1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 7247

Knight Street pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7248

E&N Railway. Mr. Bruce –– 7248

Knight Street pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 7249

Sulphur dioxide emissions. Mr. Jones –– 7249

Pollution control objectives for petrochemical industry. Mr. Jones –– 7249

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7250

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 25: minister's office –– 7275

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. REID :

I'm glad the opposition has arrived, because I wanted to make a special

introduction today and certainly didn't want to do it in their absence.

Colleagues, today we have the opportunity to have with us in the House

the Ambassador of France, His Excellency Franqois Bujon de l'Estang.

With him is the consul-general of France in Vancouver, Mr. Ren

Delille. This year France is celebrating the bicentennial of the

revolution, and on this occasion I'd like to give the ambassador,

consul-general and all French citizens our best wishes, and I would ask

this House to give them both a very warm welcome.

MR. ROSE :

I apologize to the Chair for our caucus being late. We would have been

here earlier, but I was having lunch with the ambassador and

consul-general from France, and we welcome them.

MR. SERWA :

Today I'd like to make an introduction on behalf of the second member

for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself. I would like to introduce

to the House Mrs. Vicki Livingstone, the president of the Canadian Home

Educators' Association of B.C. She made a presentation to the Social

Credit caucus on home education. Accompanying Vicki are her husband

Lawrie Livingstone and her sons Timothy and David. Would the House

please make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON : I just

wanted to make the members aware of the first community-based project

coming out of the Commonwealth Games here in Victoria. It's called

Sportpool, and the children and people of School District 61 are being

asked, over the next three days, to donate a piece of sporting

equipment — soccer ball, basketball, boxing gloves for members of this

House, etc. — to a school in their area. These donations are going

to be sent to a number of African and South Pacific countries to try to

extend the level of understanding and awareness of Commonwealth

countries, and I urge members to participate.

MR. MOWAT :

I'm pleased to introduce to the House today three persons: Michael

Kohut, Steven Kohut and Ted Paxton. Mike and Steven Kohut are the

owners of the Princeton Hotel in downtown Vancouver and have done a

great deal to assist their clientele, the patrons of the hotel, and

many of the disabled persons in our community. Ted Paxton is a former

past-president of the British Columbia Automobile Association. Would

the House please make them welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS : I too, along with the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain,

would like to welcome Mr. Kohut. Please give our regards to the PH Club and

thank them for all the good work they do. I'd like to note that the Princeton

Hotel is in fact in Vancouver East.

MR. JACOBSEN : On behalf of you, Mr. Speaker, and myself, I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Owen Hughes from Mission.

MR. R. FRASER :

In the members' gallery today is a friend of mine by the name of Wayne

McClelland, a young businessman who is working on the lower half of the

Island and still active in sports. Would the House please join me in

extending him a welcome.

Oral Questions

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier, regarding the Westwood land: did you not tell the

Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) that you wanted

an all-cash deal for Westwood?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We wanted the best deal for Westwood.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The reality is, isn't it, Mr. Premier, that you got burned on the Li

Ka-shing deal and the Expo lands, and in typical fashion it was a

boomerang response. You said: "No payments over time. Cash on the

barrelhead." That was the problem, wasn't it, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We wanted the best deal for the people of the province; obviously we

had to consider as well the need for housing in the lower mainland. We

feel sincerely that these additional lands will certainly assist in

providing more accommodation for a whole lot of people who are

recognizing and realizing daily the quality of life and the wonderful

things happening in this province, and moving from many parts of Canada

to participate in the good things that we are providing for the people.

MR. WILLIAMS :

If there weren't these kinds of constraints in terms of insisting on an

all-cash deal, Mr. Premier, can you explain why there was no

consultation with the other bidders that actually gave firm backup

prices but with profit-sharing? Can you explain why there was no

discussion with those people?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Perhaps I should compare it to an earlier action which led to the sale

of these lands, which was the expropriation by a previous NDP

government, and frankly I don't think too many people were informed

about the expropriation. But this is a very different situation, Mr.

Speaker. We sought proposals from as many people as wanted to become

involved, and many people did become involved in picking up the

necessary documentation and assessing it carefully and then preparing

their

[ Page 7248 ]

bid

proposals along with a bond, knowing full well that the process would

permit us to select those bids that were the best of the range and then

make a decision through the committee process involving people with all

of the necessary expertise to determine which bid was best for the

people of the province. I am very pleased with the way the process has

gone, and I am also very pleased that it certainly is complementary to

the Coquitlam plan. We worked very closely with the municipalities and

we will continue to do that. We will always seek what is best for the

people.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Premier, if you're so

pleased with the process, if you're so pleased with the analysis, then

will you make it all available to the public and the people of this

Legislature?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that the member asking the question has been

involved in numerous land dealings. As a matter of fact, he had a bit

of a reputation for that once upon a time, so I am sure that he would

be familiar with what's involved in this type of process. The people

making these bids oftentimes will joint-venture this with someone else.

Perhaps they will be seeking financing from various sources. One may

possibly be turned down by one particular source, while another may be

accepted by that particular source. There's a lot of information that

these people, in their bid proposal, would expect to be kept fairly

confidential, and that's how business is often done. These people do

expect that much of the information as to who is financing might be of

a confidential nature. I understand full well that the NDP socialists

don't understand this type of business approach.

I would certainly defer to the minister as to how this information might be made available.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Again to the Premier: this is the public's business, and the public

deserves the answers. Could you explain, Mr. Premier, why you couldn't

then call them company A, company B company C and give the details of

each offer? And could you explain why it's you who asked for the

confidentiality agreement and you who wanted it signed by the companies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, this information will become available. I understand that

obviously the member was listening to comments I might have made in

response to questions from the media. If the information can be made

available without infringing upon the rights of those who seek some

degree of confidentiality in the process, I agree that this be done.

We're certainly seeking counsel on this right now, and it's something

we'll be reporting on very quickly.

I think we owe it to

make this information available whenever possible, naturally, and I

don't disagree with the member on that. I also think, however, that we

have to protect the rights of the individual. I think we have to

protect and recognize the rights of the individual when they make

proposals with a degree of confidentiality.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Minister of Labour. Has he now talked to Mr. Doney

with respect to his knowledge of a conversation between Mr. Hick and

Mr. Poole dealing with Delta Media Services being provided status to do

pub referendums?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be out of order. I took that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Minister of Labour is only being asked to talk to his deputy

minister to find out when he gathered some information. Could the

minister tell this House when we can expect a response?

The

minister has conceded that he knew of the conversation between Mr. Hick

and Mr. Poole. Was he advised of that conversation by Mr. Hick or by

Mr. Doney?

HON. L. HANSON : It appears that socialism affects the hearing. I have stated a number of times — and I will repeat it —

that the subject has been investigated by almost every agency that we

can think of. It has been well canvassed in this House, and it's

history.

MR. SIHOTA : Was Mr. Doney present when the minister was advised of the conversation between Mr. Hick and Mr. Poole?

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the number is now, but it must be about

121 times that I have said that it is history. It has been well

canvassed.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, the minister has

an obligation to answer questions put to him with respect to these

matters. A simple question again to the minister: was Mr. Doney present

when the minister was advised of the conversation between Mr. Hick and

Mr. Poole? Was Mr. Doney there?

HON. L. HANSON :

Again, the ombudsman has canvassed this issue, the RCMP have

investigated the issue, and there have been people charged. I refer the

member to that report. I would be pleased to provide a gratis copy to

the member opposite.

E&N RAILWAY

MR. BRUCE : I

have a new and very urgent question for the Minister of State for

Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast. The E&N Railway has always

been vitally important to Vancouver Island's economic development.

Given our government's efforts to promote regionally balanced growth, I

am sure the minister will acknowledge the importance of not only

maintaining but improving day liner service

[ Page

7249 ]

to fully realize its potential as a catalyst for

economic growth on the Island. Therefore will the minister consider

conducting an in-depth assessment of the day liner’s present and

potential economic impact and recommend realistic options for cabinet's

consideration of how this service might be maintained and perhaps even

expanded?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : There is a transportation committee reporting to me

at the end of June. In my visits with municipalities and regional districts,

there's always been a real demand to continue the E&N Railway.

the budget cuts from the federal government, that was an initiative

that concerned me. We have, in the process, drafted a letter to the

Minister of Transport in the federal government. We've also discussed

this issue with the provincial Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr.

Vant). As soon as the report comes out from my transportation

committee, we will definitely look at all of the options for the

E&N Railway, recognizing its importance for Vancouver Island.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour should understand that stonewalling

invites suspicion. I want to ask the Minister of Labour a different

question and see if he can answer this one: was Mr. Hick fired by the

Minister of Labour?

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say that the member mentioned is no longer with us, and it is a personnel matter.

SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The

minister is probably aware that a recent study by Dr. David Bates,

professor emeritus at UBC and an internationally renowned pollution

expert, disclosed that high levels of sulphur dioxide emissions from

oil refineries and cement plants can be directly related to hospital

admissions for respiratory illnesses. Is the minister aware of this

study? If so, what studies is the province undertaking to determine

whether the health of people in the lower mainland is being endangered

by this form of air pollution?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

From my perspective, I'll have to take the question on notice and give

it further examination and investigation, but inasmuch as the question

deals with human health, it would be better posed to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck).

POLLUTION CONTROL OBJECTIVES

FOR PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY

MR. JONES : New question to the minister: has the minister decided to

update the outdated pollution control objectives for these industries, which

are over 15 years old, in order to give the GVRD decent standards to work with?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, let me point out that the NDP was opposed to the last

amendments to the Waste Management Act, but that's just peripheral to

the question. When you say "update regulations for industries," what

industries do you mean?

MR. JONES : Perhaps I should be asking the questions of the minister, rather than the other way round, but to inform the minister — who should know —

of the 1974 pollution control objectives for the chemical and

petrochemical industry, the home of which is in my riding, has the

minister decided to update those outdated provisions?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Again I'd ask the member to be more specific. Are you speaking of air

discharges, air emissions or what? You don't know very much about the

science of environment, so please be more specific about what emissions

or discharges you're speaking about.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In the gallery this afternoon, we have 60 grade 5 students from Simon

Cunningham Elementary School in Surrey. They are accompanied by several

adults, including their teacher, Ms. B. Wallace, and I would ask the

House to please make them welcome.

MR. BARNES : May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES :

I'd just like to ask the House to join me in welcoming Prof. Marko

Haggard, along with two of his interns, Roman Lupinek and Julie Jacobs,

from the state of Oregon. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : I observe in the gallery some special guests to the House today, and I'd like leave to introduce them, please.

Leave granted.

MS. A. HAGEN :

We have visiting with us a number of interns from the Oregon state

legislature and their professor. I'm sorry I don't have all their names

with me today, but I would like, on behalf of the House, to welcome

them to the observation of our session today.

[ Page 7250 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $249,374 (continued).

MR. G. HANSON :

Before we broke for lunch we were discussing the neglected fisheries of

British Columbia, neglected both by the federal government and by the

province, and the issue of the high-seas driftnet fishery, where Canada

did not stand up and be counted when dealing with the Taiwanese,

Koreans and Japanese. Our fish stocks are being stolen on the high

seas, and Canada is not doing enough to put an end to the high-seas

driftnet fishery.

We talked about the lack of response of

the province of British Columbia when we had the Grays Harbor oil spill

that ended up on the beaches of Long Beach, and I'm looking forward to

responses from the minister on that.

[2:30]

The province neglected to take a stronger position when the free

trade agreement was being negotiated. The east coast fishery was

grandfathered in, and the west coast fishery was left, now subject to a

situation that neither the federal nor provincial government says it

likes but could involve the devastation of our coastal maritime

communities based on fishing in this province, because of the job

losses that may be incurred through lack of processing here. Our

position is that B.C. fish should be caught by B.C. fishermen and

processed in B.C. plants.

We have serious concerns about

the lack of firm landing requirements that would ensure value-added

activity around our premium fish products. We heard earlier on the

minister talking about the value added to agricultural products. We

have some of the best salmon and herring resources in the world.

They're desired by European nations as well as the Pacific Rim nations.

The value is added offshore to those. Even though there's a premium on

a high-grade fresh product, much of the canning is done now in

Singapore and Taiwan.

There are court cases in the United

States about salmon rerouted from the high-seas driftnet fishery. Japan

has regulations that perhaps some members are not aware of, but Japan

will only purchase salmon from countries that have salmon streams. But

certain elements within countries such as Singapore and Taiwan have

decided that they can circumvent those rules by routing fish caught on

the high seas through American or Canadian destinations to take a

Canadian label, which would then be available for the market in Japan.

Those court cases are going to be watched very carefully by all sectors

of the fishing community and certainly by this side of the House.

my remarks I've tried to indicate that we have a serious situation in

British Columbia. The marine habitat is being degraded by lack of

proper enforcement of pollution into our maritime waters, and we don't

have the capability to respond to accidents and so on.

have a very grave concern, which is that the native people of British

Columbia are increasingly being cast in the equation and being

scapegoated for the conditions and the status of the fishing industry.

I see the minister nodding his head. He understands, or if he does

understand, I would like him to explain his remarks in the Vancouver Sun

of Monday, June 5, when he indicated that aboriginal fishing rights

were somehow a threat to the fishing status within the province. He

will have the opportunity to explain his remarks, because I cannot

believe that he would see aboriginal fishing rights as a threat,

scapegoating the native people. What is required instead, Mr. Minister,

is more involvement and participation of native people in the

co-management of fisheries in this province. We would have better

habitat protection, stream enhancement, fishing regulations and

assessments of inventory and stocks if the native people had their

place at the table to discuss matters along with provincial and federal

authorities, the gill-net and seine fleets and sports fishermen, so

that they could have a voice.

We do not adopt or accept the

approach that native people are responsible for the depletion of our

fish stocks, nor do we see their desire to have a share in the

co-management of that resource as a negative thing; we see it as a

positive thing. We see that as the only way it will come about. It will

come about certainly if the New Democratic Party is elected as the

government of this province. We'll have more participation of the user

groups in the management and policy development around the protection

of our fish resources. Right now it's too fragmented.

have made a number of introductory remarks, and I would like to give

the minister an opportunity to respond to some of my points. Perhaps I

would like to hear first what representation his office has made with

respect to the high-seas driftnet fishery and whether he's satisfied

with the present situation.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : My hon.

fisheries critic has certainly raised a number of concerns in his

discussions, and across to us on this side. I'd like to say that this

government has taken the lead. The Premier of this province took the

lead on the driftnet fishery and continues to take the lead. In fact,

as of May 30, a press release was sent out relative to our concern that

we wanted to conduct a conference as quickly as we possibly could. We

have set mid-July as the date for that conference to deal with what we

deem to be a potential decimation of the Pacific fishery. I think we

have shown responsibility as quickly as we could possibly do anything

with it. We have relayed our concerns directly through to the federal

government. We are very much concerned. There isn't any doubt in my

mind that we're acting extremely responsibly on behalf of the fishing

industry, the people of

[ Page 7251 ]

Canada

and, specifically, the people of the province of British Columbia,

including our native people. I think it's important that we have a

responsibility to that resource to all. The fact that we have pushed

and pushed on this issue, through the commitment of the Premier through

this government to have an international conference take place, shows

very clearly that we in fact do care and we're very conscious of those

concerns.

He mentions a number of things of concern

relative to what happens in the GATT discussions, or where B.C. or

Canada have been in the discussions that have taken place around GATT

and herring cases that we're trying to resolve: the landing

requirements; how it impacts on jobs. You use a lot of references

there. I guess I don't have to tell you that when you're discussing

GATT things among the 95 countries, you do not use jobs as a case in

point to argue your case. You use the fact that we should be landing

those fish for conservation purposes. And we are fighting extremely

hard to insist that that be the case, that the fish must be landed.

As you well know — because the east coast was grandfathered, and I'm sure you know —

the reason the west coast was not grandfathered was, in fact, because

there was a GATT case underway, That's why it could not be

grandfathered. There was a case already lodged by Icicle Seafoods in

Seattle. Obviously Canada could not impose the same conditions on the

west coast. On the east coast, that may well still be challenged.

There's nothing in the world to stop a GATT challenge. For them to sit

across there.... They know better. So do you. If you understand GATT

rules, then you know that any one of those decisions could be

challenged. It's obvious that when there's a case before a tribunal, or

a hearing, then you can't inflict a rule and regulation before that is

adjusted to whatever the particular case is.

You referred

to a number of issues on the native fishery. What I said in the June 5

paper was that it will affect everyone, including our aboriginal

fishing rights for our native people. It will impact on everyone. What

I said is that we needed some cooperation And we have had the

opportunity. I'm not speaking solely with the native people; I'm saying

that we need cooperation among everybody — the very point you made —

to make sure the fishery is there for everybody. We have had occasion

to meet with the native people in committees of cabinet. So what we're

really saying is that there's an involvement required of everybody, and

I think I respect that, as does this government. There has to be the

cooperation that will see something happen, so we do have in fact a

future for the fishery in British Columbia.

You made some comment about the juvenile salmon that are being taken, some

originating from the Asian side of the Pacific Ocean, some from the North American

side of the Pacific Ocean. We're well aware of that, and are extremely concerned

about the fact that a lot of that salmon may well be from our own rivers. We

have raised that issue time and time again in the discussions on the driftnet.

We will continue to lobby very strongly and urge an immediate moratorium. We

have done so before. We will continue to do so, to fight strongly for what we

believe are our rights as a province and for what this country should obviously

be doing as a country to preserve the west coast fishery.

MR. GUNO :

I want to pick up on the theme that has been established by my

colleague the member from Victoria with regard to the serious situation

that exists within our fisheries industry. I do agree with his

identifying some of the major culprits in terms of why this particular

situation exists today. I think he mentioned things like the high-seas

driftnet fisheries; the incredible amount of pollution that we're

allowing to enter our major rivers and streams; the fact that many of

our industrial activities — the logging, the pulp mill operations —

are some of the major contributors to the destruction of many of our

spawning grounds; the fact that we're allowing an incredible amount of

over fishing; the high capital that exists within the industry. All

these are some of the things to which most experts will attribute the

fact that we are having a very serious crisis within the industry.

Yet

it seems to me that the most convenient scapegoat that is often

identified is the native people. That's why I'm very concerned about

the remarks the minister made to the Pacific Alliance group, who have

been set up solely to fight and to stonewall, to sandbag any efforts on

the part of the native people to try to reach some kind of just

resolution to their aboriginal rights to this important resource.

want to tell the minister that I come from a family that has been

involved over several generations in this particular industry. It was

the native people who were very much involved in the infancy of this

industry, since way back in the early 1800s. I have seen many native

fishermen who have been taken advantage of by many companies because of

the fact that they didn't know anything about business, the fact that

they had to go to companies to finance their capital and were often

almost slave bound in their relationship. So I really find the fact

that the continuing role of the native people in the industry is being

questioned as somehow being a threat to the industry.... I don't think

there is any group of people more concerned about the continuation

arid, indeed, the enhancement of the stock.

Something I

wanted to canvass with the minister is just exactly what he meant when

he told this group that's opposed to aboriginal fishing rights that

their concerns are genuine and that the B.C. government is behind them

all the way. You say you're generally concerned that these fish stocks

may be threatened. We've said the major contributors to the destruction

or diminishment of this stock are the industrial use or the single use

of much of our forest resource, which threatens many of the spawning

streams, and that there are pulp mills spilling major amounts of

dioxins into our streams. In spite of that, can the minister still

seriously say he agrees with this group on the native people's effort

to reach some kind of arrangement so that they can have some say in how

this resource can be protected and enhanced?

[ Page 7252 ]

One

of the biggest problems we have in the fishing industry is that the

decision-making has been highly centralized. There has been very little

consultation with some of the people who know exactly what the

conditions are in these various watersheds. I think the future in

management is to localize the decision-making, yet you sit down with a

group that just can't see beyond their racist attitude and that point

fingers at the native people as the main threat to this fishing

situation we are in. You talk about a cooperative approach and say it's

going to require the total cooperation of all parties if we're to

resolve this land claim In a just way, and I agree with you. At the

same time, you say the government does not intend to cooperate. Which

is it? What are you saying? What kind of cooperation do you think it

requires?

[2:45]

It's one thing to make these kinds of airy-fairy confirmations about

the approach that's required, but when it comes down to concrete

action, it seems to me this government is simply not able to do it

because of their connection with big business. I think the problem here

is that there's just too much concentration in terms of economic and

political power There's simply no opportunity for fishermen, for the

people who are engaged in the industry, to have any say in the

management of the resource. It's not so much the land claims that this

government is afraid of, but the prospect of decentralizing

decision-making so that the people who are involved, who are affected,

can have a real say.

I want to hear what the minister has to say about the kind of cooperative approach he talks about.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I guess I have to reiterate the point that I'm one member who is very

cognizant of the fact that we have some issues to deal with in the

fishery. I've made that very clear.

Referring back to some

of the things that were said which you asked me about, I said there

needed to be cooperation. Whether the jurisdiction lies solely with the

province or with the federal government, that's where either we have

jurisdiction or we don't, and it has to be cleared. It's very important

that we do. It does require cooperation to try to resolve the issue of

the fishery. To say that I'm pitting one against the other is wrong; I

wouldn't have said cooperation if that had been the case. I'm saying

the concern is for both. There is a genuine concern. I think from both

points of view we need cooperation out there to try to resolve the

issues. That's the important thing.

Let's get on with the management of the rivers, the streams — that's very important; you raised the issue yourself — and the fishery itself. We all have to work towards that. That's a responsibility we have to bear.

MR. GUNO :

That's interesting. It's really, I guess, the difference between what

you say and what you do that concerns me. On the one hand you talk

about being pleased with the apparent progress of the talks between the

Nisga'a Tribal Council and the federal government to try to reach some

kind of arrangement in terms of co-management, in terms of recognition

of certain rights that the Nisga'a people have with regard to the

salmon resource from the Nass River.

On the other hand,

your government intervened in a court case that was launched by the

Pacific Alliance committee last year to try to stop those talks. Which

is it? You say you don't know why the A-G got involved, yet at the same

time you say: "Yes, I think we should get involved. I think we should

cooperate. I think we should recognize that the native people should be

part of the solution." Have you talked to the A-G and determined why

they were intervening in this kind of case? On the one hand you talk

about establishing this kind of cooperative process, yet you have the

Attorney-General busily intervening and trying to stall that kind of

cooperative approach. Now which is it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I will not comment on why. It would be up to the Attorney-General to

respond to the legal

interpretation of why the intervention took place.

I still come back to the point that the whole fishery is extremely important

to this province. It does make an awful difference to the economy and to the

future of the native people as well as all our fishermen. Fish for food is extremely

important to our native people. We want to make sure that resource prevails.

Nothing can be more sacred than that, in my opinion. As far as the pollution

is concerned, you mentioned a number of things. I think our Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) has recognized that; this government has recognized it.

The Premier has recognized it, and we have taken the leadership and are continuing

to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Regional Development requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I believe this is the group in the gallery now. Grade 5 students from

Nelson Elementary School in Burnaby are visiting the Legislature today.

The teacher's name is Mr. Corrin, and I would ask the House to bid them

welcome.

MR. G. HANSON : This is an extremely

important subject that we're on at the moment, and I think it behooves

all members of the House to put their thinking caps on and try to

resolve this. As my colleague from Atlin says,

section 35(

l) of the

constitution includes the aboriginal right to fish. But we have court

cases that are constantly harassing native people — logjams; I

don't know how many fishing and hunting cases are jamming the courts.

We need more participation by native people in the decisionmaking that

my colleague from Atlin is talking about.

Here you have

statements in the newspaper which give the sense that you see native

people as a part of the problem, or you are siding with this group that

[ Page 7253 ]

sees native people as a part of the problem, which is certainly anything but the case.

The

aboriginal right to fish is of paramount cultural, historical, social

and economic importance to native people and communities. These

resources have been depleted and alienated from them. In order to

promote justice for both native and non-native people, the provincial

government must recognize the need for increased native involvement in

all aspects of fisheries in the context of increased stock production

based on improved management enhancement, habitat protection and

improvement.

The bottom line really is negotiating land

claims, and I know the minister sends mixed signals here. He says "I

don't know why we don't participate," or "I don't know why the province

has intervened in other cases." That's the fundamental problem. We must

negotiate the land claims.

The province is a party to it.

The province must be at the table as well. The province and the federal

government in many respects share jurisdiction over fisheries and other

aspects, and the province must be at the table. The province is the

stumbling block, and the minister knows that. The province is the

impediment to the resolution of land claims.

I would like

to ask the minister for his views on co-management involving native

people, both in the coastal estuaries and upstream in rivers. What are

his views, as minister, of the native participation in our fishery?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I keep repeating the cooperation that is required. As I have said

before, we have had native people participate in presentations to

committees of cabinet as it relates to fishing, how important the

resource is not only to the native people, but to all kinds of people

in this province and to the economy of this province. Whatever is

necessary to make sure that resource remains for all of us in the

future — including the native people and all those who rely on the resource — is there. The management of the resource is extremely important.

takes the cooperation, as I said in that news article, of all to

resolve the future of that industry and make sure it is there for

future generations. That is extremely important, and I have no problem

with participation. Cooperation is necessary, but I think it will take

some time, and I am quite willing to listen to presentations. We've

done it before.

MR. GUNO : I just want to pick up on

that particular issue. We have a consensus that we have to share the

resources. The message comes loud and clear that that is an essential

principle that we have to continue to use in dealing with this

situation.

I want to canvass from the minister the principle of decentralizing decision-making.

I know we are encroaching on largely a federal matter in terms of management,

but I think the province can take some leadership in trying to re-evaluate the

whole jurisdictional problem, in terms of trying to get a proper referral system

to protect our major spawning grounds to ensure that new economic activities — such as fish-farming — has a minimal impact on the wild stock.

view of all these new developments, is there not an opportunity for

this government to start identifying some new approaches and new

arrangements with the federal government so that we can decentralize

decision-making, and so we can include not only native people — but non-native people who are directly affected —

in decisions that are often made in Ottawa, which is so far removed

from our province, from our coast. That's a principle that I think we

really want to see this government undertake. I just wonder if the

minister has any thoughts on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I hope the member is aware that there is a federal task group in

progress that will be discussing co-management of the resource, and I

think the report goes to cabinet this fall. At that point, we will have

some discussions as a province. I have no problem with your last point

about having some more control over or say in the resource, in

conjunction with dialogue with the people who are reliant on it. I

would think, hon. member, that everybody who is affected by it should

clearly have some input into it.

If you talk about how we

deal with free trade issues, one of the possibilities is a marketing

board. There's an example of one of the things you could manage the

resource with, but it's not being considered at this stage until those

discussions are tabled in Ottawa.

Those are issues being considered, as far as I understand from a response from the federal trade department.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from Prince Rupert wants to ask a few

questions, but I would like to direct a specific question to the

minister. On southern Vancouver Island, treaties have been signed with

the native people: the Douglas treaties, the Fort Victoria treaties.

The Goldstream fishery at the lower end of the Saanich Inlet, in the

view of south Island Salish people.... The excess chum are really

viewed by them as part of their fishery.

They put a

proposal to the federal government, because there is an excess of chum

salmon that come to Goldstream for spawning purposes, that they capture

some of the fish. They would be willing to do it in such a way that

they would do a set, pick through and make sure that they just took

what they required. They would have an industry, whether it be smoking

or some value-added jarring of salmon. This would be an indigenous,

local commercial fishery based on excess chum salmon coming into the

Goldstream.

I'm sure your officials are aware of the

confrontation that has occurred in the past over who gets those excess

chum. The native people here have said: "Let us have a share." They

would have a commercial operation. They would take 40 percent of any

profit they made from the commercial enterprise and return

[ Page 7254 ]

to the federal government for enhancement of federal fisheries. They

were turned down. That excess harvest was let to a private consortium.

Here

we have a treaty area where there is a dispute about what aboriginal

rights mean in terms of their own future. If that kind of question

cannot be negotiated satisfactorily and amicably, to the mutual

satisfaction of the people who signed treaties in good faith and now

want to define precisely what their aboriginal fishing rights mean, and

whether they can have a share in it for their own needs and for the

commercial possibilities that could exist around the excess chum, and

it's deflected away and given to another group.... I'd like to hear the

minister’s views on that.

[3:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of the details of the reasoning for that

being turned down, but I would hope that through due process we could

have cooperation. I find it hard to believe that it would be forever

and a day, if that were the case. It may have been a decision that I'm

not aware of. I certainly don't have the details of the particular

question you asked, but it sounds to me like there needs to be a little

more cooperation, from my

interpretation of what you're saying.

Possibly we could find out the details of why the federal government

did not accept the proposal.

MR. G. HANSON : Further

to that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the minister whether,

if the facts as I am relating them to him are substantiated — that

in fact the south Island people made a proposal to Fisheries so they

could capture the excess chum for a commercial enterprise, and they

would then plow back 40 percent of any profit for enhancement, hatchery

capacity or whatever — he would be willing to support such a

proposal, so the native people in this region could have their own

indigenous, commercial, value-added industry around a fishery which

they feel is partly theirs.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I

wouldn't want to comment until I see the details of the reasoning for

its being turned down. I'm not aware of it at all, quite frankly, and

once we find the details, I'll be more prepared to answer the question.

At this stage I'm not at liberty to make a decision on something I'm

totally unaware of, other than that I know it's been turned down.

MR. MILLER :

I read the story, and perhaps the minister might want to comment on the

accuracy of what appeared in the Vancouver Sun on Monday, June 5. If he

wants to, that's fine, but I want to ask a number of questions about

statements attributed to you. We'll find out first of all whether

they're correct and secondly what you might have meant by some of the

statements.

First of all, you're quoted as saying: "This government will not stand

by and watch while a three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar industry is placed in

jeopardy...you are not alone." Could the minister explain just what he

meant by that statement?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We were referring to the driftnet fishery, and I think it's important

to recognize that we have a very real concern. I'm sure lots of

biological reports will come forward about the impact after we have

these observers make some comment, but what we're really concerned with

is that we cannot have the Pacific fishery — and it's right; it is worth three-quarters of a billion dollars —

jeopardized by the high-seas driftnet fishery. In fact, we've asked

time and again for a moratorium or closure because we don't know the

exact impact, but we don't want it to be responded to when it's too

late. We need some action now. If the fishery is decimated, that

doesn't do anybody any good. So we want action as soon as we can get it.

MR. MILLER :

I see the Premier wants to get into it, and I don't want to keep him

out of it. In fact, I welcome his involvement, because I've got several

questions that he might be able to answer too.

But before I continue with this newspaper

article — because quite clearly it's not the context it's delivered in, and I want to question you further on that —

let's deal specifically with the driftnet fishery. Certainly it's of

concern to all people who have any concern about the fishing and

fish-processing industry in British Columbia and the tremendous

economic value that it brings to this province: the jobs, etc.

Would

the minister be prepared to take a position that this government should

not deal with the government of Taiwan in terms of a steel mill as long

as they are participating in the driftnet fishery? Let's get down to

brass tacks. Are you prepared to take that kind of position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I will not comment at this stage on future actions that may be

necessary. We'll go through the process, then we'll adjust and make

decisions accordingly.

MR. MILLER : It seems to me

that the minister is prepared to talk, but he's not prepared to do

anything. We've seen the sad and sorry history. If I was in charge of

some of the federal departments that got involved in this GATT thing,

heads would roll. This is the biggest boondoggle, the biggest mess,

ever created by a government that I've ever seen.

If this

government is truly concerned about the impact of the driftnet fishery,

what specific measures...? You can talk till the cows come home — maybe you've heard that expression, since you're a farmer —

but sometimes you have to, as they say in the industry, fish or cut

bait. What specifically are you going to do beyond talking? Surely

there is a coercive power in terms of dealing with our trading partners.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Did you say coercive? Is that what I heard?

[ Page 7255 ]

MR. MILLER : That's right. Coercive.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think you ought to reconsider that statement. We will go through the

proper procedures of discussions with them. The impact may revert the

other way. How coercive could you be? I think we ought to really raise

the concerns and go through the proper process — as we are doing.

I'll say time and again that this province is leading the way. We are

working very strongly. The Premier raised the issue strongly on behalf

of the people of this province, and we're following it up as a ministry

with the Premier's office to push as quickly as we possibly can for a

complete moratorium or closure, and at least have a discussion or

conference on how to handle this serious issue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I just want to make a couple of comments, since we've been talking a

great deal about fisheries, and I agree that it's a very important

industry for the province. I think what we've heard the minister say

and what we ought to all agree with in the House is that we manage this

resource efficiently and effectively and that we do not see a situation

where people will do things that might deplete a part or the whole of

that resource. Hopefully it's here to serve the people for many

centuries to come. It's not just an industry for today or tomorrow;

it's to be with us for many years.

I object to the driftnet

fishing taking place in the Pacific now. I think it's a horrendous

crime, where they put out nets that are 35 to 50 kilometres in length.

There are enough ships out there that we could put all that netting

around the globe twice or two and a half times, and they catch anything

and everything from whales, dolphins, squid, salmon, herring, you name

it, indiscriminately. It's a horrendous crime, and I agree that we must

protest vigorously and that we must petition the federal government by

whatever means is necessary to take some action in that regard. It may

be that if we can't come together with the parties involved, they need

to take some fairly radical action. I don't argue that.

similarly object to, frankly, fish-nets at the mouth of a river. I

don't think that's a part of managing the system. I object to the

fish-nets in the ocean. I object to the fish-nets at the mouth of a

river, because that too is interfering with the resource in a way it

was never intended and in a way that shouldn't be allowed.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I believe, as the minister said, that all of us whether an NDP member or Social Credit — regardless of what group of society we're with in British Columbia — need to work together to assure that we efficiently and effectively manage this resource.

MR. CLARK : Are you going to work with the native community?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Intervention from the second member for Vancouver East — a real fisherman. Tell me about it.

AN HON. MEMBER : And a farmer — a fish farmer.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : And a farmer —

the whole thing. I think his question was: "What about the native

people." I agree that obviously there are many natives in this land

that see the fish as a resource for sustenance, and we need to respect

that. I don't have any argument with this at all. I don't think you've

heard argument from this side of the House on that point. It's been

made, and it's been made effectively.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

That doesn't mean we put up nets across the mouth of a river. I don't

think the people, regardless of what group they're with or where

they're from in the province, would agree with that approach, because

that interferes terribly with the management of a resource. This

resource can serve the people for a long, long time. It's appropriately

dealt with by agriculture, just as agriculture has to deal with other

forms of farming. I'm very pleased that there is a greater

consciousness developing in the province for the management of the

resource.

Just briefly, I'd like to mention as well that we

certainly should fight for a fair share from Ottawa. I don't believe

that we're getting a fair share when it comes to industrial milk. I'm

not saying this because it will somehow provide jobs — and it will —

for the people in creating new industries in many communities

throughout the province. I'm not saying this because I think that with

a fair share we'll see a better utilization of agricultural lands. I'm

not saying this because I think it will make our job easier in assuring

that we maintain a good supply of agricultural lands — although I do agree that agricultural land used is far easier to save than agricultural land left to waste.

I'm

saying this too, Mr. Minister, because I believe if we can get a fair

share from Ottawa on the industrial milk, we'll see many new young

people getting involved in dairy farming. It's a wonderful industry,

one that I'm very proud of. I came as a youngster from a country which

was built on that very industry. I think it's of tremendous value to

every nation — and to our province and every province in the country — that we have a strong agricultural base. Dairy farming is much a part of that strong agricultural base.

have in this province many young farmers who would like to get into

dairying, but they can't simply because we've not been allotted a fair

share of that available quota. As a matter of fact, as I understand it,

we receive only about 6.3 percent or thereabouts — you can correct me if I'm wrong — of the national quota, while just by comparison, for example, Quebec

[ Page 7256 ]

receives about 47 percent of the industrial milk quota. That's not fair. That must be addressed.

Our

young people should have the opportunity to get into dairy farming just

as much as someone in Quebec or Ontario. They have as much right living

in British Columbia as if they were living in Ontario or Quebec.

Similarly, when you drive through the Fraser Valley there are thousands

of acres of land going to weed — sword ferns and thistles. It's

not being utilized as it ought to be or could be, just because we don't

have the opportunity to produce that industrial milk for our own use.

MR. CLARK : Let them produce it illegally.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. There will be ample opportunity during these estimates.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The second member says: "Let them produce illegally." He thinks that's

okay. I disagree with you. I think if it's illegal it shouldn't be

allowed, and whatever the authority, they ought to pursue that —

not you or I, perhaps, but certainly the authority responsible ought to

pursue that. I don't think that's so much a question as to whether they

produce legally or illegally. If it's illegal, it shouldn't be done.

[3:15]

I do think, however, that there's an opportunity for them to overproduce.

If they can find a market for the milk they submit — I believe it's about

75 percent back to the national marketing board, which then distributes it among

the provinces with most of it going to Quebec or Ontario. So the system is wrong;

it needs to be changed. There's an opportunity here for young people to

get into farming, an opportunity for us to use the land and for us to create

new industries and thousands of jobs. Mr. Minister, I hope you will continue

to press this aggressively.

I'm

also pleased to see that we basically have a very healthy agriculture

industry. I guess all things are relative. Some people might compare it

to other activities and say, "Well, it isn't what it could be or should

be," and I suppose based on such a comparison we might agree. But

generally speaking, our agriculture industry, compared to what it is

across the country, the continent or elsewhere in the world, is doing

fairly well. I'm very pleased about this, and I'm hoping that we might

see greater diversity in that industry.

I'm very pleased to

see that our greenhouse operators are doing very well. As a matter of

fact, I visited a greenhouse operation in Langley only recently. It's a

16-acre ultra-modern operation, and they produce peppers and lettuce.

The peppers are shipped to California, Oregon, Washington and New

York — those are some of their best markets. We can compete if it's done properly, and these people are doing an excellent job.

All of this greenhouse produce — certainly in these more modern plants — is

produced biologically; I believe that's the term for it. They have little

bugs that are produced and imported from Vancouver Island, the United States

and Europe, and these are introduced to the greenhouse to eat the aphids, red

spiders and the thrips. That's an excellent approach, because certainly

I'm sure that I can speak for everyone here when I say we have a tremendous

concern about chemicals on food. I believe we're going in the right direction.

I would ask, Mr. Minister, that we encourage this.

think perhaps there's more we can do in extension services to assist

people in industry. I would much prefer that we give our farmers, be

they dairy farmers, cattle ranchers, greenhouse growers or field

croppers, information and assistance through the extension services

rather than to be out there giving them grants, because we want to

assist them through the process of grants. If we can work on the

extension services as opposed to the grant system, I think that would

be a move in the right direction.

Mr. Minister, I'm sure

other members will wish to speak to this as well, but I can say that

I'm very pleased with the direction I see developing. There's still

much more that can be done, particularly in getting equity from Ottawa

and particularly too in diversifying the industry a little bit more.

Possibly there are some things we might do differently from the way

they've been done in the past, but generally the industry is strong.

It's very important to the province and we should do everything

possible as a government — you as minister representing that community too — to encourage more people to get into industry and to do a still better job at farming.

MR. MILLER : At the risk of offending the rules, I'm tempted to ask the Premier how to keep the slugs off my wife's geraniums.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Premier could probably answer that question, and I could also

answer that question, but the rules are not going to be offended while

I'm in the chair. Advice on such matters can be solicited privately in

the corridors.

MR. MILLER : Right on.

I'm

pleased that the Premier feels that we need to manage our fisheries

efficiently and effectively and that he objects to the driftnet

fishery. I don't know when he first became aware of the problem of the

driftnet fishery, and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture might advise

us when he first became aware of the problem, because certainly it's

been around for a long time prior to the Premier making his statement.

The

Premier objects to fish-nets at river mouths. I'm glad to hear that as

well, and I hope he has conveyed that feeling to his Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who made an absolutely outrageous

statement last year at 100 Mile House to a tourist group that he would

like to do away with a commercial fishing fleet and put nets at river

mouths. I hope that you managed to get that little paradox straightened

out.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : One thing about our party: we allow different views.

[ Page 7257 ]

MR. MILLER : You certainly do contain differing views, Mr. Minister of Education. It's very difficult — if we go back to the Premier's desire to manage efficiently and effectively —

if we get these differing views being uttered publicly by cabinet

ministers. It's extremely difficult to develop an efficient and

effective management system under those conditions.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We allow our people to think as individuals.

MR. MILLER : Well, I'm glad you allow them to think, but some of them you shouldn't allow to think out loud.

MR. CHAIRMAN : For the sake of Hansard ,

and for the sake of the Chair, I'd ask the Minister of Education to

restrain himself or perhaps enter this debate a little later on.

Perhaps if you would address the Chair, Mr. Member, we could have a

more orderly debate.

MR. MILLER : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection against the vicious assault by the Minister of Education.

I'd

like to go back to the line of questioning I started with in terms of

this newspaper article. The minister responded to my direct question

when he was talking about the driftnet fishery, and yet the context is

completely wrong. I'm going to read it, because I want to canvass the

issue again. The

article that I'm referring to is in the Vancouver Sun

of Monday, June 5, and very briefly it says:

"B.C.

Fisheries Minister John Savage has told a controversial group opposed

to aboriginal fishing rights that their concerns are genuine and the

B.C. government is behind them all the way. 'You are genuinely

concerned that these fish stocks that you really rely on may be

threatened,' Savage said, 'Let me assure you, you are not alone.'

"Referring

to 'special interest groups,' Savage told a weekend meeting of the

industry-supported Pacific Fishermen's Alliance, which has been

condemned as racist by several native Indian organizations: 'This

government will not stand by and watch while a

three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar industry is placed in jeopardy...you

are not alone.'"

Quite clearly, Mr. Minister, the context of that and you are quite free to stand up and say it's all out of whack —

leads me and anybody else who reads this

article to believe that you

are, in fact, supporting the alliance's objection to the negotiations

that are currently taking place between the federal government and the

Nisga'as with regard to quotas on the Nass River. I will again put my

question to you: is this

article wrong?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I guess you could say that the

article is wrong; it is taken out of

context, because my reference at that time to the jeopardy of the

three-quarter-billion-dollar industry was that of the driftnet fishery.

MR. MILLER : Conversely, Mr. Minister, you obviously are not concerned —

or maybe that's not the correct way to put it. You have no concern,

then, or don't feel that the current negotiations in fact are

jeopardizing the fish stocks.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : What

I said was that we need cooperation so that we make sure we have the

longevity of the industry, the Pacific coast fisheries. I didn't say

that it would necessarily jeopardize it, but we need the cooperation of

all to make sure we solve It so that there is a future for the

industry. That's the point I was trying to make.

MR. MILLER :

There are negotiations currently taking place. They are limited in this

respect, that the federal government only has jurisdiction over the

fishery, and obviously that's something that's on the table. I repeat

my question. Are you of the opinion that the negotiations in fact are

not a threat to fish stocks?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I

don't believe that I have all the details of the negotiation, nor do I

know the full extent of what is being put on the table in negotiation.

What I am concerned about — and I keep repeating it — is the

future of the fishing industry in this province, on the Pacific coast,

and if the negotiating process involves cooperation, then, as I said,

if we have to sit down, let's do it. If there is any jeopardy relative

to the talks that are going on, whether it's of a federal nature with

our native people or whether we talk about the whole Pacific coast

fishery with the federal Fisheries and Oceans people, I think we need

to have more cooperation.

MR. GUNO : I just want to

follow up on my colleague's line of questioning to the minister; I

think it's important to canvass further what he means by cooperation.

First

of all, I just wanted to make a brief comment on the Premier's

reference to certain groups putting up nets across the river. I don't

think that any of us are in doubt as to who he is talking about, and

that is some of the native tribes that do practise this. I think that

if the minister were to refer to any statistics showing the amount of

fish that are being caught by different users — and I think maybe he should refer to his experts —

he would see that by and large the commercial fishery, the sports

fishery and other users like that take the majority of the stock,

really, that is being caught.

If you compare that, you will

see, if it is put on a graph, that the amount caught by the native food

fishery is really minimal. It's something like 1 percent. For the

Premier to compare the high-seas driftnet fishery with people putting

nets across the river as somehow being equal, I think, is really to

trivialize the problem that we have and the serious risk that these

high-seas driftnet fisheries are presenting to our fish stock.

reconfirms my earlier contention that when we need a scapegoat, we trot

out the native people, who are only trying to exercise a historic right

that is recognized by the constitution.

[ Page 7258 ]

we are going to undertake this cooperative approach that you are

saying.... And I agree with you. I think that a cooperative approach

means a willingness to sit down, a willingness to negotiate. Given that

you feel that this is a very important approach and that it's the only

way that we are going to deal with the serious problems we are facing

in the whole fishing industry, can you assure us that you are going to

try and convince your colleagues that the adversarial legal harassment

that has been going on in terms of denying the native people that

simple, fundamental right which has been recognized by the courts and

confirmed and entrenched by the constitution will not go on.

As long as that is going on, what you say about cooperation just simply rings hollow, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I've never considered cooperation, discussion or dialogue to be hollow

if you've got a purpose in mind and a goal and objective to obtain.

Certainly I have some concern about your assuming, I presume, that the

Premier's comments were directed at the native fishery. I did not take

that to be directed at the native fishery at all; I think he had a

concern about nets at the mouths of rivers. I think the overall concern

we should have is the conservation and management of the fishery, no

matter what river it is, and that entails cooperation — and I'll stick with that word —

between all the users of the fishery. I well appreciate how important

the native rights are to the food fishery, but I think it behooves us

all to cooperate in an effort to maintain it not only for the native

people but for the whole group of people involved.

MR. MILLER :

Going back to the topic I was discussing before, the minister says in

response, first of all, that he was talking about the driftnet fishery;

he wasn't talking about the concerns the alliance had So I asked him

whether or not, if that was the case, he had concerns, and he said he

didn't have enough details; he didn't really know. Yet he went and

spoke to a meeting of the alliance, and said that their concerns were

genuine and that the B.C. government is behind them all the way.

[3:30]

Did the minister make that statement because he didn't know all the

details? Is that the kind of statement you make when you don't know all

the details? Do you say, as you said to the alliance, that you are

genuinely concerned: "Let me assure you, you are not alone." Is that

the kind of statement you make when you don't know all of the details,

Mr. Minister? Do you know the details or not? Are you concerned or not?

Do you think these negotiations are a threat or not? Let's not be

ambiguous here; let's say it like it is.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I suppose I'd be a very poor Fisheries minister if I didn't concern

myself with the future of the industry and the stocks. The driftnet

fishery, in my opinion, could jeopardize the

three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar industry, and I think that has to be

made very clear. That's what I'm saying: there is jeopardy, in my

opinion, if we don't come to grips with the issue of the driftnet

fishery. The management of the stocks that go up the river.... I stated

very clearly that we need cooperation on the future of the Pacific

coast fishery.

MR. MILLER : Did any of the minister's remarks at the meeting — and I think this is fundamental — have

to do with the primary purpose, and really the only raison d'tre, of

the alliance, which was formed as a result of opposition to the federal

government undertaking negotiations? We know that the previous

Attorney-General took a position in that regard by trying to get an

injunction to derail those negotiations. Is the minister saying that he

did not address that issue at all and that these remarks do not concern

those fundamental issues, which are of vital importance to the

alliance? Do you mean you weren't talking about their concerns when you

made these statements?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It does not

just fall on the Pacific fishery. When I was addressing the group, I

said that the pressures fall on a finite and fragile resource: our fish

stocks. It doesn't mean it's just the B.C. situation; we talked about

the whole driftnet fishery, the Pacific Ocean, what happens out there,

how many come back to British Columbia. All of these things were

considered in my discussions with them.

MR. MILLER : I think we're drifting, Mr. Minister.

You

also said that the resolution of outstanding title "will necessitate

the full cooperation of all the parties." Is the minister giving at

least some tacit admission that aboriginal title exists?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

What I am saying is that no matter what the issue, we need to

cooperate. I'm not saying one thing or the other. Some are federal

issues with land claims, as you are saying — or as others have

said. And if that's the case with the federal government, as the

minister responsible for the province and in charge of fisheries, I

think we have to look at the fishery that exists on the Pacific coast.

That's my major concern, and I hope we get cooperation.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Minister, you were asked later.... Again, you are quite free to

refute any of the statements I quote from this newspaper article.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Research in depth.

MR. MILLER :

Look, if I had been at the meeting, I would have asked the questions

from firsthand knowledge. Not having been at the meeting, it's

incumbent upon me, and perhaps upon the minister.... If he feels the

story is inaccurate, he might wish to correct it. This is a perfect

opportunity for him to do so. The Minister of Education should not be

too critical of my research. The minister is free to stand up and

respond to any question I put to him on

[ Page 7259 ]

this matter, and the record will be in Hansard . I think that's probably preferable.

I'm

quoting from the article: "Asked later what he meant by 'full

cooperation' in the settlement of land claims, Savage said he didn't

mean that the B.C. government would cooperate...." Does that not strike

you as a fundamental contradiction, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

What was meant by that statement is that in some cases it's a federal

native claim issue; it's not the jurisdiction of this government. That

was what I meant by that statement.

MR. MILLER : Do we, Mr. Minister, to your knowledge, maintain observer status at those negotiations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I could find that answer out for sure. I'm not positive on that one.

MR. MILLER :

I'll wait for your response on that but if the answer is yes, it would

be realistic to assume that the B.C. government is fully apprised of

every detail that is being negotiated and the implications of those

negotiations for the fishery. I assume that would be the case if the

answer is yes.

The

article goes on to state that you

thought continuation of the negotiations is a positive sign. It then

says: "Savage said he didn't know why his government wouldn't

participate in land claims talks and wasn't sure why the B.C.

government has attempted to halt the Ottawa-Nisga'a negotiations." Is

that an accurate statement, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : What I stated was that I wasn't clear what the legal ramifications were of why they did not participate in it.

MR. MILLER :

Forgive me, Mr. Minister, if I have some difficulty. Having seen this

topic discussed on numerous occasions in this House, knowing that your

government has expressed its position publicly on a number of

occasions, it's quite surprising that as a minister of this government

you would be unaware of your government's position. I really have some

difficulty understanding that position on your part As the minister

involved and responsible for fisheries, surely you would be better

versed on this issue than some of your colleagues. That comes as quite

a surprise. I only hope you've been briefed on the issue since the

meeting — since your public statements.

If I have a

criticism as a result of the questions I've now asked and the answers

I've received, it's that surely this is a very sensitive issue in this

province, and one on which there is a fundamental debate. There's

nothing wrong with that. But it's not an issue that needs to be fanned.

The flames don't need to be fanned in terms of the negotiations and the

desire — and I think quite a legitimate desire — of native

people in this province to become more involved in the economic life of

this province. From my vantage point, I think they have in many

instances been effectively shut out of those opportunities. It

certainly does not need to be fanned, Mr. Minister.

I would

highly recommend that in order to set the record straight publicly....

If I were misquoted as often as you say this

article misquotes you and

puts your comments in contexts that you say are not accurate, I would

want to correct the record by writing a letter to the newspaper in

question and setting down my position quite clearly in terms of these

remarks. As you are well aware, it could be quite dangerous having

those misinterpretations out there.

As the minister may

have seen from across the floor, I'm wearing a button. It's a salmon

with a maple leaf in the background, and it reads: "Our country, our

fish, our communities." This button is being distributed by all groups

who are now working to preserve the processing industry on the west

coast of British Columbia. I tend to get quite angry when I review the

history of this particular dispute, and I'm really talking about what

was originally an unfair trade practice complaint filed by U.S.

processors.

The Prince Rupert fishermen's co-op went up to Alaska and purchased a very small quantity of herring. I forget what it was —

200 or 300 tonnes. It wasn't that much. It wasn't really of significant

value. The processors in Alaska got mad about that and filed an unfair

trade complaint under

section 301 of the U.S. legislation. From that

very small beginning.... The value of the product was, in some

estimations, $3 million. I have a brief that was produced in December

'87. I think the minister has acknowledged that it certainly was less

than $9 million. We're talking about a minor amount of fish. From 1986

or 1987 until the present time, that little dispute has grown to the

extent that our west coast processing industry is severely threatened.

I don't know the number to use in talking about the threats to

processing jobs. I don't know what's accurate; maybe nobody knows at

this point. But certainly it's significant.

As I said

earlier in the debate, I think this issue was as badly bungled and as

badly handled as any issue I have ever seen dealt with by government. I

don't think the provincial government was the primary culprit; I think

it was the federal government, those incompetents who dealt with this

issue. I suspect that in this country we're suffering from that sort of

Pearsonian image of the great conciliatories or conciliatators....

Maybe Hansard will correct the word, but everybody knows what I meant.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Feel free to tell Hansard what you actually did mean.

MR. MILLER : Conciliators.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Conciliators would be an easier word for them to spell.

MR. MILLER :

I think we're suffering sometimes because of that, and it disturbs me

as a Canadian, because I think we have a lot to stand up and be

[ Page 7260 ]

proud of and fight for. When we take this "we'll find the common ground; we'll always negotiate," we end up losing.

was struck one night last December watching "The Journal," a panel of

three people across Canada dealing with some of the trade issues. I

believe it was a banker who said, quite rightly, that there are times

when a country — and let's talk about our relationship with the United

States — knowing it's in the weaker position, nonetheless has to

be prepared to take a strong position, even if the retaliation hurts.

It's somewhat akin to something probably every one of us went through

when we were kids: running into a bully in the schoolyard. If you let

him get away with it every day, he will never let up on you. If he

knows it's going to cost him something — "Sure, you can beat me up, but I'm going to get in my licks too" — then he starts to back off.

Quite

often I talk to my trade union friends about their position in terms of

negotiating contracts and the history of the trade union movement, of

people banding together to negotiate collective agreements against

quite a lot of adversity. I was pleased to read about the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) standing up on Friday and extolling the

virtues of the IWA and the struggle that they had. I'm on topic, Mr.

Chairman; I'm getting to it. In the face of some adversity there was

common cause, there was the feeling of rightness on their side, and

they ultimately prevailed. Yet in Canada we've seen.... I've put

together all the Hansards on the referral of this fish dispute problem

to GATT. On July 9, 1987, I raised the issue with the minister in his

estimates and cautioned that this was going to grow into a larger

issue, and asked if we were on top of it, and if the federal government

was on top of it.

I sense the frustration when I talk to

people in the industry who have fought for two years to make sense of

this issue. They understand in a very common way that these resources

belong to this nation, and they don't understand why the resources

should not be processed by people who live in this country, by British

Columbians. It hits the button: our fish, our communities.

was at a dance. The people in my community have been fund-raising for

the last two weeks so that they can send a delegation of working people

back to Ottawa to prevail upon the federal politicians to take a good,

honest, tough position in protecting the resources of this country. I'm

proud of those people. They've raised $10,000 in the last two weeks by

having tag days, dances and barbecues. I get a feeling inside when I go

to those things and see those people working together, hand in hand,

regardless of whether they're native Indian or East Indian people,

regardless of their ancestry. They're working together and fighting for

a common cause. I think we have an obligation to carry that cause

forward.

[3:45]

I want to ask the minister, particularly.... I know there's a

committee, and I know there have been meetings. But I also sense the

very high level of frustration from people in the fishing industry when

they go to these endless meetings, and we beat around the bush in terms

of what we can do and what the possibilities are. I want to ask the

minister to respond to what I've had to say and to advise this House

just what the options are. I don't want to tip anybody's hand in terms

of that. If the minister feels that there is a danger there, don't talk

about it. But I want to know what we're going to do in the final

analysis. I don't want to see this thing trickle away like water over a

dam so that next year we're gathered here in this House again and, oh,

it's too bad; we'll add a few more dozen pages to Hansard ;

and there goes our industry. I'm quite serious about this, Mr.

Minister, perhaps because I come from a community that has relied on

the fishing industry really since its inception. I would like you to

advise me on just where your ministry is going, what the options are,

etc.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I appreciate the member's

dialogue. A good part of what you were concerned about was relative to

the GATT issue. We have had numerous discussions. We have had the

Premier's advisory group. We have had the fishing industry involved.

The UFAWU have expressed their concerns, which you have identified.

They're worried about their future, their communities, the resource and

their jobs — all of which the government has supported their

position on. We have steadfastly stood our ground to say that the

resource belongs to British Columbia. For conservation purposes, we

require that the fish be landed in British Columbia, and I think that

is very clear. It's a matter of record, and we have not changed that.

Contrary to what some might think, our position still remains very

strong. We have supported the industry and we are insisting that the

federal government bring in the landing requirements necessary for

that. That's where we are as a government today. We have not changed

that.

MR. MILLER : The minister is aware that the

issue has been referred to a panel under the FTA. If I may just take a

moment to be critical, I think there really was, in relation to GATT

and the FTA, a complete lack of understanding of the implications. I

know that many British Columbians were concerned about this. I recall

the statements of the federal Minister of Fisheries, and the minister

must recall them as well. The minister said that this was not a free

trade issue. Now the dispute has been referred to a dispute settlement

panel under the free trade agreement, leaving us with the only

conclusion we can possibly draw: it is indeed a free trade issue,

because the free trade agreement made GATT rulings binding.

had some room to move in terms of GATT. The east coast processors are

going to find out.... I think they're next on the agenda, because I

think the U.S. has a larger agenda.

It's going to a panel.

Has the minister looked at the possibility of using a device similar to

the Magnuson Act and similar to that

section of our Forest Act — in other words, a surplus test?

[ Page 7261 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I do not agree with the member that the results are binding. In my

opinion, Canada does not have to accept that decision. I don't believe

that under.... I think it was on May 23 they agreed to go to the

dispute settlement panel, but the FTA was already in place. Any

disputes between the two countries.... Even though the dispute was

first launched under GATT, once the FTA is in place any disputes

between the two countries have to be under the FTA. That's the reason

it is going to that panel. Two Canadians and two Americans will be

chosen to hear that, and I think we will have some resolution at some

point. But that does not mean it's binding; I do not think Canada has

to accept that.

MR. MILLER : If Canada does not have

to accept, what is the difference between the penalties that could have

been imposed under GATT and the penalties that could be imposed under

the FTA, if there is any?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I don't

think there'd be any doubt that any penalties imposed would have to be

of a GATT-consistent nature. Obviously we don't know the details of

what those penalties will be, but what we're saying.... Your point was

made earlier, hon. member, that the dollar value in question is

something in the range of $3 million upwards; some would argue up to as

high as $11 million. I would probably tend to agree with you that it's

more likely between $3 million and $9 million. Just maybe we will have

to say that we'll accept the retaliation, but we're going to keep the

industry going.

MR. MILLER : Those are indeed welcome

words, Mr. Minister. I certainly hope it doesn't have to come to that.

But if it does, I would be prepared to support you wholeheartedly,

without any equivocation in terms of maintaining the capability and

nature of our processing industry here in British Columbia.

Very

quickly, a couple of other questions. With regard to floating

processors, I'm a bit unclear as to what exactly the ministry's

position is. I don't mind advising you what mine is: I'm opposed to

them. I don't seem to have it right in front of me, but I've got the

policy document from the ministry. I believe that when I asked the

minister at some previous point, he said: "We're not issuing licences

for floating processors." Nonetheless, there is the possibility that

that could happen. I guess we can't guarantee things into the future,

but in light of the discussion we just had and the perils that exist in

terms of floating processors operating in our waters, would the

minister be prepared to be very unequivocal about it — that we will simply not entertain, at any point, the notion of floating processors in our waters?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

As you know, and I think you raised the issue very clearly, we do not

at this point accept floating processing licences. What happens in the

future I cannot speak for, nor for another person who may come forward.

No matter who comes forward with a proposal, as a minister I am

obligated to look at proposals. I have always had an open-door policy,

and I am sure you are well aware of that, no matter what proposal may

come forward, whether it's from a floating processor or a fisheries

concern of any kind. But we have not to this day allowed a floating

processor licence.

MR. MILLER : I want to turn

finally to an issue that is of some concern in one part of my riding

and to ask the minister what his involvement may be. It's the whole

conflict that is currently taking place between, for lack of a better

term, the recreational or sports fishery... I really don't like to use

that term; I think there should be some clearer

definitions. I think it

is clear that there are probably two or three categories on the

recreational side. There is the Sunday fisherman: you or me or our

neighbour who likes to go out and take advantage of the opportunities

that exist in this province. I never get a chance myself; maybe this

summer, but....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER :

Why don't I go home? The government side is asking me to go home. In

any event, you know what I'm talking about. We're talking about our

neighbours, who like to go out and throw a line in the water and who

like to catch something. If you're like me, most of the time you come

back empty-handed, but you're the better for it, because you've spent a

day outside or on the water, and....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : Believe me, Mr. Minister, I am no threat to the fish of this province, absolutely none.

have that group of so-called sports fishermen. We've got, I think, a

modest-sized commercial operation, in terms of some of the people I

know in Prince Rupert, friends of mine who have a boat and in the

summertime take people out on fishing charters. Some of those people

come from outside the province, and there is a kind of small industry

there; I don't know how I would characterize it. And then there is the

larger category of really commercial sports fishermen. In contrast to

that — and we're really talking, up in my region, about Chinook —

are the trollers, the commercial fishermen who have traditionally made

a living catching those Chinook and the higher-quality fish which are

sold on the fresh market.

Essentially, the allocation issue

is a federal one. It is the federal government that allocates various

sizes or the sizes of the fishery that go to these components, although

it appears to me that there is some deficiency in the allocation on the

sports side because of our licensing arrangement. It is quite easy to

say to the commercial trollers: "Look, you've reached your quota; the

fishery is over." More and more of those fisheries are of very short

duration. We see that in halibut, for example. The halibut fishery is

now down to a very small number of days. Yet on the sports side,

individuals are licensed and they are

[ Page 7262 ]

restricted

on a daily basis to what they can catch. I have been informed that in

the Charlottes, over 80 percent of the fish that are taken by the

recreational side are good-sized fish; they are over 30 pounds. Clearly

they are in there and they have access to those choice fish in terms of

maintaining that industry.

This issue is growing in

concern. The Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) became involved

in a brief moratorium that was put on further fishing lodges on Graham

Island. There were two. The study was done, and they recommended that

that be increased by one; so there are now three. I note in the local

paper that there is an application to the lands branch to apply for a

lease. So here we have increased by half the number of

commercial-recreational fishing lodges, and the issue is growing.

Would

the minister advise whether or not he has been involved to any extent

in the issue, through meetings with his federal counterpart or maybe at

the ministry level, in terms of trying to come to some kind of

resolution on this issue?

[4:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think about 1962 was the last time I was on the salt chuck, and I

guess I was a little luckier; I caught two Coho. But it's been a long

time, like you, since I have had the opportunity to go fishing on our

waters.

You asked about what process we are going through.

I would like to say that from the sport-fishery point of view.... I

guess I have to come back to: how can we cooperate to share our

concerns and our regard for all aspects of the fishery? We have been

having some discussions in conjunction with the industry and, of

course, the Ministry of Environment and federal Fisheries, all of which

will be players in future policy. I think that's very important. Our

staff have participated. Once those discussions are finished, we

provide that information and advice to Mr. Siddon's office at Fisheries

and Oceans, Ottawa.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Both members could perhaps approach the Chair a little later, and I could help you with your weekend problem.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, it's not through lack of offers; it's the onerous duties

of being an MLA in British Columbia that have kept the rod from my

hands.

Just to follow up on that, there's a meeting this

Sunday on the Queen Charlotte Islands, and it involves the local

advisory commission. They're trying to come to grips with the issue. I

wonder if the minister could either prevail upon one of his officials

or have a consultation with one of his colleagues, perhaps the Minister

Responsible for Crown Lands, who was involved in the decision in terms

of the moratorium. It was, after all, the Minister Responsible for

Crown Lands who initially announced the moratorium on Graham. Perhaps

the minister could make a commitment to try to have a representative of

the provincial government at that meeting. I could provide a contact

person and details on the time. I fear this issue will only get worse,

and I think it's in the best interests of both the recreational — again differentiating between the various sectors — and the commercial to get it resolved.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I would be pleased If the hon. member would provide me with those details, and I will discuss it with my staff.

MR. MILLER :

I know that my colleagues have other issues they want to pursue with

the minister, I think in terms of that GATT issue, and also the

driftnet fishery. The driftnet was one of the first issues I dealt

with. I took a rather strong position, and I don't want to back off

from that position. I think we should be prepared to say to our trading

partners that we have some criteria, some conditions we're prepared to

take very strong measures on in terms of resolving this.

The

minister took the position that he wants to see the process work. just

what is the process, and where does he see it going, at least in the

short term?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I'd like to advise the

member, as I did the member for Victoria, that we are certainly

concerned. There is no doubt about the fact that the province is very

concerned and taking the lead. What we have done in the process is to

ask for a conference. In fact, it's scheduled, as I have stated, for

mid-July. Representatives from British Columbia, Canada, Alaska,

Washington, Oregon and other parts of the U.S. will be involved in

discussions about our next possible form. of action. Elected officials

from our province and government will be involved. We hope to have an

international discussion in the very near future, probably in October

or maybe even November.

I can also say we're not unique in

this. Several other countries have shared our concern. In fact, hon.

member, New Zealand and Australia are having a conference, in the

latter part of this month, I believe, whereby they are showing their

concern not only for the squid fishery but for the impact it has on the

tuna. One of our staff people is going to be in attendance at that

conference, and we will, I assume, gain quite a considerable knowledge

of what the plans are for some of those other countries, If we

coordinate this, I think we can come to grips more quickly with what

action is necessary.

MR. G. HANSON : My colleague

from Prince Rupert talked, as I did earlier, about the importance of

stabilizing the coastal communities in terms of the fishing industry

and so on. I want to ask a specific question regarding the status of

applications for offshore processing in British Columbia. Are there

proposals before the minister to undertake floating processing plants

within Canadian territorial waters?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Yes, we had one proposal before us that I'm aware of, and it was turned down.

[ Page 7263 ]

MR. G. HANSON :

When it was raised earlier, I think the minister responded that he

would examine proposals as they came in, based on their features and so

on. I wonder if he would give the House his views on the relative

merits of offshore processing plants — floating processing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I'm not so sure that I could identify any particular merits. I suppose

if you had a look at the quality of the product being talked about, or

the particular application.... I think that's the only way you could

judge whether in fact there is any merit. What is being proposed in the

application? I think, from the point of view of whether it has anything

to do with the quality of fish or whatever, you'd have to look at that

particular instance. But the policy has been that we do not support the

licensing of floating processing vessels.

MR. G. HANSON :

We certainly would concur with that assessment, because we don't see

any advantages whatsoever. Certainly in terms of having a good handle

on conservation, and understanding clearly what catches are, the labour

relations and all of those aspects, we don't really see any advantage

at all. In fact, the emphasis we'd like to see is stabilizing and

ensuring that our shore-based processing jobs are secured, and that we

look to add value, as the Europeans and the Scandinavians have done

very successfully with their products.

I'd like to say a

few things about aquaculture. We see the primary responsibility as

safeguarding the wild stocks, not doing anything at all that would have

a deleterious impact on the wild stocks. We have a lot of concerns

about what is occurring in British Columbia. We don't feel there's

sufficient research and development behind this industry.

wonder if the minister could tell us what resources are there for R and

D in aquaculture in the province. I might point out to him that Norway

has put a substantial responsibility into the allocation of resources

for research and development, disease control, parasite control,

regulations with respect to the siting of pen-reared fish-farms,

rotation of farms, the whole question of how waste is handled, how

morts are handled, feedbags, etc. There are a lot of problems in

British Columbia in this industry. Can you tell us how much money is

expended here on R and D?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : We have

been cooperating. The responsibility lies with the federal government,

but I'm happy to say that we'll be announcing very shortly that we will

be putting about $250,000 towards research and development, to address

the very issues you're concerned about. I think it is a growth

industry, and the points you raise are a valid concern not only to the

aquaculturists but to us and the ministry staff. I think the fact that

everybody is cooperating in a positive manner to try and make sure that

the point you raise about disease, morts, feces, and so on.... All the

issues, as they relate to the environment as well, are a concern, and

we're trying to address them. We're having good cooperation in the

process, and I appreciate that.

MR. G. HANSON : What

are the regulations presently in place regarding pen-reared fish that

die, which are called morts, and the disposal of those fish? What

regulations are currently in place and enforced in the province?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that's covered under the Ministry of

Environment and waste management. We've obviously encouraged the

collection and appropriate disposal of morts, not dumping them in the

water, if that's your concern. We think they should all be collected at

every station, wherever possible.

MR. G. HANSON : Is the Minister of Fisheries telling the House that it is currently illegal to dump morts in the ocean?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Yes, that is correct.

MR. G. HANSON :

Is that regulation enforced? Have there been violations? Have there

been any penalties imposed by the province for dumping morts into the

ocean?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I'm not aware of any

penalties having been levied, but it's being watched relatively

closely. We have to have people attend these, and I guess the major

concern — and I think rightfully so — is that we make sure they do not dump them in the ocean. We want to make sure that they're handled properly, by regulation.

MR. G. HANSON :

Another major concern around the aquaculture industry is the use of

antibiotics. I know the minister will say: "Well, there's supposed to

be a veterinarian involved." But what regulations currently exist and

are enforced regarding the use of antibiotics in fish-farms?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Any use of antibiotics must be prescribed by a veterinarian, and that's by regulation also.

MR. G. HANSON :

I'd like to ask the minister what regulations exist regarding the

rotation of fish-farms from location to location and how those sites

are determined.

[4:15]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Site selection is done in conjunction with the Ministry of Crown Lands.

For site location and determining what sites are available, a coastal

resources study is undertaken to establish not only the location but

also what other uses are involved. Farms that are sited are generally

not required to rotate — not that I'm aware of — but environmental sensitivity is certainly involved before

[ Page 7264 ]

establishing

the location of a proposed fish-farm. I think it's important that the

Ministry of Crown Lands.... They survey the proposals, but they have to

comply with the coastal resources studies that have been done in the

specific areas.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Government Management Services requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today 18

students from Grindrod Elementary School in my constituency. They have

with them today the principal, Mr. Smeaton, and several of the parents.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON : I'd like to ask the minister what regulations exist regarding density, the proximity of one fish-farm to the next.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

As you know, there was a study done when the moratorium was put on at,

I believe, the end of October 1987. The study was undertaken to

identify some commitments from the industry, and there were discussions

with several users of the waters. When Mr. Gillespie brought in his

report, the recommendations contained therein said that they should be

no closer than three kilometres. We have now accepted that as the

policy in establishing future fish-farm sites.

MR. G. HANSON :

So it's three kilometres between fish-farms. Are there regulations

about proximity to estuaries, to river mouths? Norway apparently has

distance regulations regarding proximity to any fish bearing rivers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Yes, there are for parks, estuaries and Indian reserves. All of those have been identified.

MR. G. HANSON : Could the minister tell me what the regulation is in terms of distance between an estuary and the establishment of a pen?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's not determined particularly, but more defined by the type of

tributary or estuary system it is. It depends on the size of it. Then

those guidelines are figured out according to the estuary itself.

MR. G. HANSON : I'd like to ask the minister what controls there are with respect to the use of eggs — testing of eggs —

for salmon farms? For example, Norway has had some great difficulties

regarding parasites that have been introduced into fish-farms by the

purchase of smolts and stock that has been used as rearing-stock for

the pens. What sort of clearance is there to make sure that these

animals are disease-free or parasite-free when they are purchased for

the stock?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Before the eggs are sold, they must meet Canada fish health regulations.

MR. G. HANSON :

We have called for the labelling of aquaculture- or pen-reared salmon

so that consumers know, when they are purchasing salmon in the shop, if

any products are non-wild stock — in other words, for a labelling program. What is the minister's view on that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We have not made that a policy at this stage. When you are looking at

species identified as the same species.... We don't do it for any other

commodity that I'm aware of in the province, whether it's raised from a

pen.... It's the same with milk produced from a farm. We don't identify

it that way. I know there has been some concern about it. We have

discussed it, but no policy has been established at this time.

MR. G. HANSON : In the Norwegian experience — they have a long history in it, and I know your officials have probably looked at Norway —

there were some serious problems with parasites that were introduced

from the purchase of, I think, Scottish smolts that brought in an

organism. The result was that the Norwegian government simply had to

kill off entire rivers, using rotenone or something, so that they could

then try and re-establish farms in those river systems.

Parasitology

is a very important part of aquaculture and fish-farming. Our claim

that insufficient research and development in this whole industry....

At one point it was described as a sort of gold rush. Some of the bloom

is going off that, because there are problems and difficulties.

I'd

like to ask the minister what he views as the rights of the upland

owners, above high water. What process does he see being a fair and

effective for people living along the coast, vis--vis their rights

with respect to fish-farms and how that whole process is occurring? It

seems to be very unsatisfactory.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : In

any application for establishment of a site, if it's in front of

privately owned land, notification has to be given, and whether it's a

municipality, regional district or whatever, it has to go through the

hearing process.

MR. G. HANSON : Doesn't the minister

feel that there could be a more open planning process, a coastal zone

management process that would not catch the community unawares of the

possibilities of aquaculture— in other words, more of a designation

scheme? First of all, I might point out that we don't feel that more

licences should be issued. The difficulties are so large at the moment

that we feel that there has to be a process of catch-up before the

issuing of more licences and expanding the difficulties. What about a

coastal zone management plan, comprehen-

[ Page 7265 ]

sive

in nature, where areas are designated, and then it's fully put into the

public domain that it could be an aquaculture site? Some of the

northern Gulf Islands, I understand, are undertaking that at their own

local level. They are conducting studies of their foreshore and

identifying only those areas which will be allowed, so that there will

be no surprises which may have a negative impact on the marine habitat

and also on the upland owners. What are the minister's views on that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think you have some valid concerns. We've encouraged regional

districts and municipalities to prepare plans, and I think it's

important that they do so. If they identify what might be future

problems and prepare before they have it on them, then I think they'll

be able to better respond to it.

As you know, hon. member,

we have also completed four coastal resources studies, and are going to

undertake two more, which will identify the different types of uses

that will be applicable in those regions. It takes the cooperation of a

lot of people to become involved in this and to look at the

implications of the establishment of these types of farms.

MR. G. HANSON :

I would like to shift into another area for a moment. We're very

concerned about dioxins and furans. I mentioned that in my introductory

remarks. Do you feel that your ministry has got a handle on these

numbers and the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, assessments of what

the consumer can ingest safely...? The native people's consumption of

fish far exceeds that of the non-native population, and that means

there could be a higher accumulation of these toxic materials in their

bodies than would occur in the non-native population.

I'd

like to ask the minister about the relationship he has with the people

who are doing the research on dioxins and furans, and whether he's

confident. Many of the fish species utilized by native people are being

taken near pulp-mill discharge outfalls. What are his views on that

relationship? It appears to be inadequate.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

We have encouraged the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Health

and certainly the federal Departments of the Environment and of

National Health and Welfare to make sure that.... In fact, our own

Ministry of Environment has undertaken control of some of these toxins

that are entering the water system. I think your concern is valid. We

obviously want to make sure that fish caught to be consumed are in fact

safe and healthy.

MR. GUNO : Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I

just got in. I hope I don't repeat what has been said, but it is a

matter of concern for me as a person from a culture that depends very

much on salmon not only for sustenance but for cultural reasons. I

certainly appreciate the concern of the tribal groups which have now

instructed their people not to eat salmon on the scale that they have,

because of the fear of the spread of various forms of cancer. It brings

up the prospect of what is going to be done to meet a crisis. In some

areas, because of the economic situation that these people are in,

because most of them are on welfare and have to resort to food fishing

to augment their meagre economic resources, I'm just wondering if the

minister has contemplated some form of program to try and deal with

this situation, which could result in severe economic deprivation for

the people involved.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Generally

speaking, I share the concerns that have been expressed. We do

recognize that salmon migrate and go back and forth between the ocean

and the river. When they go up to spawn, I don't think they're likely

to take on a great deal of toxins. I think the Ministry of Health has

done yeoman service in trying to advise the people whether the fish are

safe. What we really want to be concerned about is fish that might well

be resident in the rivers. Those are the ones we have to make sure that

continued testing is undertaken on. I don't think we ought to

jeopardize anyone due to the health and safety of the food they're

consuming.

[4:30]

MR. GUNO :

I come from an area where the only fish we catch are salmon and

oolichan during the early spring weeks. But the resident fish, as I

understand it, are the white fish that some of the aboriginal groups

from the upper part of the Fraser partake in. Is there going to be a

joint effort on the part of the federal and provincial governments in

retrying to get a handle on the extent of the problem with regard to

the — as you call it — resident fish?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Although I could stand corrected, I believe the Departments of the

Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and certainly National Health and

Welfare are all looking at the problem and will continue to monitor it.

I guess I have to say that we'll continue to take tests. I think that's

the only way you're going to resolve whether it is safe to consume the

fish. There's no possible way that I know of to drag all the fish out

of the river, but we ought to be well aware that we have a concern

about its safety and the health of the individuals consuming it.

MR. GUNO :

In the Solicitor-General's (Hon. Mr. Ree'

s) estimates debate, it became

quite clear that this government has very little in place in terms of

meeting fairly major natural and man-made disasters, including such

things as oil spills. I wouldn't put this in as major a category as an

oil spill, but I think the process is more insidious, because the

dimensions of its impact are really not known. It seems to me that it

would be incumbent on the minister to at least come up with some kind

of coordinated action to, first, research the problem, and second,

start ensuring that future incidents are minimized.

In that light, can the minister tell the House whether there's any coordinated approach contem-

[ Page 7266 ]

plated

to really try to get a full measure of this very insidious problem,

which I don't think we really have a handle on? I don't think we should

wait until we have a situation like the one in the northern Cree group,

where after years of ingesting contaminated fish at Grassy Narrows....

I think we should learn lessons from that particular tragic experience

and see how the government can coordinate its approach in trying to get

a full measure of the problem.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I don't differ with the concern that the hon. member has. I think we need to have as quick a response as we possibly can.

MR. G. HANSON :

The minister has the responsibility at the provincial side for

fisheries, shellfish, etc. Would he consider recommending to his

colleague in Health that a pilot project be undertaken to test, on a

voluntary basis, native people who are living in close proximity to

pulp mills in British Columbia to see what levels of toxic materials

might be present in their tissue and hair — in other words, for

their own benefit, to determine if native people, because of dietary

habits, are accumulating unacceptable levels of toxins within their

bodies? Would you be prepared to recommend that? You know from the

tests on dioxin and furans that they are present around pulp-mill

sites. Would you be prepared to recommend to your colleagues that tests

be undertaken for the health of native people in the province?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I am prepared to discuss it with him. Certainly I'm not being against

the native people; I think anybody who lives around those — not

just native people.... While I have that very grave concern that you're

talking about, I think it should include anyone — native,

Caucasian or whatever their ancestral background may be. If the concern

is for the people in the area, I will certainly bring that concern

forward to the minister.

MR. G. HANSON : The

reasoning of the minister is defective in that native people eat more

seafood. The human body concentrates those toxins in certain tissues

and organs. It sounds very egalitarian to say that everybody around the

pulp mill should be tested, but the fact of the matter is that the

people who do the tests indicate that the average consumption of

fish — so many ounces per week — does not apply to native people.

the west coast of Vancouver Island, the people who are concerned about

contaminated shellfish and so on.... Many of these are posted, but many

clearly a difficulty. They ask what the contaminants are, and they get

the bureaucratic runaround, either at the federal or provincial level,

saying: "We don't know precisely; it's just closed." I think it would

be important to do a target testing on native people. I'm sure you

would find groups willing to volunteer around pulp mills, just to

ensure that they are not harming their own health and so on as a result

of diet. I think the minister should rethink his position on that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I certainly can't speak for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). As

I stated, I will take those concerns forward to him. I don't think

anything else could be expected of me.

MR. GUNO : I

just wanted to shift the focus to an earlier discussion on the floating

processing plant. I'm not too satisfied with the minister's response. I

don't think it was an unequivocal no to the question of whether or not

he would allow the development of this kind of processing. He uses

words like, "To date we have not accepted any application from anyone

regarding this processing facility." Does that mean there is really no

policy, no research, no baseline data that would give us some assurance

that the minister is speaking on a basis of some sound, well-researched

policy considerations?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I stated

that we have not accepted that as a policy at this stage. Certainly, I

suppose I could ask the obvious question: what if the native people

applied? What if they had a legitimate reason for requiring a floating

processing plant? I think what I have said is: no matter who it would

be, my door would be open. I would look at any proposal.

I'm

reiterating what the policy is: we have not accepted floating

processing vessels. It doesn't mean to say we shouldn't be looking at

whatever comes forward. We can't close our doors to proposals. I think

you have to have an open mind. I'm not saying that they necessarily

would be accepted in any way, but I'm also saying that I'm not closing

the door on anything that may come forward for presentation through our

office.

MR. G. HANSON : Another area that the

minister didn't respond on earlier is the threat to our entire marine

environment from oil spills; and having a joint office to be the first

line of response, to advise both federally and provincially so there

would be no miscommunication, as in the kind of thing we saw out of

Washington State. It's like two fielders going for a pop-up in centre

field: you got it, I got it, you got it, I got it. Bang! Nobody's got

it, and then we all suffer. What do you think about the proposal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I hope we're not on a collision course. I concur with your concerns. All of us — if we have any respect for the ecological damage that can occur from any kind of disaster — ought

to be able to coordinate all our efforts as best we can. We would

encourage that, to ensure the most immediate response possible through

good communications and cooperation, and that the necessary response

teams and emergency bases be notified as quickly as possible. I have no

difficulty with what you're saying; but it takes better coordination, I

believe.

[ Page 7267 ]

MR. G. HANSON : I will give you a hypothetical case. For example, say — heaven forbid — that a ship ran up on Race Rocks today. What would you do? What would your response be? Who is in charge? What happens?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think it would be directly under emergency responses, not only from a

provincial point of view, but by the Ministry of Environment and the

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries — all those who have

anything to do with waters and any natural disasters. I believe it's

important that they all be tied in very closely, and that the

communication be immediate, rather than somebody pointing a finger and

saying: "It's your responsibility." It's the responsibility of

everybody to cooperate on that; that's what I'm saying. If that

happened, then we all have to respond immediately.

MR. G. HANSON : That response was a very hypothetical one. I'm just wondering — you as the Minister of Fisheries having that responsibility — when

you would know. Who would advise you? If an accident occurred out there

today, when would you find out? Who would advise you?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I assume the member knows that the Coast Guard is generally the first

line of response, and the provincial emergency program should

immediately respond. The ministries responsible should be tied in

directly with that.

MR. G. HANSON : The Minister of

State for Mainland-Southwest (Hon. Mr. Veitch) says that the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) is in charge. Talk to the

Solicitor-General?

Mr. Chairman, we've raised — all jocularity aside — some

pretty important issues here in the last few hours. We've talked about

the high-seas driftnet fishery, and how Canada seems to be rolling back

on its round heels with its junior partner, the province, sort of

rolling back at a higher torque level. We raised the lack of immediate

response that seems to be in existence within the province, in terms of

the real crises that the marine environment faces.

In any

kind of accident in the Strait of Georgia or Juan de Fuca Strait,

obviously the response must be virtually immediate in terms of

assessment and containment. I'm not confident that is in place at all,

given the experience of Grays Harbor.

We've talked about

our concerns about aquaculture. The research and development is not in

place, and the Norwegian example clearly points out the deficiencies in

that area. There are problems beyond imagination — parasites and bacteria — that are really very serious and pose a threat to the wild stocks.

[4:45]

We've talked about our position in opposing the high-seas driftnet

fishery. It should be stopped. There should be a moratorium on the

issuance of any further aquaculture licences until the impact is fully

understood, and the research is in place to ensure that no destruction

of wild stock occurs. We've made concrete proposals about joint

proposals for responses to oil spills. We've made specific proposals

that really should be conducted in consultation with the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to test people with a large volume of seafood

in their diet to see if they are building up unacceptable

concentrations of toxins and so on, which all points to the degradation

of our marine environment. We've also talked about the importance of

not allowing any group to scapegoat native people in response to the

increased competition for an increasingly scarce resource.

We've

touched on some very important points. We'll be very carefully watching

the court cases in the United States around the high-seas fishery and

bootleg salmon through Canada and the United States. We're also very

concerned about Canadian salmon being processed in Singapore and

Taiwan, as a result of the high-seas driftnet fishery. We're also very

concerned about ensuring that shore-based processing continues in the

province of British Columbia, and that the citizens here in this

province are given the opportunity to add value and to process these

premium God-given resources that we must exercise proper stewardship

over. We must certainly not relinquish that under the guise of some

international agreement that other countries may come and take away our

resources, like raw log exports.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to

conclude my remarks on that point. Unless any of my colleagues have

other comments, we look forward to moving into Finance with our young,

bright Finance critic from Commercial Drive and Hastings.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, before leaving the comments that were made, I think it's important to recognize — and I respect what has been said by my hon. critic —

that we do not have proof that there isn't transmission of disease the

other way. In fact, most of the research done shows that the disease

inflicted into the pen-raised salmon comes from the wild stock. We have

no proof of how many fish fall to the bottom of the ocean, because we

do not know. There is research underway, but we don't know how many

diseased fish might be in the wild stock and could well have gone to

the bottom of the ocean. So it's obviously a concern both ways, and I

share your concern with that.

I think it's important to recognize that there's a responsibility borne both ways, and we'll work towards that in research.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to delay these estimates —

maybe just a couple more days, and then we can get through them, or

maybe a couple of more hours, hopefully. I was fascinated by the

discussion of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De

Jong). As someone who has no dairy cattle in Vancouver East, except for

17 days a year during the PNE....

Interjection.

[ Page 7268 ]

MR.