1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 7

[ Page 7375 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

J. Smallwood: As caucus chair, I've been given the pleasure of reporting on a rather contentious debate that happened in caucus today. The debate was around introductions, interestingly enough. It was whether we were each individually going to introduce our constituency assistants. The debate went something like this: our constituency assistants are so hard-working and so committed that each one of them should be named, and the riding they represent should be etched in Hansard's record.

We agreed that that would be too long and too lengthy an introduction, but we wanted to make certain that all of the constituency assistants were warmly welcomed by the House and that their work was recognized by all of us.

S. Hawkins: I have the great pleasure today of introducing five guests from my riding of Okanagan West. I'd first like to acknowledge Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie, who is the regional director of the Central Okanagan regional district. As well, he is a very, very hard-working community volunteer and is very committed to youth. I also want to recognize two students from Mount Boucherie Secondary School, Carla Brumpton and Chris Downie, who are joining Mr. Dinwoodie. They are accompanied by two very hard-working teachers from Mount Boucherie Secondary School as well.

They are Jamie Robinson, who is debating coach and with whom I had the pleasure of working during the annual debates last year, and Jill Robinson. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

G. Campbell: As we know, this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the country of Israel, and today is their special celebration to mark that event. The Israeli nation has worked very hard over the last 50 years to build a strong democracy and to find security and peace in their region. I would like the House to join me in wishing everyone from the state of Israel and that nation and that community mazel tov .

T. Stevenson: I wouldn't normally break party ranks on this issue of constituency assistants -- normally I wouldn't, hon. Speaker. I'm only doing it today because I have a new constituency assistant who left Alberta -- that land that the opposition loves because of their health care cuts and their education cuts -- and came to work for me in British Columbia. So I ask the House to make Barbara Chan very welcome. She's been here only three months, and I think she's loving British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Every year some of the cream of Canada's universities enter the Canadian foreign service to work overseas on our behalf. Today I had the honour of meeting 11 people who are entering the foreign service and who are awaiting with anticipation their postings around the world. They're on a cross-country tour right now to get a sense of what's going on in each of the provinces, and we had a very interesting conversation and meeting. It's my pleasure to ask the House to please welcome Douglas Danch, John Drummond, Scott Gilmore, Marie-Louise Hannan, Heather Jeffrey, Lynn McDonald, Michelle Souillière, Steve Vallée and Georges Whalen. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have two introductions to make today. I would like to take the opportunity to make welcome my executive assistant, Raj Sihota -- no relation to anybody in this House -- and Eric Chan, who is my newly hired special assistant, working here in Victoria in my office. I'd like the House to please make them feel very welcome, because without their support, I know that I would not be able to get done nearly half the work that I get done every day.

In addition to that, I'd like to join the member opposite in welcoming some students and their debating coach and the educator from the regional district of Central Okanagan. Last year, in fact, the regional district of Central Okanagan worked in partnership with the city of Kelowna and school district 23 to create a program called Local Youth Government Day. Today I had the great opportunity of meeting with the two students, Carla Brumpton and Chris Downie, and also their debating coach, Jamie Robinson, and another teacher from the school, Jill Robinson, along with one of the mentors, Aaron Dinwoodie. I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

F. Gingell: April 30 is important not only to all of us -- because I hope we all have our income tax returns filed today -- but to many families in British Columbia who are waiting for the Allen report with respect to the restructuring of contracts within the Ministry for Children and Families. It's particularly important to parents of autistic special needs children from the lower mainland who are here with respect to the important services offered by Gateway in my community.

So I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming three parents -- Judy Forster, Pauline Reayburn and Karen Philipchuk -- and the director of Gateway, Mr. Bill Fraser. As we start May tomorrow -- May being Child Care Month -- I think this is an appropriate moment for us to recognize and welcome these parents to our Legislature, and I ask everyone to join me in doing so.

G. Plant: Seated in the gallery today is a resident of the constituency of Richmond-Steveston who is a community activist and also a member of the board of school trustees of the Richmond school district. I ask that the House please make Brian Webster very welcome.

S. Orcherton: I notice that in the gallery today we have a special guest, Mr. David Smith, from the Victoria

chapter of the Hepatitis C Society. Along with him are a few of his members. It's always a pleasure to have Mr. Smith join us in the gallery, but especially today, I think. Mr. Smith does tremendous work on behalf of people suffering from hepatitis C in our community here in greater Victoria, around the province and, indeed, across the country. He works long hours on behalf of those people, struggling for justice for them at the federal level and elsewhere. I ask the House to give him a very sincere and heartfelt welcome to this chamber.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery is a friend of mine from Surrey-Green Timbers, Dwaine Martin. With him is Sheila Knight. Sheila is a court service employee here in Victoria. She is the first vice-chair of Local 1201 of the BCGEU, and she is the sponsor of her local's Lisa Bell Protts Lifetime Achievement Award. Would the House please join me in making both of them very welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to make some introductions today on behalf of the member for Peace River North. All members of the House will know that this is the member who never gets to make an introduction, and he's in his constituency today. Strangely enough, joining us today is his wife LaVerne. We have with us LaVerne Neufeld; Nathan Neufeld,

[ Page 7376 ]

who is a student at the University of Victoria; and friends of theirs, Dana Kowalski and Levina Kowalski. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have several bosses in the Ministry of Attorney General in the minister's office that I work for, and one of them is Jocelyn Brown. Her mother-in-law Diane Brown happens to be in the gallery. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: This side of the House would also like to recognize David Smith and the work he does on behalf of hepatitis victims. We join in making him welcome.

And, since we're introducing people who work with us and expressing the appreciation we have for them, I would like to introduce my legislative assistant and assistant legislative assistant. On behalf of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and myself, I'd like to welcome Terri Cunningham and Ben Basi. They're in the gallery. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

[2:15]

R. Thorpe: I'm very pleased today to welcome the chair of school district 67, Pennie Jamieson. Pennie has served our community and our students for 14 years and is committed to excellence in education for the students of Penticton, Summerland, Naramata and area. I would ask this House to please give her a very warm welcome.

B. Penner: Yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing my brother. He enjoyed his experience during question period so much that he has brought two of his friends, fellow employees with B.C. Tel, here today. It's my pleasure to introduce Sam Catroppa from Surrey and Mick Howren from White Rock. In addition, the daughter of a constituent of mine, a young woman by the name of Wendy Johnson, is here today. She has brought with her a Rotary exchange student from Turkey, Aida Ilgin. I ask that the House please make these people welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today -- besides my constituency assistant Ruth Milne, whom I won't introduce -- are two trustees from Smithers, Bob Henderson and Gerry Hemming. Gerry is a long-term resident of the Bulkley Valley and a very good rural representative who is still seen around the valley travelling in a horse and buggy. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

COMPENSATION FOR PRE-1986 HEPATITIS C VICTIMS

Hon. P. Priddy: I think all British Columbians have been troubled and touched by the suffering of Canadians who are living with hepatitis C and by their families who are supporting them. Their plight is a challenge to all of us. It's a challenge to show compassion and to develop a practical and meaningful response. The hepatitis C tragedy is a dark

chapter in the history of Canada's blood supply system that has undermined public confidence in health services.

On March 27, B.C. joined with other provinces, territories and the federal government to announce an offer of $1.1 billion in financial assistance to those Canadians infected with this disease between 1986 and 1990, the years for which a test to screen blood was available but was not used in Canada. British Columbia signed this agreement and believes it is a positive step. Our province anticipates spending $205 million on health care treatment for those infected during those years. In addition, British Columbia anticipates that the cost of treatment for those infected before 1986 will total another $353 million. Those are significant commitments.

But it is clear that Canadians believe that more must be done. Canadians are telling Ottawa that it cannot cut off compassion on a given date. It is our government's view that these Canadians must be heard. The existing agreement is an important first step, but we are urging Ottawa to accept its responsibility to address and fund the needs of those infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions before 1986.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate the minister's comments. We believe that the victims of the hepatitis C tragedy need to be treated fairly, and we believe that these victims of the blood supply shouldn't be victimized once again. We join our voices with those around the country who have spoken out and asked for fair compensation for all victims of this terrible tragedy. To that end, we wrote a letter to the Premier, and we expressed our disappointment.

It's amazing that this government can call this agreement a positive step. Last night we saw the government in Quebec unanimously ask the federal government to review the agreement and look at this again. We need that kind of commitment from the members on the opposite side of the House, and we need to make sure that we do everything we can for these victims. We needn't victimize them again. The option they have available to them right now is a class action lawsuit. I don't think that's good enough. We need to be moving forward on steps for these folks.

I think that what we're looking for and what the hepatitis C victims are looking for is not empty words, and it's not promises; it's a real commitment from this government that they will be looking ahead and looking at ways to make it easier for these victims as they face their life-threatening illness. I ask this government to reconsider what they've done and to move forward and give the help that these victims need.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this province will be spending $353 million with respect to treatment for those infected prior to 1986. The issue, however, is not strictly one of dollars. It's one of fairness; it's one of compassion. It's one of the need for this government and the federal government to recognize that there are Canadians suffering and dying who need our help.

Hon. Speaker, three times I have raised this matter in the Legislative Assembly, and three times I have been told by this government that they're not prepared to act. Yesterday a unanimous vote by the National Assembly in Quebec indicated that a mistake had been made and that a change needs to be made. Today the Ontario Health minister has said that she will support the Quebec motion. Today the Premier of Alberta has indicated that he believes that the provincial Health ministers and the federal minister need to be reconvened.

Words are not enough on this. This chamber must take action by way of a formal motion so that this government is

[ Page 7377 ]

bound to make sure that British Columbians who have contracted hepatitis C receive fair treatment. This government is empowered to do that, and it cannot hide behind the veil of the federal Minister of Health or the federal government.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 13, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, which will amend certain public sector pension statutes. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act.

The bill has four purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to enable part-time senior administrative staff at colleges to make contributions to the plan. The second purpose of this bill is to formally enable by regulation, on a recommendation by the pension board, a pension plan benefit pay-out to a plan member with a significantly shortened life expectancy. The third purpose is to give the government the option to separate the roles of the superannuation commissioner and the chair of the pension board. Finally, the bill also makes several minor housekeeping changes.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

K. Krueger: I live in Kamloops, and I think everyone in this chamber knows how hungry the people of Kamloops are for jobs and economic opportunities. It's no secret to any member of this House how hard I've worked to try and bring about jobs and economic opportunities through the opportunity of the Six Mile Ranch project. At the same time, I've never lost sight of my duty . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

K. Krueger: . . . to fulfil the high honour of this office. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did lose sight of his duty to uphold the high honour of his office, so my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Regardless of how tough it is, will he now do the honourable thing and uphold his duty to fulfil the honour of his office, to uphold that honour, and resign from office today?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I call on the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I welcome the member for Kamloops-North Thompson into the debate, however late. He's certainly welcome.

At its heart, this issue is essentially a land use issue. There are the interests of agriculture and the interests of community, and that's the essence of politics in B.C. On our side of the House we take these issues incredibly seriously. We go forward to our convention and debate them for the whole world to see on television. My job as Minister of Agriculture is to see that the interests of agriculture are looked after.

I have yet to hear from the other side what they feel. What is their position on the agricultural land reserve and on the use of the "provincial interest" and on how to balance these issues? I challenge you, hon. member, to go to Langley next weekend, where farming actually matters, and say what your position is on the agricultural land reserve -- and to get your leader to do the same.

The Speaker: Hon. minister . . . . I remind all members to address their remarks through the Chair.

I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson on his first supplementary.

K. Krueger: I think everyone appreciates what a tough position this is for the Minister of Agriculture. I think everyone in this chamber appreciates what a tough position the agricultural land commissioners have been in for the past many months. Those land commissioners never failed to uphold the high honour of their office. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for me as the MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson to turn a blind eye to this situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sure you know about supplementaries. The

preamble is to be quite brief.

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, I chose to uphold my duty as a member of this chamber, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I ask the minister . . . . Again my question is to the Minister of Agriculture: will he take this opportunity to do the honourable thing and resign from his position in cabinet?

The Speaker: For a brief reply, the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: A brief reply. Hon. Speaker, when Commissioner Perry reviewed the invocation of the provincial interest, he said that the process was flawed. He asked me to appoint a commissioner, to hold a consultation to rewrite a definition of the provincial interest and to review the process -- so that the hon. member will understand it in future.

A week ago I appointed the dean of agriculture at UBC, a totally independent individual, to review these matters, to say how the provincial interest should be defined and how it should be invoked, and to report out to the public. Then the hon. member and all of us will understand how the process should work in future.

M. de Jong: We understand how the process should work, and it doesn't involve ministerial interference. Three days ago the Minister of Agriculture was asked to explain . . . .

[ Page 7378 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

M. de Jong: He was asked to explain his disgraceful attempt to influence members of the ALC. He denied the allegations and said . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, please. Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: He said this: "If the chair of the commission says that he wasn't bullied, then where is the proof . . . ? " Hon. Speaker, today we have the proof. Kirk Miller says that the integrity of the ALC has been compromised. Kirk Miller says that he and his colleagues on that board were subjected to incredible pressure by this minister and this government.

[2:30]

My question to the minister is: in the face of that ringing indictment from the head of the ALC, how can he possibly continue to cling to office like a coward?

The Speaker: Oh, hon. member, that's no . . . . Before the minister answers, I'm going to say to the hon. member that I believe some of the language used was inappropriate in this House. I ask him to find another word or withdraw it.

Hon. C. Evans: Hey, it's okay. He can say anything he wants . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you for your suggestion, but it is . . . . Would you take your seat, please.

The member for Matsqui . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. C. Evans: The Six Mile issue has been quite difficult to manage. If I were a coward, I would not have made my decisions and gone to the Horticultural Coalition convention and explained my position. I would not have gone to the BCFGA convention and explained my position in front of 300 farmers and five of your backbenchers, who have yet to take a position, or to my own party convention. I do my job because I believe we have nothing to hide. Our position has been open all along. I actually take pride in the openness and integrity of the process thus far.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: This morning British Columbians awoke to discover that the head of the Agricultural Land Commission has absolutely no faith in the Minister of Agriculture. He has called for a public inquiry. He has no faith, and he is disgusted by the pressure that this minister brought to bear on that commission. The minister has been confronted with an overwhelming and unprecedented vote of no-confidence by the head of the ALC. He has one honourable option. Will he exercise it now and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: I find it a little bit odd. The member opposite, in all his bombastic rhetoric, suggests that there is some issue between me and the chair of the Land Commission that he would like to understand. He doesn't care about the issue; he only cares about the television cameras.

And my proof? One week ago, in estimates, with the Speaker to keep order and Hansard to keep the official record, the chair of the Land Commission sat next to me for two days while the members opposite asked not one question about Six Mile Ranch -- on the record. The Agriculture critic asked not one question about the integrity of agricultural land. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson asked not one question about Six Mile Ranch. And the member opposite, who is busy pointing his finger, didn't even come into the room.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will not proceed until there is order.

I recognize the member for Matsqui on a second supplementary -- briefly.

M. de Jong: Let's put it in terms that maybe even the minister can understand: someone is not telling the truth. Is it the lifetime public servant who spent the last 25 years defending the integrity of the ALR, or is it this minister who connived, who plotted, who pressured the ALC to do something he didn't have the political courage to do himself? It's disgusting. We all know who is not telling the truth; this House knows who is not telling the truth. Will he have some courage and stand up and confirm that he's not telling the truth?

Hon. C. Evans: It's kind of tough to keep your sense of humour in the face of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. minister, please take your seat. When order has been restored . . . . A question has been asked of the minister. It is the minister's right to answer the question.

Hon. C. Evans: I have no desire or wish to denigrate or argue with the good people of the commission or the good chair. My position has been open all the way through this process. It has been very hard on the people on the commission. It's been hard on lots of elected people. It's been hard on the people of Kamloops. But, hon. Speaker, it's all out there, as clear as the light of day.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: If you actually cared, hon. member, you could have asked . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . . your questions on the record last week . . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . . when Kirk Miller sat in this building.

[ Page 7379 ]

The Speaker: Order, order. Through the Chair, hon. members.

G. Campbell: In 1991 the vast majority of people on that side of the House ran with this pledge to the people of British Columbia: "We will restore the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission." Yesterday the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission left no question in anyone's mind that this government and this particular Minister of Agriculture have been undermining the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission, and he said explicitly . . . . He called for a public inquiry into the activities of all the members of this government with regard to their undermining of the commission.

Doesn't the Minister of Agriculture understand that the only way to uphold his pledge to maintain the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission is to resign?

Hon. C. Evans: Because I'm a student of political history in this province, I understand that the only way to uphold my pledge to defend agriculture and the agricultural land reserve is to see to it that that man never governs.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO HANDLING

OF SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

G. Campbell: Yesterday I asked the Premier if he would be willing and if he would have the courage to call a public inquiry into this matter. The Premier said no, he would not. He refused. We now know from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission that the highest offices of this government -- the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Environment, the Premier of the province -- interfered with the ALC, a quasi-judicial body. My question is to the Attorney General of British Columbia, who has a responsibility to hold up the courts and the quasi-judicial processes that we have in this province.

The Speaker: Your question.

G. Campbell: We have had the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission say that it is time for a public inquiry; it is time to review this government's actions.

The Speaker: Hon. member.

G. Campbell: My question to the Attorney General is very straightforward: will you be willing to carry out your duty and call a public inquiry, under the Inquiry Act, into this government's interference with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the various steps of the processes that have been taken in this particular matter have been transparent. They've been repeated. That's the end of the matter.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members please take their seats. Until order has been restored, everyone in his seat.

I recognize the Attorney General.

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to present the "Criminal Injury Compensation Program of British Columbia Report, 1997."

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that . . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I also have the honour to . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Attorney General, continue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the B.C. Human Rights Commission annual report for 1996-97, and the British Columbia Police Commission annual report for 1996-97.

Petitions

F. Gingell: I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: This petition is signed by 834 British Columbians. It requests that the government exempt the Gateway services from the current proposed contract restructuring in the Ministry for Children and Families.

Standing Order 35 Motion

G. Wilson: I arise pursuant to standing order 35 to move that this House do now adjourn to deal with a matter of definite and urgent public importance.

It is urgent that the matter of full compensation for all people infected with hepatitis C by tainted blood be debated in the Legislative Assembly today, in light of the motion passed unanimously yesterday by the National Assembly of Quebec -- which also just received the support of the Ontario Minister of Health. The federal Health minister, Allan Rock, has indicated that he is closing this file. It is therefore even more urgent that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia discuss this issue today.

On Tuesday the Premier said he would "not act unilaterally in British Columbia." Today the province can act with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to reopen the negotiations.

I enclose a copy of the motion I propose to move should the Chair find a prima facie case.

The Speaker: Thank you for that, member.

I recognize the Government House Leader, in response.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by this member in the House over the last few weeks. This is a very important matter. This afternoon the

[ Page 7380 ]

Minister of Health recorded her commitment to this issue -- to resolving this issue, to moving forward on this issue. It is a matter of great importance.

I would question the urgency of it today in the context that this matter has been before the public for months now. Indeed, we have a commitment from the Minister of Health to move forward on it in a way that makes sense, representing our government to the federal government. We welcome the participation, in her discussions with the federal government, of all members of the House.

It is also important that we move this matter forward in a way that it can actually be resolved on behalf of the victims of the hepatitis C virus, who, at the end of the day, are the most important people in this whole matter. It is our government's commitment, expressed by the Minister of Health earlier today, to do that. I suggest that this House support her as she carries out those duties.

G. Campbell: I rise to support the motion from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I believe this is a matter in need of urgent public attention. It may not feel like it is an emergency to people in this House who do not happen to suffer from hepatitis C, but I can tell you that it is an emergency for thousands of people across the country.

We have an opportunity to speak with one voice, to work together. It has been granted us today. Other provinces have broken ranks, and I would recommend that we move forward with an emergency debate on this, so we can clearly send B.C.'s voice across the nation.

The Speaker: I will not rule on this at this point. I will bring back my ruling on it either later today or at a later sitting.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality and then the Ministry of Education. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $407,000 (continued).

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, before we go on, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce my staff who are with me. To my right is my deputy minister, Bill Lefeaux-Valentine; to my left is my assistant deputy minister, Linda Hannah; and beside Linda is John Dowler -- I believe John counts beans. So away we go.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to be here to proceed with the budget estimates for the Ministry of Fisheries. I want to start out by thanking the minister and his staff, particularly for the letter of March 30 and the briefings we had. Since this is a new ministry, I thought we would start out and discuss the whole mission and purpose of the ministry. I think I'd like to hear specifically what the mission statement for the ministry is, because I think that really sets out clearly, hopefully, what the government's agenda will be and provides a focus for staff in terms of the work they do.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would refer the member to "The B.C. Fisheries Strategy" discussion paper, May 1997. I'm sure the member has a copy of that. That clearly lays out the direction, the future and the vision of the ministry. I would offer at this stage, two months into the process, that we haven't written down on a piece of paper: "mission statement." Here it is. It's built on the strategy that's portrayed in this document. If the member requires further investigation or clarification point by point or has a specific question, I would be pleased to answer.

J. van Dongen: I'm not familiar off the top of my head with the document, although I know I have read it. I wonder if the minister could comment, then, on the balance of the objectives in terms of conservation, the economic balance and the environmental aspects of the mission. I think it's important to have some clear understanding of what the objectives are. Maybe he could comment on those in a little more detail.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not trying to be evasive here. The member asks what sounds like a very simple question: to outline our day-to-day work in this ministry -- where we were yesterday, what we're up to today and where we're going tomorrow -- when he talks about tying this to economic and environmental principles. I'll offer this and see if we can get beyond this opening question here.

The first priority of this ministry and of this government with fish -- particularly on the marine side, the salmon -- is conservation. We have dedicated a large number of resources as a government. In fact, legislation falls under the jurisdiction of colleague ministers -- for the protection of habitat, for the conservation of fish, for the rebuilding of species -- and at the same time, this ministry, within its realm of responsibility, has the need, the mandate and the obligation to speak for coastal communities.

Finally, it gives a coordinated political voice from the province on the need for these coastal communities and how they view their needs for survival. In coordinating with these communities and with the fishermen on those coasts, whether we're dealing with first nations or non-first nations communities, we are preparing a strategy for the survival of coastal communities that moves us forward. That's the ocean side.

Of course, shellfish aquaculture falls under this; other aquaculture processes fall under this ministry, and some groundfish strategies. We have a memorandum of understanding signed with Ottawa, between the Prime Minister and the Premier, that clearly lays out the roles and approaches of both political jurisdictions within the political jurisdiction and guidelines of the two areas, British Columbia versus Canada. That's the coast.

We also, in this ministry, have taken on a responsibility that was under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: the freshwater fishery in the province -- the stewardship of the wild fish resource in our fresh waters, the operation and continued operation of our freshwater hatcheries, the stocking programs and the consultative cooperative work with other jurisdictions and other nations. Having said all of that, this ministry also has responsibilities, I believe -- I'll get my sleeve jerked and told to sit down in a minute, maybe -- for the licensing of the processing facilities on the coast as well.

[ Page 7381 ]

We have an obligation as a ministry to work within the guidelines, the bounds, the laws and the legislation that are under other ministers' jurisdictions -- particularly Environment, Lands and Parks. We have an obligation to participate and offer advice on the environmental side with, through and for the people of British Columbia involved with fish, as we relate to the Forest Practices Code and the stream protections that are there. Those, again, are examinable under other ministries. I am really kind of hesitant to walk down those roads, because it's not the jurisdiction of this ministry.

But in fact we are affected, as a ministry and as a resource, by the activities of those other ministers and ministries.

That's really our realm. We respect the law; we work within the law. Conservation is our primary goal -- and concern for fish. We have the economic . . . . Actually, it's a tourism-social-whatever-other kind of thing on the freshwater side, as the freshwater fisheries, through tourism and other endeavours, bring close to half a billion dollars a year into B.C. We're quite broadly based.

I will offer that we have a Fisheries ministry. We have a minister. The minister doesn't quite have an office yet, but we're getting there too. We have staff up and running. But what we don't have yet is the outside bounds of the ministry. We're still putting some of that together to see where the ministry would unfold.

That becomes an extension of the future which, under the tight rules of Committee of Supply, becomes future policy and not examinable. I'm not trying to tease the member, hon. Chair; I'm trying to find out where the member would like to go with this or if that satisfies. If any one of those categories I mentioned requires further examination, I'd be pleased to offer whatever response and answers I can.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I also want to say that I appreciate the fact that this is a brand-new ministry. It's been a very short time frame for both the staff and the minister in terms of establishing offices and management teams and that kind of thing. I've tried hard not to bother them too much up to this point, but I ask the question about a mission statement because I think it is essential and important.

I think it will be important that the ministry, once it gets settled, turn some specific attention to that. It's important from the point of view of the stakeholders and of the public to understand what the ministry is trying to do. In a practical sense, one of the issues that's always debated is if this is going to be a ministry that's more focused on habitat and environment, and habitat restoration than on jobs and economic development. Where will the balance lie between those two important needs? That's one reason I ask the question.

There's another reason, and that is in order to measure performance effectively under the government's accountability initiative, which was started two or three years ago, I think. It's important for the ministry to have that mission statement and to have specific objectives, both in the longer term and on an annual basis, so that both the government and the public can have something to measure against. I ask the question from that perspective.

In view of the real concern in British Columbia today about jobs and economic activity -- in particular, jobs for people in fishing communities -- I wonder if the minister could comment a bit more about that in terms of the mission and the objectives of his ministry. Is that the primary focus of the ministry? Is it a primary focus, along with conservation? Where is the balance? Where is the main activity of the ministry?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the main focus of the ministry, at this stage, is to give a voice to fish and to the folks in those areas who live with fish. I wouldn't like to suggest that the direction this ministry is going is to give another life to what we know as the Pacific salmon war. This ministry is broadly based. It encompasses all the areas that were under Ag, Fish and Food on the marine side. It encompasses all the areas, except policing, that were in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on the freshwater side.

I like to look at the balance that we're trying to achieve as a ministry. When we step out the door, when we go to a meeting and talk about ourselves as being the Ministry of Fisheries of British Columbia, we are way beyond the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Although we do have an advisory role, a participatory role, in the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, our primary focus for this ministry would be just what the member is looking for: to find a way to strike a balance between economic activity, conservation of species and supply, and the rebuilding of supply of fish.

We do participate. The Crown corporation Fisheries Renewal B.C. is under this ministry in order to work on habitat restoration projects and to consider other initiatives as they come in for proposal and consideration. This ministry will give a voice to the economic needs of the coastal communities. We are just now entering the time of the announcement of the federal fishing plan.

As an example of this ministry attempting to strike that balance between the need to conserve and the need to survive if you happen to live in the remote regions of the coast of British Columbia, we have commissioned, as released yesterday, Dr. Parzival Copes to bring forward a set of recommendations to the federal government on how we believe that this balance can be achieved through selective fishing methods, no fishing at all at times when endangered coho species are in the area, and a diversified fishing plan for the sport, aboriginal and commercial sectors.

I am hoping that's the kind of balance the member is looking for. That's what this ministry is focused on. We are the voice and the activity centre and the planners for that.

J. van Dongen: I want to pick up on one of the comments the minister made. He sees this ministry as the voice for coastal communities. I'm assuming that he's talking in the context of representation for our coastal communities and British Columbia vis-à-vis the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the federal government. In addition to that, how much emphasis will there be within the ministry on engaging in activities that will lead directly to new jobs and new job opportunities in these coastal communities? I think there's a distinction between lobbying the federal government on programs, etc., and activities focused towards actual job creation.

Hon. D. Streifel: I am going to try this. As I understand the question, and a nod may get me started off here, the member is looking for specifics on what we're doing to help supply jobs on the coast of British Columbia through diversification of fisheries -- kind of like that -- rather than just going to Ottawa and saying: "You blew it again."

First of all, we have the memorandum of understanding with the federal government, as I referenced earlier, where we are a participatory partner in the planning and diversification of fisheries and what happens. We are a co-conspirator, so to speak, in the allocation of some new fisheries -- one of them being sardines. It has been across the field quite recently on

[ Page 7382 ]

the news, and we have financial resources in that. We participated in some of the allocations around the new mackerel fishery.

Of course, we have announced and are participants in the expansion of a dogfish fishery and in the dogfish pilot project in and around the Queen Charlottes. I believe there will be 20,000 tonnes of dogfish harvested there, primarily for export to the European market. Now, the harvesting of the dogfish is actually a double benefit to the coast of British Columbia in that the fishermen in the boats go out and harvest the critters, then the folks on land in the plants will process them, and then our transportation industry will ship them to a transition point where they'll be re-shipped.

They'll be processed in different quadrants and sections. A piece of the back might be for the big lump of fish you might buy in Britain or France for fish and chips. The fins and the belly flaps . . . . As I understand it, the fins get processed for another way of consuming it. The belly flaps are cleaned off, smoked and dried kind of crispy, like chips, and they're a delicacy in parts of Germany. I see that the hon. member has smirked; he may have chomped on some of these things in his life.

But those are examples of what we can do as a full, participatory partner on behalf of coastal communities like Massett, for instance, where the unemployment rate is astronomically high, at 85 percent, and where we can help divert some resources. That is a diversified fishery. It's really a new fishery that has not been done in this province since the forties. In fact, we can supply economic activity vis-à-vis jobs. You know, when someone collects a paycheque, they're pretty happy. If they don't have a paycheque, they're not happy at all.

And this supply replaces what was in a lot of ways a very viable salmon fishery on the coast. We have to get into other activities.

There's an opportunity in some areas for other groundfish strategies and other sea life -- urchins, cucumbers and this kind of stuff. In fact, there are other possibilities. We are working with individuals on a different way to catch salmon and a different way to handle salmon: catching, handling live, bleeding out and processing by hand right there at the back of the boat or on a short haul to a fish dock, as opposed to just brutalizing the fish out of the water in a lump, freezing them and sending them somewhere else to become a second-rate product.

We are working on new techniques of handling and processing numerous species of fish, up to and including, for the members' information, the shipment of live fish and live shellfish to remote parts of the world, which is an extremely high value-added enhancement.

These are the kinds of projects that we're involved in. We're not just a lobby to the big guy in Ottawa. We are very proactive on the ground and aggressive.

I would like to see -- and this will be in our mission statement and our strategic plan, if you would just bear with me for a few moments, hon. member -- a change in attitude toward fishing on the coast of British Columbia, from the "grab a bunch and sell them" salmon fisheries of the past, to selectively choosing some wild fish; processing them to the highest possible value, even if it's in a reduced fishery; then maybe moving on when that fishery is done to doing something else on the coast -- if it's not dogfish or urchins or crabs, maybe moving on from that to restore habitat and those kinds of processes to extend the work life of the . . . .

I'm being signalled. Remember the last word I said. I'll sit down; someone needs an introduction.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

W. Hartley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members. I believe our visitors are just leaving, but I want to introduce them. There are some 50 grade 6 students and several adults visiting today from Marysville Middle School in the United States. Please welcome them.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I've gone far enough for the member opposite, if he just gives me this one, I'll sit down.

What we want to signal is that there is hope on the coast; there's a future on the coast. One of the strongest mandates this ministry was given was to help the coast survive until those changes take place. If we consolidate the right to catch those fish, if we move from the concept of a common-property resource to a privatized resource concentrated in a few hands with no downsize capacity at all -- just concentrated in fewer hands -- we will never, ever have a coastal community that survives. We are not the east coast; we are a diversified west coast.

We have that opportunity right in front of us, and I would most strongly urge British Columbians and the hon. member opposite to grasp that initiative now, today, and help us with the coastal survival needs and redistribute the harvestable wealth on our coast.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for his detailed answer. I guess I asked the question about the emphasis on jobs in the economy, because I think it should be a critical part of the ministry, and I think it is. But I also wanted to point out that it's important for this new ministry not just to be involved in pursuing federal responsibilities and lobbying the federal government on their responsibilities. I think that the ministry has considerable scope and opportunity for economic development that we, as a province and as a provincial government, can directly influence ourselves.

To the degree that this government, together with the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and other ministries, can actually drive its own agenda in terms of economic development, I would certainly urge them to do that.

Still sort of talking in general terms about objectives and the goals of the ministry, if he had to chose three goals for the coming 12 months, specific projects or objectives that he and the ministry have, I wonder if he might talk about what they are. Whether it's a particular segment of the fishery or a particular policy issue, what are the three most important achievements that he could look for in the coming year?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm really tempted to say, "to get a new office and get fully staffed," but I'm not going to say that. As much as I like to tease and kid around with folks, I think this is an extremely important question, and I really thank the member opposite for bringing it forward. I believe it's a thoughtful question, and through the initial part of my answer, I hope to spawn further debate on just these issues of what we're trying to accomplish. That's the theme of the discussion so far: who represents whom out there, and do British Columbians count, or are we just going to get written off like the east coast?

[3:15]

My first goal is full implementation of the Canada-B.C. agreement. We have it here, and I know the member is familiar with it. It gives British Columbia a stronger voice in the management of the fisheries on the coast and the opportunity to more strongly represent coastal communities.

The second goal is the final accomplishment of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with our American neighbours. I have met

[ Page 7383 ]

with legislators from Alaska, Washington and Oregon. I have been received very warmly. I have discussed openly with them and with our Premier the circumstances and problems around coastal British Columbia and the need for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I would say that without exception, the legislators -- who, like the member opposite and myself, represent communities and districts and regions -- fully and completely understand what our needs are and want a way to find a resolution. They don't want to participate in a back-yard barbecue with the last salmon from the north coast.

The other goal -- and none of these is in any particular declining or increasing order of importance -- is to be the voice for the coastal communities. That voice has to be legitimate and open in its call for equity and access. We could use some help from the members opposite, particularly the critic for Fisheries, who is well respected in the community as a reasonable individual. A voice for equity and a voice for access to the resource and increased employment through a diversified fishery . . . .

One example of equity and access that I've spoken in the House in the past on is the circumstance around hake on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The federal government allocated a portion of the hake fishery to be processed by Polish factory ships off the shore of British Columbia. That may not be a big deal to somebody that works 40 hours a week -- whether they're in a supermarket, in a doctor's office or wherever the heck they may work -- but to the companies that put up the money to rebuild their plants, the allocation to Polish factory ships represents their profit for this year.

That's the profit that they dearly needed to drive back into expanding their manufacturing facilities in order to participate in the vision and the goal of a diversified and growing fishery on the west coast. That was taken away from them. We need a voice for equity and access.

To the workers in those factories that processed the hake and produced the surimi that made the fancy crab that the yuppies love to eat, that allocation of 20,000 tonnes to the Polish ships represented the difference between a few months of work and a lot of work this year -- where they could actually do stuff, buy things, spend money and not have to go on pogey or on the dole at the end of it.

I say that if we can accomplish a strong and united voice and movement under the Canada-B.C. agreement and a Pacific Salmon Treaty where we know where we're going on the coast with the salmon in particular and with these other initiatives and proposals, that's what I want to accomplish in this first year. We've hit the ground running. I've been in all these communities. We've even had some of them come visit us here on these very same issues.

J. van Dongen: Well, it's always interesting to ask an open-ended question like that and see what kind of an answer we get. I think the third answer would probably be the area that I hope would get the most emphasis, because that's the area that the ministry itself has the most opportunity to influence. Where we can, we'll certainly be supportive of coastal communities with the government to try and retain jobs, not only for fishermen but also for plant workers.

The minister used the example of the hake fishery, which we were pleased to support. I think when you look at the Pacific Salmon Treaty -- and I certainly wasn't intending to spend a lot of time discussing that matter -- I think we're all very, very hopeful that the salmon treaty talks get going and meet with some success. Really, I think a lot of people who are more familiar with that process than I am have said that there is probably the best chance this year of getting some kind of a resolution, and if it doesn't come now, it may be a long time down the road.

I think the reality there is that there are elements to that Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiation that we can't control and that we have a limited ability to influence.

The Canada-B.C. agreement . . . . I'll respond to that a little bit. I'm certainly going to canvass one or two aspects of that agreement. Again, I think it can be a useful document. We have had some concerns about the level of bureaucracy involved in all the various committees and agencies under that agreement. If we watch that part of it, it may be useful, but I always try to measure things in terms of how they impact the fishermen in Ucluelet, Tofino or Port Hardy, or the plant workers or that kind of thing. Agreements between two levels of government don't necessarily translate into immediate results on the ground -- although it is a useful thing to do.

I want to move on to the structure of the ministry a little bit. I think it would be useful for the stakeholders to have the minister go over the various components of the various ministries that have been brought together. There was a lot of discussion and a lot of input by certain stakeholders and various groups that had an interest in how the ministry was going to be formatted -- which pieces were going to be in the ministry and which pieces were going to be outside the ministry.

I wonder if the minister could go over those points, with particular reference to the B.C. fisheries secretariat, which was part of the Premier's Office. I'm sure the minister would want on the record what's being pulled together and what's being excluded. I know he said that it's still a bit of an open-ended process. There are some studies going on to decide what will be fully included. I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing exactly what is part of the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. It's a question I asked just three hours ago, because it seems to modify and change slightly every day. At this time in the creation of this new Ministry of Fisheries, the Victoria-based fisheries programs, the research unit at UBC, the fish culture program and five provincial trout hatcheries have been transferred to this ministry. The regional fisheries sections, regional fisheries inventory specialists and the Hill Creek compensation hatchery remain with the Ministry of Environment.

All resource stewardship staff, habitat protection, environmental assessment, aboriginal relations, enforcement and land use planning, and headquarters and regions also remain with MELP.

The member should know that the borders of the ministry may change after a one-person advisory commission kicks in to provide further advice and recommendations on the delivery of fisheries, wildlife habitat and water responsibilities. That's the only uncertain

part in the formation of this ministry at this stage. A letter of understanding has been drafted to confirm interim arrangements between the two ministries and ensure the continued delivery of fisheries programs in Victoria and regions. That's the split between us and MELP.

We'll try to get the movement from the fish side of Ag, Fish and Food over here for the members. That's mostly the groundfish strategy, the shellfish stuff and the marine-side allocations.

Just to quickly reference, the Canada-British Columbia agreement is a historic document in Canada. It's the first one that has ever been signed with any province, and as a matter of fact, a number of other provinces are quite envious and have asked for advice and have looked for an opportunity for their own agreement on fisheries with the federal government. That's the information for the hon. member. I wouldn't like to think that it's just another piece of paper signed by the

[ Page 7384 ]

Premier of the province and the Prime Minister of Canada. It's a full, open acknowledgment of the forward movement and the responsible role of the province in the management and stewardship of fisheries.

While I have this new document in my hand here, programs and operations and conservation are MELP, research is MELP, enforcement and licensing is both, commercial fisheries is us, aquaculture is us, sport fishery is us, market development is us, fish culture is MELP, coastal oceans policy is us, coastal planning is us, fisheries inventory is both and fisheries statistics is both. The secretariat is only involved at this stage, as I understand it, in an advisory capacity in the PST negotiations.

Really, there isn't much left at the secretariat level other than to conclude that very, very important piece of work, the Pacific Salmon Treaty. For continuity purposes at this very sensitive time, it's there.

The member referenced the Pacific Salmon Treaty in his first comments and where we are at with it. We're still meeting; that's where we are with it. Speaking as an individual who negotiated for a living, as long as you're meeting, there's always hope.

J. van Dongen: We seem to be covering three or four questions and three or four answers all at the same time. I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to provide us with a listing of what's in and what's out -- certainly at the current time -- and whether there will be an attempt -- at some point in the future when this one-man study is finished -- to make that information available to the public, to provide some clarity as to how the division is taking place.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to send over an org chart for the information of the hon. member. He'll probably come back to me and say: "A minute ago, when you answered the question, you said this. This says something else." If the member says that, I'm going to stand up and say: "You're absolutely right." I gave him a verbal list of where stuff came from, not where it's now housed. This is the real deal, the full-meal deal -- in some terminology, maybe the full monty. But I'm going to have it sent over to the hon. member, and once he has had the opportunity to skim through it we'll probably get some questions on it.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that information from the minister. The one-person commission that is doing that review as to the outside boundaries . . . . What would be the expected timing of his submission and the decision as to finalizing the structure of the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's a tough one. If I had my way, it would have been the day before yesterday. It's proving to be a little more difficult than we had hoped. We expect it to be on the ground and running within a short period of time. We've had a couple of setbacks that we hadn't planned on -- personal circumstances of some individuals that we had hoped would do the job. I can only offer to the member that it's going to be as quickly as possible. My opinion is that it's overdue. We're behind on it, and we'll see if we can get caught up.

[3:30]

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the circumstances, whatever they may be. I think it's important at the outset to try and be sure that we get the division in an appropriate place. If it takes a little bit longer, I'd rather see it done that way than trying to ram it through.

Are the minister and the ministry taking any submissions or inviting any comments from any of the interest groups on that? Or is it pretty much an internal ministry process? I'm not saying that we need to consult for eight months or that sort of thing, but is there any opportunity for comment by interested people?

Hon. D. Streifel: The role of the special adviser will be just that: to pick up the information from the various groups. There has been some work done in a directory manner that would set up this special adviser. I am not actively seeking input to this process at this time. We'll leave that to the adviser. Inadvertently, I keep getting lots of advice on this, hon. member.

J. van Dongen: I was going to ask the minister . . . . I know that certain groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others had some pretty strong views about how the ministry should be structured. I'm wondering if the minister could offer any comment as to their response -- and other stakeholders -- in terms of how it's going together.

Hon. D. Streifel: The whole purpose of forming the outside boundaries of the ministry is to establish where the administrative capacity begins and ends. In fact, it won't make a great deal of difference to the corporate structure of the whole of government.

More appropriately, to answer the member's question on the positioning from some of the interest groups or the folks who have a deep interest in this, last weekend in Fort St. John I addressed the B.C. Wildlife Federation's convention. I spoke with a number of them, admired their projects and worked with them. I was also at the Steelhead Society annual general meeting and fundraiser, and I spoke with a number of folks on this same issue. I've met with individuals in communities on this issue -- not specifically to discuss this. But certainly, in the form and scope of conversation, advice has come forward to me.

I've directly asked the main proponents of vast directional changes for this ministry, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, to have more patience, and I explained to them last weekend what some of our difficulties are. I haven't been barraged with protest calls, so I guess they're waiting for us to get our act together -- as I am.

J. van Dongen: One of the relationships that I think is going to be critical and probably involves a lot of ongoing work is the relationship with the Ministry of Environment. In the briefing session that I had with the minister's staff, we talked about the policy unit in Victoria -- if I can describe it that way -- moving into the Ministry of Fisheries, and that part of the work of this commissioner is to attempt to develop some form of single-window delivery on the ground in the regions.

That is a pretty critical area, certainly in terms of current discussions out in the field, involving things like setbacks and the discussions under the Fish Protection Act -- that kind of thing. I think that is going to be very, very critical. I wonder if the minister could just give us an update. I know it's all in a state of flux, but could he give us some comments on that area?

Hon. D. Streifel: I work very closely with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Agriculture on a number of these issues, the Fish Protection Act being one of them. I don't have administrative authority with the act at all; it rests with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. But as the

[ Page 7385 ]

minister, I do have an advisory capacity as it pertains to fish, and I've taken the opportunity to advise. As the member opposite probably knows, I'm not silent very often.

As well, I share a common concern with the member for Abbotsford in that we represent very similar regions of the province. I've taken the opportunity as a private member to talk to the minister on the issues and concerns which my constituents have brought forward. Although that's not in the realm of the minister, it's pretty hard to step out of his skin all the time and become a quasi- or pseudo-minister or a member. Those are very important issues, and we do work closely together. I think they are serious issues, and I understand the positioning from the member.

Other issues, of course, more specific . . . . Maybe the member would throw something else out, and we could have a discussion on that as well. But the role of the special adviser will be to sort out the next step of jurisdiction. That's actually in the future, and I don't want to go too far down that road, because that individual is not there yet.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's reference to some of the issues that impact urban property owners, farmers and others. It wasn't my intent to get into specific issues, but I appreciate his reference to them.

In terms of the process that the one-man commission is going through, I would like to refer the minister to . . . . I don't have a spare copy of it here, but it's an

article in the Chilliwack Times , dated April 7, 1998. We can either get a copy of this, or if you can find it in your clipping service . . . .

Interjection.

J. van Dongen: It makes extensive reference to some comments by Betsy Terpsma of the Ministry of Environment -- she's a communications person -- and talks about the business of referrals involving the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries. I'm not going to read it all out. But it goes at some length into the process, as she understands it.

I have a concern that there may be duplication in the process. It may not even be clear at this point. But I simply want to register, for the minister and the ministry, my concern about the increasing complexity of the referral process as it's set out in that article. I'd simply put that on the record for the minister and ask if he has any further comments about that referral process specifically. That would involve local governments, the Ministry of Environment and, in some manner, the Ministry of Fisheries.

Hon. D. Streifel: I couldn't have hoped for a better question from the hon. member. First of all, I'll correct the misconception again. I have written to the local papers on some occasions. I've tried to contact some of the local journalists to correct the misconception of who's acting out there. It's the relationship -- and the referral from MELP, in some instances -- to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans federally. It's not the provincial Fisheries ministry.

It doesn't seem to matter to some, particularly a few local politicians out there -- running the risk of taking a whack at somebody that's not here to defend themselves -- but sometimes the criticisms are politically convenient, and accuracy means diddly in the process. I know the member opposite doesn't fall into that role. That's why he's asked the question: to look for clarification. But some local politicians, in fact, in the Fraser Valley have been taking a crack at this ministry for no other purpose than political expediency, because it's not the jurisdiction of the ministry they're having trouble with. They're having trouble with DFO.

This minister is on the record on this drainage ditch issue as stating that a number of these ditches were built and dug under the ARDSA program. The evidence exists and is there that a ditch was dug. It becomes a ditch; it should remain a ditch. And there are ways to protect that ditch from fish encroachment. Others were watercourses that were always there, always natural, and that had been enhanced.

I believe we have to strike a protocol to address and balance off the needs in those watercourses with the fish and the agricultural concerns. The ARDSA program helped improve the land value -- the value of production on the land -- in the Fraser Valley, as the member would know, quite dramatically a number of years ago. We got some areas where you could do nothing but crop a bit of hay or do very high-quality corn crops because of the drainage that happened out there.

The second part of that is that I think we have to pay a lot more attention to the natural habitat in that area, so fish that are in the area and want to spawn in a particular coho habitat won't be forced to find refuge for spawning purposes in somebody's drainage ditch. They can go back into the natural watercourses, where they were naturally. I think it's incumbent on us, through our programs of habitat renewal, to facilitate that. I asked the federal government very vociferously to participate in that process, and I'm looking for voices in the community. So we can have ditches that drain agricultural land, we can have fish habitat, and we can have a transition.

We can understand that there may be some sacrifices we make on behalf of fish. But this isn't the tunnel-vision approach where you go out one afternoon, find water trickling and say: "That's it; you can't farm any longer." It's not fair, and it's not appropriate.

Now, again in this chamber I am on the public record with perhaps too simplistic a view of the issue. But I haven't yet had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans explain to me why that won't work. It certainly sounds logical to me. I mean, I've heard of screens and fish weirs to keep fish out of areas. It seems to me that it would be extremely logical.

So I invite comment from the member opposite to see if this fits within the thought process of perhaps the whole opposition caucus on this issue. It's another offer of a way to work together to correct the record, to keep the chippy political expediency away from some of those municipal councils that see NDP and throw a knife at it for no particular reason.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the comments of the minister on the specific issue of ditch cleaning. I don't want him to prejudge what comments were in the newspaper

article just because it comes from Chilliwack. The comments that I was referring to deal very much in a generic sense with the process of dealing with referrals from local governments to the Ministry of Environment and to the Ministry of Fisheries. I certainly agree that the ditch-cleaning issue specifically is strictly a Department of Fisheries and Oceans effort.

It does give rise to a little bit of further discussion on this transitional phase we're going through, setting up a new ministry and the relationship with the Ministry of Environment -- about a concern that I have. The minister alluded to it. I want to pursue it a little further, because it is creating great difficulty for people -- more so in the urban settings, residen-

[ Page 7386 ]

tial land and that kind of thing. There is a tremendous amount of confusion about the various agencies involved. There's the Ministry of Environment and the habitat part of that, if I could use that term. Sometimes there's the water management part of the Ministry of Environment, with provincial legislation. Then there's DFO, sometimes with federal legislation. Sometimes, as the minister knows, the provincial ministry uses the federal Fisheries Act in certain situations. It is causing unbelievable confusion. Sometimes provincial and federal politicians are pointing at each other, which simply adds to the confusion.

[3:45]

In terms of the whole effort that I know the ministry's going through, I want to underscore the importance of trying to cut through some of that overlap and confusion. It refers in particular to

section 4(2). I've got a photocopied version of the Canada-U.S. agreement here.

Section 4(2) talks about reducing duplication and overlap and improving efficiency and service. I assume that I'm looking at a current draft. It's dated April 16, 1997. As I recall, that was the date it was signed. I'm not asking the minister to get into any specifics on that but just to underscore the importance while we're in the process of setting up a new ministry . . . . And the government has this item 4(2) in the Canada-U.S. agreement. I think that is an area for the benefit of a lot of people in British Columbia.

I think it is absolutely critical that we put some good minds to work to try and cut through some of this overlap, duplication, confusion and pointing at each other. It's going to be a regulatory nightmare and a delivery nightmare if we don't get some of those things sorted out. What we have now and what the Chilliwack Times

article refers to is simply introducing another player -- namely, the Ministry of Fisheries -- into this whole mix. I wonder if the minister could just give us a few more comments on how he sees that unfolding, with particular reference to the Canada-B.C. agreement.

Hon. D. Streifel: I do agree with the member opposite that it is confusing and that it has to be sorted out. That's one of the purposes and reasons behind the subgroup working on sorting out this jurisdiction. The special adviser will help in that way. I will stick with my previous comments about the political chippiness that comes out of a particular area of the Fraser Valley and for no sense or reason -- there was no phone call to me -- with no attempt to find an explanation or say, "What are you doing?" two months . . . . Actually, at the time that that

article and several others came out, we hadn't been a Fisheries ministry for more than a week. We were being blamed for everything ill on the field, on the ground, in the water and in the air in the Fraser Valley -- simply because some individuals feel that it's worth more to them to take a crack at us than to stand up on behalf of British Columbians and say: "We have a historic agreement."

Let's take over the jurisdiction where we can. Let's transition to that so we scrap the confusion -- so when we're out in the field, we've got one officer out there. That officer may be the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; he may be DFO; he may be B.C. Fisheries. But we've got one person out there making the decision -- not one making a decision and a day and a half later somebody shows up in a different colour of shirt and makes another decision. Then a day and a half later someone shows up with a new truck -- probably from DFO -- and makes another decision.

That's the purpose of the working agreement and the agreement and why we're trying to get it sorted out: so we can end all of that stuff out there. It makes it doubly difficult when someone out there takes a crack, for no particular reason, and you get one weepy voice from the wilderness saying: "All right. Give us a chance." We can use the member's help, because he agrees that we have to sort this out. Maybe he can help us right it within those councils in the Fraser Valley.

J. van Dongen: It's good to have the minister's commitment to work on that and get it sorted out, so there truly is one individual delivering the service or the regulation as required.

I'd like to ask, then: will this process include -- I assume it will include the Minister of Environment -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs and either UBCM or other groups representing local government, so we can get them involved in determining a process that works?

Hon. D. Streifel: At this stage it's really a technical working group -- you know, sit down and you do this, you do this, and you do this. When it comes to the point of having an effect on the lives of others, it would be appropriate at that time that we include them. At this stage neither the Ministry of Municipal Affairs nor UBCM is involved in forming the jurisdiction of this ministry; at this stage it would be inappropriate if they were.

J. van Dongen: Will they be included, then, once the provincial government -- the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries -- get their game plan sorted out? Will local governments be included in some manner, in terms of the interaction between their operations and the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not quite sure where the member's going with this. I do know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, along with the UBCM, is working with the Minister of Environment on the Fish Protection Act. This ministry wouldn't have an across-the-table role with UBCM or local government over a circumstance like that.

We will -- and have been on almost an informal basis within our first two months and hopefully in a more formal manner in the near future -- be working with local communities, primarily on the coast and in fisheries production areas, on their needs and how they view the service that the ministry can provide them in this role and on how we could cooperate to ensure the survival of coastal communities.

The learned gentleman from Port McNeill is very interested in community fisheries issues, and we will be working with him. We will be working with other governments up and down the coast, as indeed we have. I've met with councils in Prince Rupert, Masset, Ucluelet and a number of other communities already, in my first foray into the field. I expect to build a stronger, fuller working relationship with these local governing bodies as we address common problems around who works, what kind of work, how much work -- whether it's a month, a year or nine or ten months a year -- is available and how we diversify. Yes, we'll be seeking their input and indeed welcoming their input.

J. van Dongen: With some luck, I think I'm starting to understand the involvement of the Ministry of Environment in land use issues that involve local governments. Am I to understand from the minister that in terms of when you've got, say, building permit applications or zoning applications -- applications that generally come through local government -- will it still be strictly the Ministry of Environment that will be the window of the provincial government in terms of involvement in that and that the Ministry of Fisheries will simply provide input or comment to the Ministry of Environment? I think that's what I'm grappling with. Right now, if

[ Page 7387 ]

there are land use activities happening in a municipality, certain aspects of those are referred to the Ministry of Environment. My concern is that we don't end up with a referral to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries from local government, and that's what I'm grappling with. Could the minister comment?

Hon. D. Streifel: No, that would be the Ministry of Environment. It won't be us. We're not involved in land use planning or that kind of stuff. It's strictly in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Environment. We don't have an involvement; there's not a two-step process -- nothing added.

J. van Dongen: I think that part of my confusion comes from this article. I know that parts of this

article are not what I'm referring to, but it's the last column that . . . . Maybe there is some misunderstanding about how the process will work. Certainly I understand from the minister that on economic development issues and that kind of thing, the ministry will be involved with local governments.

I want to ask the minister: in the process of assimilating these various units from different parts of government, are there any activities that have actually been dropped out of the mix? Is there any activity that the government was doing a year ago that has been dropped out as a result of setting up this new ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Licensing has been merged, so it's here. Inventory work around habitat has been merged; it's here. And the big one, actually -- looking for things that were dropped -- is that for all intents and purposes, the secretariat is gone. Dennis Brown is still involved with the Pacific Salmon Treaty, but the secretariat itself is gone.

J. van Dongen: If we could just turn to the estimates, the blue book, I have a few questions from that. And to follow up on the previous question to the minister, I know that in the note on page 177, it talks about the figures for this year and last year as being set up on a comparative basis. I'm wondering if the minister has any estimate of cost savings achieved in terms of these economies that we talked about. I mean, what kind of dollars were saved by shutting down the secretariat, for example? Does anybody have any figure on that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I won't begin to suggest to the hon. member that it was cheaper to form a new ministry. There's more value in forming a fish ministry where we're able to consolidate the issues around fish and indeed, as we continue, to consolidate the issues around wherever the next stage the ministry goes. But in particular, there was a need on behalf of British Columbians to consolidate the voice for fish, and that's what was done in this ministry. It wasn't done by fully funding from chips off other areas. There is an increased cost.

J. van Dongen: The number of FTEs indicated for this year, fiscal '98-99, compared to last year . . . . There was an increase of 28 FTEs -- to 165 FTEs. I wonder if the minister has any comparison that indicates where the new additional staff are going -- what parts of the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. When we were put together to make our 165 total FTEs, we had 88 come from Environment, Lands and Parks, and we had 49 come from Ag, Fish and Food. We had 28 new FTEs. As the member rightly points out, that's 165 FTEs. The additional cost for funding the 28 is a tad over $4 million.

The purpose of the 28 new is to provide for the province's enhanced role in fisheries management. So it is an establishment of print on the ground for the broad spectrum of fisheries management, where we'll be going -- as I've referenced much in my opening statements -- on playing a more active and more proactive role in working on behalf of coastal communities and indeed inland fisheries -- where we'll be taking this ministry. You can't do it without people.

J. van Dongen: If we could pursue that a little bit more in terms of detail, the minister said "fisheries management." Are we talking of biologists? Or are we talking of regulatory people? Are we talking of industry development people? If we could just talk a little more about that . . . .

[4:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to head this off at the pass. I think the hon. member opposite is asking: "Are these folks sitting behind a desk in that beautiful Art Deco building, or are they out in the field doing some work?" Aha, I gotcha. I got half a nod there. I think that's good enough.

In fact, the makeup of the expanded FTEs is a mix of technical folks and policy folks. The ministry is split: about 20 percent are at headquarters doing all kinds of things over there, keeping the place running -- and probably writing my paycheque every other week or so -- and 80 percent are in the field, where we have the actual folks involved with the commercial fisheries, aquaculture, the sport fishery, market development, fish culture and all those other kinds of good things.

Do we still look at seaweed out there? Does Michael Coon still go out there and taste seaweed? Actually, I kind of thought he might be along today. He was recognized just last week as a long-service employee within this realm -- with a couple of different ministries in the past, but lodged in with B.C. Fisheries now. He's a valuable employee.

That's kind of where we go. The bulk of the folks are out there doing the work, and a few are left at home to make sure that the folks out there know where to go, what time to get there and what the assignments are.

J. van Dongen: I think that an increase of 28 is significant and may well be appropriate. I don't know. I thought that if we could get a little more specific about what those people were hired for, it would give another indication of priorities for the ministry. I'm wondering if the minister has a

schedule of employees, broken down by head office versus the regions, last year compared to this year. Is there such a schedule, and would it be available to me?

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't exactly have that information, yet. We would hope that by the end of the month we'll be able to provide that. I would just reference the member's comment on 28 seeming to be a large number, and what do they do. I did go over the list. Commercial fisheries -- they're working in that. We've seen results there: the allocation of sardines, for instance, and the dogfish initiative and others -- groundfish, black cod. Without folks out there, you can't just wish it to happen. I guess, as the old saying goes, if wishes were fishes . . . .

Aquaculture is a very sensitive question and issue. We're still in the process of putting together a full policy. We do recognize that there's a vast and requested expansion within the shellfish aquaculture structure. We have to have folks out there who are willing to do the work, willing to work with other departments and other ministries. In the sport fishery,

[ Page 7388 ]

we're putting together a sport fishery strategy. The sport fishery is extremely important to the coast of British Columbia and to British Columbians. We have to have somebody there as a representative of the governing structure of the province, to speak for that broad aspect of the resource.

In market development, all kinds of new stuff comes on stream. Where do you market it? How are you doing it? We like to help out there as well. That's a very valuable aspect of the promotion of fisheries in British Columbia, particularly as you diversify the fisheries. You might be able to jerk dogfish and mud shark out of the water and look at them and say: "Hmm, what are we going to do with them?" Well, what the heck. They're making fish and chips out of them in parts of Europe. The belly flaps are nice little crunchies in Germany. Parts of the fins are used for other stuff, and as a matter of fact, they are one of the treatments in the health food stores that's most popular.

An Hon. Member: Iodine.

Hon. D. Streifel: We have the helpful colleague. Iodine, very true. There is also shark cartilage; the carcasses can be used and ground to produce shark cartilage.

Without someone there, the job doesn't get done. Those fish have been there a long time, and they haven't been fully utilized. There was at one time -- it just ended around the time of the Second World War -- a use for dogfish on the coast. Since then there's been virtually no commercial use on this coast, and it seems to be relatively plentiful.

J. van Dongen: I want to reassure the minister and state for the record that I'm not necessarily being critical that there are 28 additional staff. I think it's important that resource ministries and resource industries have the necessary support both on the regulatory side and the industry development side, provided that proper measures are taken to ensure that they're doing useful work and work that generates economic activity. I want to make that point, because I don't want any confusion about why I asked the question. I think that very often resource ministries are overlooked in terms of their revenue-generating capabilities, providing their staff are focused in that general area.

I want to ask, then: has the additional staff all been hired already? Is the ministry up to full-staff complement, or do these numbers involve some future hires that haven't been taken on yet?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simple answer: no.

J. van Dongen: If we could just turn to page 181 in the estimates document, simply to ask the minister about the line-item grants and contributions under corporate services. The figure given as projected to be spent for '98-99 is $280 million, which is the same as it was for last year. I wonder if the minister could explain what's included under those grants and contributions.

Hon. D. Streifel: I hope the member misspoke when he said we were going to spend $280 million. That was part of the savings I generated when I was Minister of Human Resources. In fact, our total budget is less than $20 million -- the smallest ministry in government and, looking at the newsclips, probably one of the most productive ministries.

J. van Dongen: The minister's certainly right. I did misspeak. I should have said $280,000. But again to the minister, what is included? It goes back to my earlier comment about value for money, and certainly the small ministries that provide economic development provide value for taxpayers' money. But again, to have the minister comment on the grants and contributions that are being made under the corporate services part of the ministry . . . . What kinds of grants and contributions would be included in that?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the member, I have some . . . . Let's see. We're looking for $2.8 million. It doesn't quite make $2.8 million, I think, but I'll try it. Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council, $750,000; urban salmon habitat program, $1.2 million; wild salmon marketing, $20,000; water quality in Baynes Sound, $14,000; Coastal Community Network workshops, $20,000; north coast development, $6,000; gear selectivity, $20,000; Atlantic Salmon Watch, $30,000. These are parts of the planned grants and contributions of the Ministry of Fisheries. I can give some more here.

We're looking for the total. This is $2.2 million here. The next question you're going to ask me is: how come this is $2.2 million and the one in the book is $280,000? We'll get someone to get that while I ramble off the rest of these things.

The sport fishery strategy is $20,000; Partners in Progress is $38,000; kelp and shellfish monitoring, $5,000; aboriginal community development workshops, $2,000; first nations river guardian program, $2,000; Sooke salmon trap, $2,000; Kyoquot tribal council fisheries -- I bet you can't pronounce that one, hon. member -- $2,000; Heiltsuk MOU, $2,000; Nuu-chah-nulth MOU, $8,000; and Tsimshian MOU, $1,000.

Those are some of the grants that we give out. They actually go beyond your specific question about the $280,000 in corporate services grants, but that's the kind of stuff we do with our dough.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the plan for grants and contributions in the coming year, the year that we're in, are there going to be any changes in terms of focus and priorities, or will it be basically a duplication of what was done last year? Will there be a reiteration of what was done last year? Will there be any shifts in priorities on those grants?

Hon. D. Streifel: In some instances, they were established in the past. We've carried them on. They've fallen under this ministry.

The $280,000 referenced earlier was under the corporate services

section of this book. The others are fisheries programs and operations. The total is $2.2 million.

J. van Dongen: Is the ministry intending to carry on the Partners in Progress program in the same format that it has been in in past years?

[4:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: Have I understood the question? Are we carrying on our Partners in Progress grants, and what kinds of projects do we help with them? Is that . . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we're carrying them on. We in fact use that money to leverage funds from other jurisdictions -- out of the federal government and others. As a matter of fact, part of the funding in Partners contributed to the develop

[ Page 7389 ]

ment of the closed-bag technology that's happening in Nanaimo harbour for finfish aquaculture, as well as to some other initiatives. That's basically what the Partners program does.

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, I just have few questions for the minister with regards to the fishing end of it. I may be jumping ahead a bit to what he intends to discuss later on, but I've been fishing on this coast from Hecate Strait to lower Vancouver Island for over 55 years. I know I don't look that old, but . . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's a debatable question.

I sometimes question: what is going on in the industry? The minister knows better than I do that there are very few fish out there now. I really worry as to who, federally and provincially, is in charge, because no one seems to be getting together. Every time you turn around . . . . And I'm not blaming the minister for this. Yesterday he put out another press release about another group of people at Simon Fraser saying that they've done another study. The study ostensibly says that we should get together with the feds, and on and on it goes. Every month we seem to see a statement like that.

I am just wondering if the minister has considered the question of zero fishing. There seems to be a turf war out there right now between the commercial fishers and the sportsmen in regard to coho. If there's ever been a study or figures as to how much is involved, so that we could have a moratorium for one, two, three, four or five years, either on the commercial side of it or on the sport side of it . . . . Sport fishing, I think, returns more money than commercial, so we keep hearing. If he could make some comments on that, I'd be interested.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try and take these questions down and run them off one by one. The first comment was that there are very few fish out there. Why? There are multiple reasons. Some we understand; some we don't understand.

We do know that there's a downturn in the number of some species of fish due to some habitat loss, primarily due to urban encroachment. That's the circumstance with the coho on the south coast. We know that the fish numbers are down on the north coast in some areas due to Alaskan interception. We know that fewer fish are surviving in the ocean; we don't know why. There are a number of theories; there's no exact science. It could be that the smolts run out and into a wall of mackerel teeth, and not enough of them survive to come back to spawn.

We know that some of the fish that are coming back, particularly steelhead, are undersized for their age and are hungry and empty. So there's a problem out in the deep ocean on the survival side; there's a lesser problem, as a matter of fact, on the habitat side. There are American interceptions on the north coast. That really is what we know about why there are very few fish.

The study that was released yesterday was under the Canada-B.C. agreement as advice to the federal government on how to prepare a fishing strategy on the coast of British Columbia. That's what that study was for. It's not about who's in charge or who should have authority; it's more about who should benefit from a reducing and changing fishery on the coast.

For instance, currently the thought is that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. So some folks have to leave the industry. Most of the folks that have left the industry are the small business person, entrepreneur, family fisherman -- the small boat that's bought out of the industry and cancelled out or retired. There is a larger concentration of fishing capacity now in the hands of fewer people: corporations. But with the technological change within the industry . . . . It doesn't say that they can catch fewer fish because there are smaller numbers; they just have larger boats and better equipment.

Part of the study that was released yesterday suggested that in order to mitigate the damage in the coastal communities, in order to facilitate viability of existence so families can live on a street in downtown Alert Bay . . . . In fact, the fishery strategy of the federal government should reverse, and we should be parcelling out the catch into the communities' hands. We're not suggesting for a minute that we should catch the last fish.

The report that was referenced and released yesterday said that in some areas we may have to stop fishing altogether -- as a matter of fact, where the coho are almost nonexistent. But there are some coho runs that are abundant enough to support a smaller fishery. Whether it be commercial, aboriginal or sport, it could support a fishery.

The species of fish other than the endangered coho stocks and the very depleted chinook stocks are quite abundant in some areas: sockeye, pink and chum. As a matter of fact, the best guess at this stage is that there are between 17 million and 18 million fish out there to catch. A complete moratorium for five years might create a worse problem than a slowed-down, spot-selective fishery on the coast, which would require a gear change for commercial and a gear change for sport and reduced activity across the whole spectrum of fishing.

The problem with letting all the fish go was experienced in the north coast not too many years ago, when the sockeye run was allowed fully on the spawning grounds, and there were too many fish to spawn. Some of these fish spawn at the same time that the endangered coho spawn, and you get too many on the spawning grounds. They spawn on top of each other; they destroy each other's egg nests where the fish spawn. They compact too many on the grounds, disease transfers, and we could lose a whole species or a whole run because we thought we were doing the right thing to let all the fish onto the grounds.

That's a big fear on the coast this year -- that a complete moratorium on the whole coast for salmon fishing in all categories and in all sectors would produce devastating results in some areas.

That's why we have offered the advice that it is possible to carry on a limited fishery based on gear type, region, timing of runs and that kind of science. Really, that's what that report was about, and that would be the danger -- to answer the

[ Page 7390 ]

member's last question about my thoughts on a full moratorium for, say, five years on the coast. It may be devastating; it may actually make more runs extinct than by modestly fishing some of these runs.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate what you're saying, and I think I understand all of it. But I find it rather difficult at times, because we have gone through buyouts of the licences before. This is about the third one that they've talked about over the years. That doesn't seem to have done any good. The fact that letting all the salmon migrate and go and spawn would wipe it out . . . . I find it hard to conceive of that. Before man entered the equation, all the schools of salmon entered into the streams and spawned and all the rest of it. But that's another story.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

There's another thing. I mentioned when man entered the equation. There's another aspect there, and that's the seal. Every rock you go by nowadays has seals all over it. Seals may be very nice and have nice brown eyes looking up at you and nice noses and all the rest of it, but they have entered the equation. They are now multiplying, and there are thousands and thousands of pups being born. They don't eat cabbage; they eat fish. To a certain degree, that is probably adding to the depletion as well -- maybe not entirely, although we know what happened on the east coast of Canada. I would like to know if the minister is pursuing a cull of seals.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, I'm not. It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of this ministry; it falls under the jurisdiction of DFO. In fact, we will support the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in their endeavour to control problem seal populations that we have. The Puntledge River is one of them. There's a gate in place to stop the seals; there was a cull. I understand that DFO may in fact be considering further action. It's not up to me. I'd draw the attention of the hon. member to the nice pen case I hold; it's sealskin.

D. Jarvis: No, Mr. Minister, there's nothing wrong with using our resources. That's what they're there for.

The other question I have is in regard to mining. I know we're going in a roundabout way, but I do intend to come back to the fishing end of it. Tulsequah Chief, up in the Takla, is where they just finished an assessment process, and the Alaskans were very critical of it in regard to the fishing of salmon in the Taku River inlet. Was your ministry involved in that assessment at all?

Hon. D. Streifel: This ministry, the Ministry of Fisheries, was not directly involved -- not at all involved, as a matter of fact -- in the environmental review. It was under Ag, Fish and Food at that time and MELP. The Taku River is an important river; it's a part of the treaty circumstance between us and Alaska. The river rises in our area and breeds all those fish; it's a real good maternity river for us. We want those fish back; they're ours. That's the purpose of the need to acquire a Pacific Salmon Treaty.

[4:30]

At the risk of extending the debate in an area that's not my jurisdiction -- it's in fact the environmental assessment on the Tulsequah Chief mine . . . . As I understand it, the old minesite is rather messy and is quite hazardous. The proposal to develop a new mine, under this environmental assessment, says that there may be some very positive influences and impacts on the environment by cleaning up the leaching areas there and having a very safe mining operation. As a matter of fact, I support that.

D. Jarvis: Well, you're exactly right. It should be supported. In actual fact, they no longer drag the ore down the river on boats, as they did in the past. The road that's going in there, which is supposedly in question, is in the next valley over. So there is no real danger with that.

Anyway, I was told that the Tlingit up there and the Alaskans, as well, contend that the split in the spawn is 78 to 18 -- 78 percent being in the Americans' favour. Is that correct? How would they measure that, anyway?

Hon. D. Streifel: The other species aside, we have an arrangement where we do benefit from 18 percent of the sockeye that are there. Through enhancement measures, we're attempting to increase that, hon. Chair. The other species, of course, are aside from that. This is one of the rivers, one of the watercourses, that's in discussion and under negotiation under the agreement with Canada and U.S. -- the Alaska side of the PST.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to get into this first set of estimates for this brand-new ministry. As someone who has long advocated a greater role for the province to play in the management of the fishery, I'm just thrilled to death that we're actually starting to see this come about. I must say that I was listening very carefully, and I was rather intrigued by the questions that came from the member for Abbotsford, the official opposition critic, around the scope of the mandate of this ministry. Clearly there are some jurisdictional questions that need to be dealt with there.

If I stray outside of the mandate of this minister, because I know from time to time I've . . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, the Chair is saying he won't let me. That's probably to both our advantage.

But I know that from time to time I ask this minister questions, and frequently the answer comes back that it's outside the scope of the ministry. So I'm going to try and be very specific. I'm curious with respect to a number of the reports that have been done, and of course I'm cognizant of the Parzival Copes report with respect to coho and the problems associated with coho. I'm really curious to know to what extent British Columbia is involved and, more particularly, to what extent this ministry is going to be involved in the management of seal populations in British Columbia.

Clearly, in some areas of the province -- not all -- the seal population, it would appear, is now of such sufficient numbers that both sport and commercial fisheries are affected by their numbers. If the minister could tell me where the mandate of this ministry falls with respect to the population of seals, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. D. Streifel: The extent of the mandate of this ministry as it pertains to seals on the coast is really in listening to the complaints and questions from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- that are out of order. It's not under the jurisdiction of this ministry. The science and the control and the count and all of that is under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[ Page 7391 ]

I may get frustrated, as the hon. member is. I may share the frustrations of some of the sport sector and the commercial sector. I have no more than anecdotes to base that frustration on and no more than wishes to deal with the problem at this stage. It's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

G. Wilson: That was more or less the answer I anticipated, having already asked questions of the minister in question period and having had that response. I think the minister will agree that if we're to look at the overall management of fish stocks and if the province is to now start to take a more active role with respect to this industry in terms of the protection of jobs -- and I understand that it is an issue of serious concern for this minister -- we are going to have to somehow blend or marry together the information that may or may not be gathered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I understand that the Department of Indian Affairs now has a number of first nations groups who are actively working on this seal population and the whole matter of habitat management and industry development. So I wonder if the minister might tell us, given that there is an increasing number of fishermen who are unemployed . . . .

I understand, just by way of digression, that it's okay to call them fishermen again -- that there's been some kind of a tacit vote taken among people in the industry, including women, who would prefer to be called a fisherman than a fisher.

K. Krueger: Fishers being weasels.

G. Wilson: Exactly. Fishers being weasels, as the member from Kamloops says. So I'm delighted, as someone who has a family with a long history in the commercial fishing industry, that we can now call them fishermen again.

But I wonder if the minister has really given any serious consideration to how some arrangement may be made between his ministry and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to a cooperative seal management plan that in fact might generate local employment and might be able to put people into an employment situation, and the extent to which this is really being discussed with any degree of seriousness in B.C.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer direction to the member that my response to his first question was given in openness, in an attempt to shed some light on the seals. In fact, it's not the jurisdiction of this ministry. This ministry has not approached DFO on a culling of the seals or on what to do with the carcasses once they're killed. It's not in the scope of this ministry and makes this line of questioning -- as it always has been -- out of order, actually.

G. Wilson: Well, I know this is a sensitive issue and one that the minister may choose to not want to get pinned down on. I understand it's not within the jurisdiction. But the management of fish stocks, I believe, is now going to be a cooperative project with this ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I think it is within the mandate of the Ministry of Fisheries to actually manage or attempt to comanage fish stocks.

Given that there are number of factors . . . . I heard the minister say not so long ago, with respect to a question on what has caused the diminution of the fish stocks in B.C . . . . There were a number of factors cited, and predation is one of them. One of the main predators, notwithstanding what . . . . I could get into long discussions about the commentary in halls full of fishermen whom I've listened to. Department of Fisheries and Oceans personnel tell them that seals don't eat live salmon, only dead ones. We can get into long stories about that, which I'm not going to do. It was quite bizarre, as you can imagine -- the reaction of a hall full of 350 commercial fishermen, hearing that.

Nevertheless, predation is a problem. It is an issue, whether it's in the mandate specifically or not. If we're to look at comanagement of fish stocks, that has to be an issue of some concern. So I'm not trying to pin the minister down. I'm simply trying to ask the minister whether or not there is any effort to be made now with respect to the management of fish stocks, to look at predation as an issue and to try to draw the federal government into sharing information, because they are . . . .

I have firsthand knowledge that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now looking at the potential of an aboriginal seal industry in B.C. They're looking at it; believe me, they are. Therefore it seems to me that one of the issues we have to recognize is that we, as British Columbians elected in this Legislative Assembly, have some responsibility to make sure that if that's to occur, it occurs as part of an overall strategy for stock management -- which I think is in the mandate of this ministry.

So in light of that, I wonder if the minister might tell us what his opinion is of the information that's being collected. Is he generally in favour or not in favour of this approach? I think that it's a matter of public policy. The people of British Columbia have a right to know where this minister stands.

Hon. D. Streifel: My opinion is not under the direct auspices of that which is controlled or debated in the estimates for the minister's office. This is an issue that falls within the realm -- the ballpark, the infield, the outfield -- of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. My opinion matters not in this case. Predation control is an important issue. It's under the auspices of DFO. As a matter of fact, it may come to fuller fruition under complete implementation of the agreement with Canada. But at this time, it's not there. It's not referenced, as I understand, directly in that agreement. It's their bailiwick.

Hon. Chair, I would appreciate your advice to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that he direct his questions to the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries, Ottawa.

The Chair: The minister has asked for the Chair's opinion. We are dealing with the matters that come under the Fisheries ministry, of which the minister is the head. We should please take the caution that we deal with those matters.

G. Wilson: I'm sure that the seals in British Columbia will breathe easy that David Anderson is the sole and only minister who's going to pay attention to their numbers. [Applause.] And for those over there who are applauding that, so be it.

But I think it is important that . . . . In the estimates debate, the opinion of a minister is critical on a whole host of issues. I understand, hon. Chair, that this minister doesn't want to be pinned down on what his position is with respect to a seal management program, because it is going to be controversial in British Columbia. I'm not going to pursue trying to pin him down, because he's quite clearly not prepared to be pinned down on that question.

[ Page 7392 ]

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, the Chair gave a caution. If I could just perhaps clarify, it is not a requirement in estimates for ministers to give opinions. I think the minister stated his position quite clearly. So perhaps we could take another line of questioning.

[4:45]

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member opposite says I should keep on fishing. I guess I'll try a different bait.

I want to talk about whether or not we've got any kind of work that is currently being done in terms of stock management. I would argue, with respect to the coho and the agreement that's just come forward on the coho, that there is considerable work being done with respect to disease and disease transfers to salmon.

I wonder how and to what extent this government is actually involved in the work that is currently being done with respect to the concerns around the importation of exotic disease strains into British Columbia by the salmon aquaculture industry. I know that the member for Abbotsford intends to discuss aquaculture in a lot more detail later, so I'm only going to limit my concern specifically to some of the work that has recently been done with respect to disease transfer. If the minister might tell me the extent to which he is involved in these studies or that his ministry is aware of these studies, this would clearly be important to returning salmon stock.

Hon. D. Streifel: This is a very important issue. I think I understand where the member is going with this. We did have, in the recent past, an environmental assessment office review of aquaculture on the coast of British Columbia. Their report suggests that the negative environmental impact is modest at best. They recommend a cautionary approach to salmon aquaculture. We do have, for our use, for our consultative purposes and activities within the Ministry of Fisheries, a Minister of Agriculture and Food veterinarian who has an expertise level in fish disease.

If the member is referencing the circumstance in New Brunswick -- that terrible tragedy -- that particular salmon anemia has never been diagnosed, I believe, in British Columbia. It was noted in the environmental assessment office review that we in British Columbia have the most stringent rules applied to the importation of other species of anywhere in the world, and we intend to keep it that way. We intend to make it even tighter. That's really about all I know at this time on this issue.

G. Wilson: I might have missed the minister's introduction of staff, but I do recognize a familiar face that dates back to the early introduction of fish farms and of sitting down and putting in place coastal planning. It's funny: what goes around comes around sometimes.

I want to draw attention particularly to the Scott Cove hatchery. This is an area where the province has jurisdiction, because it deals with the introduction of Atlantic salmon and net pens through IBEC and Scanmar farms. That had a brood-stock mortality of 3 percent until the introduction of those two farms. After those two farms . . . . In the next four years, Atlantics were introduced. There were diseased Atlantics found in those farms, and the coho mortality went from 3 percent to 47 percent. The spring salmon populations crashed, as did the chum salmon, which have virtually disappeared in that area.

I guess my question is with respect to the importation of Atlantics, and in this case, we're talking about Scottish Atlantics -- not from New Brunswick, but from offshore. There is nothing in the aquaculture review that would prevent this from occurring again. I read it very carefully. The information that I have at hand is information that comes from people who are reputable in the industry, and they're people who are reputable within the science, so I'm not making up these figures. These figures are provable. I wonder what the minister is prepared to do about this, because clearly, in this area and dealing with Scott Cove, this is an area where we have some very serious concerns.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to sort out the jurisdiction here for the hon. member. Because the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says it's all my jurisdiction and says I have all the authority doesn't necessarily make it so. The Scott Cove Hatchery is a community-based, more or less private enhancement facility. And yes, there was an increased mortality rate. As I understand it, that's when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans . . . . That's where the jurisdiction leaves any area that I might touch with my finger.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could not find a traceable link back to any specific area. With the limited information I have at this stage, I would agree with the hon. member that it's certainly suspicious, but it's solidly anecdotal at this time. There hasn't been a scientific link back. The member may say these numbers are true and correct, but I would again stress that because he says it doesn't necessarily make it so in this case. They might be real numbers, but they might be out of place.

G. Wilson: I'm a little mystified by that response. But we know what the mortality is, because we've measured it. They know what the coho mortality is. It's true that Scott Cove is private.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I think that if one can instruct the minister to respond through the Chair, we might be a lot better off here.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

G. Wilson: You know, it is interesting. By way of comparison, I was in the estimates of the Attorney General the other day, where we were told that because of the introduction of photo radar, all of a sudden the number of accidents had plummeted. Now, you talk about anecdotal evidence; my goodness, in that case there's absolutely no linking correlation necessarily except by pure coincidence, and the government's prepared to take all kinds of credit for that.

But when we have a 3 percent mortality rate prior to the introduction of net pens in the vicinity of a hatchery, and diseased salmon come in and the mortality rate rises to 47 percent, you're not prepared to draw any kind of link. So when it kind of suits you, you do, and when it suits you, you don't.

With respect to the jurisdictional question, and that's really what I want to come back to . . . . For the information of those who are listening, the reason that Scott Cove is now kind of privately funded is because all the other sources of funding

[ Page 7393 ]

were removed from it -- which were federal sources. It's embarrassing as a Canadian to go up there to see a hatchery as successful as Scott Cove was being largely funded by American sport fishers -- or fishermen. Sorry, just about got trapped again. American sport fishermen have to fund Canadian hatcheries, because the Canadian federal government won't fund them.

Anyway, having said that, let me come back to the question of jurisdiction. The importation of Atlantic salmon and the movement of Atlantics into the fish farming industry is something that came about as a result of provincial regulation, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a B.C. government decision. There was tremendous opposition to the introduction of Atlantics; there was tremendous opposition to the proliferation of net-pen culture. It was this government, which was aggressive in their pursuit of that, that made that come about.

So the minister cannot hide behind this it's-not-in-my-responsibility answer here, because it is. I want to know what the minister is doing to mitigate against disease transfer from the introduction of Atlantics into the net-pen cultures in the Broughton Archipelago generally, which is in my riding -- I could argue that it's provincewide, but certainly let's deal with the Broughton -- and in the Scott Cove vicinity in particular. The mortality rates now are completely unacceptable.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's difficult to stand and correct the member, comment after comment. The decision to import Atlantics to this coast was initially a federal decision, not a provincial one. The province supported it, but the fact of the matter is that it was a federal decision that goes back to the 1920s, when the stocking took place in the Campbell and Qualicum systems -- and since then. He would like to deny the truth and deny the facts. He likes to fish with fiction most