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, MAY 10, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 5
[ Page 10697 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the honour -- and I'm sure the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi will be interested in this -- of welcoming the Nash family, who are here visiting on their fiftieth wedding anniversary. They have decided to celebrate that on a cruise ship that has just arrived in Victoria to start the season. So would you please welcome the Nash family, who are visiting from West Vancouver.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier today I had the distinct honour of meeting with the High Commissioner of Ghana, His Excellency Annan Cato, and the consul general for Ghana, Dr. Herbert Allsopp. They have joined us in the gallery this afternoon to observe proceedings. I'd ask you all to make them welcome.
H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon Wayne Anthony from Abbotsford, Hugh Jackson from Chilliwack and Jack Tearne from Agassiz. They are all here representing their respective teachers' associations. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
A. Warnke: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a very good friend of mine from Richmond, Phil Lequesne, and his business partner, Al Howlett. Would the House please make them welcome.
U. Dosanjh: There are 50 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School -- a great school in Vancouver-Kensington -- with their teacher, Jack Schriber. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Stephens: In the precincts today we have 24 grade 7 students from Langley Prairie Fundamental School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery is a constituent from the Sooke area, Dave Fraser. He is a freelance writer and journalist. I hope he'll have something good to write about after viewing today's proceedings. Will the House please make him welcome.
B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce a good friend, Mr. Jamie Ross. He is a councillor in the village of Belcarra, president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association and a member-at-large-elect of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I see in the gallery a friend from Kamloops, the president of the Kamloops District Teachers' Association, Dave Scott. I would ask the House to make him welcome.
N. Lortie: With us in the gallery is also the president of the Delta Teachers' Association, Jan Eastman. Would the House please make her welcome.
G. Wilson: I notice that also in the gallery is Sharon Wood, president of the Sunshine Coast Teachers' Association. Maybe the government might get a message as to why they're here. Then we can make them all welcome.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND FAIR WAGE ACT
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skills Development and Fair Wage Act.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, this act will replace the existing skills development and fair-wage policy. While fair-wage requirements have been in place in the United Kingdom since 1891, and at the federal level in Canada since the turn of century, this bill emphasizes the need for quality workmanship. The bill is designed for three purposes consistent with the mandate of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour: to ensure skills development and training, to ensure high-quality work standards, and to ensure that qualifying employees receive a commensurate fair wage for work performed on publicly funded construction projects.
The act requires that all employees working as tradespersons involved in construction work to which this act applies must be registered under the Apprenticeship Act and hold a British Columbia apprenticeship certificate of qualification or interprovincial red seal.
This act also addresses enforcement problems experienced under the current policy. This act also repeals the old Wage (Public Construction) Act, which has not been operative for many years.
Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT
G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. The NDP fundraising and money-laundering arm has been under criminal investigation and is now before the courts. Your Minister of Employment and Investment has negotiated a special deal for his former union. The Iron Workers have told us they don't want to talk about what they're going to do with the taxpayers' dollars. That's the Iron Workers' choice, but the Premier has an obligation to answer the people of British Columbia.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Campbell: Not only has his government decided to provide $2.1 million for additional slush funds to his union friends, but an additional $1 million is available to his friends under section 21(1) of the Island Highway agreement.
My question to the Premier is simply this: how can the Premier assure British Columbians that not one cent of that $3.1 million in slush funds for his friends is going to go into the NDP's pockets?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition is speaking about what is called advancement funds, which are contained in most building trade agreements. These funds are jointly administered by trustees of the employers and the employees and are utilized for promoting the industry and for training and worker skills upgrading. I would be very surprised if the trustees would have the funds utilized for
[ Page 10698 ]
other than what is set out in these traditional collective agreements.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I'm surprised the Premier hasn't done enough homework to know not only what has gone on with the Island Highway agreement, but how other agreements have been used. The Iron Workers' constitution says that of their premium of 25 cents per hour can be used for "any purpose deemed necessary and advantageous to the trade." Can the Premier inform this House how this Iron Workers' slush fund is any different than the BCGEU's staff development fund, which managed to contribute $3,000 to an NDP campaign?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Before I recognize the hon. Premier, the Chair would just like to remind hon. members that while this is obviously an issue of great public concern and it has had quite a bit of publicity, the facts remain the same as far as question period is concerned: matters dealing specifically with ministerial responsibility are to be raised in question period. I would just caution members with regard to that.
[2:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I made it very clear that these funds are used for the purposes I've just outlined. They are contained in most of the agreements signed between employers and employees in the construction industry. As I said, they are utilized through trustees. The trustees have to jointly agree that the funds will be utilized in the ways I've outlined: for skills upgrading and training and for the advancement of the industry by employer and employee, in a cooperative way. I find it hard to take seriously the sleazy language being used by the Leader of the Opposition, who collected a million dollars from developers for a mayoralty campaign. I'd like to see the list of those developers.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. On a final supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this Premier's defence of his government's shoddy ethical behaviour is a blot on your many years of public life. For a couple of coffee breaks and some travel time, the Premier has decided to give his friends over $3 million to spend as they will. Say what he may and feign outrage, the fact of the matter is that this Premier's government is in ethical bankruptcy. Will the Premier tell the people of British Columbia -- and assure this House -- that every single cent of their tax dollars will be going for public benefit and not for his or any other party's political favour?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am more than willing to see that the details of the information about how these advancement funds are utilized, as I've outlined, are made available to the House.
I may say I'd like to see the Leader of the Opposition table the million dollars he used to raise, in his mayoralty campaigns, sitting in on development permits and rezonings -- the millions of dollars he collected from the development industry. He should table that in the House, too.
G. Farrell-Collins: We'd like to see tabled in this House an elections act that will stop just the types of things you guys have been doing for the last ten years. We've been waiting two years for it, and we still don't see it.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF B.C. HYDRO
G. Farrell-Collins: The Liberal opposition has learned from sources in Hydro that the government is about to put the lights out on Mr. Eliesen. We've learned that he's about to be fired as the president and CEO of Hydro, after repeated questions by the opposition about Hydro's spending practices. Can the Premier tell the taxpayers of British Columbia that they will not be required to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance or pension for Mr. Eliesen's time at B.C. Hydro -- that they won't be left holding the bag for this government and that minister's irresponsibility in signing the most outrageous contract in the history of this province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can say that the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro will be making an announcement in the near future.
The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that's because the minister doesn't know. I'm sure the Premier should know whether we're going to be left holding the bag for the severance and pension for this gentleman. We found out that Mr. Eliesen is being fired after the government has paid out $120,000 in maximum performance benefits entitled under that contract. Can the Premier assure us that the public of this province will not have to pay for those specialty bonuses if Mr. Eliesen is fired for cause? Can he guarantee this House that Mr. Eliesen is not going to show up on the public payroll somewhere else?
The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member?
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the public deserves an answer from the Premier, because they're the ones paying the bills. The Premier should know that patronage doesn't work; it didn't work for Robyn Allan and it won't work for Marc Eliesen. Will the Premier, as the leader of the government, commit to ensuring that the next president of B.C. Hydro is chosen by full public search -- that everybody has an opportunity in this country to bid on that job; and that it will be the best person for British Columbia, not the best person for the NDP?
PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT YOUTH VIOLENCE
J. Tyabji: My question is for the Attorney General on an issue of grave importance to the people of this province. I have in my hands correspondence to the Attorney General, and to Mr. Hank Mathias of the Attorney General's office, on an issue that we first discussed in October of last year. Over the weekend a very serious incident occurred in my riding. A man was very seriously assaulted at his home and is now in hospital. I'm calling on the Attorney General, on behalf of the people of the province who are concerned with rising youth delinquency and crime, for a full public inquiry into rising youth delinquency and crime.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think there's no doubt at all that in the public mind there is considerable concern and anxiety in
[ Page 10699 ]
respect of the degree of violence that we now see among young people. Crime rates are not up, but the degree of violence certainly is, and it's a concern for all of us.
I raised this very issue at the last meeting of federal and provincial justice ministers. At that time I raised a number of suggestions for amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which are now being actively considered by the federal government. I hope, and I think other justice ministers hope, that those will be able to deal with the issues the member raises.
J. Tyabji: On Friday of this week, the people of Oyama are planning a town hall meeting. Emotions are running very high, and the issue is extremely serious. There's a lot of talk about a vigilante movement in the area. It's a small community, and the series of incidents are really.... The momentum is growing.
I'm very concerned, and I'm asking the Attorney General to personally intervene to make sure that the emotions at that meeting don't get carried away and that there aren't further incidents. I'm asking that he or his office make sure that the outcome of that meeting is productive.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that the residents of the Okanagan -- and particularly the residents of Oyama -- need to heed the advice given to them by the local RCMP, which is to let the justice system take its course in this matter and not to take matters into their own hands.
J. Tyabji: Right now, public confidence in the justice system is not high. The person who wielded the axe in a premeditated assault has been charged with assault and not premeditated murder. I would hope that the Attorney General recognizes the seriousness of the issue and level of emotion, and will intervene.
The Speaker: Hon. member, there was no question there that I gathered.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Recognizing the concerns of members of the public, in our society people are innocent until the courts determine otherwise. We should always remember that.
CALL FOR REVIEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY
V. Anderson: Yesterday the Minister of Social Services stood in the House and refused an independent review of her ministry. At that time the minister had full knowledge that such a review was being undertaken by the ombudsman. What role did the minister have in embargoing the ombudsman's news until after question period? Will the minister indicate why she refused an independent inquiry when she knew that such action was vitally necessary?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The ombudsman contacted me early yesterday afternoon and invited me to speak with her on a matter she was considering. The embargo of the ombudsman's business was her own. During the course of our conversation I informed the ombudsman of information that she didn't have regarding the time lines of the release of my report. At no time did I do anything other than welcome her announcement of an inquiry that she had under consideration at the time.
V. Anderson: For two years, under two ministers, we have been demanding a review of the Ministry of Social Services. The attitude of this minister and the previous minister in refusing an independent review continues to anger the public as well as myself. The ombudsman has been left to investigate the case of Matthew Vaudreuil. The public has demanded answers. For the children, will the Minister of Social Services assume her responsibilities by initiating an independent review of her ineffective ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: From day one I have said that our inquiry is the first step in this exercise. I will do whatever is required to get to the bottom and find out what happened, why Matthew Vaudreuil died. If further action is required, further action will be taken.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
V. Anderson: The documentation is irrefutable. The children of British Columbia deserve better. Social Services is failing to serve the 100,000 Matthews-in-waiting in this province. Your government is doing even worse than Social Credit.
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
V. Anderson: To the Premier: the community is outraged. Will you commit today, Mr. Premier, to assume the responsibility of your office? Will you launch what your minister will not, an independent investigation into the total social services system of this province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think every British Columbian is appalled that young Matthew Vaudreuil had to die. The minister has made it very clear that she is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that other children do not have to suffer that very sad and tragic fate. The minister will be taking what action needs to be taken to protect the children of this province.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, on a point of information, I would just like to raise a matter. I'm concerned about the comments about advancement funds and promotion funds, and I would offer....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. With the greatest of respect, that is not a valid point of order to enter into debate. The hon. member wishes some assistance with...?
Interjection.
The Speaker: Hon member, please take your seat.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave of the House to allow the Select Standing Committee on Education, Culture and Multiculturalism to sit at 3:15 p.m. today.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd also like to inform the House that this House will be sitting tomorrow.
[ Page 10700 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply: in Section A, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and in Section B, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
[2:30]
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
(continued)
On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479.
M. de Jong: As I reviewed the material, some of it provided by the ministry regarding its desire to protect provincial biodiversity, the figure that constantly emerged from that documentation is, of course, the 12 percent figure. The desire of the ministry is to protect provincial biodiversity to the tune of 12 percent and set that as a figure for protected areas. My question for the minister is: can he advise this committee on what basis the ministry settled on the 12 percent figure?
Hon. M. Sihota: The 12 percent figure, of course, is of representative ecosystems, so it's not just a flat 12 percent. The number was, to a large measure, predicated on international work done in this regard.
M. de Jong: The minister is correct insofar as pointing to certain international organizations is concerned. The UN, for one, is also setting a figure of 12 percent in certain circumstances. As I review some of the documentation provided by the ministry, the confusion that has arisen for me concerns the question of whether or not that 12 percent will be applied on an entirely provincial basis or on a more regional basis. People in certain areas of the province will be interested to know whether that is going to be a regional or a cross-province standard.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I've already answered that question; it's on the record in Hansard.
M. de Jong: The minister will acknowledge that in his previous responses he did not deal specifically with the Cariboo region. My question is somewhat similar. If the 12 percent average is going to be applied on a provincial basis, that has certain implications for people in the Cariboo. If it's going to be applied on a regional basis, that has perhaps far worse implications for them. What can the minister say to assure people in the Cariboo region that the protected areas strategy of this government will not be implemented in a way that will affect them unfairly in comparison with the rest of the province?
Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Owen will be issuing his report. I'll see what Mr. Owen has to say in his report before I feel comfortable commenting on it further.
M. de Jong: One matter canvassed earlier in these debates relating to the expressed concern for biodiversity was also addressed by the auditor general. These questions were put to the minister earlier, and I can say that I did not hear a satisfactory response. The auditor general presented some concerns in his report regarding the gathering of that data and the information that was available to the minister. He was asked what improvements, if any, he has made within his ministry. Presumably his estimates refer to funding that has been allocated to make those improvements. He didn't respond to that earlier, and I am interested to know what he has done to address the auditor general's report and recommendations.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow that. I'd like to know what recommendation the hon. member is talking about.
M. de Jong: There was concern expressed by the auditor general regarding the lack of habitat protection information available in the province. I acknowledge that those questions were put to the minister earlier. What I have not heard, and what does not appear in the Hansard I reviewed, is an indication from the minister about what has been done -- he did confirm that he saw the recommendations in the report -- and in what way it is reflected in his estimates. What has he done within the ministry to address those concerns?
Hon. M. Sihota: Just to cover off the point, the hon. member is right: the issues have been raised before. There is about $11 million allocated under the corporate resource inventory and about $6 million under the provisions of the Forest Practices Code. There is the work of the conservation data centre. There are legislative initiatives with regard to conservation covenants.
M. de Jong: One matter of great concern that falls within the purview of the ministry deals with waters and lands, and more particularly waters, and the ongoing debate concerning the protection of aquatic habitat and drinking water and, more particularly, the debate concerning chloramine versus chlorine. Can the minister indicate in a very general way to what extent his ministry has become involved in that debate and whether it has made recommendations to various regional governments concerning its preference, if it has one?
Hon. M. Sihota: We have not made any final recommendations to the GVRD or any other regional district with regard to this issue. Secondly, we are in the midst of developing a position. Thirdly, I've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with federal officials as well as provincial officials. In due course we will make representation to the GVRD on the time frame. It's hard to say.... I know that the GVRD has a process whereby they intend to make some decisions, and we'll probably work within the time frames they've established.
M. de Jong: From the minister's response, I would not suggest that activity in this area has been slow-moving. I think the minister would be aware of the incident that occurred in the late 1980s in Surrey, where a chloramine escape resulted in some pretty significant -- I think the term "sterilization" was used -- effects on a particular river in that area. Does the minister have a concern about the movements afoot? I might add that the water supplied to my riding from north of the Fraser River also includes chloramine. Does he have concerns about chloramine being introduced into water systems? He mentioned the GVRD. There are other areas in the province.
[ Page 10701 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I do have concerns.
M. de Jong: I'm much more at ease knowing that the minister has some concerns. My question is: could he be a little more specific about what action he is intending to take? Has he had contact with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is administering to some of the regional districts and municipalities? What is he doing beyond articulating an apparent concern?
Hon. M. Sihota: I have discussed the issue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with the federal Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary secretary and with staff. I am certain that in the weeks ahead I will be meeting with GVRD officials to discuss this issue with them in my office here in Victoria.
M. de Jong: The minister will know that there is an overwhelming financial consideration that districts and regional districts face, and that from their perspective the introduction of chloramine represents a much more economical way of dealing with water treatment. If the minister has these concerns, perhaps he can expand on what action he would contemplate taking -- and what action he has taken to date -- to highlight the potential downside from an environmental point of view that would lead some of these communities to revert to or adopt chlorine water management systems, acknowledging that that will necessarily result in heightened costs to those areas.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that it is cheaper for the regional districts to proceed with chloramine. It's also my understanding that with regard to fish habitat, it can have a negative effect. I can understand why the GVRD wishes to pursue the directions that it does for economical reasons. Our responsibilities, obviously, are to ascertain the impact on fish and fish habitat. We have let them know that that is our concern, and we have participated with them with regard to a study. If the hon. member has done his research, he should know that in 1991 the GVRD agreed to an environmental impact assessment to determine the risk and benefit of using chloramine instead of the current secondary material of chlorine. The agreement was driven in part by our ministry and in part by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Phase one was a review that concluded that there were a number of critical issues that required attending to. The B.C. Environment ministry agreed with that. There was a further study that we asked for with regard to potential mitigation, strategies and costs of both options. We understand that phase two indicates that chloramine is a greater risk to the environment. They know that, and that is why things are where they are at this time.
M. de Jong: I must confess that the minister's recitation of history is provided quite readily. He concludes by referring to where we are. Well, that's the question that people have, and I hope he will appreciate that I bring to him the concerns of a great many people -- certainly people in the Fraser Valley -- who want to know whether or not the provincial government will be taking active steps in one direction or another. He offers some tautologies and some generalities, but what is the position of the minister? What is the time line? He's mentioned a time line without giving any indication as to what it is. He acknowledges that it's a problem that's been around at least since the early 1980s, and yet he is very vague insofar as the time line one might expect for the matter to be dealt with.
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think the hon. member was listening to what I had to say, but that's not surprising, because he hasn't been part of this debate for the better part of the 18 hours that we've been into this debate -- and of course, the Liberal Party hasn't shown much consciousness around environmental issues during the course of this debate. The hon. member now wishes to participate in the debate, and that's his prerogative....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I see someone else is awake on that side now, too. Let me put the issue into some perspective....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member would listen, he would understand that there's a good reason why God gave us two ears and one mouth. Let me give him an indication of what's at stake here.
Point one. We insisted on a number of studies; the GVRD agreed to participate in those studies, and that process was driven by us, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
Point two. When the studies were completed -- I'm sorry, I don't have the exact date they were completed; they commenced in 1991, so they were probably completed sometime in 1992-93 -- they were deemed to be okay on the part of our ministry, but further work was required with regard to cost-benefit issues.
Point three. There was then a second phase of studies. With regard to that second phase, the ministry indicated that it had serious concerns about the use of chloramine, as it had a higher environmental risk and there were human health risks and concerns associated with the use of chloramine.
The point I want to drive home is that, first, we didn't take a back seat. We indicated what our concerns were at the staff level. That was the concern: environmental and human health risks. After that, the GVRD was requested by us to complete further studies with regard to the cost options. I don't think they were totally persuaded by our arguments regarding cost; they are now in the process of doing further cost studies. I guess those studies will be completed in short order by the GVRD. I want to emphasize that the Ministry of Environment indicated that it was not at all comfortable with the use of chloramine, as it had risks both on the environmental side and for human health. Having said that, the final work is not complete, and I will wait for that work to be done. It will be done soon.
So you can tell your constituents that the Ministry of Environment is well ahead in this game. We have been dealing and will continue to deal with the GVRD. We have been asking and will continue to ask tough questions of the GVRD. We are aware of the potential risks, both to the environment and to human health, and that to a large measure is driving our concerns. Furthermore, you can go back home and tell your constituents, hon. member, that I've indicated that in short order I'll be meeting with the GVRD to discuss these issues further with them. But it seems to me only sensible to wait for the completion of the studies before we have those meetings.
M. de Jong: I can assure the minister that I will take that message back to my constituents. I further simply add that I am constantly amused by the defensiveness with which the minister seems to take these questions, when all they
[ Page 10702 ]
represent is the legitimate inquiries of people across the province. But I will take that message back.
I will say one other thing. I have been here, followed these debates and listened to what the minister has had to say with interest. I have listened to him as he chastises me for the role I have played in these debates, and I acknowledge that mine has been a limited role. But I make no apologies to the minister for that -- none whatsoever.
I also make no apologies for the fact that these estimates began some three weeks after my arrival here. I have no doubt whatsoever that this minister would much rather have gone head to head with a rookie MLA assuming the role of critic for only three weeks than answer questions from other members in this House, who are in a much better position -- I acknowledge, a much better position -- to put tough questions to him and who have been here and know the way he runs his ministry -- or doesn't run his ministry, as the case may be. I have no doubt that he would have been much more comfortable in another framework or approach.
But I didn't do that, because unlike this minister, whose arrogance extends so far it's beyond belief.... Arrogance in an individual is disturbing enough, but arrogance in the hand of government is downright dangerous, and that's what this minister represents: an arrogant minister. I don't make any apologies for the role I played in this debate. When I look back on it, I'll take pride in the fact that I didn't interject with meaningless questions. I tried to impose myself on the debate when I thought it was appropriate and when I thought I could provide some constructive criticism or ask some legitimate questions. If the minister finds fault with the manner in which this debate has proceeded -- well, tough. That's his problem. He whines about the time he has spent here. Well, don't whine at me, because I didn't keep hon. members here. I thought I would approach these debates in a more responsible way.
Getting back to water and resource management, the same area that supplies much of the eastern Fraser Valley with drinking water also has the Fraser River run through it. We've all seen the destruction that can result from major flooding like that which took place in the Mississippi Delta. It's been some years since the Fraser River jumped its bank, but not that long. Quite frankly, the information that's available now is that because of improper dredging techniques, the river in all likelihood will jump its bank in the not too distant future.
My question for the minister is: what work has his ministry undertaken and what work is it planning to undertake to ensure that the Fraser River basin in the eastern and central Fraser Valley isn't subjected to a repeat round of flooding?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not asking the hon. member to apologize for anything other than the positions taken by his political party. I note that during the course of these estimates -- and I agree that he hasn't been participating in the debate -- his party has said that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution, because it "demoralizes business." I find that disturbing. His party has said that there ought to be mining in parks. I must tell you that that is out of touch with the views of most British Columbians. His party has argued in this House that we ought not to release the list of British Columbia's worse polluters, because somehow that is only a publicity stunt, despite the fact that the vast majority of the people who show up on that list end up complying because they're embarrassed about being on that list. His leader has stood up outside this House and said that we should get rid of environmental regulation. That, of course, is the kind of value system that one expects from a political party that represents the rich and powerful.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition made his way here because of the cheques that were written for him by those who bankrolled his campaign on Howe Street. All I'm saying is that whether the hon. member participates in the debate or not -- he doesn't have to apologize for his degree of participation -- someone ought to be apologizing for the lack of environmental awareness on the part of the Liberal Party. I must commend the other parties in the House, which sit on the different ends of the political spectrum, for their willingness to show some of the sensitivity to the environment which is lacking entirely on the part of the Liberal Party. That's all I've been saying, and I will say it over and over again in British Columbia, because it seems to me that British Columbians feel very strongly about the environment. It is part of our ethic and psychology as British Columbians, and it's amazing, the degree to which the Liberal Party is out of touch.
I offered to hon. members an opportunity to be briefed on these issues with regard to the Fraser River. I know that the member for Abbotsford, who is now back in the House, had the opportunity to be briefed on this issue. I regret that the hon. member who asked the question did not take advantage of those briefings. I'm sure that staff are still in the precincts, and I'd be happy to make them available for him to be briefed on issues relating to Chilliwack and other regions in the eastern Fraser Valley.
N. Lortie: It is my pleasure to interject between these two combatants and give them time to cool off. I have a couple of issues and questions that I would like to canvass on behalf of my constituency and my constituents. Hopefully these questions will also be of a general interest to other people within our province and perhaps to your communities here.
My first question to the minister is: in the permitting process for demolition dumps done at the regional office by the Minister of Environment, why isn't there a requirement that these permit applicants get the proper zoning for the land before the ministry issues permits for those kinds of dump sites and others?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a legitimate question. It does frustrate our ministry in having to go through a process without these zonings in place. Last September I signed a protocol agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to help us iron out these wrinkles in the system, because it is somewhat frustrating for us to go through a permitting process when a municipality has not given appropriate consideration to zoning. If you don't have the certainty of zoning, it's very difficult. The municipality will argue that there's no point for us to hear the zoning application unless we know whether the permitting process is through with the Ministry of Environment. That means that the problem has a sort of chicken-and-egg dimension to it. We executed the protocols to try to work out those kinds of problems with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and that's precisely what we're trying to do.
One other point that I try to make is a follow-up, because I don't want the hon. member to think that the work was done only in September and that nothing has happened since then. I want the hon. member to know that in March -- or it could have been April -- I met with representatives of the UBCM to follow through on that agreement and discuss with them the very issue that he raised. We asked staff to go back and do some work, and I know that staff from our ministry were present at the meetings of the UBCM to further the
[ Page 10703 ]
work of the protocol agreement to try to overcome these kinds of planning frustrations.
N. Lortie: Would it not be a simple matter to issue a permit with a requirement that they first obtain a conditional permit, subject to obtaining the kind of zoning that is required under the municipal law? One of the problems that I ran into in Delta is that in discussions with the regional office and municipality, the municipality was told that if they don't have the proper zoning for the function they're using the land for, they could be taken to court. We have a number of members of the bar here in this House, and we should all know that it's a very expensive process for a small municipality to take a large landowner to court, and it's a long-drawn-out process. It would seem that it would be much easier for the ministry to issue a permit showing they have the intent, but the permit should be conditional on the municipality granting the proper zoning for that function. Could I have a comment from the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: That is one option, and that is one of the issues that I have asked staff to look at.
N. Lortie: I will go now to my second question. Being from Delta, I bet many people here could guess that the issue is Burns Bog. As the minister knows, the Premier has designated Burns Bog an area of interest under the protected areas strategy. What does that really entail in process, and what is the time frame for a decision? If it's an area of interest, an area of study, hopefully sometime down the road some decisions will be made. The question is: what is the process and the time frame?
[3:00]
The Chair: Perhaps I could recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston, who I understand wishes leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Chair. I especially thank you on this particular occasion, because with us in the gallery are a number of distinguished guests from the city of Wakayama, Japan. Wakayama is the sister city to Richmond. It is my pleasure to introduce this group of visitors to the House. The purpose of their visit is to officially welcome the citizens of Richmond and all British Columbians to the Japan expo at Wakayama this July through September. In the gallery, in addition to Mr. Gordon Ellis, the vice-chairman of the sister city twinning committee of the city of Richmond, are the following: Mr. Mitsutaka Yoshida, vice-chairman of the Wakayama city council; Mr. Isamu Tokutsu, the deputy mayor of Wakayama city; Mr. Katsura Nishidono, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Tasuku Takagaki of the Wakayama city council; Mr. Masayoshi Tsujimoto, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Takeshi Tagami, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Eiichi Aso, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Hiroshi Ikebata of the Wakayama city council secretariat; Mr. Tsutomu Matsuzawa, foreign affairs division of Wakayama city; and Mr. Tomoaki Hashimoto, the tour attendant. Would the House please make these guests most welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: There has been a fair bit of discussion with regard to Burns Bog. There is a committee consisting of representatives from my ministry, from municipalities and from citizen groups in the area. It is not yet part of the protected areas strategy, but it can ultimately be incorporated into the final recommendations as an area that is recommended for protection. That's the process. I think 1995 appears to be the most likely time frame that we're looking at.
N. Lortie: I would urge the minister, as my last statement, to put every effort that he can possibly put into protecting this invaluable environmental jewel, which is so close to the lower mainland. Burns Bog is worthy of protection; it demands protection. I urge the minister to use his office to accomplish those goals.
Hon. Chair, could I now ask permission to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: In the gallery we have a member of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, who showed up and wrote me a note. Her name is Inger Kam. I was first at Inger's house many years ago, when she talked me into running for municipal politics and ran my campaign that first time. Inger Kam is up there and is responsible for my being imposed on this chamber. Would the chamber please make her welcome.
The Chair: I'm happy to note a favourable reception despite that introduction.
Hon. M. Sihota: I understand what the member is saying with regard to accelerating the process. That's a fair comment. I want to give him some credit for being consistently aggressive in terms of approaching this issue with both myself and my predecessor and, I know, with the Premier. I know that the hon. member has been fairly outspoken in terms of the need to get on with this decision.
The hon. member should take some comfort in the fact that most recently the provincial government announced a whole series of green-space acquisitions in the greater Victoria area. One of the benefits of those acquisitions that I've seen is the reaction from the public. Although some of the parks we've announced to date have been far away from urban areas, the ones we've announced that are in proximity to urban areas have been very well received by the public. That's given me a greater desire to look at options in the greater Vancouver area. That experience, combined with your lobbying on behalf of your constituents and the work that we're doing within the ministry regarding Burns Bog, indicates the direction that government is moving in.
I also want to say, and I know the hon. member knows this, that there are a lot of issues to be resolved. These are private lands. And there are a number of implications associated with the protection of these lands.
L. Fox: It's in a Liberal riding.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member from the Reform Party is trying to tell me which riding it's in. I have no idea which riding it's in. All I have an idea of is that the member from Delta North has been very persistent, pressing on behalf of his constituents to have government attend to the issue, and I must commend him for that.
W. Hartley: A couple of days ago I brought forward an issue of concern in the Pitt Polder wildlife management area. The concern is about the number of waterfowl that continue to decline, specifically the sandhill crane and the great blue heron. I was wondering if the minister had a response for that concern today.
[ Page 10704 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Neither species is on either the provincial or national endangered or threatened lists. Our current population estimates place sandhill cranes in the lower mainland at approximately six breeding pairs plus about eight non-breeders, for a total of about 20 birds. That goes to answer some of the questions being asked about our ability to monitor wildlife and know what we're doing in terms of conserving species. The fact that we can produce that kind of information emphasizes the good work within the ministry regarding protection of wildlife. I said there were 20 birds; this is the greater sandhill crane subspecies. Large numbers are seen during the fall migration in the vicinity of Burns Bog, which we were just talking about a few minutes ago. Of course, many more occur in other parts of western North America, including areas in your constituency.
As for the great blue heron, it's far more of an abundant breeder and a year-round resident -- and not only in your constituency. I know, for example, in the bay just outside my own residence, my children are intrigued by the ongoing presence of the great blue heron -- to the point that my daughter is constantly bringing back books from school on the great blue heron and has probably become the world's greatest seven-year-old expert on the great blue heron. That also shows you the impact of making sure the species are conserved not only from a wildlife protection point of view but in terms of the educational benefits that accrue to children. We found 11 successful, active colonies last year and 900 nests; therefore there are 1,800 adults plus an estimated 200 to 500 non-breeders, which brings the population to 2,000 to 2,300 birds.
That gives you an indication of why neither animal is on the endangered species list. Two years ago, the Ministry of Environment recognized the vulnerability of these species as a result of steady increases in urban development. As you know, hon. member, in your area there has been a fair bit of urban development, which then threatens these species and generates these concerns about vulnerability. Separate habitat conservation projects were initiated, and studies are ongoing as I speak -- I want to emphasize that point. As the hon. member knows, this year our administration increased expenditures on the habitat conservation fund by 20 percent, and for the first time in B.C. history, we took the funds from fishing licences and placed them entirely into the habitat conservation fund. I know that was well received by B.C. conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts -- and certainly, judging from the comments I received, by the B.C. Wildlife Federation -- because the money was going to the habitat conservation fund. It's not every day that you get an organization of that stature congratulating government for a fee increase. Obviously some of the projects that we fund deal with the cranes and blue herons that you speak of. We as a ministry are attempting to refine our knowledge of the current numbers, distribution, population trends and factors limiting their survival. It is our intention to develop site-specific management plans and an overall conservation strategy to ensure the preservation of both species in the lower mainland.
If, through his representations, the hon. member believes that our work in this regard is in any way deficient, I would encourage him to discuss the issue with me further. We do have opportunities under the habitat conservation fund, and there may be organizations within your constituency that may want to take advantage of those. I know that in the past you have spoken to me about conservation and preservation of species, so I know that you have an interest in these matters. Obviously you've been fairly outspoken in raising those issues on behalf of the people you represent. I think that's welcomed by your constituents, and I'm sure they appreciate the fact that you raised it here in the House.
I can assure the hon. member that should he have any further inquiries on behalf of those people, I will be able to direct him to the appropriate authorities, first of all, and second -- and I guess more importantly -- to funding opportunities which may exist under the habitat conservation fund.
H. De Jong: I would like to comment on the minister's suggestion this morning to meet with Jon O'Riordan about the Chilliwack River valley problems and about getting septic approvals in the lower mainland, particularly in the floodplain areas, which has been a problem for some time. I believe that we reached a good understanding of the issues, and Jon assured me that these would be followed up with the minister, as well as the Minister of Health, wherever it applies. I'm very pleased with that discussion; if other members have similar problems, it's good to talk to senior staff about them.
I happened to read in a news release this morning that the provincial government is planning to send a bunch of wolves to a park in the United States -- to dispose of them, I suppose -- so that they can have a better and continued life out there. There is a real problem in the lower mainland with the number of coyotes....
L. Fox: Even in this House, there is.
H. De Jong: Perhaps the minister could consider catching some of those, and send them down there as well. I don't think that anybody would feel sorry about it.
I also read in another news release this morning about some of the worst offenders. This was discussed this morning, really, but I'm sure the minister would allow me to go back onto that subject for a minute. A couple of the logging firms were mentioned in terms of creating a logging road that had been washed out during heavy rains this winter. We're now in the process of dealing with that situation through the ministry.
[3:15]
When we use the term "worst offenders," I suppose there will always be a number in that category. It's almost like a big car lot, you might say, where they have the best sellers. There are always best sellers, but the best seller one month isn't the best seller the next month, because somebody might outdo him. This sort of works in the reverse. Since the previous administration introduced the naming of some of the bad offenders, I'm sure that improvements have been made. I believe that perhaps not enough public credit is being given when improvements have been made. We read continually about those who are being charged going through the courts and whatever the results are. But we don't read much about improvements that are anticipated and completed by various firms. When people comply with new regulations, surely some praise must be given to those who are playing the game correctly. Again, I have difficulty accepting that the worst offenders today are as bad as they were five years ago. Perhaps another term, such as "bad offenders," could be used -- because if that's a cycle we're going to take, we're never going to get out of it.
The Chair: I understand the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith wishes leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 10705 ]
J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased today, on behalf of the Speaker and all members of this assembly, to welcome a group of young people who come from Catlin Gabel school in Portland, Oregon. It's a long trip to come up here. With them are several adults and their teacher Mr. Carr. I'd like to welcome you to Canada, to British Columbia and to this Legislature. Would members please help me make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his question. Let me just deal with his remarks. First of all, I'm glad that he and Mr. O'Riordan have been able to meet and discuss it. I guess that's an indication of how the system is supposed to work. You raised the issue this morning, and I'm glad staff were able to meet with you. That's probably an issue where we're far more effective if we have those kinds of meetings with staff. I appreciate your cooperation in sitting down with staff and discussing the issues that you pursued in the House this morning. I'm glad that you have a sense that some progress is being made.
I'm not sure what I should do about your comments about wolves, coyotes and animals going to parks -- and whether or not certain members of this House should be heading down to Yellowstone as well -- but you should know it's a standing offer that we make as a ministry. We are happy to make wolves or coyotes available to the Americans for those parks any time that they wish. So there you go, and now that all members are well aware of that, I'm sure they will govern themselves accordingly.
With regard to not enough credit being given, let me just amplify on that point. First of all, we do give credit to companies when their performance improves. For example, when I talked about the polluters list yesterday, I indicated a number of companies had come off the list. A number had made substantial capital improvements, and I enumerated them in the House. That's an appreciation of the fact that they're moving.
Second, the ministry, on a regular basis, hands out environmental awards to companies throughout British Columbia, recognizing the contributions they're making in protecting and encouraging the maintenance of our environment.
Third, I try to take advantage of opportunities to give credit to industry where it has moved on some of these issues. Two recent examples come to mind. One is the credit that I gave to the paint manufacturers, who have agreed now to recycle paint. Instead of simply doing with it what people do -- leaving it in their garages for years, not really knowing what to do with it -- we're now moving to a system where you can return it to the store you brought it from. So it has become an industry that is responsible from cradle to grave, and I gave the paint industry a lot of credit for agreeing to that initiative.
More importantly in terms of British Columbia, it was a distinct pleasure for me to give credit in January to the pulp industry for having achieved our AOX regulations -- it surpassed them, actually. We put in North America's toughest standards with regard to pulp mill effluent discharge. When we brought these in, industry said that it couldn't be done, that it was too expensive and that there was no scientific basis for doing it. We said: "Forget it. The standard is going to be 1.5 AOX per tonne, the toughest in North America." They made about $1.4 billion in capital improvements and have come in at 1.4 AOX per tonne. My hat is off to them to credit them for meeting that target. Of course, they have some concerns about whether they can get to the zero level by the year 2002, and I'm encouraging them to achieve that despite some protestation on their part.
My only regret is that there are some in the Liberal Party who just don't think we should be moving with tougher environmental regulations. Their leader has argued in the past that we must get rid of environmental regulation in British Columbia and reduce the protection for the environment. I must say, I'm amazed at that. I'm amazed that there are people in this House who stand up and make the argument that we ought not to charge and prosecute companies, as the Liberals have argued, because that would only demoralize business. I, for the life of me, don't understand that ethic and those values, yet that's exactly what the Liberal Party has argued.
They've gone to the point of fervently maintaining that we should have mining in parks, which is an incompatible use. A park is a park is a park. I know that Mr. Huberts, when he was the minister in the previous Social Credit government, made that statement, that a park is a park is a park, on several occasions. I know he understood it, but it's clear to me that the Liberals don't understand it. I have to tell you that that's disturbing, but there you have it.
We brought in the toughest standards in North America for CFCs to protect the ozone. We brought in the toughest standards for pulp mill effluent discharge. If government, firm in its resolve, puts that in front of industry and says to now go out and perform, industry knows it has to comply -- and it does. The proof is in the pudding, and the best example of that is the AOX. But if they know that some people on Howe Street have written cheques to assist the Leader of the Opposition to become the leader of that party, well, they know there's always an opportunity for people's firmness to wobble in making sure those regulations are applied.
H. De Jong: In conclusion, I would just like to say that I have no problem with sensible regulations and practical application. I think it's good, and I have to commend the minister for that. On the other hand -- and this doesn't involve your ministry -- I wish the same would apply to the Ministry of Attorney General when it comes to the Young Offenders Act.
F. Gingell: If I may, I'd like to touch on the issue of the Roberts Bank backup Crown lands. In July last year the Premier of this province travelled to the municipal hall in Ladner to make a series of announcements, some of which dealt with the Burns Bog issue that I bring up every year, and every year I'm told that decisions are going to be made soon. I was just looking back in Hansard of 1993, and in relation to the wildlife management area at that time, it was promised by November. The specific commitment that the Premier made in July 1993 was that the farmers who presently lease the Roberts Bank backup lands would be given brand new leases that would allow them to do the things they should do, and which I know the minister, as the person responsible for Crown lands, would wish to see them do: reinvest in all manner of things. Would the minister please advise the committee at what point the Roberts Bank backup land leases presently sit?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your question, hon. member. First of all, I acknowledge the fact that, on behalf of your constituents, you have in the past raised the Burns Bog issue, and I'll give you credit for that. Second, on the matter of Roberts Bank, we have not concluded the leases; we have simply extended the leases. So that's where we are right now,
[ Page 10706 ]
and we're discussing, with representatives of the agricultural industry in the area, some of the issues relating to the extension of those leases.
F. Gingell: The issues relate to two matters. The first is the present short cancellation terms of the present leases. The second issue is with respect to the reimbursement of the value of improvements should those leases be terminated by the government. If you have driven along Highway 17 from the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, you are probably aware that a great deal of agricultural greenhouse development is sprouting up on all sides. That's presently taking place primarily on privately owned farmland that is outside the Roberts Bank backup land area. I'm sure the minister appreciates and understands the problems that farmers in suburban areas have in dealing with the problems of urban-agriculture interface every day. It's becoming more and more difficult for them to carry on proper, economically-efficient farming operations on those lands, so the ability to get into the agricultural greenhouse business has a great deal of appeal. The issue stopping them is the question of compensation -- only if, of course, those leases are terminated before they are due.
Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to me that your question really pivots on the issue of the cancellation provisions in the leases. In the discussion we have been having, we have made a commitment that when we deal with and execute the new leases, that clause will not be in there.
F. Gingell: I'm really pleased. I didn't realize that things had moved along since the Premier's statement.
When one expropriates land for a specific purpose, the person from whom the land was expropriated expects it to be used for that purpose. This swath of 4,000 acres through prime agricultural land in Delta was done by the Social Credit government of Premier W.A.C. Bennett more than 20 years ago. With the development of the Roberts Bank container port and all the things that have happened in discussions about that -- the wildlife and bird issues are dealt with differently in the 1990s than they were in the 1970s -- it is apparent, I'm sure to everybody, that those lands will not be needed for the purpose for which they were originally expropriated. Many of the families that those lands were expropriated from are still alive and are still farming there. Has the ministry given any thought to what I'd like to suggest to you is the right thing to do: allow those families to acquire those farmlands back again?
[3:30]
Hon. M. Sihota: The ministry has taken the view that those lands should be retained in lease form and not sold.
F. Gingell: I'm disappointed to hear that. I can well appreciate that the government, and the Ministry of Environment in particular, would wish to see a means by which that farmland is kept open and green, even though the opportunities to farm it in a sensible, efficient and economic manner become more and more difficult every year, as drainage runoff becomes a problem for farmers and as more and more have problems moving their machinery around on roads that become busier and busier.
If the intention is to keep open green space, couldn't there be some other means of accomplishing that, through the agricultural land reserve or some new form of legislation, instead of through the continuation of expropriation, the purpose for which is no longer valid? It really does seem to be completely unfair. I'm sure the government can maintain their social policy intentions with respect to that land without necessarily owning it. I would like to ask if the minister is willing to consider that.
Hon. M. Sihota: Because he represents the area, the hon. member knows full well that there are agricultural needs and other demands on that land, including the opportunity to engage in viewing wildlife. I suppose there are always ways in which one can achieve the objectives that he is referring to and maintain the values that both he and I are referring to. It seems to me that that can be fairly easily done by just dealing with the length of the lease as opposed to the transfer of the lands in fee simple and the disposition of them, with all of the legal documentation that would allow either for public access or for agricultural preservation. It seems to me that one could secure uses for those lands, in a covenant under the lease, that are consistent with agricultural purposes and still have the Crown maintain the asset in the land base and generate some revenue through the leases. It seems to me that that is easier to achieve than what you're suggesting. I can certainly think of covenants that could be placed when you dispose of land and so on. I can see how one could legally do it, but I have to tell you that I also see some value in maintaining the asset. Therefore I think the lease option appeals to me far more than the disposition option.
F. Gingell: I would, if I may, just like to finish up with a response to that, which won't require an answer. When something is taken from us, when something is expropriated from us unwillingly, we try and recognize our responsibilities as citizens to allow those things to happen.
I was on the school board in Delta in the 1960s and in the seventies, when we were the fastest-growing school district, and we were expropriating land for schools all over the place. It was the only way, in times of rapid development, to acquire land. The one occasion when we acquired land for a school that still hasn't been built is the one that still makes the property owner whose land was expropriated angry. We thought we would need a junior-secondary school site. That may happen one of these days, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's now almost 20 years since that land was expropriated.
It always seems that when the purpose changes and the reason for the expropriation isn't followed through, the person who really has the right to the title of the land is the person who owned it originally. Perhaps I would like a response. I wonder if the issue of native land claims may have any bearing on the issue of the Roberts Bank backup lands.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's an issue. It can't not be an issue, obviously. Natives have indicated that they have some interest in the land. Fortunately, this government has set up a structured Treaty Commission process to deal with these issues. I cannot say that it's not an issue, because it always is. Those kinds of considerations come into play any time government makes any decision on public policy matters.
On the general point, I understand the arguments you're making on the basis of equities. I think that's what you're really saying, but I can't give you any more comfort than that in terms of the direction of government.
F. Gingell: The Ministry of Environment has the administration and responsibility for a whole range of Crown lands; in fact, all the Crown lands in the province. With respect to the issue of native land claims, do you see
[ Page 10707 ]
that land being of two different types? First of all, there is land that has always been part of the Crown. That may be different from land that was settled and originally homesteaded -- it was acquired by an individual freehold owner by whatever means -- and the Crown has subsequently acquired that land back, which is the case here. Does your ministry believe that Crown land that you have acquired by purchase has been severed from the Crown land that you have held from the time of the settlement and colonization of this part of the country?
Hon. M. Sihota: I was listening to what you had to say, and I was trying.... I don't know if you were asking the question generally, or if you were asking specifically. On a general basis, not really. If we have re-acquired land and converted it into Crown land -- which is the scenario that you're laying out -- and it is subject to claims from native peoples, then it is governed by the Treaty Commission process, notwithstanding the fact that it had been acquired earlier.
J. Weisgerber: We're moving along very quickly here, and I didn't want to see the estimates conclude without having an opportunity to ask the minister some questions on vote 32, particularly those relating to the corporate resource inventory initiative. Looking at the estimates, I see that they indicate an increase -- almost doubled -- from $6.3 million last year to $11.3 million this year. Before we get into what and where the money is being spent, I looked at the description of this activity. It seems to be a very broad kind of initiative, but I read into that a very close and clear connection with aboriginal land claims. Through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, it seems to me that the ministry is setting out to start an inventory process that will enable the government to know where it's at in the resolution of land claims. Could the minister perhaps take five minutes and give me and everybody else who might be interested a description of that activity so that we have a sense of what's going on and how that $11 million is being spent?
Hon. M. Sihota: The inventory process deals with the work that we are doing in a number of areas in trying to bring it together -- first of all, in terms of land use planning, CORE and the protected areas strategy; second, with regard to aboriginal matters, the Treaty Commission process and claims by aboriginals; third, to give us a better indication of the inventory of land available for forestry, mining and those other sorts of resource activities -- so that we can collect the economic and social information and cultural background with regard to lands.
On the aboriginal side, as you know, there have been certain decisions which refer to cultural attributes that one must look at with regard to land and the debate, for example, on culturally modified trees -- which I know you're aware of in terms of your background as a former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. These have been matters of discourse within government. That's what we're doing. It's on aboriginal concerns, CORE, PAS and resources in the province.
J. Weisgerber: Is this work being compartmentalized? Is some work being done to assist the CORE process, other work being done to deal with the protected land use strategy, and a third area of work being done specifically to deal with the preparation for aboriginal land claims? Perhaps the minister could also tell me if it's being done across the province. Is the work to deal with the CORE processes being done in identified geographical areas -- i.e., Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays? Are the Nass Valley and areas around the Nisga'a traditional territories part of that process? Is this pretty specific activity with specific purposes in mind?
[3:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: It is a vehicle that coordinates the information out there and the work that's being done by CORE, PAS and on the aboriginal side. It's more of a coordinating agency. It provides generic information which they may require for their purposes and which we may require for some of the work that we're doing as a ministry on CORE and PAS. It's not compartmentalized per se; rather it's a more generic and coordinating kind of a function.
J. Weisgerber: What I would gather, then, is that a library of information is being gathered. In that kind of generalized approach, I wonder if the ministry is focusing a lot of its energies on the value of various resources, such as forest resources, mineral tenures and petroleum subsurface rights? Is this process designed to develop the quantum, the value or a combination of both of those? Would a land claims negotiator be able to punch into a computer program and establish real dollar values, or would you simply get quantities?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, it won't give those quantums, but it would provide the physical attributes upon which one could make those kinds of determinations.
J. Weisgerber: When I looked at the Peat Marwick report dealing with Aboriginal Affairs -- coming out of 1992 -- the recommendation at that time was that the province engage the B.C. Assessment Authority to compile an evaluation of resources and land values in preparation for land claims. About $6.4 million under STOB 20 appears to be for contracted services dealing with that activity. Is that activity being carried on by the B.C. Assessment Authority, or is some other contractor or series of contractors doing this work?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a series of contractors doing this work.
J. Weisgerber: I understand, then, that about $6.5 million worth of contracts is being let or has been let this year, to essentially establish a quantum of resources across the province. That quantum is obviously not available now.
Before we much get much farther down that road, I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what involvement there is with the Ministry of Forests, which we would expect would have a significant amount of information with regard to the quantum that exists on forest resources, and with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to determine what inventories and estimates they have available. Over the years the Ministry of Lands must have gathered tremendous amounts of information. What activity is there involving those three? Perhaps I have overlooked some ministries that might be involved in this. Agriculture is an obvious fourth player in the game.
Hon. M. Sihota: All those ministries -- Forests, Energy and Agriculture -- are all involved in putting together this library, as you describe it. So that is occurring. To the best of our knowledge, we have not contracted out for evaluations.
[ Page 10708 ]
That hasn't been the focus of our work. I think that attends to the two issues you raised.
J. Weisgerber: We do have contractors, independent of government, with about $6.5 million worth of contracts. They are gathering from government -- and I would assume from other sources -- this quantum of resource information: biophysical, cultural, archaeological, social and economic values. These folks are gathering and bringing together a combination of government and non-government information to provide a more accurate analysis or picture of the resources that might be available for the purposes we discussed. Is that a fair assumption as to what is happening?
Hon. M. Sihota: What we're doing is bringing together all the characteristics of different resource values. That's perhaps a better way for me to describe it. That does fit in with what you're saying.
J. Weisgerber: Obviously the next step, particularly with land claims negotiations -- and it also should very likely be the next step with land use decisions, protected areas strategies, etc. -- is affixing a value. Once you've identified a quantum, it would seem logical that the next step would be to affix a dollar value. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us, in this system which would now include CORE, the protected areas strategy through his own ministry and land claims negotiations through Aboriginal Affairs, who will take the information that's being gathered here, at considerable expense, and then layer evaluations on top of that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I paused to discuss something with my staff before answering the question because I think I have a sense of where you're going with your questions. It seems to me -- and I could be wrong -- that you're trying to suggest that somehow this is being driven by the aboriginal treaty negotiation process and that the information is being compiled for those purposes. That isn't the case. We're just trying to get more efficient in terms of coordinating what different ministries do, and to get a better understanding of the attributes of the land base that we have so that the information is available on a more centralized basis for all ministries. But I suppose that at some point the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs could seek access to the land and do some quantifications, if that's what you're interested in pursuing. I know that the estimates of Aboriginal Affairs were going on, I guess, until today. That isn't what's driving this process, but that information regarding the characteristics of the land base could be used by that ministry, if it wanted, for those kinds of discussions. But that has not been the focus, and valuation hasn't been the focus.
J. Weisgerber: Given the description in the estimates book -- the reference to negotiations with first nations and the fact that the budget has gone from $3 million to $8 million for operating costs -- and given the emerging nature of land claims, I must confess that I allowed myself to come to the conclusion that the ministry was, at the government's request, preparing an inventory that would be useful for land claims negotiations. Indeed, I very much hoped that somebody was compiling an inventory of resource assets and putting a dollar value on them. Quite honestly, I was hoping that decisions like Mr. Owen's with regard to Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays would have, as part of those considerations, a dollar value for those resources which were being alienated from one use or committed to another use. I think it's always important to know that, where it's appropriate and where there is a reasonable dollar value.
I'm not at all comforted by the fact that this $6 million or so is being spent simply to provide a volume of information that might be used by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, by CORE or by other agencies. Quite honestly, I had hoped that it was being compiled so that we would go to negotiations equipped with the kind of knowledge that we would need.
Perhaps I can ask a more specific question of the minister: have there been specific inventories done in the Nass Valley, the traditional Nisga'a territory, as part of the Nisga'a land claims process?
Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of points. Let me deal with generalities first and the specifics second. With regard to generalities, we are compiling this information. It is then available as essential information, so we've got it centrally. I think we both agree on that being important.
Secondly, let me go with the three examples. If CORE wants this information, they can now access it; if Mr. Owen wants to do some valuations, he can do that. Aboriginal Affairs can do the same thing. We have federal-provincial negotiations, as the hon. member is well aware, where we may want to and be able to access that information again for the purposes of valuations, or whatever, at the federal-provincial level. So there are all sorts of uses that the information can be put to -- and potentially, yes, to aboriginal matters as well.
On the specific question about the Nass, we have performed work on wildlife and on forest values in the area. That is the extent of the information we're aware of that's been done in that region.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we could move to talking about the way in which these studies are being concluded. It seems to me that $6.5 million is a fairly tidy amount to be contracted out to gather this information. Is this done on a competitive-bid basis? Are blocks of work set out or advertisements laid out? I'm wondering how the ministry has awarded this $6.5 million worth of work. Following that, I would be curious to know who some of those successful folks were.
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, we haven't awarded any contracts yet, so there are no successful people. Secondly, the traditional tendering processes would be applied here. That's the information I've got from staff, and I haven't given any instructions otherwise, nor would I. So this would go through the traditional tendering process.
J. Weisgerber: To wind up with this, could the minister give me a sense of the work that's involved? Are we talking about physical inventories? Are we talking about drawing together information that exists? Or are we talking about computer-specialized information gathering? I'd like to know the kind of work that's going to be done and how broadly distributed around the province the ministry anticipates this rather significant amount of contract work will be.
[4:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, the answer is all of the above. We would do all of the things that you indicated. Some of the money would also go to hiring auxiliary employees, who we may need to do some of the work that's required.
[ Page 10709 ]
J. Weisgerber: Just to be clear, under STOB 20 there's $6.4 million. That would indicate to me not any staff involved but indeed the hiring of contractors or contract-style work. In addition to that, about $1 million under STOB 68 would indicate a fairly sophisticated computer system being brought in.
Is it fair to say, then, because there is about another $2 million in that program for salaries and benefits, that there will be about $6.5 million worth of contract work -- that being to people who are arm's length from government? Or do we see here the government using contractors who may well be working within the Ministry of Environment and using this new computerized equipment that would be part of the package?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it is $6.5 million. I have no idea why you'd be asking the question, but it's not a slush fund. There's work to be done here, and I think you are trying to get at where the contracts are going and all that kind of stuff. It's 4 o'clock. It's too late for you to get a headline now. That's not where it's headed, and it's the normal tendering process. I haven't talked to staff about this, but I suspect this is a very specialized area. There are probably a limited number of people who could do the work. Generally speaking, I suspect that people who have had direct or indirect involvement with the ministry in the past would be the ones we would be calling on, or who would be calling on us to pursue opportunities in this area.
J. Weisgerber: I hadn't thought of pursuing a headline, but now that you mention it, it probably isn't a bad idea, particularly if you happen to think there is one there.
I was curious to know whether we were going to be dealing with private contractors and whether my constituents and other people around British Columbia might have an opportunity to compete for these jobs. It did occur to me that it would be ironic if the ministry was contemplating the kinds of contract arrangements that I thought were totally appropriate, that Ms. Korbin was critical of and of which the minister in his former role had been critical. The second part of my question was to decide whether the kinds of contracting that might be done would be similar to those that have been described as "Korbinized" in recent times. I am trying to find out if this work is going to be done in the ministry. Is it going to be done in private offices? Is it going to be done with the minister's million dollars' worth of new computer equipment, or will the contractors be supplying the equipment?
Hon. M. Sihota: There will be an element to this program in the overall budget of $11 million, I believe, that will go by way of private contractors. It will not be the Korbin shadow civil service, because the contracts will be short-term and not of the nature that Ms. Korbin was critical of in her report.
J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify, coming out of that we may well see a series of contracts on a non-competitive basis given to private individuals to work within government, with government's computers, in order to gather this information together. Is that what the minister said to me?
Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't say that. I said that we would be looking at some private contracts under the traditional system of seeking those contracts. I didn't say that they would be on a non-competitive basis.
J. Weisgerber: Just so the minister's not too much on his guard, I would encourage him to have a look at what was done in previous years. It seems to me that it was quite a cost-efficient way of bringing people in on a reasonably short-term basis to do a specific job: to give them a contract and not get drawn into bringing them into the civil service. Far from being critical of that process, if it fits the model, I'd encourage the minister to use that model and that style of contracting or hiring to get the job done.
Hon. M. Sihota: It will be short-term contracts made available on a traditional basis for people to do some of this work.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what progress the ministry has made in investigating the slaughter of Roosevelt elk on the northern half of Vancouver Island? What is the progress of that situation, and what steps does the minister contemplate for the future?
Hon. M. Sihota: There has been an investigation by conservation officers with regard to the matter.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that the area in question was an area of restricted harvest or limited entry as far as hunting and fishing guidelines are concerned? Can the minister confirm that the Roosevelt elk were protected by the ministry by harvest restrictions in the particular region where the offence is alleged to have taken place?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm just reading a note here. I don't have that information before me. I'll be happy to get that information for the hon. member.
W. Hurd: I'm a little surprised that the minister wouldn't be aware of that information, because his own ministry's interim guidelines on aboriginal use of fish and wildlife suggest that the regional officer has certain responsibilities in areas that do have restricted access. A few of those responsibilities are: to notify first nations in writing that such a season or harvest restriction is contemplated and offer to meet with them; where there is sustenance use, to ensure harvest calculations take into account the aboriginal priority but also make adjustments for non-aboriginal use; and to issue permits to support that use, including conditions to provide the ministry with information essential for conservation and management purposes. Can the minister tell us whether any of these activities were undertaken by the regional manager in connection with Roosevelt elk protection or limited-entry processes on northern Vancouver Island?
Hon. M. Sihota: In that situation, 149 elk permits were given in the area. Fifty of those permits were provided to natives. They shot 23, and they reported most of those 23.
W. Hurd: So is the minister telling us that in essence the activity of hunting Roosevelt elk was legal in that particular region under the guidelines being adopted by the ministry? If it was legal, the question that obviously has to be asked is: why is an investigation ongoing, as the minister has indicated?
Hon. M. Sihota: One of the reasons I've been hesitant is that it is not clear to me -- and perhaps the hon. member could be a little more clear, so I could give him the benefit of a more definitive answer -- whether he is talking about
[ Page 10710 ]
northern Vancouver Island or about the incident in the Kyuquot. Is he talking about the incident that occurred in January 1994 and is under investigation by Tahsis RCMP, or is he talking about the northern Island? Perhaps he could clarify it so we can answer the question.
W. Hurd: I am addressing the species in general. The Roosevelt elk, as the minister knows, is considered to be a species endangered on parts of Vancouver Island. As a result of that, I would assume that restricted harvest allocations and/or limited hunting regulations would be in effect.
The latest investigation might have been in January, but I know there have been other incidents on Vancouver Island of Roosevelt elk being killed, as the minister well knows. I know there was an incident in the Lake Cowichan area, for example. I guess my question is: what role and responsibility do the regional managers have to communicate to first nations, to notify them in writing...? There are a series of initiatives that the regional manager is expected to undertake under the government guidelines, and I'm seeking assurance from the minister that the regional managers are doing that where Roosevelt elk are involved. I would assume that the species has to be protected by limited-entry hunting regulations, and I certainly welcome clarification from the minister on that point, wherever it may be on Vancouver Island.
Hon. M. Sihota: There is a discernible difference between the quality of the questions that you hear from Reform and other members of the House and these poorly researched issues raised by the Liberal Party, and that's been consistent throughout these estimates.
Hon. member, I don't know who is doing your research, but the Roosevelt elk are not an endangered species. There are limited hunting approvals given with regard to elk generally on Vancouver Island. On the north end of Vancouver Island, 149 approvals were given. Regional offices then made a decision with regard to how many would be given to natives. The number in question for the natives was 50. Then officers followed through to ascertain the degree of the kill. The degree was 23 of those 50, which is 50 out of 149 of a species which is not endangered.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that the auditor general expressed serious reservations about the inventory data for habitat on Vancouver Island generally. Given that the species may not be in danger but that the herd is declining, I understand, can the minister tell us specifically whether his ministry has addressed the concerns of the auditor general with respect to the habitat for Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island?
[4:15]
Given that there appears to be considerable concern in the conservation community about Roosevelt elk, can the minister tell us whether the habitat inventory for that species is advanced over what's available generally on Vancouver Island? During the course of the estimates, many of the issues that have been raised by the opposition have come out of the concerns raised by the auditor general of the province. The minister may choose not to answer those questions; that's his right. But again, with respect to the Roosevelt elk and the concerns raised by the auditor general, where are we in terms of an inventory for the habitat for that species?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are 3,500 elk that we've identified on Vancouver Island. The process of identification is such that we are conservative in our estimates, and for good reason, in terms of conservation of wildlife. So we have that information. We work with companies to make sure that these species are protected, and through the process I have already outlined with regard to northern Vancouver Island, we limit the amount of kill. In terms of preparing for these estimates, it seems to me that the Liberal Party's degree of research is limited to the auditor general's report, and they have taken some of the broad concerns which are legitimate in that report and tried to specify them with regard to Roosevelt elk.
When I was speaking at the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention -- on April 6, if memory serves me right -- I indicated that the government would be engaging in some studies with regard to conservation issues under the habitat conservation fund. I don't think your researchers are aware of the fact that I announced a study that would be done to refine seasonal models for predicting Roosevelt elk habitat values on Vancouver Island.
If you attended the Public Accounts Committee -- as you should on Wednesdays -- you'd know that the auditor general would agree that we've taken this report and attended to all the deficiencies that he referred to. The point is that the 3,500 elk on Vancouver Island are not endangered. A study further announced on April 6 -- which you should be aware of because it was in a press release -- allows us to improve upon the models that we have for elk. With regard to estimates of wildlife harvest, I can give you some numbers in terms of elk as well, if you want them. That information is available to your research staff.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what the current harvest levels would be for Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island? Is it the 50 that he mentioned previously? Is it higher? This is an interesting issue. While acknowledging that 3,500 of the species exist, can the minister tell us what the harvest levels would be for the coming fiscal year and whether he's satisfied that the appropriate information exists within his ministry to support whatever harvest level the ministry is recommending?
Hon. M. Sihota: The number of elk harvested on Vancouver Island in 1992 was 110; 1991, 140; 1990, 136; 1989, 121; 1988, 103; 1987, 108; 1986, 113; 1985, 110; 1984, 100; 1983, 100; 1982, 105; 1981, 100; and 1980, 120. These statistics are available. You can go to the wildlife branch on Blanshard Street, right across from the courthouse in Victoria. The information is readily available, and I am pleased to say that government handsomely provides research assistance and funding for the Liberal Opposition.
Again, it's evident that the quality of the questions emanating from the Liberals is significantly inferior to those from the other parties. That's not surprising, given the absence of the environmental ethic on the part of the Liberals, as is evidenced by the fact that they want mining in parks; that they have argued in this House that we ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution because it "demoralizes the business sector"; that they don't want us, as the hon. member has suggested, to put out an annual list of B.C.'s worst polluters, because somehow that would offend business; and that they want us to get rid of environmental regulation at a time when British Columbians are saying: "Get tough on polluters, crack down on them and make sure that our environment is as safe and clean as it can be and that future generations can inherit an environment as safe and clean as the one we've inherited."
I note with great regret that that is the position of the Liberal Party. It is obviously dictated by the rich and powerful on Howe Street and emphasized by the lack of
[ Page 10711 ]
research on these issues by the Liberals. With that said, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The Chair: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order?
A. Warnke: I believe the motion is on the vote of the estimates, is it not?
The Chair: We are not calling for the vote. The motion, I believe, was for the committee to rise and report progress.
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.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to call Motion 47 in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
[Be it resolved that this House call on the Government of Canada to take the strongest possible stand with the United States to achieve full implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty's core principles -- namely, an equitable sharing of salmon commensurate with national production and the rebuilding and conservation of salmon stocks -- and aggressively advance British Columbia's interests in support of the salmon resource and the thousands of British Columbians that depend on it.]
PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to move this motion that's before the House because of the state of negotiations over the Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Pacific Salmon Treaty governs fishing arrangements for the Canada-U.S. interception fishery. That means in theory that we agree to a fair sharing of the harvest of salmon produced in each other's rivers. The treaty is based on two basic principles: first, the principle of conservation, which is to rebuild and optimize salmon production through improved management and conservation; second, the principle of equity, which is to provide each party with benefits equal to the salmon production in its own waters.
The treaty was signed in 1985, after approximately 20 years of negotiations. The Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty should be a fundamental component to conserve and manage this province's annual $1.3 billion seafood industry. And it would be, if its core principles were respected by the United States, which seems more intent on breaching rather than following its treaty obligations. But during the years since the treaty was first signed, the U.S. has failed to abide by its principles and has actually substantially increased its interception of B.C. salmon.
From the outset, let me make it very clear that the province of British Columbia is not prepared to sit back and allow our fishery to fall victim to American pressure tactics. The risks are too great, and the consequences will be painful. All members in this House should go to a place like Prince Rupert, as I did two weeks ago, and listen to the concerns of those most involved in the fishing industry in B.C. -- the same people who stand to lose the most as a result of this American intransigence.
The impasse over the salmon treaty has created much uncertainty for 25,000 British Columbians working in the industry, for first nations people with age-old ties to the fishery and for thousands of recreational fishers. In addition, recreational salmon fishing represents a significant part of B.C.'s tourism industry. The concern expressed in Prince Rupert is indicative of a wave of anxiety that is reverberating throughout the province.
Last Thursday the city of Prince Rupert sent me a copy of their own resolution, which states that the council is resolved to support Canada's firm stand with the U.S. over the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Never has there been such united support for the federal government to stand firm against the Americans. It is the livelihood of those who rely on the fishery and the health of our salmon stocks that is most at risk in the current treaty impasse.
As well, I had the opportunity to discuss concerns with my federal counterpart, the Hon. Brian Tobin, during a meeting we had in Prince Rupert. I was encouraged by the federal minister's willingness to include our input. He had just returned from his home province of Newfoundland, dealing with some of the severe adjustment measures they're having to undertake there because they didn't have an appropriate management regime for their own fishery in place. I have accepted his invitation to join him when he takes Canada's case to Washington, D.C., in the near future.
The 1985 treaty was founded on the principles of salmon conservation and equitable sharing of the resource. These principles are being ignored by our American neighbours, who take far more than their fair share of Canadian salmon. In the nine years since the treaty was first signed, it has become more and more evident that the U.S. has not lived up to its end of the deal and remains unwilling to do so. For example, in 1992 the U.S. unilaterally took 361,000 more Fraser River sockeye than was stipulated under the treaty. Last year this imbalance was $65 million in their favour. If they had their way, that imbalance would rise to $100 million this year. Is this the U.S. definition of equity? If it is, it's totally unacceptable. As a province we've done our part. We have sacrificed and benefited from salmon conservation.
What have our neighbours achieved? Well, the U.S. overfishing and river dam construction have wiped out fish habitat on a major scale. American industrial development has led to the extinction of more than 100 salmon runs in Washington, Oregon and California. Dozens of other fish habitats are threatened by industrial greed. Yet the Americans feel that it's fair to demand even more access to our salmon, to compensate for their poor environmental practices. U.S. interceptions of B.C.-bound salmon are most flagrant in southeast Alaska, where overfishing threatens coho and steelhead stocks and is threatening our conservation efforts on these important stocks.
Until American interests take seriously our concerns for conservation, and in particular agree to reduce their take of northern coho and steelhead, this standoff will develop into something much worse. It is time for Canada to just say no. We have shown a willingness to reduce our harvest of U.S.-spawned salmon. Last year, for instance, our harvest of U.S. coho on the west coast of Vancouver Island was limited to only one million fish, compared to the 1.7 million we were allowed to take under the treaty. Yet this willingness has not been recognized by those on the other side of the treaty table.
What action has our government taken to date? First, we have ensured that the provincial government has a voice at
[ Page 10712 ]
the treaty table. My predecessor worked very hard to get our own commissioner appointed to the commission last year. This means we have immediate feedback from the negotiations as they happen.
Second, we have been working so closely with the federal government on this issue that sometimes we think we can hear them thinking. We have kept up a constant pressure, so that they can be sure of our strong support in their stand against the American waffling. Within days of his appointment, the new federal Fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, received a letter from me congratulating him on his appointment and then, in the next breath, expressing our concern over the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Since that time there has been an exchange of correspondence between me and the Fisheries minister, all urging a resolution to this serious issue.
The Premier has also written to the Prime Minister on this issue and then met with him when the Prime Minister visited Vancouver in early April. As a result, the Prime Minister spoke to President Clinton on April 22 and asked him to look into this matter personally; the President assured the Prime Minister that he would do so. I've met with Brian Tobin face to face twice now on this matter of the treaty, and during those meetings he asked me to join him on a joint mission to Washington, D.C., to show solidarity in Canada.
Finally, we have been addressing our concerns directly to the United States. The Premier has written to the state Governors and met with federal representatives on his trip to Washington, D.C., in December 1993. I have also met with my counterpart from Washington State. This government is taking the strongest possible action and is ready to go to the highest levels to protect our fisheries.
[4:30]
How can this situation be resolved? One must look to the U.S. capital for that answer. President Clinton has expressed to our Prime Minister a willingness to take a personal interest in this issue. This is a positive sign, but we as a nation have to keep up the pressure. As we all know, President Clinton has a lot of things on his mind, and it's our job to ensure that these matters are at least high enough on the priority list that he gets action from his counterparts who are supposed to be at the negotiating table.
It's time to make the U.S. government understand that it has responsibilities to live up to this international treaty and that this obligation requires the federal government to override the conflicting regional interests of Alaska, Washington and Oregon. These states must be forced to respect the letter and spirit of the salmon treaty: fair sharing and conservation. No longer will Canada pay the price for their poor salmon resource management. We are now within weeks of the opening of the salmon season, and the spectre of a fish war is hanging over all our heads. We do not want a fish war; it will serve no one's interests. Our resource is too valuable to be sacrificed in an unregulated battle, pitting fishers against each other, where nobody wins.
The Pacific Salmon Treaty provides for the fair sharing of transboundary salmon and for sound conservation principles that will protect this valuable resource for generations to come. It is what the industry has a right to expect, it's what the people of the province want and it's what Canada has worked hard to achieve. That's why this motion is so important. By standing together, we can bring about a successful conclusion to this issue. Let's send a very strong message to the American fishing industry, and let's make it loud and clear that this country is prepared to stand together and protect its fair share of the tremendous salmon resource. That's why I ask for all-party support to provide a united front to the federal government and encourage them to do likewise.
R. Chisholm: It gives me pleasure to rise today to support the government's motion. It's not a pleasure to have to rise to speak to it, but it is a pleasure to rise and support them in their efforts.
This is a very important motion regarding the future of our salmon stocks in British Columbia. As the minister said, the Americans have not conserved, and now they're looking northward. The Pacific Salmon Treaty was first signed in 1985. When it was signed, our fishermen made sacrifices by limiting their catches, to ensure increased spawning stocks and consequent growth in stocks. We restricted economic development, such as on hydroelectric dams, to protect the salmon and their habitat. We made an investment in hatcheries and habitat improvement for the enhancement of salmon. We did all of these while, at the same time, the Americans were putting 30 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River. Now they wonder why their stocks are decimated and they've lost 100 runs. This is far too important to allow it to go on for another year. Last year we averted this fish war in the eleventh hour. This year we have to solve this problem once and for all. This is a $1.3 billion industry in British Columbia. It desperately needs our attention, and it needs it now.
I too have spoken to Brian Tobin on two occasions, and I've spoken to Herb Dhaliwal, Sheila Copps and a few other people about this problem. They are very supportive, and they need our support right now to help solve this. We have to bring pressure to bear to force the Americans to address the issue -- the issue of coming to the table.
We have four states involved here. Oregon, Washington and Idaho are not a problem. They have put in a zero quota. They realize that they have a problem with their salmon stocks and that they are losing their salmon very quickly. But the state of Alaska is a maverick in the north and is taking the salmon before it can ever get to the spawning grounds. There is absolutely nothing to stop them. They haven't seen in the past and don't see for the foreseeable future any reason why they should stop fishing the salmon. Unfortunately, we now see fishermen from the states of Washington and Oregon up in Alaska fishing the same salmon. All we're doing is managing to destroy the species that remain.
We can take retaliatory action. Maybe the Tatshenshini should have been used as a card during the negotiations on this. We can talk about us going out and overfishing and putting pressure on their salmon stocks, too, but that is not going to solve the problem. As a matter of fact, that is just going to hinder it. It's going to end up destroying our own stocks plus the American stocks, and that doesn't make any sense.
The representatives on the Pacific Salmon Treaty walked away in March of this year, and they haven't been back. The evidence is that the U.S. is not prepared to take a pragmatic, realistic approach to negotiations on equity. On average, U.S. fishers have been taking close to nine million Canadian-origin salmon annually, compared to the Canadian annual interception of less than four million. That figure represents some $65 million to $70 million per year. That is the problem; it's an economic problem. The state of Alaska doesn't want to lose that $65 million. By refusing to deal with this issue, the U.S. is in violation of one of the primary articles of the agreement. That article reads clearly that each party shall receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters. The treaty also states that if it is determined that one country or the
[ Page 10713 ]
other is deriving substantially greater benefits than those provided from its rivers, it would be expected that the parties would develop a phased program to eliminate the inequity within a specific period of time.
Since this treaty was signed, Canada has been very successful in increasing the production of salmon stocks up to 50 percent in the Fraser, as well as in some of the northern rivers. Over the same period of time, U.S. production of coho and chinook south of the border has been going steadily down. Now they have a zero quota in Oregon and Washington. The balance of interception which existed at the time the treaty was signed has significantly altered; this is indisputable. The problem is that this will decimate the fisheries. They are far too important for two countries to play with and have them go extinct.
Canada is now saying that the U.S. made a commitment there would be an equitable balance of interception, and the U.S. wishes to ignore that. They want significantly more of the resource. The U.S. is trying to get more Fraser River sockeye. They also want fishermen to take less U.S.-origin coho and chinook, for U.S. conservation reasons. We're saying conservation is part of this treaty, too, as it was signed in 1985. The U.S. wants it both ways. They want Canada to cut back for conservation, and they want to get more of our Fraser River fish. It just doesn't make any sense.
Some of the key problems we have with the imbalance in this industry relate to what is going to happen to the 15,000 British Columbia fishermen and plant workers dependent on the resource for their income. What's going to become of the tourism dollars? One-third of every dollar in tourism that comes into this province originates from the salmon. Canada has made constructive proposals to assist U.S. conservation efforts for coho in the Pacific Northwest, but there has been a lack of U.S. willingness to reduce Alaskan catches of northern B.C. coho, which also faces conservation problems. In addition, the U.S. is seeking to avoid its obligations under the treaty to ensure Canada receives benefits from its own salmon production, and that's the equity principle.
The improved abundance of salmon in British Columbia rivers in recent years is a result of a substantial investment by Canadians, including all those sacrifices I have mentioned. I believe that Canadians should be reaping some of the benefits, but they won't, because the U.S. will be decimating the runs. The people of British Columbia, and Canadians as a whole, are entitled to benefit from their careful husbanding of the Pacific salmon resource. These U.S. demands and activities threaten to undermine the internationally recognized achievements by Canadians in salmon conservation and enhancement.
B.C. and Canada have made a very firm statement and put their positions forward very clearly to the United States. British Columbia has advanced its position at a number of different levels -- to the salmon commission and to senior diplomatic levels of government. We will continue to do that; it is fundamentally in the best interests of both parties and of the fish. As I said, I met with the hon. minister and various other members of government in February. They are all saying the same thing: they see a disaster forming at this point in time off our coast. I'll be meeting with the minister again.
This Legislative Assembly encourages the government of Canada to adopt a fishing plan for the 1994 season, in close cooperation with all major stakeholder groups in British Columbia, that will best protect the Pacific salmon resource in Canada's interests in the event that the United States refuses to conclude a fair and reasonable agreement. I certainly hope that they come to the table and that an agreement is struck; but if not, I certainly hope that the federal government comes up with an alternative plan to save this species. One thing that we must remember, and constantly remind ourselves, is that the fish have been managing themselves quite adequately for millions of years. It is now time for peoples and countries to learn how to conserve and manage the resource for the benefit of all concerned.
H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise in this debate. Certainly I support the intent of what the Minister of Agriculture is proposing here. There is, of course, some background to the current situation. It can probably be summed up in the political and environmental problems in the United States that have led to the huge deficit of fish in the coastal waters off the Washington and Oregon coast over the last couple of years. There are probably two main contributing reasons, one being the freak ocean current temperatures which have warmed the temperature of the ocean and caused salmon stocks to dwindle. The other main reason is the Bolt decision in the United States, which said that Washington State natives are entitled to 50 percent of the total fishery. That combination has heightened the aggressiveness of United States fishermen in raiding Canadian stocks.
The provincial government undoubtedly has worked very hard on behalf of British Columbia, and I must commend the previous minister for having expended a great deal of effort to solve the problem. One of the problems in Canada is that our federal government has been dragging its feet. The new Liberal government is particularly remiss in not dealing with the Pearse report, which recommended tougher enforcement of native and other fishing on the Fraser in particular. I'm also a little concerned, while I'm not sure.... If the provincial government does indeed do something similar to what they have done in Washington and Oregon, in terms of bargaining away part of the fish stocks through negotiations with the native people, then of course we will not solve the problem, and we may never get the support of the federal government. We know that over 300,000 fish were lost last year because of lack of enforcement and lack of political will to do anything about the growing native commercial fishery. After all, we're all Canadians.
[4:45]
My position is that any solution to the fishery problem must involve two things: first, a recognition of the problems facing the American fishery and a continued determination to preserve control over the Fraser River salmon stocks, which belong to British Columbia; and second, a recognition that the aboriginal fishery is a huge problem that must be solved if we are going to maintain a healthy fishery into the future. The Pearse commission recommendations must be implemented. I, along with everyone in the House, I'm sure, would welcome all initiatives to encourage our Liberal government in Ottawa to stand up for once for the interests of the average British Columbian.
D. Lovick: I'm delighted to rise in my place to support this particular motion. I'm also very pleased to see this motion come before us, especially as one who represents a maritime constituency, one in whose riding fisheries are a significant industry. Indeed, there's a great support system around the fishing industry in Nanaimo that also captures and commands much of my attention.
I first heard about the looming crisis over the Pacific Salmon Treaty at least six months ago, when a delegation visited my office. They were part of the B.C. Fisheries
[ Page 10714 ]
Survival Coalition, which many members in this chamber will certainly be familiar with. At the time, those people from the industry had a whole series of concerns. But they made it very clear to me that there was one concern that probably had more potential impact and importance than all of the others. As they put it, "If we lose this battle" -- namely, the battle regarding our relationship with the United States over the fishery -- "then all the other questions about aboriginal rights, environmental demands and degradation of the fishery and the fish stock are secondary; they don't even count." That was the opinion presented to me by the Fisheries Survival Coalition. I'm therefore, as I say, very pleased to participate in this debate and to give my support to this particular resolution.
About 20 years ago I participated in a debate at Malaspina College. In fact, I wrote the resolution for the debate, because at the time I was the coach of the team and was trying to encourage my students to get involved in debate. The resolution that we debated at the time was "Pro-Canadian and Anti-American: The Same Damn Thing." You can guess what happened when that particular resolution came out, Mr. Speaker. We had calls to the press, and a number of my colleagues in the faculty association suggested that the proposition suggesting that being pro-Canadian was somehow anti-American was absolutely outrageous and reprehensible.
The point I was trying to make and to get everybody to focus on 20 years ago, just as I would today, is that the geographical, political, economic and social reality of our nation, Canada, is so inextricably tied and connected to the United States, that when you say anything supportive of Canada, in all likelihood you are also going to be making somebody south of the 49th parallel believe that you're anti-American. The predicament, as a number of wise people have pointed out better than I could ever do, is that it's the reality of the mouse sleeping next door to the elephant. The problem, of course, is that even if the mouse has honourable and noble intentions, God help us if they're amorous, because if the elephant rolls over, the mouse is in trouble. Essentially, that's our predicament in our relationship with the United States. We have what I think can fairly be described as a love-hate relationship with that amazing land of paradox, the United States of America.
All of us who were born and raised in this country have grown up sharing a North American identity, no question. But we've also recognized, I think fairly early in the game, that we need to be wary of that relationship, because the interests of the United States are not necessarily the same as those of Canada; indeed, sometimes they're absolutely contrary.
In this instance, when we talk about the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the long-term interests of the two nations are, or certainly ought to be, exactly equivalent. They ought to be; sadly, it seems they are not. Why this resolution? Let me remind those who are listening to this debate exactly what we are debating. The resolution reads as follows:
"That this House call on the Government of Canada to take the strongest possible stand with the United States to achieve full implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty's core principles -- namely, an equitable sharing of salmon commensurate with national production and the rebuilding and conservation of salmon stocks -- and aggressively advance British Columbia's interests in support of the salmon resource and the thousands of British Columbians that depend on it."
The two key principles in the Pacific Salmon Treaty from its beginning have been: (1) equity -- a fairness principle, which is probably the case in any treaty, at least ostensibly; and (2) conservation. The problems -- surprise, surprise -- are exactly the same: one has to do with the absence of equity, and the other with threats to conservation of the salmon resource.
The first problem is simply that there is no equitable sharing at the moment between the United States and Canada. Rather, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointed out some minutes ago, the Americans are taking $65 million more of Canadian fish than they are entitled to. That's the problem with the equity. This principle that we endorse and embrace in the treaty, that we all ostensibly agree to, is being violated as long as that disparity exists.
The second problem has to do, of course, with conservation. Canada's and British Columbia's conservation objectives are to reduce the interception of our Canada-bound northern fish. Needless to say, the interception of those stocks in large numbers by American fishers directly hinders our efforts to conserve that fisheries resource.
The basic message of this motion, then, is very straightforward: it is simply that the government of Canada must take a strong stand and resolve to protect Canada's and British Columbia's legitimate interests. It should be a motion that every member of this House will support, and indeed I hope that is the case. It's a motion that is predicated on the notion that the United States -- most of the time our friend -- is doing something wrong, something that doesn't help. The United States, albeit our closest neighbour and probably our best friend on the international stage, has not, sadly, been a very good neighbour latterly, and indeed for all of our history, when it comes to trade issues.
A couple of examples will make the point. Just the other day we all witnessed what was happening at the border crossing at Oyama in the southern Okanagan. We saw all those orchardists out there saying that a deliberate policy of dumping cheap apples into Canada was having a devastating effect on B.C.'s agriculture industry by driving the prices down. Those orchardists were simply saying that the federal government should take strong action with the American federal government to prevent that from happening. The fact is that it's still happening.
I give you another example, one closer to me in my riding -- namely forestry. There has been continuing vexatious and irresponsible behaviour by our American counterparts when it comes to forestry issues. I'm referring to the export of softwood lumber from this country to the United States. That's why there is a motion under my name on the order paper. I'd love to see this one debated too, members opposite; and I'd love to get unanimous support for this one as well, be assured. The motion reads as follows:
"Be it resolved that this House demand that Canada's Minister of International Trade formally communicate to the United States federal government Canada's strongest objection to the United States International Trade Commission's continued harassment of Canada's softwood lumber exports and persistent disregard of rulings of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) binational panel."
Those are strong words, despite all that verbiage, but the reality is that it has been "persistent disregard."
Since we signed the free trade agreement in 1989, there have been three major challenges to B.C.'s softwood lumber industry, and I think it's safe to say that they have all proven to be vexatious. Moreover, the reality is that we don't have sufficient assurances in the free trade agreement, which is why a number of us opposed it -- that and other reasons. We don't have sufficient definition of what exports are, what
[ Page 10715 ]
subsidies are, what the rules are governing countervail and so forth, so we're subjected to a continuous and ongoing assault by the Americans in terms of our lumber industry. It causes us a major problem. It seems to be a policy of deliberate harassment.
The third example is the one we're discussing now: the apparently wilful disregard of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. As I said a moment ago, that treaty is based on the principle and premise of fairness. Unfortunately, the evidence is that the Americans are not playing fair with regard to this treaty and our relationship. Every year since the signing, the average has been that the United States catch exceeds the Canadian one by about $65 million. In 1992, for example, the United States unilaterally took 361,000 more Fraser River sockeye than was stipulated by the negotiated agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Moreover, during the past several years, according to the federal Department of Fisheries, the United States has taken 45 million Canadian salmon too many. I'd hate to guess what that cost might be.
There's obviously a problem in terms of fairness. The tragedy and horrible, sad truth of the Pacific Salmon Treaty is that we're in a crisis. The tragedy is that it's happening at all. I have to say very carefully but seriously, to use the old line: with a friend like this, who needs an enemy? Quite frankly, the American treatment of us in trade in the last few years has not been friendly. It has not been the kind of thing one expects from a friend.
Let me end my few remarks by just quoting a couple of people who I think have made the point well. I want to first quote an American writer, a guy from a little town in Washington; they pronounce it "squim," but we would see it as Sequim. The author's name is Mark Powell, and he makes a very telling point which I think is worth hearing and considering in this chamber. He says as follows:
"The salmon crisis seems incredible to some Americans. What seems incredible to me is that the two countries that set the world's finest example of peaceful cooperation can't break out of a rut that essentially boils down to 100,000 salmon in many millions. When human lives are at risk, we cross each other's borders with nary a radio call and work together like neighbours. When resources and money are involved, we bitch and moan and claw. Washington and Ottawa, if necessary, should get together to both resolve the dispute and ensure a healthy fishery."
I couldn't agree more. I think the point is made well.
I want to quote the Premier of the province from a letter he wrote April 15, 1994, to the Governors of the American northwest. He wrote as follows:
"The Pacific Salmon Treaty represents a unique opportunity for our countries to conserve and maximize benefits from the salmon resource and to establish a model for international resource management. In order to fulfil our obligations and secure the treaty's benefits, mutual cooperation is required. To succeed, the needs and underlying interests of both parties need to be addressed. It is vital that our countries cooperate to make this treaty work in order to sustain the resource and optimize benefits."
If we in Canada and the United States can't sit down together and work out our differences to put an end to or prevent a fisheries war, I submit that no other countries on this planet would be likely to do so. We have been the model of cooperation and peaceful coexistence for a very long time. The issues are overwhelmingly important. They will set a model for other societies and countries to follow in terms of dealing with scarce and threatened resources.
[5:00]
I hope that all members will support this motion. We need to tell the federal government that we want them to talk in very strong terms indeed to ensure that the negotiations get back on track, so that we can have a Pacific Salmon Treaty that will do what it's supposed to: namely, guarantee the conservation of a resource for the present and the future; and establish a fair and equitable principle of sharing between the two countries, the two societies.
C. Tanner: I rise today to talk in support of the motion for the full implementation of the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty. I've got to tell you, there were times when the last member was speaking that I was lost as to which way he was going -- whether he was in the trees, after the apples or talking about fish. However, he did wind up in the end, and we find that he is supporting the treaty as well.
The fishing situation off the Alaskan coast is important to all British Columbians, and in particular to those people who live on the coast, as my constituents do. Having said that it's important to all British Columbians, I would like to give you some reasons. The decisions made by people in the fishing industry in Alaska have a reverberating and reciprocal effect on commercial fishing all around Vancouver Island. They have an effect on tourism throughout British Columbia, as a third of our current dollars are related to fishing. They have an effect on our lifestyles and on the reason many people choose to live in British Columbia when they retire. They affect the federal-provincial relationships between Ottawa and Victoria. They have an effect on our province's relationships with Washington and Oregon. The detrimental environmental and economic effects of overfishing the Alaska fish stock, 50 percent or more of which is raised in Canadian rivers, cannot be overemphasized.
Therefore it is important that Canada work diligently and persistently to uphold and expand the '85 Pacific Salmon Treaty. The provincial government is to be commended for participating in the international negotiations, and we encourage them to continue.
It is noted, though, that in the rush to proclaim the Tatshenshini an international park, this government deprived the negotiators of a valuable negotiating tool. With an obstinate participant like the state of Alaska, it was a shame to lose that weapon. It would appear that the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, the province of British Columbia, and Canada all have a common interest that is being frustrated by the state of Alaska. My constituents support both levels of government, provincial and federal, in their efforts to resolve this important issue.
The solution to the position that the state of Alaska has taken would be the inclusion in the debate of the U.S. federal government. All members on this side of the House wish for a reasonable conclusion to the stalled negotiations. I wonder whether the B.C. government intermediary or the federal negotiator have ever thought of inviting Vice-President Gore to stand up and proclaim his interest in this subject, as I think he might be an intervener in the negotiations.
The government can count on the support of the Liberal caucus. I can't help passing comment that it is a very pleasant change to see members on the NDP government side of the House supporting the federal government. Perhaps they could learn, in the course of this negotiation, that working together can sometimes bring results other than scoring points.
G. Wilson: I rise in support of this motion, although I believe that the motion might, and perhaps should, have been worded more strongly than it is. I represent a riding that constitutes almost half -- not quite half but certainly well over a third -- of the coastline of British Columbia, with
[ Page 10716 ]
many communities that have traditionally depended upon the commercial fishing industry. My family has a long history in commercial fishing in this province.
Let me say that in speaking to this motion, we have to be careful that we don't lay all the blame at the feet of the Americans. We need to consider the history of the negotiations and the role which the federal government has played in them on behalf of British Columbians. We also have to recognize that the solution is necessarily going to be difficult. It is made more complex by the fact that we are dealing with not one but five governments, or five different entities that have a role to play: the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon, the capital in Washington, and the aboriginal people, who, by the Bolt agreement in Washington, must take 50 percent of the catch and therefore must be considered in whatever equation is agreed to.
We have to recognize that if we are in difficulty today, it's because we have been less than aggressive in the past. We need to take an aggressive stand with respect to this industry -- to stand up, speak out and protect this industry. It has not escaped the attention of those of us who listen to this government and those who speak in favour of this that we have within our grasp an opportunity for an enhancement, re-establishment and refurbishing of this industry. It is an industry threatened right now by a less than aggressive stand on a proposed huge dam that's going to devastate the sockeye run in the Nechako and the Fraser River salmon runs. We have a less than aggressive stand by both federal and provincial governments., instead of standing up and speaking out in protection of those rivers, saying that we are going to fight for the salmon stock. The government only tells us that there is a Utilities Commission hearing on that. If we're going to get serious about protecting the commercial fishing industry, let's get serious about the prevention of that construction and the maintenance and protection of those two salmon streams.
Similarly, we got absolutely hammered in the GATT with respect to the landing of commercially-caught salmon in British Columbia. Where was our federal government then? Where was the protection in the GATT negotiations of the people whose livelihoods depend on the landing of commercial salmon stock in British Columbia? It was sadly lacking. Now we find ourselves once again having to capitulate to those to the south of us who negotiate more aggressively and successfully.
Let's be clear that the state of Alaska is playing the states of Washington and Oregon against British Columbia. They know that in this negotiation, whatever deal they cut in Alaska is going to be countered by the demands from Washington and Oregon. We would be naive to believe that there isn't a consistent approach being taken with respect to the numbers of salmon that are being negotiated. We go into these negotiations using American statistics. Why do we not use Canadian statistics verified by sound research that we can stand up and defend?
We have to make sure when we're debating, negotiating and standing up for the people of British Columbia, that we do so on a basis of sound research and documentation on this resource, which will allow us the opportunity to wield an effective argument -- not only against the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon but also in the capital of Washington, D.C.
We run the risk of losing in these negotiations, and not only through the complacency that we've demonstrated in the past. Now we're hearing tough talk from the minister. As recently as this afternoon, in consultation with members of the UFAWU and those involved in this industry, they say there has been limited, if any, ongoing discussion by our federal negotiating team with those people whose livelihoods are dependent on this industry.
They are afraid that there's going to be a trade-off between Ottawa and Washington with respect to the Georges Bank dispute with the United States in eastern Canada. It wouldn't be the first time that west coast fishermen have been traded off to protect the east coast. Look what happened to the east coast fishery under the wise direction of past fisheries policies of the federal government. The east coast fishery today is a shadow of what it used to be. Indeed it's a shame and a national tragedy that that fishery has gone that way. Let us be very clear that if we're not vigilant and if we do not have a strong voice on this question today, the west coast fishery will go the same way.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
This is indeed a critically important motion, and not just because the livelihoods of many British Columbians are at stake -- a billion-dollar industry. It's critically important because over the years we have been less than aggressive with our neighbours to the south. The reason we have not done well is that they have been better than we have in the negotiation process. They have used a bigger club. We in British Columbia have limited resources at our disposal to enforce those treaties when they are in place. We must rely upon the federal government for the enforcement of those treaties.
Today we've heard that previous negotiations have in fact been countered, abused and broken by the very signatories to those agreements. What did we, as Canadians, do about it? When did we hear Ottawa saying that we were going to stand and defend the west coast fishery, no matter what the cost? Did we hear that we were going to use, as a bargaining chip, our relationship in future trade negotiations with the United States on the resources that we do command and that the United States depends on and demands? Where did we use those bargaining chips with respect to the protection and maintenance of the fishery? We have been less than aggressive in those areas, so let's not lay all the blame at the feet of our neighbours to the south, who have been very strong and vigilant. Let's also say that we in government, both federal and provincial, have a role to play in standing up and protecting this industry.
There are those who believe that the federal Minister of Fisheries was posturing in his comments the other day on an open-line talk show on CKNW. He said he doesn't want a salmon war; he's going to get tough, talk tough with the United States and go down there to let them know that we're serious this time. Those words will have no meaning if they're not backed up with sound, solid action; they will have no meaning if we do not demonstrate within this province itself that we're prepared to take the necessary steps to protect, maintain and enhance our fishery.
Those steps clearly have to be the curtailing and prevention of the Kemano 2 project to protect the salmon industry, the sockeye runs in the Nechako River and the Fraser River. We need to put in place solid legislation with respect to the forest practices act to maintain salmonid stream enhancement programs that maintain and protect the salmon stocks that spawn in Canadian waters. We have to let Alaska know that we are going to start keeping a very vigilant check on the numbers of salmon that are destined for British Columbia but are caught within the Alaskan catch, and that we are going to start spending the necessary resources to put in place the Fisheries officers needed to do
[ Page 10717 ]
an accurate inventory of the resource, so that we can take Canadian figures that are accurate and defensible when we go to defend the position of the Canadian government, rather than having to consistently and constantly depend on figures that are contested and put forward by the United States.
The minister who's talking tough on preventing fisheries from closing is now threatening to close the Fisheries office in Pender Harbour: one Fisheries officer for many thousands of square miles of the coastline is gone. Where's the commitment to the commercial industry in this area? We spoke out strongly in opposition to the implementation of the salmon management marketing model that this new aboriginal fish strategy was going to bring in place -- another brainchild of the federal government. Now we see that it's in dispute and that once again the numbers are going to be renegotiated this year; there's going to be more conflict within the Canadian model of fishing as a result of Ottawa's policies. Where does that demonstrate that there is a strong and viable commitment to the west coast fishing industry by the federal government? It doesn't demonstrate it at all.
It's great and it's nice to get all sides of this House to stand up in support of this motion -- which I do, because I believe strongly and passionately in the maintenance of this commercial fishing industry on the west coast of British Columbia -- and to speak of unity and say a lot of words, but we need action. Words will no longer cut it. Canadians are great talkers. We're great at going down there; we sit there and talk about how we're going to get tough with the Americans -- and we consistently get hammered with the free trade agreement, the terms of which are devastating to the economies of some sectors of this country. The member for Nanaimo talked about the apple-dumping in Osoyoos; that's just one example. The softwood lumber tariff is a second example. Our total inability with respect to the GATT and the landing of fish is another example. History is replete with governments that have not had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to those who seek to set out weak commission agreements on the maintenance and protection of Canadian resources that allow us to be once again overridden, overruled and outdone.
[5:15]
In concluding my remarks, let's keep in mind that when this House stands up and says that Canada is to take the strongest possible stand with the United States to achieve full implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty's core principles, I hope those words are heard from here right to Ottawa. It's not just the core principles we need but a commitment that we are going to have an enforcement of that treaty -- if not by the parties that are cosignatories to it, then certainly by the federal government -- to put in place the necessary Fisheries officers on the west coast of British Columbia to do the kind of detailed work, both in research on numbers and enforcement of catch figures, with respect to the foreign fleets that are catching Canadian salmon off our coast. Anything short of that is rhetoric. It's rhetoric from a federal government that allowed the west coast fisheries to go down the tube by way of the same kind of strategy that they looked at with the east coast fishery.
We have a strong role to play: this government, the province of British Columbia, those of us elected into this Legislative Assembly. I commend this minister in getting one of our people down there for those negotiations. That is an excellent step.
I think that this minister needs to be congratulated for taking a strong stand -- and the minister before this minster also. British Columbians have to stand united on this question, because I, for one, don't trust Ottawa to do it for us. They haven't in the past, and I don't believe they're going to do it in the present. We can see it right now, in terms of the strategies that they've put in place with respect to the fishing industry here -- the removal of Fisheries officers; the closing of Fisheries offices. We look at the problems we have with the enforcement of the aboriginal fish strategy; we look at the complacent attitude that the federal government is taking currently with the Kemano 2 completion project, which is going to completely devastate sockeye stocks in the Nechako River; and all of those are not signals of a government that is soundly, solidly committed to the salmon industry.
I support this motion, and I hope that the government is serious about its implementation and the movement of that implementation with respect to a vigorous, aggressive, and unrelenting pressure on Ottawa, so that the negotiators know that British Columbians will stand for nothing less than an equitable agreement. And once we have it, we will stand for nothing less than adequate and proper enforcement of it, so that we can indeed keep the livelihoods of those people who are dependent upon a commercial fishing industry there for many years and generations to come.
Let me say in my last remark that we have been consistently played in the middle by Alaska, Washington and Oregon, and we have been unable to get those states to recognize that it is in our collective interest to manage this stock. We have to demonstrate cooperation, yes, but past history tells us that cooperation must be done with an iron glove in this matter. Because the velvet hand has been offered so many times, taken and abused, now the iron glove is what is required. An iron fist needs to come forward to let the Americans know that we are serious about our west coast fishing industry, that we are serious about the maintenance of a viable commercial fishing industry, and that we are not going to allow our negotiators to simply get swept under the rug as they have in the past, because of the kinds of negotiation tactics we've seen by Alaska, namely, but also by Washington State and Oregon.
Hon. Speaker, I commend the government for bringing this motion before this House. I think it has offered us a unique opportunity to debate what is a critical issue for many, many, British Columbians and future generations of British Columbians. I only hope that it doesn't end with this debate. I hope that this minister is serious when he says that he will take up the federal minister's offer to go to Washington, D.C., to negotiate our position. I hope that when he goes he might want to take with him a delegation of people whose livelihood is dependent upon the fishing industry. Let's get some commercial fishers down there, as well; let's get some other people whose livelihood is dependent upon the commercial fishing industry, as well. Bring a delegation of united people from the UFAWU, from the trawlers' association, from the gill-netters. Bring people together. Take down a strong, united team and let Washington, D.C., and the President of the United States know that we are not simply putting forward rhetoric on this question. This time we're serious, and we're going to stand by our word; we're going to stand by our commitment.
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the motion brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture, responsible for fisheries in British Columbia. I would like to commend the minister for his actions; I'd also like to commend the Premier for his initiatives in approaching the Prime Minister and in making contact with the Governors on the west coast of the United States to try to secure their support for what is an important measure for all British Columbians. As a result of no treaty being in place and overfishing by the U.S., we have a situation in the
[ Page 10718 ]
communities of Sooke and Port Renfrew where the fishing fleets stationed there, both year-round and on a seasonal basis, will be subject to penalties as a result of this overfishing by our U.S. neighbours to the south. It will mean a loss of jobs and revenue for our commercial fishing fleet, but more importantly, a loss to our resource. I've heard members speak of the problems pertaining to enforcement and the lack of courage or action by the federal government on this matter for a number of years. It's time to take action. Talk is cheap. We need action immediately.
I would like to give a historical overview of some of the problems that we've encountered in the Sooke-Port Renfrew area as a result of no treaty being in place and the lack of enforcement by the federal Department of Fisheries. We've seen openings occur in the strait of Juan de Fuca. They are nothing more than an encouragement of retaliation measures by the Department of Fisheries to intercept the returning sockeye runs to the Fraser River by way of the strait of Juan de Fuca -- intercept measures so that the American commercial fleets are unable to catch as many fish as they hoped to. This has had a serious effect on the incidental stocks of coho, chinook and steelhead that are returning to the southern rivers on Vancouver Island. This also has a serious impact on future fish stocks that the commercial fishing fleet relies on, as well as on our viable and growing sports fishery on southern Vancouver Island.
There is no way that British Columbia should tolerate the fact that there is no treaty in place or the limited and proposed reduction of enforcement. I cite the example of recent announcements of the closure of the Sooke Fisheries office. This will create strains on the resource because of a lack of response by the Fisheries officers to go out and police and monitor any potential actions that the Department of Fisheries may take if there is no treaty negotiated this year.
Previous experience shows that the Department of Fisheries has encouraged the fish war between Canadians and Americans. This has created major problems with our returning stocks in southern Vancouver Island waters. It has had a detrimental effect on our sport fishing industry, and as I pointed out earlier, our future fish stocks that are returning for spawning purposes will suffer and will, in my view, be greatly reduced.
I would also like to point out that as a result of closing the Sooke Fisheries office -- the announcement by the federal government -- it creates a major strain on the good people who are providing services in monitoring, policing and enforcing our fishing regulations in British Columbia waters. Those staff are under a great deal of pressure. They have done an admirable job in that area, but by closing down that office the response time to issues in the Juan de Fuca Strait is going to be greatly increased.
Time is of the essence, and I applaud the minister for bringing forward this motion. I would urge all members to support this motion, because our fishing stocks are our future for employment opportunities in the commercial fleet and for our budding and growing sport fishery. We have to ensure that we no longer perpetuate the fish wars that previous governments have allowed to occur. We have to take a strong, positive approach on this important measure.
I will close my remarks by saying that I would urge all members to support this motion and to encourage the federal government to take strong, positive measures in ensuring that this fish treaty between Canada and the U.S. is endorsed and ratified at the earliest possible convenience.
A. Warnke: I also want to thank the previous speakers for raising the number of issues that they have. It's very difficult to wax eloquent beyond what has been presented here this afternoon. Certainly, it is highly appropriate that the Minister of Fisheries brings forth Motion 47 and that it solicits our support. I too hope that it solicits unanimous support of this chamber. There are individual speakers and, I suppose, some of their comments that I could take issue with. But perhaps this is not exactly the time and place to do that in any elaborate detail, if in fact we do move to some sort of unanimity. I caution, however, in case anyone would want to follow the model of one speaker, that any discussion of Georges Bank -- and to reopen that -- is highly inappropriate.
Secondly, to couch an argument that actually encourages the American government to suggest there is some sort of division among the people of British Columbia -- and there was a specific reference made to the aboriginal community in British Columbia -- and that somehow the position we take in British Columbia must challenge the aboriginal community in British Columbia.... I must admit that that one particular point was offensive to me. The whole problem of fisheries in this province is complicated enough without reminding people outside of British Columbia that it is complex. Beyond that, I should not comment too much further.
I would like to comment that this issue is not new. As a matter of fact, hon. Speaker, when you had the opportunity to present what I thought was a very good outline yourself on this issue, noting that this is a crisis in the making, I think you were quite accurate. But the fact -- I'm not sure exactly, and perhaps I should refer to the member for Nanaimo, and he'll be more neutral in pointing that out.... As a matter of fact, this coming crisis was articulated some time ago. I'm thinking particularly of one person, Prof. Peter Larkin, who outlined in 1979 the coming crisis in the management of the salmon fisheries. It's instructive to go back that far and to note that he stated then that we needed an approach that demanded we be brutal, realistic and public about where we're going with the salmon fishing industry.
[5:30]
There were four main components he articulated at that time. Perhaps it can be couched in different ways, but essentially the first component was the protection of our environment. What it really denotes today is the whole emphasis on the protection of our environment in terms of conservation. Secondly, a re-examination of the regulation of the salmon industry was needed. Indeed, it's worthwhile to note that the Pacific salmon fishery generates over $1 billion in aggregate economic activity in this province, and that one-third of every tourist dollar spent in British Columbia is derived from recreational salmon fishing. That may be quite a surprise to many people in British Columbia; I'm surprised, yet I have it on good authority that this is, in fact, the case. It is worthwhile to really emphasize just how critically important the salmon fishery is to the economy of British Columbia. We're not dealing with something marginal in our economy.
Indeed, the emphasis from Larkin's analysis of the late 1970s to the present is that we must focus on conservation. In this sense, over the years we've adhered to a third principle of Larkin's, the rehabilitation and enhancement of the salmon industry, as well as to a fourth, an emphasis on research -- not just essentially following where the fish come and go and all the rest of it, but articulating hard scientific data so that we know exactly what we're arguing and where we stand. These were very strong points put forward by Professor Larkin. The statements he made then were not just for British Columbians or Canadians; they were for Americans and the international community. We are facing a very serious crisis not only with regard to the salmon fishing
[ Page 10719 ]
industry but also the fishing industry globally. We have seen some problems evolve.
It is extremely important as well to emphasize some points with regard to where we were yesterday and where we have to go in the future. Again, it's worthwhile to refer back to Professor Larkin, who summarized four main points. I'm not going to elaborate on them in detail. I wish I could, but I won't. I want to quote four sentences:
"Slowly, and inevitably, the environment for salmon is being lost. The pressures of the fisheries for salmon make regulation increasingly less precise. Enhancement may increase production, but may pose more problems for management. And we don't really know what we're doing."
Those sentences summarized where we were, where the Americans were and how the Americans must catch up to where we are.
The salmon environment in British Columbia is not new to us, either. For example, it is interesting to note that the protection of the salmon environment actually started 100 years ago. Around the turn of the century one particular person, John Peese Babcock, built a sort of fishway that went past a goldminer's dam that was blocking fish trying to ascend to Quesnel Lake and is perhaps the forerunner of what we've seen develop in the context of the twentieth century. Of course, 100 years ago there were loggers who assessed the effects of logging operations on the salmon and trout fisheries -- they certainly weren't industries -- of the time. We've noted since then how the fishing industry has developed.
We in British Columbia have led the way in many, many areas in terms of seeing the implications of where the fishing industry has gone. I think it is quite unfair, quite unjustified, for British Columbians to have taken all of that initiative and to somehow be penalized for it at the end of the century. That is a very clear message that we could send to the American government.
My understanding of this particular situation is that the American government is not practising gunboat diplomacy or anything like that. As a matter of fact, from what I've heard of the arguments that have been put forward both inside this chamber and outside, it seems that if there is fault with the American government, it is in their acquiescence; it's in their perceived inability to take any initiative, to take any action. This is why this chamber is moving in a direction to support Motion 47 and is also advocating, in the strongest terms possible, our support for the federal government to take whatever initiative or action is required to deal with and put pressure on the American government. In turn, it can turn right around and put pressure on the American states.
As for the American states themselves, my view is that there is a bit of history here -- not the history of this continent but history in terms of international law. As a matter of fact, there is the most noted case of what has been called, in international law, the fisheries jurisdiction case, or merits case, of the United Kingdom v. Iceland -- which is reported in the International Court of Justice Reports, 1974. I would like to quote from paragraph 62 of the judgment of the court:
"A coastal state entitled to preferential rights is not free, unilaterally and according to its uncontrolled discretion, to determine the extent of those rights. The characterization of the coastal state's rights as preferential implies a certain priority, but cannot imply the extinction of the concurrent rights of other states...."
I would like to quote from paragraph 72 of the same report:
"The most appropriate method for the solution of a dispute between the parties is clearly that of negotiation. Its objective should be the delimitation of the rights and interests of the parties, the preferential rights of the coastal state on the one hand and the rights of the applicant on the other, to balance and regulate equitably questions such as those of catch-limitation or share allocations...."
Also for the record, I quote paragraph 74:
"It is implicit in the concept of preferential rights that negotiations are required in order to define or delimit the extent of those rights...."
There are many cases that one could refer to, but the main point is that recognizing that we are in a new era of international relations and perhaps a new era of how the nation-state governments are perceived, there is a little bit of incentive for provincial governments, state governments and smaller governments to take some kinds of actions and initiatives without penalty in their relationship with the national government.
I know that small is beautiful and that a lot of these quaint rhetorical phrases may be indicative of the times that we live in, but it's about time that state governments -- in this case, I guess British Columbia has focused on the state of Alaska -- also must understand their limitations. I do not think it is the best strategy for the provincial government, the provincial opposition and Members of the Legislative Assembly to dump on our federal parliament, as indeed one member has done this afternoon. I'm quite surprised at that. That's not the way to go. There are times when that is the whole purpose of being a Canadian and of bringing ourselves together: on certain issues of this kind, we can actually get behind the national government. And the national government, in this case Ottawa, can put pressure on other national governments, in D.C. and so on. That is our strategy here. To somehow set it up, as one member did, that either we get an equitable agreement or that essentially justifies saying pooh on Ottawa.... That kind of thinking has got to stop in this country. It's about time that provincial governments as well as state governments understand their limitations.
In this particular case, it is time that we begin to understand that the national government has a role. The Minister of Fisheries in this case is putting forward a motion that this is where British Columbia stands on this issue. If we have unanimous agreement in this House, we can send that message clear to Ottawa, and Ottawa will embrace it. It is certainly, in that context, a privilege to stand up and register full support of Motion 47 as put forward by the minister.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the short time left and I think other members wish to speak, so I don't want to use all the available time. But I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise, given the constituency that I represent -- the North Coast constituency of this province, that stretches from Stewart in the north to Bella Bella and Bella Coola in the south and captures Haida Gwaii. It's an area that in many respects is still very heavily dependent economically on the fishery resource, both in the harvesting side and in the processing side.
In that respect, I think I can talk about the human face. The member opposite talked about the value of various components, but in the community where I live, in Prince Rupert, literally thousands of people work in the fishing industry. A large number of those people are aboriginal people from the Tsimshian tribes, the Haida and the Nisga'a who have been catching salmon from time immemorial. Salmon is a large part of the culture of the indigenous people of this province, and their view of it is somewhat different than ours. To understand the economic importance of that industry, I think one has to go to Prince Rupert in the height of the salmon season and look at the boats in the harbour,
[ Page 10720 ]
and go down to the fish plants and see the people working. Then you'll get a true appreciation.
[5:45]
We are particularly vulnerable with respect to the by-catch that the Alaskans.... The Alaskan interception is more than just taking a resource with a certain value. The Alaskan interception, quite frankly, is threatening coho and steelhead stocks on the Skeena River. Through the treaty mechanism, we hope to be able to deal with that. If we can't, the end result might be severe damage to those two runs -- the summer steelhead run on the Skeena and the coho stocks, which have been severely depleted. British Columbia fishermen have, in some cases, voluntarily not fished certain species in order to conserve and to allow those species to come back up.
I would recommend that those who do get the opportunity to travel go out to the North Pacific Cannery Museum. I think it is only the second fish cannery, and one of the oldest ones on this coast, that's been turned into a fisheries museum. It has many good programs in terms of training apprentices and artisans, and is a place where years ago all of the people came together -- all the various tribes in the region and the large Chinese and Japanese workforces. It's a place that's rife with the history of this province and well worth seeing. I've got a copy in my office, for any member who is interested, of Gladys Blyth's book on the salmon canneries of the coast, which has pieced together all of those old operations.
But I want to say, coming from that community, that I have really held as an article of faith for many years that the management of the resource was more properly vested in the federal government. With all due respect to those who have gone before me, I must say that I had a fundamental mistrust of the ability of former governments in resource management. That is an opinion, and it may not be shared; nonetheless, it's one that I had -- and, I think, with some reason. But I'm increasingly concerned, given the billion-dollar-plus value of this industry to the province and the more than 600,000 workers.
I must commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have the most activist provincial minister responsible for fisheries that we have had, I think, in all the time that I have followed that issue at a provincial level. There is the development of the task force that's currently working in a cooperative way with members of industry, unions and communities to develop more out of that resource, more economic benefits and more jobs. That minister played the activist role, quite frankly, in goading and prodding the federal government to take a position. I think they have taken a good position and that they have a good negotiator. We finally have a minister that has taken that very strong leading position. Last week I was very pleased to hear various people at a coastal communities conference in my community of Prince Rupert express that in an open way and applaud the actions of this minister. I think that's something we should all be aware of.
But coming back to it, it seems to me that we should now start to engage in a larger debate in this province about control of that resource. Given its value and the fact that we're here, and that the resource needs to be managed here on the west coast and can't be managed from Ottawa, we should perhaps start looking at that resource falling under provincial jurisdiction, so that British Columbians operating with the theory -- and I think it's a correct one -- that the closer to home you are the better you're able to manage those resources can have that kind of direct control. Clearly, there are issues of international importance that impact here.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Finally, with respect to the United States, I would say that while it's clear that the federal government refuses to intervene with respect to the states' rights, it may be that that's a convenient position. One only has to look at the issue of lumber and the U.S. countervail -- which was not state-driven; it was corporate-driven -- to see that even in the face of two free trade panels that have said there is no subsidy to lumber production in British Columbia, the United States trade representative has now launched an extraordinary challenge. It is doomed, but it nonetheless shows that when it comes to issues of trade, the United States likes to play hardball. They like to be bullies; they like to throw their weight around. There's only one way you can deal with them. You've got to stand up to them and take it to the wall. British Columbians should be aware that that's sort of in play now. We're prepared to do that at the end of the day in order to conserve these resources for British Columbians and the people I talked about.
Hon. Speaker, I appreciated the opportunity to offer my few remarks in support not only of this motion but of this minister responsible for fisheries, who has been such an activist minister.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to take a few minutes to rise and speak on behalf of the Reform caucus in saying that we support Motion 47 wholeheartedly.
We have an enormously valuable salmon resource in British Columbia. I'm concerned with the determination with which the federal government will approach this issue. I'm concerned, because I've watched trade negotiations on a whole range of commodities. Canada seems to go to these negotiations with less than the degree of determination that's necessary to achieve a satisfactory result. I've watched that for some time. I've watched with an enormous amount of concern -- as I think all Canadians have -- the east coast fishery, which over a relatively short period of time appears to have almost disappeared. It seems as if it will be probably a decade before there is once again a viable fishery on the east coast. I'm not sure that Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans went into negotiations with other offshore competitors for those fish with the kind of determination that should have been there to protect those east coast stocks. So I don't share any great degree of comfort in the federal government's ability or willingness to go in and fight hard enough on behalf of British Columbia for this resource.
Indeed, it was interesting to hear the member for North Coast talk about British Columbia taking control of the fishery. I don't think that's an idea that's unique to him. We're hearing more and more talk all around British Columbia about the fact that we are a single province; there aren't a number of provincial jurisdictions on the west coast. We see ourselves under assault from fishermen in Alaska and Washington and Oregon and from as far south as California.
I would encourage the minister to take this issue to Ottawa and say that this may be their last chance to deal aggressively and satisfactorily with this issue, because if British Columbians aren't satisfied and convinced that these negotiations have been handled with the kind of vigour and determination we expect, there will be a strong movement in this province to take control of the fishery. It's a critical issue, and I believe all parties have demonstrated clearly that there's a sense of determination to see the right thing done with a resource that has been well managed in this province. There have always been threats to it, but through time there has been a determination to keep a salmon fishery. The fact
[ Page 10721 ]
that one exists with its volumes of fish today speaks to the work that's been done in this province. I don't want to see it frittered away, members of my caucus don't, and I don't believe anybody in British Columbia does.
So, Mr. Minister, go to Ottawa with determination and ensure that they go into these discussions with an equal determination.
D. Symons: I'll just take a very few moments to speak in support of this motion. Richmond is at the mouth of the Fraser River and has historically been a very large and important fishing community on the Pacific coast. Coming from Richmond, I think it's very important that Richmond does speak up, as the member for Richmond-Steveston did. I think Steveston vied at one time with Vancouver for being the major city on the west coast. It did seem to lose out over the years, though.
Interjection.
D. Symons: The member for Richmond-Steveston says it still is.
Indeed, what we have seen in Richmond-Steveston in the last couple of decades is a great reduction in dependency on the fishing industry. There are more closed canneries than operating canneries in that area now, although there are still a good number of fishing boats operating out of Steveston. It's really important to our community that the salmon resource of our province be maintained. Therefore I can speak highly in favour of this bill. However, I do have some concerns. One of them, mentioned earlier, was the east coast example. We have seen what happened in Newfoundland. That was primarily a Canadian responsibility, but there were some offshore fisheries on the margins of the Grand Banks affecting it as well. We have seen that the federal government backed down and made mistakes when political pressure was put on them by local communities. We don't have that same problem on the west coast, because I think everybody here recognizes the problem and is willing to tackle it. That is something we have in our favour, but it was belatedly recognized on the east coast.
The U.S., unfortunately, in this whole process of dropping out of the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, is totally off base. They're very shortsighted, and the results, unless something comes of our discussions with them, could be totally disastrous for both United States and Canadian fisheries. I speak in support of the motion to take a strong stand to achieve full implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and to aggressively advance B.C.'s interest in support of our salmon resource. That's more or less a paraphrasing of the motion.
I am concerned, however, about some of the comments made in the House. We had one member just recently use the words "take it to the wall." Another member, who will remain nameless, almost talked of secession unless the federal government was able to do what is right for B.C. I have a problem because I'm not quite sure what we mean by take it to the wall or what we're insisting that Ottawa does to make the Americans toe the Canadian line. I wholly agree that the Canadian line is correct, but I haven't heard anybody suggest -- when we take it to the wall or secede if we don't get our way -- exactly what they have in mind for the federal government to do other than negotiate very strongly with the United States, which I know our negotiators will do. That is the one concern I have, that in a sense what we're doing is washing our hands of things, saying that it's a federal matter and that we're going to blame them if they aren't successful at it.
So I really want to know what we're doing locally. What are we doing in British Columbia -- not only in the negotiations with the United States but in our salmon enhancement programs and all the rest -- that will also help to preserve our salmon stocks? It's not just what happens there. It's the preservation of our rivers in this province so that they will be salmon-bearing streams in perpetuity. It's looking after our industry, because with a good number of our canneries now, the fish are actually processed south of the line rather than in B.C. There's a lot more to it than just turning around and asking Ottawa to do something. We have to take hold of the issue ourselves, take some responsibility for it and not simply look to somebody else to solve our problems.
The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can allude to the many speeches that have been made in support of this resolution, and I am thankful for that. I think Ottawa will know of our determination here -- that all the parties and all the members of this Legislature support the strongest possible action, and that the provincial government will be there in lockstep with them, with the full support of the fishers and the communities dependent on them. I look forward to working with the federal government in order that they take the strongest possible stand.
With that, I think it appropriate that the motion be put.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think earlier today the House was reminded that we will sit tomorrow. With that, I'd like to move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
The committee met at 2:34 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
R. Neufeld: I just have a few quick questions. I see that the net debt for B.C. Rail is up by $112 million this year. Can you give me -- you don't have to list it all, but if you could give it to me in writing later, that would be fine -- an idea of where the $112 million is going?
Hon. J. Pement: The major portion of the debt is through Vancouver Wharves Ltd.; however, I could do a summary in written form as requested.
R. Neufeld: There is another item I would like to come back to. The Liberal critic talked about the trucking arm of
[ Page 10722 ]
B.C. Rail having some advantages. I noticed that the minister said that the trucking arm of B.C. Rail is exempt from paying property taxes on any property it uses in British Columbia. That happens in my constituency and in just about everyone's constituency. Could she tell me from what other taxes or fees the trucking arm of B.C. Rail is exempt?
Hon. J. Pement: As other trucking firms do with fuel taxes, etc., the trucking arm pays its taxes.
R. Neufeld: How about cargo insurance and that type of thing? Is that carried in general by B.C. Rail for all its operations, or does the trucking arm have to carry its own?
Hon. J. Pement: The trucking arm pays its costs in that area.
R. Neufeld: I understand that the trucking arm of B.C. Rail negotiates separately with some outside insurance company for cargo insurance. If so, who is it?
Hon. J. Pement: It's pooled through a blanket policy of which it pays its portion.
R. Neufeld: Then it is a blanket cargo insurance for all of B.C. Rail -- which is what I asked about initially -- and the trucking arm remits back to B.C. Rail. Who considers what portion gets remitted and what is applicable to the trucking arm?
Hon. J. Pement: It's an internal chargeback through their financial department on the coverage that that particular facility uses.
R. Neufeld: Would it be a great amount of work to find out exactly what that is?
Hon. J. Pement: This is a situation in which you have a company that is competitive and has rate structures based on its overhead costs. It's difficult to provide that type of information and still have the company stay competitive.
R. Neufeld: Does the trucking arm of B.C. Rail fall under the Motor Carrier Commission, and if so, is it licensed by the Motor Carrier Commission?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
R. Neufeld: Does the Motor Carrier Commission require B.C. Rail to submit to them who their cargo insurance agent is and their costs?
Hon. J. Pement: I'll have to get back to you with the answer to that question.
R. Neufeld: On general insurance and ICBC, does B.C. Rail insure its trucks with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for all the insurance it needs?
Hon. J. Pement: The insurance is through ICBC and is just like other trucking companies have.
R. Neufeld: My experience with trucking companies and insurance is that you can purchase collision insurance outside of ICBC. It's also my experience that larger corporations will not carry collision insurance simply because of its enormous cost. Does the trucking arm of B.C. Rail carry collision insurance on all its vehicles?
Hon. J. Pement: No.
R. Neufeld: I would say, then, that the trucking arm of B.C. Rail, which you say is so competitive, does have a number of advantages over smaller companies trying to bid on some of the work out there. They had some advantage in Fort St. John about a year ago, and they have some in Williams Lake, one of them being that they don't have to carry insurance. They have such a large fleet that they can afford to wreck one or two and pay for them. That's certainly an advantage because of BCR's largesse. The company should run its trucking arm totally on its own and stand on its own, instead of being amalgamated through collision insurance and cargo. You do have a tremendous advantage over the small trucking firm in Williams Lake or Fort St. John that's trying to compete for that business. Could the minister explain to me how the trucking arm of B.C. Rail would not have an advantage, given her answers so far?
Hon. J. Pement: Comparing large firms with small is a difficult scenario for small firms. Large trucking groups do have some advantages, because they are larger and can balance out some of their costs accordingly. For example, the trucking arm of B.C. Rail lost a significant amount of lumber and chip business in competition. This shows that other trucking firms out there have been more competitive.
R. Neufeld: One last question. Does the trucking arm of B.C. Rail pay any corporate income tax?
Hon. J. Pement: Corporate and other taxes are paid through B.C. Rail.
[2:45]
D. Jarvis: In the same vein as B.C. Rail's trucking, does the trucking arm have a contract specifically with the Teamsters union?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, the Teamsters union is one of the bargaining units, but it's within a council of unions for B.C. Rail.
D. Jarvis: Does B.C. Rail have a contract with the Teamsters union that would preclude any small or large or independent trucking firms from bringing supplies or material into or out of B.C. Rail yards?
Hon. J. Pement: I understand that other companies come on and off the property. There are no obstacles.
D. Jarvis: I have information that independent truckers aren't allowed to haul supplies into the North Vancouver yards unless they and their drivers belong to the Teamsters union.
Hon. J. Pement: I do not understand that this is the practice; however, we can look into that issue for the member.
D. Jarvis: As the minister is probably aware, the B.C. Rail yards on the North Shore are on land that is part of the Squamish reserve. Have there been any negotiations with the Squamish band with regard to removal of the services of B.C. Rail from the foreshore of North Vancouver?
[ Page 10723 ]
Hon. J. Pement: There have been no discussions to remove the services from the property.
D. Jarvis: If the minister is not aware of it, I will tell her now. The Squamish Indian band is quite concerned about the fact that the railway track is there. When I had discussions with them about 12 months ago about the taxation question, they said their plans were to have the railway yards removed from the area. They want to use the land for better purposes than the railways serve. It's all their land. Surely B.C. Rail has some plan for what they would do if this happens.
Hon. J. Pement: I don't know what discussions you've had with the council in this regard. The land is fee-simple land owned by B.C. Rail, and since that 12-month window the member talked about, there have been discussions with the band on looking at grade separations and intersections, so we really haven't heard that comment.
D. Jarvis: In those discussions, there has been no discussion whatsoever about B.C. Rail leaving the North Shore and moving their premises to other locations.
Hon. J. Pement: We're not aware at this point of any discussions of that sort.
D. Symons: I have a few questions that have come out of other people's questions. We were dealing initially with insurance questions concerning the trucking arm of B.C. Rail and looking at the advantages this trucking firm might have over the private sector. One advantage which must be obvious to the minister is that if you lump in the trucking insurance with the whole load of B.C. Rail insurance, the magnitude of scale involved would probably give a much lower insurance rate than any private firm would be able to get on its fleet of trucks. Would that not be the case? This would be an advantage those trucks would have in seeking contracts with business.
Hon. J. Pement: It is comparable to other large trucking companies; they have that advantage as well. I say to you again that we are competitive. We have lost out on some bidding processes, and we have not won some of the contracts that have been approached. I think it's quite a competitive company.
D. Symons: I'm not quite sure how many independent trucking firms are out there that would have the same insurance portfolio as B.C. Rail.
I'll move on to another aspect of trucking, which you mentioned goes through the Motor Carrier Commission. I'm wondering if B.C. Rail has to go through the same procedure as any other trucking firm when it wants to get another plate for hauling. Does it go through the same procedure as other applicants do with the Motor Carrier Commission, whereby an application is vetted to all the local people to see whether another truck is needed in that area; then the commission decides on the basis of whether it seems to have a business set up, it's not going to be putting somebody else out of business, it's charging viable rates and all the rest?
Hon. J. Pement: The answer is yes.
D. Symons: One last comment on that. Judging from reading the OICs, there seem to be many more denials than acceptances of appeals to the Motor Carrier Commission for hauling licences. It's curious that B.C. Rail has managed to get any trucks on the road in view of the rate that the Motor Carrier Commission seems to turn down applications.
Moving on to one last question, unless someone else has another, I asked prior to our break about interest-free loans. You mentioned there was one, and I asked if we could have the figure of that particular loan.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, going back to licensing the trucking firm for B.C. Rail. Again, it follows the same process that every other trucking company would go through to get its plate. This firm has been in place for a number of years, so it's not before the appeals board at this point. I really think this is a bit of an apples and oranges situation.
Back to the interest-free loan. It was negotiated in 1989 when Mr. McElligott left a position as president in a private sector company in Montreal to join B.C. Rail. It was structured to ensure that his housing costs in Vancouver were equivalent to those in Montreal for an equivalent house. The loan is part of a compensation package and is a taxable benefit. The original amount borrowed was $280,000, of which one-third has been paid back. This is common practice when relocating executives to more expensive real estate markets.
D. Symons: Thank you for that information; that dovetails nicely with what I have been told.
Going back to the Motor Carrier Commission and trucking, I wonder if you might supply me -- and I know you won't have these figures here -- with the number of plates in the last two years that B.C. Rail has applied for, where these plates have been requested and the number of plates that have been received.
Hon. J. Pement: We will certainly get you that information; we don't have that information right now.
The Chair: Shall vote 55 pass?
D. Symons: Hon. Chair, it's not vote 55. We just finished one portion of 55, so I'll be on my feet again. I was going to thank the gentleman from B.C. Rail; but you must remember that B.C. Rail is not vote 55. If we can move on....
The Chair: I thought I heard you say it was your last question.
D. Symons: On B.C. Rail, it was indeed.
I have a couple of questions about the Trans-Canada Highway. One of them involves the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to Monte Creek. The mayor of Kamloops expressed serious concerns about that part of the highway. At the same time -- and this isn't necessarily related to this ministry, but questions I asked earlier bring it into the focus of this ministry -- the mayor was concerned that there won't be a cutback to transfer payments. We found out during our earlier discussions on municipal grants that indeed that figure was much smaller than it had been in the past. So there may be cutbacks to the municipality in that aspect. Is there any timetable on that portion of the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to Monte Creek?
Hon. J. Pement: That is definitely an area of concern, and we are looking at that as a high priority. I hope to be able to do that area fairly quickly.
D. Symons: On the Vernon highway, Highway 97A, there are some rock slide problems at Mara. They are of a different
[ Page 10724 ]
magnitude than at Laidlaw Bluffs, but they have nevertheless caused highway closures quite frequently there. The ministry apparently didn't want to level the mountain to attack that problem. Have you got a solution? You've done something at Laidlaw bluffs to at least light up the area so people can see the rocks before they hit them. What are the solutions for the Vernon area?
[3:00]
Hon. J. Pement: Slide scenarios and difficulties with rock bluffs are an issue throughout the province, and we have a watch program where we try to address the concerns as they arise. If an area is a danger or a traffic safety issue, we definitely try to address it as soon as we can.
D. Symons: I guess there's been some slowdown in the four-laning of Highway 97 through the Okanagan due to funding restrictions, but there are also some areas of concern in Spallumcheen on Highway 97A near Swan Lake and the junction there. What they're mainly hoping for is that you can put in some passing lanes and turning lanes to make that particular stretch of highway safer. Are those in the works for this fiscal year?
Hon. J. Pement: I've met recently with the mayor of that municipality and council, and I recognized the concerns they brought forward. It's a case of volume of traffic and priorities in the region, which I've expressed to the council. We will look at those types of improvements and deal with the volume of traffic and with some other priorities in the region as well.
D. Symons: My tour is getting close to the end, but I have other general questions.
If we can move into the area of Osoyoos, I believe the intersection of Highways 3 and 97 was approved last fall at a cost of $5 million. Apparently that's going to come under the B.C. 21 program, and the cost has now escalated to $6.6 million. The minister keeps on saying that these things will come in on time and on budget, but, of course, being on budget depends on where you happen to put the dollar figure that you're going to call budget. So I don't think those words mean a great deal. Nevertheless, that seems to be the case.
I don't believe the project -- although I think it's under the federal tax-sharing program as well -- has really started. This particular project would have created jobs in the late winter or early spring if it had started at a time when unemployment is higher, which certainly would have avoided some of the work being done during high tourist season. Particularly in the area of Osoyoos, there is a lot of traffic coming up from the States. If it was planned and approved last fall, it seems a shame that the project couldn't have been done in a more timely fashion.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the SHIP program is going to address this issue. It's a case of getting the financing in order, and we hope to be able to do that through the Transportation Financing Authority. With that system in place and once the announcements are made, we will have the financing to complete the project on time.
D. Symons: I gather from that answer that the financing is a provincial problem. Is the federal money in that sharing available if the project finally gets provincial finding? Will it go ahead immediately?
Hon. J. Pement: It's definitely a case of assuring that we have the proper dollars to finish the project.
D. Symons: Another project I'm sure the minister is familiar with is in the Trail area: the Warfield bypass. There seem to have been some assurances given to the mayor and council there that it's on the books, but there is some concern now over what happens to the old highway and whether or not the municipality will end up having to pick up the maintenance costs of the old highway. I wonder if you might be able to give us some idea of where that stands at the present time.
Hon. J. Pement: When road replacement is done and the existing road is within a municipality, the policy is that the municipality picks up the road costs and maintenance eventually.
D. Symons: I guess the municipality wants it both ways; they want the new bypass and they want the old road. At least if you're on record as saying that, they will know where they stand on it.
The member for Rossland-Trail has proposed a road up the Arrow Lakes and across to Kelowna to join into a new crossing of Okanagan Lake and join into the Coquihalla Highway bypass. I think I asked you before whether there are plans for that, so we'll skip over that.
The next one is the Brilliant interchange. This was expected to go to tender earlier this year. It didn't happen, and it is really needed to draw the chip trucks out of downtown Castlegar. Having the bridge there without the proper interchange to handle those trucks means that they're still going through town. It seems that those two should have been timed in such a way that one would be completed when the other is. I believe the bridge is due to be completed fairly soon, but I don't believe work on the interchange has started. Are there any plans to get that underway?
Hon. J. Pement: The intersection has to be done along with accommodating the trucks to access the bridge. I feel that it's a project that will go ahead fairly shortly.
D. Symons: That didn't sound like a commitment, and we have the bridge opening, I think, within a month or two. Without that interchange we're going to be in trouble when the bridge opens -- at least, the bridge will not be utilized for the purpose it was built.
There is also some concern that there will be heavy use by chip trucks on Highway 6. I gather that these are all questions the minister is quite familiar with, going by your reaction to the beginning of my statement here. I believe they did have a Castlegar expansion review commission made up of local people who recommended a rail-and-barge alternative in order to take some pressure off that highway. I don't believe there has been any real decision on that. The highway hasn't been upgraded to handle the fact that there may be trucks using it rather than rail and barge. What are the ministry's plans to deal with the situation of chip trucks along Highway 6?
Hon. J. Pement: It's a concern that has been raised with me. I have met with people in the different communities along the highway and heard their concerns with regard to the chip trucks coming through. Some improvements have recently been done to the highway near the rock bluffs -- some lane expansion.
[ Page 10725 ]
On the barge scenario, a study is being done under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and that option is being looked at by the community as a viable one.
R. Neufeld: Just a quick question that's been on my list each year. This is the third time I've asked it. It deals with Marysville in the Kimberley area. Part of their downtown revitalization involves upgrading the highway through the town. Without that highway upgrade, there isn't much point in doing much revitalization, because the highway is an integral part of that portion of the program. They've asked every year, and it has been said that this is on the books again. Have you any idea of whether that financing may come through the Transportation Financing Authority this year? Are there any other grants that might be given to get that underway?
Hon. J. Pement: This would be under the TFA, Ministry of Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: So it's waiting under that big question mark of the TFA.
The last one, probably in the same category, is at Fernie, Highway 43. Apparently a feasibility study has been done on that, which is to be released shortly; I believe that was two months ago. Has "shortly" arrived yet? Would it be possible for me to get a copy of that study?
Hon. J. Pement: I haven't seen the study yet; it's quite likely being analyzed by staff. Once we have the study, we'll certainly ensure that the member gets a copy.
R. Neufeld: Back to my constituency, when I broke off the other day we were dealing with the Desan-Sierra-Yoyo access road. Has any progress been made between the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on deciding who's going to be responsible and who's going to start doing a bit more upgrading to that piece of road rather than just doing the bare minimum of maintaining it?
Hon. J. Pement: We provide funding for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to maintain the road. That's the status at this point.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I know that is what's happening, and it has been kicked back and forth for a long time, not just under your ministry but under governments before you, ever since it's been built.
The Minister of Transportation and Highways stated to me last year that he hoped there would be some resource road legislation in place this year so we could start dealing with some of these issues, because this is not the only place in the province where we have the problem. I'm wondering if the wheels of legislation have led that far, and if there has finally been some consultation between the two ministries to decide exactly how we're going to deal with resource roads.
Hon. J. Pement: Resource roads -- the access and use of them, and who has responsibility for them -- are an issue throughout the province. We are not as yet into legislation, but we have a discussion paper out regarding the resource roads. There have been discussions between the two ministries on the overall issue.
R. Neufeld: Is that discussion paper by any chance available to others in the areas that are affected? Could I have a copy of that discussion paper?
Hon. J. Pement: At this point, we haven't distributed it.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister give some time frame, as the last minister did, such as next year or some time when we're finally going to get down to dealing with the issue? Maybe I should ask the opposite: what is the holdup? What is the problem? Why does there seem to be this massive problem over many years? The Desan access road was built in the seventies. Why has it taken until 1994 and we still don't have a resource roads act or control of any kind in place? As early as two years ago, both ministries were ready to give up the road and say that if people want to use it, they should look after it. They don't care what happens.
[3:15]
That's the issue it's coming to. Industry is wondering what it is supposed to do, and at some point, both ministries have to get together and deal with the issue -- and if it has to be your government, it has to be your government.
Hon. J. Pement: I can address the hon. member's frustration regarding the length of time. I've only just started to work with it as minister with regard to formulating the discussion paper and looking at what possible future legislation will look like. On the whole, it is a case of working closely with the stakeholder groups. That type of work has to be done as well.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: Then the Desan-Sierra-Yoyo road will stay as it is: maintained by the Ministry of Highways until some resource road legislation is put in place. We can be guaranteed that we're not going to see the scenario that happened a couple of years ago, where everybody wanted to walk away from it. Can we be guaranteed today that it will happen and that someone will maintain it in roadworthy condition?
Hon. J. Pement: To clarify the resource road in question, I gather that the first 14 kilometres are public road and are maintained and worked on by Highways. The rest of the road is under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Actually, they contract it to us and provide the funding to us. I had said to the member that we provided them with funding; it's actually the other way around. They fund us, and we maintain it -- "us" being Highways.
R. Neufeld: Thank you for that clarification. But can I be assured, and can I tell the industries that talk to me, that we will not go back to where we were at a few years ago, when it was up in the air and both ministries wanted to walk away from it? Will that road be maintained to the best provincial standard for that type of road, until we have some resource road policy in place that will eventually place it under one ministry or the other? Can I be assured of that?
Hon. J. Pement: I can assure you that this ministry will maintain the public road section. As I said, we are contracted by the other ministry, and that question would have to be broached with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
R. Neufeld: I guess I'll let that one go; we're not going to get anywhere with that. We'll just continue to take out the
[ Page 10726 ]
dollars, and the natural gas and all that goes along with it, and we'll leave it in limbo, if that's the way this government specifically wants to leave it. Unfortunately, that has a detrimental effect on investment in the north, and I don't think that's good for any of us -- including you, representing a northern riding. In your time you've probably experienced great frustrations in the way government seems to reside totally in Victoria or Vancouver and is not cognizant of the needs of northerners or industry in the north. Unfortunately, it has gone on for quite a long time and, like I said before, not specifically under your tenure.
I'd like to go to the Taylor Bridge in Fort St. John. If I remember correctly -- you may have to correct my dates -- in '91 or '92 there was a contract let for about $3.56 million to refurbish the bridge. The other day the minister gave me some answers on the bridge, and she said that they plan to spend $2.5 million this year. That doesn't finish the bridge, as I understand it. In '93-94, $1.1 million was expended; in '92-93, $1.6 million was expended. We're up to $5.2 million to refurbish that bridge. Could the minister confirm those numbers? Are they fairly close, or is the information that I've received not up to date?
Hon. J. Pement: It is our understanding that the $2.5 million will finish the bridge. We'll get back with more details on the numbers you have requested.
R. Neufeld: Would it be possible to get those numbers before your estimates are finished?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, we'll try to get it to you either by this evening or by tomorrow morning.
R. Neufeld: Also, in the last estimates, I asked about the road-upgrading projects and the amount of money that was going to be spent in Peace River North. The minister stated that $6.6 million was destined for rehab in the North and South Peace. Would the minister give me the North Peace figures, please?
Hon. J. Pement: Could you wait a minute? We're trying to get the number. Do you have another question that's connected?
R. Neufeld: Fine. We'll go on to another area: the Peck property gate. Can the minister tell me exactly where that issue is to date? Have we finally resolved the issue of the gate on the Peck property in Fort St. John, or not?
Hon. J. Pement: This is the old Dawson road issue. We have not yet resolved that issue, but we are working with the ombudsman to see if we can work with the two people involved.
R. Neufeld: In 1993-94 we received the rehabilitation program from the ministry -- much the same as you sent -- but each item was costed out. Is there a reason why that wasn't done this year, and can we go back to the same format?
Hon. J. Pement: If you want each project to be costed out, we can go through the regional manager for that information. To answer your question on Peace River North, the rehab funding is $3,547,000, and minor capital works out to $2 million.
R. Neufeld: Would Taylor Bridge be minor capital?
Hon. J. Pement: Minor capital is the beginning of the Beatton River crossing. The Taylor Bridge falls within rehab.
R. Neufeld: I'm a little confused, because you told me last time that rehab for North and South Peace was $6.6 million, without the bridge. Now we're dealing with just North Peace. Are you saying there is $6 million for North Peace and only $600,000 for South Peace? I must have some numbers....
Hon. J. Pement: I'm trying to recall the question. When we were talking about both North and South Peace, I gave the figure of $6.6 million. The North Peace rehab figure is $3.547 million, and that includes the Taylor Bridge.
R. Neufeld: So if it's $2.5 million on the bridge, then we're spending $1 million on rehab in Peace River North. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: So that we get our numbers straight, the Taylor Bridge is $2.207 million, not $2.5 million. So that clarifies it. The $2.5 million which I explained to you as minor capital was for the Beatton River crossing. The Taylor Bridge is taken out of the rehab dollars.
R. Neufeld: So there's $1 million being spent; my arithmetic serves me well. In that case, we're quite a bit behind. Last year there was about $3 million spent in rehab in Peace River North according to the figures I received from the ministry office.
The activity of the oil and gas industry on the roads in Peace River North supports my concern. If we're only spending a third of what we spent the year before, we are going backwards. If we don't start dealing with some of those roads, this is going to be an issue later on. Rather than going back and forth with the numbers, it would be simpler if the minister could list what each one is for. Then I could relate the list to my numbers, and that will speed up the process.
[3:30]
I'll carry on to rural signage on the Alaska Highway. A committee was struck over a year ago to deal with that. I wonder where that is at now.
Hon. J. Pement: The committee was struck for the whole province. It has brought forward recommendations, and I have just started to look at those recommendations.
R. Neufeld: Do you know when we can see some recommendations from the ministry on rural signage?
Hon. J. Pement: In two months at the outside.
R. Neufeld: The Halfway Hill on the Hudson's Hope road has slid out again. It has done so on numerous occasions and has been rebuilt. The road is open again. What is the ministry's plan with that hill? Are we going to finally go all the way to the top and rebuild it so that we eliminate slides as much as possible?
Hon. J. Pement: It certainly is a concern, and the road has been opened. The ministry plans to re-establish the existing road -- in other words, move the slipped material out and away from the roadbed so that the road base can be more or less re-established.
R. Neufeld: Are we going to go right to the top of the hill or just near the portion that slid?
[ Page 10727 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Just the portion that slid.
R. Neufeld: I have only one other question, and that's about lighting on the highway. In the last couple of years the ministry has spent some $56,000 on lighting in rest areas and at major intersections along the highway north of Fort St. John and other areas. I notice that this year there is lighting at Fell Road and on Highways 29 and 97 at Charlie Lake. That's a good idea, I think, and long overdue.
But we have a specific problem at Mile 101, which is, of course, beyond what Highways is responsible for because it's on the federal side. As I understand it, the federal government looks after the main highway, and the province is responsible for the rights-of-way. At Mile 101 we have schoolchildren who are bused and have to cross that highway. I've written to both the provincial government -- to the manager in the north -- and the federal government, asking if there is some funding we can put together before we kill a child in the community of Mile 101. Both have refused, saying it's in the other government's court. Yet some intersections now have lights -- which, as I said, is a good idea in general -- but these intersections are not heavily used. I think there must be some way the province can work with the federal government to provide lighting for schoolchildren who have to cross the highway.
The school in Mile 101 goes to grade 7, and there are quite a number of children who cross. In another area in my constituency, Mile 422 -- which is also a federal and provincial highway -- the school goes right to grade 12. People in that community have not spoken to me about any problems, but I'm sure if I inquired, they would ask for lighting too. We can get into "it's not my responsibility; it's the federal government's responsibility" and so on, until we have a fatal accident. Is there some way your ministry could deal directly with the federal ministry to come up with some funding for that?
Hon. J. Pement: I think there should be a process my ministry could follow with the federal jurisdiction to resolve the issue if it's a case of safety, particularly where schoolchildren are involved. I will be asking my ministry to deal with it.
R. Neufeld: I have some letters from the provincial and federal governments, which I can forward to the minister. Maybe we could look at a crosswalk -- not the red and green lights -- where children can cross. It would have to be done in conjunction with the people in Mile 101, because I'm not sure exactly where they would like the crossing. If I could leave that with the minister, I'd appreciate it.
R. Chisholm: I've got two questions for you this afternoon, hon. minister. One is from the riding with reference to the Vedder Road crossing on the Trans-Canada at Yale Road. Recently it's been stated that there won't be any improvement to it for ten years. The problem is that it's a four-lane road on each side of that bridge, and the bridge itself is two lanes. As you can well imagine, it is pretty much a bottleneck. No matter how much lighting or controls we put in there, it's not going to alleviate the problem of this congestion when you have two four-lane roads hooked into a two-lane bridge.
Approximately 34,000 vehicles cross over the bridge every day. You can imagine the frustration when people are trying to get north and south of the Trans-Canada and on and off the Trans-Canada. It creates quite a hazard. I'm just wondering if the ministry can find it somewhere within their budget to do something about this situation.
There are some minor improvements that could be done. For instance, if there was an off ramp further up for getting to the mall around the Burger King area, that would alleviate some of the traffic that goes onto that crossover. Either way, something has to be done about this bridge long before the ten-year plan comes into effect. After all, this community has doubled its size in six years; if it doubles its size again in the next six years, we're going to have a real problem. You're going to have to address it sooner or later. Right now it's a very sore spot in that community, and I'm just wondering what your response to that is.
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has definitely identified the problems with the bottleneck situation there and has discussed with the municipality of Chilliwack some options with roads accessing off the highway -- Evans Road. If that was the case, it would be a cost-sharing situation. The actual access that you brought forward around the Burger King will not alleviate the congestion -- at least the ministry feels that it will not technically alleviate the situation.
R. Chisholm: I realize that Evans Road will eventually reach there and might alleviate some of the pressure, but in the meantime there are still two four-lane roads approaching a two-lane bridge. I'll just read the last paragraph of this article, which is just one of many articles from both newspapers in that area. It says:
"At the very least, the person who decided our little overpass will do us just fine until the year 2004 should be made to drive over that bridge at 8:30 each morning and 5:00 each night for a week. Then perhaps we might see them singing a different tune, to the beat of a thousand car horns bleating in frustration."
My point to you, hon. minister, is that Evans Road isn't going to be there for a while, and it's not going to alleviate the problems, either. I realize that the off ramp into the mall is a stopgap procedure, too. The main thing that has to happen there is that bridge has to be enlarged to accommodate a four-lane road; it's a two-lane bridge. In ten years it's going to be too late; the congestion is too much now.
The second question I had was mainly from my critic area, and that is in reference to signage. I realize there's a committee out checking on signage and that type of thing. I was wondering if it is looking into signage as far as the farm community is concerned and if there are going to be any results from that.
Hon. J. Pement: I just spoke to the provincial committee that has met and said that within a two-month time frame, I hope I can deal with the recommendations and get them out with regard to the different signage issues. There definitely has been discussion with regard to farm-gate sales and that sort of thing within the agricultural community.
D. Symons: Could we move back into other Highways things? I'm not quite sure if bicycles are a Highways or a Motor Vehicle Act issue. I think there is a need to review the legal status of bicycles in relationship to the rights and responsibilities of cyclists who use public roads. I wonder if that is currently underway. Or am I wrong, and there is already a legal status for bicycles on the roads? There are all sorts of acts involving the automobile. What is the status of bicycles and what are the legal responsibilities of cyclists?
[ Page 10728 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Cyclists have to conform to the rules of the road. There is nothing in the works with regard to changing the category of that particular vehicle.
D. Symons: Bicycles are not required to be licensed, whereas automobiles are. The cyclist doesn't have to have a licence of competency, as an automobile driver does. Is there some compatibility between the Highway Act and the Motor Vehicle Act with relationship to bicycles? Are there areas where they dovetail? Or is it that the few things that relate to bicycles don't make that necessary?
Hon. J. Pement: Bicycles are pretty well dealt with through the Motor Vehicle Act. The compatibility is that we try to ensure, where we can, good access routes in new highway designs. When we upgrade, we try to pave through to the shoulders -- that type of action. It's really a case of safety awareness by cyclists as well as by motorists.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to ask the minister a few questions on this issue raised by the official opposition critic. It's my perception that bicycles are becoming much more prevalent in many parts of the province. We see them on the road, and on the side of the highways wherever we're travelling.
[3:45]
I would like to commend the minister for launching the safe cycling awareness program. I notice, based upon a news release of March 28 from her ministry, that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is taking the lead in terms of improving facilities for cyclists, both within municipalities and along provincial highways. I've looked at the material the ministry has prepared for safe cycling, and think it's very timely and much needed.
Has the ministry collected any data? As the member for Richmond Centre said, there is no registration or licensing of bicycles, yet they're much more prevalent now than they were in years gone by. Does the minister keep any statistical data on how many bicycles there are in British Columbia and how many there are on the road, compared to automobiles?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the safety campaign, do not forget that motor vehicles has joined Transportation and Highways. These two departments work well together in terms of setting up campaigns and being aware of the issues.
As to your question on data, we don't have specific data. We have looked at bicycling policies with regard to highways and access for cyclists to the highways. There were numbers within that scenario, but they are approximate, not fixed numbers from data or analysis of data.
D. Mitchell: I'll make just one suggestion to the minister. If bicycles are becoming an ever-more popular form of transportation -- especially but not only in urban centres and not just children but adults as well -- it may be useful to start monitoring the number of bicycles on the road, especially if the ministry is taking the leadership role in providing facilities. For what volume of traffic are they providing facilities? In order to answer that question, it may be timely to start maintaining statistics on how many British Columbians actually use and own bicycles. I'm not necessarily advocating licensing, but I think some basic research might inform public policy in this area.
One element of the safety campaign, the safe cycling awareness program launched by the ministry, focuses on increasing helmet use by bicyclists. I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions about this. I hope this is not an issue that has fallen through the cracks with the transfer of the motor vehicle branch from the Attorney General's ministry to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The reason I say that is that I noticed that the campaign that was launched, the safe cycling awareness program, says it's part of a multi-year awareness campaign to increase helmet use. I applaud that. I think a number of initiatives including advertisements in newspapers around the province and other ads are very positive. Hopefully they will have the desired effect; I guess by monitoring we'll find out.
There is also a campaign to make bicycle helmets mandatory in British Columbia. According to some, this should be for children in particular age categories; according to others a bicycle helmet should be mandatory for any bicyclist. The reason this is a particularly important issue, particularly at this time of the year when more bicyclists are on the road, is that recently we've had some very unfortunate and tragic accidents. I'll refer to a couple for the record. Just last weekend a coroner urged that a helmet law should be put in place after an inquest into a cyclist's death here on Vancouver Island. A 24-year-old student was in a terrible accident last November 2 and died as a result of head injuries. In another incident, referred to in the Vancouver media late last month, the helmet was key. In this case, a 16-year-old riding on a BMX track in the Fort Langley area had a terrible accident which could have been avoided, according to those who attended to him. Most of the research indicates that 90 percent of head injuries or serious injuries could be avoided through the use of helmets.
The reason I'm raising this with the minister, is that I'm aware that a public opinion study was done by the Ministry of Attorney General. I'd like to know if the minister is aware of this, and that's my reference to "hopefully something hasn't fallen through the cracks here." Last July a research firm named Marcon Research did a public opinion study of parents and children in British Columbia. Many thousands of taxpayers' dollars were spent on this, and I think it is a very valuable study. The subject was attitudes and behaviour toward bicycle helmets among nine-12-year-olds in British Columbia, and it looked at a very specific segment of the population. It's interesting, because I know this kind of research does a lot to influence public policy in this area.
One recommendation that came out of this particular public opinion study was that helmet legislation should be considered for this age group. The reasons for that are interesting if you take a look at actual comments from some parents and some young people. Several parents mention that educating children by passing a law requiring helmet use would save taxpayers money in the long run due to decreased medical costs. Another one, very briefly, is that parents stress that they and their children should be educated about bicycle safety before any legislation is passed. Children who did not wear helmets said that if a law were passed forcing them to wear helmets, "We'd have to." That came from the children who were surveyed.
Parents and children both favoured passing legislation to enforce helmet use. Parents liked the idea because it would give them credibility when they urged their child to don a helmet, and children liked the concept because helmet-wearers would no longer be a minority, subject to teasing. This sometimes happens to youngsters in their peer groups, as we all know. In the public opinion study that was done by the Ministry of Attorney General when the motor vehicle branch was in that ministry, the recommendations were for a three-pronged approach to encouraging the use of helmets among nine-to-12-year-olds in the province. The three prongs were: educate the parents, educate the children and pass legislation requiring the use of bicycle helmets as
[ Page 10729 ]
appropriate. My question to the minister is: is the safe cycling awareness program that's been launched, which is referred to as a multi-year awareness campaign, really following this? Are we now in the process of educating parents and children, and is that leading up to an intention to bring in legislation to make helmet use mandatory for bicyclists of any age? Is that the direction we're heading in?
Hon. J. Pement: I'm glad to hear that you agree with some opinion polls looking at issues of importance in the province. The campaign is the start of a push to have people -- adults and children -- wear helmets, and it's also aimed at parents having their children wear helmets. It's definitely a process leading to legislation.
In Australia, where they have mandatory helmet-use legislation, there was an eight-year process of public education prior to legislation going in. I'm not saying that it's going to take us eight years to get there, but there really has to be an intense public education process to get into the idea of wearing helmets, the need to wear helmets and the proper way to wear helmets. It's not only a case of wearing a helmet; it's wearing a helmet properly. Those types of demonstrations need to be done with young people as well as with adults.
When we launched the campaign, we had a fellow come in who instructs young people how to wear helmets. I was well instructed at that time, too, because he explained how the helmet was completely useless unless it was worn properly. That type of public education has to be part of introducing this legislation. It hasn't fallen between the cracks; it's still in the process of being developed, and we look to future legislation.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response. I think that constitutes an announcement on behalf of the government in terms of their intentions. The reason I say that is that back in April 1992, the previous minister responsible for the motor vehicles branch, the Attorney General, indicated his own personal preference for legislation in this area, but there hasn't been an explicit statement on government policy in this area until now. So I appreciate the minister's comment that legislation will be forthcoming in this area, and I'll look forward to seeing it with some interest. I know we can't comment on future legislation or future policy, so I won't ask the minister to anticipate who the legislation will apply to -- whether it will be a particular age group or all cyclists -- or when it will be forthcoming.
Can the minister tell us whether or not, since she assumed responsibility for the motor vehicle branch which is responsible for this policy area, there have been further ongoing studies such as the one I referred to by Marcon Research? Have there been other studies as part of this ongoing process, whether they be of the public opinion variety or studies of bicyclists or user groups in this area? If so, is it possible to make those public?
Hon. J. Pement: Actually, we haven't done other studies. Other jurisdictions have done studies, and we look at the studies being done by other jurisdictions, other provinces and other parts of the world as well.
D. Mitchell: I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time on this, but I have one further question on mandatory helmets for bicyclists. The minister referred to the Australian example, where there was a lengthy process before legislation was brought in. In fact, after mandatory bicycle helmet legislation was introduced in Australia, I understand that some of the bicycling associations there were concerned because the number of bicyclists actually dropped for a few years before it went back up, and now it's at record levels. There was a concern that bringing in mandatory helmets actually decreased ridership, which was at odds with some of the environmental advocates for using bicycles as an efficient and clean method of transportation. Certainly in New Zealand there's legislation in place; in Ontario there's a major study now that's bringing forward mandatory helmet legislation. And in our neighbouring American states, many of the counties have mandatory legislation. They didn't take eight years to study it.
When we brought in a major safety innovation in transportation in our province -- seatbelts -- it didn't necessarily require lengthy studies, although there was certainly a debate in our province and our country for many years before seatbelts were made mandatory.
In light of the tragic accidents I referred to -- a couple of examples where young people and not-so-young people on bicycles have died as a result of head injuries very recently in our province -- why do we need to wait for a multi-year period before introducing the legislation that the minister referred to today?
She has taken some good steps with the advertising programs that are geared toward encouraging people to use bike helmets. But because there are lives at stake here and head injuries can be reduced very significantly by people wearing helmets, why not advance more quickly? Why is there not a sense of urgency about this?
Hon. J. Pement: It is really a case of getting some public awareness out there first, and the campaign is a necessary part of working up to legislation. As you're putting the legislation in, you have to continue the campaign. It isn't a case of putting in legislation and people wearing helmets. We still have to do the public education. I think it's really important to ensure that people understand the reasons why and also understand that it is a must.
[4:00]
With regard to the seatbelt legislation, I was just trying to find out how long it took with regard to the overall length of time. That legislation came in on the heels of some public awareness as well. In other jurisdictions in Canada, Alberta, I believe, introduced the legislation and then withdrew it. In Ontario it is tabled, but not implemented, and the initial part of that implementation was to go back and do a better public education campaign.
D. Mitchell: I have just one final question on this. I appreciate the minister being as forthcoming as she has been on this, because what she's indicated today is, in essence, a major announcement that this government intends to bring forward mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. I realize that she's not obliged to answer this question, but can she provide a time frame to this committee today and tell us when she would expect to see such legislation introduced in the House?
Hon. J. Pement: Not at this time, and the member is cognizant of that. I think it's really important that we listen to the public. The public are saying that they would like to see legislation. They also want to see the public education campaign done, and it is important to get that information out to them.
D. Symons: I have just a couple of comments before I move on with my questions. The member was asking about the number of bicycles, and I just thought of my own case. I
[ Page 10730 ]
think I have seven in the basement of my place, which has only two people in the home, so counting bicycles themselves is not going to give you the number on the road. Last week I had my bike here but not my helmet; this week I have the helmet but not the bike. Next week I hope I can get the two together, and then I'll end up using it more than I have been in the last while. I need it desperately now, since my car battery has given up.
Anyway, I want to carry on with something other than bike helmet questions, which have been fairly well canvassed. I asked this question in the last two years and got very positive responses from the minister then. We have a new minister now, so maybe the positive response will develop into action that would be fairly cheap. Maybe it's not within the minister's responsibility, but we'll find that out in a moment.
The Massey Tunnel runs a shuttle service through there in the summer months for people on bicycles, because they aren't allowed to bike through the tunnel. The only other route is to go over the Patullo Bridge in New Westminster which is a rather long way away, particularly if you're riding out to Tsawwassen to go on the ferry. I've asked before, and they said they'd look into it. Rather than this shuttle, we could have bike racks on the 404 bus that goes through the tunnel. In that way, we would do away with the necessity of running the shuttle service. We would use the manpower and the buses running through there that we already have. I wonder if the ministry and the Transit people can somehow get together and come up with bike racks on buses that would do this.
In San Diego they apparently have quite a few buses with bike racks on them, and they carry eight bikes that can go on and be taken off very quickly. They have a triangle with a bike on it at bus stops in the same way that you have a logo for wheelchairs, showing that this is a bus stop where they will take bicycles on the bus. I think there are a few places -- the Massey Tunnel being one I can think of -- where that sort of arrangement would make it safer for bicyclists and for highway usage if we take the bikes over the more difficult or dangerous parts of the highways.
Could the minister give us an assurance that they will move on this in the coming year?
Hon. J. Pement: This is really a Transit issue concerning racks on the buses, and it should be canvassed with Employment and Investment.
D. Symons: I'll definitely do that. Is the shuttle service that runs through the tunnel funded by Highways or by Transit?
Hon. J. Pement: It is a Highways-funded project.
D. Symons: A recommendation to the minister, then: maybe you could offer the funding to the Transit people for that particular vehicle and trailer, and the person operating it, to buy the racks to put on the buses. That will do away with the necessity of running that year by year, and a one-time investment would cut out that expense for the ministry in future years.
One other thing I alluded to a moment ago is the idea that we need standardized signage, so that local, provincial and federal levels would have standardized signage regarding bicycles, bicycle lanes, bicycle tours, bicycle stops where buses will pick them up and all the other things related to bicycles. Could the ministry work together for road signage that would be relevant to bicycles?
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry has looked at different signage within the cycling policy. It requires consultation with municipalities, because you're looking at routes on highways through municipalities as well.
D. Symons: I have just one more question dealing with bicycles, and then we'll cycle on to something new. Apparently a couple in Vancouver is promoting an engine that could be belted or fastened onto your bicycle. It develops two horsepower and changes your bicycle into a motorbike.
F. Gingell: We had those years ago.
D. Symons: They had them years ago, but there are new Korean ones coming out that will do this. It gets you up to 50 miles per hour, and you can pedal and change from one to the other quite easily. This is apparently very versatile; it may actually catch on. I'm curious as to at what stage a bicycle becomes a motor vehicle and will then need licences and training. When is a bicycle a motorcycle or vice versa?
Hon. J. Pement: This is new technology that has been developed, and at this point the ministry is studying that technology to make those determinations.
F. Gingell: In the discussions that have been going on among your ministry, the Vancouver Port Corporation and the Delta Municipal Council about the Roberts Bank container terminal development, there is one issue that has not been sensibly resolved. That's the issue of moving container traffic from Roberts Bank to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal. Can any of your staff advise you on the current status of that issue?
Hon. J. Pement: We need more details about the issue. We are not familiar with it at this time.
F. Gingell: If the minister would prefer, I would be happy to deal with the subject in a private meeting. However, from Delta's viewpoint, it such an important issue that I'd like to get it into the record. The Roberts Bank road, when it is finally built, will lead from the container terminal and tie into the road that presently sits between Arthur Drive and Highway 17. At that point the road is on the north side of the railway track. It's going to cross over to the south side of the railway track right at the shore. That makes it relatively simple for trucks going into Vancouver or onto the South Fraser perimeter road, which might be built in the coming year. That's where the majority of traffic will go. The port of Vancouver the other day had the audacity -- this is second hand -- to suggest that trucks going to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal to come over to Vancouver Island should turn around in the parking lot of the Town and Country hotel. I find that difficult....
Recognizing that the economy of Vancouver Island is going to grow and grow as government, it seems, gets larger and larger, I think that substantial container traffic to Roberts Bank will have a Vancouver Island destination. If it doesn't need to go to be unstuffed and restuffed, there isn't any means at the moment -- a sensible route -- to go south to the ferry terminal. I would appreciate a response.
Hon. J. Pement: The turnaround situation you describe is not familiar to us in the ministry. However, there has been a protocol agreement with the federal government and Highways to put in a road to the port to alleviate some of
[ Page 10731 ]
these concerns. We'll need to have a meeting with you to look at the whole issue you bring forward.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will excuse me. This is going to be more of a statement than a question.
If Roberts Bank is going to be the world-class development that it can be.... I know the minister recognizes that the south side of the Fraser is unique in transportation issues. We have the best rail access, because the Burlington Northern and the CN do not cross any railway bridges. We have lots of space at the airport at Boundary Bay that perhaps would be more appropriate for cargo traffic. There are the Fraser docks which are capable of taking Panamax vessels. The port of Vancouver simply doesn't have enough space to have turnarounds for their rail lines. There's an opportunity to create a world-class, intermodal transportation facility on the south shore.
[4:15]
In your dealings with the federal government and the port of Vancouver, please do not allow the federal government to shortchange the development of Roberts Bank -- if it is still on; latest rumours question that. Delta gets almost nothing out of this thing to start off with. There are going to be some more taxes, but there are going to be a whole bunch more services. It's critically important that the people of Delta not be inconvenienced any more than they already are by the tremendously heavy traffic load. I know they say it's only 400 trucks a day, but you should see the size of these trucks. That's like 4,000 cars; they are really large units. I feel the federal government is trying to do this on the cheap. If we're going to have something that creates good employment and economic opportunities for British Columbia, we look to your ministry to really negotiate the most stringent terms with the federal government that we can.
Before I close, I'd like to put on the record my thanks to the minister for the very quick response to the problem we discussed this morning.
Hon. J. Pement: We'll take the concerns you outlined into consideration in dealing with this issue, and we will contact you with regard to any further developments.
I understand that there is to be a debate on Motion 47 on the order paper in the House now, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:18 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]