy -- was adamant that we take affirmative steps to protect that area for generations to come. Not only have we taken a step to protect that through the wildlife management designation in that region, but it is one of only two areas in British Columbia that has been nominated as a Ramsar international designation -- salvaged from the Ramsar convention in Iran. Under United Nations designation, these lands are recognized as significant wildlife areas. For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to go to Creston Valley, you really should, because it is a spot where birds migrate in their pattern down to California or up to Alaska. It is necessary to protect a significant area to protect the migratory pattern of birds. I know that the Premier, to his credit, has indicated that Oregon, Washington, California and Alaska should consider setting aside similar areas so the migratory patterns of birds are fully protected.
Some of these species are becoming endangered, and they need to be properly protected by setting lands aside. We lose too many species each year. In fact, a representative from my ministry was telling me the other day that we lose about 10,000 species worldwide each year to extinction. It's vital that land be set aside, particulary in significant urban-growth areas. These are decisions that governments throughout North America should be making to protect those species.
We have significant challenges in the year ahead. As I look ahead, I see areas that we have to work on. I've indicated the challenges with forestry and the forest land use question, as well as CORE and PAS.
One area, which is a personal priority for me, is to make sure that our coastline is protected from the threat of oil spills. We on the west coast are very vulnerable to oil spills that occur as far south as Oregon. Because of tidal patterns, oil inevitably ends up on Vancouver Island or along the coast of British Columbia. We have a unique marine aquaculture and a very fragile environment. In my view, we should take all necessary steps to safeguard our coastline from oil spills. On a personal basis, I have been witness to the impact of oil spills. Much of our habitat in this area was impacted by oil spills in, I believe, 1989.
It would be a different matter if we didn't have solutions. We do. It would be a different matter if we didn't have studies that pointed out how we could implement the solutions. We have those. It is not at all satisfactory that those studies should simply sit on the shelf and not be acted on. I want all hon. members to understand that in terms of the priorities of this ministry, oil spill prevention is at the top. I have indicated that I will be lobbying the federal government to accept its responsibility, which I've already started to do. If they do not accept their responsibility in this regard -- and I'm meeting with the Minister of the Environment again on April 27 -- then we will act unilaterally. I will not allow constitutional issues to frustrate our ability to safeguard our environment from oil spills. I can't be more clear or firm than that, and I don't have any patience for anybody who argues that we don't have the authority. We have appropriate authority.
C. Serwa: You don't have any authority.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the former Minister of Environment suggesting that we don't. I'll be happy to debate that with him in due course. I know he will be persuaded to my opinion, being a reasonable man.
I also want to make it clear that I have dedicated a fair bit of my time to working in a more proactive way with California, Washington State, Oregon and Alaska to make sure that we're right up to par with one another in terms of achieving our goals. I think they have been surprised at the level of political determination to deal with the oil spill problem in British Columbia. I met with representatives from Washington State and California. I'll be meeting with all of the representatives in July in Juneau, Alaska, to make sure that we have a common front. There are 50 million people who live on the west coast of North America, and if we can garner our political clout in a cohesive way and lobby effectively in Washington, D.C., and Ottawa, we should be able to realize these recommendations and convert them into action.
[10:30]
Another significant priority is dealing with British Columbia's water resources, both in terms of the export of water under NAFTA and the clarity of protection of our water resources. The Fraser River is the world's largest salmon-producing river: it generates about $300 million in economic activity each year in British Columbia. Fish that make their way up the Fraser River enter just outside Lulu Island and go up past Annacis Island in the lower mainland. As they do that, they go past two of the largest polluters in British Columbia: namely, the sewage outfalls established by the GVRD.
In September, shortly after I was asked by the Premier to take on these responsibilities, I indicated that we would be lobbying the federal government with regard to the program that provides funding for infrastructure in the GVRD. The Minister of Employment and Investment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have been very actively pushing the federal government to come up with appropriate funding for that problem. We are prepared to do our share in terms of funding. I know the GVRD is as well. Given the $2 billion cost of this project, we must have all three governments on line, and I am confident that the work we have done over the last four or five months will allow us to realize that objective.
I should also say that we have obligations to improve the quality of the air that we breathe in British Columbia. In that regard, I've indicated our desire to look at the feasibility of implementing California automobile emission standards in British Columbia. It's a critical priority in terms of the areas where I want to see achievements realized. It seems to me that for health and environmental reasons, we ought to implement the toughest air pollution standards for automobiles in Canada here in British Columbia. There is strong public support for it, given the strength of the environment ethic in B.C. Consequently, I hope to be able to announce our intentions in this regard in the immediate future. There are many other issues on the environmental front that I can elaborate on. I'm sure that we will be debating them in the hours ahead in my estimates.
[ Page 10070 ]
I also have the privilege to be the minister responsible for multiculturalism, human rights and immigration. In that regard, we must not only simply celebrate the diversity of ethnic communities who live here in British Columbia but also take steps to ensure that multiculturalism is more than a notion. It's something that all British Columbians -- whether they're visible minorities or not -- participate in and share the experience of. I don't underestimate the challenges with regard to multiculturalism, and I often acknowledge that one of the more frequent comments I get whenever I travel throughout British Columbia is people wondering why we put any money into multiculturalism. They argue that this area should be cut. Needless to say, I argue the contrary, and I will continue to argue the contrary as passionately as I can.
The passion with which I make those arguments is not predicated exclusively on social or cultural reasons. As a member of a visible minority who was born in this country but who couldn't speak English until I went to school -- and who even now doesn't speak to his children in English -- I fully appreciate the value of making sure that people understand their ethnic background and heritage and recognize the wonderful opportunity that they have as residents of Canada. They should know the customs and traditions that we have in this country, but they should not forget where their heritage lies. They must appreciate the value of their language, culture and religion.
All too often we overlook the psychological, social and spiritual value of language, culture and religion. It defines us as human beings, and it gives us a sense of identity. It also gives us a treasure that we can share with others in this country. We're very fortunate and very blessed people to live in a country that values racial harmony and sharing our cultures. We have to take the next step and make sure that the public at large appreciates the importance of multiculturalism.
The more I find myself involved in public office -- and perhaps the older I get -- the more I begin to appreciate the degree to which this is vital. The more I interact with my own children, the more I recognize how very important it is that they understand their heritage and their obligations and duties as citizens and residents of Canada. But when they look in the mirror and see their skin colour, they must know why their father wears a bracelet and others wear turbans. They must also have an appreciation of the language and religion and culture in our house.
There are other advantages to multiculturalism, but there is one significant advantage that I see all the time in the work that I do. When we talk to people -- particularly from Europe and Asia -- who are looking at investing in British Columbia, we explain that our society has embraced the notion of multiculturalism. They look at us, and they start to listen very carefully. People make investment decisions partly on economic grounds but partly on what I call intangibles.
Multiculturalism is one of the strongest cards that we have against our natural competitors in Oregon, Washington State and California as we try to attract investment, particularly from Asia. We can say: "When you come to Canada and to British Columbia, you are coming to a land that values multiculturalism. Your children can be educated in our public school system in Mandarin, and you can walk into a temple or a shrine or a religious institution, and there will be people who share your religion and experiences." There's a sense of comfort that comes to people when they realize that they are moving to a society that values and cherishes multiculturalism. I can tell you that in terms of economic investment decisions, it provides us with an advantage that Oregon, Washington, California and our other natural competitors -- even Mexico -- don't have. It gives us something. For the amount of money that we spend each year on multiculturalism, the economic return to this province is enormous, because we can say to Asians and Orientals and Europeans that there's a place for them here in Canada.
As I read this morning's newspaper -- I spoke yesterday at Esquimalt Secondary -- I was struck by the headlines on the turban issue at the Surrey Legion. I must tell all hon. members that inasmuch as that occurred last November -- and we tend to forget events that occurred two months ago, let alone four or five months ago; in this business there's so much focus on today -- that issue hasn't left me. I have been very disturbed by what happened in Surrey. If I can personalize it for a moment, I just find it difficult to comprehend.
I see my time is up. I'm just about finished, so....
The Chair: The member for Okanagan West?
C. Serwa: I've rather enjoyed the latitude that he's taking with his remarks, and I would certainly be willing to give some of my time to the minister so he can conclude his remarks.
The Chair: I think generosity becomes the member, and I would ask the minister to please carry on.
Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for doing that. So I owe him one. I'll buy him a cup of coffee at some point, or be more thorough in my response when we get into estimates and some of the issues that are important to him. We have to talk about those deer in the Okanagan that run around on the roads.
In any event, I was just saying that the turban issue has been disturbing to me. I find it difficult to understand, as a human being, why I can walk into the Surrey Legion today and be accepted, and walk in an hour later with a turban on and not be accepted. It demonstrates the degree to which we, as a society, have to have a better appreciation of religious symbols. I don't think the answer lies in taking retaliatory action against that particular Legion. I think the answer lies in meeting the challenge of education, in understanding tolerance and accommodation, and in having people better appreciate the importance of symbols in certain settings.
Sikhs made a remarkable contribution during the Second World War. They were known as individuals who defended the Commonwealth, and defended it with pride. They were decorated with their turbans on, and when the Queen greeted them, they wore their turbans. When they went to celebrate with their colleagues in their messes, they went with their turbans on. When they died, they died with their turbans on. I know that people from my own ethnic community are proud of the contribution those veterans made so that we would have the kind of freedom that allows us to speak as openly as we can in this chamber.
I know only too well the depth with which many of those people attach their identity to their religion, and the degree to which they feel offended when people show a degree of intolerance of that religion that was not exhibited on other occasions in other locations. A sense of sorrow has permeated the community, and it's certainly permeated my own mind with regard to that issue. There are ways to deal with it, and I cannot think of a more effective way than through education. We need to speak out on it, knowing that
[ Page 10071 ]
there are all sorts of political risks when anybody in this business speaks out on any issue.
Having said that, I welcome the debate. I know the opposition has had an opportunity to discuss with my colleagues some structure for the debate. I hope we can have an informative and thorough debate of environmental and land issues. I do have staff here who will assist me in dealing with some of the more technical questions when members ask those. I value their input. I want to assure hon. members from the opposition that on those occasions -- which there are -- when they have some advice to offer that makes sense, we will make sure that it's integrated into our policy decisions. When we have occasion to disagree on a political basis, I will, of course, react in a way that members are familiar with. Thank you very much.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today to engage in the initial debate for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I am handling the lands and parks portion of this debate, and my colleague the hon. member for Matsqui is the official opposition Environment critic. Of course, in due course I'm sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, the critic for Human Rights and Multiculturalism, will welcome the opportunity to engage in debate in this chamber on the important issues the minister addressed in his closing remarks.
With respect to this set of estimates, I think it's important for us to recognize that there was a change of ministers in this ministry halfway through the last fiscal year. It's significant to note that in the opinion of the opposition, the current minister has brought a different perspective to his ministry than that of the previous minister. Certainly the volume of press releases, paperwork and photo opportunities -- which seemed to abound after the change was made in September -- represents a significant shift. Whether the environment is any safer for those activities is another issue that I'm sure we'll have occasion to debate.
When we talk about the government's approach to the environment, we have to talk about the processes and policies it is pursuing. This morning I'm struck by the fact that the B.C. Utilities Commission's hearings are continuing in Prince George. Having had an opportunity to be in Prince George on the weekend, I was struck by the concern the environmental community there was expressing about that process. They were not convinced that the Utilities Commission's hearing process was going to ultimately enable them to assess an environmental project which, as the minister well knows, could affect the entire Pacific coast salmon fishery.
I was struck by the similarities between the concern over that process and the concern that others in British Columbia are expressing about the processes and policy directions of the current government with respect to the environment. The biggest concern the opposition hears is that when some of the environmental policy decisions were made, the ministry did not assess the human and economic costs involved. I sense that, based on the demonstration we witnessed on the lawns of the Legislature when this session opened. As this minister and the former Minister of Forests well know, many people gathered here to express concern about the overlapping initiatives taking place regarding the forest land base. They feel that their livelihoods and communities have not been sufficiently dealt into the equation.
[10:45]
I listened to the minister's comments about the positive aspects of these initiatives. As for a general policy framework, certainly no one can argue about the desirability of doubling the area of parks and wilderness or about the benefits of the Forest Practices Code, simplifying the regulations that currently exist so licensees understand what is being demanded, and having a sense of accountability there. But again I hark back to the debate about cost. There's a huge disparity between what forest licensees believe the Forest Practices Code will cost to implement and what the minister has assessed the cost to be. I hark back to his remarks about pulp mill effluent guidelines. One of the photo opportunities I was talking about was a quick trip up Howe Sound to the only mill that, to my knowledge, doesn't use chlorine bleaching. Right off the bat, comparisons to the rest of the industry are marginal at best.
It's interesting that many of the improvements the minister was taking credit for actually occurred under the previous administration, between 1988 and 1991. Those capital improvements that contributed to the lower levels of AOX were actually brought in by the previous administration. So on that occasion, all we really saw was a photo opportunity and a desire by the minister to take credit for a policy of his government that has not taken effect yet. The improvements that are called for to get to zero levels of AOX are either on the drawing board, in the course of construction, or have not been completed.
Again I use the comparison with the previous minister, whose estimates we had occasion to debate in two successive budgets. I think there was a mutual respect for his approach, which was somewhat quieter and less bombastic, but in many ways totally dedicated to environmental protection. During the course of this set of estimates and in the future I look forward to a Minister of Environment who walks more softly and carries a bigger stick; one who works behind the scenes with people to assess the costs and economic effects of the policy direction the government has.
I know that my colleague from Matsqui, the official opposition critic for Environment, will want to comment further during the course of these estimates, and I understand that other representatives in the assembly wish to address some of the comments made by the minister and issue opening comments of their own.
C. Serwa: In the course of these estimates, let it not be said that the minister's humility gets in the way of his facts. I am really going to enjoy this series of estimates. I have listened with great delight to the statements of the minister in talking about the miracles that have been accomplished in environmental matters in the short history of the current government. He completely dismissed the reality set out by the critic of the official opposition, who said that when you look at the various areas in improving the quality of the environment, the current government certainly has no track record, other than a verbal one, that they can defend at the present time.
We heard the minister talk about the tough standards of pulp mill emissions and zero discharge by 2002 -- I believe that was the figure he used. He had absolutely no hesitation in talking about Howe Sound Pulp, I think it was, and the standard of the emissions when the Premier was in Europe endeavouring to defend the environmental focus of this current government and their splendid track record. He completely dismissed the fact that the tough standards brought in December 1990 then required pulp mills throughout the province to get forward into the planning, financing and construction stages, which took far longer than the two and a half years of the term of this government. So it mitigates any claim to fame the current government has that they have had any influence on pulp mill emissions.
[ Page 10072 ]
The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is well aware that those tough standards the former Social Credit government brought in have changed the situation in Prince Rupert from their being one of the worst polluters in the pulp mill industry in British Columbia to one of the lesser polluters. When a technical problem occurred that required some latitude on the part of government, I made a special trip to Prince Rupert to ensure that the plant was not shut down and that employment continued. And I think that I have the respect of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour for handling it in that manner when I was Minister of Environment.
In any event, none of the items the minister enunciated or expanded on has been initiated by this current government. Fundamentally, we're seeing a continuation of a number of projects in the province. The Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the one on forestry have culminated in the CORE process, which has been somewhat perverted and diverted. It is failing simply because of the political input of the current government. All of these initiatives were underway during the previous government. Certainly the water control and air quality control that the minister enunciated were initiatives of the former government.
The minister tends to dismiss the fact that professional career civil servants have a great deal to do with the direction the Ministry of Environment takes, and that projects and programs need to have a sustainable future, which only comes about with continuity. Continuity comes from the professional people within the Ministry of Environment who are well educated, well trained, experienced and committed to producing the best possible environmental standards for British Columbia. While the minister and his government would like to take the claim to fame, they can't really do it.
One of the very interesting things was the former minister's report on the state of the environment in the province. Former administrations, going back as far as 40 years, came out very well in that report. We have nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed about here in British Columbia with respect to the state of the environment. The harshest critics of our forestry practices that the minister was talking about -- Great Britain and Germany, for example -- had better look at themselves and their own back yards. It's time that British Columbians and this minister tell them to do so. Good heavens, Europe was well forested, and the forests have been removed: we've got sprawling urban development and agricultural development to sustain larger and larger populations. They can turn back that environment by planting indigenous trees in the areas if they want to, but it's more convenient for them -- for Great Britain, for example -- to point the finger somewhere else and get everyone aroused by saying: "Well, you do that. You look after your environment."
When our native people paddled up the Seine River, they were amazed at the poor water quality and pollution in that part of Europe. It's nothing compared to what has happened in the Soviet bloc -- in the Ukraine, in Poland or in many of those countries. We hear what's happening environmentally in some of the Oriental countries where there are lower standards. We may hear about what's happening in Mexico, where there are perhaps less stringent environmental standards.
I'll tell you that we can stand tall and proud about what the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia has accomplished. We're second to none in the world. That doesn't mean that we haven't got a lot of things to do -- we're going to be talking about those things -- but I want it clearly understood for the public record that every previous administration and government has expressed and responded to the public's concern with respect to the environment. We have done it -- and done it very well indeed. We have balanced the concerns of the environment and the economy.
Someday in this province -- and it's not heresy to say it here -- we will see mining and forestry carried out in parks. When we have the technology and the ability to carry out those plans, we will do so. It may be in 20 years, or it may be in 50 years, but we will be doing that in a sensitive, realistic way. We will be propagating and promoting. We have the old forest strategy -- that's nothing new; the previous government brought that in. It was a concern of all peoples, whether they were the first Europeans or the early people in Great Britain. The first pioneers in Canada came in with the idea that we were looking at infinity and that the resources here were inexhaustible. If we needed more, all we had to do was cross over the other mountain range and get into more timber. If we needed more in the way of hunting area for game animals, we just had to go back a little further. Years ago we met people coming from the other direction. Then we started to realize that we were not looking at infinity but at a finite resource, and that we had to manage that finite resource to the best of the abilities of all of the people, and balance all of the interests of the economy and the environment in British Columbia.
Yes, jobs are really important, and that's the quantity of living. But the quality of living in British Columbia is also very important, and that relates to the environment. So we have to have both those factors. You cannot show me one jurisdiction in the world that has a strong economy and a poor environment, but I can show you all sorts of countries that have a devastated economy and a devastated environment. That's not the situation in this province. The current government inherited not only a good, well-managed environment; they also inherited a civil service staffed by quality professionals who had the dedication and the skill to manage the affairs of this province on a day-to-day basis. I'd like to continue -- and I probably will as we go through the various areas -- but there was not one area in the whole discourse by the Minister of Environment that had not been initiated, attended to or touched upon by the previous government -- and that's the reality.
I'll just go through a few other things about parks and wilderness. The minister very proudly proclaimed the 12 percent. Just a short while ago, we had a major demonstration here on Vancouver Island that indicated we're apparently looking at 21 percent. That is excluding what native land claims will do to the system. That factor continues to be excluded, but it has to be considered in the total perspective. There are some realities that prevail here. We're trying to protect, in perpetuity, certain ecosystems at the various elevations that are representative of the various landscapes of British Columbia. Yes, we have to do it, but also in such a way that we can sustain the economy.
We're seeing a very heavy-handed hammer and the tyranny of the minority in imposing their wishes on this government. I suppose they worked to get this government elected, and now the government has to respond in kind, by being condescending -- not realistic, not practical, not looking at the long-term future; rather, looking at short-term expedience, to satisfy those who got them elected, those who worked for and financed their election campaign. That's not good enough. The responsibility of a government has to be to
[ Page 10073 ]
represent the cares and interests of all the people throughout the province. I don't think this government is doing it very well at all.
I'm going to be very interested, in speaking about multiculturalism.... While the minister waxed long and eloquent about that aspect of his ministry, I'd suggest there's some confusion in the minister's definition of multiculturalism and in his understanding of what is normally accepted in this grand country of Canada. There is no question that we're a multicultural country: first with the native people, who came here some 8,000 or 10,000 years ago; and then all the rest of us, who are more recent immigrants. Canada is the world's first truly international land, and we know that. Actually, the culture of Canada is multicultural in nature. We have two official languages, French and English, reflecting some of the early heritage of Canada.
[11:00]
But I suggest that the minister is confused, and many people out there are confused, about the concepts of multiculturalism and ethnicism. They are two entirely different facets. Yes, ethnicism is very important, because that's the foundation that we all stand on with a great deal of pride. But multiculturalism is a coming together: understanding and respecting each other's culture, and blending together to form the one culture of Canada. I'd suggest that that discussion is also going to be very interesting. It is not ethnicism that draws people here; it's the broader concept of multiculturalism, where we all fit in because we're part and parcel of this great and wonderful land. I'm going to suggest that the minister's estimates will be a fun time indeed.
Now I will turn it over to my colleague for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
G. Wilson: I'll try to keep my remarks succinct so that we can get down to the detailed analyses of these estimates. From the perspective of the Alliance members in the House, we are prepared to say that this minister has stewardship of the most important ministry in government.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I see that the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who is the Mines critic, laughs about this. He might well laugh. Let me say that this is the most important ministry because there is no aspect of government -- no aspect at all -- that does not impact on this minister's mandate in some way, and the issues and initiatives taken by this minister impact on all of us and on every aspect of our lives.
It is our intention to give detailed scrutiny to every aspect of the six general categories, whose order of progression through these estimates was agreed upon. Environmental protection has to be the most important of all. Notwithstanding who may claim the kudos and gain the public's respect for increasing environmental protection awareness and legislation, it is critically important that we understand that if there are to be growth industries anywhere in this province, and if we are to be able to move into a new economic model, they must be built around restructuring the way we approach and manage our environment -- and benefit from it. We have to attack some of the fundamental principles and assumptions that we, as a society and as a government, have had in this province. We have to recognize that the value-added component is simply an economic notion that drives an agenda more attached to reading a ledger than to the reality of our interaction with the environment, particularly in forestry, fishing, mining, agriculture and those activities that provide our communities with a livelihood.
We have to recognize that we cannot improve the environment. We cannot say that we are going to make it into something better than what already exists in a natural state. It's very much like Aylmer, the producer of canned tomatoes, saying that they have found a way to produce a better tomato. It can't be done. They can only alter its structure or change its nature, and divest the wealth of that product into more and more hands -- or into fewer and fewer hands, as the case may be, with the structure of our capitalist economy. In doing so, they will indelibly alter the environment from which that product originates.
That's why we have been arguing for many years that there needs to be a 60-year land use strategy in this province that recognizes limits on growth. It is impossible for us to march forward on this notion of sustainable development, which was embraced like some sugar placebo upon which we could all feed. If we don't fundamentally alter how we manage our environment and structure our economy, how are we going to be able to survive the degradation that we see all around us every day?
This minister is empowered to make some very fundamental changes to our society and to how our economy grows. I hope this minister will take those responsibilities seriously. Past ministers, notwithstanding their political stripes, have all embraced fundamental concepts that I believe are basically flawed, because they do not take into account two very necessary elements: an understanding of demographics -- the population expansion and growth within this province; and, more importantly, the manner in which populations are expanding and growing outside this province. That's why I'm delighted that we are able to talk about immigration in the same estimates, because it is a critical component. In every instance in this country, immigration has expanded our economy, increased our wealth, and built our communities and our society. It is a desirable component. Yet what is starting to happen here is that people are not looking at the method by which immigration is to take place. We are taking on what is called entrepreneurial immigration, which members of the Alliance are strongly and solidly opposed to because it presupposes that if you have a lot of money, you have a method of jumping ahead of the line and getting into this community so that you can invest that money into something that is going to engender greater profits -- notwithstanding the fact that we don't really do any analysis as to how you make that money in the first place.
The member for Okanagan West said that nowhere is there a strong economy with a poor environment. I take issue with that. Look at Japan, Korea and Indonesia; look at Indochina generally. You might look at Vietnam, one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, where there has been a total degradation of their environment. We took such strong issue with respect to some of the provisions in NAFTA because there is an opportunity to exploit cheap labour in Mexico without putting in place the environmental protection that is needed. Notwithstanding the minister saying that he wants British Columbia to have the strongest and best legislation with respect to air pollution, particulate matters in the atmosphere which are destroying our environment are not going to respect any boundaries. While that's laudable -- in fact we would applaud the minister saying that B.C. wants to have the strongest and toughest air emission standards in the country -- we have to recognize that
[ Page 10074 ]
that is not going to solve the problem, because the origin of most of the emissions that are making our environment problematic is outside the province, and they are airborne for many miles.
Let me also say that in these estimates we are going to look at the whole concept of land and land use planning. It has not escaped the attention of the Alliance members that the single greatest increase in the estimates of the Ministry of Environment comes under what is called the corporate resource inventory initiative -- an over 100 percent increase in that particular section, taking it from $6.3 million to $11.3 million, which is going to be spent on a corporate land use inventory. We also note that that subvote will provide for "the collection, analysis and management of biophysical, cultural, archaeological, social and economic information in support of land use planning activities, including negotiations with first nations."
I don't mean to pick on my colleague from Okanagan West, who suggested that the land use question does not include an aboriginal section. It does. The problem is that there's no debate on it. The land use policies that this minister is in charge of with respect to how we administer Crown lands and how those lands may change through alienation as a result of the provision for negotiations with first nations are critically important for every single British Columbian. Every British Columbian should understand what this government is doing with respect to that alienation. Yet there is no debate.
When we say that this is the most important set of estimates the government has brought before this House, we believe that to be the case. How we administer and manage Crown lands -- in relation to a heritage act that is going to give sweeping provisions for the protection of certain elements on private lands; in relation to environmental protection statutes, which I understand are coming back in an amended form in this session and are going to have a profound effect on how we manage the development of lands; and in relation to the first nations negotiations, which are going to change the structure under which we administer jurisdiction over lands -- is the most fundamental issue in front of British Columbians today. We want that debate to be progressive and intelligent; we want that debate to allow us to proceed with sensible, rational land use planning that is going to look at British Columbia going into the middle of the next century, not simply the time of the next election.
We take these estimates very seriously. We take seriously what these estimates provide us in terms of the general structure of land use and environmental planning in this province. We recognize that some profound effects will be undertaken by the manner, direction and policy that this minister and government take within the Environment ministry.
It's no secret that we believe there needs to be an integration of ministerial responsibility with respect to forestry, fishing, water resources and general land use policies. We believe that the impact we are looking at with respect to first nations negotiations and the aboriginal question under that ministry needs to be canvassed and discussed in these estimates, because the policies that this government is undertaking in that ministry will profoundly affect what is taking place in the inventory analysis in this ministry. Similarly, we believe that what is coming forward in the proposed BC Forest Renewal Act -- which I believe is an unprecedented intervention into the private sector -- may have a profound effect on long-range planning in the defined working forest in this province. It needs to be debated and discussed, and the negotiations that took place need to be debated in this set of estimates as well as in the Forests estimates. There is far more to it than has met the eye; there is far more out there than we've seen.
Let me also say that we believe that the provisions this minister has for the protection of marine resources -- not just the potential oil spills that this minister has spoken so passionately about, but also the protection of the Fraser River and other rivers, which he also spoke about -- need to be discussed in these estimates. We need to hear this minister say that this government is going to do everything within its power to protect the Nechako and Fraser rivers and that, notwithstanding any legal obligation, this minister is going to stand up and fight for those rivers and make sure that the Alcan project does not proceed. If there ever was a set of discussion papers, research documents and background information that was suppressed by government, those are the documents we need to look at. This minister has a responsibility to stand up and protect the livelihood and welfare of all downstream users -- not just the fish -- on the Nechako and the Fraser. We expect that to be a functional part of the discussion in these estimates.
Let me say that some very hard questions are going to be asked. We hope that they will provide some sound and solid answers. I am encouraged when the minister says that if worthwhile policy suggestions are put forward, the ministry will undertake to review and implement them. I can tell you that Alliance members intend to put forward some suggestions, and we intend to put them forward in the spirit in which this chamber should operate -- one of constructive, positive policy development that will look after the interests of all British Columbians not only in this generation but also in future generations. This minister has the most important ministry with respect to that protection.
[11:15]
Hon. Chair, I thank you and the official opposition critic for allowing each of us to make opening statements. As we get into the detailed analysis of the debate, I'm sure that I and my colleague are going to have much more to say with respect to matters contained within this particular set of estimates.
W. Hurd: I just want to note for the record that an arrangement of estimates was dealt with by the official opposition and the government. I think we were going to talk about environmental protection renewal first.
I want to address a question relating to the value-for-money audit that was completed by the auditor general and try to get a handle on progress that may have been made by the ministry. Specifically, I have a question about the regulatory standards for special waste in the province. It's important to read into the record the concern expressed by the auditor general. He found the ministry's evaluation of standards from other jurisdictions to be insufficiently documented: "In our opinion the ministry could, by improving its documentation, better account for the adequacy of the standards that it adopts to minimize risk to the public and the environment."
Perhaps I could ask the minister what progress he feels his ministry has made in addressing this concern of the auditor general.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me say a couple of things before I answer the question. First of all, joining me in the House is Tom Gunton, the Deputy Minister of Environment. Also joining us are Jon O'Riordan, Don Fast and Gyl Connaty.
I should also indicate that I did appreciate the opportunity to hear the hon. members' initial comments. I am not going to respond at this point. We will probably get
[ Page 10075 ]
into in-depth discussion with regard to their points, so I will reserve comment until we get to that. And if we don't, I'll comment in any event with regard to what hon. members had to say.
As a province, one benefit we have is the valuable role the auditor general plays in giving advice to ministries and pointing out deficiencies. When there are deficiencies, ministries react to the auditor general's report, and he identified one that we are reacting to. There was an appropriate need to tighten up procedures, and that is occurring.
W. Hurd: There was a reason why the official opposition zeroed in on this comment by the auditor general. It presumes a benefit or a need on the part of the ministry to evaluate standards elsewhere, particularly in other provinces and jurisdictions. I am sure the auditor general is referring to the costs in this balancing act that I referred to in my opening comments. I wonder whether what the minister is saying in his response is that it is the intention of his government to continue its policy of pursuing standards in British Columbia which may not exist elsewhere. He therefore is seemingly not making a commitment to receive and document information, reports and studies from other jurisdictions which clearly could benefit the current government in coming up with a set of environmental policies that carry the costs and challenges for the people, businesses and industry in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: In some instances there is an effort on the part of governments to harmonize their standards across the country. In some cases it makes sense. To the degree and on the occasions that it does make sense, we as government will take a look at what others are doing and harmonize our standards. In other cases, we think that the standards elsewhere in the country are deficient.
I've made it very clear that in a number of areas, this government is intent on being the leader in Canada in terms of environmental standards. We are not going to wait for other jurisdictions to decide that it's a priority in their jurisdictions, nor are we going to wait for them to develop standards that are secondary to ours. As I said earlier, we have a very strong environmental ethic in British Columbia. The public in British Columbia demands that this government be the leader in environmental protection, stewardship and regulation. If other jurisdictions are somewhat deficient, we're not going to wait to harmonize down.
Let me make it clear. I think the best example of this is the discussion that the hon. members raised during the course of the opening comments about AOX standards. Those standards were brought forward in our administration by the previous Minister of Environment. They are the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards in North America. We as a government make no apologies for having those standards. I must confess that I was surprised by the Liberal forestry critic when he tried in his opening comments to give the previous administration credit and suggest that we simply embraced the standards that were brought in by the previous administration. That's not the case. As the hon. member should know, the previous administration brought in a standard of 2.5 AOX per tonne. That's what they said should be allowed. In fact, John Reynolds, who was then the Minister of Environment for the Socreds, wanted to move to the standard that we've established: 1.5 AOX per tonne. He insisted that it be done. To his credit, he succeeded in stickhandling that through cabinet, only to have it quashed on second thought by the Premier.
I went to Port Mellon, as the member suggested, and congratulated the industry for achieving the tougher standards that we established. I made no apologies that we have the toughest standards in Canada. I am not going to wait for anybody else to catch up to us. In fact, I'm looking ahead to achieving zero discharge by the year 2002. I'm absolutely determined to make sure that the industry understands that this is where this government is headed.
The hon. member's comments and his embrace of the Socred standards demonstrate that his party supports the standard of 2.5 AOX per tonne. That just demonstrates to me the degree to which the new Liberals are simply old Socreds. They take the old Socred policies and adopt them as their environmental standards. That's not good enough for the government or the people of British Columbia.
We will harmonize in areas where we think there is a need to harmonize. In areas where we are deficient, we will act. If the auditor general identifies areas of administrative responsibility where we need to pull up our socks, we will pull up our socks. But I'll tell you one thing: we won't take a back seat to any other jurisdiction in the country. We will not waver in any way whatsoever -- despite the protestations of the opposition -- in our determination to achieve zero discharge by the year 2002 and to achieve the standard of 1.5 AOX per tonne by the target dates we have set out.
W. Hurd: That is indeed a pompous and troubling statement from the Minister of Environment, because if he had looked at the auditor general's report he would have realized that the auditor general is asking for the documentation of scientific information on which to make decisions -- science, not complaints from the opposition, hon. minister. Before you ask a business or any individual in our province to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, is it too much to say that scientific assessment be the basis on which to demand that investment? Is that too much for anyone to ask of the government of British Columbia? What I'm hearing is yes, it is; we don't care what Environment Canada says or what any other scientific lab in the world may find out about the assessment of environmental risk; we are going to go our own way in British Columbia; we're going to hold a photo opportunity and make a high-profile announcement; we're going to fly helicopters to Radar Hill and we're going to do what it takes to tell the people of British Columbia what a wonderful job we're doing to protect the environment.
I ask again the question posed by the auditor general of the province: when is this minister going to update his scientific standards before he makes another policy announcement in British Columbia? What steps is he going to take to meet the minimum requirements set forth by the auditor general with which to make these kinds of decisions?
Hon. M. Sihota: I find the comments made by the hon. member troubling. We as a government took environmental leadership when we brought in the toughest pulp mill effluent standards in North America. I want to tell you, hon. Chair, that British Columbians demanded we do that. They were tired of areas like Howe Sound being polluted because of the discharge from pulp mills. British Columbians from one end of this province to the other said: "We want our water corridors cleaned up. We don't think it's acceptable that there be a high level of toxins in our waters that damage our fish, get into our oceans and impact upon our quality of life."
[ Page 10076 ]
We looked around and saw that shellfish in parts of British Columbia were so contaminated that we had to close areas of this province to harvesting of certain species. We said that that was unacceptable. We said very clearly -- we drew a very clear line -- that the standards set by the previous administration at 2.5 AOX per tonne were not acceptable and that they would be reduced. The new challenge to industry was to establish 1.5 AOX per tonne. I understand science, and I understand that science is not always clear. One can always get into debates about whether or not there is enough scientific evidence to support a particular proposition. But we're guided in this ministry by the precautionary principle. When studies show us -- as they have -- that we need to do more, on a precautionary basis, to prevent further degradation of our environment, we're going to take action. It may be that not all of the studies are conclusive or definitive. I'll tell the hon. member that I don't think that will ever occur. But leadership requires government to stand up every once in a while and say: "Look, enough is enough. There's enough damage occurring to our oceans that we're going to take some action." So we brought in the standard of allowing 1.5 AOX per tonne to be discharged into our environment.
What did the industry say? The industry said we could not do it, because the scientific evidence did not support that position of government. They argued exactly what the hon. member argued; they said it would take inordinate gobs of money to achieve those standards. They didn't even know whether we would be able to achieve those standards if they made those kinds of investments. But we told them 1.5 AOX per tonne had to be met by January 1995.
In January 1994 the industry surpassed our standards; they were averaging 1.4 AOX per tonne. Admittedly, when my predecessor brought in those regulations, the scientific evidence wasn't clear. Admittedly, the industry wondered whether it should make that kind of commitment. But a funny thing happened. Government said: "It's going to happen. Those are the standards; now start complying." And they did. They made the expenditures and met the standards.
[11:30]
What does that mean? It means that heron eggs, which weren't hatching before, are now hatching in various portions of the province. It means about 97 percent of the pulp mills in British Columbia -- 23 out of 25, or something in that range -- are now in compliance with our standards, a year ahead of when they were supposed to be.
I guess politics is all about whose side you're on. I see the hon. member come here now and stand up for the industry, as he often does, and say: "Well, you guys were wrong to implement those 1.5 AOX standards." He wants to go back to the past, to the days of Social Credit, when we saw the 2.5 standard; back to the days when people could phone the Premier and say: "It's just the smell of money, so what's wrong with that?" Those days are gone, hon. member; they're over. It seems to me that it's time the Liberal Party got the point.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. We're discussing estimates. A question has been asked of the minister. The minister is replying, and I suggest that the calls from the critic and other members of the bench be kept to a dull roar.
C. Serwa: On a point of order, if the minister wishes to indulge in that type of political partisanship, then he is going to solicit these remarks. So please advise the minister, if your comment is valid for him.
The Chair: That is not a point of order, hon. member. But moderation in estimates debates is the key word, so let's keep the debate -- answers and questions -- through the Chair.
Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't realize it was against the rules to be partisan in this House.
Let me go on by saying that it's all about whose side you're on, and I guess the hon. member from the opposition has made it clear that he is on the side of those people in the industry who do not want to meet the challenge of cleaning up the discharge from our pulp mills. We're on the side of the environment, and I'll be happy to have that debate with that hon. member anytime in this House, because I think most British Columbians want government to stand up and protect the integrity of the environment, not to cave in to demands that say there's not enough scientific evidence.
When I congratulated the industry for having met those standards, they questioned the need to go further to the 2002 standard. I asked them to come to my office, and I'll be happy to do the same with the hon. member. I produced a stack of studies this high, put them on a table, and said: "Here are the scientific studies that reinforce the government's position. Where are yours?" They had one, to about here. The hon. member talked about photo ops. I admit it was a great photo op to show them studies that we had stacked up and compare them with studies that the industry had. If he wants to take the position of the one or two studies on the industry side, so be it. I'll be happy to bring the stack in here for him so he can make his judgments.
I want to make it clear that the ministry does agree with the auditor general about the desirability of improved documentation of standards; I said that earlier on. The ministry is always in the process of upgrading and establishing its criteria and regulations. We're currently in the process of doing that as part of our ongoing five-year plan, through stakeholder consultation in areas where it's required.
W. Hurd: The opposition has established one thing during this set of estimates already: science has no impact on his decision with respect to the environment. He's not prepared to place any credence in it or to make a decision based on the best available scientific evidence. That will be troubling information indeed when it is reprinted in Hansard.
Talking about science, though, could I ask the minister to shift his attention to the Kemano completion project in Prince George? Some 80,000 pieces of documentation, including studies from the Department of Fisheries and other federal jurisdictions, are going to be tabled before that hearing. Is the minister now telling us that despite an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, he will be free to take no action with respect to the findings of the B.C. Utilities Commission because his ministry doesn't pay much attention to science anyway? Is that the kind of approach we can expect from the minister with respect to the KCP and B.C. Utilities Commission hearing in Prince George?
Hon. M. Sihota: I never said that we don't pay any attention to scientific evidence; all I said was that we do not embrace the kind of backward attitude that says: "Look, there's one scientific study that says maybe you shouldn't go in this direction." What we do is embrace the strategy of the
[ Page 10077 ]
precautionary principle, and we apply that in making our policy decisions. I'm glad to see that the hon. member has now left the issue of the AOX discharge because he knows we're right. He knows full well -- or he should -- that his federal Liberal colleagues recently signed an agreement with the industry to achieve zero discharge by the year 2002.
Get on the boat, hon. member. Stop holding up those scientific studies that reinforce your position, and congratulate this government for bringing in the toughest pulp mill effluent standards in North America. Why do we have to have such a negative opposition in this province? Why can't they stand up from time to time and say: "What the government is doing on this initiative is appropriate, it's visionary, it shows remarkable leadership, and it demonstrates a degree of commitment to the environmental ethic"?
I don't mind having an exchange where the hon. member makes a point or two with regard to environmental matters. It hasn't happened yet. But when this government brings forward regulations and standards at the forefront of change in North America, which have now gotten the federal government chasing after us and negotiating with the pulp industry to try to get to the zero-discharge level, I have to say I'm bewildered that the hon. member can't stand up and give the government credit where credit is due, but rather parrots a line that demonstrates very clearly whose side he's on. We're not here to represent the interests of the rich and powerful in society. We're here to stand up for those who defend the interests of the environment.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: Like I say, the debate is demonstrating very clearly who's on the side of the rich and powerful and who's here trying to defend the environment. I make no apologies for embracing that standard, which lowers the amount of effluent going into our streams and oceans. If the hon. member wants to go back to those troubling days when we had contamination of a lot of species in our oceans, I say that that's just not on, and that he's not in touch with the concerns of most British Columbians.
With regard to Kemano, there is a hearing going on before the B.C. Utilities Commission. The hon. member knows that, by virtue of his trip to Prince George. I know that a fair bit of evidence will be forthcoming with regard to the impact of that project. Given my prefatory comments, I would urge the hon. member to disabuse himself of the notion that we're not interested in scientific evidence. We will see what those Utilities Commission findings are, and when we have those in our possession we will react.
W. Hurd: I really hesitate to turn this into a scientific discussion. But I think it's important to read into the record that the government, as the auditor general has indicated, surely has to be able to assess its own standards and participate in some form of scientific testing of the demands that it's placing on British Columbians. So perhaps in the spirit of open and honest government, I can ask the minister to describe in his own words what exactly occurred with the fiasco involving private labs in British Columbia and the decision of his ministry to, in essence, get back into the lab testing business -- and I might add that the minister rescinded a contract that had already been tendered by his ministry. In the spirit of honest and open government, perhaps he can describe just what the economic benefits are of eliminating the private testing industry in British Columbia in favour of a government-dominated lab testing apparatus. If the minister is not concerned about science, why in the world would he invest taxpayers' dollars in this flimflammery involving private and public labs in the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a couple of comments with regard to what the hon. member had to say. He should not leave this House with the impression -- and I don't understand where he secures that impression from -- that we do not have a basis on which to determine the success or failure of the scientific data that underlies the regulations that we put forward. To go back again -- and I'm glad to see he's retreated from the topic, because he knows he's on the wrong side of the AOX discharge issue.... But let me go back to the state-of-the-environment report that came out with regard to those AOX discharge levels, to amplify on the concern that he has. He argued, astonishingly enough, that we don't have a scientific basis to evaluate our standards. Well, we do. We brought in that 1.5 AOX per tonne. It was based on some scientific evidence. Obviously we needed to test whether or not those new standards were having a positive impact on the environment, and we did. Through the evidence we secured, we found, for example, that dioxin levels in crabs had decreased. We used scientific evidence, reported, followed up, monitored the impact of our regulations and verified the fact that the government was moving in the right direction. I used the example of herons a few minutes ago. They went out into the field and found out scientifically what impact the lower standards had on blue-heron eggs. Not only did we bring in the standards, we have concrete evidence of the benefits that accrue to the environment as a consequence of those decisions. Inasmuch as the hon. member has shifted gears -- and I can understand why -- I want him to understand very clearly that follow-up scientific research is conducted to make sure that our standards are being complied with.
Private labs. I would argue that British Columbians have always believed that their health and safety should not be compromised, and that governments have a responsibility to conduct the tests that are necessary to protect the health and safety of British Columbians. At the same time, British Columbians want a cost-effective way to conduct those studies. The decision we made on the laboratory is a cost-effective one. There was no contract to be "rescinded," to quote the hon. member. I am amazed. I don't know how the Liberals do their research, but with all of the money that the taxpayer provides their caucus, you would think they could understand that there was no contract to rescind. Why that hasn't occurred, I don't know. I know the hon. member is not the Environment critic. I would suggest that he go back, over the lunch break, and discuss the issue with his research staff to determine the source of their misunderstanding.
W. Hurd: This private lab issue is not going to go away but will be addressed down the road by other members of the assembly. There's a whole range of fascinating issues concerning the government's handling of this, not the least of which is the cost of running a government lab. The province of Ontario -- an NDP administration -- determined that lab testing cost $100,000 per employee in the government sector versus $50,000 per employee in the private sector. The minister will well know that the people of the province are looking forward to the opportunity of paying $50,000 more per unionized government employee for the privilege of having routine environmental lab testing done in a publicly funded laboratory. But I will leave that for the moment,
[ Page 10078 ]
because the minister seems intent on talking about pulp mills in British Columbia, particularly the AOX levels or the discharge and effluent guidelines.
[11:45]
Perhaps I could ask the minister about the air emission standards for B.C. pulp mills, to which the minister made a reference in his remarks about how committed he is to air quality in the province. The minister well knows that every one of the 25 pulp mills in the province operates under a waste management permit which also deals with the emissions from the stacks, and covers matters like particulates and other suspended solids and the types of air emissions that come out of the stacks. Can the minister tell us what commitment his ministry has made with respect to emissions from pulp mills by the year 2002? What additional standards does he anticipate will be there over the next five years? Given the fact that he is totally committed to pursuing different effluent guidelines, perhaps he could tell the people who live in pulp mill communities -- who complain often about allergies and other problems associated with emissions -- whether his government is going to make the commitment over the next five years to be as vigilant on air pollution issues as they supposedly are on the effluent question.
Hon. M. Sihota: I see the hon. member has retreated from his line of questioning on AOX discharge, because he knows that he is on the wrong side of that issue. He has retreated from his questioning on the laboratories, because he is beginning to sense that the information provided by his research staff is perhaps not as detailed as it should be, and pretty soon he'll be retreating on other issues. When the former leader of the Liberal Party moved over to establish the Alliance, I guess all sense of environmental ethic left the Liberal Party of British Columbia.
Let me assist the hon. member in his work on air quality.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'd be happy to answer the question, but I would just urge hon. members....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. The minister has the floor, and I would ask hon. members to refrain from the loud calling across the floor of the House.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure if they're taking your advice, but I'm sure they'll settle down in a minute; I'm sure they're very interested in receiving the information that I'm about to provide them with.
The hon. member makes a good point about air quality: there is a need to also move on the air quality discharge levels flowing from pulp mills. In his questioning, he seems to have overlooked the fact that, first of all, we have already moved in areas where we sense a problem. For example, in the case of Port Alice, we did not wait for the development of new regulations. We recognized that there were problems; as a consequence, the government acted. Secondly, the hon. member should know that the ministry is doing a scientific review of those standards -- as we should, and as we've discussed -- that will be completed this year.
In addition to that, the hon. member should know -- and I would hope that he will ask his research staff why they haven't told him this -- that we are in the process of consulting with the stakeholders of British Columbia, the federal government and the industry about the further amplification of standards in this regard. So we moved in areas like Port Alice where there are problems; the scientific review will be completed this year in areas that need it; and we will proceed with consultation in areas where there's a need for that. There's a lot happening on that front. I should also say that in areas where there are violations, we obviously have ways to deal with those problems as well. Again, we're well ahead of the game.
W. Hurd: The minister should do some research on his own waste management permit process, because as he well knows, under the waste management permit process, there are days of the month when pulp mills in the province are allowed to exceed their permitted levels -- as long as they reach a balance during the course of the month.
As the minister well knows, when it comes to dealing with an industry like the pulp industry, you can't levy changes in isolation. You can't demand the expenditure of $1 billion for effluent cleanup, for example, and at the same time expect the industry to meet stringent air emission standards.
In the minister's remarks, there was not a single commitment to deal with the air emission issue, other than to launch a scientific review. We've already heard what the minister's definition of science is: it's based on -- what was the term he used? -- precautionary discretion or some other nebulous term. Is the ministry going to make any commitment over the next five years to deal with the problem of emissions from B.C. pulp mills? Is there any commitment to set a standard which is going to result in the lowering of waste management permit levels for air emissions from B.C. pulp mills?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure the lunch hour will be well spent by the Liberals, because they need to do some research.
I think I've already answered the question from the hon. member. The scientific review will be completed this year. In areas where there was a problem, such as Port Alice, we've acted. In other areas where we want to make more progress than we have, we're in the process of consulting with industry and trying to develop some regulations -- sensitive, of course, to the need to achieve some balance in dealing with these regulations.
All I'm saying to the hon. member.... It's interesting. He argued all morning long that we were wrong to bring in the toughest AOX pulp mill discharge standards. He said that we shouldn't have done it. He argued that it was costing the industry too much to be moving in the direction that we want the industry to move in. He argued earlier on that there wasn't ample scientific evidence for us to get the industry to move in that direction. I told him that we're moving in that direction, our determination is firm, and we are not going to back-pedal on our regulations. The hon. member retreated in his position. He admitted that we were right to bring in those standards. I'm glad that he ultimately acknowledged the government was on the right track in bringing forward those regulations. Having said that, he's now taking the other side of the coin, saying: "Are you going to do the same with air quality?" The answer is yes.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the minister's cogent analysis of the rationale behind questions from the opposition. If he spent more time on answers and less time on analysis, this set of estimates would go much faster.
[ Page 10079 ]
I'm intrigued by the minister's claim that he's now going to launch a scientific review of air emissions from B.C. pulp mills. I'm sure the auditor general will be intrigued, as well, about what the minister means by a scientific review. What tests are we going to see? What kind of laboratory analysis? What activities is the ministry anticipating over the next five years in this so-called scientific review? I heard his definition of pure science when we started these estimates, and I remain concerned that his definition of science and the opposition's definition are at odds. So perhaps he can enlighten the committee further on the nature of this scientific review in B.C. pulp mill communities.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I want to make it very clear to the member that I did not indicate we were going to have a scientific review. I said that the scientific review will be completed this year. In addition to that, I said we were engaged in some consultation with the industry. In making our determinations, we look at the technology available on the market, the impact on vegetation and soil, and the ambient air quality throughout the area in question. Those are the criteria and issues one would expect us to look at, and that's what we look at. We gather the information, do the analysis and proceed with the implementation of regulations. That will be done over the time frame of the review.
Hon. Chair, seeing the hour, I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and seek 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: On Thursday, April 14, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi sought to raise a matter of privilege: that the Attorney General ought to step aside while a special prosecutor investigates the veracity of a charge. In support of this application he tabled a list of cabinet ministers who, in the past, have resigned under a variety of circumstances. The list, on its face, does not contain any indication of a connection between any of the incidents listed and matters of privilege.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twenty-first edition, defines privilege on page 69:
"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the high court of parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members. Other such rights and immunities such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."
It is important that a distinction be drawn between situations which would involve a breach of privilege by, for instance, impeding a member in the performance of his or her duties and situations which are, by their very nature, political. I would refer members to two decisions of the House of Commons in Ottawa dated June 30, 1969, and April 19, 1983. In both those instances, the Speaker considered the distinction between matters of privilege and matters strictly political, which are within the executive power in the case of an alleged impropriety. The makeup of cabinet and matters surrounding a member's performance in cabinet are political questions which are not properly questions of privilege. Other opportunities exist for the discussion and debate of such matters.
The material tabled by the member and the argument presented does not indicate to the Chair any basis on which a prima facie case of breach of privilege can be made.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
On vote 11: minister's office, $291,891.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: May I begin by introducing the staff that are here with me? On my right is Bruce Hackett, the deputy minister; on my left is Al Sakalauskas, the assistant deputy minister in charge of finance; Dave Davies, the senior financial officer; Stuart Culbertson, ADM on the Fisheries and Food side; Tom Pringle, ADM on the Agriculture side; Ross Husdon, the CEO of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority; and Kirk Miller, who's the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission.
I'd like to make some opening statements. First, it's a pleasure to introduce the estimates of the ministry for this year. This is a significant occasion, because 1994 marks the 100th anniversary of the ministry; 100 years ago the Department of Agriculture was officially established by an act passed in the Legislature. In celebrating its 100th year, the ministry can look back on what we call a century of achievement.
I'd like to start by briefly talking about the state of the industry today, the challenges it faces and what my ministry plans to do over the next year to help industry face the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities before it. The mission of the ministry is to foster the socioeconomic viability and sustainability of the agriculture, fisheries and food sectors throughout British Columbia. We pursue this mission within the broad context of government priorities, including our dedication to control government spending and to work toward eliminating the deficit.
The agrifood industry accounts for $13 billion of economic activity each year here in British Columbia. It's the third-largest goods-producing sector in the province. As a whole, the industry accounts for one in seven British
[ Page 10080 ]
Columbia jobs, and these jobs are in our rural and coastal communities as well as our cities. Just as important, the industry provides British Columbians with many essential food products -- a total of more than 225 commodities and more variety than any other Canadian province.
Our agriculture, fisheries and food sectors have seen improving times since this government came into office. In 1993, British Columbia farmers achieved record-high levels of farm cash receipts and net operating incomes, and operating expenses actually decreased. Cash receipts were up by 5.1 percent in 1993 to $1.43 billion -- a total increase of 14 percent since 1991. Operating cash expenses fell slightly last year by $5.8 million. The total net income increased in 1993 by 40 percent to $437.3 million, for a total increase of 87.4 percent or $203.9 million since 1991. This is due, in large part, to high prices in beef, good prices in tree fruit and the expansion of new industries such as ginseng.
Our province's seafood industry is also substantial. The harvest levels averaged $515 million over the last five years. The value of processed seafood products is $934 million per year, with a value reaching $941 million in 1993. There are some 25,000 jobs in the commercial seafood industry, and seafood is British Columbia's number one food export, worth over $800 million in 1993.
In 1993, retail food store sales were on an upward trend. The total retail sales value for supermarkets and grocery stores in 1992 was $5.7 billion. In the first three quarters of 1993, sales were $4.6 million. The increase was 6.3 percent for quarter one, 4.4 percent for quarter two and 8.6 percent for quarter three.
These improvements come in the face of some major challenges to the future of our agrifood sector. The industry is at a crossroads where there are new markets, environmental issues and other matters, and they have to choose a road to go down. The international marketplace is opening up. Laws, regulations and consumer preferences are changing; the environment and agricultural land are under pressure; and government resources are increasingly strained.
The change faced by industry in recent years has been nothing short of daunting, and continued industry success is a real accomplishment. Industry is now better equipped to deal with future change as a result of this experience. However, the challenges ahead will be even bigger. The marketplace for food and food products is being fundamentally and irreversibly changed by a number of trade arrangements, such as the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, NAFTA and the recently signed GATT, and by changes in the opportunities that are available in the export markets.
We live in an economy that is increasingly globalized, and industry success will depend upon being able to compete with producers around the world. In addition, many of the assistance programs that government has provided are being challenged by our trading partners under the existing rules and may face further challenges under new rules.
The changing preferences and social expectations of consumers also present a growing challenge. Agriculture and fisheries are significantly affected by the changing food tastes of the public and by new rules relating to the environment, the workplace and resource use. Our seafood industry is affected by demands for fisheries conservation and by international treaties that limit industry activity. The continuing difficulties we have had over the Pacific Salmon Treaty are a prime example of this problem. Industry and government must work together to manage all this change and to make sure that the future is a positive one for the agrifood sector.
In addition to challenges, the industry has some opportunities for future success. As a result of the hake fishery, Ucluelet, for example, has seen 130 new jobs and over $30 million of new value-added products in three years. Direct farm marketing is presenting new opportunities in the way farmers market their products. Our wine industry has enjoyed continuous success through the VQA program.
My ministry's 1994-95 budget was prepared in the context of these challenges and the opportunities ahead for the industry. The budget is designed to build a competitive agrifood sector in an economy with changing trade rules characterized by freer trade; to secure our food-land resources, such as land and water, and use them to create more income and more jobs; and to build public support for protecting food-land resources and for B.C. products. Ultimately, perhaps the most important need is to work with the industry to ensure the economic stability of rural families and those communities that depend on them.
The 1994-95 budget for the ministry totals $80,069,000. This budget will allow us to put resources into key priority areas while at the same time restructuring financial programs to meet international requirements, reduce costs to government and move toward goals established by ministers of agriculture from all provinces.
The ministry has recently begun working with the industry on a major review of agrifood policy for the province. The policy development process started with ministry staff undertaking a review of approaches followed in other provinces and discussing ideas individually with some industry leaders. Then I met with the executive of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and with my advisory council to distil the ideas that were out there for the policy's terms of reference. This consultation is only the beginning of the process.
In our fisheries sector, an industry-led task force on fish processing is currently addressing key issues that affect the industry. I appointed the task force in January in response to the concerns of coastal communities. The task force's terms of reference call for it to identify ways to strengthen and expand the fish-processing industry -- this may mean a change in legislation -- to develop ways to strengthen our domestic and international competitiveness; to look at training and labour relations to find ways of ensuring sustainable jobs; to suggest ways to enhance the value of the fishery; to encourage processing and employment in our coastal communities; and to find better ways for industry and government to work together towards those common goals. From the beginning, I was convinced that the best people to examine those issues are those who are closest to it, and that's why the task force members I appointed represent a cross-section of the industry, including the co-chairs, Don Millerd from a fish-processing company and Jack Nichol, recently retired president of the UFAWU. The task force is now hard at work and will provide me with a copy of the report by June 30, 1994, unless something unforeseen comes up. I will give the report the highest priority and won't hesitate to introduce new policies and legislation, should that be necessary.
The ministry's budget includes $2.45 million for a new program called Partners in Progress. This Partners program will allow us to work in partnership with other agencies, organizations and governments to build on the strengths of the rural and coastal communities; to strengthen the agricultural land reserve while helping producers use land in ways that are productive and compatible with other
[ Page 10081 ]
resource uses; and to address key competitiveness and profitability issues in agriculture, fisheries and food.
Funded projects will bring together the government, industry and communities. They will focus on specific attainable goals, be compatible with new trade rules and take place over specified time periods. Examples could include funding towards drainage and irrigation projects to increase the use and productivity of farmland; increased product development and market opportunities for underutilized species of fish; and market research support and marketing strategies for B.C. products. Partners in Progress will be another important program that builds on the cooperative relationship between industry and government.
Perhaps the most impressive example of government-industry cooperation is the five-year $9.5 million food industry market development program, which most British Columbians know as Buy B.C. It was designed to increase public awareness and the use of British Columbia food and beverage products. This is important because for every 5 percent we can increase sales of B.C. food products, 4,000 new private sector jobs are created. Buy B.C. works as a partnership that provides up to 50 percent government funding for individual projects. To date, the program is a major success, and it will receive additional resources in 1994-95. Over the past fiscal year 22 Buy B.C. projects were approved, representing over $1.4 million in government funding, in addition to $1.8 million of industry investment, for a total of $3.2 million. Some of the results are impressive. Over 35 B.C. companies are using the Buy B.C. logo on packaging and on promotional materials; this includes lettuce, tofu, milk, yoghurt, pasta, beef, chicken and eggs.
Having participated in Buy B.C., grape growers saw the 1993 fresh grape sales increase by 102 percent. Growers received excellent price returns, which were up approximately 30 percent over 1992. Canada Safeway announced that the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council promotion was the most successful seafood promotion they have ever run. For 1994-95 we have restated our commitment to this program by increasing the funding by $1 million.
The government remains committed to the agricultural land reserve, and in terms of the direction of the Agricultural Land Commission, we've added resources which will cut down turnaround time for applicants and promote a closer working relationship with local government.
The budget also includes other important industry initiatives. For example, funding of the trade-compatible or green programs has been increased, with a move from individual income support to a whole-farm-stabilizing safety net and crop insurance.
Funding is available to continue the preparation of an agriculture development plan in the Peace River. Increased funding has been provided for the Demonstration of Agricultural Technology and Economics program known as DATE, which supports new agricultural technologies. Grants to universities have been increased by a third -- up to $200,000 -- to support research that contributes to a long-term, profitable competitive industry.
The sustainability of our land and water resources is key to the future of agriculture and fisheries industries and to the well-being of the province. The Canada-B.C. Green Plan for agriculture is one of ten such programs across Canada. The budget for 1994-95 is $1.356 million.
The farm business management program is a keystone of our agricultural extension service. It supports people in the industry through the development of farm business management skills, leadership ability and a qualified agricultural workforce. The knowledge of these skills is basic to the future competitiveness of the industry and to the viability of farm families and rural communities. We will be contributing $540,000 to this program in 1994-95.
Integrated pest management involves using a balance of cultural, biological, chemical and other methods to control pests, with minimum impact on the environment. B.C. is a leader in developing integrated pest management technology. For example, B.C. greenhouses are 95 percent free of chemical pesticides through the use of biological insect control technology. A side benefit of this kind of development is a growing industry in British Columbia producing biological agents for agricultural producers. The ministry allocated $100,000 to this.
The budget also includes $200,000 for fisheries diversification projects where we work with the federal government to develop underutilized species.
[10:30]
Support for agriculture is not found exclusively in my ministry's estimates. For example, exempting incorporated family farms and cooperatives from the corporation capital tax is a major step to show the importance this government places on the agriculture sector. This benefit is estimated at $4 million annually.
In total, these initiatives will help our ministry progress towards the goals of stronger communities, a protected resource base, and a profitable and competitive agrifood sector.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to thank the minister's staff for being here today to advise us on some of the questions we have. Hopefully, in these estimates we'll get some facts instead of all these numbers we were getting before, which seemed to change constantly.
I have to agree with the minister that agriculture is in pretty good shape in some areas. As a matter of fact, Bob Mitchell of the Bank of Montreal forecasts that: "B.C. farm income prospects for 1994 are promisingly stable to moderately expansionary.... After reviewing the implications for Canadian agriculture of GATT, reductions in world trade barriers and levels of subsidization, Mitchell said: 'Canadian farmers may well be surprised to find they are much more competitive on a global basis than they have perceived themselves'."
I'm very glad to hear this. It is a very upbeat sort of mood. But we still have some problems with agriculture which we have to address. One that we have to address and talk about during these estimates is the ALR. That is still a thorn in the side of most farmers. It doesn't matter what commodity we're talking about; they all seem to have the same attitude and a lack of support towards it.
Another problem which seems to have crept in again is dumping, as we saw with lettuce. Now we're seeing it with fruit. This is an area that we have to discuss in order to see what we're going to do about persuading the federal government to get on side with the farmers.
Another area that we must discuss is urban encroachment, how it is affecting local farms and the pressures that are being brought to bear from various ministries. When you are a farmer and you are out there all by yourself and different ministries like this one, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment are hounding you, at a certain point in time, with all these other pressures, farming doesn't seem to be a very viable option in terms of income.
Another area we should talk about is diversifying the markets and the niche markets. People generally have a problem with change, and unfortunately, they have to be persuaded into some of these things. Generally it's in their
[ Page 10082 ]
best interest, but people, being people, don't like change. So we'll have to talk about those a little, because I see a lot of restraint and a lot of walls up in the industries and the different commodities, depending on what commodity we're talking about.
Another area that seems to be in contention is labour. As you well know, labour in agriculture and in fisheries has a very great effect on whether we are competitive and whether we remain competitive. So this is one area we have to delve into.
Another thing I'm hearing around the province is that we must get more people into the field helping the farmers and not as many people pushing paper. We need more people out there actually assisting hands-on with the individual commodity groups and the farmers in the field. I've heard this from many groups, so it must be a trend; there's a groundswell of some anger about it.
The one thing, though, I am disappointed in is that in the three years we've been at these estimates, I haven't heard Agriculture, Fisheries and Food mentioned once in the throne speech or in the budget -- and we have two farmers in cabinet. It shows a certain lack of support from cabinet. Being one of the cornerstones of this province, I would think agriculture would get a little more emphasis, a little more prestige and a little more help to maintain itself and remain a viable concern. As you say, a 5 percent increase on Buy B.C. means 4,000 jobs. Well, one of the big problems in the time frame we're in right now is a lack of jobs and how to produce them, yet agriculture is still not mentioned in the budget or throne speech.
I think the farmers out there are feeling it. They've seen it for a couple of years; they've seen a lack of support, or what they consider a lack of support, just in not being acknowledged. And since it's the 100th anniversary of the Ministry of Agriculture, you would have thought that would be in the budget, if only to stand up and crow about the fact that you've been around that long. Yet it wasn't there.
We are in pretty good shape overall -- a lot better shape than we were two or three years ago. I have to admit that things are looking good, not necessarily due to your particular government but due to the way the world is evolving. That's part of the change I'm talking about, with people accepting or not accepting it. Our marketing boards have gotten them through some of the hurdles, but they have more hurdles to get over, as you well know. Another area we will have to talk about is the support of these people and their adjustment to the future. We are generally doing it, but there are problems. Interprovincial barriers are a problem. Nothing is perfect, but all in all, the farming industry is not looking bad.
The prospects for farming in this province are good. But between you and me, hon. minister, when you have to have a second job to support this industry, is it really in that good a shape? That is a question we have to address: why does an industry that is so viable and so important to the economy of this country and this province have to have a second person work off the farm to support it? Why is it not making enough to support itself, in a lot of cases?
Another area we have to look at is whether this industry is attracting new people, new blood. Can young people get into this industry? Can they afford it? How are we going to have them afford it in future? Do we have the educational facilities to get these people up to a certain speed so that they can get into the industry? Then when they approach the industry, they are looking at a debt of from $2 million to $3 million. Does that make it a viable industry to a person who is 20, 22 or 23 years old? Or would they rather go to the big city to see the glitter of the lights and make $100,000 a year or whatever they can possibly make there? It's a way of life, and we have to foster that. Plus, as I said, it's a cornerstone of this province.
Without any further ado, I will start into the budget. If it's agreeable to you, I will start by asking a few budgetary questions. Then I'd like to go into generic agriculture, depending on commodity group, and after that into fisheries, aquaculture and food. I'll do it in that order, and maybe we'll have it in an organized fashion. As other parties come in to ask questions, I hope they will try to maintain the same sort of organization. I've found that's just about impossible here, mind you, so we'll have to bear with that.
I'm looking at the budget, and the first thing I see is.... Take a look on page 55 in the overview, and you'll see where you have your 1993-94 expenditures and your 1994-95 expenditures. The expenditures you have down are $69,144,100 in 1994-95. In the 1993-94 estimates, you've quoted $70,995,000. But if we take a look at the 1994-95 estimates themselves, we read a different number; it reads $71,030,000. I'm just wondering how these figures got juggled from one book to the other, from one year to the other. After all, we were just transferring numbers. How would that be adjusted?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Give us a minute or two, and we'll get back to you on that. If you want to go to your next one, we'll chase that one.
R. Chisholm: The next one is roughly of the same nature, so it might be advisable to go through the exercise now, because I have a few of them throughout the whole budget.
For instance, go down to the next column. If you take a look in 1994-95, it's $80,069,000. If you take a look at 1993-94, it's $89,022,000. But if you take a look at the actual book of 1993-94, you will find that it reads $89,057,000. That's why I'd like to know what the difference is and how those numbers came about.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The difference is a reduction of $35,000, which is a restatement of the estimates that was taken off to contribute to the service quality initiative in the Ministry of Government Services. So it's a reconciliation. It would then appear in their restated estimates.
R. Chisholm: That being the case, there is a reduction in the next year of almost $9 million. Are you telling me that there was a reduction of some sort and that you lost $9 million from your ministry, and you didn't squawk? What are the differences here? Why did we lose this money or what is the reduction? What is this all about?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I've got the right page here. There were a number of reductions, mostly in farm income assurance. The basic reduction had to do with the cancellation of the farm income assurance fund, and that was a total of about $10 million. There was also a cancellation of the revenue protection plan for tree fruit; that was $3.8 million. The NTS -- national tripartite stabilization -- for beef was $2.69 million. The reduction in the soil and water program was $1.39 million, and there were some other minor ones. The reductions totalled $20.437 million. And then there were some additions. For example, there's the contractor conversion, so salaries went up by $1.5 million. There's a whole list of things, including an increase for the net income stabilization account of $2.3 million. There is another $1 million for Buy B.C., another $1.18 million for the Okanagan
[ Page 10083 ]
Valley Tree Fruit Authority, $2.4 million in Partners and another $0.8 million on the estate winery program. I've given you the major.... If you sum up all those additions, they'll total $11.451 million. That means there's a reduction of $20 million and $11 million added back, and we get our total of $80 million. The difference is $8.9 million.
[10:45]
R. Chisholm: Let's go down to the next line, under total voted expenditure by group account classification -- same page, just a column down. If you compare last year and this year, you'll find there's been a decrease in grants and contributions. I'd like to have that explained. That was a difference of almost $9 million there. Then we have other expenditures. Just exactly what is covered by column two, "Other Expenditures"? I see there has been a decrease in that. I'm not too sure what "other expenditures" is supposed to mean. Those are the two questions I have for that area.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I gave part of the answer before. The difference is essentially in farm income insurance, but I can give you some more details. The Green Plan went up by $200,000. The soil and water program went down to zero from $1.33 million. The grape and wine sector adjustment assistance initiative went to nothing from $89,000. The farm income insurance fund went from $6.02 million last year to a total of $900,000 this year. The revenue protection plan and the grains and oilseeds strategy are flat at $2 million and $2 million. The revenue protection plan for tree fruits went from $1.9 million last year to zero this year; there was a cancellation of that program at the request of industry. Crop insurance is flat at $3.25 million. The NTS program -- national tripartite stabilization -- went from $8 million down to $2.61 million this year. The Partners program has gone up to $2 million from nothing. The income stabilization account went from $3.665 million to $5.937 million. The total on financial programs on the Agriculture side last year was $27,054,000; this year it is $17,697,000.
On the Fisheries and Food side, the budget has actually gone up from $2.122 million to $4.112 million. On the Agriculture side, other programs -- which include 4-H, grants to fairs and societies, the Peace River initiative and so on -- went from $2.052 million to $2.071 million, so that's up. The Land Commission went down from $90,000 last year to $25,000 this year. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority grants went from $1.82 million up to $3 million this year.
So the total voted amounts are $33,138,649 for last year and $26,905,649 for this year. On the special accounts, there's a minor reduction on all the accounts from $1.086 million down to $1.039 million. Under livestock protection, that's a flat amount.
So the ministry's total grants and contributions went down from $34,242,849 to $27,927,749. Basically, the major farm income insurance programs went down, and we went up virtually everywhere else. That's a nutshell picture.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, it means that the money actually going out to the farmers has gone down and the moneys that have gone into the bureaucracy have gone up. That's not a very healthy trend for the agriculture industry.
I have another question on vote 12, on page 59, and this one is about salaries and benefits. For instance, if you take a look at salaries and benefits, we see that they've gone up in administration support, in financial programs, in Fisheries and Food and in Agriculture, to the tune of approximately $1 million, I would estimate -- and that's without using a calculator. How many FTEs did we take on and for what jobs or what issues? That's my question. We've had an increase in all those areas. What was the necessity?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The extra FTEs were added in the field: three in brand inspection, two in resource planning -- that's to assist with protected areas, land use planning and that sort of thing -- and two in the Agricultural Land Commission. Of the layoffs, 98 percent of those were in head office. So the salary increases were basically due to inflationary pressures on the salary side, not to the addition of FTEs in headquarters.
Your basic question is: why have salaries and benefits increased while the total FTEs have decreased from 493 to 473? If you bear with me, I'll give you a complicated explanation. The previous fiscal year included an estimate of 32 possible contract conversions, which would have brought that total to 493. But, in effect, the ministry budget reflected salaries and benefits for 461 FTEs. This year's budget includes the actual contract conversions of 12 FTEs, so we now have a total of 473. We get 473 by totalling the 461 in the actual budget of this year plus the 12 FTEs that were converted. We actually converted 12, not the estimate of 32; we didn't convert as many contracts as we expected. The balance of the cost reflects increases due to previously negotiated salary terms and conditions, and general contract provisions.
R. Chisholm: You're telling me that when I got the figures last year, we were talking about possible FTEs. The question I have is: how many possibles did we have incorporated into those figures given to me last year, which I obviously didn't realize...? With the wage freezes and what not, do we still have these contract liabilities that the ministry is paying?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Last year there were 32 possible conversions in that figure of 493. We expected that we might have to convert 32, but when it actually came down to make the conversions, we ended up converting only 12.
Can I give you the breakdown of the increase in salaries? In administration and support, there's a $139,280 increase; in financial programs, there's $60,000; in Fisheries and Food, $215,581; in the Agriculture division, $425,720; and in the Land Commission, $205,119; for a total ministry increase of $1,045,700.
R. Chisholm: Might I make the suggestion that possible figures not be incorporated into the figures that are given out? Otherwise it raises a red flag, and obviously last year's figures didn't reflect the true FTEs that we're talking about. We're now talking about "possibles." It's just a suggestion that those be kept separately and discussed separately if they come up in estimates again. That way they won't be incorporated.
The next area I'd like to talk about is the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. As you said, it's up $219,000. I now know why, and I have a question on the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. If you go back to 1992-93, it was $3.82 million; then in 1993-94, $1.82 million; and now in 1994-95 it's up to $3 million. I'd like to have a justification for this wild, erratic budget that we see here. What it is now is what it was three years ago, and in between it lost $1.5 million.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just as I thought, the reason that was down last year was that some retained earnings were used to meet the needs of the Tree Fruit Authority. In other words, because they hadn't expended the funds they had in
[ Page 10084 ]
earnings from investments, they weren't appropriated as much. Looking at the cash flow requirements for the authority, $1.8 million would do it last year. Since they've spent those retained earnings and flowed those through to program dollars, there is a need now to go up. We've taken it up to what we thought was necessary to meet the demand for this year.
R. Chisholm: What investments would these retained earnings be from? If you could explain that a little bit more, I think we'd have this question answered.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was a payment to the tree fruit industry under the special payment for tree fruits in 1992-93, and that was a total of $5 million. So the special payment was made to the authority and was invested by the Minister of Finance. As another explanation, in addition to what I provided before on the reason for the fluctuation, in that year, when we went down to $1.8 million, there were federal dollars available for the replant program under FSAM.
[11:00]
R. Chisholm: Thank you for clarifying that for me. I thought that was the case, but I wasn't too sure.
When we go over to page 61, vote 13 -- and we're talking about the ALR right now -- we see the operating costs have gone up. I know roughly what the salaries and benefits are right now, but the operating costs.... What are we getting into now? Are we enlarging ourselves? Do we need equipment? What is happening in the ALR?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the initiatives I took as minister was to discuss an issue I've been aware of for some time: the backlog of applications. I was hoping to reduce the frustrations for farmers and other people wishing to have changes in the use of their land. So we proposed to the Minister of Finance that we would put two FTEs in there. That $100,000 per FTE is basically what that is. The $200,000 in total is taken up essentially by that. There are some minor technological changes in their office equipment, and so on, to make them more efficient, but that's what this $100,000 per FTE is.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to go to page 62 of the present budget, agricultural land development. Again, here we're not seeing a great fluctuation, but we are seeing a fluctuation between 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 accounts. We're seeing the difference quoted between the different budgetary books, yet when it's quoted in this year's budget, 1994-95, the numbers vary. For instance, say $10,564,292 is actually $9,259,543. I'd like to know what the difference is in this one.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, this is a fund that's based on farmers making repayment for loans, and the interest rate fluctuates. So at best, you have a prediction as to what will be paid back by farmers. Then the account is managed so that they loan out approximately as much as they think will come back in and keep the account in balance. It has to do with changing interest rates and slight variations in the payments made back by farmers.
R. Chisholm: When we orchestrate these figures for the budget, when do they take the reading on the interest rates and that type of thing? What time frame are we looking at when we are looking at these numbers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Like any interest rate calculation, it's the best guess that our financial people can make. We do it ourselves based on knowledge of the agriculture financial markets. We look at and calculate the interest rate four times a year. What we don't know, and what accounts for some of this fluctuation, is early payment by farmers who might wish to pay early. That accounts for quite a bit of it.
R. Chisholm: When we take a look at the special account on page 63, farm income assurance fund, we have these same fluctuations, and I'm just wondering if this is roughly the same type of scenario that was just quoted to me.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the end of the year, we correct the two actuals. So there is a restatement according to the actual amounts paid out, and we don't know what volumes, and we don't know what prices. The farm income assurance programs are based, as you know, on cost of production. That is calculated, and then what they get for the product is something that can only be projected, more or less. So with making adjustments for volumes and prices, the year-end is adjusted and restated in the next blue book.
R. Chisholm: I gather, then, on page 64 -- if we take a look at that one -- that we'll get roughly the same answer. You've spent $100,351 on livestock protection, and you're quoting $100,351 as last year's figure, but last year's figure by the actual book is $92,848. Why the difference?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, again, it's the same explanation: they are actuals. While we know what the fee and licence costs levied under this act are, we don't know exactly how many there will be, so there's some variation. I would say we're pretty close. If we're out 1 percent or so, it's going to be pretty close on something about which we can't predict numbers.
R. Chisholm: Those will be all the questions I'll ask on the budget.
Now, if we can just go into general, generic agriculture questions, I'll try to keep somewhat to commodity group. There are about 60 or 70 questions, but they cover a broad area, right from blueberries to dairy to cattle or whatever.
I'll start with dairy. The first question I hear a lot about from dairymen concerns a lack of support around supply management. They realize, of course, that there is that committee in Ottawa that's going about the country listening to submissions on what to do with marketing boards. There are a lot of ongoing discussions on exactly how this is going to unroll. But they are looking for support from your ministry as to what you're saying to Ottawa. They are interested in your support, because if they don't have the support of your ministry, why should they be supporting the ALR, for instance? And if they don't have that, and if they are not viable, why is there an ALR? It's the same type of story I'm hearing whether I talk with dairymen or tree fruit growers. That was their first big question: where are you on supply management? They'd just like to hear an overview.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think there can be any question about the commitment of this government to the supply management field. I have kept in close touch with industry reps; I've called them together to report, after and before meetings of ministers of agriculture, wanting to ensure they have their voice where it will be most effective. Today, as we speak, they are giving input, which we are monitoring, to the supply management task force, the basic task force on the future of supply management. The first throne speech of this
[ Page 10085 ]
government did support supply management; it mentioned it.
There's been consistent support for article 11 under GATT. I went to Geneva -- I was hardly minister for a week -- and the supply-managed groups asked me to head a delegation, which I did. We lobbied to make sure the federal government's feet were held to the fire with respect to negotiating and not budging on article 11.
There is continued support for the concept of supply management in this province. I need to say that whenever the ministers of agriculture meet, we're there to say that the federal government negotiated on behalf of the country, and they, then, are responsible for adjustment programs. We maintain that and we are arguing consistently for them.
I think I've kept the lines of communication open. I don't think there's any provincial government that's been more supportive of supply management. We work very closely with those provinces that are major contributors to the agriculture industry, which is supply-managed. We strongly support the task force, now that it looks like it's going to work. I think there's considerable buy into the Task Force on Orderly Marketing, which is what it's called.
The other thing we do is promote domestic consumption. When you sit down and look at your milk carton and you see the cow and Buy B.C., we are supporting that in a strong way and are increasing the ramping up of Buy B.C. in order to promote domestic consumption.
But I have to say that these industries -- and I met with the agricultural bankers -- are in reasonable shape. The future looks good, and we hope to see a successful resolution with respect to the future supply of managed products. And we've supported the whole move to post sufficiently high tariffs that they can continue to manage the system.
R. Chisholm: I realize that you went to Geneva. I went to Ottawa and stood on the hill, too, with the dairy people.
But I think what they're looking for is what is ongoing. Are you putting forward submissions with that committee? What are you actively doing right now? I think it's another area where past track records have a tendency to catch up, and they're a little cynical. I realize that Buy B.C. was out there, but I can remember myself being totally immersed in Buy B.C. because this same government was trying to cancel it. Due to the lettuce fiasco, it was brought back in.
The point I'm trying to make is that these are what these people see, so they're somewhat cynical of the answers. They don't want to hear these answers over and over again; they want to see where you're actually doing it. Are there submissions before this committee at this point in time? Are you monitoring that committee, or will you be?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The B.C. Marketing Board, which is a provincial agency, presented briefs -- as did the ministry -- to the original committee when they were discussing the process: how they would arrive at an orderly marketing system in the country. So we made submissions there. We sit on the five subcommittees that have been established. We are constantly monitoring -- to answer the latter part of your question. By sitting on the committees, we know what is going on. We're there to assist the industry, share information and assist them in providing their input. And we give our constant input on supply management.
R. Chisholm: I'll ask a couple more questions on this general area, and then I'll let the other hon. member in to ask a few of his own. I think that answer will probably alleviate some of their fears, and they'll now realize that you are an active participant.
The fluid milk that is coming in from Alberta. They asked how they are supposed to be competitive when we have problems with our labour and its high costs, and we have problems with our environmental guidelines -- our regulations and laws -- which other jurisdictions do not have. Obviously this makes us uncompetitive. And now we have Alberta milk coming in; it's not as if we can stop it. So that means we have to adjust to make ourselves more competitive to compete with this Alberta milk, or whoever is coming in next.
[11:15]
The question they were asking was this. They realize they can't close the borders. They realize that globalization is going on and they're going to have to be part and parcel of it. But they realize, too, that they have to become more competitive, and the only way they can do that is with this government's assistance. How do you foresee balancing some of these differences among the provinces and commodities coming into this province that are in direct competition with ours? If we are going to be competitive, if we are going to stay in the business, we are going to have to start adjusting the way we do business. They would like to see some answers on that one.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that the purchase of B.C. milk is up for the first three months. The suggestion is that they can't be competitive: well, they are being competitive. Dairyworld, for example, operates competitively across the three countries, and we know of some other cases. Costco was buying Alberta milk, and they dropped that contract in favour of a B.C. producer. Through many ministry programs, we are assisting in working toward competitiveness, with technologies and marketing. In Buy B.C. in particular, $230,000 was allocated to a dairy promotion program in year one. The increased consumption in British Columbia -- and it's up -- definitely helps them.
With respect to your other comments about competitiveness, Alberta is reducing its budget drastically, and across the country we're going to see less support going into farming. We will therefore see a levelling of the support going to agriculture. Our industries are actually in a better position because there have been relatively fewer subsidies. They are in a better position to compete because they've already made part of the adjustment.
R. Chisholm: I don't think they are worried so much about that subsidy as about the regulation: the cost of doing business in British Columbia versus the cost of doing it in Alberta.
The problem here is that when you have all these environmental regulations, it costs you money to comply with them, and that makes you uncompetitive. If you have a labour law -- let's say our Thompson report, if it becomes law -- you have to have so many days' work a week. If you have a cattle farm, for instance, you have to milk the cows twice a day -- and you know what the hours are; you're a cattleman yourself, so you know what goes on there -- and people might work every day and get a three-day weekend at the end, but it won't comply with the law. These are costs that have to be brought to bear on how they compete. They don't have that problem in Alberta, for instance.
Let's take a look at nitrates. Now we have to take care of that problem; you're talking about having to put in tanks, containers or what have you. This is a cost that's not necessarily happening in other jurisdictions. That is a direct
[ Page 10086 ]
cost that has to come off their profit, which doesn't make them as viable as the people from Alberta.
I think that's the point they're trying to talk about: it is not necessarily your ministry, but other ministries are also putting this harness on them. They want to see you talk to those other ministries and say: "Do you realize what you're doing to our competitiveness? Do you realize we are a small business but not as competitive as the next person, because the Ministry of Environment has given us these five regulations, with absolutely no assistance." I think that's what they're looking for answers to.
When it comes down to labour, I guess what they're saying is that if it's working, don't touch it -- if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. That's the point they're trying to get across. They have a good working relationship with their employees now, but if you start dabbling in this, it's not going to be. And it's going to make them uncompetitive.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In general terms, the Green Plan dollars are there to assist agriculture to make adjustments. To say that we should roll back or not have environmental guidelines would be to throw the industry back a decade or two. The day is gone when you can produce products in an environmentally unfriendly way and expect to market them successfully. Yes, we have to be aware of the competitiveness. But none of these industries has provided figures to me -- other than any isolated costs they might point to as being higher -- that our costs of production are that high.
I think our approach to this generally is to look towards competitiveness issues and have a hard look at how competitive we are, because some industries will stand up and say we are in the best position competitively in spite of these things. For example, one industry has told me that in their view it's not taxes or regulations brought in by the provincial government; it's zoning and building permits from local government. They can live with the rest of it.
The issue of water and waste management, the Environmental Assessment Act, smoke guidelines and workers' compensation are all areas where we have worked very closely with the industry to help them develop their position -- and our own position, which we then take to the other ministries. Those industry leaders know that they can bring their concerns here and that their view will be raised with the minister responsible. I have said that the review of food policy will look at the regulatory environment and at the cost of those things. You hear a lot about the cost of WCB, but you also hear that it's much less than anybody thought. The fact is that farmworkers are no different than others. We've got a high accident rate in the farm industry, and we have to improve that. Some of that has to do with the regulations that are there, and there are some costs associated with that. But I would venture to say that the working people in the agriculture industry deserve the same protection as workers in other industries have.
With respect to things like nitrates and waste management, very few waste management control technologies that have been forced on people have not turned around and made them more efficient and more profitable. You make the argument that if you deal with your waste problems in a cost-effective way, you are more competitive. I would say that the future of marketing products has to do with being able to stand behind them as being raised in environmentally friendly ways. People can talk about the regulations, but you have to be specific. If there is a cumulative effect, we will assess that. We are doing that, and we intend to do that. The challenge is for them to provide evidence that they're not competitive because of certain regulations. We know that some farmers pay less for water and range, for example, than they do in some other jurisdictions. So there is a comparative advantage because of the pricing regime here. I think we'd have to get specific about those, but on the general point you're making, our record is fairly clear.
We have entered on behalf of farmers the debate about smoke guidelines and the debate about the Environmental Assessment Act with respect to the whole licensing regime for water. We are part of the dialogue that's going on around employment standards, and I'm encouraging industries to make their views known on the specifics of the Thompson report with respect to labour.
R. Chisholm: I think they are making their point. They're trying to make their point through me, hon. minister. They have said to me directly that they would like to see more balance when these regulations come down, that the economic plate they're in is taken into account and justified, and that there's a balance when these regulations are put into effect.
As for these other problems with the environment, they too realize they have to be environmentally responsible, and they realize this is the way to go. They're not trying to buck any system. They just want more input, and more looking at the economic situation before a regulation is put into effect, so that they remain competitive. That's their whole point.
That's about all I have to say on that subject. I'll turn it over to the next hon. member.
The Chair: I'd like to welcome the hon. member for Peace River South.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to explore, with the minister, some issues around agriculture in the Peace River region. The minister recently announced an agricultural initiative in Fort St. John for the Peace. I'd like to open by giving him an opportunity to tell us not necessarily about what his ministry plans to do but some of the things his ministry has been able to do in order to move that initiative forward.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member realizes, a partnership with the society up there has been formed. They set the agenda. The objectives of the Peace River Agricultural Strategic Planning Society initiative are to broaden the scope of the sector, to strengthen the sector as a contributor to the Peace economy, to foster greater self-reliance, and to facilitate adjustment within the sector.
Specifically, you want to know some of the things that have been achieved: first of all, the feasibility analysis for forage and straw processing that was done; a business plan for forage and straw processing, including working with interested investors; the development and use of the Peace River product logo for identifying Peace River products; tours outside the area to view new technology and ideas for Peace farmers; leadership training for farm organizations; and the sponsorship of a grasses-and-legumes-in-forestry workshop.
The review of 1993-94 activities is currently underway, and that will support their work plan for 1994-95. I suggest that the updating of the plan, which is done essentially by that society, with support from the ministry, will give the direction for what they want to achieve this year. It looks to me like they have achieved some of their objectives.
J. Weisgerber: Let's explore some of these initiatives from the ministry's perspective. I'd like to start by looking at the
[ Page 10087 ]
forage-grass initiative and the opportunities that exist to provide B.C. grass seeds in forestry ground-cover applications. The initiative has been promoted for a number of years now. Unfortunately, the practice has been for the Ministry of Forests to put into their requirements seed packages that most often were not locally grown. There has been a lot of interest in the Peace at seeing more clovers, fescues and bromegrasses grown in the Peace and used across the province for reforestation and for providing ground cover, etc. Can you give me a sense of the involvement you've had, and the successes you might have enjoyed, in that endeavour?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Three things. Specifically, the deputy has been in touch with his colleagues in those other ministries that do the purchasing. We have been in constant contact with the Purchasing Commission, leaning on them to move this initiative so that the proposals that go out include requirements to at least meet the objectives of what B.C. forage can do as ground cover. There was a meeting down here recently with the Purchasing Commission, and Hart Haidn was down for that. I met with him before and after, and I gave him my assurance that he could tell the committee that this minister is anxious to see the maximum possible amount of purchasing of seeds from British Columbia. I applaud the initiative that he and others there have taken to promote this. I understand that the Purchasing Commission is moving that way and that the first step is a workshop at Prince George with the agencies, trying to give them up-to-date information on the qualities of the forage seed and what they can do for their particular agency.
[11:30]
I'm committed to it. We have to ensure that the agencies that do the purchasing are conscious, when they put out their tender calls, that they have to be written in a way that allows the seed producers to qualify with respect to the type of product they can offer. I'm optimistic about this being an initiative that will see considerable benefit to the Peace seed growers.
J. Weisgerber: The frustration, obviously, is in the length of time it takes to move an initiative like this forward. Three or four years ago we met in Fort St. John with a number of people and in Dawson Creek with representatives, including the then Minister of Forests, the then Minister of Agriculture and a number of other people, including me. There was a commitment then that within the next 12 months the specifications for grass seed -- particularly those involving creeping red fescue -- would be on the slate and would be specified for activities not only by the Ministry of Forests, but by the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which uses an enormous amount of grass seed on roadbed seedings. It's frustrating now, three or four years later, to hear that we're having meetings with the Purchasing Commission and that we're having meetings in Prince George to try to bring the players together.
Can we get some kind of commitment on when we will move past the talking and actually start using this B.C. seed, which you and I know is better adapted to conditions in British Columbia than seed that is being brought in primarily from Oregon? When are we going to move beyond the talking stage and get into actually using, specifying and requiring seed that meets local needs, that's hardier and that's better adapted to the uses we're going to put it to?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: All good grasses live closely in community with one another, and I'd have to say that it is happening. I'm just checking here. There will be more tenders going out that do not necessarily require locally grown grasses but provide for some of the conditions they want to achieve. Of course, there will be bids put in, but we have confidence that there will be bids coming in that will end up with B.C. seed producers getting the contract.
There is a certain amount of education necessary for growers as well. Some of the ministries have requirements, and the seed that is produced doesn't meet those requirements. It's a matter of both changing the type of seed that is being grown and also changing the requirements to fit appropriate seeds that can be grown here and that are native to the area. I have the confidence that it is happening; it isn't just talk. There will be more and more tenders that have a provision in them for B.C. seed.
The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if I might just check with you. Normally at this hour we rise and report. Would you like to carry on for another few minutes before we do that?
J. Weisgerber: If we had a couple of minutes to try to finish this topic, it would....
The Chair: Fine. Then proceed, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we could get some sense from the minister of the percentages, of the volumes of B.C.-grown seed being used in government-sponsored plantings, whether they be in Highways or Forests or Environment -- those various substantial volumes of grass. I'm trying to get a sense of the progress the minister suggests we're making. Can he quantify those successes and can he give us, in addition to that perhaps, some targets for the identifiable future?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be pleased to provide the member with some estimates. I'll go to the Purchasing Commission to do that. My ministry does not have control over this. I'll get you figures on some estimates which we can then hold them to, hopefully, in the future.
Part of the problem is that a lot of the seeding is done by private contractors -- road contractors, for example -- and the contracts don't require that they purchase locally. There's got to be some education to get them to do that purchasing.
The other problem is that a lot of the seed companies that market seeds have their own sources, and they're not necessarily B.C. sources. There is some resistance to change there. The opportunity to influence this is wherever government does the direct purchasing. Because part of it is done by private contractors, it is extremely difficult to force them to do that, but that would remain the objective here. I will undertake to get you an estimate of the percentage target for this year.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to harangue the minister over this, but we're exactly where we were four years ago in Fort St. John. Different government, different ministers, but four years down the road the problems and the challenges are exactly the same as they were then. I was of the belief then, and have been led to believe since, that we were going to change that. If there's a new role for the Ministry of Agriculture, I think that it's got to be as an advocate within government for diversification in one of those few areas where government can actually influence diversification and the use of local products. I would hope that we would see some kind of a commitment, some kind of a focus, some kind of an initiative within the ministry. I don't know what you
[ Page 10088 ]
need to do, but this thing is going to be talked around and around. I'll guarantee you we'll be back here talking about the same things next year. Unless somebody takes an initiative, we're going to be at the same point again, because it's repetitive. I'm looking for someone to break us out of this cycle we're in and get on to doing something.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as the member recognizes, if it were that easy, the final year of your government would have done it immediately or set the direction.
Let me say that I remain personally committed to this; for me, it's a Buy B.C. issue. I think it is one of the areas that is on the top of the list for diversification in the Peace. But things are different. There actually will be some Purchasing Commission specifications that include the type of seed that can be provided by the Peace growers -- that will happen this year.
The Purchasing Commission is now onside; they just have to get the other agencies to change their requirements. If the Ministry of Forests is convinced that a certain kind of legume is better for soil stabilization, and they've got scientific literature that shows that, it's hard to convince them to go to a different regime. But that is happening; we're finding that more and more are onside; and there has been considerable progress with respect to educating the farmers and the industry. So I can stand here and say that if this doesn't happen, if for some reason these initiatives don't carry on, then we will hold the agencies accountable. The ministry executive here is committed as an advocate for locally grown seed products from the Peace River, and we take that message very vociferously to those other agencies.
R. Chisholm: I have to back the member for Peace River South on this one and re-emphasize that in 1992 we canvassed this same subject extensively. At that point in time we were importing seed from the state of Oregon to do our highways. We were importing seeds to utilize in our forestry practices. It doesn't matter what the bantering was between the parties that was going on here earlier -- the point is that it hasn't been done in four years. I have a problem when we come up against this type of situation. We have a solution, but we don't act upon it. After all, this is the essence of Buy B.C.; this is the essence of supporting ourselves. Nobody's against free enterprise and competition, but, where possible, we should be supporting these failing industries. They are failing due to a lack of support from our own people.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The biggest problem is telling the private companies what to do. It's a matter of education with them, because we can't require that they do that.
With respect to the government agencies, I can say that since last year or the year before, there has been progress. There will be more seed, and I suspect that the year after there will be more seed purchased. We remain committed to that particular strategy. If Buy B.C. can be used to assist the marketing, then we would welcome a proposal to do that. I understand there's been discussion to do precisely that, and if it comes to my desk and if it meets the requirements, I'll approve that project.
It looks like there's agreement here. I would like to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]