Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12473 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery, accompanied by Boris Tyzuk, the lawyer who assisted me throughout the Nisga'a debate, are five persons from the Department of Justice and aboriginal affairs secretariat of the government of Quebec. They are Christian Couvrette, Pierre Christian Lebeau, Pierre Sarto Blanchard, Jocelyn Provost and André Bélanger. Could the House please make them welcome.

M. Coell: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First, there are 30 students from the Christian Home School Association of Saanich, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Cleary, and five parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

The second introduction I'd like to make is the executive of the UVic Young Liberals. They are Jennifer Burnett, Jon Duncan, Duane Woytowich, Raymond Lau, Frank Costa, Aaron Gairdner, Janet MacKenzie and Ryan Boulter. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: It is my pleasure today to introduce 25 grade 11 students, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Knihniski, and three adults. They are all from Southridge School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

I'd also like to welcome to the House a number of grade 5 students from Pacific Academy. They are accompanied by their teacher and several adults. The students are here learning about government and the history of the Legislature. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 57 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill, Bill 57, amends the Range Act to streamline operations and increase flexibility for ranchers and government, while ensuring that the forage is used in a responsible manner. The amendments in Bill 57 move decision-making to a more local level. It improves the licence replacement and transfer processes. It provides for a type of agreement called a temporary hay-cutting permit to increase efficiency around forage allocation. It enables the direct award of grazing and cutting licences and permits in appropriate circumstances to reduce workload and costs for government and ranchers, and it makes other tenured administrative changes to ensure that forage is used appropriately and that grazing licence and permit holders are able to take advantage of favourable growing conditions. The changes in Bill 57 will contribute to government streamlining initiatives by reducing red tape. I move that Bill 57 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 57 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.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This bill responds to a need for increased protection for consumers in relation to door-to-door sales. The amendments also respond to the terms of the agreement in internal trade, under which British Columbia has agreed to join other provinces and territories in harmonizing direct sales cancellation rights and contract requirements. These amendments are in direct response to recommendations made by a working group composed of representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This working group developed its recommendations after extensive consultations with business and consumer groups across Canada.

These new provisions will assure consumers of the same high level of consumer protection with regard to direct sales in British Columbia as in any other jurisdiction in Canada. In addition, these amendments will benefit suppliers by reducing business expenses and by making it easier for direct sellers to operate in any province or territory in Canada. This not only will benefit British Columbia's direct sellers but will make it easier for direct sellers in other jurisdictions to do business in British Columbia.

This bill also provides several minor amendments that will simplify the Consumer Protection Act and reduce red tape and costs for government.

In summary, this bill will not only help fulfil British Columbia's federal, provincial and territorial commitments, but also enhance consumer protection, while enabling suppliers to reduce costs when doing business across Canada. Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 12474 ]

Oral Questions

MINING EXPLORATION INVESTMENT IN B.C.

My question is to the minister responsible for mining: given the sorry record of this government, how can this minister look those workers in the eye and claim to have done anything except destroy their jobs?

[1415]

It appears that people in Kamloops are somewhat disappointed in Liberal members. This is an editorial from the Kamloops and District Real Estate Association about the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. They say: "It is unfortunate that Mr. Krueger wishes to raise stress levels for those affected by the status of the mine. . . ." He's playing politics with the issue, and it's too important, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, this minister knows as much about mining as he did about his fleet of Ferraris. Just ten years ago, exploration and development investments from the mining industry in British Columbia were $177 million. In 1997 they dropped to $41 million. Last year even that dismal record was cut in half -- $22 million in mining exploration development. My question to the minister is: how does he account for an 87 percent drop in exploration development expenditures across British Columbia and the loss of jobs that goes hand in hand with NDP policy?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I certainly don't hold my own knowledge of mining up to that of the Leader of the Opposition, who obviously, I guess, is unaware that the cancellation of the federal flow-through tax-sharing initiative -- which increased exploration expenditures right across every Canadian province -- was the primary reason why there was a dramatic decline from the high number that the member listed. I'm not denying for a moment that there's been a reduction in the level of money spent on exploration in this province. We've responded to that by bringing in a $9 million investment vehicle to increase exploration in our province. That, I think, will bear some fruit.

But clearly the fall in commodity prices -- the dramatic decline in copper from $1.20 to the 68-cent and now the 70-cent range, the decline in molybdenum, the decline in gold and most specifically the decline in coal prices -- has had a material impact on the mining industry in British Columbia. We need a recovery in those international prices, coupled with the initiatives we've put in place.

We think there is a bright future for mining in this province. We're going to work very hard, and we're not going to do the doom-and-gloom message that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson is doing even in his own constituency. It's clear they don't appreciate it at all.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: You know, hon. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that for 4,000 people in British Columbia who depended on mining, there has been doom and gloom under this government -- for 4,000 people that this minister keeps turning his back on. The mining industry has been clear. There is still no security of tenure; there is still no investment in exploration and development. This minister simply does not get it.

If there's no exploration, there are no new mines. If there are no new mines, there are no new jobs. Does the minister not understand that once people turn their eyes away from British Columbia and investment in British Columbia, it takes bold and decisive action -- not these baby steps that he's been taking -- to try to repair the damage that his government has done?

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Miller: I think he thinks that northern B.C. starts in Squamish. But if he had, he would have been there with the Premier and me when we opened the Huckleberry mine south of Smithers in northern B.C., he would have been at the opening of the Mount Polley mine east of Williams Lake, and he would have gone up to the Kemess mine in northern British Columbia -- three brand-new mines, good mines that have opened in this province in the last year and a half.

Of course, they are experiencing difficulty, because the prices for the commodities they mine have been reduced dramatically on the international market. But we've kept them running. They're poised to take advantage of the recovery. We've seen the modest beginnings of that recovery. And I would urge the members opposite not to be so pessimistic about British Columbia. Their failure to be positive about British Columbia. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: To attack every job creation measure that this administration brings in, simply for cheap politics, hon. Speaker, is not paying off for them at all.

Interjections.

[ Page 12475 ]

R. Neufeld: Well, there's nothing cheap about this. These are family jobs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

R. Neufeld: Thousands of mining jobs in British Columbia are put at risk because of the policies of this government.

This government was elected in 1992, and to say that just last year they finally. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

R. Neufeld: . . .recognized that there was a mining industry is a sad state of affairs in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, the Mining Association tells us that it takes a minimum of $150 million to $200 million a year in exploration to maintain a mining industry. We haven't even come. . .

The Speaker: And your question?

R. Neufeld: . . .close to that under this government's administration. In fact, last year it hit an all-time low. Will the minister for mining tell us today how he expects the mining industry to stay alive in British Columbia, with the lousy policies that they've brought forward in the last eight years?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I would say that Cominco has not received value for money. I would have thought that for the 50 grand they gave that pack over there, they could do a far better job in asking questions about mining.

I'm also the minister responsible for energy. I can tell -- and I know that we've had a fruitful exchange with that member -- that the positive initiatives we put in place for drilling for gas in this province have benefited. . . . Working with the industrial sector, as we are working with the mining sector, has resulted in potentially thousands of new jobs and new revenue -- new revenue to the communities that member represents. He knows it. I know he's going through the motions because he has to, but commodity prices do have an impact on the products we produce in this province.

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: The members opposite know it.

The Speaker: Time, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: The people who work in the industries know it. They know we're here to help them through tough times, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Peace River North, first supplementary.

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

R. Neufeld: . . .states that the reason our exploration spending is down is due to "the high level of political and economic uncertainty in British Columbia." The problem in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Minister, is that that gentleman who's beside you does not want to stand up and call an election in the province of British Columbia. We'll get onto the road to recovery when we do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, we're dealing with the questions of certainty in a variety of ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: One of those ways, hon. Speaker, is to resolve the outstanding question of land claims, and that gang over there says that we shouldn't do it. Talk about uncertainty. . . .

But I want to go back, hon. Speaker, to the theme that I talked about, which is the theme. . . . Members opposite can take the doom-and-gloom approach, and look what it brings. And I respond: others -- not just this side of the House, but others in this province. . . . For example, the Kamloops and District Real Estate Association is saying, in response to the comments of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson: "It is unfortunate that [he] wishes to raise stress levels for those affected by the status of the mine. . .when forecasting doom and gloom serves no real purpose." It goes on to say. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . . "The possible closure of the mine is just too important an issue to try to bring it into the political circle. . . ." Hon. Speaker, they should listen to British Columbians. They should. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .listen to their constituents. They should try to be at least a little bit positive. . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .to recognize the external factors. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

[ Page 12476 ]

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .and perhaps people might start paying more attention to them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

JOB PROSPECTS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I explained clearly that we were working. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When we made that presentation to Ottawa, we were using a. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. It's very difficult to hear the answer. We heard the question quite clearly. Let's. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The figures that were used were developed before we brought in the forest action plan. I'm proud to say that there's a number of elements that have helped make a turnaround. We have made small business wood available cheaper, and I'm happy to report that we're selling 93 percent of the sales out there. That's up dramatically. That's creating small jobs in the small business program in the forest industry.

We also brought in streamlining to the Forest Practices Code. We brought in stumpage reductions which add up to about $1 billion in relief for the industry. As a result, investment in forestry in the province is up 21 percent this year over last year. The timber harvest is up 11 percent. . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you. Minister. . . . Minister, I think I'll have to ask you to take your seat.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .and lumber production is up 8 percent.

The Speaker: The answers have been very long today.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The minister fails to tell the House that the report was written at least four to six to maybe eight weeks ago at most. It makes reference to March 1 in the report. We're not talking about a report from years ago; we're talking about one that was recently written. Meanwhile, the minister stands in the House and tells us that there are no jobs lost. He goes out that door and tells the media that there are 7,000 jobs lost. Meanwhile, his officials are going to Ottawa, cap in hand, and telling them that there are 18,000 jobs lost. Will the minister summon the courage to stand in the House today, admit the truth and tell British Columbians that the forest industry's future is not nearly as rosy as he's made it out to be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's rosier than they would admit over there. They want to deny the $658 million in investment this year. They want to deny that there was virtually no loss last year, and part of the reason is because prices are up and because we've expedited the approval of permits. We've reduced stumpage. We've streamlined the regulations, and there is more production out there this year than there was last year. But there still are problems, and we admit that there are problems. There are communities that are hurting. Rather than quibble over numbers, what would the opposition do to help? They have no idea of what they would do.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. McKinnon: Just arriving in the gallery are approximately 90 ESL adults, along with their coordinator Ms. Lin. They are here to learn some history about the Legislature, and some of them are new visitors to Canada. So I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

[ Page 12477 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FORNORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

[1435]

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: These are in a straightforward manner. You don't have to talk about other things.

Actually, the Kemess mine is listed for $1 million in vote 25. I know we talked about the Kemess mine yesterday, and I was remiss in asking why this other $1 million is in the vote.

Hon. D. Miller: It's an accounting entry. Under the terms of the agreement with Royal Oak, we were to have paid $1 million a year for 12 years. At the request of the company. . . . I considered a request from the company to convert that to a net present value in a lump sum payment. We did that; we paid out $8.1 million as a lump sum payment. But we must, according to accounting principles, record the $1 million a year for the next 12 years, I assume.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to get into the accounting end of it, because I don't have my friend here from Delta. But the $1 million that will be listed there, or the $1 million per year for 12 years that the minister spoke about and that he negotiated with Kemess. . . . Obviously you were negotiating at a time when they were in dire straits, and it didn't look like they were going to be able to pay their 4.5 percent back royalties to the province. Why would the province not take the position that you wouldn't further any payments? Was that something that was written in a contract, something that we were actually obligated to as a Crown because of a written contract? Why wouldn't we say: "Hey, like, if you can't come up with your part of the bargain, why should we give you more?"

Hon. D. Miller: It was our view, Mr. Chairman, that regardless of. . . . And everybody knew. We knew, quite frankly, of the financial difficulties that Kemess was going through. But it was our view that regardless of who the owners of the mine were, they would have inherited the agreement. Therefore we would have been obliged to pay out that $1 million a year as per the agreement that we'd reached with Royal Oak.

Given the difficult circumstances they were in, particularly a cash shortfall, and at their request, I took forward a consideration to Treasury Board to convert the annual payment of $1 million, to determine what the net present value of that was -- which turned out to be $8.1 million -- and to pay that out in a lump sum, as opposed to carrying on with the terms of the original agreement. Because of that, we still are obliged, for accounting purposes, to list the $1 million each and every year -- we're probably in the second or third year -- until that is fully reported.

[1440]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the officials have taken note, and we'll forward all of that material.

R. Neufeld: Yesterday, when I first started out my questioning and we left with the minister some questions about. . . . And I sent over some documents to the minister. I wonder if his staff has had an opportunity to look at that and whether we want to do that at a different time or now -- whichever is easiest to be. . . . We don't have to specifically do it now, if you want to do it a little bit later.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, I'm running a bit of a risk here, trying to explain two columns of figures.

An Hon. Member: They're both yours.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, right -- I know. And I want to confirm that we've done our work. There is an explanation, and we will forward it to you. But I can tell you that in one of the columns, about $38 million in rentals and fees were not included that ought to have been. So we'll get all that paperwork to you.

R. Neufeld: Fair enough. I appreciate that. If you can just get it to me later, that's fine. I'm sure all the money was there; it was just in different columns and those kinds of things.

R. Neufeld: I think that basically ends the issues around oil and gas and mining -- unless someone else comes in later on -- other than the north coast oil and gas. Of course, there's a lot of speculation on the north coast -- and right in the minister's own constituency -- about economic development there, with high unemployment rates in the northwest and very little, not very much. . . . What's the word I'm looking for?

An Hon. Member: Economic development.

R. Neufeld: Economic development -- that's a hard term to come around here once in a while -- in the north coast.

Of course, there's a group in the north coast that's been working for a number of years on issues around lifting the moratorium on oil and gas development in the strait. I just wonder, before we go too far into asking questions about that, if the minister wants to brief the House and the people of B.C. on where he thinks we're at and where the ministry is at on this issue and how, in his mind, we're going to proceed with getting on with dealing with this moratorium.

[ Page 12478 ]

[1445]

There is a group in Prince Rupert. They have done a fair amount to try to raise the profile of the issue, to spark some public debate. They are travelling around the constituency, trying to gain a measure of support.

All is not sweetness and light, even within my constituency, which is an area that is clearly economically depressed. They've been hit much harder than some regions of the province, because of the downturn on the commodity side and the fundamental changes in fishing. But even with that, people within my constituency have expressed very strong feelings against the lifting of the moratorium. So I confess that at this point, I don't think I have the answers, as an individual who represents the constituency and as the minister responsible for energy and mines.

I think what's required is a careful process, if you like -- almost a two-part kind of thing -- where we go around and actually talk to people, particularly people in the region, in a very quiet way about the issue, to try to determine what their attitude is about the topic. We know some who are in favour. We know that the chamber of commerce, for example, recently completed a survey -- they sent a copy to me -- and they're strongly in favour of proceeding. To very quietly talk to people about the issue and find out what their concerns are, what their fears are, to ask them to give us advice. . . . If there were a process for us to publicly examine this issue, what should it be? How should it work, and who should be on it? We could ask those kinds of questions and then pay very close attention to the advice we receive. So we've had some discussions along those lines. We're not at a stage where we can announce anything specific, but that's generally my sense of how we ought to proceed.

I don't shy away at all from saying -- and I have said in the past -- that because of what I think could be the significant economic gains to British Columbia, we should look at this question. But I don't think we should prejudge it. I think that would be wrong. Many people might react negatively to that. There is no question that I tend to favour the good development of natural resources. If that were to occur at some point in the future, clearly issues like benefits to local communities, employment for local communities and involvement of first nations -- all of those kinds of questions. . . . Most importantly, we would have to have a level of confidence that if we proceeded to explore for oil and gas -- and I think primarily gas, quite frankly, is the commodity off the coast of British Columbia. . . . British Columbians would have to have a very high level of comfort that there would be no adverse impact on the marine environment. I think those are the kinds of parameters I am operating within. As I say, we are not yet in a position to make any specific announcements.

R. Neufeld: The minister knows as well as I do the benefits that can come about with a good oil and gas industry, and never fails to remind me of that in question period -- about how well the northeast is doing with oil and gas, when really we were trying to deal with mining issues. That aside, it is something that obviously the northwest would really benefit from -- and the province as a whole, not just the northwest but particularly the northwest because that kind of activity would obviously take place there.

I understand. . . . In fact, as far back as a year ago -- May 5, 1998 -- the minister stated that he liked the idea of offshore oil and gas development and believed that it could be done safely. I have no quarrel with that. I think that through technological change that's taken place offshore, especially with Hibernia and the North Sea. . . . They've been drilling in the North Sea for years in a pretty rough environment. With that new technology, we can look favourably at it.

[1450]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I have, although I wouldn't describe those discussions as extensive, by any means. I have talked to Ralph Goodale, the federal Minister of Natural Resources Canada, about the issue. He has publicly stated that he would be prepared to follow B.C.'s lead. In other words, the federal government won't do anything unless B.C. indicates a desire to move.

Looking down the road, if we were to lift the moratorium, clearly there would be a need to develop a protocol with the federal government. I won't at this point cede anything in terms of jurisdiction, but that was the case in Atlantic Canada. It's called the Atlantic accord. It outlined both jurisdictional and regulatory issues between the provincial and federal governments.

I note that recently the Premier of Nova Scotia was at a meeting of oil companies in Texas, and he made the observation that as a result of a couple of sales off Nova Scotia, the province expected to realize about $592 million in value. Clearly there are significant values that can be obtained, although not every report I get from Atlantic Canada is fully supportive of the industry and its impacts.

[ Page 12479 ]

I think I've responded to the member's questions. There was a report recently, though, put out by some group, and they claimed that the federal Minister of Fisheries was opposed to drilling. I haven't been able to confirm that, but my general sense of the attitude of the federal government is that they're waiting for British Columbia to take the lead.

[1455]

Have there been any discussions around the treaty table with the bands that obviously may have -- or maybe do have; I'm not sure -- some interest in the foreshore lands where some of this activity may take place?

Hon. D. Miller: I mentioned the Prince Rupert-based group. They were recently on the Queen Charlotte Islands. There was an article in the latest edition of their paper, the Queen Charlotte Islands Observer, where the president of the council of the Haida nation appeared and -- I can't remember the exact comments. . . . Ron Brown appeared to say that they were not necessarily opposed to drilling, but their interests had to be satisfied first. Presumably those interests would be land claims.

I have had a number of very unofficial conversations with aboriginal people in my constituency, some of whom have expressed an interest in looking at the topic. So it's not met. . . . I raised it, actually. . . . Interestingly enough, I attend every year -- or try to attend every year -- the annual assembly of the Tsimshian nation. It's an extensive nation that runs, in my constituency, from Klemtu and Kitasoo, up to Prince Rupert, to the Lax Kw'alaams in Port Simpson and into the interior to three bands in the Terrace area. I raised that directly at the assembly. There were probably 300 or 400 people in the room. I said: "Look, this is a controversial subject. I'm not asking you to respond right now, but people are raising it. Clearly it would be of interest to the Tsimshian. I'd ask you to give it some consideration and perhaps get back to me with your thoughts on the topic." Nobody reacted unduly to that presentation.

So I think there is some interest. But again, I think the question has to be approached carefully, and I think people have to be given the opportunity to kind of frame in their terms how, if there were a process, it should work -- those kinds of questions. I think that's a legitimate exercise to go through, rather than sort of jumping too quickly. I think the member is actually saying the same thing.

R. Neufeld: Yes, basically I'm saying the same thing. I think it's, rather: take it slow and make sure we do a good job of looking at the issue.

But I guess the other side of the coin is when I go back through the estimates process and look at all the times that I specifically asked questions of the minister about it. . . . In fact, even last year. . . . I have some quotes from a time when the minister had talked to Mr. Goodale about it. There comes a time, I think, when we have to get on with it. Maybe there's something that's holding the process up. I don't think we can go that many years just talking about what we're going to do. I mean, at some point in time you have to do it.

I know that last year a colleague that now sits at the cabinet table with you, who used to sit over here, asked some questions of the minister in regards to fishing -- about north coast oil and gas. I just wonder. . . . It seemed to me, when I read that member's remarks or questions, that he didn't seem to be in favour of any kind of process of looking towards developing oil and gas reserves off the north coast. I just wonder if the Minister of Energy has spoken to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs about his position on oil and gas exploration on the north coast.

[1500]

R. Neufeld: Thank you very much for that response. I am pleased to hear that, because I got a bit of a different drift from his remarks in Hansard last year. But I guess that was when he was in opposition, so. . . . He may have changed his mind. But in any event, we're not here to talk about what the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said last year.

I want to maybe get some sense of whether we are going to start doing something this year. Are we really. . . ? I'm not trying to ask the minister to outline exactly what day or anything; I appreciate that that can't be done. But are we going to quit just talking about talking about it and this year actually start a process of starting to inform the public and getting on with the process of dealing with north coast oil and gas?

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah. I'm also getting a little bit tired of talking about process. While I can't specify precisely when, I

[ Page 12480 ]

R. Neufeld: I think that's basically all the questions I have about north coast oil and gas.

Maybe we could move on to a different topic, that being northern development. Of course, there are the two issues around the $12 million, I believe it was, for the British Columbia-Alcan northern development fund. Maybe you could briefly bring the House up to date on what's happened there. I believe the advisory committee is all in place. Maybe a little bit on the activities of that advisory committee and how they're expending those funds. . . .

The Chair: Minister?

Hon. D. Miller: I apologize. I was tuned out there and just didn't hear your specific question.

R. Neufeld: Basically, as I understand it, the committee has been appointed. I just want a brief update on where they're at and how they're looking at expending the money that's been put in by both Alcan and the province -- a brief update on those issues.

Hon. D. Miller: The total of $15 million is divided equally between the province and Alcan. There's been, I think, a very good series of discussions with the advisory committee that was set up to give advice to government on this fund -- issues around priorities for expenditures, regions in the north for priority. We have made a decision, and this year the budget will reflect $1.5 million in expenditures.

We have agreed that there will be a society formed in northern B.C. That society will develop a business plan and will be responsible for implementing decisions. Ultimately -- and I've met with the advisory committee a couple of times -- I would prefer as little involvement as possible, quite frankly, as the minister responsible. I think it's preferable that the people in the society ultimately make decisions that reflect the input of northerners in those specific regions. They like that approach, so we are going through the work right now to get that society created and to follow through on their recommendations.

[1505]

Hon. D. Miller: There have been disbursements approximately in the $50,000 range for travel -- members of the committee have travelled to Victoria -- and those kinds of things. We've allocated some staff time to assist the committee. So it's about $50,000, I'm informed.

R. Neufeld: So basically the expenditures so far relate only to the forming of the committee and the work of the committee, and nothing has really. . . . It's too early for anything to have actually hit the road. Is there some plan -- or something in place now to start expending some of that money -- that the minister can share with us, or it too early to tell that yet?

Hon. D. Miller: It really is too early. The fund will be built up over a period of three years, with payments by both the province and Alcan in each of the next three years to a total of $15 million. The general attitude of the committee when I discussed these questions with them. . . . Quite frankly, staff have spent far more time than I. Michelle Poirier has done an outstanding job, I think. Their general view is: "Let's not rush out to spend this money; let's take our time. Let's develop a business plan, so that we have an outline. We know that we have some guiding principles."

Their experience -- and my experience; I agreed with them. . . . In fact, I suggested that they might want to talk to some people that I've encountered in the past who are very good at managing these kinds of funds. The last thing you want to do is just start spending money too quickly. You're better off being very slow at the front end, getting a level of confidence in the region, having people know what the fund is there for, what's available -- what discrete pockets of money are available for different kinds of activities. That's generally their attitude, which I endorse. I don't anticipate that. . . . As I say, we've budgeted $1.5 million this year, which is not a great deal of money. It remains to be seen how much will actually flow.

[1510]

"The ministers gave priority to four initiatives, including: [1] the need for an action plan to ensure completion of electronic highway infrastructure and support of a Yukon on-line forum's recommendation that more attention be focused on the potential business use of the Internet; [2] improving northern trade corridors and ensuring affordable access to northern ports, including competitive rail freight rates; [3] cooperative efforts to expand trade and tourism promotion; and [4] developing a long-term framework for improving and expanding northern roads."

Hon. D. Miller: Briefly, the ministers did identify those priorities. There have been subsequent discussions and, actually, discussions in other forums on some of those questions.

If I could briefly run through, for example, some B.C. initiatives, some that relate to the ministers themselves. . . .

The electronic highway. All of the ministers -- and they're really ministers responsible for northern development in their respective jurisdictions and ministers from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories -- thought that the linking of northern communities with the electronic highway was a fundamentally important issue. In British Columbia we've taken action most recently with announcements by the Minister of Education on the. . . . We had previously announced, by

[ Page 12481 ]

On the trade corridor, there are some very difficult problems. But we are following through with a working group that was formed by myself and the minister in Alberta. That group meets on a regular basis; I can't recall when the next meeting is. It has, as well as government people. . . . It's chaired by the Hon. Don Mazankowski, the former federal minister, and has officials from both the B.C. ministry and the Alberta ministry, politicians from B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan, resource help from the academic community, and people in the railway industry, coal industry, trade unions and the like.

It's looking essentially at the trade corridor, seeing if there are things we can do to improve and increase utilization. B.C. has both myself and Mr. Backhouse -- or, I should say more properly, the Minister of Transportation and Highways in B.C. Mr. Backhouse has made submissions as a result of the Estey report, for example, on the movement of grain. The member's aware of the interchange agreements that we've concluded between B.C. Rail and CN rail.

We organized a major tourism conference in Prince Rupert last October -- well attended. We brought in speakers from the U.S. who have extensive -- in fact, original -- experience in tourism in areas like high-end train tourism. As a result of that conference, B.C. Rail is actively looking to see whether it might be possible, in partnership with the private sector, to develop that kind of run on the northern line and then a circle tour down into North Vancouver on the B.C. Rail line, as well as a number of other initiatives that were discussed.

On the roads issue, the government of Alberta has done extensive work -- in fact, a very ambitious plan -- to complete and improve the system of roads in northern Alberta and British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I can't recall the dollar value of that plan, but it's significant. Both Alberta and British Columbia made very strong representations to the federal Minister of Transport late last year that there ought to be a national highways program and that the western provinces, in our view, had been shortchanged in terms of the transfer of federal money for transportation issues. It's minuscule. I can't remember the amount, but it's minuscule, and we thought there was a reasonable case for the western provinces to receive more assistance from the federal government for those things.

All of those issues, I guess, are. . . . If you like works in progress, I suspect that some of them are going to be works in progress for a long time. But the fact is that there are people putting their time and energy into those topics and occasionally making some progress -- specific progress like the PLNet and other things. We're heading in the right direction. As the member is aware, sometimes it's difficult for the rural regions -- with their low population base -- to be heard. That's part of our reasoning behind the commissioner, and we'll get to that. I think that the fact that we've combined forces with other western provinces and the Yukon and the Territories is a good move, and one we ought to continue working on.

[1515]

The minister also attended. . . . On October 14 there was a press release. The minister attended an important trade transportation forum -- I believe it was in Edmonton again, with the same people -- to talk about, I assume, the same issues. But at the bottom of the press release it says: "The minister added that regional economic strategies are a part of the B.C. government's three-year plan to stimulate the economy, attract investment and create jobs for British Columbians." Could the minister just expound on the three-year plan that he has in place for creating jobs in northern British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, at that meeting in October the committee made a decision to kind of broaden their scope a bit and look more generally at the problems of the four western provinces -- not just the northern corridor, but really the west coast ports. Given some of the changes, particularly in grain, there's a real concern that we could lose business in British Columbia through our ports system -- the changing nature of the customers' demands for grain, the opportunity to ship via U.S. ports that are heavily subsidized, by the way. So there was a feeling that we couldn't really look at just the northern corridor. I made it clear at the meeting that my interest was, and will continue to be, the northern corridor.

If I can give an overview, I think what we have been trying to do, following the initial summit meeting two years ago last October in Prince George. . . . The Premier's summit was the first regional summit, the first attempt to bring people from across the region together and say: "Okay, what are the issues, and what is the sense of direction on these issues?" We followed that up with the appointment of the northern commissioner. Subsequent to that, we have been working on specific initiatives -- for example, the whole approach to the development of the oil and gas sector, recent announcements on forestry initiatives in northeastern B.C. and the Louisiana-Pacific. . . . Now we have Slocan conducting a public hearing -- I think it's going on as we speak -- on the question of the PA licence and converting industrial requirement from pulp to OSB, which promises. . . . I think it has some potential for further industrial expansion in the northeast part of the province.

Looking specifically, I've been focusing on a couple of areas recently. You tend to get sidetracked when issues come along -- northeast coal, for example. Unfortunately, instead of looking at new initiatives, I do spend a bit of my time working very hard to make sure that we keep the ones we've got. So I

[ Page 12482 ]

I'm pleased to report, by the way, that as a result of changes in federal legislation and the creation of the new port corporations, for the first time the province was allowed to appoint representatives to those port corporations. We have appointed Mr. Gerry Bruno to the Prince Rupert Port Corporation. He is an individual experienced in transportation policy and active in the Vancouver airport. Not only is he knowledgable on transportation policy issues, but he has extensive contacts with the federal government. So we've appointed that individual to the board.

[1520]

I'm being very general in response to the question, but we're working on any number of files relative to that broad question of northern development.

R. Neufeld: I'll follow with interest and see any further press releases that come out and talk about the three-year plan and how we're progressing on those issues.

Did the government have anyone attend. . . ? There was a conference held January 19, 1999 -- the Meet the North, Build a Vision conference, hosted by the city of Edmonton. The mayor of Edmonton hosted a very successful conference, which I couldn't attend. I'm just wondering if we sent someone from your ministry to attend that conference.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, I was scheduled myself; I was going to chair a panel. I'm just trying to recall what happened that prevented me from going -- something. But yes, we did have. . . . I believe Mr. Riseborough was there from the northern development commission office. I'm not certain of the names of other officials who might have been there, but there were representatives, yes.

R. Neufeld: I'll move on a little closer to the north and deal briefly with the northern commissioner, Mr. Backhouse. We'll go through some of the initiatives there. I think a lot of the questions to the minister are fairly straightforward. I don't think there's a lot yet to report, but I could be surprised here yet, because there may have been some real astounding things take place in the last eight or nine months since the commissioner's been appointed.

I just want to ask some basic questions first. Is the only office for the northern commissioner in Prince George, or are there satellite offices any place else in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: No, it's only Prince George. The commissioner has allocated specific staff members to be responsible for the three. . . . We've broken the north into three regions: the northeast, the northwest and the north central. There's a bit of a difficulty, though. . . . I don't mind telling the member that my advice was that I didn't want to see a bunch of offices opened. I wanted to see people on the road, and that has been the case. It's turned out to be fairly onerous on those staff; they are on the road virtually all the time. We're not contemplating any changes, so we really only have the one central office, with people trying to service these discrete regions as best they can.

R. Neufeld: I just wanted to confirm that, because I feel the same. I think we have to have more people on the ground. It's a huge area of the province to cover.

The staffing of the office in Prince George. . . . How many people are there, and are they actual northerners -- from the north -- that are staffing the northern commissioner's office?

[1525]

R. Neufeld: Well, we haven't had that many disagreements, but I'm told that they're not all northerners and that actually there are a number of people -- and I don't know this for a fact, but if the minister could check it out for me, please, I'd appreciate it -- from the lower mainland who were hired to move to Prince George, to the office. I find it hard to believe that we would have to stretch out to the southern part of British Columbia to staff seven people in a northern office that deals specifically with issues for northern communities. Maybe the minister has a response to that, please.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll certainly check on that question. I said I thought that they were, in the main. I'm not certain if they all are or what indeed the credentials are -- or, in fact, how long you would have had to live in the north before you were considered to be a northerner. There's not always a sharp demarcation line, as the member well knows.

In fact, when I was in the member's constituency a year or so ago and was speaking to a large group of people who worked in the oil fields. . . . I was talking about northern development; I was talking about Prince George. The people in that member's riding -- and he was at the same meeting I was -- chastised me most severely and told me that people who live in Prince George don't live in northern B.C. So sometimes the definition is changeable, depending on who's doing the defining. But I think in the main, though, the commissioner is conscious of wanting to hire people locally, I suppose, as opposed to recruiting a whole bunch of people from some other part of the province or indeed some other province. I think in the main that has been accomplished.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister says. I too get chastised if I dare say that Prince George is in the north when I'm at home in Fort St. John. I guess that comes with the turf. I wasn't referring to the northeast or the northwest. I was

[ Page 12483 ]

The minister talked briefly earlier about the grain terminal in Prince Rupert. I think maybe we can deal with it here and try to get through some of those issues. John Backhouse, the commissioner, has obviously been involved to a certain degree with those issues. Maybe we can carry on with that, and we can take the other B.C. Rail issues -- unless B.C. Rail has something to add to it. . . .

I know that Mr. Backhouse was supposed to present a report sometime at the end of January or February in regards to the Estey report. Maybe the minister can just briefly bring me up to date on what's happening with the grain terminal in Prince Rupert. As I understand, it's closed for a number of reasons. I'll wait for the minister's response on where Mr. Backhouse's report is and what we're doing with trying to encourage more grain so that we can get the port going -- or the terminal, I should say.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue of that terminal is a critical one and a very difficult one. It's owned by a consortium of grain companies, companies that have their own facilities in addition to the Prince Rupert facility -- which is the most modern grain terminal on the coast. They have their own facilities in the port of Vancouver, the lower mainland region. The money for the terminal, substantially, was lent by the Alberta treasury. There's a significant debt. It's underperforming, because it can't get the volume of grain throughput that it requires.

The changing nature of grain transportation that I talked about, the fall-off in orders -- primarily from Asia, although there was some sense a number of weeks or months ago now that there would potentially be some new significant orders from China -- the whole system of how grain is moved, who orders it moved and where, and the conflict, I think, that exists between the owners and their own interests in the other terminals -- all of that is a very difficult. . . . It's a daunting challenge, quite frankly.

[1530]

I won't get into a lot of detail around that. But I would note that of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Estey in reviewing grain transportation -- and that review really came out of the failure to deliver, two winters ago -- the number one recommendation is that special measures be taken to alleviate congestion at the port of Vancouver by revitalizing the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill. At least the Estey report provided that focus.

I'm not content to say: "Well, this is fine. The problem is solved." I don't think it is, by any means. I think there are ongoing issues that we have to pursue. I'm most interested, at the appropriate time, in having further discussions with the government of Alberta, who also see the development of the port of Prince Rupert as a key for their desire to develop Edmonton as their transportation hub, both for goods going out of and coming into Alberta. I think we've got some allies, but I think the issue is extremely complex, and the gains seem to be. . . . Well, as they say about baseball, it's a game of inches, and this one is a game of centimetres, I think. We'll continue to plug away.

R. Neufeld: I agree it's a complex issue dealing with grain and the Estey report. I wonder, though -- unless I wasn't listening. . . . As I understood, Mr. Backhouse was to make a report to the minister in January on the Estey report as it applies to British Columbia. In fact, I believe there was a press release put out on that issue. Has that actually taken place? Is a copy of that report available for the opposition?

Hon. D. Miller: I will confirm with Mr. Backhouse or his office, but my understanding was that he was to make his submission on the Estey report. In other words, the Estey report. . . . Justice Estey completed his report, and he put it out so that the public and interested parties could look at it. It invited responses within a specified time period. My understanding was that Mr. Backhouse would respond. Certainly others in northern B.C. responded -- the port of Prince Rupert, I think, the terminal itself and others. I think that was done, but I don't have the paper here with me. I will attempt to confirm with Mr. Backhouse's office that that was done and to forward copies of any material that he submitted to Mr. Estey.

R. Neufeld: I may have misinterpreted, and I appreciate the minister's clarification of that and that we'll have an opportunity to look at that submission.

Not much has been said about it lately. At least I have not been able to see much in the newspapers in the north. But J.S. McMillan had a bailout -- or financial help, I guess, is probably a more acceptable way to say it -- last year of $8.1 million and the previous year of $8.5 million. I'm just wondering how the firm's doing. Has it actually been able to maintain the number of jobs that it was intended to maintain at the present time?

[1535]

But through a combination of circumstances, the issues around processing capacity fell on hard times, and as a result of that, we participated in an agreement -- a restructuring -- with J.S. McMillan. In fact, we had to go back and do that work a couple of times, because even once we'd done the first restructuring, it was clear that the changes that were taking place, particularly in salmon, would not allow that plant to be sustained.

The final restructuring, done through the job protection commissioner, converted the plant entirely to groundfish. It's not a plant that does what we have historically done, which is can salmon or freeze salmon, but rather -- and this is a positive note -- it processes groundfish and packages fresh

[ Page 12484 ]

While I think there was a slight reduction in the overall quota, it appeared to me at the time -- and this is going back now some time -- that we had created the conditions to allow the plant to be sustainable. In fact, when we did the last restructuring, the debt to the people who held the debt -- the ABN Bank and B.C. Central Credit Union, I think, principally -- agreed to take a further write-off. The position of the province with respect to its security for the money that it had put up was improved. In fact, I think it got into a fully secured position.

That's just going from a bit of memory. I haven't received a report on this specifically, and it may be an issue that the member might wish to canvass, because the file does rest with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I'm happy to generalize on the issue, but as to the specifics, they are in the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. It's just that we were dealing with northern development, and specifically your constituency, so I thought you would be able to bring some light to the issue. Are those loans repayable over time? Is that in fact part of the process -- the $16 million or whatever it works out to at a bank interest rate, or something to that effect?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, they are. I believe. . . . Again, I don't have the numbers -- interest rates and those kind of things -- but I think that at the time, we described the loans as fully commercial with a repayment. There's always an element of risk, as the member fully appreciates. Generally, governments tend -- not always -- to be the bankers of. . . . Not last resort -- I shouldn't use that term, I suppose.

I know that I've been chastised in this House on more than one occasion for making a statement about my business acumen versus the banks. I take those admonishments with good grace, but I do continue to believe that the imperative of the banks is not necessarily the imperative of business. You obviously know what I'm talking about; anybody who runs a small business -- or indeed a big business -- these days knows what I'm talking about. I guess. . . . Let me put it this way: it's easy to get a loan if you can provide 100 percent security, but on the issue of risk capital, quite frankly, I think there are some problems in this country. I don't want to get going down that road too much, but if we're to more fully develop the country and more fully provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to develop their own businesses, then I think there has to be risk capital available.

It's interesting that over the years, it is instruments created by government that have played a critical role, both at the federal level -- the Federal Business Development Bank -- and at the provincial level -- the Working Opportunity Fund. It seems to me that they were much more entrepreneurial and much more willing to take risks with private sector people who wanted to take risks to build new businesses than the traditional banks have been. But, Mr. Chairman, I stray, I'm sure, from the question.

[1540]

I want to maybe just ask the minister to tell me what the northern commissioner's office -- although it's only been in place for a while. . . . I appreciate that, and that it takes some time to demonstrate that you have actually accomplished something -- something that you can take around -- so I'm not trying to be critical of that point. But I'd like to know basically what the northern commissioner has accomplished since he took office. I know the minister in his opening remarks talked about a development commission signing a protocol agreement with the NCMA. Well, that could be done quite easily. But are there other things that the commissioner's office has actually either been able to promote -- some job creation or some economic development in northern B.C. . . ? That's one of the things that the commissioner's supposed to be doing. Maybe the minister could briefly update me on that.

Hon. D. Miller: I do appreciate the member's understanding. I tried to say this at the beginning when we made the initiative -- the northern development initiative and the commissioner -- that it would be terrible if everybody thought: "Well, in the next two weeks this individual could suddenly transform northern British Columbia and make projects happen." I have a long list of initiatives that the Northern Development Commission -- whether it's the commissioner or people in his office -- has worked on. Not all of these are issues where there's been success; some of them are, and I'd be happy to have the commissioner forward this kind of material to the member.

It does appear to me that he's done a couple of things. One is that he's generally -- and this was initially, right off the bat -- made himself extensively available right across northern B.C. I think he visited virtually every community; he met with the key people -- chambers, councils, those kinds of things. He became acquainted with the issues in those specific communities and in the regions. He and his team have participated in discussions around -- I think, as I look at this long list -- key economic development issues for the north.

I know that I, from time to time, receive letters -- which have been sent to the commissioner and copied to me -- from individuals from the city of Prince George, for example, and from others around the northern region, saying that they appreciated the assistance of the commissioner in achieving certain objectives. Rather than detail those. . . . If the commissioner were here today, perhaps we might be able to get more specific.

I think it's important to report on your activities. You are there to serve the public. Again, I have not had an opportunity to discuss that in detail with Mr. Backhouse. We've attempted ourselves, through the publication of a report to northerners, to generally keep people informed about issues that are taking place in northern British Columbia and, importantly, to try to get a sense of community. As the member knows. . . . We kind of joked about the issue of people in his constituency not considering Prince George to be north. Well, I talked up in his constituency -- and, indeed, in my own constituency -- about the very important linkages that exist across northern B.C. and the need to understand that and to work more in concert across the regions.

I'm rambling on. I will specifically ask the commissioner to try to give a more detailed report of the kinds of activities that have taken place through his office.

[ Page 12485 ]

[1545]

I did notice in the budget -- not in the estimates but in the budget document -- one report about northern development which dealt with Internet access, actually improving the access for remote areas. I'm not aware of problems that might be faced in the northwest as much as I am in the northeast. In my constituency there are a host of people that don't even have telephone service and can't even access radio service. In fact, NorthwesTel just recently removed a radio tower that served some 50 or 60 people along the Alaska Highway, because it wasn't being used enough. Now they have absolutely no. . . . They at least had cell phone access at that period of time.

This is nothing new from your government. I recall Mr. Harcourt, the past Premier of the province, initiating this process back -- I can't remember, but at least in 1993. Other than B.C. Tel and NorthwesTel improving services as they relate to people where I live, in accordance with the CRTC, I don't see any benefit from those announcements that have been on the books and that are made every year or almost every year. I read them, but I don't see any action by the province.

Like I say, I haven't been informed by anyone from the northwest if they experience the same problems, but I'm sure they do. There are people in the northwest that live in some pretty remote areas also. I don't want to stand here and advocate that these people think they should have the service that you would get in downtown Vancouver. I think all northerners, myself included, are quite well aware of how expensive it is to get that service. But also, more and more people in the remote areas are becoming far more aware of how important it is for them to have that service, not just for the purposes of maintaining health care access and those kind of things, but for small business access to communications, which is very important.

At one time the agricultural community used to be able to come to town once a week, do all their business and go back home and carry on. No longer is that the case. It hasn't been for a long time. These people operate huge businesses -- huge farms -- and have to stay in touch, whether it's on the Net, which the minister and I both have to get someone else to get information from for us. . . . They do have to -- I'm not trying to make light of it -- access that kind of information off the Net to know when they should be selling and buying and all those kinds of things. Maybe the minister could just briefly tell me -- and maybe I'm remiss; I don't know -- what the province has done since 1994. I haven't seen anything actual -- or as they say, the rubber hit the road. . . . But maybe I'm mistaken.

Hon. D. Miller: There have actually been some things done. I talked earlier about the PLNet, and I think that regardless of the fact that that's a linkage to the high schools, it's a linkage to high schools across northern British Columbia -- obviously with some opportunities for the private sector as well.

Just going through it, Infrastructure Works, the second program. . . . We had -- and I'm greatly disappointed -- earmarked not a massive amount of money but a little amount of money under that program to provide telephone service to about 16 communities that had none. That was a discrete decision that we had made to spend infrastructure money providing telephone service to 16 communities in British Columbia where they had no telephone service. I was the Minister of Employment and Investment at the time. My officials had signed off on it; Western Diversification officials had signed off on it. Unfortunately, it went to David Anderson's desk and he refused to sign it -- refused to sign it -- and that money wasn't spent. It's a great disappointment, and I think that if you drive down Douglas Street, you'll see where it went.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: That's exactly what happened. The beautification of Douglas Street takes precedence over telephone service for some people in your constituency. I don't wish to pit one region against another, but I was pretty mad about it.

Skills centres. We have skills centres in a variety of northern areas: Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Dawson Creek and Houston. They are all wired up with interactive video. If you want to have a meeting between a group of people in Dawson Creek and a group of people in Prince Rupert, you can go to the skills centre. I'm not sure what the cost of the hookup is, but you can meet electronically. We're going to continue to promote that, by the way, in terms of education.

[1550]

Our submission was very simple. We thought that there should be a fund developed. There should be a charge on calls that go into a central fund, and that fund in turn should be used to help build the infrastructure in these remote regions. I don't know if other parties participated in that, but that was the submission of the government.

Finally, with respect to the budget, at the request -- and I really appreciated this -- of the Minister of Finance, she and I met with the northern commissioner, Mr. Backhouse. She said: "I don't have a lot of money, but I'm prepared to put a little bit of money in for a northern initiative. What do you want?" Mr. Backhouse and I both said telecommunications. So it's in there. We haven't done a lot of detail work yet, but we've got a little bit of money in this budget allocation to contribute to telecommunications infrastructure in northern B.C.

Mr. Chairman, noting the hour -- and with the acceptance of the member -- I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

[ Page 12486 ]

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
(continued)

G. Abbott: I thank the critic for allowing me an opportunity to kind of jump in at this point and ask a question on behalf of some constituents at Sicamous on Shuswap Lake. These folks have a sporting goods store, a fishing goods store. They sell fishing licences and have some frustrations with the fishing licensing system. I tried to ask these questions at the Ministry of Environment estimates and was advised that policy around fishing licences now rests with this ministry, so I hope that I'm asking the right question at the right time to the right people here.

[1440]

Hon. D. Streifel: Anglers.

G. Abbott: Fishers?

Hon. D. Streifel: Anglers.

G. Abbott: Anglers; that's better. I like anglers.

Hon. D. Streifel: It keeps you out of trouble.

G. Abbott: Yeah, it keeps you out of trouble -- exactly.

Anglers who wish to retain lake trout on Shuswap, Mara or Kootenay lakes must also buy a conservation surcharge stamp or tag. The concern that the folks at Spirit Pond Sports have is that while they get a small remuneration on the fishing licence -- about $1.70 for a typical licence, and I guess considerably less than that for seniors -- there is no remuneration to them for the sale of tags or conservation surcharge stamps. People show up on Shuswap Lake. They're advised that they need tags in order to retain fish. They go to the sporting goods store and buy the tags.

There is a considerable expense to the business in terms of taking the time to explain the program to people and why there are tags on Shuswap Lake but not elsewhere in the province, and also time in terms of explaining the rules, selling the tags and then collecting the fees, accounting for them, remitting them to the government and all that. So it's their contention that the ministry should take another look at that area. For example, in 1998 they handled 795 tags, which they billed $7,572 for. But it was all at their expense, with no remuneration from the government for doing that. So that's a part of their concern.

The second point, while I'm on my feet, is that many of their customers expect that they will be able to use Interac or some other form of payment for the purchase of the tags. Again, because there is no remuneration to the business for it, they don't want to absorb the additional cost of the Interac transaction in order to sell the tags.

Those are the issues that they have raised with me. I would be interested in hearing from the minister whether the ministry is aware of this problem and whether they are planning any steps to rectify what appears to be an unfortunate situation.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member raises an issue that's not in isolation. It has been brought forward periodically, from time to time, by those that work in the sporting goods shop sector and that are looking for remuneration, I guess, on the whole issue -- tags included. We haven't made a decision to do that; indeed, I don't believe we have even discussed or considered that proposal. But it may help the member and the member's constituent to know that the money that comes from those tags goes to the habitat conservation trust fund, in order that we can keep rebuilding habitat and replenishing lakes so in fact that business has a reason to exist in the first place. Through our work with B.C. Hydro, there's been considerable work on Kootenay Lake and the Arrow Lakes. In particular, I'm aware of the success stories on Kootenay. Fertilization programs have brought back kokanee and subsequently brought back a considerable number of Gerrard rainbows as well -- which is really a very exclusive-to-us, world-class fishery, where we have that opportunity. A lot of it is funded and fuelled in different parts of the province through some of these tags programs, and that was really the deal that was cut with the sporting industry around their fees going directly to the conservation trust.

[1445]

G. Abbott: I'll suggest that to my constituents. I have no idea whether fishing shops have any sort of association. Perhaps they do, and in that case I guess they could readily bring

[ Page 12487 ]

The issue here is one of fairness. I've outlined one case where the fairness issue has been brought into question -- that is, handling about $8,000 of business for the government without remuneration. I'll leave it to the minister and his advisors as to whether that's a fair situation in the long term, and they may take the opportunity to work through an association to try to deal with this on a broader basis.

I'll leave it with the minister as an issue of fairness that he may wish to look at -- individually, or collectively from the groups out there. I'll look forward to hearing from constituents about what results from that.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for that. I would offer to the member that in the past year. . . . We spoke yesterday of some of what I feel are the successes of this ministry in its first year, and I was asked about where I felt some of our failures were. I would probably add freshwater to the list -- as not necessarily a failure but an area that we haven't yet focused on to the fullest capacity of our ministry and through Fisheries Renewal. Perhaps these kinds of ideas, as we move forward, could really refocus parts of our ministry on freshwater initiatives and how we can support the industry -- to build on a work we started with the Willow report, as we referred to it last year, which was really a quick snapshot of the really desperate circumstances within the sport and angling sector. We do recognize that there are some difficulties within the freshwater side as well.

We're always open to discussion on this issue, to ensure that we are delivering what we can from this ministry's perspective -- a good product for the sport angler and for those who really promote the industry for us through their small businesses. I'm as a straight as I can be when I say we haven't discussed it yet, but we're open, as we move forward, to work on sport fish and freshwater strategies for any options and solutions that will make it better.

J. Reid: I listened to the general remarks that were made yesterday about the ministry's endeavours and the desire to provide leadership, but it's also my understanding that the ministry is also supposed to accomplish their goals. This is my opportunity to ask and get some clarification about stated goals that haven't been accomplished.

On November 24, 1998, there was a news release that went out, entitled "Province Moves to Expand Shellfish Aquaculture Industry." As of that date the statement was made: "Government is now accepting applications for expansion of existing shellfish farms, and come March, we will process applications for new farms." I would like to ask the question whether that expansion has taken place.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're a little bit behind. I think the member is personally aware -- given that this is really her home business, around shellfish aquaculture -- of some of the support we've offered for the industry, both through us and through Fisheries Renewal. She would be aware -- and I think her question is quite astute -- that in fact we are a bit behind in our intended goals.

[1450]

J. Reid: The minister has stated that this program is a little bit behind. The concern is that with the work that I would anticipate had been done prior to the announcement stating "now accepting applications," surely the ministry anticipated that they were on target at that particular time. I'd like to ask: what has changed between the time when the announcement was made -- the suggestion was that the ministry was now ready to accept applications -- and six months later? We still haven't seen anything.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I said, we are behind. We're not accepting applications. What has changed is really the attitude of some of the players in the process. The consultative process was a little more difficult than we anticipated. Some of the existing industry didn't want to participate in a program that would change a pricing formula that we felt was punitive to new industry starting up -- as well as the opportunity to focus some of this resource on coastal communities and community-based tenures. We know we have some terrible difficulties in employment on our coast of British Columbia. We wanted our policy to be accepted by the broad spectrum of industry -- both the existing and the old -- and we've been unable to pull together that consensus.

As I understand it, we have consulted. Meetings have been held with the central region board, Campbell River and district first nations, Barkley Sound first nations, Nootka Sound first nations, Cortes shellfish growers and Klahoose first nations, Sliammon first nations, Powell River officials and Sechelt first nations and the regional district. That's some of the aboriginal consultation we've had. We've met with the shellfish growers; we've met with the processors. I've met with all of them. It's almost time for the meetings to end and the ten-year application to begin.

If we can't unravel a pricing policy -- a fair return to the public for the use of their lands -- then I would suspect that part of this initiative will be further delayed, and other parts will move ahead quite quickly. There's a quadrant out there, a constituency, that wants to work with us and that wants to take advantage of this growing industry. We are prepared to work and cooperate with them. I'll say this: if the rest don't want to play the game, they can really kind of settle back and remain where they are.

J. Reid: Perhaps the minister would like to explain the ones that want to play the game and the ones that don't want to play the game for the benefit of the record so that we actually are understanding what issues are at stake here?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member would know that there has been substantial support for the existing shellfish industry through Fisheries Renewal grants and other processes. Tens of thousands of dollars have been allocated to the existing indus

[ Page 12488 ]

What we have in front of us today is, I guess, the successful establishment of the BCAL office with two staff members in place. We have established with some of the coastal community structures and with some of the local politicians in the coastal community parliament the need to recognize a priority movement on tenures for community-based allocations. That's well underway. There are many folks, including first nations and local communities and interest groups, where they're looking at and interested in establishing a shellfish tenure on proposed pricing policies. The work is yet to be done and completed with the existing shellfish industry. Those are the major players that are already established.

[1455]

J. Reid: I appreciate the comments that this ministry doesn't want to put the existing businesses into jeopardy. So I'd like to ask a question on whether any monitoring has gone on of the existing industry since this announcement was made for expansion, coupled with the announcement of anticipated fee increases. Has there been any monitoring of the shellfish industry -- the existing industry -- to show the effects of this delay and the effects that it's had on the industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, for the information of the members, there have been ongoing meetings and consultation. An exact analysis, I think, would be too broad a description of what's happened. But there have been staff meetings with the shellfish growers and the industry to review what their view is -- the economic analysis of the industry as it is.

I would caution the member referencing a document that is not future policy. It is not part of our discussion at this time. It is not part of the influences on the industry. It really starts to tread outside the realm of appropriate discussion and the directness and the relationship to this issue and this ministry. I just caution the member on that. The document she refers to is not policy of this ministry. We are not in isolation as we deal with this issue. There are other ministries involved -- Finance, through BCAL, and Environment as well. So we have the lead on this, but the full responsibility is not ours.

J. Reid: I would like to ask the question: what document is being referred to? That's because I certainly wasn't referring to a document.

Hon. D. Streifel: The member referenced a letter.

J. Reid: For the record, I still am not sure what the reference has been. The question about impact on the existing shellfish industry is to point out that uncertainty in government, uncertainty in increasing fees, affects small business in a very devastating way. So as the minister has referred to leadership on these issues, when leadership can go on for six months -- and certainly there was discussion prior to that -- and we're still not seeing any resolution in sight, the idea of leadership isn't effective and businesses are put in jeopardy. Just the time span that has happened here has put businesses in jeopardy.

The minister has mentioned BCAL as being involved in this process. I would like to ask: what are the duties of BCAL in this process, working with these fee structures, and what are the duties of the minister in that process?

[1500]

J. Reid: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat that comment?

Hon. D. Streifel: Sure. Now, let's see. How did I start this? Hon. Chair, I'm not familiar at all with any of the fee structures the member is referring to. I think I had the right tone and inflection there.

J. Reid: The minister mentioned BCAL as being part of the process. Since he mentioned BCAL and we know that the shellfish farms are located on tenures which would fall under BCAL, the question is: what part of these discussions and leadership rests with this ministry, and what part of that decision-making process rests with BCAL?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Fish. . . . My staff are, I guess, in general terms, facilitating some of the discussions. The authority for tenure and the land use allocations and the costs thereof really rest with BCAL, which is under the Ministry of Finance.

J. Reid: With this ministry facilitating those discussions, would this ministry be taking a leadership role, then, or is the minister suggesting that it's BCAL that takes the leadership role in this particular situation?

Hon. D. Streifel: This ministry, as I said, is facilitating this and is thereby taking a leadership role to protect the interests of those folks that want to be involved and that are involved in shellfish aquaculture and the community interest. That's the input that we have. We bring forward some particular needs that we want to see in this policy as it fleshes out. BCAL has the negotiating mandate and authority to deal with the issues of tenure pricing, and that's under the Minister of Finance.

J. Reid: Considering the nature of this industry, certainly it has been recognized as being sustainable. It's been recognized as virtually being organic, renewable and as removing no resources from the province. The reference has been made to it operating in coastal areas, which provides opportunities for employment in those areas. It's certainly labour-intensive, creating an export product. The question I would like to pose on record is: does this ministry recognize this as being a farming industry?

[ Page 12489 ]

J. Reid: Could I have an explanation of what part of it isn't?

Hon. D. Streifel: I still need some clarification from the member on her reference to this industry as being a farming industry. If the member references the shellfish industry in its entirety, I would have to say that in its entirety, it's not a farming industry.

J. Reid: I certainly agree that in its entirety, it's not a farming industry. The culture part of the shellfish industry, where people are obtaining leases and cultivating their product. . . . Would the minister agree that that part of the industry is indeed a farming industry?

[1505]

I think it's very, very simplistic. . . . It would help the member, if she wants to work with my staff or work with me outside the realm of debates. . . . To try to force a yes or a no answer is just not in the cards in this format. It's far more complicated than that. The member, being a shellfish farmer, ought to know that. If she would try to compare herself to a hazelnut grower in a valley or a rabbit or mink farmer -- or a hog farm that's carried out in entirely sterile conditions, or some poultry farm -- I would ask the member if she considers herself a farm. And if so, what advantage, what benefit, are they looking for in their shellfish operation? I'm not quite sure.

J. Reid: The relevance of the extent of the farming aspect of this industry comes in, in that it's in the Ministry of Fisheries. And certainly, for it to be recognized for its farming aspects makes a big difference when policy is being discussed and when decisions are being made. The nature of the industry, the constraints on the industry and the margins of the industry all are very relevant to the operation of farms. Certainly, as there are some differences, there are more similarities than differences. It's not a wild fishery; nor can it be construed as cultivated oysters and clams being the industry in discussion.

To change directions slightly here to the concerns of small business, certainly this minister has explained the number of meetings and the consultation that has taken place with the industry. I was wondering whether any record has been kept of the number of meetings, and the implication here is the cost to the industry of meetings that six months later have still not resulted in any decisions. I'm sure the minister is aware that a concern for small business is the cost of dealing with government. So the question is whether there has been any tracking of those costs to small business in being in the consultation process.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm really not going to go very far down that road, because what began the extended, in-depth consultation process that set up the delay was a hue and cry from the industry that said: "We weren't consulted." So we're consulting.

J. Reid: The concept of consultation is usually with an end in mind. And certainly meetings that go on without end and don't bring results do have a very significant cost to industry.

This government has stated the concerns of small business. With those concerns in mind and the leadership that has been suggested as the aim of this ministry, then dealing with small business in an efficient manner -- certainly with consultation, but with a limit to that and with a practical end in sight -- would be very advisable. With the direction, then, my question would be: as we're looking towards the future and specifically next year, how are the programs and resources of this ministry going to be directed towards solving this problem? And is there any time line that the minister could suggest where we're going to see some resolution?

[1510]

I know her colleague from Abbotsford would agree that discussions that have come up at Coastal Community Network meetings and at coastal parliamentarians meetings and other venues where I see this member show up very frequently. . . . I would encourage the member for Parksville-Qualicum to attend some of these and listen to the input from the folks that want to participate. There are some cleavages in this industry and this process.

I think that in some ways the cleavages have been perhaps opened up or focused on with an attempt to meet some of the needs of the other interests, the other voices, whether they be first nations, coastal communities or just entrepreneurs out there that say: "My life on the coast as a fisherman has ended. I want to do something else. How do I get into shellfish?" We look at communities like Gold River that say: "Perhaps if we steward our water properly and do some work around some community-based tenures, we should be given a priority access to some of these tenures. How do we do this?" Others would say: "If you just restore some testing up the coast, we could have a wild-shellfish industry on parts of the coast. We wouldn't even need these artificial" -- what do they call themselves? -- "shell farmers out there." That's the diversity of interests we're dealing with.

[ Page 12490 ]

The shellfish growers, I don't believe, are all that interested in that end of the industry. But the new folks are. That's what their voices are saying: "We want the opportunity to participate, and we want to be able to get in here. We don't have deep pockets, but we can bring some enhancement and stability to our coast." Those voices are also considered in our consultative process.

J. Reid: In my comments to the minister surrounding this industry. . . . I certainly didn't mean to be exclusive in those comments, or inclusive, in that there is a broad range of interests that do need to be taken into account. There are many opportunities for many different people and many different communities. In fact, it is my goal to see that that would come about.

To suggest that my goals would be narrow, I think, is certainly a misunderstanding. The question was a time line. Certainly I've talked to people from Gold River. I was up in Gold River talking to people, and they expressed their frustration with the process. I've been talking to people from the north coast who have expressed their frustration with the process.

[1515]

Hon. D. Streifel: I can well imagine the frustration of the folks on the north coast when the feds took the mouse kits off in 1964 -- I guess the last one was in 1980, '81 or '82 -- and really ended their shellfish industry up there. Yeah, that was a nearsighted move by our federal government. I would welcome input and support. The member has referenced the frustration on the north coast and the work that Fisheries Renewal is doing to bring in an alternative test.

Certainly it would be important if we all stood together against the Liberal federal government and said: "We need some fair treatment on our coast." We could, in fact, above Cape Caution, have a fairly extensive shellfish industry with opportunity for aquaculture -- as well as wild harvest and tremendous support for first nations communities there -- if we would work together on that issue.

The first question, or maybe it was the last question the member asked, was: do we have a time line for closure of consultation? No, not yet. I'm getting extremely frustrated with the length of time that goes on. My voice has been saying: "Just do it. Get it done, and worry about the flak later." The industry themselves don't want to do it quite yet. I think we've looked at many of their suggestions on pricing issues -- the member would have full knowledge of this -- site capacity and revenue generated off growth and things like this. They haven't yet settled in with the new industry or with the existing industry. Nor does the existing industry want to stay with the status quo. In the last meeting I had with them, they didn't want the status quo, and they didn't want a new pricing policy. So I wasn't quite sure what they wanted. I asked staff to do more work with them. Maybe the member could educate us.

J. van Dongen: I just want to pick up on the discussion of the shellfish announcement of November 24. I want to say, first of all, that I was very pleased to see the announcement. I think it was something that communities and the industry have been waiting for, for some time, and I think it at least indicated a willingness by the government to attack this opportunity. I'll say, speaking as the opposition critic, that I'm very hopeful that this initiative will succeed. We are going to do whatever it takes to help it succeed, because I think it's very important for coastal communities. I think there's tremendous opportunity for B.C. industry, for B.C. enterprise, for revenue generation, for our communities as well as for the B.C. government. I want to preface my questions with that comment.

I just want to clarify the issue of the lead ministry on this. At the outset I think there were three players in it. There was the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and B.C. Assets and Land. My understanding of how the initiative is being handled and will proceed from here on in is that it's basically a partnership between the Ministry of Fisheries and B.C. Assets and Land to negotiate and implement this initiative. I wonder if the minister could just confirm that the finalization and delivery of this initiative is basically a partnership between the Ministry of Fisheries and B.C. Assets and Land and that Environment is playing a secondary role in the process.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his question, and I'll try and draw out the lines as clearly as possible. There are three ministries involved. There's MELP, BCAL -- Finance, through BCAL -- and Fisheries, B.C. Fish.

[1520]

As we spoke yesterday, the member would recall that we were in discussion around more of an economic development issue. No one has put an arrow on us that says "Economic Development" and blinks on and off. But we're naturally progressing into that stage, partly because of the size and the resources of the ministry, but partly because of how we were born out of the need to access resources on the coast to protect coastal communities. That's really what gave life to this ministry, and we brought in the freshwater initiatives as well. Historically, fresh water was only ever an economic development policy for this province back to 1936.

[ Page 12491 ]

At a meeting with the industry, they told me that they have a difficulty sometimes in marketing and understanding markets. I'd like to see stronger support in British Columbia for that kind of a marketing initiative and support for the industry in that way. What we do isn't single-faceted; it's multifaceted industry development and support; and tenure is BCAL and revenue policy in general is MELP.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that outline. I asked the question, and I think it is critical, in terms of the policy and program development and implementation, that those three government agencies have, in effect, a working partnership. I think that has been a little bit of the difficulty. Hopefully, as time goes on, we'll get that partnership working better. It also relates to the issue of the division of the ministries, and maybe we'll talk about that a little bit on another day.

One of the aspects of the initiative that was announced November 24 is to streamline the application process. I know that shellfish growers, irrespective of what part of the sector they're from. . . . There are some different bureaucratic or regulatory requirements. I think it was my understanding that there's an intent to have a single-window approach for this industry. I wonder if the minister could just tell us what's planned there and how far along that initiative is -- that part of it.

Hon. D. Streifel: Of course, in all the gloom, we always talk about the things that haven't worked, but in fact there are always successes, and this is one of them. I believe that the office is open. We're currently bringing the resources together. There are a couple of staffers. Our intention here is to really simplify the application process. When we recognize that there's a piece of Crown land for tenure and someone wants to grow oysters or clams or something on it or hang whatever they do with the stuff -- they want to get into the business -- they should be able to come and lease that land and get a licence to operate and get underway all at once.

Some of the misunderstanding in this process was the need to collapse a number of inherent costs into one cost, rationalize it, see how it works and go to one door -- one window, one office -- to get started. That's really what's caused some of the confusion and concerns, because some folks didn't do that. They went through all kinds of hoops, and it took years. We had a real great way of somehow suppressing this industry in the past, when it was a two-year waiting list to get a tenure or to get some idea, except no one was taking applications.

[1525]

I tell you that I will not let the existing industry be jeopardized in the process. They are the soul, the core of this. This is what began the springboard. But we have to find a way to unravel the high tenure cost, the auction cost and the low-end cost, as well, quite frankly, because I don't think it's appropriate at all. Most British Columbians agree it would be offensive to grab one of these foreshore tenures and pay as little as $50 a year on it just to hold it -- to keep somebody off your recreational property -- because there are a number of those as well. It's not just folks that paid a lot to get started; it's those that have access to Crown leases and don't do anything with it just to, I guess, deny some kind of development. That also has to be viewed to see how we unravel that and how we fix that as well. We're on the way, and I'm looking forward to support from the member as we pull this one off.

J. van Dongen: Just a couple more questions on this issue for the minister. It seems to me, in terms of the big picture, that there are at least three sectors involved or three groups within the shellfish sector here. Community-based tenures that the minister talked about, the native community and the established industry are certainly three groups that I see. The minister talked about community-based tenures, and I'm wondering what he has in mind in terms of how such a tenure would be held. Would it be held by a society involving people in a particular community? Or would it possibly be held by a local government or some other community group? I'm just curious what he has in mind there.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a good question from the member. I was reluctant to reference, in my discussions with the member for Parksville-Qualicum, some of the focuses we have around community-based initiatives. It really gets into future policy in areas that -- the member will remember from last year -- I'm reluctant to tread into, because it takes us into expanded debate around issues that haven't been concluded yet.

The simple answer to the member's question is: all of the above are possible. But the initiative has to be driven from the bottom up. It has to be driven by the local communities. It could be, I mean. . . . Boy, this is terrible, because I sat in that chair long enough, ruling people out of order for getting into future policy. But in fact it has to be delivered for the community's wishes -- not what I decide, not what BCAL decides totally and not what MELP decides totally.

We are the regulating bodies for sure -- the lawmaking bodies. But it's about time that there was open and full consideration, and acceptance that the communities do know a lot of what their needs are and that we build on a strategy that helps them out. If we had a community-based tenure that was held by a local government or by a trust or in trust, all of those are possible. It has to be worked out.

But we've been asked loud and clear by most of the folks on the coast that this be our top priority as we move forward

[ Page 12492 ]

[1530]

[E. Gillespie in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: For the member's information. . . . If I understand the question, the end of the question was on competing land use issues. Part of that would be first nations, for sure. Everything we proceed with around the allocation of Crown land, of course, has to be with Delgamuukw in mind, and native claims in the areas. As well, it has to be in consideration of what some of the local communities and the local governments want. For instance, some local communities have told me: "We don't want shellfish operations out here. We have a better use for our beaches." They're tourism-oriented, not shellfish. . . . Through this process there's a venue and an opportunity for that to be heard and respected.

As far as the capacity of the coast, most of the coast has been sited and surveyed as to what could grow there and what's growing now -- what the capabilities are. That's available in map form. I don't think I'm being too bold to suggest that if the member wants a set of the maps, we can dig them out somewhere. I've offered them to other folks, I guess, and we've passed them on. For as much as we have done, it's virtually the whole coast.

For the member's information, it's important to note, as well, that I have a scheduled meeting in the near future with the aquaculture commissioner that was appointed by the federal government. I want to bring up many of these issues, in searching for both financial support and philosophical support on aquaculture initiatives in British Columbia, to see how far the federal government is willing to go to help support some of the coastal initiatives, up to and including, as I referenced, some form of testing back on the north coast above Cape Caution, so we can do. . . .

Many of these initiatives, once focused and participated in by the local communities in some of these areas, are primarily dealing in a lot of cases with native communities, which are in desperate need of some economic stability that's over and above whatever claims may be there or whatever future opportunity through treaties. This has to be viewed as an economic opportunity that's there for all of us to participate in. That's why we've carried on the work of some of, I guess they'd be called, site surveys with shellfish biophysical surveys. If you can grow something there, we know what it is, and we know what the capacity is. Some areas could have huge potential and therefore have an economic potential.

I seem to be prattling on with my answers here. We also have to be careful that we don't flood an industry as well. That's why I think we're responsible for paying attention to the marketing aspect and the support aspect -- processing and all that other kind of stuff that happens. We have to keep an eye on that, as well, so that we don't end up with a whole bunch of growers and no buyers. That would be just as big a problem and just as big a disaster.

That's, again, some of the area of endeavour that I participate in and how we develop the industry. It's not just the growing. It's also the marketing, the selling and who participates, keeping in mind our. . . . We work with the standards that the Americans do, as well, for export products. I hope that helps.

J. van Dongen: I certainly agree with the minister's last point that what we want is planned, gradual growth and not some gold-rush mentality. I think that was one of the difficulties that fish farming got into in the early eighties when it first started. It was kind of a sudden gold-rush mentality, and it really did the industry a disservice. So I agree that planned, gradual growth is what we're after.

[1535]

Regardless of what formula is eventually developed for pricing and allocating these tenures, the general issue is. . . . The overall average long-term cost for the industry is one of the biggest factors, if you come right down to it -- certainly for the established industry and, I suspect, for any of the other players, whether it's the native communities or some community group that wants to get into this industry. I think they will all be looking at a common interest of getting what they would feel is fairly realistic pricing. I make that comment for the minister. I don't know if he has a response to that, but he would certainly be welcome. . . .

I also want to pick up on the minister's mention of the new federal aquaculture commissioner. I'm pleased to hear that they're meeting. Certainly the federal government has had an interest in aquaculture generally, both in shellfish and finfish aquaculture. I think it's good that the minister is meeting with him. I'm certainly interested in whether or not at this point the provincial government has had any discussions with the federal minister or the federal government on aquaculture issues, whether it's shellfish or finfish aquaculture. I'm not clear on what the relationship is there. Maybe we can talk about that, and then we'll get in a few questions on finfish aquaculture.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for his interest in this.

No, I haven't had specific, directed discussions with the federal minister on aquaculture initiatives. My knowledge of

[ Page 12493 ]

I have referenced in general terms that it would be British Columbia's role -- as we have done with the relationship with DFO nationally -- to try to find the ability across Canada, through the federal government, to build what would be a Canadian aquaculture policy so that we can understand what goes on and what standards we should set for ourselves -- so we aren't in jeopardy, like we see in other countries and jurisdictions. I'd like that to happen, and I think that would be a good building point for the federal minister and me to work on, after my meeting with the aquaculture commissioner. I hope that helps.

J. van Dongen: We'll get into finfish aquaculture, and that's probably the most difficult issue of all that we're facing at the present time.

Hon. D. Streifel: You're allowed one question, and I can have one answer.

J. van Dongen: I will introduce the topic this way -- a quote from last year's estimates in Hansard, April 30, 1998: "Aquaculture is a very sensitive question and issue. We're still in the process of putting together a full policy." I appreciated the minister's comments yesterday about the difficulty of this question for the government. He made one comment that I found interesting, and that was that -- I'm paraphrasing here, and I'm going by memory -- he felt that maybe the government's current position also wasn't fully understood. I wonder if we could start out this discussion by talking about where the government is at and maybe a little more comment on what the minister feels is not understood at the present time about the government's position on this issue.

[1540]

I know I took a chance in referencing the misunderstanding of the government's position. Really, my reference was, in some ways, a broad reference to the public's view of what we think of aquaculture and also a narrow reference, from the critic's perspective. We're viewed as wanting runaway, full-blown aquaculture, and that's not true. We believe that this industry is viable under certain circumstances, and we've had some influences on those circumstances in the past year. I referenced yesterday the spawners in the Tsitika.

As far as I can go with the member -- I hope the member respects this -- is that we are still under the moratorium that was imposed in 1995, and we're working through the processes. We have had some consultation with industry and communities on the issue of finfish aquaculture. We have looked and worked at. . . . We're funding, through Fisheries Renewal. . . . I don't know if my ministry is directly funding some R and D on alternative processes, such as sablefish and halibut and these kinds of circumstances. I've met with some of the pseudo -- I guess -- scientific community on this issue. I've even had a conversation with David Suzuki on this issue, to try and unravel the concerns. And it's still. . . .

The member would probably draw his mind back to the advertising campaign of a few weeks ago -- the comments of the critics that this is the wall of death on the coast and the comments of the industry that say: "Hey, we just grow fish." Those that want it and those that don't want it are so far apart, my arms are getting tired trying to pull them together. But I haven't stopped pulling. I look for some help when I meet with the federal commissioner and when I'm finally able to address this issue with the federal minister. I would look for any and all support and input from the opposition on this issue, so we can get through that wall of misunderstanding about this industry.

I referenced yesterday, as well, the work that my staff is doing with Washington State to find out why their attitude towards Atlantic salmon is so different from ours. As recently as six or seven years ago, they were still trying to plant them in their lake systems. We've had years and years of real concern about atlantics overtaking our indigenous populations, and we have evidence that we have some spawning happening. But that's not to say that's an established population. It just happened. If it keeps happening and keeps growing, then we've got some real problems.

Last year we had the dump of morts in Sooke. I hope the hon. member doesn't support that kind of activity. But as long as that keeps happening, that sets up one more hurdle, one more roadblock, one more great big pothole for us to get through to fully establish a policy that's acceptable to British Columbians. The industry has to mature somewhat in its public attitude. The critics have to say, "Hey, wait a minute; maybe we can do this safely," so we can get some breathing room to get it together. That's what I face.

[1545]

J. van Dongen: Well, obviously the government is struggling with the issue. I appreciate the minister's offer. I may take him up on that offer because, again, this is an initiative that I feel strongly about. Our party took a position on this issue over three years ago, and we've been consistent in that position. Certainly, as the minister does, I do monitor closely and personally all comments on this issue and try to evaluate the substance, motivation and background to those comments.

I will make this general comment. I think that the really active lobby on this issue is being promoted by a relatively small number of very activist people. People like the David Suzuki Foundation, Howard Breen and the Georgia Strait Alliance have made a mission of this issue. I think that all of those things need to be weighed in terms of the total picture.

Certainly I agree with the minister that any decision to lift the moratorium has to be accompanied with a very good program of environmental management, one that is going to

[ Page 12494 ]

I come from some background in biological systems personally, as a farmer and from 15 years in the food industry, so I know that these things are all technically possible. In the food industry, when you're dealing with dairy products, for example, it's absolutely critical that you maintain high health standards and environmental standards and that there are mechanisms to ensure that it happens. Certainly any lifting of the moratorium should include that.

I think that the basis for a decision still can and should be the report that was done by the government -- a very comprehensive report, 1,800 pages, a lot of public hearings and independent technical experts. I think it's a good foundation for dealing with any of the concerns and criticisms. It's not the be-all and end-all; certainly it needs to be updated and managed as we go along. But I still think that is a very good foundation. I mean, if we don't have confidence in that kind of project, then I have to question why we did it in the first place. So I would certainly make that suggestion to the minister.

I don't know, hon. Chair. I guess we should. . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd correct the record on one of my answers.

J. van Dongen: Okay. I'll turn it over to the minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: On aquaculture, on where we're involved with this, I referenced Fisheries Renewal as supporting some research and development. I'm told that they're not. It's the Ministry of Fisheries that is. It's research and development on all female-atlantic production. That, of course, would relieve one of the concerns of breeding if escapes happen. We're also funding diversification into halibut and sablefish.

We also fund the Atlantic Salmon Watch program, which is really unique to us, where we monitor these atlantics. If the member could help me with this one. . . . You know, when there's an escape of atlantics out there and somebody catches a few hundred of them, the industry won't even buy them back. They're just wasted.

Therefore it's just another one of these problems. I would say that the industry could help itself a lot with some recognition that in fact that's a problem: "Hey, we can step in and fix that. You don't have to fix it for us." It's only common sense. If the member's cows got out or somebody's chickens headed down the road, would you want them back? You know, it just doesn't make sense to me.

With that, I thank the members for their questions today. I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada