Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 8

[ Page 3627 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that the arrival of his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is imminent, so I would just ask members to stay in their seats for a moment.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1997

Correction Amendment Act, 1997

Offence Amendment Act, 1997

British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act

Food Donor Encouragement Act

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1997

Capital Region Water Supply and Sooke Hills Protection Act

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, Victoria is, of course, a very striking community, and coming to Victoria for the first time is a guest from Toronto, Ms. Deshmukh, together with her husband, who is in town attending a conference. Would all members welcome her as well as Dorothy and Jim Tighe, who are in the gallery today.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today, visiting one of our legislative interns, is Mr. Verne Macdonnell. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: Many of us were treated to a choir singing in the rotunda today over the noonhour. I must say that it is probably one of the most beautiful choirs I've heard in a long time, and of course, they're from Mission. The choir director is David Krueger, and that was the Mission Secondary choir, a mix of grades 8 to 12 students. I bid the House thank them for their serenade.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure to introduce today a woman who I've known for many years. I first became acquainted with her when she was moving to Thailand to work with the people there through CUSO. She moved on to work at the United Nations, and ended up, however, leaving Canada and living in Australia. I'd like the House to please welcome back to Canada Marjorie Janz and her daughter Estella.

B. McKinnon: I would like the House to welcome constituents of mine from Surrey, Jerry and Andrea Healey. Please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: Today I rise and ask you to share with me a very happy announcement, the birth of my second grandchild. This beautiful little girl was born to my son David and his wife Jocelyne on Sunday, May 25, at Lions Gate Hospital, weighing 7 pounds 13 ounces. She is a little sister for Darren. I invite the House to join with me in welcoming Courtney Gisele Whittred into this world.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature Ms. Josettie Li, who is a registered nurse by profession. She recently completed a tour of duty in the Northwest Territories and is enjoying some warm weather in Lotusland prior to returning to the north. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Dalton: Last Thursday evening the Premier, the opposition leader and I were honoured and fortunate to be among the audience at Rick Hansen's tenth anniversary of his Man in Motion World Tour. We all know Rick's accomplishments, and I don't need to go through those with the members. Could I ask you, hon. Speaker, on behalf of all members in the House, to write to Rick, thanking him for his past endeavours, wishing him well in his future endeavours and ensuring him of our ongoing support?

The Speaker: I thank the member for that, and I shall be delighted to do so on your behalf.

Hon. A. Petter: A usually reliable source in the press gallery has sent me a note saying it would be an appropriate day on which to wish Mike Smyth of the Vancouver Province and Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun a happy birthday. I only hope that source is as reliable today, and I would ask the House, based on that assumption, to join in wishing those gentlemen a happy birthday.

The Speaker: I hope Hansard will record that that was unanimous.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD

(MURPHY CASE)

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister for Children and Families informed the House and admitted that all information with regard to the Murphy case had not been forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board at the outset of their review. We now have in our possession a letter dated January 23, 1997, from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services. It makes it clear that the people to whom the ministry wants to send the young girl in the Murphy case had already faced allegations of abuse. Children had been removed from the home because of "inappropriate discipline." One girl was removed from the home and refused to return.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: can the minister tell the House whether or not the Saskatchewan ministry letter was forwarded to the Child and Family Review Board at the outset of the review process for the Murphy case?

Hon. P. Priddy: I cannot tell you the exact date, but all of the information that was submitted to us by Saskatchewan,

[ Page 3628 ]

including from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Social Services and Touchwood Child and Family Services, which is the aboriginal social services, was submitted to the review board.

G. Campbell: With respect to the minister, the date with regard to this letter is important. It's important to all of us. I've felt that as we've tried to ask questions in the House, it is like pulling teeth from the minister in terms of getting information.

This is a very important situation, hon. Speaker. Not only is it difficult to get complete information, but now questions of the ministry's standards have been raised. The director of child protection has said that in every family you assess, there are historical blemishes.

My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: would the minister send her child to a family with a record of striking children . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

G. Campbell: . . . so hard that they are removed from the home, that one of the children is hospitalized? And if the minister wouldn't send one of her children, why would we consider sending the child involved in the Murphy case?

M. Coell: Tim and Dana Murphy have spent close to $15,000 on legal fees, trying to get custody of their foster daughter. When they were refused access to the home study conducted by the ministry, they hired private investigators to look into allegations of child abuse. Why is it necessary to the minister for a family to jump through these hoops to get basic questions answered surrounding safety of the home that their foster child was to be sent to in Saskatchewan?

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, the Murphys' lawyer had access to the home studies and, my understanding is, while not able to give a copy, was able to share information from that with them.

M. Coell: The Murphys simply want what is in the best interest of their foster daughter. I think we all can agree that we want to set the highest standards for care of children in this province.

Does the minister agree that any history of violence towards a child in a prospective foster home, or home, should disqualify that family from being considered an appropriate placement for any child?

USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

FOR FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN

R. Thorpe: On another subject, we have learned that the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has closed her Ladysmith constituency office for the month of May. It appears she has very generously allowed the federal NDP to use this very office for their campaign.

In 1993 the conflict-of-interest commissioner, Ted Hughes . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! Please, let's hear the question before we adjudicate whether it is or isn't out of order.

R. Thorpe: In 1993 conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes issued a series of reports on constituency allowances. On page 19 of that interim report, he stated: "A member's constituency office may not be used for partisan political activities. The constituency office allowance is designed to encourage communication between the member and all of his or her constituents and must be operated on a strictly non-partisan basis." Is this another example of the NDP helping their friends and insiders? My question to the minister is: why is she flouting the Hughes recommendations by allowing the federal NDP campaign to run from her constituency office?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Despite the fact that the question has nothing whatsoever to do with my portfolio, I'll be happy to answer it.

Had the Liberal member opposite done his homework -- i.e., talked to Mr. Hughes -- he would have discovered that the arrangement in place today is precisely the same that was in place for the 1996 election. It's in place with the blessing of and in consultation with Mr. Hughes.

R. Thorpe: It is about representing all the constituents in British Columbia, especially those she was elected to represent in Ladysmith. The citizens of Ladysmith have lost the services of their constituency office for the month of May, for no other reason than partisan politics. Can the minister explain how closing down her office for the month of May helps her represent her constituents in Ladysmith?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. J. Pullinger: The only complaint I've heard is from the member opposite. I would remind members opposite that I have one constituency assistant, who works very hard on behalf of my constituents. She's well respected by my constituents. All of the actions that I've taken with respect to my constituency office have the explicit approval of Mr. Ted Hughes, who was the conflict-of-interest commissioner.

G. Farrell-Collins: This doesn't have to do with conflict of interest; this has to do with a member using her political office to help further the gain of a federal candidate during an election campaign. The constituency office belongs to the constituents, not to the New Democratic Party.

Can the minister tell us how she can, with all conscience, tell the constituents in her riding that it is okay for her to use her constituency office in a federal election campaign, for partisan purposes on behalf of the New Democratic Party, instead of for the constituents of her riding, who should be the ones being represented in that office?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member might be interested to know that my office in Ladysmith is staffed by volunteers most of the time, because in a rural riding one constituency assistant can't be in nine communities . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please. We must hear the answer.

[ Page 3629 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would simply reiterate that the arrangement that's in place is there with the blessing of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. There is not one nickel of public money going into it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us: when her constituents show up on the doorstep of her Ladysmith constituency office, how are they supposed to tell whether they're getting non-partisan representation from an MLA on their behalf or they're actually applying to the New Democratic Party for help?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's a big orange sign on the door that says "Elect Garth Mirau, Federal New Democrat Candidate," and my number in Duncan is well advertised.

B.C. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit. The Liberals have finally received documents on absenteeism at B.C. Transit, and it states that absenteeism costs B.C. Transit approximately $15 million annually. Can the minister tell the House why B.C. Transit would rather raise transit fares than combat absenteeism, which costs Transit $15 million per year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Absenteeism is a problem, and it's a top priority for resolving. In 1996, B.C. Transit requested the assistance of the office of the auditor general in analyzing the issue of operator efficiency. The office of the auditor general made several recommendations regarding attendance management. B.C. Transit agreed with those recommendations, and they are now implementing them. B.C. Transit established the attendance management program; they set long-term objectives regarding attendance. The underlying philosophy of the program is that if employees are well, they come to work; if they are not well, they stay at home.

D. Symons: During the 1995 estimates I asked the then chair of B.C. Transit, Derek Corrigan, about absenteeism. During that debate he said: "I personally associate many of the problems we have over absenteeism with a dysfunctional management-labour relationship."

Does the minister agree with her former chair that absenteeism is caused by the labour-management relationship at Transit? And if so, why hasn't this been fixed in the intervening two years? I might add that absenteeism today is roughly the same as it was two years ago.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It never ceases to amaze me how this member never listens to the first answer.

The auditor general made several recommendations. We listened to those recommendations, and we implemented them. I'll say it again: the attendance management program has been put in place as a result of the auditor general's recommendation. It provides a mechanism to manage employees who are absent from work, with a strong emphasis on a comprehensive rehabilitation process.

I will just add that the issue of absenteeism is equally important to the unions, as they pay 100 percent of the long-term disability costs of their members.

The program defines the supervisor's role and clearly defines the responsibilities of the various parties involved in attendance management. As part of the plan the B.C. Transit human resources department will be conducting an employee survey to make sure they identify attendance, productivity and other workplace-related issues, just as the auditor general recommended.

FOREST SECTOR JOBS

IN ALBERTA AND B.C.

C. Hansen: We have learned that Alberta has managed to attract 100 new companies to their secondary wood manufacturing sector, employing more than 12,000 Albertans. At the same time, we see investment fleeing B.C.'s forests. Will the Minister of Forests explain to this House why Alberta has had such success while British Columbians are losing jobs and investments?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. We can't function on this basis.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suggest that there's been more fibre available in Alberta, that they have not had a fully developed forest industry, that B.C. has had its share of investment over the years gone by. We have had . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, clearly the opposition doesn't listen to the facts. There are 10,000 more jobs in British Columbia than there were five years ago, and there will be more. British Columbia's forest industry lacks . . . .

An Hon. Member: Leadership.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I was going to say that it lacks the support of the opposition, who are always running down one of the finest industries in the country.

I can go on and list many investments that are being made in British Columbia. This government is showing leadership in developing a jobs and timber accord, which will produce 21,000 new jobs in the next few years.

[2:30]

C. Hansen: I've heard it said that the Alberta government is a government by Ralph Klein; here we see a government in decline.

Hon. Speaker, the number of jobs in the Alberta forest industry has increased by 50 percent since 1990. During the same period of time, while this party has been in power in this House, we have seen no increase in forest jobs in this province. In fact, last year we saw a decline of 5,500 jobs in this province. Can the Minister of Forests tell us why the number of jobs in Alberta has been rising while the number in this province has been declining under this party's leadership?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've answered that question before. There has been an increase of over 1 percent this year over last year. We're in a pulp slump, and there are signs that we're coming out of that. Alberta had a large amount of uncommitted fibre resource that they allocated to the industry, so it's to be expected that the jobs numbers would increase there.

[ Page 3630 ]

Let me quote from the Price Waterhouse conference on March 26 of this year. It says:

"I think there are some great investment opportunities in the industry, and British Columbia may have far more than its share over the next few years. Despite my general misgivings about new investment, B.C. is still attracting a significant amount given the fact that much of the commercial forest has already been allocated."

That's a quote which I'm sure that side of the House is happy to support.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Motion without Notice

Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move the following motion:

be it resolved that this House supports the government of British Columbia's decision to serve notice of termination of the seabed licence-of-occupation agreement associated with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose, in response to the extreme and inflexible position taken by the United States in the negotiation to achieve a new Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Leave granted.

NEW PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

Hon. G. Clark: This is a significant step by the province of British Columbia, a unilateral step to deal with a very serious situation with respect to the Pacific salmon. It's one that we've chosen to bring to the House to show the rest of Canada and the United States, I hope, that all members of this House feel strongly that the need to preserve and protect the salmon resource for its own sake, for the sake of jobs and for the sake of communities in British Columbia has the support of all members of the House.

Conservation of our Pacific salmon . . . . It's a symbol of our province's riches and of the need for strong environmental stewardship. It's a common value of all British Columbians. British Columbians are overwhelmingly of the view that foreign overfishing -- uncontrolled interception fishery as conducted by American fleets in the waters off Washington State and Alaska -- poses the single biggest threat to the survival of our fish.

On Friday our government announced action intended to deal with that threat, or to go some way toward putting the United States and Canada on notice that we take this issue very seriously. We gave Canada 90 days' notice of our intention to cancel the licence of occupation, allowing the use of the Strait of Georgia near Nanoose for U.S. Navy torpedo testing, in response to the Americans' inflexible and unacceptable refusal to negotiate a new Pacific Salmon Treaty.

A Pacific Salmon Treaty is our only guarantee that the fish produced by our rivers return to them to spawn. All members of the House know that for the last year the British Columbia government -- perhaps for the first time in British Columbia history -- has taken the issue of the salmon fishery in British Columbia seriously. We've taken a series of initiatives to deal with that resource.

First, we chose to debate with the federal government to wrest more control from the federal government to British Columbia on the salmon fishery. We signed a historic agreement with the federal government -- the first time in my memory, really, that British Columbia has managed to negotiate the transfer of significant jurisdiction to our province when it comes to the salmon resource.

Second, in the Legislature we've tabled Fisheries Renewal B.C. legislation, which was designed to reinvest back into this resource a mechanism that ensures that rather than changing from bureaucrats in Ottawa to bureaucrats in Victoria, we set up a process so that communities, fishermen, environmentalists and others concerned about the resource have a direct say and influence in the managing of that resource.

Thirdly, we recently brought in the Fish Protection Act. It's really the first time in Canada's history that a province has brought in this kind of tough habitat protection for fisheries. There are a number of initiatives in there which are before the House -- and I won't debate them today -- which provide the tools that have long been missing to protect the habitat that is so sorely needed to promote and protect the salmon resource -- indeed, the fishery resource -- in British Columbia.

But all of the initiatives we've taken over the last year -- whether it's more investment in watershed restoration, whether it's Fisheries Renewal B.C., whether it's the Fish Protection Act, whether it's fighting with the federal government for more control here in British Columbia . . . . All of it means nothing if we don't have a Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Because if we don't have a Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Americans can catch fish raised in British Columbia in our waters, it means, in fact, the conservation is for nought; it means that those jobs are jeopardized; and it means that the investment we're making is not for our benefit but for the benefit of another country. The Pacific Salmon Treaty is really the only guarantee we have that fish produced by our rivers will return to them to spawn.

Today, with our salmon already entering Alaskan waters and only three weeks away from our northern rivers, we have no treaty. We don't even have fishing plans negotiated with the United States to ensure the conservation of our stocks. We have no mechanism to ensure that salmon produced in our rivers will be able to return to our rivers. This is unacceptable to British Columbians and, I think, to all Canadians. It demands action on the part of the national government; it demands action on the part of British Columbia. And it's action that we have taken.

In the last few days, since we've taken this unprecedented action on the part of British Columbia, I've heard support -- and I know many members have -- from all parts of our province. The government's decision was recently supported by the Coastal Community Network, which is a group of communities, some 30 of them. There are even members of the other party in this Coastal Communitiy Network. They met in Nanaimo on the weekend and passed a unanimous motion to support the British Columbia government.

The mayor of Port Hardy said: "We all have to find a way to make the fishing industry viable again if we are going to survive." And he went on to say that the only thing the U.S. responds to is tough negotiating. In response to his motion, all 30 fishing communities in British Columbia endorsed the government's actions.

Within hours of making the announcement, the U.S. agreed to return to the table. The 40 days they said they needed to meet with stakeholders suddenly became four days. The negotiator, who had no mandate, suddenly was given a full mandate. American commentators, who may not have liked our decision, nonetheless agreed with our stand on the need for a treaty. The editorial in the Seattle Times Sunday edition said: "The U.S.-Canada salmon treaty has not lived up

[ Page 3631 ]

to its promise to conserve regional salmon runs. This is not Canada's fault." The Times conceded that "U.S. interceptions of B.C. fish have been roughly twice the number of Canadian interceptions," and the Times said point-blank: "American negotiators must be prepared to make real concessions.

That will mean catching fewer B.C. fish, including the prized Fraser sockeye run." I cannot remember a time when American editorial opinion in Seattle has sided with British Columbia, at least on the concept of conserving a resource, sharing equitably that resource and recognizing that it is the United States that is breaking the treaty. It is the United States fishermen who have not lived up to the spirit of the treaty.

I want talk a bit about the lessons of history. This resource goes to the soul of our province; it really goes to the spiritual values of our province and aboriginal people. Right from the beginning of time, this has been a resource which has become synonymous with a coastal people, with British Columbia. It wasn't until the 1930s that we got the first treaty between Canada and the United States to share this resource, and it happened only when the great Fraser River salmon fishery, the greatest economic fishery in the world, came very close to collapse. It came close to collapse for two reasons.

The United States put fish traps in the San Juan Islands to catch our fish before they came back to the Fraser River to spawn. They were crude mechanisms, but an incredibly devastating and effective fishery. They did it for a few years, and then we had the great Hells Gate slide coincident with that. The combination of those two events almost led to the extinction of the great salmon fishery on the Fraser River.

Those two facts brought the United States to realize that this common property resource, this resource which shares an ocean, this resource which does not know whether they're American fish or Canadian fish, needs a treaty between our two countries in order to preserve where they spawn and to conserve the resource. And we got the first Fraser River sockeye salmon treaty between Canada and the United States.

Then, in the 1950s, the pinks became more economically important. As everybody knows, the pink salmon is essentially the canning salmon, and the huge canneries that came about in the Second World War and after that resulted in another massive fishery on the Pacific coast. And in the 1950s, once again, the United States overfished our pink salmon. In the 1950s Canada said: "We must extend the treaty we have on sockeye to the pink salmon fishery in British Columbia." The Americans said no. And what happened?

Then-Canadian Fisheries minister Sinclair sent the Canadian fleet out on the other side of the west coast of Vancouver Island -- for the first time in history beyond our traditional fishing grounds, past the three-mile limit -- and caught Pacific pink salmon before they came through American waters and before they came back to the Fraser. One year of fishing outside the traditional territories for British Columbia and Canada resulted in the economic devastation of the American fishing industry in Washington State and Oregon.

We finally got a treaty after that, in the 1950s, adding the pink salmon to the sockeye salmon.

Then, in the early 1980s, with the growing importance of sport fishing in the chinook and coho runs and with the growing realization that American overfishing could again lead to the extermination of the coho and chinook fishery . . . . It wasn't until 1985 that, with consistent pressure from Canada, the United States agreed to add those two species to the treaties between our two countries.

The 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty should have solved the problem. It should have meant that for the first time all of the commercial salmon species in British Columbia were covered by a treaty between our two countries. It should have meant a rational sharing of the resource, with the first priority being conservation and the second priority being an equitable sharing of that resource between our two jurisdictions. It wasn't three years after that treaty was signed that the United States was violating the treaty and catching more than their share of the resource.

Three years after it was signed, Americans were overcatching by some 90,000 salmon. Today 900,000 more salmon are caught by the United States than they are entitled to under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Just in economic terms, the Americans have been overfishing our resource by some $60 million a year every year since 1988.

And what's happened? In addition to the degradation of the environment, part of which was caused by the neglect of previous provincial governments . . . . I have no hesitation recognizing that. Part of it was by urban encroachment on the urban salmon streams -- the tremendous, bountiful salmon streams we've had in this province. Part of it was bad management by the federal government and DFO in terms of the way the fleet has been managed. Part of it was increasing capitalization of the resource and intensity of new technology in the resource, and part of it was overfishing by the United States.

That has in some cases led us perilously close to the extinction of certain salmon runs in British Columbia, including the famous 12 hours for the Fraser River a few years ago -- 12 hours from disaster.

We've seen -- everybody in Canada has seen -- what has happened to the cod fishery in Newfoundland. And they know instinctively that without tough environmental standards, that without tough, conservative management of the resource, and that without a salmon treaty which leads to the sharing of the resource, that can happen here on the west coast. This year there are some runs, on Vancouver Island in particular, where the species is literally threatened without some kind of treaty between Canada and the United States.

We're determined that we are not going to stand by -- and I don't think any legislator from any party wants to see us stand by -- and allow American overfishing to the point, possibly, of extinction of the resource without some action on the part of Canada and some action on the part of British Columbia. One of the reasons we brought this motion here today is to demonstrate the kind of resolve that we have on all sides of this House to support the survival of the salmon resource.

[2:45]

We're now losing four million salmon a year to American interceptions -- the 900,000 I referred to was only the Alaska overfishing -- of that resource. These are fish we need to rebuild our runs, produce jobs and support coastal communities. We must have a renewed salmon treaty, one that returns our fish to our waters to meet the needs of conservation first, to support job creation and to support our coastal communities.

Our decision to end the seabed licence of occupation associated with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose in the Strait of Georgia is only one step that we are taking to try to get the attention of the United States. The torpedo-testing range is a range which has been in existence for 32 years. The United States military has indicated that it has saved them some $2 billion over that 32-year period. It has done so because of the unique nature of that range, which allows the retrieval of experimental torpedoes.

Many people have counselled that we should not link Nanoose to fish. Certainly our Canadian government has been loath to try to bring other pressure to bear on the

[ Page 3632 ]

United States. We know that cancelling this lease will clearly provoke the United States; we know that this is a significant threat to the Americans; and we know that they don't take lightly threats to their military or the cost that this will impose on them. And we don't take it lightly; I don't think any member of this House takes it lightly. But we must put this issue on the radar screen -- excuse my pun -- of United States-Canada relations. We must elevate this issue so that it's taken seriously by Canada and by the United States.

While I've refrained from attacking the Canadian government, because the real enemy here is American overfishing and their inability to deal with this and their inability to get an agreement, clearly Canada has not taken this issue seriously. Clearly, while Canada-Cuba trade is $170 million a year and Canada has correctly, in my judgment, stood up to the United States in their interference with our decision to trade with Cuba, the salmon industry alone in British Columbia is some $500 million -- and it is threatened. Canada has not placed the same emphasis on getting a new Pacific Salmon Treaty as it has on dealing with other irritants between our two countries.

So while the linkage between Nanoose and the salmon is something which Canada has not supported traditionally and something which we do not take lightly, it is clearly a measure of the frustration and the resolve of British Columbians that they want their government to take any and all actions which they deem necessary to try to bring pressure on the United States to take this seriously -- and pressure on Canada, frankly, to take it seriously -- and bring a conclusion to these talks so that we can conserve this spectacular resource, not just for now but for future generations.

Canada and the United States are good neighbours; British Columbia and Washington State and Oregon and Alaska want to be good neighbours. We have no interest in provoking a major fight with the United States. Clearly this is not in our interest; clearly this is not in the interest of the United States. But good neighbours means working together to solve common problems. The conservation of the salmon resource is a common problem. If the United States is not going to be good neighbours with British Columbia and Canada to conserve the resource, then we have to look at our good-neighbour policy with respect to things like Nanoose.

Hon. Speaker, I'm hopeful that having gotten the Americans' attention, having gotten Canada's attention and having talks starting again on Friday in Vancouver, we can bring a timely resolution to this issue to preserve this resource for future generations in our common interest, and we can return to being the good neighbours that British Columbians want us to be.

G. Campbell: When we saw the motion this morning, it gave us very little time to have a chance to review it and to think about the ramifications of this motion coming before the House.

I want to start by concurring with the Premier. I don't believe there's one member of the 75 members in this House today that does not believe in the importance of preserving and protecting the British Columbia salmon fishery -- not just for today but for tomorrow and for future generations.

But, hon. Speaker, we've heard this story before from the government. I would like to simply start by pointing this out: as 75 members of this Legislature . . . .

With an issue that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced to us last year was of critical importance, that the Premier has told us is of critical importance, that we have agreed on this side of the House is of critical importance to every single British Columbian, not once in the last year has this government bothered to call together the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries so we could work together to build a strategy for the future. If we are going to speak with one voice in this House, it is important . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I may have to start naming names if this persists. Leader of the Opposition, please continue.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

If we are going to speak with one voice, it is essential that all members of this House, from all sides of this House, have information provided to them on a timely basis and have an opportunity to work with the government to help sculpt policy that will work in the long term with regard to the protection of the fishery, with regard to educating the federal government about the things that British Columbia is concerned about. There can be no question about that.

Surely, if we are going to build a consensus in British Columbia that goes beyond simply the statement that we are going to protect our salmon fishery -- which all of us agree with -- it is time that we start to work together with regard to these issues.

The issue of the salmon fishery in the province and protecting it is not new, as the Premier has pointed out. Since the beginning of this century we have had difficulties in coming to mutually beneficial arrangements between Canadians and Americans with regard to this. The Pacific Salmon Treaty, and the signing and concluding of it, is obviously of critical importance to all of us. But I can guarantee that if there is even a hint of this being motivated by political opportunism, it will not work on behalf of all British Columbians. It's critical that we remember that that is the goal that the Premier has set today, as I understand it -- and that we are ready and willing to embrace.

A year ago -- maybe it was more than a year ago now -- it was suggested that Nanoose might be one of the issues, one of the cards, that we would have to play to bring the Americans to the table, and to their senses in some regards, with regard to this particular resource. At that time, I said that if that were a necessary card for us to play, then we should play it. It was a tool that we had that was available to hopefully bring their attention to what is a critical issue. It's a critical issue in terms of the management of the resource; it's a critical issue in terms of the future.

One of the goals, I think, that we have to share here is . . . . We have to understand that the goal here is to make sure that we do have a salmon fishery in the future and that we do have a fishery that is supportive -- not just of jobs but of communities up and down the coast.

The Premier and the government have acted totally within their rights under the agreement. Frankly, I don't have any particular problem with the Premier saying, "This is the time to play that card," if in fact that is what has been decided by the provincial government. However, having said that, I think we should remember that there are people involved in this who face some negative ramifications of this decision and who we should also be concerned about. The people of Nanoose are concerned. Obviously there are 90 to 100 people right now that are employed. They are worried about what

[ Page 3633 ]

their jobs will be. I think we have to reach out to those people like we reach out to people in the fishery and say that we are equally concerned about them, about their futures, about their families and about their mortgages -- work together with them to make sure that they see a long-term future for themselves and their families in the province of British Columbia, as well.

I concur with many of the comments that the Premier made earlier. Obviously the issue of protecting our salmon fishery and making sure that we have a secure and thriving fishery in the future involves far more than simply the resolution of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. We are glad to see the initiation of some strategies to improve fish habitat, because there is no question that the destruction of fish habitat in British Columbia has been damaging to the fishery.

There is also no question that Canadians generally and British Columbians specifically have done a far, far better job of fish conservation and of improving habitat than the Americans have done. It's important for us to put that obligation back on the table for Americans to consider, as well.

I have not been specifically involved in these negotiations, obviously, but my understanding is that the jurisdictions of Washington and Oregon share British Columbia's concern with regard to this fishery. I believe the Canadian government shares our concern with regard to this fishery. And if it is important for us to speak with one voice so that we get the Canadian government's attention, then surely we have to do that as well. But the issue for me is to bring those federal allies into this so that they are speaking with us with one voice.

I believe it is critical that not just the Prime Minister but other leaders of federal parties speak out in support of the action that has been taken -- speak out in support of bringing the Americans back to the table to negotiate a final solution with a negotiator who can actually come to an agreement. I have written to the Prime Minister, and I have encouraged him to do that directly with the President, and I have encouraged the other federal leaders to support the Prime Minister in that endeavour.

If we're going to be successful in gathering together all the voices of Canadians and all the voices of British Columbians, it cannot be seen to be an issue that involves one political party or another. It is an issue that involves all British Columbians and all Canadians, and it is critical that we speak with one voice with regard to that.

There is no question -- and I don't believe there should be any question -- that this decision that the provincial government made is very significant. I will be blunt about this: I am not comfortable with the unilateral action of the decision. However, having said that, I believe that now that the decision is made, it is critical for us to bring to the table all of the voices and all of the strength of Canada and the province of British Columbia, to ensure that we are successful in the conclusion of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

It is clear, I believe, to all of us in this House that over the last number of years Americans have clearly overfished the Canadian fishery. It is also clear that there are major, major issues, beyond even the Pacific Salmon Treaty, that we are going to have to deal with if we are going to secure for the next generations of British Columbians the kind of salmon fishery that they deserve.

The technological changes that have taken place in the fishery are having a huge and devastating impact. There is no question that they have added to the productivity of the fishing fleet. There is also no question that they have added to the devastation of the fishery. One of the things that we are all going to have to work together on is how we can bring that technological change to heel so that we are be certain that we can protect the fishery. And we can't do that if we are allowing the technology constantly to outrace our regulations and, more important than our regulations, our purposes in securing the fishery in the long term.

[3:00]

Alternative to the things that have happened in the past is a positive and constructive program which builds the habitat -- which restores habitat not just in Canada but in the United States and which looks at restoring the salmon habitat that we have throughout the province. Making that investment, I believe, is not only sound public policy but is a commitment that we have all shared within this House. It is critical that we set that example not just for ourselves and for Canada but for the United States, so that they can join us in looking at those kinds of conservation programs as we move forward.

The problem that I think we face today is that too many British Columbians have been left out of this process, and therefore some of the ramifications and the negative impacts of this decision have not likely been fully canvassed. I am concerned about families who have been left out and about communities that have been left out. Hon.

Speaker, I would say to you and I would say to the government that I encourage them to think about the areas where we do have mutual agreement, where there is common cause, where there is common purpose amongst all political parties -- and, indeed, amongst British Columbians, who really couldn't care less about politics. What they care about is the standard of life that they have in this province, and they care about the natural bounty that we have inherited in this province.

All of us have an obligation to try and improve that bounty for the next generation of British Columbians. All of us have an obligation to be able to say with pride that we have improved the salmon fishery -- that we have not just preserved the salmon fishery but have improved the salmon fishery for British Columbians. All of us have an obligation to secure the future not just of coastal communities but of coastal families, to make sure that they have a sense of security and stability as they look to the future in their communities in British Columbia, just as other communities in British Columbia would like to be able to do.

Today, as we look at this motion which has been brought before us, I am perfectly willing to support the motion, which says that we agree with the government's actions with regard to Nanoose. I do that in the context, however, of saying that I do believe it's time for opening up these discussions, opening up this debate and bringing the people of British Columbia to the Legislature; or, more importantly, taking the Legislature to the people of British Columbia and asking them for their solutions -- what they would do -- and how we can ensure that they have the long-term, stable and secure future that they all deserve.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of today's motion. In my comments I would like to congratulate the Premier for taking what has to be a somewhat risky but, I think, necessary step.

I think there are four issues that come to mind when we look at what this motion speaks to and what the actions of the provincial government will mean not only with respect to their intention, which is to get the Americans back to the table, but more importantly, in terms of a historical precedent with respect to this province's ability to force the federal

govern-

[ Page 3634 ]

ment to undertake the obligations and responsibilities that it has on behalf of British Columbians when we're dealing with international agreements.

The first question that I think comes to mind is: is the government within its right to undertake to provide this notice? And under what conditions under the agreement can it do so? I refer to

article 6 of the agreement, subsection (a), which suggests quite clearly that if the owner -- I would stress the word "owner," and I'll come back to that in a moment -- considers that it is in the public interest to cancel the rights herein granted, the owner may do so. So clearly, with the prerequisite 90-day notice period, the government is fully within its right under this agreement to serve notice. The question, however, is: to whom is it serving notice? There has been much written in the newspaper that this is a shot at the Americans. That is not true.

This agreement that we have -- the document that we have the ability to serve notice under -- is an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa, the federal Crown.

Because this will be a precedent that will be set in future negotiations, whether they be with respect to fish or to aboriginal land claim and title, it is important to note that the ownership of lands -- both the lands that are submaritime, under the ocean, and the lands that are deeded to the provincial Crown -- rests with this Crown, the provincial Crown, and is the jurisdiction of this assembly, with supremacy resting in this province.

That's an extremely important point in this debate, because what the Premier, the first minister of this government, has suggested to Ottawa is that for the first time, certainly in my memory, since perhaps the late 1950s or early 1960s, when W.A.C. Bennett took a similar stand with respect to an international agreement on our rivers, we are seeing the Premier exercising a jurisdictional right over territory and serving notice to the federal government that he intends to exercise that right with respect to agreements -- federal and provincial.

That becomes important, because the intransigence that we have -- the lack of ability to sign an agreement -- rests with the lack of ability of the federal government to get the federal government in the United States to sign onto and to agree on what is necessary to protect the salmon stocks here for all partners who are involved in their catch.

Hon. Speaker, this is not an agreement -- and I think it's important that we emphasize this -- between British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. The states cannot come together and decide by unilateral action what they intend to do with the resources that we have within our boundaries -- in this case, salmon. What we are reliant and dependent upon is the federal government negotiating on behalf of the provinces with the federal government in the United States and being able to come up with a firm agreement.

For those people who suggest that this action today is an action that is directed against the United States military, I would suggest that that's not true. I would also suggest that, quite frankly, the United States military will pay little attention to this motion, because their agreement is with the Department of National Defence. If there is an internal conflict between the federal government and the provincial governments, their response to our federal government will be: "Get your internal house in order, guys, because we have an agreement which is a renewed, signed agreement with respect to the use of that."

I could go back through the readings of Bill C-44 and the recent consolidated statutes, and how these agreements were put together with respect to the Americans' access to and use of this site, notwithstanding the agreement itself -- that is, the letter of understanding that was signed back on January 13, 1976, and brought forward again with respect to the renewal arrangements, which were made back in 1989, to take it to 1999. All of those agreements, and all of the documentation of those agreements, rest between the federal government and the government of the United States of America.

Therefore it seems to me that in the first instance, what we have to understand is that this motion is an extraordinary move for the province to have taken, with respect to sending notice to Ottawa that it no longer trusts Ottawa with respect to that negotiating process and that it has to undertake this motion to move Ottawa along. It clearly reflects what the Premier was saying in his remarks when he said that this reflects the utter frustration that we have in the province with respect to getting federal priorities focused for once on what we need in British Columbia.

The second issue that is important is whether or not this is a sensible move to move these negotiations along. The federal government would have us believe that notwithstanding the action of the province, they were ready in fact to get the Americans back to the table anyway and that the Americans were coming back. Clearly the commentary from the federal minister responsible was that these negotiations were going to be undertaken.

Notwithstanding whether that is true or not -- and it's impossible for me to determine whether that is correct or not -- clearly the evidence points to the fact that by the province having taken this action, we have seen movement by Ottawa; therefore this action has had some effect. The intention of the government with respect to the serving of this motion to withdraw would have had the desired effect . . . .

That leads us to the third issue, and that is: are we going to get a sound agreement? And to what extent can the province now start to determine what that agreement will be? We have had a history of bad negotiations on salmon. Notwithstanding the comments from the Premier, who suggested that the 1985 salmon treaty agreement should have solved our problems, the fact is that the agreement was full of loopholes which the Americans could and did simply sail their vessels through to catch an additional number of salmon returning into our streams.

The Alaskans have never adhered fully to our agreements, even when we go back to the days of the INPFC -- the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission -- when we were dealing with the larger international context of that agreement within larger international agreements. The Kamchatkan run has always been an issue that the Alaskans felt they simply had no reason to deal with in any extent or detail. So I have no confidence that when the negotiations come back, we're going to see fair play of a fair game from the Alaskans on this question.

So perhaps while the Fraser run, the largest and most important of the runs, is important, we cannot lose sight -- nor should we lose sight -- of the fact that British Columbia now needs to start to talk to Alaska directly to try to get some kind of interplay with respect to the protection of northern runs which are equally, if not more, important in some senses, because of the fragileness of the numbers that are returning over the last number of years.

I could suggest that while we are back at the table, we are not clear . . . . I'm certainly not clear, and I hope the Premier, through his minister responsible -- and I'm assuming we're going to hear from the minister in this debate -- is going to tell us that there is something being done that is going to ensure that these negotiations will be successful.

Lastly, hon. Speaker, let me ask: what happens in the event that it doesn't work? The fact that we get them back to

[ Page 3635 ]

the table . . . . The Premier has told us that if there isn't an agreement, the lease is going to be gone and that essentially that test range will no longer exist. If the U.S. determined that, fair enough, that's fine. The question is: if that's the way it's going to be, we're not going to use it and they withdraw, what's the next card? How do you then escalate one beyond that? What is the next step the Premier is going to take in that regard?

The difficulty and the danger -- and I said in my opening remarks that this is risky -- is that the province has a limited opportunity and limited jurisdiction with respect to how it can escalate its role with respect to this negotiating process. So I would be curious to hear from the opposite side in this debate -- and I hope I'll have a chance to today -- as to what the next step is if this doesn't work, because while this has got them to the table, we do not have an agreement. I'd be curious to know where we go from here. Hon. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to the rest of this debate, where those questions may be answered.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to make a few comments on the motion before the House. Given that the announcement has already been made, I speak in support of the action taken. There are lots of opinions pro and con on this issue, and I think a lot of these opinions are on the basis of limited information and limited knowledge -- and I say that including myself personally.

But what we do know for sure and what we all agree on is that the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks have failed to produce an agreement since 1992. There have been a lot of meetings and a lot of talk. Earlier this year there was a series of meetings, including a meeting in Seattle, which attempted to involve more direct stakeholders such as fishermen. And that in itself didn't resolve the issue, either. The U.S. rejected an independent arbitrator's report and declined mediation. There is general agreement that Alaska has engaged in unilateral action to take more fish than it was entitled to and that this was grossly unfair to Canadian fishermen who engage in responsible conservation measures.

It was especially disturbing to me recently to find that the American negotiator did not have the authority to make a deal. This is especially disappointing at this stage, this long-drawn-out stage in the talks. This being the case, I also wonder how much effort has been made by the U.S. government to encourage and persuade Alaska to negotiate in good faith.

[3:15]

At the same time, we in British Columbia, particularly fishermen, have become increasingly frustrated. This weekend I attended a meeting of the Coastal Community Network, which was mentioned by the Premier. Certainly I indicated to them our willingness to work with the government, on a non-partisan basis, any time we can.

We have seen, in the past year, a number of occasions where the Premier has threatened more serious action. Given the number of times those comments were made, I think the Premier really didn't have a lot of options but to act on those threats.

There are risks involved, which the Premier has acknowledged. I am hopeful, however, that this action will not result in an escalating war of words with the Americans or a more serious retaliation that could hurt a number of different people in British Columbia or in Canada.

I am pleased that the action appears to have resulted in the U.S. negotiators coming back to the table. I am hopeful that this decision will finally bring resolution to the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, which is so vital to the future of our fishing industry.

J. Smallwood: Let me start by saying how proud I am to serve with a Premier who clearly understands that he's on the side of British Columbians.

Let me also say that our record in the last year has set the pace of provincial advocacy across Canada. I feel that it's a legacy we can all be proud of: the Fish Protection Act, Fisheries Renewal B.C. and the agreement with the federal government on the management of Pacific fisheries.

I've been listening to the previous speakers, and, quite frankly, I'm finding it very difficult to understand their lack of urgency. We had the Leader of the Opposition get up and talk about the need to consult further, when in the last year we as a government have undergone consultations and networking and building community consensus throughout the west coast.

I myself, representing a riding that abuts the Fraser River, have been struck by the understanding in my own constituency of the need for conservation. The city of Surrey has led the way in designing drainage for storm sewers. It has led the way in organizing and supporting volunteer groups. It has led the way in its hatchery programs and has become the model for many constituencies and cities throughout the province.

To have the opposition, in a debate of such historic proportions, have nothing more to say than "We weren't involved, we don't understand, and we haven't had the information to take the kind of leadership role necessary," is a very sad comment on this opposition.

For this House to be debating this motion at this time is important for us. As the Premier said, the only way we can resolve this issue is by putting our good-neighbour policy in the forefront and by ensuring that we can work together with Canada and the United States to preserve habitat, to preserve this stock and to work with the B.C. Coastal Community Network, aboriginal peoples and the fisheries.

I think of the number of times that I have had the opportunity to meet with the stakeholders, not only in my own constituency but provincially. I think in particular of a meeting I had with people on the north coast who work in the canneries. That meeting was in order to understand its importance to their communities and to their families -- that proud history of fisheries that has been the legacy of the north coast.

I was shocked to hear the Leader of the Opposition's lack of understanding of the importance of that partnership on the north coast with the fisheries. The Leader of the Opposition seems to think the fisheries only pertain to the south coast and the states to the south of us.

Thank goodness we have a Premier that is prepared to stand up and be counted. Thank goodness we have done the homework. We have the communities onside. We understand the importance of this resource not only to the economy of this province but also to communities, to history and indeed to the culture of west coast communities themselves.

I'm proud to have the opportunity to stand and enter into this debate and to congratulate the Premier on taking such a strong leadership role.

R. Neufeld: I rise on behalf of my colleague from Peace River South and myself to, first off, congratulate the government and the Premier for this stand on the salmon fishery

[ Page 3636 ]

British Columbia. I think all of us know -- even those that live in areas like my constituency, where the salmon fishery does not touch -- how important this industry is to the province as a whole, to everyone, to our history and to what the Premier talked about: our spiritual values -- and they go back many, many years into the aboriginal communities. So it is a very, very important step, I think, that the Premier made.

But it is one of brinkmanship -- there's no doubt about it -- and I guess the Premier of the day is quite well known for those kinds of actions. I hope the action the Premier has taken will actually result in what he hopes will come about from this kind of action.

This is more of an issue of working together across political lines. Something as important as the fishery in British Columbia should be apolitical -- for all of us. I don't think any one of us, regardless of government or opposition, needs to stand in the House and try to slam one another on this issue. Rather, we should be working together as a team of 75 people, trying to resolve an issue that's very important to British Columbians.

The issue about getting the attention of the Americans is very difficult and always has been for Canada. British Columbia is just a small part of Canada. It's almost like trying to tickle an elephant: it gets very difficult. This tickle obviously had an effect. The day after the tickle was made, the talks were back on again, with the Americans having the ability to actually negotiate specific fishing quotas instead of merely listening to our concerns.

The issue I have and the only issue I have is not a critical one, but it's one more issue that was mentioned by one of the earlier speakers. That is: what happens if this doesn't work? What happens if we go the 90 days and we don't have an agreement-in-principle or we're not even close to an agreement-in-principle? I'm not saying that's going to happen; this may just hurry the process on enough that we will get there. But there's obviously got to be a plan B.

Taking it as far as we have, we say that until we get an agreement-in-principle, we will not rescind the notice given to the federal government. And that, again, is a good move. I think it obviously is one that gets attention, but it's one where we have to look seriously at its ramifications, that being quotas and the resumption of talks about our lumber shipments to the U.S. and the effect that will have. That's a huge effect on the province. I wouldn't want to say it's larger than the salmon issue, but it is a huge issue.

I think those kinds of things -- even the possible sailings of ferries around U.S. waters . . . . If we take into consideration that it's, I'm told, half an hour each way, it gives a whole new meaning to what happens with schedules for B.C. Ferries through the summer. So those are serious issues, which I think we have to take seriously and think about their ramifications.

I would just like to say that we concur with the Premier's move. I hope that in the end, it works out well for British Columbians and for the salmon industry, and that we finally get a Pacific Salmon Treaty that will conserve our stocks not just for now, for monetary value, but for ages to come, for the people to come.

We would like to thank the Premier for the move he made. We hope there is a good plan B. We hope he will be able to initiate it if things don't go the way he believes they should. So with that, we'd like to again say that we give our support to the government of the day. We hope that we work together and that this doesn't become a debate between political parties to try and put down one or the other -- to grandstand on this kind of thing. We should be working collectively together, all as one force, to try and resolve this very serious issue about a Pacific Salmon Treaty.

P. Reitsma: In support of the motion, certainly in my area of Parksville-Qualicum, which is very well known for the fishing -- catching the best ones -- people are happy there. But there's also a great deal of concern. I would like to pass on to the Premier some concern that was expressed.

I had about half a dozen calls over the weekend from people clearly concerned with the uncertainty about the future, about their livelihood, about 90 to 100 jobs in my riding, about $8 million to $10 million in economic benefit and about long-lasting jobs -- the schools involved, the careers involved, the children involved and the mortgages involved. Community input is involved. They're clearly concerned about not being held hostage again. They're genuinely afraid of retaliatory actions. My riding is also a bedroom community to the forest industry in Port Alberni.

In Nanaimo people are extremely concerned about the uncertainty of their future.

As I mentioned, speaking in support of the motion, I think this transcends any political parties. This is good for all of us. And when it is good for all of us, we speak up as one voice because it is good for us. I wish to express some of the concerns by concerned people, phone calls I've had over the weekend. In my area of Vancouver Island, we are very dependent on the fisheries -- it's a coastal community -- and on forestry. Thousands of people directly and indirectly make their living on those two commodities. We'd like to see them keep on going.

There's some concern expressed about what an international dispute might trigger in terms of compensation. Often in international disputes there is a mechanism, and compensatory actions are taken for people that have been displaced, losing their jobs or losing their livelihoods. I think that is something to consider, as well.

No one wants to see day No. 90 expire -- the deadline. We don't know what is going to happen; we don't wish to know what's going to happen. Of course, it can only escalate. Grave actions could be enacted after the 90 days have expired.

Before I conclude my comments, I hope that this government would put in about a tenth of the effort in resolving and finding solutions to stop the destaffing of the lighthouses, which, of course, is indirectly related to the good of the fisheries and of coastal communities, as well. Once again, let's get it resolved once and for all. For the benefit of all of us, let us get a treaty that we can all be proud of and that will serve us for many generations to come.

[3:30]

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I'm honoured to rise and conclude debate today on what I think is truly a historic event in this House, one which -- I get the impression from the debate thus far -- all parties are going to support, that being the motion put forward by the Premier that this House supports the province of British Columbia in suspending the lease on Nanoose Bay in the absence of a treaty 90 days from now.

I've been kind of appalled and saddened in recent weeks by the cynicism of the Ottawa press, sometimes of the Vancouver Sun and of people who have said that the provincial government's interest in the fishery is driven by politics. I hope that what's happening in this room today -- where members of the third party, the independents, the opposition and the government are all going to vote on the same side -- will forever put an end to that cynical analysis.

[ Page 3637 ]

I want to talk a little bit about what this job looked like year ago, when I became the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Hon. members will remember that a year ago, coastal communities were looking at a whole series of attacks at once.

1. Record low prices -- prices so low that people hadn't seen them in decades.

2. Talk of threatened stocks every day in the newspaper, runs that were in danger of ceasing to exist forever.

3. Perhaps the largest of all, a totally astounding reversal by the country Canada and Fisheries minister Admiral Mifflin, taking what had been a public resource -- the fish belonging to all the people -- and proposing to privatize that resource and completely change the way people get licences to go fishing.

4. A year ago, at exactly this time, we were facing the breakdown of the treaty -- once again the absence of a fishing plan, a proposal that the Americans go fishing without any agreement with Canada.

5. All up and down the coast in recent years, the closing of the processing facilities in the mid-coast and north coast communities, in the Charlottes and on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and basically the concentration of jobs in Vancouver and Prince Rupert and the abandonment of the rural communities.

6. What eventually turned out to be 5,700 jobs lost in one year as a result of all those attacks on the fishing way of life.

I would submit that where the fishing industry was one year ago in British Columbia is analogous to where the prairie towns were in the 1930s, with the smallest of them being threatened with ceasing to exist altogether, and record low prices and radical social change creating a fatalism, a loss of heart and abandonment by working people of a way of life, and a feeling that people in this room and in our senior level of government in Ottawa couldn't actually care less.

Just about a year ago, Glen Clark became Premier of British Columbia on the eve of an election and stunned all of you and all the folks at home, and certainly the people in the press gallery, by actually standing up and saying that for the first time ever a government in British Columbia was going to run for office and talk about fish. I remember the amazement in the newspapers: what is fish? It isn't even your jurisdiction. And from that day, writing the issue large, we proceeded rapidly to win that election -- in almost all the coastal communities where people fish for a living, with some singular exceptions.

As soon as this government took office, it appointed the job protection commissioner to go out and say to all those people: "We actually care, and now we're going to assess the damages." Next we signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government to suggest that 5,700 jobs was too much, and they ought to do something about it. A three-person panel was appointed to tour the coast and do the work that the federal government should have done before it ever invented their fleet restructuring plan.

While that three-person panel was trying to figure out what mistakes the federal government had made in the Mifflin plan, we sat down with the federal government, renegotiated groundfish allocation and came up with the first federal-provincial agreement ever in British Columbia, which is the groundfish authority.

Fifth, when the three-person panel finished and submitted their report, the Premier of British Columbia went to Ottawa and demanded the Prime Minister circumvent his own bureaucrats and make an agreement -- a historic agreement, tabled in this House a month or two ago -- putting the province and the federal government in a position of comanagement of the fishery for the first time ever in Canada. I hope everybody here -- all the people listening to us, the people at home, the people who work in this room, members of all parties and yourself, hon. Speaker -- is hugely proud of that turnaround in a 12-month period of time.

But we didn't stop there. Once we had achieved a place at the table in the management of the fishery, it became imperative that we then earn that place by literally changing the culture of how the province of British Columbia does its job. In rapid order, we first tabled a provincial strategy for the management of the fishery, printed 10,000 copies and gave it to all the folks opposite -- including those who have complained here today that they haven't been involved -- laying out everywhere we'd been and everywhere we intend to go over the next few years.

Then we came into this room, and I tabled a bill, the Fisheries Renewal Act, talking about taking $22 million of the people's money and investing it in the fishery over the next three years. The Minister of Environment walked in here four days later, tabled the Fish Protection Act and took the first step to making it against the law to dam the Fraser River, the Skeena River, the Nass River -- any of the undammed rivers in British Columbia -- for all time.

We moved in one year from despair and abandonment of the communities to a place where all the people working in this room, all the people seeing us at home and the people in the communities have a sense of hope, I think, for the first time in decades.

As an example, one year ago the Coastal Community Network that was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition had a meeting. They could have had it in a phone booth; six people went. Last weekend, because of the turnaround of points of view and the efforts of the Premier and the government of the day, 100-and-some people met in Nanaimo and talked about the future as an opportunity rather than a travail.

That brings me to the imperative for the things that we're doing today. When I was out fighting for the Mifflin plan, I visited lots of your communities, lots and lots of them. I visited so many of your communities that the editorial writers where I live started to write, "Corky, come home," because it had been so long since I'd been there. What they said, from the lower mainland to the Charlottes, the Skeena and the midcoast, was: "If you think you're going to take our money and invest it in making more fish to go into the United States and never come back, you've got another think coming.

If you, the government of British Columbia, want to stand up in the House and say we can raise fish, we'll do all this conservation, we'll pass new laws and invest tax money, and then you don't have the wherewithal to actually get a treaty with the United States of America, you folks are crazy."

Actually, although it's a brand-new issue to most of the people sitting here, it's not a new issue to those people who fish. As the Premier talked about earlier, they've been struggling with this issue for two decades, and the treaties for four decades before that. The fishing communities of B.C. understand that either we deal with this treaty or all that other stuff -- the Mifflin plan, Fisheries Renewal -- is wasting words, wasting political capital and wasting their money.

Over the course of the last few months . . . . I just want to talk a little bit about how we actually got to this room. As you know, a year ago the Premier asked the Prime Minister to intervene and ask the United States to actually get a treaty, and it didn't happen. A couple of months ago the Premier

[ Page 3638 ]

asked the Prime Minister to intervene in his discussions with Clinton. He asked the President of the United States to intervene and actually provide the political will for their negotiators to get a treaty -- and again, it didn't happen.

What the Americans proposed was something called a "stakeholder process." They said: "Well, lawyers haven't managed to make a deal; negotiators haven't managed to make a deal; politicians haven't managed to make a deal. So let's get stakeholders from the two countries together in a room -- that would be first nations people, sport fishers, commercial fishers, the biologists of two nations -- and try to do what lawyers have failed to do." They met in the United States, in the south. Then they travelled to Alaska, came back to B.C. and then went to Seattle. Those groups of people attempted to negotiate a deal, and the truth of it is that it pretty much worked.

Between the two sides, the Canadian side actually gave up a whole bunch more than I think we as politicians might have mandated them to give up. The fishing people want the treaty more than they want this year's share of fish. They want stability, they want hope and they want a future. They gave up way more at the table than the Americans gave up, all in order to achieve conservation and equity in this year's fishing season.

They came to the evening when it was all on paper. There were the two sides and the deal was done. The American negotiator said: "Well, actually, you guys might have made a deal, and I might sign it, but my name doesn't mean anything because I don't represent a government. I have no mandate to do this deal with your country -- Canada. Maybe Canada can sign the deal, but I can't sign the deal. I've got to go home now and ask my country what they think, and that will take 40 or 50 or 60 days.

By that time everybody will be fishing already, so maybe we'll see you after the end of the season -- sorry." At which point, the Canadian negotiator did the only thing anybody could do in such negotiations, because it's absolutely no fun talking to the wall. He said: "Well then, we'll go home."

Now everybody in this room today stands up and says: "Good on you, Mr. Premier; that's leadership. You've done a good thing, and our side is gonna vote for you." I wonder what everybody would have said five days ago, when the negotiations broke down and we had to actually decide whether or not to take this step. Members opposite have said: "Yes, we've heard you make this threat before." We had to actually decide whether or not to pull the pin, write the letter or cut the lease and do the deal now, or do what the Americans wanted us to do, which is fish now and talk later.

The member for Surrey-Whalley said she is proud to serve in a government where the leadership is actually there to make the decision. I think those are my sentiments precisely. We all feel good about voting for this motion today -- because, what happened? The Premier said: "We're cancelling the lease." The Minister of Environment wrote the letter, we did the deal, we announced it, and 24 hours later Canada and the United States are going back to the table. The people in this room today are on the eve of what I think many of us expect to be victory, and it's easy to vote for victory.

In closing, I just want to say that it wasn't so easy five days ago to decide what the appropriate response would be. As members opposite point out, there's a whole lot of dangers in deciding to actually take the step, stop talking the talk and go walk the walk, measure the dangers against the deed, try to decide whether to actually write the letter, cancel the lease and go to the next step or not.

For me, as a member of those discussions, the deciding factor was all that other stuff about despair a year ago, hope now, the possibility of fish renewal, why people should go along with the Fish Protection Act and whether the people of British Columbia should actually believe that we can change the future. If we can't change the treaty, if we can't put the treaty in place, then we have no way to ask you to ask your citizens to make sacrifices for the returns of fish in future.

[3:45]

In about a second I'm going to move this motion. We're all going to stand up, and we're going to vote. I hope that every single person here who votes with the Premier today is still there a month from now if it gets real hard and is still there a year, three years and four years from now, and stays with that position as long as this treaty shall exist -- stands with the government until there is a treaty and then stands behind that treaty as long as it exists -- because what we really don't need is any cheap politics. We have all agreed here today that there are risks. In a minute we'll call the motion.

Everyone will vote, and everybody who votes yes is voting for yes in spite of the risks. We will hang together regardless of what we think of one another, until the deed is done.

I move the previous motion.

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings. ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In this House, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

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

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a group of students from St. Joseph's school in Smithers, down here to visit with some parents and their principal Mr. Lankester. I'd also like to share with the House that I was a student at St. Joseph's when it first opened in 1959, to 1966. So I'm really happy to have some students visit us as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS

(continued)

On vote 40: minister's office, $462,000 (continued).

G. Wilson: I have a number of questions that are very specific in their relationship to the unrelated bone marrow donor registry and the extent to which we are moving more into a provincial registry.

It would seem there is growing concern from a number of charitable organizations in British Columbia, which have been involved in provincial fundraising and also in the attempt to try and assist people who need to access this registry for bone

[ Page 3639 ]

marrow transplants, that the move that is currently underway with respect to the development -- more provincialization, if I can put it that way -- of this service, particularly in relation to blood, is potentially going to have a negative impact on people who are currently in line and waiting for this service. I wonder if the minister might outline what the government has in mind with respect to this and if there is an opportunity to allay the fears of those who are involved in the charitable organizations who are directly connected to this registry.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Thank you for raising this important issue. Ministry staff have met with the unrelated bone marrow donor program organizers. As the future of the blood supply is in question and changes occur, they have concerns around this very valuable program named after Bruce Denniston, the RCMP officer responsible for the foundation of the program.

We have met with the program directors. We are totally committed to the future of the program. It's being discussed at two levels, one at the national level, the National Forum. Then, we are also making sure that we have a business plan in place in British Columbia. We're working with the program on that to ensure its future.

G. Wilson: I know that the members of the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society will be pleased to hear that there is action being taken with respect to some of their concerns.

The issue that I think is causing the Red Cross some concern, from my understanding, is that there seems to be, because of the . . . . If I can just read from some material that has been sent to me by way of background information on this, it suggests that the national unrelated bone marrow donor registry, which is administered by the Red Cross under the blood services now, has reached such a large number -- and they're pointing out over 152,000 cases -- that with "increasing demands on its services by transplant physicians nationally and internationally, available resources are strained to the extent where donor safety and patient outcome are compromised."

[4:00]

They're further concerned by the potential plans to provincialize or regionalize blood supply.

I guess what I'd like to hear from the minister is that as this program becomes more successful and as more people lock into that kind of bone marrow transplant as a part of the more mainstream medical services -- not that I'd like to see the cases increase, but certainly as people tend to get more access to it -- what can be done within the province to make sure that those people who sit on national registries, who are already in the system, will continue to be able to access that service and that it won't be frustrated by a fracturing of blood supply, if you see what I mean, by the fact that we are provincializing or regionalizing that supply.

If one can give some assurance today that we can see that the province (

a) is aware of this and (

b) is going to undertake to make sure that that kind of process does not occur, that would certainly answer the first part of my questions today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our government, of course, is committed to a national blood agency, a national blood system. In fact, my deputy minister is absent today because he's representing me at the meeting of provincial ministers of health in the east on this matter. A national blood agency strategy is being discussed there. It is moving very slowly, but we are pushing hard for the strategy to be in place in September. It flows from that that we're therefore committed to a national strategy on the unrelated bone marrow donor registry, as well.

British Columbia really is in a leadership position in this area with the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society, and we will continue to provide that leadership on the national front. It requires not only national cooperation but also international cooperation because there is sharing of material internationally, as well.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to hear that. I would echo that British Columbia is very much in a leadership role, and I think that's to the credit of many people in many communities who have come together to make this work. But in a related issue, it would seem that there is a possible amalgamation of bone marrow transplant with the organ transplant systems.

The difficulty that I think the people within the bone marrow transplant service have -- and by no means am I an expert on this, but certainly I have been well briefed over the last number of days . . . . The difficulty with that amalgamation is that there is a distinct difference between bone marrow transplant and organ transplant. As the minister I'm sure will know, bone marrow is living, the patient who donates it is living and it is a renewable resource,

whereas an organ donation tends to come, by and large -- not always, but certainly in the vast majority of cases -- from people who have deceased.

There is a real concern that in the attempt to pull together the administration of this program and to make it more cost-effective -- and I think that's the motivation; I don't think anybody's trying to do anything other than that -- the amalgamation of those two services may in fact have a detrimental effect on the ability of people to continue to have a registry that will allow bone marrow transplant. I wonder if the minister's staff is aware of that and whether the minister has thoughts as to how we might protect against that kind of problem, which will likely occur if the amalgamation continues.

Hon. J. MacPhail: An amalgamation of the two was proposed as one of three options. It's the least preferred, and it probably won't happen. And that's my preference.

G. Wilson: I think that all would certainly be pleased to hear that. With respect to the series of questions I had, then, the last has to do primarily with the compilation of DNA testing and the information with respect to proper matching of antigens and so on. Does the ministry foresee a role the province may have with respect to the establishment of a DNA database that would be able to provide for proper coding of this particular issue of DNA, so that people who are involved in the transplant process can be provided with maximum safety with respect to how this would work?

I'm aware that this can be an expensive and very difficult process. It really is an issue that both the Red Cross and those people in the societies -- and my guess is the people in the health ministries across the country -- have to have some concern for. If this program progresses, the costs will tend to escalate fairly substantially, and somebody has to know who's going to pick up the bill. We would not want to see cutbacks in this area, because if that data is not accurate and is not easily obtained, it will seriously jeopardize the ability for this program to be used effectively.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm informed that the unrelated bone marrow donor registry is at the hub of the DNA registry. We certainly see it as the important part of the program, and there is planning proceeding on how best to secure the privacy around that registry and also to enhance its value. The planning for that is going on right now.

[ Page 3640 ]

G. Wilson: My last question to the minister, and it's more general in nature, is to ask whether the minister has some thoughts with respect to a stand-alone national non-profit bone marrow donor registry and whether that would in fact be a better way to proceed.

In light of that question, I would also suggest that the high-resolution DNA CANTYPE kit, which is essentially a nationally developed test kit, would generate significant profits in order to be able to make that kind of national registry run. It's an issue that is being fairly heavily promoted by the societies involved. It does run counter to the trend, which is to move toward provincial blood registries and blood services.

So I ask whether the minister has any thoughts with respect to a stand-alone national not-for-profit donor registry and whether the minister would be prepared to put some of her good offices and members of her staff out there promoting that as a national alternative so that we can have that national standard maintained.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I referred to the fact that there were three options presented, of which the least preferred was to combine with the organ donor program. The other two options are to stay with the national blood agency -- that will be the Red Cross or some other agency -- and the second option is the stand-alone national society. By eliminating the third, the amalgamation, the first two are still on the books. But we really are committed to a national blood agency and therefore probably to a program attached to the national blood agency. Again, the two options are still being explored.

With respect to the DNA kits, it's an excellent suggestion and will be pursued in either of those two options.

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to have in the gallery today the delegation from the Bureau of National Health Insurance of Taiwan led by Dr. Liu. Steve Kenny, from the Ministry of Health, is with them as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Sanders: With the minister's permission, I'd like to canvass a few issues that we had touched on last week, just for clarification. Then I'd like to move on to some questioning on mental health, briefly, and then on to some HIV strategy.

What I'd specifically like to address first of all is the eating disorder facility that is being planned for the west side of Okanagan Lake, between Vernon and Kelowna. This is a private 100-bed facility. A well-known psychiatrist from England, Dr. Bryan Lask, was over in Vernon this weekend looking at sites for a potential facility such as this. My understanding, based on Bill 71, which the government on this side of the House introduced . . . .

It would state that anyone from British Columbia would be unable to attain private services -- if those services exist in British Columbia -- if they are provided simultaneously by a public facility. The example that we have at this point is the Cambie Street facility, which is available to do orthopedic procedures for foreigners but not for Canadians or even British Columbians.

I'm interested, on behalf of this group, in understanding how a facility such as this could run in British Columbia and if the minister has any more information on this for me.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The general rule underlying

section 17 of the Medicare Protection Act is: no charges to beneficiaries for insured medical services. Thus B.C. residents covered under the Medical Services Plan cannot be extra-billed or make private payment for medically necessary services received from a physician enrolled with MSP. This prohibition extends to Canadians covered under any other provincial plan.

The Medicare Protection Act contains no prohibitions on the establishment or operation of private freestanding medical or surgical clinics. It only prohibits clinic operators and physicians from direct or extra-billing for insured services. There are a number of circumstances under which private facilities can legally operate in B.C.: providing uninsured services, providing services to people from outside Canada and non-enrolled physicians practising privately outside B.C.

There are also cases, in a totally private clinic, where there has been a physician identified as a local GP who provided a fee-for-service to a clinic and who billed for that in just the same way as one would bill to make house calls to somewhere. They can bill on that basis.

MSP does not require physicians to provide information on the location of services provided, so it is not possible to monitor the volume of insured services provided in clinics such as the Montreux clinic, which would be an equivalent example.

[4:15]

A. Sanders: I'm familiar with the Medicare Protection Act. The criteria underlying that act that are of concern to me are . . . . Number one, we are not necessarily talking about unenrolled physicians; we could be talking about enrolled physicians. If we have patients one kilometre from this clinic who see a family doctor and a psychiatrist in the community of Vernon or in Okanagan West in the Kelowna-Oyama area, are these patients able to access this facility, seeing that the services provided there -- tertiary care for anorexia nervosa, for example -- would be insured hospital services at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital and the Kelowna General?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just as I said last week, I have outlined the rules under the Medicare Protection Act. I would be more than happy to have the founders of such a clinic, which I've read about in the paper, come and talk to us about what rules apply and what don't. It's not a useful discussion to engage in hypotheticals now, but we're more than willing to sit down and discuss with them how the Medicare Protection Act applies and where there is no prohibition, as well.

A. Sanders: I don't disagree with the minister that it would be most appropriate for anyone setting up a clinic in British Columbia to discuss that with the ministry. In fact, that's a necessity. The important thing for people to recognize is that in British Columbia, a British Columbian cannot, under any circumstances, find private medical care on a quickly accessible basis that may be available, for example, through a clinic for eating disorders. That is not allowed under our legislation, if that service is being provided by enrolled physicians or is insured.

Therefore it's important to recognize that you can open up a private clinic but you certainly cannot treat British Columbians there if you are providing services such as for eating disorders, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, ophthalmology -- any of those things that many of us wait one year to 18 months for.

Another issue that I want to canvass the minister on is the issue of the Vernon lab. I had delineated for the minister a lab in Vernon where there was some confusion over the MSC

[ Page 3641 ]

laboratory payments to the lab -- physicians being on a list of those who could use the lab and those who couldn't. I wonder if the minister has had any update on that issue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. I canvassed that thoroughly last week.

A. Sanders: Will there be a final decision on this laboratory issue?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll go back and read my own Hansard remarks to see. The whole process was outlined in the Hansard remarks last week.

A. Sanders: We did outline the process, but we did not arrive at a decision. For the patients who are there, that is the most important. Quite frankly, they don't really care what our process is here. They're much more interested in whether they can use the lab that is one minute away from their doctor's office or whether they have to go three blocks away.

The third issue that I wish to discuss is the actual date for the final report on the Pharmacare use of risperidone and olanzapine. Could the minister tell me when that will be?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In the next few weeks.

A. Sanders: My understanding is that there's no exact date for me to inform societies, such as the Schizophrenia Society, to expect this report.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are meetings ongoing, and those meetings will be concluded and an announcement will be made within the next few weeks. But it is consultation, and the consultation isn't finished yet.

A. Sanders: I'd like to turn to another topic within the mental health realm of medicine, and that is postpartum depression. Specifically, postpartum depression is a condition that exists in women postnatally and can occur anywhere from two days to many months after the birth of a child. This is not an uncommon occurrence; in fact, statistics show the frequency of blues to be in 50 to 80 percent of women. Unfortunately, the postpartum equivalents -- the more serious psychiatric equivalents of postpartum depression -- occur in one in ten of those who develop these symptoms.

Of even more concern is the postpartum psychosis which occurs in about one or two per thousand deliveries. I have had some experience with both of these conditions, and I am very well aware from two specific cases, which I saw personally, of infanticide with postpartum psychosis and one with postpartum depression . . . .

Often these problems are not picked up very easily. One of the concerns I have about our modern obstetrical care is that it is common practice, because of dwindling numbers of hospital beds and tremendous pressure on those open beds, for us to discharge postnatal patients sometimes one or, very commonly, two days after the birth of their babies. Most of the time, manifestations of postpartum depression are first seen on about day three. I wonder if the minister has any comments on the fact that we are speeding up our discharge basis for postnatal patients and may be missing postpartum depression.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's very interesting and a little bit . . . . The hon. member must have a sixth sense or something, because I met with -- I hope I pronounce her name right -- Dr. Shalla Misri just this past Friday to discuss this very topic. I had met Dr. Misri at a BCMA function and had quite a discussion in a non-ministerial capacity about this whole issue, and I was astounded when she provided me with the same statistics as you did. Dr. Misri is a psychiatrist who was in an obstetrical practice and then moved over to psychiatry.

She now has two postpartum depression programs -- one at Children's and one at St. Paul's -- and they were done really from the ground up in a very informal way or, I should say, a non-bureaucratic way. She, with her colleagues, have what appears to me to be a very successful program on postpartum depression.

She raised at least three issues with me. I had asked to meet with her to see where we should go next on this very important matter. When I left the meeting, I asked her to put together a proposal for the ministries in my consideration about expanding her program. One issue is that if you're a woman outside of the lower mainland, it's very hard to get quick and effective treatment for postpartum depression up to and including the psychosis that arises from this.

She told me also that from the time a woman has her baby to her getting the first treatment, it's often seven months -- the woman goes untreated during that period. This is on average. So we had a discussion at length on those two issues, and Dr. Misri is about to work with me and some of my colleagues on this side of the House about how we can move forward on this issue.

She did raise in a very informal way -- and please, I don't want in any way to put her on the spot -- that one of the issues we have to look at is the discharge time for moms. She said more work needs to be done in that area. I was very impressed and very interested and hope to move forward. It's certainly an issue that I would be more than happy to share with the expertise on the other side of the House.

A. Sanders: That's very heartening to hear. I'm very well aware of Dr. Misri, who is one of the North American experts on this topic, and she is a British Columbian.

Another couple of questions in the area of mental health that I want to finish off with are on the issue of ECT. I want to find out from the minister if ECT, which is a very good . . . . I know that for some, ECT has got a very negative picture from some of the movies they may have seen or from the use of it in the past, but it is a very effective treatment for significant and severe refractory depression. What I would like to know from the minister is: is ECT offered in most communities in British Columbia?

[ Page 3642 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is a protocol in place for ECT, but we would have to get you a list of the places where it may be available outside of the lower mainland, through the acute care hospital system. And we will do that.

A. Sanders: I would appreciate that list for many reasons. One of the problems with ECT is that patients who are on a surgery list to have anaesthesia for it are often bumped -- sometimes for the whole day -- while surgery patients come in. So these people are left psychotic, depressed, not fed, not hydrated, sometimes for eight or ten hours before they get their procedure. I'd be interested to know whether most communities do offer this service at regional hospitals at least.

S. Hawkins: I just want to backtrack a little bit. The minister was talking about the meeting with Dr. Misri. We met with her as well and were quite impressed with the program that she has. Apparently there are, on average, about 7,000 deliveries at British Columbia's Women's Hospital and another 2,000 or 3,000 at St. Paul's. There's a team of five psychiatrists with basically no core funding that looks after these women. Dr. Misri was very much in favour of developing some kind of strategy on a provincial basis. Certainly she recognizes this as a public health issue for women who have babies.

Actually, it's not just for after delivery; it's predelivery care, as well. A lot of these women suffer all kinds of symptoms. There is a long waiting list to get in to see a psychiatrist to help them. As the minister mentioned, one of the main reasons, I understand, that there is such a waiting list to see somebody with Dr. Misri's qualifications for looking after this kind of stuff is that there just aren't any kinds of resources, there isn't any kind of strategy. It's run loosely between five physicians who are trying to do what they can with the resources they have.

Certainly the early discharge policy is a factor. I'm wondering if the minister is looking at that one as a priority -- because Dr. Misri seemed to highlight that one as a priority -- and if there is some political will on that side of the House to help Dr. Misri put together a proposal and look at this as a mental health strategy for women across the province.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason why I met with Dr. Misri again about three weeks after I had met her the first time was because there is a great deal of personal will and political will. I asked Dr. Misri to put forward a proposal to me. I would prefer it not to be a bureaucratic proposal, so we could get on with it. She is committed to doing that with her colleagues.

I was quite overwhelmed, actually, in reading her book, Shouldn't I Be Happy. On the one hand, you can take pride in the fact that it's B.C. research, but this is a universal problem that many cultures deal with in a different way. Dr. Misri and her team have experience in that as well.

So, yes, we are . . . . I've asked her to bring forward a proposal that deals with how we can assemble a program and move forward on it. I was very interested in Dr. Misri's approach to do outreach beyond the lower mainland, and she is going to talk with her colleagues about how we may be able to achieve that.

On the early-discharge program, it is not by ministry edict that that has come about but by hospital policy. Certainly one of the performance measures that we've put in place as a result of regionalization will examine the early-discharge policy in the context of patient satisfaction and readmission.

[4:30]

S. Hawkins: The minister is probably aware that Dr. Misri was in town on Friday to see a patient in Victoria -- a 19-year-old experiencing problems during her pregnancy. Unfortunately, the resources weren't here to help her deal with that. I understand her doctor is very frustrated and doesn't have the resources to deal with it, either. Dr. Misri, out of the goodness of her heart, travels here and to other communities to provide that kind of service. Unfortunately, she tells me, in the hospitals where she is practising there aren't designated beds for something like that -- say for a patient who is psychotic during pregnancy and needs that kind of intensive care.

I understand from what the minister has just said that the bed policies come out of hospitals. But what will you do to perhaps encourage hospitals when they see or recognize problems like this? I understand that sometimes it takes two or three days in an emergency before Dr. Misri can get a patient who's pregnant and has mental illness problems into a bed. Is there some direction you will give that will ensure that these patients get immediate attention? It appears that they obviously need it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think I'm going to have to let my previous comments stand until I receive greater expert advice, and then we can discuss it further.

S. Hawkins: I'd be interested in following up on that at a later date, then.

The second issue, again, is related to something the member for Okanagan-Vernon was talking about, and that is the case of Brandon Werry, which was very well publicized in the paper this weekend. It's something that we've been following since last fall, I guess. Brandon is a constituent of a member from this side of the House, and I think it's to the credit, actually, of the staff of the Minister for Children and Families that this child is getting the kind of help that he needs right now.

He's in a private clinic in England, and it's thanks to the ministry staff who have worked very closely with the family and have brought his case to the point where it is. Hopefully, this child will recover. He's very seriously ill; anorexia nervosa is very unusual in a little boy, so I'm sure we all hope for the best for him.

But something that comes out of this case is the need for a facility for children who are ill with this kind of disease in British Columbia. The experts who we have spoken to, pediatricians, say that the need for a residential facility, funding and a strategy for this kind of disease in children is lacking. I'm wondering where the ministry is in discussions or an action plan to get something like this off the ground here in B.C. for these children.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes -- and my heartfelt wishes go out to Brandon's family, as well -- we have a plan. We've been following a plan. The day-treatment program was the first priority at Children's Hospital -- and also to put in the residential treatment program for young adults, and that was done: the Vista House program. The next step is the residential component. The proposal has come from B.C.'s Children's Hospital on the residential proposal; it's for six patient beds and an additional two rooms for the families to stay in. The annual operating costs are estimated at approximately $900,000, and that is part of . . . . We have the money for that program.

What the hospital is working on as we speak is a suitable accommodation for the residential program. Of course, there

[ Page 3643 ]

are in-patient services at Children's dedicated to children, with round-the-clock care, but the next part of the program is non-institutional but residential care. So Children's Hospital is being very diligent in finding the proper location. The funding is in place, the proposal is ready, and both the hospital and the ministry expect that to be up and running by the year's end.

S. Hawkins: That's very heartening to hear. How much funding is actually designated to that project? I missed that, if you said it.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's estimated that the annual operating cost will be approximately $900,000. That money is in place.

S. Hawkins: Those were my questions around that. I'll defer again to the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: I'd like to ask the minister some questions about HIV, specifically HIV strategy in British Columbia. I'd like to put it into some framework. My colleague the Health critic from Okanagan West asked me to say a few words on HIV before I start my questions.

Twelve years ago I was a St. Paul's intern. I was first introduced to AIDS in the hospital there. St. Paul's is well-known for its clinical expertise in this area of medicine, and this was a new and little-understood disease. The hospital was very quick, because there were people interested there, to become a referral centre for AIDS and for HIV-related illnesses.

In 1985 at St. Paul's, the AIDS condition did not hold very much interest for me. I was a relatively young intern; it was my intention to practise in a small town, not in a tertiary hospital. Because of these things, I thought HIV knowledge would be unnecessary. St. Paul's and AIDS had quite a bit more in store for me, in terms of my plans and what I thought was necessary or important to learn, than I had first imagined.

At St. Paul's I observed how medicine, culture, ethics and politics all became inextricably intertwined in a skein, and the skein was called AIDS. I would spend the rest of my professional life trying to unravel that skein. At that time, I desperately wanted to see AIDS only as a doctor -- not as a parent, not as a taxpayer. But a disease was here that would mock my understanding and the simplicity of what I wanted something to be. It was not about to be that.

In 1985, AIDS was little known. It was, we believed, a disease of homosexuals, Haitians, hemophiliacs and heroin addicts. At that time, those were the four categories that people who had acquired HIV generally fell into. It was a rare, fascinating, frightening and controversial condition, and I spent one-third of my entire internship caring for AIDS patients. I was disappointed, because I felt the knowledge I had gleaned about HIV would be far too excessive for a small town in British Columbia.

Today I thank St. Paul's and its patients for my total-immersion training in HIV. It was an experience that profoundly changed my outlook. AIDS has refused to allow me to see the world from one solitary point of view and feel justified and safe. In 12 years, I have seen this insignificant disease reach epidemic proportions. I have delivered newborns with HIV-positive moms and mourned their future. I've seen post-coronary artery bypass pensioners filled with hope, only to find themselves HIV-positive from interoperative blood transfusion. I've told an 18-year-old she may be HIV-positive from heterosexual contact.

I've seen IV drug abusers get clean, only to find themselves with AIDS a few years later, and I've known of medical colleagues who are now HIV-positive husbands and fathers because of accidental needle pricks, usually in emergency rooms. I've mourned them all. HIV has no respect for our boundaries. It will enter the lives of us all and will continue to do so, regardless of our social class, gender, religion or politics. My biggest fear for my children has not been violence or disaster, but the tragedy of HIV in their young lives.

Here in British Columbia last summer we had an opportunity to host the eleventh International Conference on AIDS. I took great pride in this event, in the knowledge that many of the doctors from St. Paul's and Vancouver General are Canadian pioneers in AIDS, and these were people who, in many cases, many of us know personally. They represented us here in Vancouver for all the world to see.

The public often sees AIDS as the scourge of the century. Others see it as a byproduct of the sins of modern man. Although a tragic condition, I prefer to recognize the opportunity it may have brought to all of us. You see, AIDS is the lowest common denominator. It alone strips away the trappings of nationality, ethnicity, class, beliefs and politics, and makes us all the same. With AIDS, we are forced to acknowledge what unites us and that that must be greater than what divides us. We must have a collective will to eradicate HIV and AIDS.

Solidarity will result from the knowledge that many of our questions about preventing, managing and curing HIV lies in our ability to get along, to unite and to work together. It depends on the commitment of people and their nations to one another, and, specifically for us, it depends on cooperation on both sides of the House. AIDS is a metaphor to remind the House that over the next three years the need for good health research and proper medication, no matter how expensive, and good health care must be sustained.

Our goal as politicians in government and in the role of the official opposition must be to never forget that funding health care for medications, for treatments and for new programs and pioneering programs is our most important responsibility.

I'd like to ask the minister for a bit of a dissertation on her view of where we stand in our HIV strategy in British Columbia and what she looks forward to in the future with this strategy from government.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank the hon. member for her comments on the ravage of HIV and AIDS and for her invaluable personal experience.

I must say that my experience with HIV and AIDS comes not from a medical point of view but from a community point of view, because my riding is the home of many HIV/AIDS patients. While I may have agreed that this was a disease that crossed all classes up until the nineties, I would say that's taking a shift now, and it is increasingly becoming a disease of the poor.

The study that we're engaged in now, along with the national organization -- the VIDUS study -- is concentrating on the study around intravenous drug users, and the biggest increase in HIV infection is amongst intravenous drug users. So while we are continuing to fund our AIDS strategy to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year, we are increasingly putting our efforts into the area of harm-reduction strategy around intravenous drug users. To that extent, in March I announced the funding of $3 million to deal exactly with the issue of the increase in HIV amongst intravenous drug users, and I'd be happy to again provide the members of the House

[ Page 3644 ]

with the information on that strategy. But it is a strategy very much to deal with the horrendous statistic that IDUs represent 55 percent of those with a new HIV infection during 1996.

[4:45]

Our B.C. Centre for Excellence is participating in the VIDUS study -- the Vancouver injection drug user study -- but it is part of a national study, as well. As part of our strategy we continue to invest in the overall funding of AIDS, so that it now exceeds $46 million. But where are we concentrating that funding? Again, I would just go over . . . . We have talked about this in estimates previously. Education and prevention cost $10.2 million. That's a variety of Ministry of Health programs, the needle exchange programs, community group programs and direct prevention grant money.

There's another $35 million in care and treatment, and that's drug purchase and distribution. We were in the lead in funding protease inhibitors through our Pharmacare program. There is also about another $14 million of hospital care, continuing care, home care and MSP billings. We fund research through the VIDUS, the B.C. Centre for Excellence and the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, for a total of $46.5 million.

I would say that there is no opportunity for us to stand still, because we have some world-renowned researchers, one of whom co-chaired the eleventh international AIDS conference last year. We are also -- and I say this with the greatest of compassion -- the mecca for people from across Canada suffering from AIDS or who are HIV-infected, because of our centre for excellence, because of our drug program and because of the community support we have in place.

We have hired Moffatt Clarke, a well-respected federal employee who we managed to have come on board with us to ensure that our HIV/AIDS strategy moves forward. We did release our provincial AIDS strategy consultation documents much earlier this year, and we are in the process of receiving feedback from across the community now.

In the meantime, we're not standing still. The provincial AIDS strategy was first done several years ago, and many of the programs they recommended have now been put in place. So it was time to update that strategy and get further feedback from the community on where we go next. I am very disturbed by the intrusion into our society of this 100 percent preventable disease. I think there is a huge issue and overlap with illegal drug use, and the social reasons behind our drug problem in Canada are manifesting themselves in the increase in HIV/AIDS infection.

So we are trying to move forward, and it is not with ease that we move forward to deal with the social problems as well as the health problems.

A. Sanders: Just for this member's information, does the ministry provide all retroviral therapy and all of the protease inhibitors under Pharmacare -- paid for?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We do provide them, yes, through the centre for excellence.

A. Sanders: You know, now that we understand the pathophysiology of HIV as a virus, one of the areas that I think is very important in terms of hospital management is the management of accidental exposure to HIV. To me, these are some of the most depressing cases of HIV, where people have inadvertently been the recipients of the virus through caring for those they look after, be it on the ward or in the home. I would like to know: in terms of the hospitals, do hospitals have a protocol in place which is mandatory for primary prevention of exposure?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, they all do.

A. Sanders: For anyone who has been exposed, is there any prophylaxis given free of charge?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The treatment is provided free, and it's as prescribed by a physician.

A. Sanders: For babies born to HIV-positive mothers, do we provide zidovudine for those babies in B.C.?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We were actually one of the first provinces to adopt a policy for pregnant women, to provide AZT free.

A. Sanders: Again, for this member's information, I'd be interested to know if all victims of sexual assault are treated for HIV within hospital protocols.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All victims of sexual assault are tested for HIV. Then the treatment, as a result of that, is as prescribed by the guidelines arising out of the centre for excellence.

The other issue is that there is a sexual assault program run at B.C. Women's Hospital. They primarily serve, of course, the women in the lower mainland, but they set the guidelines for the rest of the province, as well.

A. Sanders: Just along that same line, because of the cross-incidence, do all hospital workers now, especially those working in renal dialysis and emergency -- ward nurses, for example -- receive immunization for hepatitis B?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going from memory now. In a document that I read, where I . . . . Hepatitis B, you said, right? I'm sure I saw where it was provided through the employer. We'll get that information for you -- high-risk job categories, yeah.

A. Sande