1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1885 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 1885

Private Members' Statements

Drinking drivers. Mr. Messmer –– 1885

Mr. Sihota

Hon. B.R. Smith

Fair election practices. Mr. G. Hanson –– 1887

Hon. B.R. Smith

Freshwater fish hatcheries. Mr. Peterson –– 1889

Mr. G. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Changes in Canada Patent Act. MR. Cashore –– 1890

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Vancouver Museum Foundation Act (Bill PR405). Second reading

Mr. Mowat –– 1892

Mr. Lovick –– 1893

Mr. Mowat –– 1893

Vancouver Museum Foundation Act (Bill PR405). Committee stage. (Mr. Mowat)

–– 1893

Third reading

An Act To Incorporate Mission Foundation (Bill PR404). Second reading

Mr. Jacobsen –– 1893

Mr. Rose –– 1893

Mr. Jacobsen –– 1893

An Act To Incorporate Mission Foundation (Bill PR404). Committee stage.

(Mr. Jacobsen) –– 1893

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment and Parks. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 29: minister's office –– 1894

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Hewitt

Mr. S.D. Smith

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Williams

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. DE JONG: Seated up in the members' gallery is our youngest daughter, Valerie. I'd like to ask the House to welcome her this morning.

MR. RABBITT: On behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), I am pleased to introduce today seven members

from a grade 7 class from Chilliwack Christian School, accompanied by

Miss Winnie Langelaar and Miss Lorraine Dykshoorn.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I rise to make an apology to the House.

Late yesterday just at adjournment, I introduced a bill. I had been

briefed for the past two days on the Motor Carrier Act, and in entering

the House at about seven minutes to six, I was handed a bill to

introduce to the House and it was the Motor Vehicle Act, not the Motor

Carrier Act. I apologize to the House that in my short

summary I gave

the

summary covering the Motor Carrier Act, not the Motor Vehicle Act,

and I sincerely apologize.

Introduction of Bills

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Vital Statistics Amendment Act,

HON. MR. DUECK: There are several changes — some

administrative, some of a housekeeping nature — but I will refer to

some of them. One amendment that's being sought has been requested by a

number of people, and I'm referring to the choice of a child's surname.

Another

section will deal with the provisions which adopt the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada approach to the reporting of the

registering of births. This approach allows parents to choose any

surname, including a hyphenated or combined surname. This will be

retroactive to April 17, 1982, which marks the passage of the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Another amendment which would make changes to

section 9 of the act

involves birth registration of adopted persons. This amendment does not

prevent the establishment of a passive adoption agency or registry.

Currently, a medical certificate setting out the actual cause of

death must be completed before the burial permit is issued. There'll be

some changes to that section. We will go into more detail as we move

along.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't yet arrived, and was making comments

on the very topic that the minister got up and apologized for. I said that it

was probably not a great conspiracy to mislead the House, but....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt. The bill has not been placed on the orders of the day for second reading.

Bill 27 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.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry I jumped the gun. I didn't think I was

allowed to speak on a bill that was being introduced, in any event. So

it's an example of a triple error all around. I made one; the Chair

might have made one — Your Honour, Your Excellency, Your Majesty, and

any other grovelling words you might want from me.

I wanted to say that I didn't think the fact that the minister

introduced one bill and gave his notes on another was any great

conspiracy to mislead the House. It might just have been sloppy work,

and we all do that. I think I did it just recently as well. But I am

glad that he did apologize and has cleared the matter up. To follow the

traditions and rules of the House regarding the House hearing something

that is related to the measure, or the House hearing something before

the press does is, I think, a very important tradition, and we should

be loyal to it.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

DRINKING DRIVERS

MR. MESSMER: I'm pleased to be able to give my private

member's statement on drinking drivers. Although most people are not

aware of it, drinking and driving, or driving while impaired, is the

single most serious and costly criminal activity in British Columbia.

If you think this is an exaggeration, consider the following: in an

average year in British Columbia, about 110 people are murdered, but

about 250 people are killed in drinking-driving accidents. Further, in

an average year there are about 450 woundings, yet about 7,200 people

are injured in drinking-driving accidents.

The impact of this crime on the justice system is staggering.

Roughly 22,000 persons are charged under the Criminal Code every year

in British Columbia, at a cost of at least $22 million. These charges

make up a third of all the Criminal Code cases before the courts. The

impact of this crime on our society is almost unfathomable in terms of

the agony and the suffering it causes the victims and their families.

It is estimated, based on current trends, that one out of every 20

children presently in grade 3 will be killed or injured in a

drunk-driving accident during the next ten years. Let me repeat that in

another way: 5 percent of today's ten-year-olds will be victims within

the next decade.

A final point, for those of you who think in terms of dollars and

cents, is that these accidents, injuries and deaths cost the taxpayers

$130 million in an average year. Unfortunately, driving while impaired

is a crime that is at least in

part condoned by our society. A large

percentage of our community, including myself, has at one time or

another taken the gamble and driven their vehicles after they have

consumed alcohol. We don't consider our families or close

[ Page 1886 ]

friends to be criminals when they leave a party or

an outdoor barbecue to drive home after they've had a couple of drinks,

yet it is frequently these very people who are causing the havoc on our

highways or our neighbourhood streets. It is outright mayhem out there

at times. Very often the people who are committing this crime get off

with a slap on the wrist or no penalty at all.

Some drinking drivers are getting away with murder in their cars,

and we all know it. The time has come to put a stop to it. Take the

driver in the town of Oliver, who, during a two-month period in 1985,

was involved in two accidents. In both cases a passenger was

unfortunately killed. In both cases he was charged with impaired

driving — driving with a blood alcohol content over .08 — and with

criminal negligence. In both cases he was acquitted. The Crown is

appealing one of those decisions, and I welcome that response. The

question is, would the second accident have happened if we were able to

curtail the hours of driving from the time of the first accident until

the trial was completed?

Take the drunken driver who killed two teenagers in North Vancouver.

He was handed a one-year sentence and a suspension of his licence for

three years. This is generally considered a stiff penalty. Yet I

believe it really is not appropriate for the unnecessary killing of two

innocent people. Typically, this driver will only serve four months of

his sentence.

[10:15]

In my constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, Oliver — the town the

fellow I described earlier came from — had the highest percentage of

alcohol-related car accidents in 1986: some 29.5 percent. This is well

above the 1986 provincial average of 13 percent. Also in 1986, the

total number of people injured in car accidents in Oliver was 61, of

whom 22 were injured because of drinking drivers. In other words, 36

percent of those injured were injured in alcohol-related accidents.

Again, this is well over the provincial average of 14 percent. Three

people were killed in Oliver in car accidents in 1986, all owing to

impaired drivers –– 100 percent. The provincial average is 35 percent.

With court decisions such as we've been getting, this shouldn't really

come as a surprise.

Of course, things are improving on the provincewide scale. British

Columbians are slowly learning. The last Christmas holidays were marked

by an amazing event which passed with surprisingly little comment: the

number of people charged with drunken driving dropped by about one

third. That period also equalled the lowest level of alcohol-related

casualty accidents for any period on record in British Columbia. I

believe the main reason for this, Mr. Speaker, was the highly

successful Counterattack program run under the auspices of the Ministry

of Attorney-General. This year is the program's tenth anniversary. It

has had a remarkable effect on the number of deaths and injuries due to

drunken driving, as well as the attitudes that we have towards driving

while impaired.

Since Counterattack began, it is estimated that the injury and death

rate in British Columbia has been reduced by about 10 percent per year,

mainly because of the media campaign and the roadblock blitzes.

Counterattack is a sort of self-defense program that protects society

from itself. It is a crime prevention program aimed directly at

reducing drinking-driving and the accidents associated with it. It

works on a fairly simple premise. When people expect to get arrested

and charged by the police on the way home if they've been drinking,

they clean up their act. When they figure they can get away with

driving while impaired, which is basically any time outside of

Christmas and the spring period when Counterattack has its roadblocks

out, they just don't worry, and the courts haven't been giving them any

reason to worry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired. If you can wrap it up in half a minute or so....

MR. MESSMER: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the roadblock system should come into force, and we should have this opportunity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General responds.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm quite happy to wait until the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew speaks, and I'll respond after that.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand the procedure, Mr. Speaker; I thought we get to respond next.

I want to thank the member for his thoughtful words. I think

everyone in this House is concerned about the level of impairment on

the roads, and certainly concerned about drinking and driving.

I want to make a couple of comments in light of the comments made by

the previous member. There is no doubt in my mind that the laws in this

country as provided under the Criminal Code are relatively strong, and

in my view, and certainly in my experience as a lawyer, they do a

relatively good job in terms of making sure that people who are on the

road who have been charged with these offences are indeed convicted of

them.

I guess there's one thing that I want to comment on in particular,

which is to come a little to the defence of the judiciary. In my five

or six years of experience on these types of matters of criminal law,

it's been my experience that the courts have been relatively good in

terms of handing out sentences. They have been relatively conscious of

public perceptions along the lines that the member raised a minute ago,

and accordingly have handed out what I would think would be reasonable,

and in some cases what I would consider to be excessive, sentences.

Only on occasion have I read about, and only on I think two occasions

in my career have I been involved in, situations where I thought the

courts were excessively lenient in dealing with drunken driving. It's

unfortunate that we tend to hear more about the cases of leniency or

questionable leniency in these types of matters, and often do not hear

about the situations where I think the courts have been quite fair in

handing out sentences and bringing about prohibitions in terms of

suspensions of driving privileges. I suspect that that will continue to

happen. I think there is a pendulum in the courts that's swinging

toward being far firmer on impaired situations than I think the public

often understands.

One of the things you have to do if you want to reduce the level of

alcohol. One of the things that concerns me today in this province is a

move towards expansion of the availability of alcohol.

At a recent hearing in Prince George, a submission was made by one

of the leading gas stations in the community, I believe one that is

open for 24 hours, saying they would like to sell alcohol in their

convenience store. We're beginning to

[ Page 1887 ]

talk about the availability of beer and wine in

corner grocery stores. We're beginning to see the relaxation of opening

hours; these shops are open 24 hours in many cases. That, in my mind,

speaks against allowing that type of access to liquor, and I would hope

that the government, as a part of the broad Counterattack approach,

will see fit not to expand availability of alcohol in corner stores and

gas stations — where, as someone said, they can get their gas and also

get gassed up. I don't think we want to see a movement in this society

towards that situation.

There are other situations with alcohol that I think ought to be

commented on quickly. They relate, first of all, to health, and the

tremendous demands placed on the Ministry of Health because of alcohol

abuse in this society. It was interesting to note that the previous

member did not mention that, although I suspect that he would agree

with my comments.

I made an arrangement with the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) for him to make a couple of comments on this, because I

know he feels strongly about it. I'll cease now. Perhaps he could have

the opportunity to continue.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm grateful to the members for

Boundary–Similkameen and for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for their very

constructive comments on a subject on which I think there is wide

bipartisan feeling in this place. It is terribly vital and something

that we strive to improve on. We can never do enough to deter the

drinking driver.

I must say that the case the member for Boundary–Similkameen brought

to the attention of the House is the case of Pinske. Pinske was

acquitted of drinking-driving charges and also of a charge of criminal

negligence causing death. We have launched an appeal, Mr. Speaker. On

May 13 we filed an appeal to the court of appeal asking for a new trial

on the acquittal for criminal negligence causing death and dangerous

driving. That case is still alive, and therefore I will not comment on

it. We did not appeal the drinking-driving acquittals, only because we

had very clear legal advice that there was no ground of appeal. The

trial was held before a jury, and therefore the Crown's right to appeal

is limited to an error in law alone, and really limited to an error in

the charge. You cannot appeal, even if you're the Crown, from a verdict

which is wrong or perverse, or which a reasonable group of jurors ought

not to bring in. But we have appealed on the only ground open to us,

and that relates to the criminal negligence charge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, Attorney, but our time under standing orders for the response has expired.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I haven't responded at all, really. May I have leave to go longer? [Laughter.]

MR. MESSMER: Thank you for the kind words from the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and from our Attorney-General. It's

nice to hear these professional people responding to the liquor act.

As a non-legal person, I believe that we somehow have to strengthen

the laws on drinking-driving. We have to ensure that these laws are

properly enforced and that the courts fulfil the responsibility with

which they have been entrusted; in other words, the delivery of

justice, not simply the technical

interpretation of the law, which has

no relation to the intended spirit of the legislation. I think that's

what most people feel in British Columbia.

I'm also pleased that there's been a new federal program announced that is coming out with $19.5 million toward this fund.

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES

MR. G. HANSON: I wish there was as wide bipartisan feeling

towards the establishment of fair election practices in this province

as was indicated in the previous statement with respect to drinking and

driving. As all members know, we have inherited a legacy in this

province of distortion of the electoral map. I'd like to start my

statement by reading from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom,

section 3: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an

election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative

assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

The right to vote is now a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed

in the constitution of Canada. So, too, is the right to be treated

equally before and under the law, pursuant to subsection 15(

l) of the

Charter, which says as follows: "Every individual is equal before and

under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal

benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without

discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,

religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

In our submission, the combination of these two constitutional

provisions gives each adult citizen of Canada resident in British

Columbia the right to vote for a Member of the Legislative Assembly and

the right to an equal vote in deciding who should form the government

of the province. It may well be that underrepresentation of some areas

and the corresponding overrepresentation of others is caught by these

provisions and is unconstitutional. That argument has yet to be tested

in the courts of Canada, although a petition has been filed in the

Supreme Court of British Columbia by the B.C. Civil Liberties

Association on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read you a quote from Chief Justice

Warren in the United States in 1964. He says: "The right to vote freely

for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic

society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of

representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a

debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as

effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the

franchise."

My point in quoting from those sections is that what we have in the

province of British Columbia on June 19, 1987, is what appears to be a

missed opportunity by the newly elected government sitting opposite. As

I said earlier, we have a legacy of political distortion in the map

that presently forms the basis upon which we come to this assembly. It

is so distorted that the B.C. Civil Liberties case with respect to the

dual-member ridings is being taken before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let me give you some examples of what will occur in the event that

the newly established commission — which, I might add, was established

without consultation from this side of the House — which really should

have been replaced by an independent electoral commission answerable to

all members of this House.... That would be the more appropriate

structure that should have been established. Instead, to address a

particular anomalous situation of dual-member ridings.... Prince Edward

Island is the only other

[ Page 1888 ]

province in Canada that has dual-member ridings. In

that small province, every member of the Legislature is within a couple

of hours drive of his or her residence.

A province of this size — three-quarters of a million square

miles.... Let me just give you an example of what will occur if the

commissioner simply divides the dual member ridings presently in place.

There are 17 dual-member ridings in the province of British Columbia,

and the terms of reference indicate some impact on the contiguous

ridings. Let me point out that it is clear from the examination of the

population returns from the 1986 census that the division of the 17

double-member ridings in the province within the present boundaries

would merely continue the present inequities. It would create many new

constituencies that are well below the provincial average in population.

If, for example, Cariboo, which is presently a two-member riding,

were made into two equally populated constituencies, each Cariboo MLA

would represent 31,253 people, while the neighbouring MLA in Prince

George South would represent 49,950, a difference of some 18,000

individuals. Let's take the example of Langley. A similar division

would mean two Langley constituencies would each have 35,229 people,

compared to the three seats in neighbouring Surrey with 68,347, 61,000

and 66,000 respectively.

[10:30]

What we are trying to point out to this House is that the presently

mandated commission will simply aggravate and exacerbate the political

distortions that presently exist. We are hoping, in our submission to

Judge Fisher, that he will see his mandate in as broad terms as

possible to try to take into account the inequities that we see we are

in due course to receive.

Upon hearing about the establishment of the commission in the throne

speech, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and myself

as the debate leader for our side of the House visited the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) to ascertain what the terms of reference

would be for Chief Justice Fisher. We put forward suggestions that,

within the narrow mandate given Mr. Fisher, perhaps would enable some

remedial action to be taken that would expand those terms of reference.

For example, let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, and I know this is a

great deal of information to try and handle in just a few minutes,

but....

In my concluding remarks I will indicate how the matter should have been dealt with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't want any time taken away from the

next speaker, but I feel compelled to bring to the attention of members

standing order 25A which deals with private members' statements. It has

been very difficult to adjudicate that which has been said, but there

is one particular portion which states what the statements shall

consist of. As you all recall, hon. members, this was an amendment to

the standing orders which came out of committee on which there were

members from both sides. So just let me read this to you. It says:

"Statements and discussions under this standing order. . .shall not

anticipate a matter which has been previously appointed for

consideration by the House, in respect to which a notice of motion has

been previously given and not withdrawn." I just bring that to

everyone's attention. Now if we can have the....

MR. G. HANSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

acknowledge that standing order and I would just like to advise the

Chair that I am cognizant of the fact that there is a Bill 28 that is

before the House. But my remarks are not directed to Bill 28 but simply

to the principles of fair election practices and the commission that

has been established by the Provincial Secretary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is another order that relates to

matters which are under consideration by a royal commission. It doesn't

state that debates on those matters will be disallowed, but it does

state that they will be very limited in that respect.

So having said that and not wanting to take from the time of whoever

is going to respond to this, the Chair will recognize the

Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

would have said that he would thank you for the interesting comments

that were made. In the fullness of time these matters will be addressed

by the electoral boundaries commissioner, but you have raised some

matters dealing with the Charter of Rights, and if your arguments were

to prevail before the courts, then presumably the member for Atlin (Mr.

Guno), for one, would be very disappointed because his riding would

disappear. Many ridings across the country provincially and federally

would no doubt disappear. Probably the province of Prince Edward Island

would no longer have a rationale.

We have historic differences in representation in this province and

in this country, and I hope that those who interpret our Charter of

Rights will not slavishly follow American decisions or try to transform

our constitution into the American constitution. I don't think it was

the intention of the drafters of the accord in 1981 that we would end

up with some kind of equal rights amendment that would mean that one

vote here is worth one vote everywhere else, or that we were a country

or a province in which rep by pop was entrenched in the lower House as

part of the constitution.

We are a country which takes into account historic differences,

geographical isolation, the tremendous resources of the province of

British Columbia in remote areas and how the people in those areas have

to be reflected in their representation, not just on a one-man-one-vote

basis, but on the basis of their differences, their history and their

resources. We have never had a homogenized approach, a rep by pop, a

slavish doctrinaire approach to representation like the members

opposite bring to bear in this House. So I am absolutely delighted that

we don't have, and I hope that the courts will not decide in their

wisdom that they are going to rewrite history and the electoral map of

this country in the interests of doctrinaire arguments like we heard

opposite.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, it remains to be seen by the Supreme

Court of Canada, because the fact is that

section 1 of the Charter of

Rights does not allow a variation in population to be unjustifiable and

arbitrary and certainly of the type that we have a long history of in

this province — of having our voting rights, our right to

enfranchisement, distorted by political interference.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue by saying that when the member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and I were made aware of the

terms of reference of the commissioner, we visited the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and asked that the following be done. I'm

sure that all members of the House will see that this would certainly

[ Page 1889 ]

enhance the process and make it more fair than it presently appears to be.

We asked that the commissioner hold a series of hearings throughout

the province; that upon conclusion of those hearings, an interim report

be submitted to the Legislature, and then to an all-party committee of

this House; that the interim report be reviewed by the all-party

committee of this House with the understanding that the committee may

order a further follow-up hearing by the commissioner; that a final

report be submitted to the same all-party committee of the Legislature;

that in order to ensure integrity and full confidence in that report,

it receive the unanimous consent of that committee; and that upon

unanimous approval of the committee, the report be referred to the

House and implemented in the Legislature. Those simple provisions would

make the members of this House equal partners in the development of the

rules of the game so that we did not have the political distortion that

we have inherited as a legacy in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a bill that I'm going to be presenting in this

House that would provide for an independent electoral commission,

separate from party politics, to serve the public and ensure maximum

enfranchisement. There would be a full enumeration from the time the

writ is dropped.

Recently, the chief electoral officer, who under our provisions

would be appointed by an all-party committee of the Legislature in the

same way that the ombudsman and the auditor-general are, to serve the

public and to serve this House, indicated that to do a full enumeration

would take nine weeks. Nine weeks is beyond the duration of the

national elections of Canada. It's simply ludicrous to propose that it

would take nine weeks to do an enumeration in the province of British

Columbia so that everyone who is eligible to exercise the franchise

could be on the voters' list.

We want to see 18-year-olds have the vote, as they have in every

other province in Canada. They can vote federally, but they can't vote

for their own provincial legislators. We want to see a number of other

fine-tuning provisions that are in the bill.

I see my time is just about up. I would like to thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. I know

I sound a bit like a stuck record on this subject, but I can't imagine

anything more fundamental and basic than the rules of the democratic

game to make sure that the people of the province have the opportunity

to elect the government of their choice.

FRESHWATER FISH HATCHERIES

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to

address the subject of freshwater fish hatcheries in British Columbia,

and perhaps suggest more involvement from the private sector in the

production of fish for freshwater sport fishing.

In Langley we probably have six or seven private commercial fish

farms. In B.C., I believe we have somewhere around 173 fish farms. At

this point, the commercial freshwater fish farms and the provincial

government hatcheries have no direct connection.

Perhaps I could give you just a little bit of background

information. Sport fishing in British Columbia, beside being an

industry — if I can call it an industry — has a lot of excitement to

it. I'm somewhat of an ardent fisherman myself. When you set that fly

out onto a river or some water, and that fish rises and you set that

hook, with your light tackle and the excitement of the battle with the

fish.... It's something I've enjoyed doing for many, many years; it's

something I don't want to lose, nor do I want my children to lose it.

So I really must commend the government on the job they've done in

ensuring that we have adequate stock in our lakes, rivers and streams

for recreational use.

Presently in British Columbia there are eight provincial hatcheries,

of which three are under contract. They're all there exclusively for

stocking public waters. Five are government-operated. They are located

at Duncan, Abbotsford, Summerland, Wardner — which is in the Kootenays

— and Clinton. The three private sector contract-operated hatcheries

are at Skaha, south of Penticton; the Peace Canyon near Hudson Hope;

and Hill Creek, near the Arrow Lakes.

Maybe I can relate some economic aspects of the sport fishery in

British Columbia. The estimated total catch of hatchery fish is about

two million annually, which is 25 percent of the total sport-fishing

catch. It is estimated that in 1985 there were in excess of 360,000

licensed anglers in British Columbia, of which almost 283,000 or 79

percent were residents of British Columbia and 21 percent were

nonresidents. As you can see, there are a lot of people who get a lot

of enjoyment from it, besides contributing to our economic base.

Clearly this indicates there's potential for future positive growth in

the sport-fishing industry in British Columbia.

The economic activity generated by freshwater sport fishing for 1985

included direct expenditures of $144.1 million for trip costs, such as

lodging, gas, food, etc., which worked out to an average of about $459

per angler. In addition to that, in 1985 there was $159.5 million spent

by anglers on capital expenditures and major purchases, such as boats,

motors, etc. So as we can see, freshwater fishing already directly and

indirectly contributes millions of dollars to the provincial economy.

Clearly, the freshwater fishery has a positive, direct impact on the

tourist industry, and by further developing and promoting this natural

resource we can continue to enjoy the economic benefits of this growth

industry.

[10:45]

But it's more than just economic benefits. There's a recreation

benefit; there's the educational benefit. There's a certain mystique,

when you visit a fish hatchery, that I very much enjoy: watching fish

in their natural environment, the production of them, etc. Again, I

really would like to commend the government and the Minister of

Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for what they've done to date.

But I still think there's room for an increased role of the private

sector in the production of fish for the sport fishery. As I said, the

government-operated fish hatcheries perform a valuable service in terms

of fish enhancement, education and tourism. But if we can consider

allowing the private sector to have an increased opportunity to stock

public waters, I think we might be on the right track. I feel it's

important for a number of reasons. It would allow the government to

deal effectively with fluctuations in the sport fishery and fish stock

demands. When demand increases, it is economically unfeasible for the

government to spend the money on capital costs associated with fish

hatchery construction. It makes better economic sense to allow the

private sector to fill in the production gaps, as opposed to having the

government construct additional hatcheries. Some of the commercial fish

farms have the necessary infrastructure required to undertake such

projects, and as I noted earlier, there are some 173

[ Page 1890 ]

existing ones in the province. So the commercial fish operators already have the expertise in the growth of sea stock.

They would have no trouble adapting to serving the sport fishing

industry. I realize that wild eggs are used, and I think that's a good

idea, but I see no problem in putting out contracts. The government

could provide them to private sector hatcheries or private fish-farms

to produce these eggs.

For the time being I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G. HANSON: I, too, and many members on this side of the

House enjoy and have high regard for the sport fishery, both saltwater

and freshwater. Most of us spend more time practising fishing than

actually catching. I'm looking forward to the pink-salmon season which

is coming through the Juan de Fuca Strait this late August and early

September.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, we'll probably miss that; we'll be here, Mr. Speaker.

I listened carefully to the member's remarks, and I think he would

agree with me that the sport fishery in this province — certainly in

the freshwater area — is declining in quantity and quality. We have a

history in this province of money that has been set aside for nursery

capacity, restocking and stream enhancement, etc., somehow getting

scooped into other programs and not being held in the trust

relationship that it's supposed to be when it's initially taken from

the sport anglers and so on in their licensing fees.

B.C. is blessed with an abundance of clean and pristine freshwater

lakes, and everything should be done to keep it that way. We should

take advantage of this natural resource, Mr. Member, to develop a

coordinated freshwater fishery enhancement industry in this province,

with hatcheries that would serve regional areas, lakes, and be small in

size. They could be stocking lakes and streams within a fairly small

designated area. Development of such a program should be done as part

of regionally based economic strategies.

Yes, the tourism dollar around fisheries is very strong. The

interest in terms of residents, fishing and lifestyle is also an

important economic factor, and everything should be done to make that

as secure an industry as possible.

There are obvious and significant tourist benefits from such a

coordinated strategy. A coordinated approach would approach development

of destination fishing resorts and bring in significant tourist

capital. Such a program could have the following benefits. It would

enhance an existing industry, one which is renewable and

environmentally safe. It is a labour-intensive area and offers

significant job-creation opportunities through infrastructure

construction, as well as permanent jobs through employment in the

hatcheries — suppliers, outfitters, resorts, guides, etc.

Such a program could have the following components: (1) the

establishment of a network of small hatcheries designed to meet the

needs of the surrounding lakes and streams. What we've had in the past,

Mr. Member, is a consolidation of closing down small hatcheries into a

more centralized approach.

(2) An expanded program of habitat

enhancement designed by local biologists familiar with the area, and

greatly expanded research with the utilization of our universities and

colleges. 3) Increased access to fishing sites and development of

facilities at these sites in an environmentally acceptable manner.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we are certainly supportive of building

the freshwater sports fishery into a strong and viable industry. We

feel it requires more planning, it requires more funding priority, and

involves certainly more of a priority in terms of water quality and

environmental quality. But we believe the future is very positive if we

look forward to a coordinated approach.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I have to disagree with what the member

said about declining fish stocks. In fact, we're increasing the provincial

hatchery system provincewide. It allows for about 450,000 people to sport fish

in fresh water, and it is quite a remarkable industry.

In terms of what the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) said,

I would like to point out that we operate nine hatcheries. Three of the

smaller hatcheries are operated by contract. They are Hill Creek, Peace

Canyon and Skaha.

We have a policy in British Columbia that's renowned throughout

North America in that we do not use domestic stock. We use wild stock

in all cases, and this is far better for the angler. It's more

expensive but it allows for a far better game fish, and for that we are

renowned throughout North America.

The program is highly integrated with fish moved along hatcheries to

maximize total production of the species and size requested by regional

fishery managers. I can tell you that in 1986 we liberated 11 million

fish in nearly 900 waters, and we collected 19 million eggs. So it's a

remarkable system in the province of British Columbia, and one that we

should all be proud of.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to thank both the

Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the first member for

Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) for their remarks. I can see that in terms of

the sports fishery, on both sides of the House it's of some concern to

all of us and we all really appreciate it, though perhaps the

perception of what's been done and what's not been done is a little

different. However, the fact is that I think we all have the same

objective in mind, and I appreciate that.

I would like to suggest.... Again, let me bring up these

approximately 173 privately owned fish farms in British Columbia which

are scattered all over the place. I think there's a real window of

opportunity for the family-owned, small-business fish farms to provide

additional sports-fish stock for British Columbia, and for our tourists

to enjoy. As I said earlier, it would negate the need for capital

investment on behalf of the government, but it still would provide

additional fish stock for our sports fishery.

May I suggest that the Ministry of Environment could perhaps come up

with some sort of tender, just on an experimental basis, where wild

eggs would be supplied to these farms. The farms themselves would have

to be disease tested and everything else. Let's try it. If there's

nothing ventured, there's nothing gained. I think it's a real

opportunity for us, and for small businesses and small farms, to

contribute significantly to the first-class, world sports fishery that

we have in British Columbia.

CHANGES IN CANADA PATENT ACT

MR. CASHORE: On December 8 last, I sent a telegram to the

Premier asking the Premier to support the NDP position with regard to

Bill C-22, changes in the Canada Patent

[ Page 1891 ]

Act. The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari) has just suggested to me that we call that bill catch-22,

and I think that's very appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in response to my wire, a week later

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) issued a press release stating

in fact that he is in support of the position that we have been

advocating, which is to oppose the changes in the federal Patent Act.

Therefore the comments that I am making today are not controversial in

terms of this government. The government has stated very clearly that

they agree with the position the NDP caucus in Ottawa and the NDP

caucus here take on this issue.

I do want to say, though, that the Minister of Health flubbed an

opportunity to stand up for British Columbians when he failed to show

up at the Senate hearings that were held at the Empress Hotel — just

across the road — a few days ago. I will come back to that later, but I

think this is a very serious issue for B.C., and it is one that

requires very vigorous response from that ministry. For instance, if we

become concerned about the loss of millions of dollars of revenue to

forest companies.... That's certainly a cause for concern. What we are

looking at here will represent by 1995 an additional cost to Pharmacare

for British Columbians of some $75 million in that one year, so we are

looking at big bucks here, Mr. Speaker.

Just what kinds of changes are we looking at in the Patent Act,

which has worked so well for so many years, since 1969? We're looking

at changes that have been brought about by the very powerful lobby of

the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association. This lobby is one of the

most well-heeled in Ottawa. I can set the scene a bit by describing a

big, black limousine pulling up in front of the headquarters of the

National Anti-Poverty Organization to lobby Patrick Johnston. The

people who emerged from that limousine were in fur coats, and here the

people were going, in their opulence, to call upon the National

Anti-Poverty Organization to support what they were doing.

Just what are they doing? Since the Tories have gone along with what

they propose, they will have ten-year protection for the multinationals

with regard to their new products. This will result in a loss of

competition from generic drugs and an increase in cost for all

Canadians. It will also benefit the rich, because of the ten years for

which patents are protected. It will mean that certain new cures, say

for cancer, will be available to those who have the money to pay for

the drug, but will not be available to low-income people. It also means

that there will be problems for everyone other than the rich, because

of the increased costs.

When Senator Perrault was here a few days ago, he told me that the

multinational drug manufacturers have the second-highest profit margin

of any industry in Canada, yet these people are asking for more.

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. budget indicates that this government has already decided

to roll over and play dead on this issue. It's not just the minister not

showing up at the hearing; this government has built into the B.C. budget the

means whereby they're going to try to anticipate these extra costs. They've

done this, as we all know, in the ways in which user fees have been slapped

on, the ways in which there are increases in medical services premiums. The

most blatant indication is the increase from $200 to $275 for the deductible,

and seniors having to pay 75 percent of dispensing fees up to $125 — all this

in anticipation of a bill that has not passed through the Senate yet. I think

this is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

When I called on the minister in this House to explain his absence,

he pointed out to me that he didn't know about it. I said that I found

that beyond comprehension. The minister responded that I didn't need to

get sore with him, and that he was being fairly honest with me. Mr.

Speaker, I think this may be the first time in the history of this

House that the Speaker may have had to consider calling a member to

withdraw unparliamentary language that he'd used about himself. The

hon. minister stated to me that he was being fairly honest with me on

this issue; I would think that our standard in this House is to be

completely honest on such an issue.

[11:00]

I would call on the minister now, when he makes his response, to be

completely honest with this House with regard to why this government

has decided to roll over and play dead on this issue, why it has not

attended the hearing. Will the minister indicate to this House exactly

what this government has done to...?

MR. REE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the member is

not relevant to the subject matter he has put in private members'

statements, and also is implying that a minister of the Crown would not

be honest in this House. All hon. members, as you well know, Mr.

Speaker, are honest. Possibly the member could withdraw any such

untoward impugnment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think the Chair

will decide when a member will be asked to withdraw. It was certainly,

in the opinion of the Chair, let's say uncalled for, but not quite

beyond the bounds, I don't believe. Maybe the member would like to

continue. He has a minute or half a minute left.

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having noticed

that the red light just went on, do I lose my time of speaking when

other members of the House call a point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You'll be able to finish when the minister has completed responding to your first statement.

MR. CASHORE: I take it by this that I have about half a minute left.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please take his chair?

The Minister of Health, please.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I think members' statements

should refrain from debating, and it came pretty close to debating, to

accusing, to where I should in fact get up and defend myself. I don't

think that's the purpose of members' statements.

However, I will clear up the one statement made that I was fairly

honest with him. I suppose I should have said that I was fairly open in

my response. The fairly honest was an incorrect term to use, and if

that is so objectionable to the member, I will apologize to him.

Another statement was made that we increased MSP payments or user charges. The payment to MSP is consistent

[ Page 1892 ]

with the 40 to 60 percent differential, and it has

remained that way for a long, long time. User fees were not put into

place because of the Patent Act. It was something we had to do to bring

in some revenue.

Also, at this particular hearing.... I will state again what I said

before, and I'm not trying to defend myself except to answer the

questions that were raised. My ministry was not informed at any time of

that meeting. I was not aware of it, and I stand by that statement.

That's why I didn't attend. However, I understand that the chairman at

that time did mention to the hon. member that they were very well aware

of the British Columbia stand. I do not argue with the opposition stand

on this particular issue at all. I'm on the same side of the fence on

this particular issue, so I'm not going to respond in that regard.

However, I do have to clear up the area where he mentioned that we

were negligent in not being at this meeting. Unless you are informed of

certain meetings, it's very difficult to anticipate where and when they

will be held. I should also mention that perhaps I'm somewhat busier

than he is, and perhaps he can follow these thing a little closer. It

has to be brought to my attention, and perhaps that's why — because no

one did. And I did not read the paper and find out that this meeting

was in fact scheduled.

I'm referring to a letter that I wrote to Hon. Harvie Andre and Hon. Jake Epp, and I'll just read parts of it:

"I am concerned that the proposed amendments would result

in increased costs to consumers and to governments, with no guarantee of a significant

increase in research and development. I am also concerned that proposed federal

compensation would not be adequate. It is my view that the present compulsory

licensing provisions of the Patent Act are effective in moderating pharmaceutical

prices and ought to be retained. However," — and this was one thing we

added — "should the federal government proceed with the proposed amendments

to the Patent Act, provision ought to be made for provincial representation

on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board."

We asked for this. The reply was that it would be considered and an advisory

committee would bring forward names. We have no guarantee that we will be sitting

on that review board, but we hope we can.

We are not rolling over and playing dead; we made our voices very

plain and clear. As a matter of fact, I have met with most of the

province's PC caucus members. We had a meeting with our cabinet and

caucus members, and at that time I made my statement very clear to them

and asked that they reconsider.

In closing I should say that the member is a bit argumentative. I

have no argument on the total implication and his view on it, but I do

take exception to the fact of his needling me and saying I'm not doing

my part. I think he's wrong in that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time that the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam lost due to the point of order being raised

will be given during this period.

MR. CASHORE: The issue here today is the impact of C-22 on

the people of British Columbia, and therefore the issue is whether or

not this government is willing to stand up and fight on behalf of the

people of British Columbia. When the minister says: "I don't have time

to read the paper," I find that incredible. Does the minister not

recognize that he has a complete infrastructure within his ministry? He

has the whole ministry to be there knowing when the hon. senators are

coming into this province and to be advising the minister of this.

Also, what the people of British Columbia are calling for is not a

few namby-pamby letters to be written off to the Hon. Andre. They are

asking for a ministry that will stand up and fight for them.

I want to point out to the minister that when he says to me,"I don't

know why you're getting sore at me," I am not getting sore at the

minister personally. I am getting sore at the whole Ministry of Health

for failing to be on top of this issue. We talk about the loss of

millions of dollars of revenue in the forest industry. What about the

additional $75 million this is going to cost British Columbians? Don't

we care about that? Isn't somebody in your ministry dealing with that

every day? They should be, if they're not. That's a very serious and

important economic issue. It's an incredible admission when this

minister tells me that they didn't read about it in the newspaper.

We're talking here about an issue where the Ministry of Health and

the government have decided to go along with the NDP on an NDP

position, but that kind of lip service is not enough. What is called

for is a vigorous defence of the people of British Columbia. Just what

is this going to be costing the people of Canada in the year 1995? An

additional $650 million; we're talking big bucks. And what has been

promised on behalf of the powerful multinational pharmaceutical

corporations? What have they promised? They have promised nothing. They

have given vague promises in vague letters, but the weak-kneed Tories —

and the minister has stated that his people have met with the Tory

members — are supporting this legislation. You didn't have much

influence with them, did you? You didn't have much influence with your

friends in the Tory caucus in Ottawa.

What has happened as a result of their going along with this

situation is that they have accepted the Trojan Horse of a research

bonanza. There won't be a research bonanza, because it's not entrenched

in the legislation, and also the legislation fails to define the

meaning of "research." So it's absolutely meaningless. They've given it

away. And the people of British Columbia are going to be paying — if

there is job creation — for job creation within 100 miles of Toronto

and of Montreal. That is where those jobs will be located. What will be

the benefits to the people of British Columbia? This is something that

all of us should be very concerned about and should be dealing with in

a very vigorous way.

The minister has not told us of any kind of powerful delegation — an

all-party delegation — going back to Ottawa to lobby with the Commons

during the committee stage. I never thought that I would see the day

that I, as a New Democrat, would be appealing to the Canadian Senate to

save us on a matter such as this.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have some private members' issues that I wish to introduce now. Second reading of Bill PR405.

VANCOUVER MUSEUM FOUNDATION ACT

MR. MOWAT: I rise on the act to incorporate the Vancouver Museum. Mr. Speaker, this act creates a perpetual body to

[ Page 1893 ]

encourage and receive donations to be used for the

development of collections, the capital needs and the development of

endowment funds for the Vancouver Museum and other associated

institutions in the greater Vancouver region. The greater Vancouver

area has a number of first-class, internationally respected museums

that represent all facets of our rich cultural and historical heritage

— science and technology, anthropology, art, and maritime history. In

order to ensure that these facilities retain their first-class status,

the Vancouver Museum Foundation, a non-profit corporation, will

encourage, receive, administer and distribute donations to these

facilities.

The board of directors will be made up of not more than 14

individuals who are residents of British Columbia. Directors will

include the mayor of the city of Vancouver, the chairperson of the

board of school trustees of School District 39 and the chairperson of

the Vancouver Museum.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no

difficulty at all in accepting and endorsing the initiative embedded in

Bill PR405, the Vancouver Museum Foundation Act. Indeed, we would like

to state for the record that we are also supportive of any initiatives

that do something towards the preservation of our culture and our

heritage. We are therefore pleased to rise in support of the bill.

Motion approved.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I move, with leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill PR405, Vancouver Museum Foundation Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

VANCOUVER MUSEUM FOUNDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill PR405; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 47 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Preamble approved.

MR. MOWAT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[11:15]

Bill PR405, Vancouver Museum Foundation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE MISSION FOUNDATION

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to provide an

opportunity for the people of the community of Mission to contribute to

their community and to provide for the needs of people; educational and

scientific research; and recreational, heritage, cultural or charitable

purposes.

I think this is a very good bill. It shows the ultimate in citizenship. I move that it be read a second time.

MR. ROSE: I take pleasure in supporting the bill, Mr.

Speaker. As someone who grew up and was educated in Mission.... My

mother still lives in Mission. Naturally I'm interested in my mission

towards Mission.

But under "Objects of the foundation," I think it would be remiss of

me if I didn't mention something that concerns me a little bit about

object (

a) in

section 5. I wonder if it would be appropriate in this

modern day and age to have an objective of "providing care for needy

men, women and children, and in particular for the sick, aged,

destitute and helpless." It seems to me that those are words from

another age: the tin-cup age, the poorhouse age, the soup-kitchen age

and even the food bank age. I think that we should be well past that in

a society with an advanced welfare state. So while that may seem

innocent enough in there, I wonder if it doesn't reveal an attitude

that, while humane, is maybe a little bit archaic in our society. If

it's for a short-term thing, a crisis or that sort of thing, I've no

objection to it.

But I rather like object (d), for instance: "promoting recreational

activities and the conservation of human, heritage...." We have a very

good start being made in Mission by Mrs. Norma Kenney and her committee

on the restoration of the Oblate Fathers' mission, a Catholic

residential school from which Mission derives its name. It was allowed

to be bulldozed out of existence in one period, and now we're beginning

to celebrate the fact that it is part of our heritage. Those whole

grounds, with the assistance of the local people and the provincial

government, are being restored, if not in their entirety. at least

enough so that we can be proud of that kind of past.

Anyway, in saying that, I think there's no difficulty in having the

support of this side. I just hope that item (

a) of the objects will

never have to be used.

Motion approved.

MR. JACOBSEN: I ask leave to refer Bill PR404 to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill PR404,

An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE MISSION FOUNDATION

The House in committee on Bill PR404; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 32 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

[ Page 1894 ]

Title approved.

MR. JACOBSEN: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill PR404,

An Act to Incorporate Mission Foundation, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS

(continued)

On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, in entering into my

estimates, I would be remiss if I didn't offer congratulations and best

wishes, and acknowledge the remarkable work done by Ben Marr, the

former deputy minister of this ministry. I'm sure I speak for former

ministers, the current Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Rogers), the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), our

Deputy Speaker, and those of us who have had the good fortune to work

with Mr. Marr. He was the first deputy of that ministry, which began

some 11 years ago, and he provided excellent direction in bringing the

ministry together. Not to acknowledge him at the outset would be

inappropriate.

MR. CLARK: Who appointed him?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He was appointed by Bill Bennett.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The ministry came into being in 1976.

I also acknowledge the presence of my current deputy, Tom Johnson.

Now we'll get into the history, since it was questioned. Madam

Chairman, it is 11 years since the ministry was created, and I'd like

to briefly review those 11 years, as a way of providing insight into

this government's appreciation of the formidable job of maintaining a

healthy environment and delivery of services to our citizens, who

depend on a wide range of environmental resources.

The ministry was created by the Ministry of Environment Act, which

received royal assent on March 18, 1976. This new ministry brought

together a number of existing services and branches to form a single

agency with the mandate of the management and protection of land, air

and water resources of our province.

In December 1978 Premier Bill Bennett announced major changes in

cabinet responsibilities and extensive reorganizational changes within

ministries. The impact of this action was to transfer several

responsibilities of other ministries to the Ministry of Environment,

while shifting responsibility for lands to the newly formed Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing. These changes resulted in the broadening of

the mandate of the ministry; the ministry's new mandate now consisted

of the maintenance of the province's resources for the health, safety

and well-being of the people in the province and the fish and wildlife

therein.

Along with the reorganization of ministry responsibilities, the

ministry embarked on a major internal reorganization, designed to

reflect the ministry's new integrated resource management role and

decentralize the environmental planning process, to allow a greater

regional focus. This major decentralization took place between 1978 and

1982. The more recent transfer to the ministry of the parks branch and

outdoor recreation brought an important and compatible activity to the

ministry. The recreational fisheries and wildlife were, as you know,

associated with the parks program during the sixties and seventies in

the former Ministry of Recreation and Conservation.

With that said, Madam Chairman, I'd like to comment to the committee

that this Ministry of Environment and Parks has 1,800 employees and a

variety of programs: everything from wildlife protection to sewage

treatment. I'll advise the critic that if we can follow some agenda —

and I'll leave the agenda to my critic, to advise us what areas she

wishes to discuss — it would be most appreciated by me. Given that

program agenda in terms of debate on this vote, it would allow us to

have the appropriate officials ready, so information can be brought to

the committee on any questions they might want to ask. The member is

well aware that we deal with fisheries, wildlife, waste management,

water, air, pesticides, enforcement, parks; so there are lots of things

we can discuss. It's really a ministry that covers the whole province

and how all of the environment is handled in the province, and if we

can organize our agenda, I'm sure it would allow the committee to

proceed further.

Members will no doubt be aware that recently we entered into

Moresby. I'm sure all members are aware of that issue. I can tell you

at the outset that we still hold out hope for establishing a large

have not ceased. I indicated to the House yesterday, in answer to a

question, that we would certainly keep all options open, and that

cabinet would be discussing this further on Wednesday. It is our hope

to the British Columbia taxpayer and the British Columbia resource

industry, and in doing so will see their way clear to ensuring that we

have fair and adequate compensation with respect to settlement of the

South Moresby federal park. That term "fair and adequate compensation"

came from the House of Commons when they had their one-day debate on

the issue of South Moresby, and we sincerely hope that the Prime

Minister and those negotiating on his behalf will recognize our concern

and the reasons that we presented our case.

Just while on the issue of South Moresby — then I'll take my place

and let my critic address the committee — I want to assure the

committee that the government of British Columbia acted in very good

faith on this issue. We put together the Wilderness Advisory Committee

two years ago. It went around the province. It viewed 24 sites. It made

very good recommendations to the government of British Columbia, and we

intended to follow those through. One of the recommendations dealing

with South Moresby was the setting of

[ Page 1895 ]

boundaries for a full federal park. We were quite

prepared to go with those boundaries and with that Wilderness Advisory

Committee recommendation, and that offer was presented to the federal

environment minister on February 18 this year.

Regrettably, the federal minister turned down that offer from B.C.

on the Wilderness Advisory Committee recommendation for a federal park.

That was regrettable, but the province of British Columbia asked the

explained to us. They saw a bigger park, so we agreed to that. On April

8 I presented to Mr. McMillan the B.C. position, including boundaries

that were quite extensive. They were essentially from Tangil south, and

included everything south of Tangil, including Lyell Island. There was

a price tag involved, because there would be a large loss to the

economy of British Columbia if that area was totally alienated for

federal park purposes. One of the sticking points in that offer to Mr.

McMillan was that we asked for ten years of transitional logging on

Lyell Island. That would be to recognize that there was a heavy

investment in that area. There was a tree-farm licence, there was

another timber licence, and there was an economy at Sandspit that had

to continue.

[11:30]

The federal minister quite correctly indicated that they could not

accept logging to continue within the boundaries of a federal park, and

we recognized that. It's not within their legislation, and it would not

be appropriate for that type of activity to continue in a federal park.

saying: "We recognize that you will find the logging in such a federal

park not appropriate — we recognize that concern — so we will take the

transitional logging factor out of the equation. But we will ask that

you appoint a national accounting firm, someone with national

prominence and expertise, to go in and assess what the economic loss to

the principal players would be, and to look after that economic loss.

We will not take a position on what the dollar amount should be. We

think it's fair that we send this to a recognized third party who can

offer expert opinion on the loss to the province and the loss to Frank

Beban, Western Forest Products and, in a smaller case, MacMillan

Bloedel, and that you look after that economic loss to those players."

We further said that we would be prepared as a province to

contribute $8 million to that fund. This would allow the fund

administrator, the accounting firm, to immediately begin taking care of

the costs of having Frank Beban's workers displaced from the area and

to look after all of the economic problems that those people face, many

of whom have been laid off since March 17, when we ceased the cutting

permit. We asked Canada to look after that economic deficit.

We thought we had some agreement. The last time the Premier was in

Ottawa there appeared to be agreement in principle to the British

Columbia position. It subsequently seemed to fall apart. We were

promised that officials would come out here, and they didn't. We then

received information and a counter-offer that was far short of what we

thought was appropriate compensation, particularly for the workers

employed in that area. It was on the basis of that that we announced

that if it was to fail, we would go with the provincial Wilderness

Advisory Committee recommendations for a park, which would be still

quite remarkable — 85 percent of the federal size of the park — and

would maintain all of the good recreation park components on a South

Moresby provincial park. We would not deviate at all from the

recommendation of the Wilderness Advisory Committee in establishing

such a provincial park.

In closing on this note, Madam Chairman, I have to advise the

committee again that the government of British Columbia in no way — at

least as of today — sees this as final. We welcome further discussions

back to the Premier, or the federal Minister of Environment contacting

me. We are still prepared to deliberate on this and to discuss what

offers they have, but our bottom line essentially is that we have to

recognize that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of British

Columbia for a very valuable resource, and a responsibility to

tenure-holders in that area. We can't just put people out of work and

break contracts, and I'm sure all members of the committee appreciate

that.

With that said, I'll take my place and welcome the comments from my critic.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I too would like to wish Mr. Ben Marr happiness in his retirement, and to welcome Mr. Johnson to the post.

I'd be glad to indicate to the minister, as we go along, some of the

issues in the agenda that I have. At this point — and as the minister

will well recognize — this ministry is perhaps the busiest ministry

since the government took power last November. All you have to do is

look through the newspaper now to see that every single issue has

something happening in the environment and/or in the ministry. So as

far as the agenda goes at this point, what I'd like to deal with beyond

my introductory statement is wilderness and parks, and from that point

go into waste management, dealing with both solid waste and special

waste. There will be other issues, but I think those two are a good

starting point.

I'd like to start off by making some comments about the overall

ministry and respond to some of the initial comments that the minister

has made. The minister referred to the role of his ministry as

maintaining a healthy environment. While I recognize that the minister

is fairly new to that portfolio, I hope that that will mean that he can

put his stamp on the ministry and would at this point at least be

considering the role of the ministry in light of our changing society.

I'd like to refer first to a United Nations study called "Our Common

Future: From One Earth to One World," done by the World Commission on

Environment and Development. Some really interesting comments are made,

and I think this report in general has major significance to the

planning of economic development, and in particular to environmental

ministries throughout the world. The report comments that since the

Second World War, governments, pressured by their citizens, saw the

need to clean up the mess — talking about the impact that some of the

economic development had on the environment at that time — so they

established environmental ministries and agencies to do this clean-up.

The report goes on to talk about the environmental ministries in that

light: that in essence the ministries we have are mop-up ministries.

They're ministries to try to deal with the impact of economic

development. It talks about the work as necessary after-the-fact

repairs to damages: reforestation, reclaiming desert land, rebuilding

urban developments, restoring natural habitat and rehabilitating wild

lands.

I think the comments there fairly reflect what goes on in this

province. The challenge is to change that. The challenge is to

recognize that not only the preservation of our planet but

[ Page 1896 ]

indeed another economic view demands that we see

the Ministry of Environment being in the initial planning stages of

economic development, rather than reacting to developments that have

already taken place — a process of dealing with not only development

that is seen as the number one priority, being sustainable development

where the costs of that development are not borne in either clean-up or

regulation.... What we are looking at is development that is

compatible. What we are pushing for is development that sees respect

for the environment and sustainability as a cost of doing business.

That would mean a reorganization of the ministry.

I am hoping to proceed through the estimates, looking at the

estimates in that framework. If the ministry has been and is currently

a clean-up ministry that is trying to deal with the health of the

environment, how are we doing there? Are we doing our job? Is the

ministry on top of the clean-up job? How does that relate to and how

can we change the work that the ministry does with the view of this

ministry as an initial economic development ministry, a ministry that

looks at a sustainable future?

I would like to point out, as the report goes on to say, that given

this view — as I began to say — not only does this deal with a

sustainable future, but indeed it deals with a future that is

productive and provides jobs and economic growth. On the ultimate

balance sheet and the gross national product or the gross provincial

product, given a model that starts at the Ministry of Environment, with

this we can put in place a new plan for B.C. that is sustainable, that

is productive and that puts people to work doing jobs that are

compatible with this planet and with human habitat.

With that, I would like to ask the minister, in the way of

notice.... When we are dealing with waste management issues in

particular, I would like the minister to be able to respond to the

auditor-general's report of 1981. There was an audit during that time

of the waste management systems of the Ministry of Environment, and

several recommendations were brought forward in the auditor-general's

report. I would like to have a progress report to let us know how the

ministry is doing.

On the estimates, what I foresee happening is that we will have the

bulk of the debate for the estimates under the minister's office; we

will deal with most of the items under vote 29. I reserve the right to

discuss issues that come up under individual votes, but at this point I

don't predict having to do this.

I am now taking a look at the budget for the Ministry of Environment

and notice in particular that there has been a significant increase for

the minister's office. The question to the minister would be whether or

not that deals with the addition of Parks as part of the ministry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The increase, which is $15,083, is

attributable to classification adjustments, pay increases and increases

in employee benefits. That answers your first question. There was not

an FTE increase, I believe, in the minister's office due to the size of

the enlargement of the ministry, but these are negotiated increases for

staff.

I'd like to respond in a general way to the general comments made by

the member for Surrey–Guildford–Whalley. You're right; since the end of

the war and, I guess, more particularly when North America and the

western world entered into the boom years of the fifties, sixties and

seventies, we realized that we were sliding down the banister into

trouble if we didn't clean up the environment and if we continually

allowed the smoke-stack industries to flourish and just go

helter-skelter in terms of development. Society recognized that.

Industry recognized it as well. There is a cost to doing business in

North America. There is an environmental cost that's particularly

recognized, I think, in Canada. I would say that Canadians take a

cherished view of their environment. So industry had to adapt to

changing times and a very changing attitude on the part of people as to

what they expect. We do now expect that we will have clean air, water,

lakes and streams, and that we can fish and know that the fish we're

taking are edible and don't glow in the dark. We recognize the problems

such as have existed in the heavy industrialized areas of eastern

Canada and even more so in the eastern United States. Canadians, and

British Columbians in particular, are aware that there is a price for

clean air and clean water, and they recognize that cost. So does

industry.

[11:45]

It's interesting; as members will know, I represent Prince George,

and I met with some pulp and paper officials some time ago — well

before coming into this ministry — and they told me that in terms of

dollar value, they have spent as much money improving pollution-control

equipment on their mill as they originally spent building the mill in

the 1960s. Inflation kind of skews those numbers. Nevertheless, that's

a remarkable statement to make. Industry recognizes that to carry on

business in the province of British Columbia, they must gear to the

regulations we have now.

The member has indicated that we're a mop-up ministry, and I guess

to some degree we are. But I also want to point out to the committee

that we are in fact very proactive in terms of the way we regulate and

what we will allow to happen. This ministry is named in the Utilities

Commission Act, for example, and nothing can really.... Major projects

must be vetted through this ministry, and in some sections I must give

approval for certain facets of development contained in the Utilities

Commission Act. So we have, by legislation, indicated that the Ministry

of Environment and Parks, and particularly the minister, has a

proactive role to play and must be involved in industrial development.

So you're right; we are cleaning up to some degree. We don't have a

big mess to clean up, such as what might exist in the eastern United

States or in eastern Canada, but we are quite proactive in terms of

developing projects. For example, I'll cite the Okanagan water quality

project. We brought phosphate and nitrate levels to better levels in

Okanagan Lake. We've spent $4.5 million of government money upgrading

the sewage systems.

That's the only thing wrong — I'll tell you parenthetically — with

this ministry. It's "all things bright and beautiful, all creatures

great and small," and "the birds and the bees," and I really enjoy

that. But inevitably when I go to a town I'm trotted off by city

council to see their sewage treatment plant — normally right after

lunch. That isn't the most pleasant experience in the world, but

they're quite proud of what they've done and we're quite proud of the

way we've been able to help communities, particularly in the Okanagan,

clean up their sewage and address their sewage problems. That's a

problem we all face. But as I said earlier, there's a price for clean

water, and there's a price when you have rapid population growth. We

have to face that.

In terms of other proactive items, just generally: we put a 2 cents per litre tax on leaded gas. That was our suggestion

[ Page 1897 ]

for the budget. Of course, the Minister of Finance

never minds increasing taxes, but we saw environmental reasons for

doing that. It has been noted across Canada that we have taken that

initiative, recognizing that that amount of lead pollution in the

environment is critical. It is particularly critical in Vancouver, with

the large number of cars and the sometime inversions.

We have committed a lot of money. As a matter of fact, in terms of

natural habitat I have a $2 million JobTrac item in my ministry where

various enhancement societies will, through JobTrac, undertake

environmental enhancement. We believe that as a ministry we have — as

the member indicated — a clean-up role, but also a very proactive role

in addressing what the public expects of the environment.

It's interesting that there was a survey done by one of the national

pollsters that indicated that the environment is one of the long-range

concerns of all Canadians; as a matter of fact, it's number one. It

ranks ahead of unemployment. I guess they see unemployment as being

something that we'll always have, but in terms of the environment, the

majority of Canadians indicated that that is their large concern. I

believe that was a Decima poll. It indicates that society in the 1980s

recognizes that we have to look after our Mother Earth, our air, water

and land. That's encouraging to see.

MR. WILLIAMS: That should hang heavy on your shoulders.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, yes, it does, thank you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, I think what I'll do is get the agreements dealt with and then we'll talk a little bit about the disagreements.

I think the point is well made that in a province like this the

Environment ministry should be an enjoyable ministry. We should be

really pleased to be able to look at the tremendous resources that we

have and become involved in saving those resources and making the best

use of them for B.C. However, part of the task that I saw before me, in

dealing with the information of the estimates, was how to deal with the

reality; how to deal with the devastation and some of the very serious

problems that we have in this province; how to ensure that the message

coming out of this look at the estimates wasn't as desperate as some of

the information would indicate.

That is one of the reasons why I've chosen to try to frame the

estimates in a proactive way. While the minister talks about the

proactive work that the ministry has undertaken through the utilities

acts, for instance — all the developments have to be vetted through the

ministry — I don't believe for a moment that that is proactive. What

that is doing is saying that, given the Site C dam, for instance, the

ministry will become involved and will make a decision about how we can

minimize the impact on the environment. What I am saying — and I think

this is a really good place to start, as far as this whole discussion

of economic development goes — is that on energy issues, for instance,

we should be talking a lot more about conservation. When we're talking

about waste management issues, we should be talking a lot more about

alternate use, source reduction, conservation. That is the kind of

leadership, the kind of changing view of the world, that the Ministry

of Environment could take and is not taking at this time.

We will have lots of time to go through each of those items, in

particular on those major projects, and the consultation that the

Ministry of Environment has had on waste management in particular. I

think the different view of the world is what I'm talking about:

conservation, the view that says that any development must be

compatible and must deal with a sustainable future, not be a quick hit.

The minister referred to the Okanagan water quality program and how

unpleasant it is to have to, as one of his responsibilities, deal with

issues of sewage disposal. However, the whole issue of waste management

is a tremendous challenge, and I look forward to dealing with that.

The minister raised the issue of leaded gas and the tax. Again, I

don't believe for a moment that is a proactive view. That is a reactive

view: we have a problem; we're trying to deal with it. Again, it points

out the whole focus of the ministry.

I'd like to move on a little bit, unless....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Okay, I'll give the member another opportunity on this point of economic development.

MR. HEWITT: Madam Chairman, I won't be long. I appreciate

that the members opposite would like to cover a number of their points,

but I did want to comment about my constituency primarily, firstly to

compliment the Ministry of Environment for identifying that the

Okanagan Valley and the Okanagan watershed is an environmentally

sensitive area. We rely a great deal on our water system, our water

quality. As you know, agriculture and tourism are the two major

industries in the area, and the assistance to communities with regard

to funding of sewage treatment plants, recognizing that environmentally

sensitive area, is certainly appreciated by the communities in my

constituency.

I did want to cover two or three other items. One deals with the

statement that the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) made this

morning about private fish hatcheries. Mr. Minister, I think we can do

a lot in developing fish stocks through the private fish hatchery

system. We have one off Skaha Lake just by Okanagan Falls, run by a

gentleman by the name of Rev. Derek Salter. He has had a contract for a

number of years with the Ministry of Environment and I think does a

first-rate job. If I can extend an invitation to you to visit that

area....

I think one of things it does is to raise fish stock adjacent to

where they will be released. In other words, it's like getting the

right type of tree planted in the forest, so that you have the seed and

the seedling acclimatized to a particular area. I think it is the same

for the trout. If we can have those fish hatcheries close by and then

release the fish into the waters of the Okanagan watershed, we'll have

good fish stock for the recreation fishing industry. Also, it's

efficient, I think, and effective. And it creates jobs in the area, and

that's important as well.

Now to the issues. I have two major ones; they both deal with weeds.

One is knapweed, which is on the land and impacts on our agriculture

industry. The other is Eurasian milfoil, which is equally disastrous

and impacts on our lake system. Mr. Minister, we've tried to address

the question of knapweed through regional districts and the Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries over the years. I don't think we have really

achieved much success. We try, the money is spent, but

[ Page 1898 ]

I'm not sure if we're on the right track. I would

just ask that you, as minister, really give it a push and make sure

that every effort is made to try to get some type of control on

knapweed. Otherwise, the ranching industry in my constituency,

particularly in the Boundary country, is going to be severely impacted.

It's severely impacted now, but it's getting to a point where all you

can see is the knapweed bushes as opposed to any grass on a lot of the

rangeland.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that your new riding?

MR. HEWITT: It could well be, yes. The other weed, equally as

obnoxious, is the Eurasian water milfoil. Mr. Minister, I know again

that you people have provided funding. There have been harvesting

programs, assistance to communities, to regional districts, but we

really haven't even addressed the cosmetic part of the problem.

I would only ask that through your ministry and staff you have

somebody get on site at a small lake called Vaseux Lake, which is south

of Penticton near Oliver, which is now, believe it or not, pretty well

covered. I think if you took a canoe out on it, you could get your

canoe stuck on top of the milfoil and you couldn't get if off. If you

fell into the water you would probably drown because you couldn't swim,

the weed is so thick. The government also has a provincial campsite

which has a beautiful camping area, a beautiful beach area for the

families, but they don't swim there anymore because the milfoil is

right up to the shore.

I would just ask that those two noxious weeds be addressed and you

attempt to do a greater job of harvesting, of cleaning the lakefront in

the Okanagan Valley, particularly in the southern part of the Okanagan,

and that you attempt to deal with the knapweed problem with regard to

its impact on the ranching industry in my area.

With that, Mr. Minister, I thank you for the efforts that you've

made in the past, and I know you will continue to do a great job in the

future. Now I believe somebody wishes to make an introduction.

[12:00]

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr.

Pelton) and myself, I'd like to welcome teacher Keith Rogalsky, 22

grade 7 students and four adults visiting us today from Highland Park

Elementary School in Pitt Meadows. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd just like to respond to the first

member for Boundary–Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) and thank him for his

comments. In terms of Okanagan water quality, we've spent an awful lot

of money there and we recognize we have a responsibility to do so.

Knapweed is more a concern that should be addressed by the Ministry of

Agriculture, although it to some degree reflects on us because we have

some concern about herbicides.

It's interesting, just as an aside; all of you are familiar with the

new cover of the telephone book this year. It's a beautiful shot of the

Robson Valley, which is in my riding, and the ditch is just full of

thistles. Why on earth they ever put that on a telephone book is beyond

me, but it does indicate that we do have some serious problems in

British Columbia.

Milfoil is a very difficult one. It's very difficult to stay ahead

of, as the member has indicated. We have $147,000 in a program in the

Okanagan this year, and it's a cost-shared basis. We'd like to do more,

but then we'd like to do more for everybody, and that is our limit this

year. I guess we will continue to put money into the control mechanisms

that we have now. We will hope that better techniques for control can

be developed over the years, but it's a problem we've inherited.

The Eurasian milfoil finds the Okanagan a very, very attractive

place to live and to flourish, and it's doing its best to stay alive as

we do our best to keep it down. But we do recognize the concern that is

expressed in the Okanagan and also in the Shuswap area with milfoil.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Coliform? Coliform counts? Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but we're talking about milfoil, and it's a problem.

MR. S.D. SMITH: In relation to vote 29, there are two or

three things that I would like to raise. First of all, I'd like to

commend you for the designations of the wildlife habitat, particularly

on the north side of Kamloops Lake and in the Tranquille Range.

I'd like to raise a couple of matters with you with respect to Wells

Gray Park. The first and most important one — and I'm delighted to see

the gentleman next to you in this regard — is the need to pave the road

into Wells Gray Park, at least to Helmcken Falls. The reason is that

the bus-tour companies are simply not using that facility and the

opportunities presented by that park and that tremendous falls in the

way they ought to. They aren't specifically because there is a need to

improve the road to the extent of providing a hard surface for it. It's

most of the way up now, within eight or nine clicks of the park

entrance, and then there's a similar amount from there on

into Helmcken. I would urge you provide some improvement to the

extent that you can within your own ministry.

There may be some ways in which dust control measures could be

provided within the park itself, towards Clearwater Lake, which would

have the same effect. To the extent that you can do it within your own

ministry, I would urge you to do so; and to the extent that it's a

matter for your colleague in Transportation and Highways, I would urge

you to recommend to him that that be done as well. It would enhance the

use of that park greatly, and it would also provide tremendous economic

potential for that Clearwater area especially. And it would develop the

opportunity for the Brewster company and others to bring their tours

down from Jasper into that area. They're now coming from Mount Robson,

but there are not as many of them coming on further as there ought to

be.

The second consideration I would like you to give with regard to the

park is that the community association in Blue River has proposed and

sent along a number of suggestions to develop a network of hiking

trails into that wilderness area, especially on the south side of the

Murtle. I met with them some time ago and happily endorsed what they

want to do, because it's a good program, it's consistent with your own

overall plan for that park, and it's something that would give Blue

River an opportunity to be a little bit of a staging area for

[ Page 1899 ]

access into the park by those kinds of users. I

would commend to you serious consideration of that. It's not a

high-cost matter, but it is something that would generate a fair amount

of traffic for Blue River — and that community needs it. It's an

initiative that has been generated by the community. They're prepared

to put their time, labour and energy into it. It's something that I

think you should give some very active consideration to.

Finally, I would like to raise a question for you with respect to

the water comptroller function of the ministry. It relates specifically

to the Rose Hill water system within the boundaries of the city of

Kamloops. That system is not functioning properly. That system today is

shut off — in a period when there is a tremendous fire hazard in that

area. There has been a problem this year with fire, but over the last

18 months there has been a deterioration of the service from that

system. A number of orders have been issued through the comptroller's

office to correct the problem. My concern is that those orders, while

they get issued, don't seem to get enforced. I think if you're going to

issue orders, you'd better enforce them. If you don't enforce orders,

then you're going to render it impossible to enforce them down the road

when you come to the conclusion that it's time to do so. It is a matter

that requires immediate attention. It requires tighter enforcement of

those orders, and it requires that action be taken straight away to

protect those residents from the fire hazard — which isn't simply

hypothetical; it's real, and it's there now. I would urge you to take

steps to correct that particular situation without further delay.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Chairman, it's interesting that the last

two speakers have demonstrated, in all earnestness and sincerity on

their part, what I think is the fundamental predicament facing the

ministry. I want to address that predicament briefly. It is the

regular, perfectly legitimate demands for short-term solutions to

pressing problems now.

I am tempted to throw in my own number of problems from my own

constituency in terms of things that I think the ministry ought to be

addressing. Most of those fall under the heading of "solid waste

disposal," and that is a problem that is endemic throughout the

province, I am sure, and one that I know my colleague for

Surrey–Guildford–Whalley, our debate leader, is going to address in

detail. So I won't touch that now. Instead, I make that point only to

demonstrate what I think is a predicament we must come to terms with

and one I have sympathy with the ministry for grappling with. That

predicament is that all of the demands are right now. Everybody wants

to solve current pressing problems.

The danger, of course, is that what gets lost in that process is the

longer-term, final and fundamental question about where we are going

and whether we can sustain the kind of growth patterns and developments

given the assumptions we are presently working under. I am intrigued to

note that there are so many young people in the Legislature today,

Madam Chairman. I think that is worth noting, because if anybody has a

sense of the predicament, it is surely young people who have seen the

legacy that other generations have created for them and who are

concerned about that legacy and wonder whether we can sustain the

planet, given the kinds of assumptions we have been working under and

given the kinds of developments we seem irrevocably committed to.

I want to suggest that the Environment ministry — perhaps uniquely among government

ministries — has a duty to do what politicians normally don't have the luxury

of doing: namely, to look a little beyond this horizon to the future. If there

were ever a single ministry in government that ought to be futuristic, that

ought to be far-sighted, that ought to be proactive, surely it must be the Ministry

of Environment. I would like to think that the Ministry of Environment ought

to — in a more perfect world, in a more ideal context — have a larger budget

and be a more aggressive and advocating kind of ministry, as opposed to a reacting

ministry and, dare I say, if not a minor player, at least not one of the major

players in the government scheme of things.

I would suggest, for example, that the Environment ministry ought to

be of necessity part of any economic development discussions. I would

suggest that the Environment ministry ought to be one of the major

generators when we talk about economic development and future policies.

MR. WILLIAMS: It used to be, but it ain't any more.

MR. LOVICK: My colleague for Vancouver East says it used to

have that role and perhaps does not have it any more. I think that is

worth developing for just a moment, because I want to try something out

on the minister. I think he will agree with me that strange things have

happened under the heading "environment and ecology issues" over the

last, lo, these roughly 15 years.

We all recall in the great trauma of oil shock of the early

seventies, and for the roughly 10 years leading up to that event, that

the primary issue that everybody talked about and that everybody was

concerned about was the environment. That is when we had this

incredible outpouring of literature, this incredible outpouring of

books, most of which are things that people of my generation grew up

on, things like Closing Circle , Can Mankind Survive? and Has Man a Future?

My concern is that that kind of paramountcy of environmental issues

frankly seems to me a thing of the past. Rather, what we assume is that

we have arrived somehow at a plateau of understanding where it is a

given that we are all concerned about the environment. I fear that that

is a dangerous and probably erroneous assumption. I don't think we have

arrived at that plateau of understanding. I think rather what happened

is that the panic of the early seventies is over. It is curious that in

the eighties when we had the great economic recession we all know

about, the environmental issues got lost in the shuffle. They didn't

come back.

I don't know at the moment whether they are coming back. I think

perhaps for younger people there is that kind of understanding and

concern, but I suspect for the — may I use the term — older

generations, environment is accepted as a given "Well, we are doing

what we do." My concern, and it's the concern that has been picked up

by the United Nations and other more futuristic organizations, is

simply that we have forgotten the agenda, and the agenda is as pressing

and as urgent as it ever was 20 years ago — indeed, more so.

Let me just share with the House, if I might, Madam Chairman, the

opening paragraph of the Brundtland report. Brundtland, of course, is

the president of Norway, who headed up the world commission alluded to

earlier, which produced the document called "Our Common Future — From

One Earth to One World: an Overview." The first paragraph in the report

is so significant, and it's the message that I think we have lost sight

of.

[12:15]

"In the middle of the twentieth century we saw our planet from space for the first time. Historians may

[ Page 1900 ]

eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on thought

than did the Copernican revolution of the sixteenth century, which upset the

human self-image by revealing that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

From space we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and

edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery and soil. Humanity's

inability to fit its activities into that pattern is changing planetary systems

fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards.

This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized and managed."

That's pretty powerful and emphatic stuff, written in 1987. We

could, of course — and I think the minister would agree with me — quote

half a dozen books written in the 1960s and the 1970s that made that

point precisely. The issue, though, is: why must the world commission

put it in such terms today? I suggest the reason is precisely the one I

was alluding to earlier: we have forgotten a bit; we have taken for

granted.

My conclusion in these remarks is simply that if there were ever an

area for the Ministry of Environment to challenge, to take on and to

embrace, it is surely a policy with a view to that future. It is not

just solving the problems in Kalamalka Lake or in the Okanagan Lakes;

not dealing with the fact that the Peerless Road incinerator in

Ladysmith isn't adequate and is low-tech as opposed to high-tech; not

worrying just about the fact that if we're trying to get a new waste

disposal site in Nanaimo, we'd better not put it too close to the lakes

in the area of extension, because we've already got a problem with

leachates in the water system, thank you very much; not just with those

immediate and pressing concerns that are legitimate and do indeed

require our attention, but rather with a view to saying: "Where will we

be a hundred years from now?" Because we must be guided by that sense

of hope; we must be guided by the sense that there is indeed a future,

and we have an obligation to protect and to work for that future.

I hope the ministry, then, will consider those things as part of its

mandate, and try to expand and enlarge its mandate so that it does

indeed become part of the job of government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I could make some responses. First of

all, to the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), I appreciate

your concern with respect to Wells Gray and the paving. Part of the

responsibility is mine, and others will be with the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways. I can tell you that when Mr. Johnson first

came to the ministry, he wanted to pave every park; he said it would

keep the dust down. But I had to talk him out of it.

On your proposition with respect to the Blue River path, the work

being done is consistent with our policy, and we will endeavour to

address that. That's a very good suggestion. With respect to Rose Hill

waterworks, it would be our wish that the city of Kamloops take that

utility over, but I don't think they're going to. There are some legal

problems too, I'll advise the committee. I don't know what else I can

say about it. Rose Hill is within the boundaries of Kamloops. We hope

that we can get this problem resolved, because it has been ongoing and

it is fraught with some problems. The fees are high, and it's really

not the best situation.

I'm pleased to hear the comments of the second member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick) with respect to Brundtland. That commission was in

Victoria last year, and the former minister entertained them and

explained what is done in this ministry.

I should tell the committee that there have been some comments about

assessment and planning and being proactive and that type of thing. We

do have 30 people in the assessment and planning branch of the

ministry. That's a sizeable commitment to that type of endeavour and to

ensuring that we're doing the right thing. I can also advise the

committee that a Minister of Environment is always on the Cabinet

Committee on Economic Development, and the deputy is on the deputies'

committee on economic development. So we're very much aware of all

economic development proposals that come to the government of British

Columbia, and we're very much a part of that planning process. As I

indicated earlier on the Utilities Commission, we are involved by

statute; we have to be there. At the cabinet level we're made aware of

any potential development in the province and play a great role in

assisting in that planning.

To the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), I don't think we have

reached a plateau. I recognize your concern. You and I went through the

days of reading Silent Spring , that type of thing, and we were made

aware. Society was made aware of the trouble we could get ourselves

into unless we changed our attitudes and woke up to what was happening

in the world around us. But I don't think there's a plateau. As a

matter of fact, maybe it's because I'm more sensitive to it, but I

think there's an ever-increasing awareness of the environment. Look at

the very heavily polluted industrial area of the eastern United States,

and at Love Canal and that type of predicament. Everyone realizes that

we just can't allow that to happen in British Columbia. We've got a

remarkable resource to protect.

So I don't think the plateau is there. I think our knowledge, our

concern, our sophistication in understanding the environment, is

increasing every day. If you and I go back, Mr. Member, to the other

movie.... In the college movement in 1973-74, when we were having our

fun with the respective debating teams, I wonder if "catalytic

converter" was a common expression, as it is today. Ecosystem: I don't

think we thought of those things. "Leachate" was not a commonly used

word. In other words, our whole vocabulary has changed. I know that as

a student of language you'll appreciate that a change in vocabulary

indicates a change of interest in what you're thinking about. Really,

there has been quite a remarkable increase in sophistication in the

attitudes of people, so I can't accept the plateau argument. I would

argue that the public is becoming more and more sophisticated every day

with respect to environmental issues.

MR. S.D. SMITH: Madam Chairman, I am truly well aware of all

the movement to and fro as to whether the appropriate authorities to

run that particular water system would be the city of Kamloops or the

local residents' association or the developer or the ministry. But my

point was this. The ministry, or at least the water comptroller's

office, has issued orders with respect to that water system,

instructing that certain things be done. Those orders are being defied.

They are not being complied with. The things that are being instructed

to be done by the force of that office are not being followed.

As a result of them not being followed, people's safety is in

jeopardy. There is a fire hazard in the area. There is legitimate

concern by the people living there. What is required to solve that

immediate problem is to enforce the

[ Page 1901 ]

orders that are being issued. One does not have to make any

decisions about the proprietorship of the water system in order to

enforce the orders that are issued by the comptroller.

We have statutory systems in this province to regulate, manage and

ensure that utilities provide the service for which they are getting

paid. That is not happening. It is not a question of who ought to or

ought not to own the water system. The water system is in place. There

have been certain problems over the last little while. The

comptroller's office has issued orders instructing that those problems

be corrected, and they are not being enforced. So I urge you to urge

your officials, wherever they may be, that if they are going to make

orders, for goodness' sake, enforce the blessed orders.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will advise the member that a note was

just passed to me from outside that staff are now taking all legal

acceptable action to provide a water supply to the customers. I don't

know what more I can say at this point, because I am not aware of

exactly what action they are taking. But given the emergent situation,

I can advise the committee that we are acting immediately to try to

address the problem of Rose Hill.

Parenthetically, I heard some heckling from the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who has reached that plateau in terms of

thinking what the Ministry of Environment does — one of the finer minds

of the 1960s. This is not just a water management ministry, Mr. Member

— $70 million of a $100 million budget is for air management,

recreational fish, pesticide control, waste management, wildlife

management, surveys and resource mapping, and parks and outdoor

recreation. Maybe you could look at the estimates, and have someone add

those numbers up for you, if you can't do it yourself. It will indicate

to you that there are many, many other factors, features and programs

in this ministry, and that water management and water resources are a

small part.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to, I guess early on, express my

frustration. All of the issues that have been raised here are very

important ones, and on the agenda that I am trying to follow, we will

get to some of those issues, although I recognize that I can't even

begin to touch on all of them.

Before leaving this initial comment, I'd like to ask the minister to

indicate where in his budget the information services or publicity

budget is. Several weeks ago in the House we heard one of the other

ministers referring to budgets in each and every ministry that deal

with information services for the government — that there isn't any one

overall budget; each ministry has information services.

From there I'd like to go on to the issue of South Moresby, and some

of the comments that the minister made. I'd like to start off by

quoting the report on our common future that we've been talking about

all morning, and the quote that I'd like to put on the record is this:

"The diversity of species is necessary for the formal

functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. The genetic

material in wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the

world economy in the form of improved crop species, new drugs and

medicines and raw materials for industry. But utility aside, there are

also moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic and purely scientific reasons

for conserving wild beings."

I want to use that as the opening statement for what is happening in

this province in regard to parks in general, and specifically on the

Moresby issue.

What we have been dealing with for the last couple of weeks is the

fumbling and the potential breakdown of negotiations with the federal

government over the national park reserve in South Moresby. People in

this province are very concerned and outraged. Yesterday I dealt with

several different phone calls in my office from people who were feeling

quite desperate at the potential loss of South Moresby.

[12:30]

The message the provincial government gave to the people of this

province with the boundary changes of our parks over the last couple of

months has indicated a total lack of respect for our parks system. When

a previous Minister of Environment makes jokes like,"Now we can

honestly say there is no mining in our parks," it is totally and

completely unacceptable. The reason there was no mining in the parks

was that they cut out the heart of parks throughout this province. We

will deal with that whole issue at some length.

The point I'm making is that the province has no confidence in this

ministry and its ability to preserve the heritage of the park in South

Moresby, when the minister himself and other members of the government

have talked about the ongoing logging and mining in South Moresby

should a provincial park be formed.

This government has shown that it does not have a commitment, from

day one, to a national park reserve. We had the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mr. Reid) going up to the Queen Charlottes and saying that he

didn't think there was much tourist potential up there because it

rained all the time, and it was very difficult to get to. Well, what

does the Minister of Tourism think a rain forest is if it doesn't rain

all the time? A couple of weeks ago we had the Minister of Environment

prepared to put a dollar sign on an endangered species; he was prepared

to issue permits that would allow people to go to Graham Island and

disturb each and every nest of falcons to get their ten falcons. We

were pleased to see that the minister backed away from that and denied

those permits, but again it indicates the government's commitment to

that park and to wilderness, and its commitment to a national park

reserve.

I am concerned that what is happening with the negotiations going on

with the federal government is that the provincial government is trying

to price itself right out of the ball park.

The government clearly has a very narrow perspective about what is

good for this province, what is good for the Ministry of Environment,

and the preservation of habitat and heritage in this province. I refer

to a statement made by the Minister of Forests, who talked in the last

question period about a potential $200 per cubic metre to the province

for economic activity. I just want to give some figures to the Minister

of Environment. These come from the Island Protection Society and can

be verified by a court case that was undertaken by them in the last few

years.

Western Forest Products suggested that South Moresby's supply was 15

to 20 percent of its pulp mill requirements, and that the viability of

those mills was in jeopardy if the area was made into a park. Yet

scrutiny of recent court affidavits — and this is the court case I

referred to — and examination of the South Moresby planning team report

show that South Moresby can only supply 6 percent of those mills'

requirements. In addition, those mills — Western Forest Products

[ Page 1902 ]

and its conglomerate — are exporting large quantities of raw logs

out of this province. In addition, Western Forest Products has

maintained, in public statements, that the timber from South Moresby is

worth $45 million annually, and that there is no way the province can

afford to compensate them for forgoing such benefits. Again quoting

from the Islands Protection Society, this is the most bizarre of all

Western Forest Products' claims. This works out to over $250 per cubic

metre of wood, when court affidavits clearly show that the value is $26

per cubic metre. In its own affidavit, Western Forest Products states

the value to be $57 per cubic metre.

I want to know from the Minister of Environment, since he has been

involved in negotiations, whose interest he is serving, why he is

upping the ante, why he is seeking compensation for these special

interests and ignoring the interests of the people of B.C., ignoring

the interests of over 2,000 Haida who have their ancestral home there.

I want the minister not only to tell us who he's representing, but I

want him also to explain how that compensation, when he talks about the

70 loggers and those jobs, will be shared. I want the minister to tell

us how he is committed to this program.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I bet I'm the only Socred cabinet minister ever to have Jack Munro on my side and Gorde Hunter not. I mean, that is curious.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Exactly. The only endangered species on South Moresby are the loggers, Madam Member. I'll say that for openers.

Now you ask about the $200 per cubic metre figure. That is a

standard evaluation made from the stump to the finished product, and my

source is Les Reed. If you have a better source than Professor Reed,

please bring it to the committee and we'll discuss it. I'm not going to

stand here and tell you that I'm in opposition to what Professor Reed

says with respect to the economic value of that resource.

You mentioned that you had lots of phone calls yesterday. So did I.

Did you explain, or can you explain, the boundaries of the Wilderness

Advisory Committee recommendation for a provincial park? Can you? I

don't know, and I doubt it, but I have a map which I will show you if

you wish to see it. It's quite remarkable. It maintains all the

features that we would want to have in a park. It's 85 percent of what

we had offered to Canada, and I have no problem defending it.

The 15 percent excluded are the high productivity islands, and

you're right, it's a rain forest. That's why trees grow. There's a

60-year cycle there, and we just can't give that resource away. We have

a responsibility to the taxpayers of British Columbia; not a

responsibility to any special interest group, but a responsibility to

the taxpayers of British Columbia. Further, we have a responsibility to

a tree farm licence which was given by the government of British

Columbia, and we're not in the business of going around breaking

contracts willy-nilly. You offer a contract, you stick with it.

I'd like to speak briefly to the falcons. First of all, that chick

hunt was not to take place in a park; it was on Graham Island.

Secondly, it was to be supervised by conservation officers and

officials from the ministry. Seventeen nests would be inspected, and in

the case where there were three chicks to a nest, one would be taken.

Those were the rules. If there were not three chicks in the nest, then

no chick would be taken. The reason for that is because quite often in

a three chick nest, one of the chicks will die. Do you understand that?

If there are two, you leave them alone.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to see you backed away from it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, sure. There was a biological reason

for that. Because of the human presence, because of the anticipated

commotion that could occur, one had to recognize that it was not the

best biology in the world to have that. But that's not from taking

chicks; it's because of the human presence.

I want to further advise the member that the weekend of June 5 is

sort of the window of opportunity, if you're looking at this type of

thing. Next year I have instructed staff to meet with the falcon

industry, the Haida and the people who are concerned about this type of

thing, and if we can get some sort of agreement on taking chicks, we

will. If we can't get an agreement with all the constituent players,

then there won't be any falcon chicks taken. But I do recognize — and

I'll tell the committee — that this one was done in just a bit of

haste. I think that we could have handled it better by having a far

earlier consultation with all the constituent groups. That is my plan

for next year. I give you my commitment that if we don't reach

agreement in our February meetings — or whenever they occur, but well

before June — then we will not proceed with that "downie hunt." That's

what they're called, by the way: "downies," because they have down.

I think that explains it for me — for this point. I am back to South

Moresby. I have no problem with the British Columbia position. We've

simply taken the stance that we're