Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 9 -- Monday, April 8, 2002 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Private Members' Statements		2543
	Healthy hearts R. Masi Hon. K. Whittred Ferry service to northern communities B. Belsey Hon. J. Reid Woodlots R. Visser P. Bell A family of Games R. Harris Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills		2551
	Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill M201) J. MacPhail Hon. J. van Dongen M. Hunter

Point of Privilege		2558
	J. Kwan

R. Masi: It is my pleasure today in the House to speak about a wonderful program which I have been a part of for over two years. It's the YMCA Healthy Heart Program. This program has made a big difference in my life. It has helped me develop a healthier lifestyle through education and exercise.

Since 1976 the Healthy Heart Program has been helping cardiovascular patients as well as those who are at high risk of developing heart disease. It provides structured cardiac rehabilitation and risk-reduction programs for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The Healthy Heart Program is individualized to meet specific needs. It includes patient education, nutrition counselling, weight management, assistance for diabetes management, and resources for stress management and smoking cessation.

Healthy Heart is designed for those with a history of heart troubles and emphasizes improved quality of life in prevention of heart problems. The program works to provide a safe and gradual progression in exercise, resulting in improved cardiovascular function. The program is more than just exercising and nutrition. Healthy Heart also provides support for stress and anxiety that can accompany heart disease. Healthy Heart is just one of the many excellent programs provided by the local YMCA which improve quality of life for residents. The Healthy Heart Program is one that I am particularly close to, but there are many other excellent program offerings.

We are all familiar with the YMCA organization, but I have some facts about it you might not know. The YMCA is an organization which is aimed primarily at young people. Over half of the 50,000 people in the YMCA are under 21. The YMCA is working to build better communities by keeping people active and involved. Last year the YMCA celebrated its 150th anniversary in Canada. The YMCA has a long history in Canada. Indeed, there was a YMCA in Canada even before it was Canada. The YMCA has been teaching swimming since the early pools were built and is renowned for its basketball and volleyball intramurals. Since the early days settlement services and language training have been a big focus of the YMCA, and today it is the largest provider of non-profit child care.

Over the years the contributions of the YMCA have been quiet and constant. The YMCA is an organization which most British Columbians have come to take for granted. Most of us have grown up taking swimming lessons at the Y or playing basketball or squash. We've known about summer day camps. We've played racquetball and we've played volleyball. It's a great place to meet people, especially for those who are new to the community. The slogan of the YMCA is: "We build strong kids, strong families, strong communities." This is more than just a slogan; it is the heart of the YMCA program.

I'm proud to speak today about a new facility for the Surrey YMCA, which is currently under construction. The new YMCA is going up on the corner of Highway 10 and Panorama Drive in Surrey. Of course, this is a regional facility, and it will serve Surrey, Delta and Langley. Donations from Surrey, Delta and the lower mainland community have helped make this new YMCA a reality. The Building Strong Communities Capital Campaign team raised over $5.7 million for the construction of the new YMCA. I am just one of a number of YMCA enthusiasts who will benefit from this new building. The YMCA currently has a large membership, and with the new facilities there will be room for plenty more.

It is an exciting time for those who have donated time, money and energy to make the new YMCA building a great place to stay active and healthy. I would like to commend all the individuals who work hard to support the YMCA and all its programs.

Hon. K. Whittred: It's my pleasure to be able to respond to the member for Delta North this morning, and I'm so pleased he was able to bring us information from a very personal perspective about the value of preventive programs and particularly the kinds of programs that are offered by the wonderful organization that most of us simply call the Y.

I thought I would take the opportunity, in this short time I have to respond, to point out two or three other areas where similar types of community programs are particularly valuable. As the members of the House know, Mr. Speaker, my particular responsibility leads me to deal often with the most senior members of our society. Two illnesses that greatly impact our seniors population are osteoporosis and arthritis, both of which are in fact related diseases and which have huge effects upon a person's mobility.

Something we've learned about over recent years is the value of exercise, which is very close to the kind of program that was mentioned in terms of the Healthy Heart. For example, we've learned that no matter how elderly a person is, they benefit from exercise in terms of improving osteoporosis — actually lifting weights, weight-bearing exercise. Walking is in fact one of the most valuable preventive and ongoing programs to deal with osteoporosis.

I had the pleasure very recently to be visiting a seniors residence and was told the story of a woman who was 103 years old. She had entered the residence in a wheelchair, and this particular residence took great pride in its personal training program for its residents. After a period of training this woman, who was 103, is

actually back walking, without the benefit of either walker or cane. That is a very wonderful recommendation and shows us the value, sometimes, of very simple things — in this case, simply exercising.

We have learned of the value of what is often called aquacise, basically swimming, in the treatment of arthritis to not only reduce pain but increase mobility. It has become one of the most effective treatments of arthritis and keeping people in the community mobile.

Another area that has been much e news lately refers to the increase in diabetes. Once again, we know that community programs such as the one described by the member previously can be perhaps more effective as a preventive measure against diabetes than anything that we can do medically. The main causes of diabetes are in fact obesity and poor nutrition, and those two things go hand in hand. We have been reminded recently of what some people are calling an epidemic in obesity among children and a great fear that this is going to contribute greatly to increased diabetes as they grow older. In fact, it's viewed so seriously that the federal Minister of Health, Anne McLellan, has recently put out guidelines for activity for children, similar to Canada's food rules.

Once again, we see another illness where community programs that focus on wellness, exercise, good nutrition — all of those things that the member mentioned around the Healthy Heart Program — can certainly benefit people suffering from other kinds of illnesses.

I want to thank the member, Mr. Speaker, for bringing this Healthy Heart program to our attention this morning. It's my hope that programs like that will expand into some of the other areas in an even broader way than what I have mentioned. I think it's very, very useful for us to focus on wellness. I would hope that the Y and other organizations will in fact pick up on this model and really contribute to our communities in preventing illness. Let's keep people healthy rather than always be focusing on treating the illness.

R. Masi: I certainly would concur with the words of the hon. minister. As one of her most senior members of society, of course, I have to follow the instructions of the hon. minister so that I can keep some kind of reasonable health level. I might point out to the members that walking, as the minister points out, is an excellent exercise. Those of you who live in the James Bay area should try walking around by the sea wall there. It's a wonderful experience. Get up around six or seven in the morning, and you'll find lots of company out there, lots of seniors out there. It'd be a great thing for everybody to do that.

I have, as I mentioned before, personal knowledge of the YMCA Healthy Heart Program, as I've been a participant for over two years. From a personal perspective I have found the program very well tailored for individual needs. Each person in the program is made to feel most welcome not only by the very excellent group leaders that we have, but each person operates on a highly individualized program, and great care is taken by the group leaders.

Our particular group leaders — I should mention them here — Kristen and Trina, two young women who have recently graduated from university, monitor and motivate the participants. As well, program manager Gabriele Scully provides exciting and well-directed leadership to a very growing and vital program. In addition to the group leaders, I might point out, who show exceptional care and motivation, a very strong sense of security is provided by the mandatory presence of a registered nurse at all sessions.

Mr. Speaker, in my experience the YMCA Healthy Heart Program provides not only a scientifically based physical program but a very uplifting and fun-filled life experience as well.

B. Belsey: I would like to bring the attention of the House to the rise and decline of many coastal communities. In the seven minutes I have to make this presentation, I would like to take everyone in the House on a journey in both time and space. In time this journey will start in 1952 and will end 50 years later in 2002. In space our journey will take us on a return trip to Prince Rupert. We'll travel north on a CN-CP motor vessel, the Princess Norah, a 200-passenger and 40-car, steel-hulled ferry. Because we're leaving 50 years ago, we'll leave the port of Vancouver at about 10 p.m. and take advantage of the comfortable bunks until first light.

The first community we're going to see on the starboard side is the second-largest community on the central coast, called Namu. Namu is a small canning and whale-processing community. Those living here are primarily involved in fishing and the process industry. The abundant supply of sockeye, pink, spring and coho salmon in the local waters have kept many families very busy for many years. In addition, Namu is strategically situated on the migratory path of the great, giant grey whales and their smaller relatives, the killer whale.

The name Namu and whales may ring a bell, as the first captive whale in the Vancouver aquarium was named Namu after the community near which it was captured. Our stop will be just long enough to off-load and load passengers, freight and supplies for points north. Heading northwest, we enter the Lama Passage, and on the left we should see the remains of a deserted village called Old Town. This is the home of the Heiltsuk first nation. In 1890 the community moved north approximately three kilometres to the present site, perched in a sheltered cove of Campbell Island, called Waglisla or Bella Bella. This was a fur-trading community and sold pelts to the Hudson's Bay Company at Fort McLoughlin. Today, in 1952, it is one of the largest first nations communities participating in logging and fishing. The cannery continues to be the major employer during this hectic fishing season.

Leaving Bella Bella, we head almost due east to another community called Shearwater located on the northwest side of Denny Island. This community was established by the Royal Canadian Air Force as an important reconnaissance base because of the strategic location in the protected harbour. After the war, Andrew Widsten, a former officer in the RCAF, along with two others, purchased this entire facility. We will stop here and drop off equipment and materials required to support the marine repair facility that continues to service vessels plying these waters.

Next we head up Cousins Inlet to another large community — probably the largest one on the coast — called Ocean Falls. As we round the last point in Cousins Inlet, we begin to smell the sulphite pulp mill known as Ocean Falls. Northerners often refer to this smell as "the smell of money." The surrounding forests and fresh water supply the area with the many raw products it needs to operate the mill.

In this community stands one of the largest three-storey hotels ever built outside the lower mainland, and the community has a full-size hospital, swimming pool, general store and school. The community has its own hydroelectric power supplying service to both the community and the pulp mill. One of the first things we'll notice as we approach the dock in this community are the rolls of paper that are prepared for shipping around British Columbia, Canada and the rest of the world. Here we drop off passengers and freight and pick up paper destined for distribution to the port of Prince Rupert.

We leave Ocean Falls and head back down Cousins Inlet to a community called China Hat, named after an island shaped liked a China hat. The family that first formed here were Tsimshian first nations and founded this community in 1870 to take advantage of the increased number of steam-driven paddle-wheelers passing through Finlayson Channel. This family recognized the need of the passing paddle-wheelers for fresh water and cut, split, dry wood. This community was built around servicing these vessels. In 1992 the community changed the name to Klemtu, and fishing became the number one employer.

The largest building we see is the China Hat Cannery, almost in the centre of the village. Some 200 people live in this first nations community, and virtually their entire income is founded around the lucrative fishing industry. My wife often reflects on her summer holidays from school in this community, when she used to work in the cannery at Klemtu. This cannery processed many thousands of pieces of fish landed during the fishing season. We'll stop here and off-load passengers and freight for the cannery and pick up canned fish products for shipping through the port of Prince Rupert.

Our next stop will be Butedale, perched on the northeast flank of Princess Royal Island. This is also a thriving fishing community. The cannery employs people from up and down the coast during the summer months, processing the abundant runs of herring and salmon that exist in the surrounding waters. Butedale, like Ocean Falls, has its own hydro-generating facilities to supply the community and the cannery. The ferry stops routinely in the summer months to replenish supplies, deliver machinery parts and pick up canned products.

After leaving Butedale, we head north straight to Prince Rupert up one of the most interesting passageways known as Grenville Channel, a large, narrow body of water approximately 90 kilometres long and world-renowned for its spectacular scenery. In many areas through the channel, the mountains rise straight out of the water for several thousand feet into the air. In other areas we can see the rolling landscapes of the forest, with some signs of logging where areas have been logged off and other areas where loggers continue to work.

We often see salmon jumping, and the eagles diving into the water and flying off with the unsuspecting fish they find swimming near the surface. Whales can be seen passing close by our ferry, sometimes rolling and swimming through the kelp beds and eating the herring roe that they are able to knock free. Finally, we make it into Prince Rupert harbour, where we'll tie up and off-load our passengers, our freight, our vehicles and the supplies destined for areas close to Prince Rupert.

Hon. J. Reid: This area of British Columbia is certainly a very rich area, as the member has described to us. It's rich in history. While he starts his commentary in the 1950s, certainly the history of the area and the adventures that took place go back much earlier than that.

There is a large number of books written by authors who grew up in the north coast area that would be a benefit for all of us to read, and certainly people who live in cities, to try to understand the life in the north coast, the richness of the life and also the incredible spirit that's required to have established life there — the work ethic, the farms that were established, the communities established in wilderness. While it's an adventurous life, it's certainly a very challenging life. It has benefited all of British Columbia both in its establishment of B.C. and in the logging industry and the fishing industry, contributing so much to who we are today.

It's important to look at that area and look at the many changes that have taken place. As government, it's important to remember that decisions that impact these communities need to be sustainable decisions and how frustrating it is for communities who are faced with radical change within a fairly short period of time and are having to try to adjust to that. That can be compounded when decisions that might be made by government might not be sustainable in the long run, which puts them once again at another disadvantage. Just an example of that would be route 40, which the member has been talking about.

Ferry routes. We have a modern-day route that was put into place a few years ago without a business plan,

without a concept of how that route would be sustainable. The people who are hard-impacted in these communities, who are looking at ways to make those changes — ways to adapt, ways to invest in their future — were led to believe they were going to have another service available to them that they could build on. These people are very determined people, and they do have a real desire to stay and live in the coastal communities.

When decisions are made that aren't sustainable in the long term, it's the communities who end up paying that price and bearing that cost. That's a caution we have to take into account. We have to be very concerned and very careful that we're doing what we can to help the people, but helping them in a way that's not just for one year or two years, and to make sure that we work with them and make decisions with them that are going to produce long-term, sustainable decisions they need for their communities.

I have only three minutes in this portion of private members' statements, but that's not too bad, because an awful lot of these communities are either abandoned or no longer serviced.

We leave Prince Rupert at seven in the morning and head back down. It's a 17-hour journey to Port Hardy. Heading south, we travel back down the Grenville Channel and can see no signs of logging anymore. There has been a great working relationship for the last 25 years between the forest industry and the logging industry to reserve and protect the incredible scenery along that passage.

With luck, we spot black bears — possibly a black bear with a recessive gene, which is what some people like to call the spirit bear or the Kermode bear. We often see whales navigating these inside waters. We get lucky and watch killer whales chasing salmon, as evidenced by the salmon jumping all around. Right after, a whale surfaces. Off the ship's bow we see dolphins swimming in and out of the pressure wave. They seem to appear from nowhere and travel in schools, taking turns swimming in and out of the bow's wake.

At Butedale we slow down as we pass the community, in respect of the dock facilities. Everything is closed here and has been closed for several years. Only a caretaker and a few hardy souls remain.

Although we will not be stopping at Klemtu, it is obvious that at the first nations village they are very busy. The community is thriving. A fish plant is in full operation with 50 employees from the village processing over six million pieces of salmon last year. All of these fish are from farms, produced through a joint venture with Marine Harvest Canada. Fish farms have resulted in one person in every household finding employment in the community.

Carrying on, we pass Bella Bella, another community with a closed fish plant. This community, like most of the other communities, is suffering from record-high unemployment. Some coastal communities are experiencing unemployment in excess of 95 percent.

We pass Shearwater, now a popular fishing resort and marine repair facilities. These facilities are still owned by the same family: Craig Widsten, the son of the original RCAF officer.

We are not going to Ocean Falls, as this community is now closed. Some of the homes have been bought by American sport fishermen who came here during the summer to enjoy the sport fisheries. The hydro plant still operates, providing power to Bella Bella and Shearwater. Interesting — the shell of the famous hotel remains. However, the windows are removed and the doors are off. We arrive in Port Hardy at approximately 10 p.m.

As we have seen on this trip, most coastal communities are either suffering from high unemployment or are almost ghost towns now. Overfishing has wiped out the main source of employment. What is left in coastal communities is destined to be wiped out because of special interest groups that want to ban logging, ban fishing, create parks, stop mining, stop guiding, stop hunting.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite everyone in the House to take advantage and travel on route 10 and route 40 sometime this summer and enjoy what's left of coastal communities.

R. Visser: I wanted to take some time this morning and speak about something that I believe has contributed a great deal to the forest industry of British Columbia and has even greater potential to contribute more over the long term, and that's the Ministry of Forests woodlot program.

There are currently 812 woodlot licences in this provinces. They're small, by and large family-owned operations that have an allowable annual cut of 1.15 million cubic metres a year, or only 1.5 percent of the provincial total.

While the development of the woodlot program dates back to the late 1940s as a method of encouraging farmers to realize the value and potential of their forested lands, the growth and expansion of this type of tenure has been inconsistent at best, despite the widespread public appeal of the program.

Peter Pearse, the oft-quoted resource economist in British Columbia, has summarized the objectives of this program as fourfold: to increase the amount of private land under sustained-yield management; to improve the productivity of small parcels of private and Crown forest land; to increase the opportunity for individuals and small enterprises to participate in forest management; and to encourage small-scale, locally based forestry and local opportunities for employment and income.

These four objectives, all largely met by existing tenures, are worthy of our consideration as policy-makers. According to the Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations, there are 519,000 hectares of

Crown land, complemented by 92,500 hectares of private land, under the sustained-yield management regime.

To give you an idea of the size of these operations, the Ministry of Forests current guidelines call for roughly 400 hectares of land in a woodlot on the coast and 600 hectares of land in the interior. These sizes, while arbitrary, provide for a manageable unit for a small-scale operation, yet provide for enough allowable annual cut to make it economically viable.

Simply stated, these 812 small forest companies, owned by families across this province, are solely responsible for the productivity of their woodlots. And while it's nice and even pastoral to sit here and think of someone walking their land, tending the forest, growing their trees, carefully selecting the ones that will be harvested — all the while recognizing the community's values of environmental stewardship — it's important for us to remember that these tenures fulfil an important public function: they're businesses. They produce fibre for the market, and in many cases, long before the tree is cut, the log has a home. The maximum amount of value the tenure can realize will be gained from that log. Long before that tree is cut, he or she has another plan about what will replace it, how fast the sapling that is going to replace it will grow and how those people on that land can generate faster, better growth and more yield from their 400 hectares.

All of this begs the question: why are there not more woodlots in this province, especially since every government in the last few years has committed to doubling the number of woodlots and every tenure put up for offer has six proposals in response? There's a number of reasons, and these are in no specific order. Much of the land base is encumbered by one form of tenure or another already. It's hard to find land that is not tied up in a tree farm licence, a forest licence, a small business timber sale program or some other covenant.

There is also the resolution of first nations land claims, as woodlots are most viable in the more productive forest lands of the province, and many of these lands are closer to communities and near core treaty settlement lands. Having said that, it's also important to recognize that the woodlot program is also consistent with the goals and objectives of treaty settlement and fostering economic development within first nations communities.

Thus, it has been difficult to find unencumbered land required for the program. It has been difficult to sustain the political and bureaucratic will it takes to make the tenure awards. Frankly, I think governments have simply lost their focus along the way.

While I'm sure we can all agree that increasing the number of woodlots is a worthy public policy objective, we have a great deal of work to do with those who currently manage them. Like all of the efforts our government is undertaking, we must look carefully at the regulatory environments the woodlots now work under. Currently, they're required to do the same detailed planning work in development, management, logging, road building, fuel storage and all those other things. They all have to be done by professional foresters and engineers in the same way with the same paperwork, the same approval process, the same access process that the large major forest tenures have to do, even though their cut for that year may be a thousand times greater.

We must be very sensitive to their concerns, as the onerous burden is especially acute in poor market times such as we're currently experiencing. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I'm a big fan of small-scale forestry in this province. We, as policy-makers, have to pay particular attention to the entrepreneurial and spirited energy that surrounds this type of tenure. I think it can play a tremendous role in redefining our relationship between the forests, our communities, the environment and our economy.

P. Bell: I'd like to thank my colleague from North Island for the opportunity to address some of the issues he mentions with regards to woodlots. I, as well, am a huge fan of the woodlot program and believe it accomplishes a tremendous amount in terms of our overall objectives in forestry management in the province.

I'd like to start out, if I may, by reading from the ministry's service plans for the 2002-03 fiscal year in terms of its overall goals and objectives. The first goal of the ministry service plan is to have sustainable forest resources; to ensure that forest and range resources are protected, managed and improved on a sustainable basis; also to ensure performance standards for managing timber, forage, biodiversity, water, soil, forest habitat and scenic resources are established and enforced.

The second overall objective of the ministry service plans is sustainable forest benefits. Those include enhanced opportunities to generate wealth from forest and range resources, maintain and expand international markets for British Columbia forest products, ensure the public receives fair value for the use of its forest and range resources now and in the future and, finally, to strengthen and support the competitiveness of the forest industry.

The final objective of the ministry is effective, sustainable forests — to be an effective, sustainable forest manager. Those items include achieving a successful transformation of the organization so that the Forest Service has the right people with the right skills to fulfil their mandate, regularly assessing the performance of the organization and incorporating a culture of positive change and, thirdly and finally, ensuring that the public has confidence in their forest and range resources being well managed.

Well, I would submit to you that the woodlot program accomplishes all of the goals of the Ministry of Forests already, just by the nature of the program.

The member for North Coast speaks of the origins of the woodlot program. I find it quite interesting that it started as far back as the 1940s. I'd like to share with you an experience I had with some personal friends

who are woodlot owners. I'm speaking of Myles, John and Esther Perry of the Prince George area. They are farmers located some 30 miles outside of Prince George, and they were awarded two woodlots in the early years of the program.

These folks are really salt-of-the-earth-type folks. They're folks that understand the land, nurture the land. They know every tree on their woodlot.

I spent some time working with Myles Perry a few years ago, and at 85 years old, he was still out working his woodlot actively. It was interesting. We were doing some work for them, and Myles disappeared off into the bush around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Well, that would concern me — for an 85-year-old to go wandering around in three feet of snow in the bush in the middle of winter, but because he knew his land so well, he knew exactly where he was going. It would be like the member for Vancouver-Burrard wandering around downtown Vancouver. Well, Myles Perry would have got lost in downtown Vancouver, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard most certainly would have got lost in the woodlot.

I'd like to just finish up by talking about the transition functions of the ministry. There are four key components of the transition functions that I'd like to mention: land use planning and forest inventory, forest road and bridge maintenance, forest health and productivity improvements, and recreation maintenance. All those items are going to be transitioned to the folks that control the forest industry. We're already doing that in the woodlot program. Those individuals are already responsible for those specific areas.

I would submit to you that the woodlot program really has accomplished the objectives of the Ministry of Forests. Certainly, I would encourage the Ministry of Forests to pursue the road of expanded woodlots, as the member for North Coast has suggested. I think, from a long-term perspective, we will find that woodlots certainly will achieve the objectives we are looking for in British Columbia.

R. Visser: As the member for North Island, I agree with the member from Prince George that woodlots have great potential. Here's why I think they do.

One of the commitments we made as a government was to expand the allowable annual cut in this province over time. I think we can do that with woodlot programs. Here's why.

Over the last few years, especially on the coast, we've had this situation where other values that are important to our society have encroached on what we traditionally call the forest land base. When those values are in conflict, more often than not forestry becomes very difficult. I believe that through the woodlot program, we can find a way to make those values more compatible.

I think of places like Quadra Island, which is just off of Campbell River, where there are a number of woodlots owned by some very entrepreneurial souls. They have met the rigorous goals and objectives of that community and have also produced a large amount of fibre from the land base. They have produced economic activity and, more importantly, jobs.

They play a very critical role in the future of those parts of this province where land use is in conflict, especially for Vancouver Island and northern Vancouver Island where we can grow trees, and we can grow them quite fast. Many woodlot owners would tell you they can reduce the crop rotation from 60 or 70 years down to 40 years by careful silviculture prescriptions, by fertilization and just by simply careful attention to the land that you can manage when you have such a small-scale operation.

While they may not be the entire answer to all of our forest industry problems, they are a part of this puzzle. They are one piece. I think we need to pay careful attention to the development of this piece. We need to provide them with a regulatory environment within which they can work, be successful as entrepreneurs, provide fibre to the market and have the freedom to manage their land as they know how, because many of them are professional foresters and have been on the land for generations. If we give them that freedom, they can play a very critical part in restoring the economy to coastal British Columbia if not all those other parts of British Columbia where land use is in conflict.

R. Harris: I'd like today to share with the House some of my thoughts around a subject, an activity, that has certainly played a large part in my life, and that's the British Columbia family of games. Those are the Winter, Summer, Disabled, Senior and one that I'm going to spend a little more time on today, the Northern B.C. Winter Games.

I've had the pleasure in my life of participating on a number of occasions in one or more of these games as a competitor, a coach, a volunteer, an organizer, a parent but most importantly as a fan. It is with a great deal of interest and support that I want to talk to you about what these games mean to communities, businesses, people, lifestyles, and just the downright excitement and enjoyment which hosting or participating brings to anyone involved. It really doesn't matter how old you are.

From an athletic view, the family of games offers something for everyone across the full spectrum of ability. From the higher-level competition for the province's more elite athletes in the Summer, Winter and Disabled Games to the more participatory aspect of the Northern and Senior Games, they are a rich family endowment for the whole province.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend some time now talking about the Northern B.C. Winter Games and share with the House my thoughts on the value that these particular games bring to northern communities.

I think it always helps, first of all, to appreciate the kind of obstacles that are faced by northerners — actu-

ally, not just by northerners but by all people who live in rural communities — when it comes to being involved in sporting activities. I can remember, when I lived on the Charlottes, being a member of bowling league where we religiously every Friday night would drive 55 miles one way just to go bowling. In the last number of years I've coached a midget rep hockey team that three out of four weekends every month during the winter travels between six and ten hours one way just to find games. The obstacles that people face in remote communities when it comes to participating present challenges, but it certainly doesn't mean that they're obstacles.

The Northern B.C. Winter Games provide opportunities for a significant number of athletes who would normally not have the opportunity to experience that travel and competition in any major event. These games have been held annually since 1975 in communities from 100 Mile House to the Yukon and from the Queen Charlotte Islands to the Alberta border. It's an annual event, like any major event, and is awarded to communities who actively compete for the opportunity to host these games.

In the same manner that as a province we are all excited about the prospect of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, communities like Terrace, Dawson Creek and Burns Lake also compete to be granted the right to host these games. It is a source of great pride to these communities to be selected as a host, and the year-long planning and organization process begins almost immediately.

When you live in a community of only 6,000 people anticipating the arrival of up to 3,000 competitors, officials, dignitaries and fans, it doesn't take long to realize this is going to take a whole community's involvement to pull it off successfully. I had the extreme pleasure of being the director of finance when Terrace was the host of these games in 1997. When you start to realize that you're going to need over 1,000 billets and that you will need to recruit and train 1,200 volunteers for all of the many activities and functions, the scale of community involvement becomes staggering, but it is that total community commitment that makes hosting these games so worthwhile.

The Northern B.C. Winter Games is the only function on this scale that still utilizes billeting in order to help defray the cost of putting the games on, but billeting is one of the aspects of these games that makes them so unique and special. Through billeting the young competitors get to truly experience, learn and appreciate the character of the host community. It's the personal friendships these athletes have with their host families that just adds to the connection and bond that people from rural communities see develop, and these friendships will last with them for a lifetime.

To host a successful set of games the host committee must be focused, and the whole community must be committed. This is an opportunity to showcase the local sights, images and talents. I can certainly tell the members here that with each game I attend, it never ceases to amaze me the depth of human resource and talent that exists within the north. I remember well the tremendous number of volunteers and the work that the directors and their committees and volunteers did to make the Terrace games a success. I see that duplicated year after year in community after community.

I'm also constantly impressed by the generosity and originality of businesses and individuals in raising the funds necessary to be able to host those games. Even in these tough times for rural communities, these towns seem to find ways to find the resources necessary. The province's contribution both financially and, more critically, from ministry support staff provides invaluable assistance, guidance and advice, and I know it's certainly appreciated by any community they've ever worked with.

With the long days of winter slowly moving by, this festival activity brings an excitement to every community in the north as competitors, officials and fans alike start to plan for the three-day ritual that we call the Northern Games. In every town in the north playdowns are now being held to select teams and individuals who will represent their zone. The host community is busy putting the final touches on their billeting and transportation arrangements, the venues are being prepared, and I can just about guarantee every member that pretty well every school and building in the town is going to be put to use.

For the business communities that have already been hard hit by slowdowns in the resource industry, this festival atmosphere provides for a Christmas-in-February atmosphere. The positive impact on communities is significant. In 1998 the economic boost to Dawson Creek from the games was estimated at $604,000, and in '99 it was a whopping $857,000. I know that this year in Smithers the Terrace peewee hockey team alone booked 12 hotel rooms for their parents and fans. That's just one team from one sport from one zone.

The Northern Games are truly unique from another perspective. They are the games that focus as much on participation as competition. The range of sporting events is from volleyball to crib, hockey to bowling. The scope of the games is limited only by the challenges the host committee takes on and the resources they can bring to bear. These games welcome competitors, seniors as well as the young, disabled as well as the able, high-level competition as well as masters divisions.

I've had the pleasure of coaching a number of teams in the Summer Games, but I can tell you there is something special about the Northern B.C. Winter Games. Maybe it's the warm welcome you feel as a small community rolls out the red carpet or possibly the excitement you see as you drive into a town like Smithers. But I can say this: the Northern B.C. Winter Games is an integral part of the winter in the north. It's the only time all northerners from every region come together in a formal fashion. Winter is part of our lifestyle, part of our heritage, and these games help us celebrate that. The Northern B.C. Winter Games have become a valuable part of the past, a powerful tool for

Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to rise to respond to the statement respecting the Northern B.C. Games by the member for Skeena and compliment him on his presentation. I'm very pleased to hear the member's comments with respect to the benefits the games bring to the north and to young athletes, particularly in the north.

As minister responsible for sport in British Columbia, I believe that all games of this nature — and there is a family of games — bring many benefits to young British Columbians. We work, particularly as a sport ministry, to try to ensure that there's broad participation in sport in British Columbia. It's a very important thing for the development of our young people. We know that in the north — and the member articulated them extremely well — there are special challenges because of distance, because of the size of communities and so on, to achieve broad participation. We know that the Northern B.C. Games are one of the ways in which we can achieve that. We also work for opportunities for excellence. Again, I think, the Northern Games are an opportunity to showcase the achievement of excellence. I'm very strongly in agreement with the member's suggestions with respect to the benefits of the games.

Today I want to talk about one of the stronger benefits of amateur sport in B.C., and that's healthier communities and healthier individuals. Yesterday, April 7, was declared to be World Health Day by the World Health Organization. This year's theme is physical activity for health: a call to individuals, to communities and to countries to recognize physical activity as an essential to public health. Now, more than ever, as health care becomes a growing challenge for governments across Canada, preventative measures such as physical activity and sport are essential.

This is not just about saving resources in our health care system; it's about long-term health and wellness for all British Columbians so that they can fulfil productive lives. The recognition and rewarding of this activity through amateur events such as the Northern B.C. Games is one of the best ways to ensure that these healthy goals become a reality for today's youth.

Over the weekend I had the honour to travel to Iqaluit in Nunavut to meet with sport ministers from all across Canada and indeed from all of the territories across Canada, as well as with the federal Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Paul DeVillers, to discuss the new Canadian sports policy. One of the major discussion issues was the health impacts of sedentary living, especially among youth, and the potential health benefits and savings that physical activity and sport can provide to the health system.

We recognized that if sport was to remain a relevant part of public policy in the face of increasing fiscal pressures across our provinces and across the nation, then sport policy must reflect these health priorities. This was the point that we drove home, as a group on Sunday, when we presented our findings and our position to Roy Romanow, who is currently heading up the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. He also was up in Nunavut to hear other presentations.

To supplement our discussions, we had the honour to receive a presentation from Dr. David Brandling-Bennett, a deputy director of the Pan American Health Organization and a Harvard University professor. He drew the same conclusions: increasing inactivity was manifesting itself in a number of ways, most notably through increased health problems for children and related health costs — problems such as juvenile diabetes and childhood obesity, which is becoming an increasing problem all across this nation and indeed in many parts of the world.

In short, I think the answer is pretty clear: the key to creating sustainable health care is healthy people and healthy communities who will use critical services less and ultimately experience a better quality of life. I'm very proud to take part in those discussions and the formation of the new Canadian sports policy that would reflect these priorities. I continue to believe that events such as the Northern B.C. Games are one of the surest ways to turn these concepts into reality as we challenge today's youth to peak levels of excellence and health.

In closing, I do want to salute the host communities for events such as the Northern B.C. Games. I know that the communities are tremendously hospitable for these events. They do a great job of achieving the excellence that's needed. I compliment them and the organizers and the participants who have such a great time, and I salute the member for his statement as well.

R. Harris: First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for his comments. I couldn't agree more with him on the health implications of making sure that we can continually provide access and keep people healthy — not just the young, but the entire age spectrum from the young right through to seniors. A key component of maintaining good health indicators, both individually and within the communities, is in fact the involvement of people in sport. As a government, I think we need to continue to find ways to provide that access and maintain that as a priority.

I did mention initially in my presentation the invaluable service that his staff, through the games group, provides to communities. That support, expertise and advice in allowing these games to move so smoothly and be such a key function of community activity is critical. I'd certainly like to thank the minister and would like him to thank his staff for the work they do, because I think it adds an invaluable service.

I know that again this year the summer games are in Nanaimo. I'll be down there again this year coaching the baseball team for zone 7. For the members, zone 7 is the area that runs from the riding of North Coast…. It actually covers five ridings, I believe, from North Coast right through to Prince George, in baseball.

Again, these are great opportunities for kids from rural communities to be able to travel, to experience a high level of sport. I am encouraged by the minister's comments that he sees that as a priority.

In closing, I would like to again thank the minister for his comments. Hopefully, I'll see a lot of these members in Nanaimo this summer for the Summer Games.

J. MacPhail: I move second reading of Bill M201 standing in my name. It's entitled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to introduce to the House some people who are joining us here today to observe the debate on the Fisheries Act Amendment Act, including Dr. Sergio Paone, an environmentalist and consultant to the David Suzuki Foundation and the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. He is also a member of the Tofino town council. Mrs. Yvon Gesinghaus will be there representing Musgamagw Tsawataineuk tribal council, and we are also joined by Mr. Peter Ronald of the Georgia Strait Alliance. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I have introduced a private member's bill to amend the Fisheries Act to now make it so that any licence granted or renewed must have closed-containment technology in it. A person must not carry on the business of aquaculture at any location or facility in British Columbia or its coastal waters unless the person holds a licence issued for that purpose under this part and has paid the fee prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The licence shall not be issued or reissued under this part for the purpose of aquaculture unless that operation is a closed-containment facility.

The act defines "closed containment" as referring to an impermeable or solid-wall structure that is established for the rearing of finfish either on land or floating and that prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of disease, parasites, waste and other pollution into surrounding marine systems.

What we now have is aquaculture in the vast, vast main carried out by open-net technology. This bill amends it so that future licences, whether new or reissued, be of closed-containment technology.

Why is this? Much has happened since the last major aquaculture review in this province, which was done in 1997. Since that, science has moved forward, and there have been huge concerns raised around aquaculture, even by those who support aquaculture, as to what the effects will be on the environment and also on the wild salmon stock in this province.

To that extent, the Hon. Stuart Leggatt, a judge for 17 years and now retired from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, carried out an inquiry for the David Suzuki Foundation and also in response to calls from the federal auditor general and the Senate for public consultation and review of aquaculture. Mr. Leggatt was also a member of the B.C. Legislature from 1979 to 1983 and a Member of Parliament from 1972 to 1979 before joining the B.C. Supreme Court for 17 years.

The federal auditor general report found that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not adequately monitoring salmon farms for effects on wild salmon stock and habitat with a view to enforcing the Fisheries Act. It found shortfalls in research and monitoring to assess the effects of salmon farming operations, and there was also a lack of a formal plan for managing risks and assessing the potential cumulative environmental effects of the proposals for new aquaculture sites. If ever, the auditor general's report found, should there be a decision to expand the industry…. "In our opinion," the report stated, "the potential cumulative environmental effects of multiple salmon farm proposals warrant public review before a decision is made to lift the moratorium" — hence, the Stuart Leggatt inquiry into salmon aquaculture.

Mr. Leggatt carried out his inquiry because the Liberal government ignored the issues raised by the auditor general's report and lifted the moratorium, quoting that they had the best science. However, we all know that that science is outdated and irrelevant to British Columbia because of the scale issues and sheer size of the problem in B.C. Since the moratorium has been lifted, closed-containment facilities are the only method left to prevent the environmental degradation caused by fish farming — hence, the opposition's private member's bill amending the Fisheries Act to mandate closed-containment technology for the expansion of salmon aquaculture.

As of the fall of 2001, there were 126 salmon farming tenures in British Columbia, including 121 in coastal waters, of which about 95 are active at any time. The Leggatt inquiry heard from a broad cross-section of witnesses representing community, local governments, first nations, conservation groups, industry, current and former salmon farm workers, contractors, eco-tourism, sport fishing operators, scientists, researchers, the state of Alaska, as well as others. Here are some of the findings of the Leggatt inquiry:

Mr. Leggatt also finds that pollution of the environment caused by net-cage salmon farming, which is what is in existence now, may well violate the federal Fisheries Act, particularly sections 34 and 35 that deal with fish habitat protection and pollution prevention. I'll read those sections at the end, Mr. Speaker. sp; "…the sp; "The sp; "…problems

The Leggatt inquiry joined with others in examining the issue of escapes from net-cage technology that aquaculture now uses. They found that over 413,000 Atlantic salmon escapes were reported between 1991 and 2001 by the Atlantic Salmon Watch program. It is difficult to estimate how many escapes were unreported.

Atlantic salmon have been found and caught in British Columbia in the ocean and freshwater systems both in adult and in juvenile stages. Atlantic salmon have been found in 77 B.C. rivers and five streams, including three rivers where the offspring of escaped Atlantic salmon had been discovered. This is reported by Dr. John Volpe, an expert in aquaculture now with the University of Alberta.

Atlantic salmon have also been found off the coast of Alaska in remote locations as distant as Prince William Sound and the Aleutian Islands. Atlantic salmon have apparently become established on B.C.'s coast and are producing succeeding generations, threatening the wild salmon stock of our B.C. waters. Scientists, first nations and others are concerned that this invasive species will prove detrimental to the wild Pacific salmon.

Many are also concerned about disease and parasite transfer, given the net-cage technology. Biologist Alexandra Morton, who is a marine researcher in the Broughton Archipelago, spoke of a 28 percent loss of coho smolts from a hatchery program. The loss was due to furunculosis in 1991. She said salmon farmers admitted placing Atlantic salmon smolts infected with this disease into pens that the coho migrated directly past.

Several witnesses spoke of a sea lice epidemic in the Broughton Archipelago in the spring and summer of 2001. Ms. Morton said that 800 salmon fry she inspected in the Broughton Archipelago were infested with 7,000 sea lice. Fishing guide Chris Bennett said an overabundance of sea lice was obviously from the farms. Fish caught in the vicinity of salmon farms were infested with lice, but others caught at a distance from the farms were not.

Laurie McBride of the Georgia Strait Alliance quoted a 1999 report from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency: "Damage to stocks of sea trout and wild salmon by sea lice associated with caged fish farming is very serious in certain circumstances and should now be accepted as beyond a reasonable doubt."

There are also environmental effects from waste from net-age aquaculture. The Marine Salmon Farming Compliance Report released August 28, 2001, by the B.C. Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection revealed that pollution occurs beneath every one of the 94 salmon farms tested for physical and chemical data. That was reported through Lynn Hunter, the fisheries and aquaculture specialist with the David Suzuki Foundation.

Some witnesses before the Leggatt inquiry pointed out that agricultural operators such as cattle ranchers or chicken farmers are prohibited from dumping their wastes into rivers and that fish farmers should be prohibited from dumping wastes into the ocean environment, being that they are exactly the same circumstances.

There is concern about the cumulative effects of all of these matters. There are widespread concerns that net-cage salmon farming is detrimental to wild Pacific salmon and, indeed, may destroy wild salmon runs. The sea lice epidemic in the Broughton Archipelago, the discovery of Atlantic salmon and their progeny in the B.C. marine environment, the disappearance of wild stocks in Europe and outbreaks of infectious salmon anemia and IHN in other areas fuel these concerns.

Let me quote from John Cummins, the Canadian Alliance MP for Delta who is Fisheries critic and vice-chair of the Fisheries Committee in our federal Parliament: "Marine organisms, unlike the infamous Ford Explorer SUV and their Firestone tires, cannot be recalled once released. Biological pollution can be permanent."

What's the role of government in all of this? The provincial government's salmon aquaculture review produced 49 recommendations in 1997, dealing with issues such as farm siting, waste discharges, disease control and escapes. But several witnesses to the Leggatt inquiry said only a few of these recommendations have been fully implemented. Many others have been ignored or implemented with major shortcomings. This

of course is in light of the fact that this government has lifted the moratorium on salmon aquaculture.

The B.C. government is attempting to reconcile environmental, economic and social conflicts by relocating poorly sited or inactive farms. Eleven farms have been moved or are scheduled to be moved, and 25 others are expected to be relocated over the next two years. All of this is taking place in the context of expansion of salmon aquacultures licences as well — huge relocation and huge expansion under this B.C. Liberal government.

What are our neighbours doing — our neighbours that we are so concerned about trade with? What are our neighbours in the United States doing on this matter? Alaska completely bans by law salmon farming and all finfish aquaculture because of the threats to wild stock and other resources as well. Yet Alaska fishers and others report that escaped Atlantic salmon from B.C. aquaculture farms have migrated to their waters.

The current practice of salmon farming in British Columbia is clearly an irritant to good relations with B.C.'s neighbouring U.S. state of Alaska. Several representatives of the Alaska government and Legislature and the Alaska fishing industry testified about those transborder conflicts. Alaska suggests that Canada and British Columbia adopt a zero-risk management policy to prevent the escape and release of farmed salmon, allow no further farms north of the present locations and cap Atlantic salmon production at current levels. That's Alaska's recommendation to British Columbia.

I also note that when I published my private member's bill saying that all future salmon farm licences have to use closed-containment technology, I received this letter from the executive director of the Alaska Trollers Association in Juneau, Alaska:

Let me go to what the Leggatt recommendations are. There are six of them. I will go through them one by one. First of all, recommendation No. 1 from the Leggatt inquiry: remove all net-cage salmon farms from the marine environment by January 1, 2005. I quote from his report:

The opposition offices have talked to these technology experts, and there's more than ample opportunity for using that technology here.

Recommendation 2: remove responsibility for promotion of aquaculture from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, increase monitoring and regulation of salmon farming by the government regulators.

Recommendation No. 3: increase involvement of communities, especially first nations, in consultation, partnership and ownership of salmon-farming operations. At the very least, local communities should be involved in meaningful consultation to avoid conflicts and hostilities such as those engendered in the past when local interests were ignored, especially the interests of first nations.

Recommendation No. 4: maintain the moratorium on new farm sites, with no further expansion at existing sites. Complete and update the salmon aquaculture review. Well, Mr. Leggatt says that major environmental issues, including many of those outlined in his report, remain unresolved. It would not be prudent to lift the moratorium or allow any further expansion until the industry makes significant progress on these issues at existing farm sites, including an end to net-cage salmon farming.

Too bad. This Liberal government decided not to listen to those fully informed and has lifted the moratorium, which comes off effective the end of this month. Urgent, urgent attention is required to this matter immediately by each and every MLA in this chamber.

Recommendation No. 5: apply the precautionary principle to regulation of the salmon-farming industry. The precautionary principle states that risks to the environment or human health should be managed despite the lack of scientific proof that damage has occurred or will occur. Regulators should err on the side of caution to protect important environmental values and human health.

Mr. Leggatt's inquiry heard ample evidence of linking salmon farming to environmental damage on our coast. The threat of much greater damage is real and persistent. The Leggatt inquiry felt that values and resources at stake are of such great importance to British Columbia that the precautionary approach should be applied to the regulation of the industry.

The sixth and last recommendation of the Leggatt inquiry was to require labelling and identification of farmed salmon at the consumer level.

There are a couple of other experts who have spoken to this issue of sea lice invading our wild stock, Mr. Speaker: John Volpe, the professor of biological sci-

ences at the University of Alberta, whom I've already quoted, and Alexandra Morton, a biologist living and studying in the Broughton Archipelago, which is the most densely populated area of fish farms in the world right here in British Columbia. Both say that sea lice are a huge and growing problem in our wild stock.

Morton has explained that the sea lice problem is this: wild salmon transmit to farmed salmon where the population then intensifies in the farmed salmon environment. Every 21 days in a fish farm there is an exponential jump in the population of sea lice. In spring, when young fish go past those same aquaculture farms again, they are swimming through a cloud of sea lice. Therefore, the sea lice become intensified and very dangerous in our wild stock.

The claim that sea lice have not yet posed a significant problem is absolutely false. John Volpe says that B.C. is experiencing a similar problem to that which Scotland, Ireland and Norway have faced. B.C. could face the decimation of wild salmon stocks.

This government says it's learning from the mistakes made in Europe. However, it is inappropriate to rely just on the European experience, because the wild salmon species are different, even though we know this is a problem in Europe. Pacific salmon, particularly pinks and chums, are much smaller when they leave the rivers and head out to sea, and we know that Atlantic salmon — even the wild stocks — spend more time in the rivers and leave those rivers much larger. Therefore, when the small smolts leave the rivers here and swim past fish farms with high concentrations of sea lice, the small fish are overwhelmed.

The issue of risk of disease is also prevalent. Disease like IHN is a major threat. In February 1.6 million Atlantic salmon died at one site alone. Another 500,000 died in March in Clayoquot Sound. I know that in response to such outbreaks, the Minister of Fisheries here in British Columbia downplayed the risk, saying there was little danger a virus could spread to wild Pacific salmon. Isn't a little danger enough to constitute a threat to our wild stock?

John Volpe's response was: "It's a little scary when we've got people like [the British Columbia Minister of Fisheries] standing up and saying that the risks (of infection) are low when in fact his own scientists readily admit that they don't understand the transmission mechanisms of the disease."

Waste management is also another area of deep concern. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration out of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, which is the study being used by the minister to say disease is a low risk, also said that the most important rule in risk management is the careful selection of a site. The degree of flushing action and the time a site is given to lie fallow play a major role in the suitability of a location. That's because waste is a major problem.

B.C. has so far approved the moving of 25 fish farms recently, in addition to 11 earlier identified as needing new location. This relocation proves that there are major environmental issues. Already one-third of the active farms have been deemed to be damaging to their locations. That pretty much says it all about why we have a huge concern about waste management.

Finally, Atlantic salmon escape from the fish farms into our wild stock. The intrusion of this foreign species into our wild stock is proving to be a huge problem.

The Minister of Fisheries in B.C. and others have argued that science is on their side when it comes to the issue of escaped Atlantic salmon and colonization. However, many others, world experts on the issue, insist that there is a problem, and it's occurring regularly. Escaped salmon can take over the territory of wild salmon, spread disease and transfer antibiotics and other chemicals to the natural food chain.

The problem is that there's no hard science proving either side of the scientific argument on Atlantic salmon escapes, because there's been no major scientific study in B.C. around this issue. The government of British Columbia is acting irresponsibly by lifting the moratorium when the risk has yet to be determined. That was the point of the moratorium. Nothing has changed since then. The debate continues, but this government is lifting the moratorium.

Since the best science available anywhere has not yet come up with conclusive analyses of the risks or how to mitigate them, it is irresponsible to go ahead with the expansion of the aquaculture industry unless it is done with closed-containment methods, just as this bill mandates.

The previous government relied on the salmon aquaculture review to continue the moratorium because of the debates that rage around this issue. This current Liberal government relies on a five-year-old study to lift the moratorium and then expand the industry, when the debate on colonization continues to rage.

Each MLA in this Legislature can support this private member's bill calling for closed containment for salmon aquaculture, for finfish aquaculture, and for new and renewed licences. It is the best we can do in the face of the lifting of the moratorium by this B.C. government. I urge every member in this chamber to stand up and support our fishing industry, our wild stocks and our heritage of British Columbia, and vote in favour of this legislation.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to rise in this House today to speak to second reading of Bill M201, the Fisheries Act Amendment Act. I want to say for the record right off the bat that I'm speaking against this amendment, and I'm certainly urging my colleagues to do so also. This amendment, if passed, would spell the death knell of our finfish aquaculture industry in British Columbia.

This amendment fails to consider all of the scientific work, all of the study that has been done in terms of the work that the provincial government has done the last number of years and the considerations that were

made in the government's decision in January to allow expansion of the industry based on good environmental management and good environmental regulation.

All of the decisions that the government has made have taken into full consideration all of the environmental issues and the information available on that, all of the economic considerations and all of the social impacts that the finfish aquaculture industry would have. It's our conclusion, and we will continue to research this, that the industry is a low risk to the environment. This is substantiated by a number of studies and reports.

Our commitment is to continue to work as a government responsible for the public interest and to encourage the industry and to require the industry to be environmentally responsible and to reduce this risk further. Our decisions are based on the best science that is available. Our decisions are based on a commitment to ongoing research, and our decisions are based on a commitment to continuous improvement.

The claim is made that closed containment is the answer to all of our issues; that closed containment is the panacea to deal with escapes, disease or waste management. There's been a lot of study done on these claims. Certainly, the research and the study that have been done by the salmon aquaculture review, the study that was done in Washington State by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other studies do not confirm the claims that closed containment is the answer to all of our questions. Closed-containment operations are a higher cost to operate. You have to have a power supply. They are not a hedge against disease issues; they can break up in a storm just like an open-net system can.

There are a lot of issues that go into the consideration to go to closed containment, not the least of which is economics. For our industry to exist and for even the current industry to exist, we have to be globally competitive. All of our competitors, whether it's Norway, Chile or Scotland, use open nets. To be competitive, we have to be able to use open nets but do so in a manner that is environmentally responsible. The cost differential of closed containment versus the open-net system is such that even the current industry in British Columbia would not exist, never mind allowing expansion.

There are comments made about Alaska. If we look, first of all, at all of the United States, the United States has set some very aggressive targets for expansion of aquaculture within its borders. It recognizes that the world market for salmon is gradually being taken over and significantly expanded by finfish aquaculture. The United States recognizes the need to be competitive, so it has set some very aggressive targets for expansion to overcome some of the current deficits in its trade balance on seafoods.

Certainly, if you're a commercial fisherman, whether it's in British Columbia or in Alaska or in Washington State, then you have a concern about aquaculture horning in on your market. There's no question about that. The B.C. industry is a very small industry compared to these other countries that I mentioned, and the current state of the industry is such that we need to be very competitive to meet the world prices that are currently the result of the significant growth in finfish aquaculture in some of these other countries.

Look at the current industry. Never mind the expansion that might be considered. If we just look at the current industry in British Columbia, a relatively small industry in the total scheme of things on the global market, we're looking at 5,000 direct and indirect jobs. The significance is that these jobs are in communities in British Columbia where we desperately need jobs, where we've lost a lot of jobs in our other natural resource industries.

It isn't just the jobs on the farm. Very often there's comment made about the small number of people working on farms, but the people working on farms do not begin to represent the employment impacts of the industry. You have to look at the whole service industry and the supply industry that are providing supplies and services to these finfish farms. You look at all of the welders and manufacturers of the pens and equipment that these farms use. You look at the feed manufacturers and suppliers, all of the people involved in the transportation of those goods, all of the professionals involved in the design of those pens and equipment. You also have to look at the other side of the farm and look at the processing plants. Certainly, the number of jobs created in processing plants is very significant. For example, in Port Hardy the largest private sector employer is the processing plant that is handling farmed fish.

It's very easy to be dismissive of the employment impacts and the critical need to provide jobs in coastal communities, including a lot of first nations people who are working in these plants and who are working on farms. If you talk to the people in Port Hardy, Port Alberni, Campbell River, Prince Rupert, Port McNeill or Tofino, they consider this industry very critical.

That's part of the economic side of the three legs of the stool. The environmental aspects are certainly absolutely critical, and we as a government are committed to ensuring that we address those in a very meaningful and substantive way. We are confident that this industry can be managed and can be allowed to expand in a manner where the aquaculture industry can coexist very fruitfully with the commercial and wild sector.

The member opposite talked about the Leggatt inquiry. With all due respect to Stu Leggatt, who did the Leggatt inquiry, it in no way reflects the comprehensiveness of the salmon aquaculture review. The salmon aquaculture review was done by the environmental assessment office of British Columbia, a new independent office at the time. It took two years with a massive amount of staff, independent experts and public inquiries to do that study. It included a literature review all over the world. The Leggatt inquiry took about two months, with a very, very small number of

people involved. Certainly, a lot of the input that was given there was also given at the salmon aquaculture review, but it's important to keep it in perspective — the amount of study that was done, the comprehensiveness of the work that was done, the professionalism and the scientific expertise and the independence of the people who worked on that independent study.

That study cost the province a million dollars to do. It was a very comprehensive study. I don't accept the argument that after five years, all of that work is simply to be dismissed. It was a very good foundation, done to the full extent of the information available at the time. Certainly, we continue to build on that.

I want to say to the members opposite that I've read the Leggatt inquiry; I've read the auditor general's report; I've read the Senate Committee on Fisheries report. We continue to use every piece of information available to expand our knowledge of how to manage the fishery. I should say, too, that when the comments are made that we don't have sufficient information and that our decisions are not sufficiently science-based, we could apply the same argument to the wild fishery. There's tons of information that we don't know about the wild fishery. We'd always like to know more, and we continue to do more research on the wild fishery and more study. It's the same thing with aquaculture. I believe we have a very good base of information but one we need to continually expand and learn more about.

I want to refer the member opposite to chapter 11, "Alternative Salmon Farming Technology," which is the chapter in the salmon aquaculture review that dealt with the issues she raises in this amendment and which included a very comprehensive study of the various types of alternative approaches to housing and raising fish. I'm going to read the final paragraph of that chapter.

I would like to conclude with our commitment as a government, specifically, that the salmon-farming industry will be conducted in an environmentally sustainable way. I am concerned about the amount of incorrect information and misrepresentation we are seeing and hearing. On January 31 our government announced that new environmental standards are being set to allow for managed expansion of B.C.'s salmon aquaculture industry, and we remain committed to that.

I want to make it very clear that we are not opening up the floodgates or encouraging a gold rush mentality for uncontrolled expansion. We will not compromise our environmental standards to attract investment. We are taking a responsible approach. Any new applications will be rigorously assessed by a number of agencies in different levels of government. The process to get an open net-cage farm approved may take over a year, and compliance costs in doing the farm management plan necessary can run up to $250,000 per application.

This decision has been based on carefully weighing the needs and concerns of B.C.'s fisheries, of environmental protection, of community desires and of industry viability. I remind the members again of the comprehensive work that was done by the salmon aquaculture review. This review, as I said, is the most comprehensive work done to date. We have continued to augment it with further studies since that time. Our environmental standards will be backed up by the most comprehensive compliance enforcement regime in the world. We are comparing what we are developing with all of the other countries. Our aquaculture inspectors and conservation officers will continue to ensure that farms are in compliance with regulations.

The member mentioned that on February 28 the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection issued their annual compliance reports. Next year our reports will be merged into one report, and I invite the public to take a look at the website and read the reports. They're available there.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has improved the aquaculture regulations to standardize and improve escape prevention practices across the salmon-farming industry. The percentage of escaped fish compared with the numbers produced continues to decline. We will continue to work to minimize the risk of escapes, even though there is clearly a low possibility of escaped Atlantic salmon establishing themselves in Pacific waters. The risk of colonization is low. The risk of hybridization — that is, interbreeding with Pacific salmon — is zero. Disease issues are being carefully addressed, and fish health professionals in both the federal and the provincial governments tightly control the use of antibiotics and conduct regular inspections to ensure safe and high-quality food product.

Our approach is based on adaptive management, and we will continue to monitor the industry and its impacts on the environment. The current industry in British Columbia didn't start yesterday; it started 25 years ago. We continue to learn and improve. There has been significant progress in terms of the performance of the industry and the performance of government in regulating the industry. If we conclude that unacceptable results are emerging, we will modify our

approach to managing aquaculture in order to achieve appropriate environmental results and standards.

To achieve these goals, the provincial government will continue to work closely with local governments, the aquaculture industry, environmentalists, commercial fishermen, first nations and everyone that has an interest and a stake in the industry. We will continue to look to the scientific community to do further work and research and make informed decisions based on relevant research and sound science.

We realize that for the salmon aquaculture industry to get the confidence of the people of British Columbia, it puts a lot of responsibility on us as a government to provide an effective environmental framework. We will continue to make every effort to put these measures in place, and there will be a lot of responsibility on the industry to be excellent stewards of the environment so that they can proceed and prosper in this business.

We also intend to continue to work closely with the federal government and the minister responsible for fisheries and oceans to negotiate a better definition of our respective authorities and make it clear how best to work together. I should say that we have made good progress in that area of working with the federal minister on the aquaculture industry, ensuring that it is done in an environmentally sustainable way. I appreciate his commitment and the federal government's investment in ongoing research and development in that industry.

We will move from prescribed regulations to outcome-based regulations that will be enforceable by effective monitoring and compliance programs. It is important for the industry to continue to work with local communities in British Columbia to build support for salmon aquaculture. Growth of the industry will require new business relationships between aquaculture producers, first nations and local governments. It will also require a major investment in training as the industry evolves.

I should say that in meeting with salmon farmers and in visiting sites, I'm impressed by the professionalism of the people involved. These are professional people that are involved in operating these farms. They're trained business people, professional biologists and veterinarians. It's important to recognize that they have their own professional code of ethics and professional responsibilities. These are the people operating these farms.

We are moving forward to realize a vision of an industry that can be financially viable with a strong framework that protects our natural environment. Certainly, we will continue to do research on closed containment. We will continue to monitor what is happening all around the world in terms of those alternate technologies. It's critical that we do that. When they become globally competitive and when they become economically competitive, certainly we want to be there at the leading edge of implementing that new technology.

I want to assure British Columbians that our government is not abandoning the recreational or commercial fisheries that have been an important part of the province's history and of our first nations. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the industry is responsible and that environmental standards are met. We remain convinced that the wild fishery can coexist with the aquaculture industry.

We as a province have an interest in maintaining the sustainability of all fisheries. We have an interest in maintaining a very diverse fisheries sector so that we can be as effective as possible at being competitive in the global marketplace and doing so in an environmentally responsible way. We see aquaculture as complementary to the development of a diverse fishery and complementary to the wild commercial fishery and the recreational fishery. We are confident that aquaculture and the wild fishery can coexist very well. We need the strength of the diversity that it brings to the overall fishery.

The future of aquaculture in British Columbia has great potential, but it must be done in an environmentally sustainable way. A well-managed industry can bring and is already bringing good economic activity to this province, to those coastal communities that I talked about and to those first nations, a large percentage of whom are working in our processing plants and in other aspects of the industry.

Aquaculture and finfish aquaculture practised in a way that is environmentally responsible but globally competitive can give our rural and coastal communities the hope and the certainty they're looking for in their communities in these uncertain times of our economy. It's important to acknowledge that the salmon-farming industry provides year-round, steady jobs for people — not on-and-off, not seasonal, but year-round jobs. Those jobs are there on an ongoing basis. Certainly, when I was in Port Hardy and talked to some of the workers coming out of that plant, it was clear that it was very important to them that they had that job there on an ongoing basis.

With that, I want to again emphasize the implications of this amendment. It's very simple to say, but in effect it wipes out our existing industry, never mind expansion. If this amendment were passed, that would be basically the end of our industry in British Columbia.

It's important to recognize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If this kind of amendment applies to expansion, then what's the difference with the existing industry? I think that the mover of the amendment should think about the inconsistency that is inherent in the kind of amendment that is being made here. Again, it speaks to the real issue where the mover and the critics are not prepared to look at the reality of what they're saying. This issue has been studied by scientific experts, by independent experts that bring a lot more knowledge and experience and expertise to the table than we do. The mover of this amendment is simply willing to reject that out of hand.

I want to conclude by urging members to vote against this amendment. In the interests of coastal communities being competitive on a global market and having those jobs for those people in our coastal areas, I urge everyone to support the agenda of the government to allow the industry to expand in an environmentally responsible way. Certainly, we take that responsibility very seriously, and we will continue to do so as we implement further changes in a very planned, methodical, careful and responsible approach.

J. MacPhail: I note that in the gallery today we are also joined during this very interesting debate by a world-renowned expert in fisheries in this province and a former MP from Ottawa, Lynn Hunter. Would the House please make her welcome.

M. Hunter: I would like to rise to speak on Bill M201 and to indicate my opposition to this amendment to the Fisheries Act. Before I explain my reasons, I think it's worthwhile that the chamber remember — and it's not often remembered — that aquaculture in British Columbia has been ongoing for many, many years. As some members know, I spent almost 30 years in a previous life as part of the seafood industry of this province, and I know that aquaculture and the developments that surround it began at least in the early 1980s. Probably there were some experiments before that.

I recall with some vivid memory seeing international trade statistics for the first time in 1984. That was the first year which Norway appeared as a producer of salmon on world trade statistics. In that year Norway produced and sold about 25,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon, the first occasion that that happened. At that time, the world production of salmon of all species, all countries — which was then primarily Canada, the United States, what was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan — produced about 650,000 tonnes.

Even in those, if you like, glory years of the Canadian salmon industry in British Columbia, our country's share of that total world production was around 14 percent. We were producing on average between 90,000 and 100,000 tonnes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s our production peaked at around 107,000 tonnes. Even in those years of peak production we were price takers on the world market because we were one part — about 14 percent, as I say — of a rather large world production.

Let's advance the clock 20 years to 2002. We see that world salmon production, at above 1.5 million tonnes, continues to increase. We're looking at roughly a threefold increase in the production of this animal over the last 20 years. I guess it's almost trite to conclude that the industry, given these new production figures, is not the same. It's not the same in Canada. It's not the same in the United States. It's certainly not the same in Norway and other places that aquaculture is part of the mainstream of food production.

Our production of wild salmon has declined, as everybody knows, to about 20,000 tonnes a year, for a variety of reasons. Our farmed production in British Columbia has started to take the slack and is now producing two and a half to three times what our wild harvest is. We remain a minor player. That is the important thing we have to remember as we go through the arguments with respect to the science and the economics of this new industry.

Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, it's almost noon. I would move we adjourn this debate at this time.

J. Kwan: Before we adjourn the House, given that this is my first opportunity, I would like to rise and reserve the right to raise a matter of privilege.