B.C. GETS SAY IN SALMON FISHERY
- Details
-
Hits: 1240
VICTORIA – The only time people can expect a good deal from their governments is when an election looms.
Once elected, governments feel free to dump on us. They hike taxes and user fees with abandon, slash social programs with impunity, safe in the knowledge that we can’t turf the rascals out for the next three to four years.
But hey, we take what we can get during that short time leading up to an election. And thanks to Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s determination to wrestle another mandate from voters, British Columbia just got a pretty good deal from Ottawa.
For the first time in history, British Columbia, will now play a role in the future of the west coast salmon fishery.
While opinions are split on just how effective a role B.C. will be able to assume in the management of the resource, most experts agree that anything is better than the status quo.
Here’s what we got: A Canada-B.C. council of ministers will be established to co-ordinate salmon resources and habitat, a fisheries renewal advisory board, comprising representatives from all stakeholders, will be set up, and the two governments will reduce overlap and duplication in the management of the fishery resource.
True, Ottawa is still in the driver’s seat, but B.C. now firmly occupies the passenger seat, making it infinitely more difficult for the federal government to do as it pleases.
The deal isn’t retroactive, which means the Mifflin Plan to reduce the size of the fishing fleet is still in place. Initial reaction to the new deal was one of cautious optimism.
Premier Glen Clark said the agreement marks "a turning point in the history of the resource." From now on, he said, "no major decision regarding this vital resource will be made without the direct involvement of the people closest to the fish: the people up and down our coast in fishing communities, in First Nations communities, in the sport fishery and in the commercial fishery."
One of the people pretty close to the fish is John Murray, president of the B.C. Gillnetters Association and head of the Coalition of Concerned Fishermen.
"I like it, but I’m not quite ecstatic. It reaffirms the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ position as the final authority, which is important. And it cleans up the overlap between the governments on protecting habitat," he said.
Jim Fulton, head of the Suzuki Foundation, says a major factor in the agreement is that it opens fisheries management to more public scrutiny and makes scientific data available to all interested parties.
British Columbia, Fulton said, emerges with greater "moral authority" and the ability to use public pressure to influence the federal fisheries department.
"It’s the first time in this century that Ottawa has listened to the pleas from British Columbia. This is an immensely good document," he added.
The B.C. government would, of course, have been happier had Ottawa got out of the fisheries business altogether, but perhaps it’s better this way for all concerned.
Bruce Hill, past president of the Steelhead Society of B.C. certainly is pleased that Ottawa still has the primary responsibility for the resource because he believes B.C. isn’t capable of running the fishery.
On the whole, however, the agreement appears to be welcome news to both politicians and stakeholders. The very fact that Ottawa is willing to share a previously fiercely-guarded jurisdiction is encouraging because it proves that Canadian federalism is capable of change.
Just how well the agreement will work won’t be known for quite some time. Meanwhile, British Columbia will at least have some say over one of its most important natural resources.
And that’s got to be better than nothing.
GOOD SHOT, GORDON
- Details
-
Hits: 1485
VICTORIA – Hey, sometimes it pays to be patient. This piece was to be all about the B.C. Liberals not getting heir act together and failing to be an effective opposition.
Then, surprise, surprise, the Liberals struck pay dirt. After a couple of weeks of throwing cotton balls at the NDP, the opposition finally managed to stage a lively question period that left the government slightly red-faced.
Why, the Liberals wanted to know, was the government subsidizing U.S.-based multinational fast-food giants such as Wendy’s, Macdonald’s, A & W, and Tim Horton’s?
Sounds pretty far-fetched, particularly when it involves a government that’s supposed to have a hate-on for multinational outfits, paying minimum wages to oppressed workers. But it’s true. Well, in a way.
Under its Destinations program, designed to give young people entry-level jobs in the tourism industry, the government is paying part of the wages for youngsters hired by these giant fast-food outlets.
The Liberals had an absolute heyday, reciting the profits made by these multinationals, like three-quarters of a billion in the case of Wendy’s. Why, these behemoths are almost as bad as the banks. Worse, actually, because the banks are at least Canadian.
Employment and Investment Minister Dan Miller tried his best to counter the Liberals’ offensive, but being a little short of real live ammunition, he substituted substance with bombast, shouting his disgust with "this party which consistently opposed every job-creation issue" the government initiated.
He also explained that the government offered the same deal to any employer. No discrimination here against billion-dollar, union-busting multinational corporations.
Unfortunately he accusation of subsidizing U.S. business giants with our tax dollars isn’t the only problem. There are indications that a lot of companies that take advantage of the wage-sharing program first fire employees to make room for new ones that qualify for the subsidy.
On the other hand, the program has given thousands of youngsters the opportunity to find level-entry jobs, and many have since gone on to better paying jobs, which is something you didn’t hear the Liberals say. Still, thanks to the Liberals’ offensive, the NDP had a bad hair day.
For the opposition, it was about time. Ever since the legislature resumed sitting, the Liberals had been floundering. Question periods, which are the opposition’s best chance to inflict damage on the government, had been boring affairs. Why, is anybody’s guess.
The Liberals have got the numbers to get the government on the run and keep it there. With 33 members against the NDP’s 39, and nothing to do but harass the government, you’d think the opposition would have been on a roll from day one. Instead, they kept stumbling.
Take the foot-in-the-mouth gig by Kevin Krueger, the opposition’s gambling critic. Lambasting the government recently for its plans to expand gambling in B.C., Krueger looked for all the world a man, happy in the knowledge that he just delivered a good blow.
His warm and fuzzy feeling wasn’t to last very long. Miller, the government’s man in charge of gambling, repelled the attack by pointing out that Krueger had been in his office recently, personally lobbying for a constituent who wants to print lottery tickets.
The contract is worth about $12 million a year. Over six years – the length of the contract – that amounts to the tidy sum of $60 million.
Not only did Krueger lobby on behalf of the constituent, but he asked Miller to award the contract without getting competing bids, which is contrary to a major plank in the Liberal platform.
Did Krueger really think he could get away with publicly criticizing the government for its gambling policies, while privately trying to steer lottery business toward a pal of his?
I’m sure Campbell breathed a sigh of relief when the Big Mac Attack went so smoothly.
FISHERIES SURVEY YIELDS SURPRISING RESULTS
- Details
-
Hits: 2522
VICTORIA – Asking the public what its opinion is on a certain subject is an iffy business, because the answers can be strongly influenced by the way the questions are asked.
One of the more odious examples of trying to extract the desired answer by phrasing the question in a deliberately misleading way was the last Quebec sovereignty referendum, which made absolutely no mention of separation.
Still, properly asked, a question put to the public, it is believed, can yield important information about how people feel about a certain issue which, in turn, enables governments to develop policies the public will support.
Well, a recent survey of public awareness of and attitudes toward he B.C. salmon fishery, its problems and possible solutions, should make governments think twice before spending more money on opinion polls.
The survey was commissioned by the B.C. Fisheries Secretariat and conducted by Environics Research Group Limited.
The objectives of the study were: to determine how concern over the survival of the salmon fishery ranks as a resource issue among British Columbians; to measure awareness of current efforts to make the salmon fishery sustainable; to find out whom British Columbians blame for problems with B.C. salmon stocks; to determine what steps should be taken to make the salmon fishery sustainable and to determine attitudes toward he federal Mifflin Plan.
Environics surveyed 703 British Columbians, including 173 residents of the coastal and northern Vancouver Island region. A sample of this size yields results considered accurate within plus or minus 3.7 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
The first thing the B.C. government can learn from the results of the survey is that it can’t depend on public awareness to formulate policies, at least not any policies regarding fisheries.
Only about nine per cent of British Columbians rank fisheries, including shrinking salmon stock, as high on their list of environmental issues, compared with 33 per cent who expressed alarm over forestry-related matters.
You’d have expected more public awareness of the B.C. fishery problems, considering the publicity surrounding the issue. Then again, global warming, an issue not to be trifled with, was mentioned by only one per cent.
Once the pollsters zeroed in the fishery issue, 63 per cent of those surveyed said they believed the B.C. salmon fishery was in poor shape. Ten per cent thought it was in good shape. They probably don’t read the papers or watch the news.
Another zinger came when people were asked in connection with which other issue they had read, seen or heard about B.C. salmon during the past few months.
After all the kerfuffle and publicity surrounding the proposed reduction of the B.C. fishing fleet, only three per cent of the respondents credited the (federal Fisheries Minister Fred) Mifflin Plan with having brought the salmon fisheries issue to their attention. Another three per cent said they had picked up something about salmon in connection with fish farming.
After being told about 12 different possible threats to B.C.’s salmon fishery, a whopping 71 per cent said American over-fishing was a very major or somewhat major threat. Pollution was chosen by 67 per cent. Yankee-bashing is alive and well.
Fifty-three per cent said provincial government mismanagement was a very major or somewhat major threat to the salmon fishery which, considering that the province has next to no jurisdiction over fishery, doesn’t speak too well of the level of public awareness.
Based on the fact that more than half of those surveyed blamed the B.C. government for the mess the salmon fishery is in, you’d think that giving the province more responsibility over the resource would be the furthest thing from people’s minds. Not so.
Fifty-one per cent want the provincial government to have total or primary responsibility, while another 36 per cent want equal power-sharing with the Feds. Only three per cent want the province to have no say at all. Well, at least the majority got its wish. A new federal-provincial deal, just signed, gives B.C. a lot more say over fisheries.
With goofy results like that, you tell me if we should spend money on surveys.
THE NEXT BIG DEBATE: FISH FARMING
- Details
-
Hits: 2462
VICTORIA – Fish farming will soon join forestry as a battle ground between government, industry and environmentalists.
A comprehensive Environmental Assessment Report on the state of fish farming in British Columbia is to come out in June, but the battle lines are already being drawn.
In anticipation of the report, the David Suzuki Foundation recently ran full-page newspaper ads, warning of the dangers of industrial fish farming.
"Have we learned nothing from Norway’s $100 million salmon catastrophe?" the headline asked.
"Industrial fish farming poses a grave and immediate danger to our wild salmon stocks. Norway ignored scientific advice and will pay the price in perpetuity. Will B.C. repeat Norway’s mistake?" the ad went on.
In Norway, imported Atlantic salmon smolts infected that country’s wild stock with lethal epidemic diseases, and Norwegian sea farms were forced to slaughter their stock at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million.
Entire rivers have been poisoned in attempts to eradicate the new diseases, and Norway’s wild salmon stocks are perhaps permanently compromised.
Fisheries Minister Corky Evans isn’t unaware of the potential dangers of fish farming, but he also believes he has a responsibility to promote this growing industry, albeit with the proper safeguards.
"Fish farming got off to a bad start in B.C.," Evans told me. "First promoted by the Vander Zalm government, the new industry attracted investors who were more interested in getting rich quick than in biology."
And while he doesn’t want to down-play the potential problems, Evans believes fish farming is essential to provide the protein the world needs. Shrimp farming, he says, is a huge industry in South East Asia.
Other nations, like Chile, he says, are very active in the fish farming industry, but they have an advantage because they don’t have indigenous wild stocks.
Evans says the "get-rich-quick boys" have largely left the industry because increased production of farmed fish has resulted in a corresponding price drop, taking the Vancouver Stock Exchange aspect out of the equation. As a result, the industry is becoming more environmentally responsible.
The Suzuki Foundation proposes 12 "common-sense protections" against any potential Norway-like disaster in British Columbia.
Among them are replacing open salmon net cages with closed systems, raising only native salmon, allowing no fish sewage to enter the ocean, monitoring drug use and the spread of drug-resistant diseases.
Further proposals include requiring the industry to develop site-reclamation plans carry full insurance in the event of disease epidemics, genetic pollution, and other catastrophes.
Suzuki, probably the world’s most prominent environmentalist, says fish effluent is a major problem. The combined effluent entering the ocean from British Columbia’s fish farms every day, he says, is equivalent to that of a city of 500,000.
Mind you, Suzuki may find it difficult to get anywhere on this point, considering that Greater Victoria, which has a population of about 500,000, does dump its sewage into the ocean.
The fish farming industry is undoubtedly here to stay, but the discussion that will follow the release of the report in June will be every bit as acrimonious as that surrounding forestry issues. And just like the forestry debate, the fish farming controversy will be with us for some time to come.
Find out what Beyer had to say
Election are always a hot topic
When is the Budget not a hot search