1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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, MAY 10, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 5

[ Page 10697 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the honour -- and I'm sure the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi will be interested in this -- of welcoming the Nash family, who are here visiting on their fiftieth wedding anniversary. They have decided to celebrate that on a cruise ship that has just arrived in Victoria to start the season. So would you please welcome the Nash family, who are visiting from West Vancouver.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier today I had the distinct honour of meeting with the High Commissioner of Ghana, His Excellency Annan Cato, and the consul general for Ghana, Dr. Herbert Allsopp. They have joined us in the gallery this afternoon to observe proceedings. I'd ask you all to make them welcome.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon Wayne Anthony from Abbotsford, Hugh Jackson from Chilliwack and Jack Tearne from Agassiz. They are all here representing their respective teachers' associations. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

A. Warnke: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a very good friend of mine from Richmond, Phil Lequesne, and his business partner, Al Howlett. Would the House please make them welcome.

U. Dosanjh: There are 50 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School -- a great school in Vancouver-Kensington -- with their teacher, Jack Schriber. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Stephens: In the precincts today we have 24 grade 7 students from Langley Prairie Fundamental School in Langley. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery is a constituent from the Sooke area, Dave Fraser. He is a freelance writer and journalist. I hope he'll have something good to write about after viewing today's proceedings. Will the House please make him welcome.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce a good friend, Mr. Jamie Ross. He is a councillor in the village of Belcarra, president of the Coquitlam Teachers' Association and a

member-at-large-elect of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I see in the gallery a friend from Kamloops, the president of the Kamloops District Teachers' Association, Dave Scott. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

N. Lortie: With us in the gallery is also the president of the Delta Teachers' Association, Jan Eastman. Would the House please make her welcome.

G. Wilson: I notice that also in the gallery is Sharon Wood, president of the Sunshine Coast Teachers' Association. Maybe the government might get a message as to why they're here. Then we can make them all welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND FAIR WAGE ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skills Development and Fair Wage Act.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, this act will replace the existing skills development and fair-wage policy. While fair-wage requirements have been in place in the United Kingdom since 1891, and at the federal level in Canada since the turn of century, this bill emphasizes the need for quality workmanship. The bill is designed for three purposes consistent with the mandate of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour: to ensure skills development and training, to ensure high-quality work standards, and to ensure that qualifying employees receive a commensurate fair wage for work performed on publicly funded construction projects.

The act requires that all employees working as tradespersons involved in construction work to which this act applies must be registered under the Apprenticeship Act and hold a British Columbia apprenticeship certificate of qualification or interprovincial red seal.

This act also addresses enforcement problems experienced under the current policy. This act also repeals the old Wage (Public Construction) Act, which has not been operative for many years.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT CONTRACT

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. The NDP fundraising and money-laundering arm has been under criminal investigation and is now before the courts. Your Minister of Employment and Investment has negotiated a special deal for his former union. The Iron Workers have told us they don't want to talk about what they're going to do with the taxpayers' dollars. That's the Iron Workers' choice, but the Premier has an obligation to answer the people of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Not only has his government decided to provide $2.1 million for additional slush funds to his union friends, but an additional $1 million is available to his friends under

section 21(1) of the Island Highway agreement.

My question to the Premier is simply this: how can the Premier assure British Columbians that not one cent of that $3.1 million in slush funds for his friends is going to go into the NDP's pockets?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition is speaking about what is called advancement funds, which are contained in most building trade agreements. These funds are jointly administered by trustees of the employers and the employees and are utilized for promoting the industry and for training and worker skills upgrading. I would be very surprised if the trustees would have the funds utilized for

[ Page 10698 ]

other than what is set out in these traditional collective agreements.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I'm surprised the Premier hasn't done enough homework to know not only what has gone on with the Island Highway agreement, but how other agreements have been used. The Iron Workers' constitution says that of their premium of 25 cents per hour can be used for "any purpose deemed necessary and advantageous to the trade." Can the Premier inform this House how this Iron Workers' slush fund is any different than the BCGEU's staff development fund, which managed to contribute $3,000 to an NDP campaign?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Before I recognize the hon. Premier, the Chair would just like to remind hon. members that while this is obviously an issue of great public concern and it has had quite a bit of publicity, the facts remain the same as far as question period is concerned: matters dealing specifically with ministerial responsibility are to be raised in question period. I would just caution members with regard to that.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I made it very clear that these funds are used for the purposes I've just outlined. They are contained in most of the agreements signed between employers and employees in the construction industry. As I said, they are utilized through trustees. The trustees have to jointly agree that the funds will be utilized in the ways I've outlined: for skills upgrading and training and for the advancement of the industry by employer and employee, in a cooperative way. I find it hard to take seriously the sleazy language being used by the Leader of the Opposition, who collected a million dollars from developers for a mayoralty campaign. I'd like to see the list of those developers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. On a final supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this Premier's defence of his government's shoddy ethical behaviour is a blot on your many years of public life. For a couple of coffee breaks and some travel time, the Premier has decided to give his friends over $3 million to spend as they will. Say what he may and feign outrage, the fact of the matter is that this Premier's government is in ethical bankruptcy. Will the Premier tell the people of British Columbia -- and assure this House -- that every single cent of their tax dollars will be going for public benefit and not for his or any other party's political favour?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am more than willing to see that the details of the information about how these advancement funds are utilized, as I've outlined, are made available to the House.

I may say I'd like to see the Leader of the Opposition table the million dollars he used to raise, in his mayoralty campaigns, sitting in on development permits and rezonings -- the millions of dollars he collected from the development industry. He should table that in the House, too.

G. Farrell-Collins: We'd like to see tabled in this House an elections act that will stop just the types of things you guys have been doing for the last ten years. We've been waiting two years for it, and we still don't see it.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF B.C. HYDRO

G. Farrell-Collins: The Liberal opposition has learned from sources in Hydro that the government is about to put the lights out on Mr. Eliesen. We've learned that he's about to be fired as the president and CEO of Hydro, after repeated questions by the opposition about Hydro's spending practices. Can the Premier tell the taxpayers of British Columbia that they will not be required to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance or pension for Mr. Eliesen's time at B.C. Hydro -- that they won't be left holding the bag for this government and that minister's irresponsibility in signing the most outrageous contract in the history of this province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can say that the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro will be making an announcement in the near future.

The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that's because the minister doesn't know. I'm sure the Premier should know whether we're going to be left holding the bag for the severance and pension for this gentleman. We found out that Mr. Eliesen is being fired after the government has paid out $120,000 in maximum performance benefits entitled under that contract. Can the Premier assure us that the public of this province will not have to pay for those specialty bonuses if Mr. Eliesen is fired for cause? Can he guarantee this House that Mr. Eliesen is not going to show up on the public payroll somewhere else?

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the public deserves an answer from the Premier, because they're the ones paying the bills. The Premier should know that patronage doesn't work; it didn't work for Robyn Allan and it won't work for Marc Eliesen. Will the Premier, as the leader of the government, commit to ensuring that the next president of B.C. Hydro is chosen by full public search -- that everybody has an opportunity in this country to bid on that job; and that it will be the best person for British Columbia, not the best person for the NDP?

PUBLIC CONCERN ABOUT YOUTH VIOLENCE

J. Tyabji: My question is for the Attorney General on an issue of grave importance to the people of this province. I have in my hands correspondence to the Attorney General, and to Mr. Hank Mathias of the Attorney General's office, on an issue that we first discussed in October of last year. Over the weekend a very serious incident occurred in my riding. A man was very seriously assaulted at his home and is now in hospital. I'm calling on the Attorney General, on behalf of the people of the province who are concerned with rising youth delinquency and crime, for a full public inquiry into rising youth delinquency and crime.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think there's no doubt at all that in the public mind there is considerable concern and anxiety in

[ Page 10699 ]

respect of the degree of violence that we now see among young people. Crime rates are not up, but the degree of violence certainly is, and it's a concern for all of us.

I raised this very issue at the last meeting of federal and provincial justice ministers. At that time I raised a number of suggestions for amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which are now being actively considered by the federal government. I hope, and I think other justice ministers hope, that those will be able to deal with the issues the member raises.

J. Tyabji: On Friday of this week, the people of Oyama are planning a town hall meeting. Emotions are running very high, and the issue is extremely serious. There's a lot of talk about a vigilante movement in the area. It's a small community, and the series of incidents are really.... The momentum is growing.

I'm very concerned, and I'm asking the Attorney General to personally intervene to make sure that the emotions at that meeting don't get carried away and that there aren't further incidents. I'm asking that he or his office make sure that the outcome of that meeting is productive.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that the residents of the Okanagan -- and particularly the residents of Oyama -- need to heed the advice given to them by the local RCMP, which is to let the justice system take its course in this matter and not to take matters into their own hands.

J. Tyabji: Right now, public confidence in the justice system is not high. The person who wielded the axe in a premeditated assault has been charged with assault and not premeditated murder. I would hope that the Attorney General recognizes the seriousness of the issue and level of emotion, and will intervene.

The Speaker: Hon. member, there was no question there that I gathered.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Recognizing the concerns of members of the public, in our society people are innocent until the courts determine otherwise. We should always remember that.

CALL FOR REVIEW OF SOCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY

V. Anderson: Yesterday the Minister of Social Services stood in the House and refused an independent review of her ministry. At that time the minister had full knowledge that such a review was being undertaken by the ombudsman. What role did the minister have in embargoing the ombudsman's news until after question period? Will the minister indicate why she refused an independent inquiry when she knew that such action was vitally necessary?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The ombudsman contacted me early yesterday afternoon and invited me to speak with her on a matter she was considering. The embargo of the ombudsman's business was her own. During the course of our conversation I informed the ombudsman of information that she didn't have regarding the time lines of the release of my report. At no time did I do anything other than welcome her announcement of an inquiry that she had under consideration at the time.

V. Anderson: For two years, under two ministers, we have been demanding a review of the Ministry of Social Services. The attitude of this minister and the previous minister in refusing an independent review continues to anger the public as well as myself. The ombudsman has been left to investigate the case of Matthew Vaudreuil. The public has demanded answers. For the children, will the Minister of Social Services assume her responsibilities by initiating an independent review of her ineffective ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: From day one I have said that our inquiry is the first step in this exercise. I will do whatever is required to get to the bottom and find out what happened, why Matthew Vaudreuil died. If further action is required, further action will be taken.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

V. Anderson: The documentation is irrefutable. The children of British Columbia deserve better. Social Services is failing to serve the 100,000 Matthews-in-waiting in this province. Your government is doing even worse than Social Credit.

The Speaker: Question, hon. member.

V. Anderson: To the Premier: the community is outraged. Will you commit today, Mr. Premier, to assume the responsibility of your office? Will you launch what your minister will not, an independent investigation into the total social services system of this province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think every British Columbian is appalled that young Matthew Vaudreuil had to die. The minister has made it very clear that she is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that other children do not have to suffer that very sad and tragic fate. The minister will be taking what action needs to be taken to protect the children of this province.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

F. Randall: Hon. Speaker, on a point of information, I would just like to raise a matter. I'm concerned about the comments about advancement funds and promotion funds, and I would offer....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. With the greatest of respect, that is not a valid point of order to enter into debate. The hon. member wishes some assistance with...?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon member, please take your seat.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave of the House to allow the Select Standing Committee on Education, Culture and Multiculturalism to sit at 3:15 p.m. today.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd also like to inform the House that this House will be sitting tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

[ Page 10700 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply: in

Section A, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and in

Section B, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM

(continued)

On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479.

M. de Jong: As I reviewed the material, some of it provided by the ministry regarding its desire to protect provincial biodiversity, the figure that constantly emerged from that documentation is, of course, the 12 percent figure. The desire of the ministry is to protect provincial biodiversity to the tune of 12 percent and set that as a figure for protected areas. My question for the minister is: can he advise this committee on what basis the ministry settled on the 12 percent figure?

Hon. M. Sihota: The 12 percent figure, of course, is of representative ecosystems, so it's not just a flat 12 percent. The number was, to a large measure, predicated on international work done in this regard.

M. de Jong: The minister is correct insofar as pointing to certain international organizations is concerned. The UN, for one, is also setting a figure of 12 percent in certain circumstances. As I review some of the documentation provided by the ministry, the confusion that has arisen for me concerns the question of whether or not that 12 percent will be applied on an entirely provincial basis or on a more regional basis. People in certain areas of the province will be interested to know whether that is going to be a regional or a cross-province standard.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I've already answered that question; it's on the record in Hansard.

M. de Jong: The minister will acknowledge that in his previous responses he did not deal specifically with the Cariboo region. My question is somewhat similar. If the 12 percent average is going to be applied on a provincial basis, that has certain implications for people in the Cariboo. If it's going to be applied on a regional basis, that has perhaps far worse implications for them. What can the minister say to assure people in the Cariboo region that the protected areas strategy of this government will not be implemented in a way that will affect them unfairly in comparison with the rest of the province?

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Owen will be issuing his report. I'll see what Mr. Owen has to say in his report before I feel comfortable commenting on it further.

M. de Jong: One matter canvassed earlier in these debates relating to the expressed concern for biodiversity was also addressed by the auditor general. These questions were put to the minister earlier, and I can say that I did not hear a satisfactory response. The auditor general presented some concerns in his report regarding the gathering of that data and the information that was available to the minister. He was asked what improvements, if any, he has made within his ministry. Presumably his estimates refer to funding that has been allocated to make those improvements.

He didn't respond to that earlier, and I am interested to know what he has done to address the auditor general's report and recommendations.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow that. I'd like to know what recommendation the hon. member is talking about.

M. de Jong: There was concern expressed by the auditor general regarding the lack of habitat protection information available in the province. I acknowledge that those questions were put to the minister earlier. What I have not heard, and what does not appear in the Hansard I reviewed, is an indication from the minister about what has been done -- he did confirm that he saw the recommendations in the report -- and in what way it is reflected in his estimates. What has he done within the ministry to address those concerns?

Hon. M. Sihota: Just to cover off the point, the hon. member is right: the issues have been raised before. There is about $11 million allocated under the corporate resource inventory and about $6 million under the provisions of the Forest Practices Code. There is the work of the conservation data centre. There are legislative initiatives with regard to conservation covenants.

M. de Jong: One matter of great concern that falls within the purview of the ministry deals with waters and lands, and more particularly waters, and the ongoing debate concerning the protection of aquatic habitat and drinking water and, more particularly, the debate concerning chloramine versus chlorine. Can the minister indicate in a very general way to what extent his ministry has become involved in that debate and whether it has made recommendations to various regional governments concerning its preference, if it has one?

Hon. M. Sihota: We have not made any final recommendations to the GVRD or any other regional district with regard to this issue. Secondly, we are in the midst of developing a position. Thirdly, I've had the opportunity to discuss the issue with federal officials as well as provincial officials. In due course we will make representation to the GVRD on the time frame. It's hard to say.... I know that the GVRD has a process whereby they intend to make some decisions, and we'll probably work within the time frames they've established.

M. de Jong: From the minister's response, I would not suggest that activity in this area has been slow-moving. I think the minister would be aware of the incident that occurred in the late 1980s in Surrey, where a chloramine escape resulted in some pretty significant -- I think the term "sterilization" was used -- effects on a particular river in that area. Does the minister have a concern about the movements afoot? I might add that the water supplied to my riding from north of the Fraser River also includes chloramine. Does he have concerns about chloramine being introduced into water systems? He mentioned the GVRD. There are other areas in the province.

[ Page 10701 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I do have concerns.

M. de Jong: I'm much more at ease knowing that the minister has some concerns. My question is: could he be a little more specific about what action he is intending to take? Has he had contact with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is administering to some of the regional districts and municipalities? What is he doing beyond articulating an apparent concern?

Hon. M. Sihota: I have discussed the issue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with the federal Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary secretary and with staff. I am certain that in the weeks ahead I will be meeting with GVRD officials to discuss this issue with them in my office here in Victoria.

M. de Jong: The minister will know that there is an overwhelming financial consideration that districts and regional districts face, and that from their perspective the introduction of chloramine represents a much more economical way of dealing with water treatment. If the minister has these concerns, perhaps he can expand on what action he would contemplate taking -- and what action he has taken to date -- to highlight the potential downside from an environmental point of view that would lead some of these communities to revert to or adopt chlorine water management systems, acknowledging that that will necessarily result in heightened costs to those areas.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that it is cheaper for the regional districts to proceed with chloramine. It's also my understanding that with regard to fish habitat, it can have a negative effect. I can understand why the GVRD wishes to pursue the directions that it does for economical reasons. Our responsibilities, obviously, are to ascertain the impact on fish and fish habitat. We have let them know that that is our concern, and we have participated with them with regard to a study.

If the hon. member has done his research, he should know that in 1991 the GVRD agreed to an environmental impact assessment to determine the risk and benefit of using chloramine instead of the current secondary material of chlorine. The agreement was driven in part by our ministry and in part by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Phase one was a review that concluded that there were a number of critical issues that required attending to. The B.C. Environment ministry agreed with that. There was a further study that we asked for with regard to potential mitigation, strategies and costs of both options.

We understand that phase two indicates that chloramine is a greater risk to the environment. They know that, and that is why things are where they are at this time.

M. de Jong: I must confess that the minister's recitation of history is provided quite readily. He concludes by referring to where we are. Well, that's the question that people have, and I hope he will appreciate that I bring to him the concerns of a great many people -- certainly people in the Fraser Valley -- who want to know whether or not the provincial government will be taking active steps in one direction or another. He offers some tautologies and some generalities, but what is the position of the minister? What is the time line? He's mentioned a time line without giving any indication as to what it is.

He acknowledges that it's a problem that's been around at least since the early 1980s, and yet he is very vague insofar as the time line one might expect for the matter to be dealt with.

[2:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think the hon. member was listening to what I had to say, but that's not surprising, because he hasn't been part of this debate for the better part of the 18 hours that we've been into this debate -- and of course, the Liberal Party hasn't shown much consciousness around environmental issues during the course of this debate. The hon. member now wishes to participate in the debate, and that's his prerogative....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I see someone else is awake on that side now, too. Let me put the issue into some perspective....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member would listen, he would understand that there's a good reason why God gave us two ears and one mouth. Let me give him an indication of what's at stake here.

Point one. We insisted on a number of studies; the GVRD agreed to participate in those studies, and that process was driven by us, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

Point two. When the studies were completed -- I'm sorry, I don't have the exact date they were completed; they commenced in 1991, so they were probably completed sometime in 1992-93 -- they were deemed to be okay on the part of our ministry, but further work was required with regard to cost-benefit issues.

Point three. There was then a second phase of studies. With regard to that second phase, the ministry indicated that it had serious concerns about the use of chloramine, as it had a higher environmental risk and there were human health risks and concerns associated with the use of chloramine.

The point I want to drive home is that, first, we didn't take a back seat. We indicated what our concerns were at the staff level. That was the concern: environmental and human health risks. After that, the GVRD was requested by us to complete further studies with regard to the cost options. I don't think they were totally persuaded by our arguments regarding cost; they are now in the process of doing further cost studies. I guess those studies will be completed in short order by the GVRD.

I want to emphasize that the Ministry of Environment indicated that it was not at all comfortable with the use of chloramine, as it had risks both on the environmental side and for human health. Having said that, the final work is not complete, and I will wait for that work to be done. It will be done soon.

So you can tell your constituents that the Ministry of Environment is well ahead in this game. We have been dealing and will continue to deal with the GVRD. We have been asking and will continue to ask tough questions of the GVRD. We are aware of the potential risks, both to the environment and to human health, and that to a large measure is driving our concerns. Furthermore, you can go back home and tell your constituents, hon. member, that I've indicated that in short order I'll be meeting with the GVRD to discuss these issues further with them. But it seems to me only sensible to wait for the completion of the studies before we have those meetings.

M. de Jong: I can assure the minister that I will take that message back to my constituents. I further simply add that I am constantly amused by the defensiveness with which the minister seems to take these questions, when all they

[ Page 10702 ]

represent is the legitimate inquiries of people across the province. But I will take that message back.

I will say one other thing. I have been here, followed these debates and listened to what the minister has had to say with interest. I have listened to him as he chastises me for the role I have played in these debates, and I acknowledge that mine has been a limited role. But I make no apologies to the minister for that -- none whatsoever.

I also make no apologies for the fact that these estimates began some three weeks after my arrival here. I have no doubt whatsoever that this minister would much rather have gone head to head with a rookie MLA assuming the role of critic for only three weeks than answer questions from other members in this House, who are in a much better position -- I acknowledge, a much better position -- to put tough questions to him and who have been here and know the way he runs his ministry -- or doesn't run his ministry, as the case may be. I have no doubt that he would have been much more comfortable in another framework or approach.

But I didn't do that, because unlike this minister, whose arrogance extends so far it's beyond belief.... Arrogance in an individual is disturbing enough, but arrogance in the hand of government is downright dangerous, and that's what this minister represents: an arrogant minister. I don't make any apologies for the role I played in this debate. When I look back on it, I'll take pride in the fact that I didn't interject with meaningless questions.

I tried to impose myself on the debate when I thought it was appropriate and when I thought I could provide some constructive criticism or ask some legitimate questions. If the minister finds fault with the manner in which this debate has proceeded -- well, tough. That's his problem. He whines about the time he has spent here. Well, don't whine at me, because I didn't keep hon. members here. I thought I would approach these debates in a more responsible way.

Getting back to water and resource management, the same area that supplies much of the eastern Fraser Valley with drinking water also has the Fraser River run through it. We've all seen the destruction that can result from major flooding like that which took place in the Mississippi Delta. It's been some years since the Fraser River jumped its bank, but not that long. Quite frankly, the information that's available now is that because of improper dredging techniques, the river in all likelihood will jump its bank in the not too distant future.

My question for the minister is: what work has his ministry undertaken and what work is it planning to undertake to ensure that the Fraser River basin in the eastern and central Fraser Valley isn't subjected to a repeat round of flooding?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not asking the hon. member to apologize for anything other than the positions taken by his political party. I note that during the course of these estimates -- and I agree that he hasn't been participating in the debate -- his party has said that we ought not to engage in environmental prosecution, because it "demoralizes business." I find that disturbing. His party has said that there ought to be mining in parks. I must tell you that that is out of touch with the views of most British Columbians.

His party has argued in this House that we ought not to release the list of British Columbia's worse polluters, because somehow that is only a publicity stunt, despite the fact that the vast majority of the people who show up on that list end up complying because they're embarrassed about being on that list. His leader has stood up outside this House and said that we should get rid of environmental regulation. That, of course, is the kind of value system that one expects from a political party that represents the rich and powerful.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition made his way here because of the cheques that were written for him by those who bankrolled his campaign on Howe Street. All I'm saying is that whether the hon. member participates in the debate or not -- he doesn't have to apologize for his degree of participation -- someone ought to be apologizing for the lack of environmental awareness on the part of the Liberal Party.

I must commend the other parties in the House, which sit on the different ends of the political spectrum, for their willingness to show some of the sensitivity to the environment which is lacking entirely on the part of the Liberal Party. That's all I've been saying, and I will say it over and over again in British Columbia, because it seems to me that British Columbians feel very strongly about the environment. It is part of our ethic and psychology as British Columbians, and it's amazing, the degree to which the Liberal Party is out of touch.

I offered to hon. members an opportunity to be briefed on these issues with regard to the Fraser River. I know that the member for Abbotsford, who is now back in the House, had the opportunity to be briefed on this issue. I regret that the hon. member who asked the question did not take advantage of those briefings. I'm sure that staff are still in the precincts, and I'd be happy to make them available for him to be briefed on issues relating to Chilliwack and other regions in the eastern Fraser Valley.

N. Lortie: It is my pleasure to interject between these two combatants and give them time to cool off. I have a couple of issues and questions that I would like to canvass on behalf of my constituency and my constituents. Hopefully these questions will also be of a general interest to other people within our province and perhaps to your communities here.

My first question to the minister is: in the permitting process for demolition dumps done at the regional office by the Minister of Environment, why isn't there a requirement that these permit applicants get the proper zoning for the land before the ministry issues permits for those kinds of dump sites and others?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a legitimate question. It does frustrate our ministry in having to go through a process without these zonings in place. Last September I signed a protocol agreement with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to help us iron out these wrinkles in the system, because it is somewhat frustrating for us to go through a permitting process when a municipality has not given appropriate consideration to zoning. If you don't have the certainty of zoning, it's very difficult.

The municipality will argue that there's no point for us to hear the zoning application unless we know whether the permitting process is through with the Ministry of Environment. That means that the problem has a sort of chicken-and-egg dimension to it. We executed the protocols to try to work out those kinds of problems with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and that's precisely what we're trying to do.

One other point that I try to make is a follow-up, because I don't want the hon. member to think that the work was done only in September and that nothing has happened since then. I want the hon. member to know that in March -- or it could have been April -- I met with representatives of the UBCM to follow through on that agreement and discuss with them the very issue that he raised. We asked staff to go back and do some work, and I know that staff from our ministry were present at the meetings of the UBCM to further the

[ Page 10703 ]

work of the protocol agreement to try to overcome these kinds of planning frustrations.

N. Lortie: Would it not be a simple matter to issue a permit with a requirement that they first obtain a conditional permit, subject to obtaining the kind of zoning that is required under the municipal law? One of the problems that I ran into in Delta is that in discussions with the regional office and municipality, the municipality was told that if they don't have the proper zoning for the function they're using the land for, they could be taken to court.

We have a number of members of the bar here in this House, and we should all know that it's a very expensive process for a small municipality to take a large landowner to court, and it's a long-drawn-out process. It would seem that it would be much easier for the ministry to issue a permit showing they have the intent, but the permit should be conditional on the municipality granting the proper zoning for that function. Could I have a comment from the minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is one option, and that is one of the issues that I have asked staff to look at.

N. Lortie: I will go now to my second question. Being from Delta, I bet many people here could guess that the issue is Burns Bog. As the minister knows, the Premier has designated Burns Bog an area of interest under the protected areas strategy. What does that really entail in process, and what is the time frame for a decision? If it's an area of interest, an area of study, hopefully sometime down the road some decisions will be made. The question is: what is the process and the time frame?

[3:00]

The Chair: Perhaps I could recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston, who I understand wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Chair. I especially thank you on this particular occasion, because with us in the gallery are a number of distinguished guests from the city of Wakayama, Japan. Wakayama is the sister city to Richmond. It is my pleasure to introduce this group of visitors to the House. The purpose of their visit is to officially welcome the citizens of Richmond and all British Columbians to the Japan expo at Wakayama this July through September. In the gallery, in addition to Mr. Gordon Ellis, the vice-chairman of the sister city twinning committee of the city of Richmond, are the following: Mr.

Mitsutaka Yoshida, vice-chairman of the Wakayama city council; Mr. Isamu Tokutsu, the deputy mayor of Wakayama city; Mr. Katsura Nishidono, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Tasuku Takagaki of the Wakayama city council; Mr. Masayoshi Tsujimoto, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Takeshi Tagami, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Eiichi Aso, Wakayama city councilman; Mr. Hiroshi Ikebata of the Wakayama city council secretariat; Mr. Tsutomu Matsuzawa, foreign affairs division of Wakayama city; and Mr. Tomoaki Hashimoto, the tour attendant. Would the House please make these guests most welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: There has been a fair bit of discussion with regard to Burns Bog. There is a committee consisting of representatives from my ministry, from municipalities and from citizen groups in the area. It is not yet part of the protected areas strategy, but it can ultimately be incorporated into the final recommendations as an area that is recommended for protection. That's the process. I think 1995 appears to be the most likely time frame that we're looking at.

N. Lortie: I would urge the minister, as my last statement, to put every effort that he can possibly put into protecting this invaluable environmental jewel, which is so close to the lower mainland. Burns Bog is worthy of protection; it demands protection. I urge the minister to use his office to accomplish those goals.

Hon. Chair, could I now ask permission to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: In the gallery we have a member of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, who showed up and wrote me a note. Her name is Inger Kam. I was first at Inger's house many years ago, when she talked me into running for municipal politics and ran my campaign that first time. Inger Kam is up there and is responsible for my being imposed on this chamber. Would the chamber please make her welcome.

The Chair: I'm happy to note a favourable reception despite that introduction.

Hon. M. Sihota: I understand what the member is saying with regard to accelerating the process. That's a fair comment. I want to give him some credit for being consistently aggressive in terms of approaching this issue with both myself and my predecessor and, I know, with the Premier. I know that the hon. member has been fairly outspoken in terms of the need to get on with this decision.

The hon. member should take some comfort in the fact that most recently the provincial government announced a whole series of green-space acquisitions in the greater Victoria area. One of the benefits of those acquisitions that I've seen is the reaction from the public. Although some of the parks we've announced to date have been far away from urban areas, the ones we've announced that are in proximity to urban areas have been very well received by the public. That's given me a greater desire to look at options in the greater Vancouver area.

That experience, combined with your lobbying on behalf of your constituents and the work that we're doing within the ministry regarding Burns Bog, indicates the direction that government is moving in.

I also want to say, and I know the hon. member knows this, that there are a lot of issues to be resolved. These are private lands. And there are a number of implications associated with the protection of these lands.

L. Fox: It's in a Liberal riding.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member from the Reform Party is trying to tell me which riding it's in. I have no idea which riding it's in. All I have an idea of is that the member from Delta North has been very persistent, pressing on behalf of his constituents to have government attend to the issue, and I must commend him for that.

W. Hartley: A couple of days ago I brought forward an issue of concern in the Pitt Polder wildlife management area. The concern is about the number of waterfowl that continue to decline, specifically the sandhill crane and the great blue heron. I was wondering if the minister had a response for that concern today.

[ Page 10704 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Neither species is on either the provincial or national endangered or threatened lists. Our current population estimates place sandhill cranes in the lower mainland at approximately six breeding pairs plus about eight

non-breeders, for a total of about 20 birds. That goes to answer some of the questions being asked about our ability to monitor wildlife and know what we're doing in terms of conserving species. The fact that we can produce that kind of information emphasizes the good work within the ministry regarding protection of wildlife. I said there were 20 birds; this is the greater sandhill crane subspecies. Large numbers are seen during the fall migration in the vicinity of Burns Bog, which we were just talking about a few minutes ago. Of course, many more occur in other parts of western North America, including areas in your constituency.

As for the great blue heron, it's far more of an abundant breeder and a year-round resident -- and not only in your constituency. I know, for example, in the bay just outside my own residence, my children are intrigued by the ongoing presence of the great blue heron -- to the point that my daughter is constantly bringing back books from school on the great blue heron and has probably become the world's greatest seven-year-old expert on the great blue heron.

That also shows you the impact of making sure the species are conserved not only from a wildlife protection point of view but in terms of the educational benefits that accrue to children. We found 11 successful, active colonies last year and 900 nests; therefore there are 1,800 adults plus an estimated 200 to 500 non-breeders, which brings the population to 2,000 to 2,300 birds.

That gives you an indication of why neither animal is on the endangered species list. Two years ago, the Ministry of Environment recognized the vulnerability of these species as a result of steady increases in urban development. As you know, hon. member, in your area there has been a fair bit of urban development, which then threatens these species and generates these concerns about vulnerability. Separate habitat conservation projects were initiated, and studies are ongoing as I speak -- I want to emphasize that point.

As the hon. member knows, this year our administration increased expenditures on the habitat conservation fund by 20 percent, and for the first time in B.C. history, we took the funds from fishing licences and placed them entirely into the habitat conservation fund. I know that was well received by B.C. conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts -- and certainly, judging from the comments I received, by the B.C. Wildlife Federation -- because the money was going to the habitat conservation fund. It's not every day that you get an organization of that stature congratulating government for a fee increase.

Obviously some of the projects that we fund deal with the cranes and blue herons that you speak of. We as a ministry are attempting to refine our knowledge of the current numbers, distribution, population trends and factors limiting their survival. It is our intention to develop site-specific management plans and an overall conservation strategy to ensure the preservation of both species in the lower mainland.

If, through his representations, the hon. member believes that our work in this regard is in any way deficient, I would encourage him to discuss the issue with me further. We do have opportunities under the habitat conservation fund, and there may be organizations within your constituency that may want to take advantage of those. I know that in the past you have spoken to me about conservation and preservation of species, so I know that you have an interest in these matters. Obviously you've been fairly outspoken in raising those issues on behalf of the people you represent.

I think that's welcomed by your constituents, and I'm sure they appreciate the fact that you raised it here in the House.

I can assure the hon. member that should he have any further inquiries on behalf of those people, I will be able to direct him to the appropriate authorities, first of all, and second -- and I guess more importantly -- to funding opportunities which may exist under the habitat conservation fund.

H. De Jong: I would like to comment on the minister's suggestion this morning to meet with Jon O'Riordan about the Chilliwack River valley problems and about getting septic approvals in the lower mainland, particularly in the floodplain areas, which has been a problem for some time. I believe that we reached a good understanding of the issues, and Jon assured me that these would be followed up with the minister, as well as the Minister of Health, wherever it applies. I'm very pleased with that discussion; if other members have similar problems, it's good to talk to senior staff about them.

I happened to read in a news release this morning that the provincial government is planning to send a bunch of wolves to a park in the United States -- to dispose of them, I suppose -- so that they can have a better and continued life out there. There is a real problem in the lower mainland with the number of coyotes....

L. Fox: Even in this House, there is.

H. De Jong: Perhaps the minister could consider catching some of those, and send them down there as well. I don't think that anybody would feel sorry about it.

I also read in another news release this morning about some of the worst offenders. This was discussed this morning, really, but I'm sure the minister would allow me to go back onto that subject for a minute. A couple of the logging firms were mentioned in terms of creating a logging road that had been washed out during heavy rains this winter. We're now in the process of dealing with that situation through the ministry.

[3:15]

When we use the term "worst offenders," I suppose there will always be a number in that category. It's almost like a big car lot, you might say, where they have the best sellers. There are always best sellers, but the best seller one month isn't the best seller the next month, because somebody might outdo him. This sort of works in the reverse. Since the previous administration introduced the naming of some of the bad offenders, I'm sure that improvements have been made. I believe that perhaps not enough public credit is being given when improvements have been made.

We read continually about those who are being charged going through the courts and whatever the results are. But we don't read much about improvements that are anticipated and completed by various firms. When people comply with new regulations, surely some praise must be given to those who are playing the game correctly. Again, I have difficulty accepting that the worst offenders today are as bad as they were five years ago. Perhaps another term, such as "bad offenders," could be used -- because if that's a cycle we're going to take, we're never going to get out of it.

The Chair: I understand the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 10705 ]

J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased today, on behalf of the Speaker and all members of this assembly, to welcome a group of young people who come from Catlin Gabel school in Portland, Oregon. It's a long trip to come up here. With them are several adults and their teacher Mr. Carr. I'd like to welcome you to Canada, to British Columbia and to this Legislature. Would members please help me make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his question. Let me just deal with his remarks. First of all, I'm glad that he and Mr. O'Riordan have been able to meet and discuss it. I guess that's an indication of how the system is supposed to work. You raised the issue this morning, and I'm glad staff were able to meet with you. That's probably an issue where we're far more effective if we have those kinds of meetings with staff. I appreciate your cooperation in sitting down with staff and discussing the issues that you pursued in the House this morning. I'm glad that you have a sense that some progress is being made.

I'm not sure what I should do about your comments about wolves, coyotes and animals going to parks -- and whether or not certain members of this House should be heading down to Yellowstone as well -- but you should know it's a standing offer that we make as a ministry. We are happy to make wolves or coyotes available to the Americans for those parks any time that they wish. So there you go, and now that all members are well aware of that, I'm sure they will govern themselves accordingly.

With regard to not enough credit being given, let me just amplify on that point. First of all, we do give credit to companies when their performance improves. For example, when I talked about the polluters list yesterday, I indicated a number of companies had come off the list. A number had made substantial capital improvements, and I enumerated them in the House. That's an appreciation of the fact that they're moving.

Second, the ministry, on a regular basis, hands out environmental awards to companies throughout British Columbia, recognizing the contributions they're making in protecting and encouraging the maintenance of our environment.

Third, I try to take advantage of opportunities to give credit to industry where it has moved on some of these issues. Two recent examples come to mind. One is the credit that I gave to the paint manufacturers, who have agreed now to recycle paint. Instead of simply doing with it what people do -- leaving it in their garages for years, not really knowing what to do with it -- we're now moving to a system where you can return it to the store you brought it from. So it has become an industry that is responsible from cradle to grave, and I gave the paint industry a lot of credit for agreeing to that initiative.

More importantly in terms of British Columbia, it was a distinct pleasure for me to give credit in January to the pulp industry for having achieved our AOX regulations -- it surpassed them, actually. We put in North America's toughest standards with regard to pulp mill effluent discharge. When we brought these in, industry said that it couldn't be done, that it was too expensive and that there was no scientific basis for doing it. We said: "Forget it.

The standard is going to be 1.5 AOX per tonne, the toughest in North America." They made about $1.4 billion in capital improvements and have come in at 1.4 AOX per tonne. My hat is off to them to credit them for meeting that target. Of course, they have some concerns about whether they can get to the zero level by the year 2002, and I'm encouraging them to achieve that despite some protestation on their part.

My only regret is that there are some in the Liberal Party who just don't think we should be moving with tougher environmental regulations. Their leader has argued in the past that we must get rid of environmental regulation in British Columbia and reduce the protection for the environment. I must say, I'm amazed at that. I'm amazed that there are people in this House who stand up and make the argument that we ought not to charge and prosecute companies, as the Liberals have argued, because that would only demoralize business. I, for the life of me, don't understand that ethic and those values, yet that's exactly what the Liberal Party has argued.

They've gone to the point of fervently maintaining that we should have mining in parks, which is an incompatible use. A park is a park is a park. I know that Mr. Huberts, when he was the minister in the previous Social Credit government, made that statement, that a park is a park is a park, on several occasions. I know he understood it, but it's clear to me that the Liberals don't understand it. I have to tell you that that's disturbing, but there you have it.

We brought in the toughest standards in North America for CFCs to protect the ozone. We brought in the toughest standards for pulp mill effluent discharge. If government, firm in its resolve, puts that in front of industry and says to now go out and perform, industry knows it has to comply -- and it does. The proof is in the pudding, and the best example of that is the AOX. But if they know that some people on Howe Street have written cheques to assist the Leader of the Opposition to become the leader of that party, well, they know there's always an opportunity for people's firmness to wobble in making sure those regulations are applied.

H. De Jong: In conclusion, I would just like to say that I have no problem with sensible regulations and practical application. I think it's good, and I have to commend the minister for that. On the other hand -- and this doesn't involve your ministry -- I wish the same would apply to the Ministry of Attorney General when it comes to the Young Offenders Act.

F. Gingell: If I may, I'd like to touch on the issue of the Roberts Bank backup Crown lands. In July last year the Premier of this province travelled to the municipal hall in Ladner to make a series of announcements, some of which dealt with the Burns Bog issue that I bring up every year, and every year I'm told that decisions are going to be made soon. I was just looking back in Hansard of 1993, and in relation to the wildlife management area at that time, it was promised by November.

The specific commitment that the Premier made in July 1993 was that the farmers who presently lease the Roberts Bank backup lands would be given brand new leases that would allow them to do the things they should do, and which I know the minister, as the person responsible for Crown lands, would wish to see them do: reinvest in all manner of things. Would the minister please advise the committee at what point the Roberts Bank backup land leases presently sit?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for your question, hon. member. First of all, I acknowledge the fact that, on behalf of your constituents, you have in the past raised the Burns Bog issue, and I'll give you credit for that. Second, on the matter of Roberts Bank, we have not concluded the leases; we have simply extended the leases. So that's where we are right now,

[ Page 10706 ]

and we're discussing, with representatives of the agricultural industry in the area, some of the issues relating to the extension of those leases.

F. Gingell: The issues relate to two matters. The first is the present short cancellation terms of the present leases. The second issue is with respect to the reimbursement of the value of improvements should those leases be terminated by the government. If you have driven along Highway 17 from the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, you are probably aware that a great deal of agricultural greenhouse development is sprouting up on all sides. That's presently taking place primarily on privately owned farmland that is outside the Roberts Bank backup land area.

I'm sure the minister appreciates and understands the problems that farmers in suburban areas have in dealing with the problems of urban-agriculture interface every day. It's becoming more and more difficult for them to carry on proper,

economically-efficient farming operations on those lands, so the ability to get into the agricultural greenhouse business has a great deal of appeal. The issue stopping them is the question of compensation -- only if, of course, those leases are terminated before they are due.

Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to me that your question really pivots on the issue of the cancellation provisions in the leases. In the discussion we have been having, we have made a commitment that when we deal with and execute the new leases, that clause will not be in there.

F. Gingell: I'm really pleased. I didn't realize that things had moved along since the Premier's statement.

When one expropriates land for a specific purpose, the person from whom the land was expropriated expects it to be used for that purpose. This swath of 4,000 acres through prime agricultural land in Delta was done by the Social Credit government of Premier W.A.C. Bennett more than 20 years ago.

With the development of the Roberts Bank container port and all the things that have happened in discussions about that -- the wildlife and bird issues are dealt with differently in the 1990s than they were in the 1970s -- it is apparent, I'm sure to everybody, that those lands will not be needed for the purpose for which they were originally expropriated. Many of the families that those lands were expropriated from are still alive and are still farming there. Has the ministry given any thought to what I'd like to suggest to you is the right thing to do: allow those families to acquire those farmlands back again?

[3:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: The ministry has taken the view that those lands should be retained in lease form and not sold.

F. Gingell: I'm disappointed to hear that. I can well appreciate that the government, and the Ministry of Environment in particular, would wish to see a means by which that farmland is kept open and green, even though the opportunities to farm it in a sensible, efficient and economic manner become more and more difficult every year, as drainage runoff becomes a problem for farmers and as more and more have problems moving their machinery around on roads that become busier and busier.

If the intention is to keep open green space, couldn't there be some other means of accomplishing that, through the agricultural land reserve or some new form of legislation, instead of through the continuation of expropriation, the purpose for which is no longer valid? It really does seem to be completely unfair. I'm sure the government can maintain their social policy intentions with respect to that land without necessarily owning it. I would like to ask if the minister is willing to consider that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Because he represents the area, the hon. member knows full well that there are agricultural needs and other demands on that land, including the opportunity to engage in viewing wildlife. I suppose there are always ways in which one can achieve the objectives that he is referring to and maintain the values that both he and I are referring to.

It seems to me that that can be fairly easily done by just dealing with the length of the lease as opposed to the transfer of the lands in fee simple and the disposition of them, with all of the legal documentation that would allow either for public access or for agricultural preservation. It seems to me that one could secure uses for those lands, in a covenant under the lease, that are consistent with agricultural purposes and still have the Crown maintain the asset in the land base and generate some revenue through the leases. It seems to me that that is easier to achieve than what you're suggesting.

I can certainly think of covenants that could be placed when you dispose of land and so on. I can see how one could legally do it, but I have to tell you that I also see some value in maintaining the asset. Therefore I think the lease option appeals to me far more than the disposition option.

F. Gingell: I would, if I may, just like to finish up with a response to that, which won't require an answer. When something is taken from us, when something is expropriated from us unwillingly, we try and recognize our responsibilities as citizens to allow those things to happen.

I was on the school board in Delta in the 1960s and in the seventies, when we were the fastest-growing school district, and we were expropriating land for schools all over the place. It was the only way, in times of rapid development, to acquire land. The one occasion when we acquired land for a school that still hasn't been built is the one that still makes the property owner whose land was expropriated angry. We thought we would need a

junior-secondary school site. That may happen one of these days, but it hasn't happened yet, and it's now almost 20 years since that land was expropriated.

It always seems that when the purpose changes and the reason for the expropriation isn't followed through, the person who really has the right to the title of the land is the person who owned it originally. Perhaps I would like a response. I wonder if the issue of native land claims may have any bearing on the issue of the Roberts Bank backup lands.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's an issue. It can't not be an issue, obviously. Natives have indicated that they have some interest in the land. Fortunately, this government has set up a structured Treaty Commission process to deal with these issues. I cannot say that it's not an issue, because it always is. Those kinds of considerations come into play any time government makes any decision on public policy matters.

On the general point, I understand the arguments you're making on the basis of equities. I think that's what you're really saying, but I can't give you any more comfort than that in terms of the direction of government.

F. Gingell: The Ministry of Environment has the administration and responsibility for a whole range of Crown lands; in fact, all the Crown lands in the province. With respect to the issue of native land claims, do you see

[ Page 10707 ]

that land being of two different types? First of all, there is land that has always been part of the Crown. That may be different from land that was settled and originally homesteaded -- it was acquired by an individual freehold owner by whatever means -- and the Crown has subsequently acquired that land back, which is the case here. Does your ministry believe that Crown land that you have acquired by purchase has been severed from the Crown land that you have held from the time of the settlement and colonization of this part of the country?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was listening to what you had to say, and I was trying.... I don't know if you were asking the question generally, or if you were asking specifically. On a general basis, not really. If we have re-acquired land and converted it into Crown land -- which is the scenario that you're laying out -- and it is subject to claims from native peoples, then it is governed by the Treaty Commission process, notwithstanding the fact that it had been acquired earlier.

J. Weisgerber: We're moving along very quickly here, and I didn't want to see the estimates conclude without having an opportunity to ask the minister some questions on vote 32, particularly those relating to the corporate resource inventory initiative. Looking at the estimates, I see that they indicate an increase -- almost doubled -- from $6.3 million last year to $11.3 million this year. Before we get into what and where the money is being spent, I looked at the description of this activity.

It seems to be a very broad kind of initiative, but I read into that a very close and clear connection with aboriginal land claims. Through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, it seems to me that the ministry is setting out to start an inventory process that will enable the government to know where it's at in the resolution of land claims. Could the minister perhaps take five minutes and give me and everybody else who might be interested a description of that activity so that we have a sense of what's going on and how that $11 million is being spent?

Hon. M. Sihota: The inventory process deals with the work that we are doing in a number of areas in trying to bring it together -- first of all, in terms of land use planning, CORE and the protected areas strategy; second, with regard to aboriginal matters, the Treaty Commission process and claims by aboriginals; third, to give us a better indication of the inventory of land available for forestry, mining and those other sorts of resource activities -- so that we can collect the economic and social information and cultural background with regard to lands.

On the aboriginal side, as you know, there have been certain decisions which refer to cultural attributes that one must look at with regard to land and the debate, for example, on culturally modified trees -- which I know you're aware of in terms of your background as a former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. These have been matters of discourse within government. That's what we're doing. It's on aboriginal concerns, CORE, PAS and resources in the province.

J. Weisgerber: Is this work being compartmentalized? Is some work being done to assist the CORE process, other work being done to deal with the protected land use strategy, and a third area of work being done specifically to deal with the preparation for aboriginal land claims? Perhaps the minister could also tell me if it's being done across the province. Is the work to deal with the CORE processes being done in identified geographical areas -- i.e., Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays? Are the Nass Valley and areas around the Nisga'a traditional territories part of that process? Is this pretty specific activity with specific purposes in mind?

[3:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: It is a vehicle that coordinates the information out there and the work that's being done by CORE, PAS and on the aboriginal side. It's more of a coordinating agency. It provides generic information which they may require for their purposes and which we may require for some of the work that we're doing as a ministry on CORE and PAS. It's not compartmentalized per se; rather it's a more generic and coordinating kind of a function.

J. Weisgerber: What I would gather, then, is that a library of information is being gathered. In that kind of generalized approach, I wonder if the ministry is focusing a lot of its energies on the value of various resources, such as forest resources, mineral tenures and petroleum subsurface rights? Is this process designed to develop the quantum, the value or a combination of both of those? Would a land claims negotiator be able to punch into a computer program and establish real dollar values, or would you simply get quantities?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it won't give those quantums, but it would provide the physical attributes upon which one could make those kinds of determinations.

J. Weisgerber: When I looked at the Peat Marwick report dealing with Aboriginal Affairs -- coming out of 1992 -- the recommendation at that time was that the province engage the B.C. Assessment Authority to compile an evaluation of resources and land values in preparation for land claims. About $6.4 million under STOB 20 appears to be for contracted services dealing with that activity. Is that activity being carried on by the B.C. Assessment Authority, or is some other contractor or series of contractors doing this work?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a series of contractors doing this work.

J. Weisgerber: I understand, then, that about $6.5 million worth of contracts is being let or has been let this year, to essentially establish a quantum of resources across the province. That quantum is obviously not available now.

Before we much get much farther down that road, I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what involvement there is with the Ministry of Forests, which we would expect would have a significant amount of information with regard to the quantum that exists on forest resources, and with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to determine what inventories and estimates they have available. Over the years the Ministry of Lands must have gathered tremendous amounts of information. What activity is there involving those three? Perhaps I have overlooked some ministries that might be involved in this. Agriculture is an obvious fourth player in the game.

Hon. M. Sihota: All those ministries -- Forests, Energy and Agriculture -- are all involved in putting together this library, as you describe it. So that is occurring. To the best of our knowledge, we have not contracted out for evaluations.

[ Page 10708 ]

That hasn't been the focus of our work. I think that attends to the two issues you raised.

J. Weisgerber: We do have contractors, independent of government, with about $6.5 million worth of contracts. They are gathering from government -- and I would assume from other sources -- this quantum of resource information: biophysical, cultural, archaeological, social and economic values. These folks are gathering and bringing together a combination of government and non-government information to provide a more accurate analysis or picture of the resources that might be available for the purposes we discussed. Is that a fair assumption as to what is happening?

Hon. M. Sihota: What we're doing is bringing together all the characteristics of different resource values. That's perhaps a better way for me to describe it. That does fit in with what you're saying.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously the next step, particularly with land claims negotiations -- and it also should very likely be the next step with land use decisions, protected areas strategies, etc. -- is affixing a value. Once you've identified a quantum, it would seem logical that the next step would be to affix a dollar value. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us, in this system which would now include CORE, the protected areas strategy through his own ministry and land claims negotiations through Aboriginal Affairs, who will take the information that's being gathered here, at considerable expense, and then layer evaluations on top of that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I paused to discuss something with my staff before answering the question because I think I have a sense of where you're going with your questions. It seems to me -- and I could be wrong -- that you're trying to suggest that somehow this is being driven by the aboriginal treaty negotiation process and that the information is being compiled for those purposes. That isn't the case.

We're just trying to get more efficient in terms of coordinating what different ministries do, and to get a better understanding of the attributes of the land base that we have so that the information is available on a more centralized basis for all ministries. But I suppose that at some point the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs could seek access to the land and do some quantifications, if that's what you're interested in pursuing. I know that the estimates of Aboriginal Affairs were going on, I guess, until today.

That isn't what's driving this process, but that information regarding the characteristics of the land base could be used by that ministry, if it wanted, for those kinds of discussions. But that has not been the focus, and valuation hasn't been the focus.

J. Weisgerber: Given the description in the estimates book -- the reference to negotiations with first nations and the fact that the budget has gone from $3 million to $8 million for operating costs -- and given the emerging nature of land claims, I must confess that I allowed myself to come to the conclusion that the ministry was, at the government's request, preparing an inventory that would be useful for land claims negotiations. Indeed, I very much hoped that somebody was compiling an inventory of resource assets and putting a dollar value on them. Quite honestly, I was hoping that decisions like Mr.

Owen's with regard to Vancouver Island, the Cariboo and the Kootenays would have, as part of those considerations, a dollar value for those resources which were being alienated from one use or committed to another use. I think it's always important to know that, where it's appropriate and where there is a reasonable dollar value.

I'm not at all comforted by the fact that this $6 million or so is being spent simply to provide a volume of information that might be used by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, by CORE or by other agencies. Quite honestly, I had hoped that it was being compiled so that we would go to negotiations equipped with the kind of knowledge that we would need.

Perhaps I can ask a more specific question of the minister: have there been specific inventories done in the Nass Valley, the traditional Nisga'a territory, as part of the Nisga'a land claims process?

Hon. M. Sihota: A couple of points. Let me deal with generalities first and the specifics second. With regard to generalities, we are compiling this information. It is then available as essential information, so we've got it centrally. I think we both agree on that being important.

Secondly, let me go with the three examples. If CORE wants this information, they can now access it; if Mr. Owen wants to do some valuations, he can do that. Aboriginal Affairs can do the same thing. We have federal-provincial negotiations, as the hon. member is well aware, where we may want to and be able to access that information again for the purposes of valuations, or whatever, at the federal-provincial level. So there are all sorts of uses that the information can be put to -- and potentially, yes, to aboriginal matters as well.

On the specific question about the Nass, we have performed work on wildlife and on forest values in the area. That is the extent of the information we're aware of that's been done in that region.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we could move to talking about the way in which these studies are being concluded. It seems to me that $6.5 million is a fairly tidy amount to be contracted out to gather this information. Is this done on a competitive-bid basis? Are blocks of work set out or advertisements laid out? I'm wondering how the ministry has awarded this $6.5 million worth of work. Following that, I would be curious to know who some of those successful folks were.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, we haven't awarded any contracts yet, so there are no successful people. Secondly, the traditional tendering processes would be applied here. That's the information I've got from staff, and I haven't given any instructions otherwise, nor would I. So this would go through the traditional tendering process.

J. Weisgerber: To wind up with this, could the minister give me a sense of the work that's involved? Are we talking about physical inventories? Are we talking about drawing together information that exists? Or are we talking about

computer-specialized information gathering? I'd like to know the kind of work that's going to be done and how broadly distributed around the province the ministry anticipates this rather significant amount of contract work will be.

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, the answer is all of the above. We would do all of the things that you indicated. Some of the money would also go to hiring auxiliary employees, who we may need to do some of the work that's required.

[ Page 10709 ]

J. Weisgerber: Just to be clear, under STOB 20 there's $6.4 million. That would indicate to me not any staff involved but indeed the hiring of contractors or contract-style work. In addition to that, about $1 million under STOB 68 would indicate a fairly sophisticated computer system being brought in.

Is it fair to say, then, because there is about another $2 million in that program for salaries and benefits, that there will be about $6.5 million worth of contract work -- that being to people who are arm's length from government? Or do we see here the government using contractors who may well be working within the Ministry of Environment and using this new computerized equipment that would be part of the package?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it is $6.5 million. I have no idea why you'd be asking the question, but it's not a slush fund. There's work to be done here, and I think you are trying to get at where the contracts are going and all that kind of stuff. It's 4 o'clock. It's too late for you to get a headline now. That's not where it's headed, and it's the normal tendering process. I haven't talked to staff about this, but I suspect this is a very specialized area. There are probably a limited number of people who could do the work.

Generally speaking, I suspect that people who have had direct or indirect involvement with the ministry in the past would be the ones we would be calling on, or who would be calling on us to pursue opportunities in this area.

J. Weisgerber: I hadn't thought of pursuing a headline, but now that you mention it, it probably isn't a bad idea, particularly if you happen to think there is one there.

I was curious to know whether we were going to be dealing with private contractors and whether my constituents and other people around British Columbia might have an opportunity to compete for these jobs. It did occur to me that it would be ironic if the ministry was contemplating the kinds of contract arrangements that I thought were totally appropriate, that Ms. Korbin was critical of and of which the minister in his former role had been critical.

The second part of my question was to decide whether the kinds of contracting that might be done would be similar to those that have been described as "Korbinized" in recent times. I am trying to find out if this work is going to be done in the ministry. Is it going to be done in private offices? Is it going to be done with the minister's million dollars' worth of new computer equipment, or will the contractors be supplying the equipment?

Hon. M. Sihota: There will be an element to this program in the overall budget of $11 million, I believe, that will go by way of private contractors. It will not be the Korbin shadow civil service, because the contracts will be short-term and not of the nature that Ms. Korbin was critical of in her report.

J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify, coming out of that we may well see a series of contracts on a non-competitive basis given to private individuals to work within government, with government's computers, in order to gather this information together. Is that what the minister said to me?

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't say that. I said that we would be looking at some private contracts under the traditional system of seeking those contracts. I didn't say that they would be on a non-competitive basis.

J. Weisgerber: Just so the minister's not too much on his guard, I would encourage him to have a look at what was done in previous years. It seems to me that it was quite a cost-efficient way of bringing people in on a reasonably short-term basis to do a specific job: to give them a contract and not get drawn into bringing them into the civil service. Far from being critical of that process, if it fits the model, I'd encourage the minister to use that model and that style of contracting or hiring to get the job done.

Hon. M. Sihota: It will be short-term contracts made available on a traditional basis for people to do some of this work.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what progress the ministry has made in investigating the slaughter of Roosevelt elk on the northern half of Vancouver Island? What is the progress of that situation, and what steps does the minister contemplate for the future?

Hon. M. Sihota: There has been an investigation by conservation officers with regard to the matter.

W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that the area in question was an area of restricted harvest or limited entry as far as hunting and fishing guidelines are concerned? Can the minister confirm that the Roosevelt elk were protected by the ministry by harvest restrictions in the particular region where the offence is alleged to have taken place?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm just reading a note here. I don't have that information before me. I'll be happy to get that information for the hon. member.

W. Hurd: I'm a little surprised that the minister wouldn't be aware of that information, because his own ministry's interim guidelines on aboriginal use of fish and wildlife suggest that the regional officer has certain responsibilities in areas that do have restricted access.

A few of those responsibilities are: to notify first nations in writing that such a season or harvest restriction is contemplated and offer to meet with them; where there is sustenance use, to ensure harvest calculations take into account the aboriginal priority but also make adjustments for non-aboriginal use; and to issue permits to support that use, including conditions to provide the ministry with information essential for conservation and management purposes.

Can the minister tell us whether any of these activities were undertaken by the regional manager in connection with Roosevelt elk protection or limited-entry processes on northern Vancouver Island?

Hon. M. Sihota: In that situation, 149 elk permits were given in the area. Fifty of those permits were provided to natives. They shot 23, and they reported most of those 23.

W. Hurd: So is the minister telling us that in essence the activity of hunting Roosevelt elk was legal in that particular region under the guidelines being adopted by the ministry? If it was legal, the question that obviously has to be asked is: why is an investigation ongoing, as the minister has indicated?

Hon. M. Sihota: One of the reasons I've been hesitant is that it is not clear to me -- and perhaps the hon. member could be a little more clear, so I could give him the benefit of a more definitive answer -- whether he is talking about

[ Page 10710 ]

northern Vancouver Island or about the incident in the Kyuquot. Is he talking about the incident that occurred in January 1994 and is under investigation by Tahsis RCMP, or is he talking about the northern Island? Perhaps he could clarify it so we can answer the question.

W. Hurd: I am addressing the species in general. The Roosevelt elk, as the minister knows, is considered to be a species endangered on parts of Vancouver Island. As a result of that, I would assume that restricted harvest allocations and/or limited hunting regulations would be in effect.

The latest investigation might have been in January, but I know there have been other incidents on Vancouver Island of Roosevelt elk being killed, as the minister well knows. I know there was an incident in the Lake Cowichan area, for example. I guess my question is: what role and responsibility do the regional managers have to communicate to first nations, to notify them in writing...?

There are a series of initiatives that the regional manager is expected to undertake under the government guidelines, and I'm seeking assurance from the minister that the regional managers are doing that where Roosevelt elk are involved. I would assume that the species has to be protected by limited-entry hunting regulations, and I certainly welcome clarification from the minister on that point, wherever it may be on Vancouver Island.

Hon. M. Sihota: There is a discernible difference between the quality of the questions that you hear from Reform and other members of the House and these poorly researched issues raised by the Liberal Party, and that's been consistent throughout these estimates.

Hon. member, I don't know who is doing your research, but the Roosevelt elk are not an endangered species. There are limited hunting approvals given with regard to elk generally on Vancouver Island. On the north end of Vancouver Island, 149 approvals were given. Regional offices then made a decision with regard to how many would be given to natives. The number in question for the natives was 50. Then officers followed through to ascertain the degree of the kill. The degree was 23 of those 50, which is 50 out of 149 of a species which is not endangered.

W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that the auditor general expressed serious reservations about the inventory data for habitat on Vancouver Island generally. Given that the species may not be in danger but that the herd is declining, I understand, can the minister tell us specifically whether his ministry has addressed the concerns of the auditor general with respect to the habitat for Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island?

[4:15]

Given that there appears to be considerable concern in the conservation community about Roosevelt elk, can the minister tell us whether the habitat inventory for that species is advanced over what's available generally on Vancouver Island? During the course of the estimates, many of the issues that have been raised by the opposition have come out of the concerns raised by the auditor general of the province. The minister may choose not to answer those questions; that's his right. But again, with respect to the Roosevelt elk and the concerns raised by the auditor general, where are we in terms of an inventory for the habitat for that species?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are 3,500 elk that we've identified on Vancouver Island. The process of identification is such that we are conservative in our estimates, and for good reason, in terms of conservation of wildlife. So we have that information. We work with companies to make sure that these species are protected, and through the process I have already outlined with regard to northern Vancouver Island, we limit the amount of kill.

In terms of preparing for these estimates, it seems to me that the Liberal Party's degree of research is limited to the auditor general's report, and they have taken some of the broad concerns which are legitimate in that report and tried to specify them with regard to Roosevelt elk.

When I was speaking at the B.C. Wildlife Federation convention -- on April 6, if memory serves me right -- I indicated that the government would be engaging in some studies with regard to conservation issues under the habitat conservation fund. I don't think your researchers are aware of the fact that I announced a study that would be done to refine seasonal models for predicting Roosevelt elk habitat values on Vancouver Island.

If you attended the Public Accounts Committee -- as you should on Wednesdays -- you'd know that the auditor general would agree that we've taken this report and attended to all the deficiencies that he referred to. The point is that the 3,500 elk on Vancouver Island are not endangered. A study further announced on April 6 -- which you should be aware of because it was in a press release -- allows us to improve upon the models that we have for elk. With regard to estimates of wildlife harvest, I can give you some numbers in terms of elk as well, if you want them. That information is available to your research staff.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us what the current harvest levels would be for Roosevelt elk on Vancouver Island? Is it the 50 that he mentioned previously? Is it higher? This is an interesting issue. While acknowledging that 3,500 of the species exist, can the minister tell us what the harvest levels would be for the coming fiscal year and whether he's satisfied that the appropriate information exists within his ministry to support whatever harvest level the ministry is recommending?

Hon. M. Sihota: The number of elk harvested on Vancouver Island in 1992 was 110; 1991, 140; 1990, 136; 1989, 121; 1988, 103; 1987, 108; 1986, 113; 1985, 110; 1984, 100; 1983, 100; 1982, 105; 1981, 100; and 1980, 120. These statistics are available. You can go to the wildlife branch on Blanshard Street, right across from the courthouse in Victoria. The information is readily available, and I am pleased to say that government handsomely provides research assistance and funding for the Liberal Opposition.

Again, it's evident that the quality of the questions emanating from the Liberals is significantly inferior to those from the other parties.

That's not surprising, given the absence of the environmental ethic on the part of the Liberals, as is evidenced by the fact that they want mining in parks; that they have argued in this House that we ought not to proceed with environmental prosecution because it "demoralizes the business sector"; that they don't want us, as the hon. member has suggested, to put out an annual list of B.C.'s worst polluters, because somehow that would offend business; and that they want us to get rid of environmental regulation at a time when British Columbians are saying: "Get tough on polluters, crack down on them and make sure that our environment is as safe and clean as it can be and that future generations can inherit an environment as safe and clean as the one we've inherited."

I note with great regret that that is the position of the Liberal Party. It is obviously dictated by the rich and powerful on Howe Street and emphasized by the lack of

[ Page 10711 ]

research on these issues by the Liberals. With that said, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: The member for Richmond-Steveston on a point of order?

A. Warnke: I believe the motion is on the vote of the estimates, is it not?

The Chair: We are not calling for the vote. The motion, I believe, was for the committee to rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Motions on Notice

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to call Motion 47 in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to move this motion that's before the House because of the state of negotiations over the

Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Pacific Salmon Treaty governs fishing arrangements for the Canada-U.S. interception fishery. That means in theory that we agree to a fair sharing of the harvest of salmon produced in each other's rivers. The treaty is based on two basic principles: first, the principle of conservation, which is to rebuild and optimize salmon production through improved management and conservation; second, the principle of equity, which is to provide each party with benefits equal to the salmon production in its own waters.

The treaty was signed in 1985, after approximately 20 years of negotiations. The Canada-U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty should be a fundamental component to conserve and manage this province's annual $1.3 billion seafood industry. And it would be, if its core principles were respected by the United States, which seems more intent on breaching rather than following its treaty obligations. But during the years since the treaty was first signed, the U.S. has failed to abide by its principles and has actually substantially increased its interception of B.C. salmon.

From the outset, let me make it very clear that the province of British Columbia is not prepared to sit back and allow our fishery to fall victim to American pressure tactics. The risks are too great, and the consequences will be painful. All members in this House should go to a place like Prince Rupert, as I did two weeks ago, and listen to the concerns of those most involved in the fishing industry in B.C. -- the same people who stand to lose the most as a result of this American intransigence.

The impasse over the salmon treaty has created much uncertainty for 25,000 British Columbians working in the industry, for first nations people with age-old ties to the fishery and for thousands of recreational fishers. In addition, recreational salmon fishing represents a significant part of B.C.'s tourism industry. The concern expressed in Prince Rupert is indicative of a wave of anxiety that is reverberating throughout the province.

Last Thursday the city of Prince Rupert sent me a copy of their own resolution, which states that the council is resolved to support Canada's firm stand with the U.S. over the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Never has there been such united support for the federal government to stand firm against the Americans. It is the livelihood of those who rely on the fishery and the health of our salmon stocks that is most at risk in the current treaty impasse.

As well, I had the opportunity to discuss concerns with my federal counterpart, the Hon. Brian Tobin, during a meeting we had in Prince Rupert. I was encouraged by the federal minister's willingness to include our input. He had just returned from his home province of Newfoundland, dealing with some of the severe adjustment measures they're having to undertake there because they didn't have an appropriate management regime for their own fishery in place. I have accepted his invitation to join him when he takes Canada's case to Washington, D.C., in the near future.

The 1985 treaty was founded on the principles of salmon conservation and equitable sharing of the resource. These principles are being ignored by our American neighbours, who take far more than their fair share of Canadian salmon. In the nine years since the treaty was first signed, it has become more and more evident that the U.S. has not lived up to its end of the deal and remains unwilling to do so. For example, in 1992 the U.S. unilaterally took 361,000 more Fraser River sockeye than was stipulated under the treaty. Last year this imbalance was $65 million in their favour.

If they had their way, that imbalance would rise to $100 million this year. Is this the U.S. definition of equity? If it is, it's totally unacceptable. As a province we've done our part. We have sacrificed and benefited from salmon conservation.

What have our neighbours achieved? Well, the U.S. overfishing and river dam construction have wiped out fish habitat on a major scale. American industrial development has led to the extinction of more than 100 salmon runs in Washington, Oregon and California. Dozens of other fish habitats are threatened by industrial greed. Yet the Americans feel that it's fair to demand even more access to our salmon, to compensate for their poor environmental practices. U.S. interceptions of

B.C.-bound salmon are most flagrant in southeast Alaska, where overfishing threatens coho and steelhead stocks and is threatening our conservation efforts on these important stocks.

Until American interests take seriously our concerns for conservation, and in particular agree to reduce their take of northern coho and steelhead, this standoff will develop into something much worse. It is time for Canada to just say no. We have shown a willingness to reduce our harvest of U.S.-spawned salmon. Last year, for instance, our harvest of U.S. coho on the west coast of Vancouver Island was limited to only one million fish, compared to the 1.7 million we were allowed to take under the treaty. Yet this willingness has not been recognized by those on the other side of the treaty table.

What action has our government taken to date? First, we have ensured that the provincial government has a voice at

[ Page 10712 ]

the treaty table. My predecessor worked very hard to get our own commissioner appointed to the commission last year. This means we have immediate feedback from the negotiations as they happen.

Second, we have been working so closely with the federal government on this issue that sometimes we think we can hear them thinking. We have kept up a constant pressure, so that they can be sure of our strong support in their stand against the American waffling. Within days of his appointment, the new federal Fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, received a letter from me congratulating him on his appointment and then, in the next breath, expressing our concern over the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Since that time there has been an exchange of correspondence between me and the Fisheries minister, all urging a resolution to this serious issue.

The Premier has also written to the Prime Minister on this issue and then met with him when the Prime Minister visited Vancouver in early April. As a result, the Prime Minister spoke to President Clinton on April 22 and asked him to look into this matter personally; the President assured the Prime Minister that he would do so. I've met with Brian Tobin face to face twice now on this matter of the treaty, and during those meetings he asked me to join him on a joint mission to Washington, D.C., to show solidarity in Canada.

Finally, we have been addressing our concerns directly to the United States. The Premier has written to the state Governors and met with federal representatives on his trip to Washington, D.C., in December 1993. I have also met with my counterpart from Washington State. This government is taking the strongest possible action and is ready to go to the highest levels to protect our fisheries.

[4:30]

How can this situation be resolved? One must look to the U.S. capital for that answer. President Clinton has expressed to our Prime Minister a willingness to take a personal interest in this issue. This is a positive sign, but we as a nation have to keep up the pressure. As we all know, President Clinton has a lot of things on his mind, and it's our job to ensure that these matters are at least high enough on the priority list that he gets action from his counterparts who are supposed to be at the negotiating table.

It's time to make the U.S. government understand that it has responsibilities to live up to this international treaty and that this obligation requires the federal government to override the conflicting regional interests of Alaska, Washington and Oregon. These states must be forced to respect the letter and spirit of the salmon treaty: fair sharing and conservation. No longer will Canada pay the price for their poor salmon resource management. We are now within weeks of the opening of the salmon season, and the spectre of a fish war is hanging over all our heads.

We do not want a fish war; it will serve no one's interests. Our resource is too valuable to be sacrificed in an unregulated battle, pitting fishers against each other, where nobody wins.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty provides for the fair sharing of transboundary salmon and for sound conservation principles that will protect this valuable resource for generations to come. It is what the industry has a right to expect, it's what the people of the province want and it's what Canada has worked hard to achieve. That's why this motion is so important. By standing together, we can bring about a successful conclusion to this issue.

Let's send a very strong message to the American fishing industry, and let's make it loud and clear that this country is prepared to stand together and protect its fair share of the tremendous salmon resource. That's why I ask for all-party support to provide a united front to the federal government and encourage them to do likewise.

R. Chisholm: It gives me pleasure to rise today to support the government's motion. It's not a pleasure to have to rise to speak to it, but it is a pleasure to rise and support them in their efforts.

This is a very important motion regarding the future of our salmon stocks in British Columbia. As the minister said, the Americans have not conserved, and now they're looking northward. The Pacific Salmon Treaty was first signed in 1985. When it was signed, our fishermen made sacrifices by limiting their catches, to ensure increased spawning stocks and consequent growth in stocks. We restricted economic development, such as on hydroelectric dams, to protect the salmon and their habitat. We made an investment in hatcheries and habitat improvement for the enhancement of salmon.

We did all of these while, at the same time, the Americans were putting 30 hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River. Now they wonder why their stocks are decimated and they've lost 100 runs. This is far too important to allow it to go on for another year. Last year we averted this fish war in the eleventh hour. This year we have to solve this problem once and for all. This is a $1.3 billion industry in British Columbia. It desperately needs our attention, and it needs it now.

I too have spoken to Brian Tobin on two occasions, and I've spoken to Herb Dhaliwal, Sheila Copps and a few other people about this problem. They are very supportive, and they need our support right now to help solve this. We have to bring pressure to bear to force the Americans to address the issue -- the issue of coming to the table.

We have four states involved here. Oregon, Washington and Idaho are not a problem. They have put in a zero quota. They realize that they have a problem with their salmon stocks and that they are losing their salmon very quickly. But the state of Alaska is a maverick in the north and is taking the salmon before it can ever get to the spawning grounds. There is absolutely nothing to stop them. They haven't seen in the past and don't see for the foreseeable future any reason why they should stop fishing the salmon. Unfortunately, we now see fishermen from the states of Washington and Oregon up in Alaska fishing the same salmon. All we're doing is managing to destroy the species that remain.

We can take retaliatory action. Maybe the Tatshenshini should have been used as a card during the negotiations on this. We can talk about us going out and overfishing and putting pressure on their salmon stocks, too, but that is not going to solve the problem. As a matter of fact, that is just going to hinder it. It's going to end up destroying our own stocks plus the American stocks, and that doesn't make any sense.

The representatives on the Pacific Salmon Treaty walked away in March of this year, and they haven't been back. The evidence is that the U.S. is not prepared to take a pragmatic, realistic approach to negotiations on equity. On average, U.S. fishers have been taking close to nine million Canadian-origin salmon annually, compared to the Canadian annual interception of less than four million. That figure represents some $65 million to $70 million per year. That is the problem; it's an economic problem. The state of Alaska doesn't want to lose that $65 million. By refusing to deal with this issue, the U.S. is in violation of one of the primary articles of the agreement. That

article reads clearly that each party shall receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters. The treaty also states that if it is determined that one country or the

[ Page 10713 ]

other is deriving substantially greater benefits than those provided from its rivers, it would be expected that the parties would develop a phased program to eliminate the inequity within a specific period of time.

Since this treaty was signed, Canada has been very successful in increasing the production of salmon stocks up to 50 percent in the Fraser, as well as in some of the northern rivers. Over the same period of time, U.S. production of coho and chinook south of the border has been going steadily down. Now they have a zero quota in Oregon and Washington. The balance of interception which existed at the time the treaty was signed has significantly altered; this is indisputable. The problem is that this will decimate the fisheries. They are far too important for two countries to play with and have them go extinct.

Canada is now saying that the U.S. made a commitment there would be an equitable balance of interception, and the U.S. wishes to ignore that. They want significantly more of the resource. The U.S. is trying to get more Fraser River sockeye. They also want fishermen to take less U.S.-origin coho and chinook, for U.S. conservation reasons. We're saying conservation is part of this treaty, too, as it was signed in 1985. The U.S. wants it both ways. They want Canada to cut back for conservation, and they want to get more of our Fraser River fish. It just doesn't make any sense.

Some of the key problems we have with the imbalance in this industry relate to what is going to happen to the 15,000 British Columbia fishermen and plant workers dependent on the resource for their income. What's going to become of the tourism dollars? One-third of every dollar in tourism that comes into this province originates from the salmon. Canada has made constructive proposals to assist U.S. conservation efforts for coho in the Pacific Northwest, but there has been a lack of U.S. willingness to reduce Alaskan catches of northern B.C. coho, which also faces conservation problems.

In addition, the U.S. is seeking to avoid its obligations under the treaty to ensure Canada receives benefits from its own salmon production, and that's the equity principle.

The improved abundance of salmon in British Columbia rivers in recent years is a result of a substantial investment by Canadians, including all those sacrifices I have mentioned. I believe that Canadians should be reaping some of the benefits, but they won't, because the U.S. will be decimating the runs. The people of British Columbia, and Canadians as a whole, are entitled to benefit from their careful husbanding of the Pacific salmon resource. These U.S. demands and activities threaten to undermine the internationally recognized achievements by Canadians in salmon conservation and enhancement.

B.C. and Canada have made a very firm statement and put their positions forward very clearly to the United States. British Columbia has advanced its position at a number of different levels -- to the salmon commission and to senior diplomatic levels of government. We will continue to do that; it is fundamentally in the best interests of both parties and of the fish. As I said, I met with the hon. minister and various other members of government in February. They are all saying the same thing: they see a disaster forming at this point in time off our coast. I'll be meeting with the minister again.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise in this debate. Certainly I support the intent of what the Minister of Agriculture is proposing here. There is, of course, some background to the current situation. It can probably be summed up in the political and environmental problems in the United States that have led to the huge deficit of fish in the coastal waters off the Washington and Oregon coast over the last couple of years. There are probably two main contributing reasons, one being the freak ocean current temperatures which have warmed the temperature of the ocean and caused salmon stocks to dwindle.

The other main reason is the Bolt decision in the United States, which said that Washington State natives are entitled to 50 percent of the total fishery. That combination has heightened the aggressiveness of United States fishermen in raiding Canadian stocks.

The provincial government undoubtedly has worked very hard on behalf of British Columbia, and I must commend the previous minister for having expended a great deal of effort to solve the problem. One of the problems in Canada is that our federal government has been dragging its feet. The new Liberal government is particularly remiss in not dealing with the Pearse report, which recommended tougher enforcement of native and other fishing on the Fraser in particular. I'm also a little concerned, while I'm not sure....

If the provincial government does indeed do something similar to what they have done in Washington and Oregon, in terms of bargaining away part of the fish stocks through negotiations with the native people, then of course we will not solve the problem, and we may never get the support of the federal government. We know that over 300,000 fish were lost last year because of lack of enforcement and lack of political will to do anything about the growing native commercial fishery. After all, we're all Canadians.

[4:45]

My position is that any solution to the fishery problem must involve two things: first, a recognition of the problems facing the American fishery and a continued determination to preserve control over the Fraser River salmon stocks, which belong to British Columbia; and second, a recognition that the aboriginal fishery is a huge problem that must be solved if we are going to maintain a healthy fishery into the future. The Pearse commission recommendations must be implemented. I, along with everyone in the House, I'm sure, would welcome all initiatives to encourage our Liberal government in Ottawa to stand up for once for the interests of the average British Columbian.

D. Lovick: I'm delighted to rise in my place to support this particular motion. I'm also very pleased to see this motion come before us, especially as one who represents a maritime constituency, one in whose riding fisheries are a significant industry. Indeed, there's a great support system around the fishing industry in Nanaimo that also captures and commands much of my attention.

I first heard about the looming crisis over the Pacific Salmon Treaty at least six months ago, when a delegation visited my office. They were part of the B.C. Fisheries

[ Page 10714 ]

Survival Coalition, which many members in this chamber will certainly be familiar with. At the time, those people from the industry had a whole series of concerns. But they made it very clear to me that there was one concern that probably had more potential impact and importance than all of the others.

As they put it, "If we lose this battle" -- namely, the battle regarding our relationship with the United States over the fishery -- "then all the other questions about aboriginal rights, environmental demands and degradation of the fishery and the fish stock are secondary; they don't even count." That was the opinion presented to me by the Fisheries Survival Coalition. I'm therefore, as I say, very pleased to participate in this debate and to give my support to this particular resolution.

About 20 years ago I participated in a debate at Malaspina College. In fact, I wrote the resolution for the debate, because at the time I was the coach of the team and was trying to encourage my students to get involved in debate. The resolution that we debated at the time was "Pro-Canadian and Anti-American: The Same Damn Thing." You can guess what happened when that particular resolution came out, Mr. Speaker. We had calls to the press, and a number of my colleagues in the faculty association suggested that the proposition suggesting that being pro-Canadian was somehow anti-American was absolutely outrageous and reprehensible.

The point I was trying to make and to get everybody to focus on 20 years ago, just as I would today, is that the geographical, political, economic and social reality of our nation, Canada, is so inextricably tied and connected to the United States, that when you say anything supportive of Canada, in all likelihood you are also going to be making somebody south of the 49th parallel believe that you're anti-American. The predicament, as a number of wise people have pointed out better than I could ever do, is that it's the reality of the mouse sleeping next door to the elephant.

The problem, of course, is that even if the mouse has honourable and noble intentions, God help us if they're amorous, because if the elephant rolls over, the mouse is in trouble. Essentially, that's our predicament in our relationship with the United States. We have what I think can fairly be described as a love-hate relationship with that amazing land of paradox, the United States of America.

All of us who were born and raised in this country have grown up sharing a North American identity, no question. But we've also recognized, I think fairly early in the game, that we need to be wary of that relationship, because the interests of the United States are not necessarily the same as those of Canada; indeed, sometimes they're absolutely contrary.

In this instance, when we talk about the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the long-term interests of the two nations are, or certainly ought to be, exactly equivalent. They ought to be; sadly, it seems they are not. Why this resolution? Let me remind those who are listening to this debate exactly what we are debating. The resolution reads as follows:

The two key principles in the Pacific Salmon Treaty from its beginning have been: (1) equity -- a fairness principle, which is probably the case in any treaty, at least ostensibly; and (2) conservation. The problems -- surprise, surprise -- are exactly the same: one has to do with the absence of equity, and the other with threats to conservation of the salmon resource.

The first problem is simply that there is no equitable sharing at the moment between the United States and Canada. Rather, as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pointed out some minutes ago, the Americans are taking $65 million more of Canadian fish than they are entitled to. That's the problem with the equity. This principle that we endorse and embrace in the treaty, that we all ostensibly agree to, is being violated as long as that disparity exists.

The second problem has to do, of course, with conservation. Canada's and British Columbia's conservation objectives are to reduce the interception of our Canada-bound northern fish. Needless to say, the interception of those stocks in large numbers by American fishers directly hinders our efforts to conserve that fisheries resource.

A couple of examples will make the point. Just the other day we all witnessed what was happening at the border crossing at Oyama in the southern Okanagan. We saw all those orchardists out there saying that a deliberate policy of dumping cheap apples into Canada was having a devastating effect on B.C.'s agriculture industry by driving the prices down. Those orchardists were simply saying that the federal government should take strong action with the American federal government to prevent that from happening. The fact is that it's still happening.

I give you another example, one closer to me in my riding -- namely forestry. There has been continuing vexatious and irresponsible behaviour by our American counterparts when it comes to forestry issues. I'm referring to the export of softwood lumber from this country to the United States. That's why there is a motion under my name on the order paper. I'd love to see this one debated too, members opposite; and I'd love to get unanimous support for this one as well, be assured. The motion reads as follows:

"Be it resolved that this House demand that Canada's Minister of International Trade formally communicate to the United States federal government Canada's strongest objection to the United States International Trade Commission's continued harassment of Canada's softwood lumber exports and persistent disregard of rulings of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) binational panel."

Those are strong words, despite all that verbiage, but the reality is that it has been "persistent disregard."

Since we signed the free trade agreement in 1989, there have been three major challenges to B.C.'s softwood lumber industry, and I think it's safe to say that they have all proven to be vexatious. Moreover, the reality is that we don't have sufficient assurances in the free trade agreement, which is why a number of us opposed it -- that and other reasons. We don't have sufficient definition of what exports are, what

[ Page 10715 ]

subsidies are, what the rules are governing countervail and so forth, so we're subjected to a continuous and ongoing assault by the Americans in terms of our lumber industry. It causes us a major problem. It seems to be a policy of deliberate harassment.

The third example is the one we're discussing now: the apparently wilful disregard of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. As I said a moment ago, that treaty is based on the principle and premise of fairness. Unfortunately, the evidence is that the Americans are not playing fair with regard to this treaty and our relationship. Every year since the signing, the average has been that the United States catch exceeds the Canadian one by about $65 million. In 1992, for example, the United States unilaterally took 361,000 more Fraser River sockeye than was stipulated by the negotiated agreement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. M