Hansard -- Monday, April 15, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 6 (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		2799
	Resource tourism D. Jarvis B. Belsey Restoring the mining industry in B.C. B. Suffredine B. Bennett Privatization of health care R. Hawes V. Roddick Business and technology E. Brenzinger Hon. K. Falcon

Second Reading of Bills		2806
	Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill M201) (continued) M. Hunter B. Belsey D. Jarvis S. Orr R. Visser

Point of Order		2812
	Hon. G. Collins J. Kwan

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest to the House that the province ought to develop a policy of what I call industrial tourism to enhance the tourism experience and opportunities in this province.

As we all know, the B.C. economy is not a healthy one — or not as healthy as we would like, particularly outside the lower mainland. Traditional resource industries such as mining and forestry are not doing well, which means that we have to look to other sectors for employment and growth in this province. We also know that the tourism sector has been growing well, encouraged by our advantageous currency exchange rates, the fine work of Tourism B.C. and those people in the private sector who work unceasingly to promote their businesses in their regions and in tourism generally.

Needless to say, it is the entrepreneur himself who sees the opportunities and seizes the initiative. Governments can do little, no matter how large their budgets and how well-meaning their intentions, without that vital private sector initiative. However, we also recognize that there is a role for public policy to play in developing tourism opportunities in this province.

The problem we face today is that we do not have the kind of money to do another Whistler, and, generally speaking, enough of British Columbia is now committed to park use. While many people come to British Columbia for things other than to ski or to visit our parks, there's no question that we need more destinations, more tourists and more things for tourists to do and see. We need them where they do not exist now to spread out these benefits of tourism across this province.

That is the reason for my raising with the House today the need for the province to have a policy of what I would call industrial tourism. Industrial tourism, as I define it, is using industrial facilities of various sorts to inform tourists and to interest them in what we actually do in British Columbia to earn our livings and to encourage them to stay another day or two and enjoy our hospitality.

I think you know that there are some opportunities to tour the province already through Alcan and Cominco smelters, and some of the B.C. Hydro dams offer tours as well. I'm sure there are a few of our industrial plants opening themselves to visitors, but what I'm suggesting to the province today is that we develop a range of policies to encourage businesses to act as hosts for tourists, to make the effort to facilitate tourism interests and to work with their communities in identifying tourism opportunities. The province could advise them on how to organize themselves to provide interesting tourist experiences. The province could help with training, education, information, and so on.

This need not be a program that is very costly, but the payoff could be very substantial. I expect the best example in B.C. of the province using public policy to create some industrial tourism is one that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise would be more familiar with, and that is the creation of estate wineries in the Okanagan Valley. While in the early days some of the commercial wineries were open from time to time for tours, it was not formally encouraged by the liquor law until 1977, when tasting rooms, sampling and pamphlets were first allowed.

Today, 25 years after the original cottage winery policy was created, there is a policy to give a small tax break to some of these small wineries. I think the case can be made today that the government recovers far more money from the industry because of these wineries doing wine tours than they lost by way of liquor markups. In fact, doing a winery tour has turned into a whole subsector of Okanagan tourism, as visitors on tours play golf and drink on holiday, dine at restaurants and drink. That would be more than otherwise would have existed. Accordingly, they enjoy their vacation more.

Now we have to look around and see what other things British Columbians could do that tourists might find of interest. As an elected politician, I've found one of the most interesting parts of my job has been the opportunity I've had to tour pulp mills and sawmills, manufacturing plants and mining operations. I've seen fish plants, greenhouses and a hundred other workplaces, and in every one of them I've learned something new while I've watched people go about their jobs. I honestly have to say that I have enjoyed myself in doing so. Now I ask: why should we not facilitate any tourists to have that same enlightening experience, especially if it's good for the tourist economy?

We know that industrial tourism, although we may not call it that in other parts of the world, actually does work. For example, if you go to Hershey, Pennsylvania, you can't get out of town without visiting the Hershey's chocolate factory. If you go to Venice and view San Marco Square and all the other historic cultural treasures, just try to get out of Venice without going to a glass-blowing factory to buy some crystal. People around the world go down to the seashore to watch fishermen mend their boats and fix their nets. Sidewalk superintendents everywhere stand and watch construction sites. The fact is that people are very curious about what other people do. That is much of what drives the urge to be a tourist: to go places unlike one's own and see other people do things that are unfamiliar to us.

Mr. Speaker, we have much in B.C. that could be of interest to tourists and which we could turn into tourism destinations. Much of industry is tourist-oriented,

but we do not think of these places in those terms: a source of tourism interest. We do not think how public policy could be involved, and we do not facilitate putting them to use as tourism draws.

That should change. Let me submit that the province should consider what it might do to make it happen, what it might do to help these communities identify that their industries are suitable for tourism interests and what impediments there may be to develop them as a point of tourism industry.

Now, some will say that British Columbia businesses will not want to be bothered. I'm not sure that is true. We can work out the wrinkles and all the problems of safety and employee relations or any possible cost to the business and so forth. I believe these are problems to be solved, and most will not be unreasonably daunting. In fact, put the right way, this might be seen by many businesses as an opportunity to be better understood.

Looking around, I do not see the minister who was going respond to me on this, so I will continue on with my basic speech. I beg your pardon. There is a gentleman here to speak from the Prince Rupert area. I'll yield to him at this point.

B. Belsey: Thank you to the member. He brings up a very, very interesting topic: industrial tourism. Living on the north coast and in the rural communities, I've worked around a number of industries that I know people are interested in.

I know for a fact that there are pulp mills in this province that offer tours. I know Alcan Smelters in Kitimat offers tours. They hire students during the summer months to facilitate tours through their plant. There are a number of people that take advantage of these tours. I know there are buses that go into the area to take a look at how British Columbians work and how we produce the products we do. They may see that aluminum can in Florida but have no idea how we produce aluminum. There's another industry that I often talk about: gas and oil. I know that at Cook Inlet in Alaska they run tours out to the drilling rigs.

Tourists are very interested in where the raw products come from. They're interested in how we process these products. I think it would be a tremendous step forward for this province to assist and develop this type of tourism. To showcase what British Columbians do and how British Columbians make a living, I think, is an excellent idea. I support this member wholeheartedly.

It leads to a better understanding of our resource development. It leads to a better understanding of our resource management. It may help in international markets when people can go back to their communities and say that, you know, we're not stripping the land, and we're not clearcutting the mountainsides. We are, in fact, using proper science and proper techniques to develop our resources, to turn them into usable products. I think people are more comfortable about what we develop and how we do it, and I think people go away with a better understanding. I think it's important that we work with the tourism industry to develop these projects so that those who come to our province will have a better understanding.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for North Coast. He has a wonderful area up there that most people in this province probably haven't experienced. One of my grandfathers and my mother were born in the Rupert area and worked there for many years. I've travelled up there many times, and it's an exciting area to go to. Industrial tourism could be of great benefit to them.

I think, for instance, that those who are critics of our forest practices would be well served to actually tour a logging operation, as the member for North Coast alluded to. A pulp mill, a tree farm or a large sawmill are things of great interest. There are other places that wood is used, and I think tourists might find these places interesting too.

Similarly, our mining industry might have an opportunity to be seen in a better light by tourists, who could learn about the strict environmental laws we use and that mining is subject to. These people would be able understand what goes on, for example, in mine reclamation. When you go into the Kootenays to the coal fields, there's elk grazing on the slag there. When you go up into the interior to the Highland Valley, rainbow trout are now swimming inside old acid ponds that were reclaimed. Then there's also the great drama if they go into a mining community and to a large, open-pit mine and see huge machinery up close or blasting going on.

I should add that our inner cities are somewhat remiss in not even trying harder. To use this curiosity of people would be of benefit to tourism to this province. As we have become a more urbanized society, one where a lot of people in the lower mainland have not a clue about what's going on and how the province's natural resources and wealth are generated, this kind of understanding becomes more and more important in today's world. The idea is that people are already in a particular area for a particular purpose. What can the people in that area do to cause those passers-through to stay just another day or two? How will this help the province as a whole?

In my view, it is rural B.C. that will benefit most by this policy, and that is the part of the province most in need of support at this time. I think this could be an exciting departure for British Columbians — to work together for the common good of British Columbia.

Today I wish to speak about the importance of restoring the mining industry in British Columbia. In making my remarks, I want to express my thanks to a local longtime miner and prospector in Nelson, Mr.

Eric Denny. He helped me to provide a brief summary of information about the Kootenays.

In the 1970s mining was our second-largest industry in British Columbia. In the Kootenays we had dozens of operating mines. Mining actually developed the Kootenays. Nelson has heritage buildings built of stone and brick, because people at the time believed the Kootenays had a bright future. Mining brought the CPR and Burlington Northern railways to the Kootenays. The need to service trains resulted in a major railyard at Nelson. The Hall mining company smelter at Nelson created an abundance of work, as did the Cominco smelter at Trail. The latter, the Teck Cominco smelter, exists today and is the world's largest supplier of lead and silver, but it must obtain its ore supply from mines outside the region. Nelson was headquarters, in years gone by, for many mining companies. By 1960, 330 different properties had produced ore. Rossland's Leroi mine was one of the biggest gold producers in B.C. history. Sandon was one of the richest silver camps. Ymir and Sheep Creek goldmines helped to carry the area through the Depression of the 1930s. Salmo was home to the HB mine; the Reeves MacDonald mine; the Canadian Exploration tungsten mine, which they know as the Emerald; and more. Production at the HB and Reeves MacDonald mine was over seven million tonnes of ore each.

In Ainsworth there were numerous well-known properties, and across Kootenay Lake there was the famous Blue Bell mine, where they mined right underneath the lake. Nelson would probably not exist if it hadn't been for mining. Discovery of silver gave us a community that is a treasure of heritage buildings. Mining created access to wilderness areas and made recreation possible in those areas.

Over the last decade mining activity declined. The former government discouraged activity such as mining. They called it a sunset industry, and they worked at making it so. They created a regulatory burden that made only large commercial deposits practical. Large deposits, complex regulations and higher fees to hold and explore mineral claims, when metal markets were down, made small operations impractical. By the time the former government left office, exploration was at an all-time low.

In the last election we promised to try to restore mining to a viable industry again. Flow-through shares was the first step taken so exploration can grow. The industry welcomed this. Exploration planned in our area is more than five times what it was last year. This is promising, but it takes more than exploration to make a mine. Regulations must be practical and protect the environment in a way that is results-based, not with needless red tape.

After all, most mines in my area are simply a hole in the ground from which they haul away ore. Rock that is not valuable is stockpiled in what is referred to as a dump, but in fact it is not different in nature or quality than the countryside around it. No environmental hazard exists. Sometimes materials used in construction or operation of a mine can be hazardous. Attention must be paid to the use and handling as well as cleanup upon completion of operations.

The rules can and should reflect the level of risk. The average hard-rock mine should not have to deal with complex rules in order to operate. Conversely, mines that provide some form of processing on site should be governed by appropriate standards to ensure protection of environment.

I know the industry is eager to demonstrate that it can meet these challenges. We need mining in the Kootenays. We need the economy it can bring and the high-paying jobs that go with it. Mining jobs do pay well. The average mining wage is $77,800 per year, the highest of any resource industry in B.C. It generates more than $4 billion in revenue annually in the mining industry and $1 billion in government taxes. Mining is not pitting the environment against the economy. Environmentally sound practices are achievable.

The fact is that many of our park and recreation areas have also been developed and have access because they were developed by mining activity. Kokanee Glacier Park, about ten miles from where I live, was originally developed by mining. At the Joker there's still evidence of mining today — not that it's active, but the evidence of that mining activity remains — and the roads and trails to the Slocan Chief Cabin were originally created and maintained by miners.

We have mining to thank for the creation of many of our proud communities that have diversified on many levels, but mining is also the key to our future. It can and will lead to endless opportunities for the economic stability of communities in British Columbia.

This land we live in is rich with resources. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to utilizing these resources to make a better place for all British Columbians.

A friend of mine likes to say that every material thing we use in our lives comes either off the side of a hill or out of a hole in the ground. He's right, of course. There's a saying on the Mining Association Canada website that I like. It says: "If it can't be grown, it has to be mined."

One hundred years ago the world used fewer than 30 mineral products. We use more mineral products than that in computers today. It takes 35 minerals just to build your television set. Today there is a vast array of mineral substances being mined for all kinds of uses, from landscaping to the production of space-age materials for the NASA space program.

I don't suppose that the coalminers in my region 100 years ago, in the East Kootenay, every dreamed that miners would extract zinc from Canadian mines for use in sunscreen products sold around the world. In years past, Canadian hockey players strived for hockey medals on blades of steel. Now on skates com-

posed of complex alloys, players pass and shoot with sticks of graphite. Young baseball players swing for the fences with aluminum bats, while skateboarders soar on wheels with aluminum bearings. We create television sets and CDs to entertain us; telephones and computers to keep us in touch; cars, trains and bicycles to transport us; food to sustain us; and medicine and vitamins to keep us well. Mining brings all of these wonderful things.

Mining, of all the primary industries, is unique in at least three ways. First, as compared to the sawmills, the construction trades, logging and heavy manufacturing in B.C., mining work in this province is safer. I commend B.C. mineworkers' dedication to safe mining practices.

I also congratulate B.C. miners for how hard and how smart they work, because the second unique attribute of mining is that mining leads all other industrial sectors in productivity. That's the most important factor in determining our standard of living.

The third unique attribute of mining when compared to the other natural resource industries such as forestry or agriculture is that mining requires a very small amount of land. Mining is a tiny footprint on the B.C. landscape. We use about one quarter of 1 percent of the land in this province for the few mines we have left. That's less than the land taken up by parking lots in B.C. From this tiny speck of land in this province comes $4 billion every year. Better still, after these relatively small areas of land are mined usually for short periods of time, they are reclaimed for other uses, including recreation.

Compare the following uses of our land base. Mining generates $150,000 per hectare of land used; forestry, $5,700 per hectare; agriculture, $1,400 per hectare; and parks, $42 per hectare.

Mines take up a minuscule portion of the land base, but mining exploration requires large areas to explore on. Governments don't always understand this. It's impossible to fit mineral deposit discoveries into a forestry-type land planning process. However, it is possible to zone lands without taking away all the potential for developing a mine. Access to the land is the key issue for generating jobs and tax revenues in the mining business.

Our mining business here in B.C. is in recovery mode after ten years of disastrous government policies. Almost one-half of the miners in this province lost their jobs between 1991 and 2001. B.C., once a leader in the mining industry, has seen two mines closed for every one opened over the past ten years. Exploration has been cut to 10 percent of what it was a dozen years ago.

The Fraser Institute, which does an annual survey of mining companies, puts Nevada at the top. The province of Quebec is second. In the top ten are Manitoba, Peru, Ontario, Alaska, Argentina and Mexico. B.C. was the worst jurisdiction in Canada for mining and was in a group with Wisconsin, which had banned mining totally. That's changing. This is a new day in B.C. Our government is creating public policy that will encourage more new mines and existing mining companies to reinvest.

There is a great future for the mining industry in B.C., as my friend from Nelson-Creston talked about, but we must all promote the benefits of mining. Most people take minerals for granted. Mines are out of sight, and they're usually out of mind. Even in my region where mining is the largest industry, the coalmines are mostly out of sight, and a lot of my friends in the East Kootenay don't always fully appreciate the huge contribution that the Elk Valley coalmines make to the regional economy. The mines in the Elk Valley pay an average salary of $75,000 a year. The East Kootenay couldn't survive in its present form without the coalmines.

Mining is an important component of the new era of hope and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, it's been an honour to respond to my friend from Nelson-Creston about this great industry.

B. Suffredine: I want to thank the member for East Kootenay for his comments. I know what a passion it is and how difficult it is for him to speak briefly about mining. He has the good fortune to have some major operating mines in Fernie and Sparwood that support those communities. He knows firsthand that mining jobs pay well. He knows that extraction of ore does not hurt the environment. He knows that a major mine can bring a stable economy and how jobs can be generated from the raw materials produced. I know he's an advocate for the coal-fired generation of electricity and the opportunities it will bring. That's the way we all have to view mining. It creates opportunities, and it creates raw materials from which those opportunities can come.

Teck Cominco at Trail produces a wide range of products. Gold, silver and lead are some of the things we think about, but it also produces rare earths, copper sulphate, chemicals that can be used in industry — things that we can have opportunities and businesses to build on. I'm looking forward to a revitalized mining community in the area of Nelson-Creston.

I want to thank the member for East Kootenay, and I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on it today.

R. Hawes: Today I want to speak a little bit about health care. Last fall I was privileged to be a part of the Select Standing Committee on Health that travelled the province from one end to the other listening to British Columbians. As we listened, we often heard conflicting viewpoints. Some said: "We should be looking at privatizing some services in health care and allowing the private sector to have a bigger part in how health services are delivered in this province." Another sector said, "Don't do that," and they used the mantra that has been used for years in this province around things like for-profit health care, American-style health care and

all of the buzzwords that would drive us away from considering alternate methods of delivering health care.

As we travelled and we heard these people, we also heard about how we as a government are looking to cut health care somehow, through not increasing — or freezing — the budgets in health care for the next three years. That is a misrepresentation that troubles me quite greatly.

First and foremost, we have increased our budget in health care by over a billion dollars. What we've asked the regions throughout the province to do is contain their cost increases. We're now spending well over $10 billion a year in health care, but without cost containment, we would soon be at $11 billion and then $12 billion and then $13 billion. Health care has a budget that has been rising out of control. When you look at what has been driving that and what can be done about it, it makes one look at how we provide services.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, within your household, if your expenditures exceed your revenue — and you have a reputation, Mr. Speaker, of being a very thrifty, thrifty person — you would cut your expenditures. That's what the health regions are looking to do, and cut the increase in their expenditures. One of the ways they're looking to do it is to privatize some of the support services, such as laundry or food service or landscaping around the hospitals and acute care facilities.

As we travelled the province, we heard from people like Mr. Allnutt, the president of the HEU, that this would be a disaster — to even consider this would be disastrous. Laundry services, according to Mr. Allnutt, can only be provided within the public sector under the purview of the HEU, because they are the only people who are responsible and who will make sure the laundry is done in a way that provides the greatest amount of infection control, disease control, etc.

I had a look at what happens in laundry service. I was not aware until recently that we already have a split delivery system in this province. In fact, in the lower mainland, in the Vancouver area, several hospitals have had private laundry for years. Surrey Memorial Hospital, Eagle Ridge and Riverview are all privately done, and I'm not aware of any complaints about the quality of the laundry, the service — no complaints. The argument that only the HEU can provide the service efficiently or with the kind of cleanliness, etc., that's required is, I think, pretty fictitious.

When you then look at the cost of providing laundry, the figures I've been able to ascertain would show that in the private sector, laundry costs approximately 40 to 45 cents a pound. In the public sector, which is the bulk of what we're doing, it's between 55 and 60 cents a pound and as high as 80 cents a pound in some hospitals, one in particular. Included in that is the fact that there is no capital allowance for the cost of the equipment that does the laundry in the public sector. For some reason, we in the public sector seem to think that equipment is provided for free and that we don't have to cost it into the operating costs of providing those kinds of facilities.

In the past, I understand, Victoria used to have a private laundry. In 1994 the previous government purchased that and then rebuilt it with an investment that was supposed to be $10 million. I'm led to understand that it actually overran by $4 million and cost $14 million to rebuild. The costs prior to the government taking over that service were in the range of 40 cents a pound, I'm told, to do the laundry for the facilities here in this area. After the takeover the costs rose, I'm told, by some 28 percent, and that's without any kind of an allowance for the capital costs of the upgrade of $14 million or the purchase price of the laundry facility.

There are budget savings to be had by looking at the privatization of some of the health support services. As I listened to the statements that were made by many as we travelled the province, like Mr. Allnutt from the HEU, I would urge them to take a look not at having wildcat walkouts and trying to disrupt service but rather to understand why we and the regions are doing what we're doing. I would strongly recommend to the membership of the HEU and the BCGEU to speak to its leadership to ask them to sharpen their pencils and become competitive. If the HEU and the BCGEU do not wish to be competitive, then we know that the regions are going to look at contracting out some of those services.

We as a government have made an absolute commitment to move our dollars closer to the patient. The Health minister, on a regular basis, talks about how we have to put patients first and move our money closer to the patient. To do that, it may mean that we are privatizing or moving away from the public provision of support services. So for those who are in those unions, you know, I just couldn't urge them strongly enough to get to their leadership and ask their leadership to take a look at ways they can cut costs to make the savings that we know have to happen, happen within that union sector. If they can't do that, I'm sure that in many cases they're going to face replacement. I would rather see them sharpen their pencils.

With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity. I know I have a responder, and I'll be happy to speak again in a moment on this.

V. Roddick: I thank the member for his interesting and thought-provoking comments. I find this an invigorating period to be in politics. We are now in a time and a place to challenge old ways of delivering good government and to make the changes necessary to blend the best of the old and the new, when we're talking about good health care.

The old politics of extremes is over. In many jurisdictions throughout the world, leaders and citizens are accepting that the swings from the extreme of left to right and back again are not the answer. In fact, the definition of left-wing or right-wing itself is becoming obsolete. New hybrid forms of governance are emerging that work to embrace the best of both systems.

Of course, such changes demand patience, courage, adaptability and goodwill. We must change the way we set targets and the way we measure if we're heading in the right direction. We must be able to stop partway and say: "We're getting off track. Let's loop around and try something slightly different." This adaptability requires courage and flexibility, but it's crucial. Too often in the past doing something a certain way was simply: "That's the way we do it."

It's not a simple choice of individualism versus collectivism, competition versus cooperation. I believe public-private partnerships are examples of cooperative initiatives which encourage the economics brought on by competition.

Privatization is not necessarily a political act. It can simply be removing a program or a service from direct government control or jurisdiction and placing it in the hands of private individuals, community groups or businesses. It is a point of view that trusts the private and non-profit sector to deliver goods and services fairly and economically. Privatization is not a scary word; it's not a scary concept.

Union is also a good concept. At its highest level it implies bringing together, joining strengths, so that the total is greater than the sum of its parts. People in union on an issue or a project enjoy that implied strength. Our government sees P3s as unions and increased governance by communities as an act of union.

The auditor general of B.C. has recently announced ways of improving the work environment in public service in the whole province. He focuses on developing a strategy for managing human resources so that our public sector is enabled, encouraged and rewarded to give of its full creativity and talent.

I applaud his report. The greatest rewards also require challenges to change the traditional way of doing things, and innovation and risk are also necessary for systems to excel. People who tell us there's only one way to do things and only one outfit allowed to do them are out of step with today's reality. I encourage them to break out of their entrenched attitudes and habits and to embrace creative, productive, innovative strategies. Our province is waiting to benefit from their energy and adaptability.

R. Hawes: I would thank the member for her comments, particularly around P3s.

Just like the fearmongering that has gone on in this province surrounding the privatization of support services, there's a great deal of fearmongering around the P3s. The P3 is where you introduce the private sector in partnership with government to provide mostly capital assets.

That would be, for example, the MSA hospital in Abbotsford which is now actively under consideration. This is a major capital investment for the province of over $200 million. The money to build that hospital in the public sector is in the long-term budget of the government. It can be built with public funds, but the government has at the same time committed itself to looking at a P3 model to see if it would save us money while still providing these medical services that we want to see and must see provided.

The secret to the P3 is to ensure that the patient comes first and that the residents of our province, particularly in the Abbotsford area, are getting the best bang for their buck. If that happens to be in the P3 model, then that's the way we should go. I know the majority of people throughout the area in which I live don't care who owns the hospital. They don't even really care who runs the hospital, providing that health services are there on a timely basis when they need them. It needs to be near where you live, and it needs to be available.

The fearmongering that has gone on around P3s. For example, it's said that in Britain there were leaky pipes and sewage leaking into a ward because of a P3 that was built there. There was a morgue built near the pharmacy in a hospital in England. These are mistakes that are made no matter who builds and no matter how you construct. These have nothing to do with P3s. These are just red herrings that are being thrown up — fearmongering. It's time the fearmongering stops, and those who would now point fingers at what we're doing should stop and think about what we've said.

We're looking at the best way to provide a major capital project, a hospital, in this province. We're looking at how to move the money that we have available closer to the patient. I have to tell you that the best deal for the taxpayer is the one that maximizes health care delivery for the dollars that we have. That's how we're going to proceed with the MSA hospital. I hope that those out there who are going to be affected by this will stop for a moment and understand that's the way we need to go. I'm sure they do understand that. Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

E. Brenzinger: I rise in the House today to address the important issue of business and technology for British Columbia in the information economy. In this digital age, the collection, storage and transmittal of data is increasingly important to all sectors, whether it be private, public or not-for-profit. All organizations are looking for the best, most cost-effective and efficient means of storing data. Governments are clearly leaders in this activity, whether we are talking about land registry records, income tax records or economic and financial statistics. Government is both the principal custodian and probably the largest consumer of data in our society.

While British Columbia is a leader in information technology, even our advanced position in this sector is not sheltering us from significant obstacles, obstacles that have emerged in achieving the archiving and preservation of information for future use. We are gradually becoming aware that electronic data of years past is less and less accessible as a consequence of technological change. Data which cannot be accessed or used after a few years is, in many ways, less useful than a

book mouldering on a library shelf. Precious data is at risk of being lost forever as technology becomes damaged or outdated. For example, I have some floppies in a shoebox in my basement. How many of you have a machine which could read them today, and what will be the situation 50 years from now?

What is going on is that as technology rapidly evolves from punch cards to magnetic tape reels to optical storage to who knows what in ten years from now, the interchangeability of storage media is seriously at risk. According to a recent report in The Observer, a publication from the United Kingdom: "A crisis now afflicts all developed countries. Databases recorded in old computer formats can no longer be accessed on new-generation machines, while magnetic storage tapes and disks have physically decayed, ruining precious databases."

Fortunately for B.C., there are two high-tech companies based in Surrey that are in discussions with a Fortune 500 company regarding a large investment in the ability to create secure data. There is further capital investment opportunity for its sustainable high-tech research centre. These companies are also developing the first on-line service that allows companies and government agencies to do contracts over the Internet in a safe, secure and fair manner. The software service also ensures that best practices are in place with respect to contractual commitments. These companies are also working with leading-edge technology for storing data permanently from analog to digital and back to analog, real-time. I invite the minister and his colleagues to review this innovative service that is catching the attention of governments and corporations across Canada and the U.S. Information regarding these companies can be found at www.datawitness.net.

The looming problem of data preservation will have direct impact on governments. As governments move towards increased provision of services and information via the Internet, we will require technology for archiving data that is secure, reliable, and provides the greatest efficiency for both the taxpayer and the government.

Ultimately, government services should be focused on meeting public policy objectives instead of administrative requirements. Computer experts say that the challenge today is to find a way to preserve data so that it can be accessed no matter what format computers take in the future. This is no small feat. One of the leading experts in data preservation has commented that there's currently no demonstrably viable technical solution to this problem. Yet if it is not solved, our increasingly digital heritage is at grave risk of being lost. That is why the two companies in Surrey are very exciting news for British Columbia.

Our government's placing of Tech B.C. on a sustainable, solid footing in association with Simon Fraser University also augurs well for the development of Surrey as a centre of high-tech excellence, along with Kwantlen University College. If anyone can solve this data sustainability problem I have alluded to, I simply say: keep your eye on Surrey-Whalley.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a pleasure to rise and say a few words in response to the very interesting message that the member for Surrey-Whalley brought to this House. I think the member for Surrey-Whalley raised some important issues with respect to the technology sector and identified both the challenges and the opportunities that we have in British Columbia.

This is a government that understands the importance of the high-tech sector in this province. That's why back in August the Premier appointed the Premier's Technology Council to do the important work of identifying the important issues that are holding back the high-technology industry in this province and to provide advice and guidance to the Premier and to this House to ensure that we bring about the kind of changes we need to bring about in British Columbia to have a thriving high-technology industry. Their work begins with the recognition of the fact that British Columbia today is one of the most connected provinces in Canada. More than six out of ten citizens of British Columbia have access to the Internet, so we do start from a leadership position, which is important as we go forward.

The Premier's Technology Council identified three key issues that were important to successfully diversify the provincial economy. I want to briefly touch on them. The first was to make sure that we remove barriers that keep many British Columbians from participating in the high-technology economy. The second is to identify areas where technology can make government more efficient. That's where the member for Surrey-Whalley was raising some good points. The third is to ensure the growth and development of a vibrant, globally competitive technology industry in British Columbia.

The report also talked about how we can explore areas of increasing the emphasis on areas like e-health or e-learning; e-procurement, for example, is all electronic. The member for Surrey-Whalley mentioned the many companies in British Columbia which have the ability to lead the way in those areas. I think that we as a government must make sure that we listen to, look at and explore those opportunities as the member is encouraging us to do.

I also just want to briefly touch on the fact that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is also working on a branding strategy to make sure that around the world people know about British Columbia and that they think about British Columbia when it comes time to make investment decisions.

I want to thank the member for Surrey-Whalley for bringing a lot of these issues to the House's attention. We look forward, as a government, to making sure that we seize on the initiatives the member has raised and that we lead British Columbia and Canada in the growth and development of technology.

E. Brenzinger: We live in rapidly changing times. The information technology of our government must

continue to play a leadership role. Therefore, the questions that all our ministries must ask themselves are the following. Are there plans in place for ministries to share information databases so that there is a reduction in the cost of maintaining and retrieving information for management decision-making purposes? Are there plans in place for British Columbia to pay for government services in a secure and private manner over the Internet? Have ministries considered private sector opportunities to streamline government services with respect to vendors based in our province? Most importantly, as we move to almost total reliance on electronic information storage and analysis, are we taking the necessary steps so that critical data, so important to future generations, does not disappear into a black hole of technological inaccessibility?

These are formidable challenges. These are exciting challenges. I am confident that our government is more than capable of meeting them.

M. Hunter: A week ago I adjourned debate on this motion. I had been speaking about the nature of the British Columbia seafood business and how it has changed over the last five or ten years from a position of competitiveness, of significant production in global terms and in terms of salmon production. I spoke about how salmon has moved from being a specialty, high-value product to being a commodity in world seafood of a kind we could never have anticipated even ten or 15 years ago.

We are looking at an industry that has impacted and helped develop the coastal areas of this province for 120 years, an industry that has had significant impact on the interior of British Columbia, especially in the Fraser and Skeena drainages. We are now debating a bill that would seek to restrict the development of the new seafood industry in the way it is developing in just about every area of the world that has a temperate coastal climate and temperate coastal water.

This bill would seek to constrain British Columbia businesses that have made investments in aquaculture over the last 20 years, businesses which have brought development in coastal communities of a kind that shows extraordinary promise. This bill militates, in my opinion, against the development of homegrown British Columbia innovation and excellence in an area where, clearly, we have some natural adjuncts and natural advantages that can be put to use for the improvement of the coastal economy of British Columbia and therefore the economy of the entire province.

I think it's useful to examine some of the propositions that have been advanced in support of this bill, which would seek to only allow aquaculture with the technology known as closed containment.

Alaska is opposed to this development. It's very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition would advance Alaskan interests. I was involved for most of my previous life in dealing with management of wild Pacific salmon. I can tell you that over that time period, the interests of Alaska have always been the interests of Alaska. Alaska has been extremely strong, persistent and innovative in advancing its own interests, which include the harvest of wild salmon destined for British Columbia rivers, particularly sockeye salmon and coho salmon from the Skeena drainage.

It's a little bit intriguing and a little strange that we would have members of this House who would seek to advance their interests by claiming that we are somehow offending Alaska. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that doesn't bear too much weight with me because I have been offended by Alaska in the past. We have a responsibility to ourselves first, and I don't think that particular argument carries an awful lot of conviction.

Secondly, we are told that there is going to be a huge impact on wild salmon. Wild salmon have been impacted ever since they found a way to inhabit and reproduce in the river systems of British Columbia, however many thousands of years ago that was — after the last ice age. Clearly, man has had a major impact on wild salmon. But if you look at the reliable data that has been collected on wild salmon in British Columbia since the 1850s or so, when commercial activity as we know it today began, you will see that the impacts are (a) constant and (b) complex, as you would expect in a resource which has five or six species — depending on how you count steelhead — that spawn in and inhabit some 1,600 watershed drainages in the province. Simplistic statements about the state of wild salmon stocks and the impacts on wild salmon of, particularly, human activity tend to be just that: simplistic. There are no straightforward answers or propositions that can apply across the board.

Having said that, there is a mood out there in British Columbia which has been fostered by, particularly, federal politicians who have been anxious to be holier than thou in terms of their commitment to conservation. There has been the creation of an atmosphere in British Columbia and across Canada that somehow our wild salmon stocks are facing erosion, danger — extinction even.

That simply is a long way from the truth. In fact, in the year 2001 we had one of the highest returns of wild coho, certainly, to southern British Columbia that we have seen in our lifetimes. The summer-run components of Fraser sockeye salmon, despite difficulties with late-run fish, are extremely healthy or would be if we didn't keep putting too many of them on the spawning grounds and not allowing enough harvest. Skeena River coho, which had almost disappeared as little as four years ago, have come back in extreme abundance.

The picture, as always with natural resources — and the ones over which we only control a small portion of their lives and their existence — is both complex

and often difficult to understand. People stand there and say that this new activity — it's not so new, actually — of farming fish, or aquaculture, and containing them in pens is somehow going to have an impact on wild salmon. Well, that may be a proposition that might have some currency, but I think we need to make sure we understand that this is one more impact in a whole series of impacts that wild salmon have. We should not forget how these wild salmon are very elastic. They are able to take abuse, and they come back time in and time out. I am one who is extremely confident about the future of that resource.

We have some specific observations and propositions made with respect to impact on wild salmon. We are hearing that sea lice occurred in abundance in pink salmon in 2001. We've had an aquaculture business in southern British Columbia since the early 1980s. It's passing strange to me that in all that time nobody said anything about sea lice, but all of a sudden, in 2001, you get a bloom in an occurrence of a particular organism, and it's like the world's going to end. It's not scientific to take a year of data in a time series and reach conclusions that the world is coming to an end. It simply isn't right. It's not science; it's storytelling.

It reminds me, I think it was in 1996 or 1997, of Horsefly sockeye salmon — these are sockeye salmon returning to go up the Fraser as far as the Horsefly River system and Horsefly Lake — that seemed to be late in their migration, and many of them showed up with marks on the body. There was a great deal of excitement that all of these fish had somehow been attacked by a new, wondrous population of sea lions or…. I don't know what. There were lots of rumours, and people did a lot of work. The phenomenon kind of disappeared. Again, we can't take a one-year event and conclude that there is a huge problem.

Also, with respect to sea lice, it's interesting that this problem occurred with pink salmon. In the year 2001 we had one of the highest returns of pink salmon to the Fraser, with an estimated 22 million migrants passing into the Fraser River — the largest run of pink salmon we've seen in about 20 years, I think. I don't know whether one is related to the other, but there are lots of questions about that particular proposition with respect to the impact of aquaculture.

I've also heard a lot in recent months about diseases. There are a whole range of diseases which occur in fish and in salmon. They are not immune in the natural environment to a range of diseases. In fact, for those who have any interest, part of my past was in dealing with a government in Australia that had banned the importation of frozen Canadian salmon because of alleged risk of disease transfer into the pristine — that's their word, not mine — Australian environment.

IHN, or sockeye salmon disease, is one of these diseases which exist in the salmonid population in British Columbia. Isn't it strange that in 2001 we had a whole problem of aquaculture farm fish which had contracted IHN, which needed to be killed and processed? One of the companies that offered to do this was a former employer of mine in my previous life, Bella Coola Fisheries. They were not permitted to process these fish. Yet I can guarantee that year in and year out, since 1958 when IHN was first documented in British Columbia, Bella Coola Fisheries, along with every other processor that processes sockeye salmon, has seen fish with IHN go through their plant with no problem. It's not transferable to humans; it's not transferable in the plant environment. Yet we had a huge debate around whether or not some farm fish suffering from IHN should be allowed to be processed in a Canadian food-inspection-registered plant.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of hullabaloo, backed by some very doubtful science, being used as propositions as to why this bill should be accepted by this House. I think the disease issue is one that is a very flimsy one in this circumstance. All of those kinds of propositions were advanced and taken by the Leggatt inquiry.

Mr. Leggatt, for those who have forgotten, was an NDP member of the House of Commons way back when. This was an inquiry which had specific objectives in mind. I certainly didn't see that it was an open attempt to deliver new information that would help us decide how this industry is going to develop in British Columbia.

Again, using political science in advance of resource management issues is always a risky business, and I can give this House a hundred examples of where politics and fish don't mix. This was a famous saying advanced by a British Columbia scientist way back when, and I think we need to be conscious that politics and fish are mixing in this debate. It's time to, indeed, deal with science.

This bill, it seems to me, has a very flimsy base in terms of the propositions that are argued in support of it. It cuts out opportunities in coastal British Columbia for no sound scientific reasons. It dismisses the 2,700 pages or so of the environmental assessment study of 1997. I know five years have gone by since that report was filed, but I believe that its conclusions, its analysis and the data on which it was based remain valid today. It is the most thorough examination of this human activity that exists, as far as I know.

The EAO study is also supported by a more recent document that seems not to get referred to often at all. That is a study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States, which deals with the impacts of net-pen salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest. That study, done and published in 2001, reached the same kind of conclusions that our own study here in British Columbia did. It talked about the risk from escapes being minimal. It talked about the risks of colonization being minimal. It reached the same conclusion, based on science, that yes, of course — as in anything you do in the natural environment — there are risks associated with it, but the risks were relatively minor and were certainly manageable.

That's what we should be looking at: manageability of the risk that exists in moving into an area and a technology which is not new to British Columbia but which is certainly going to develop in a major way in the next few years. I believe that in British Columbia we have the opportunity to be leaders in this industry.

We are talking about an industry which is looking to occupy an area of water whose footprint is considerably smaller than the city of Vancouver. We are not talking about hundreds or thousands of hectares being occupied to farm salmon in coastal British Columbia, with its huge number of kilometres of coastline. I don't know what that number is, but there are millions of hectares of water that are available for lease. We're talking about a very, very small footprint here.

We have a chance to face and beat the competition, which frankly, Mr. Speaker, was the competition that knocked out our wild salmon fishery. The fishery that so many people depended upon for so long in this province, which helped develop this province, found itself in hard times partly because of some resource issues through the 1990s; there's no doubt about that. It was also because the competition — Norway; Scotland; Australia; even Japan; Washington State; Iceland; Chile, another key example; anywhere that has the coastal temperate water — managed to reduce the cost of producing salmon way below that of harvesting the wild animal.

That means that we have in British Columbia a fish which is, in historic terms, in relatively small supply but which is facing a market which, when I spoke last time on this issue, has trebled in the last ten years. We have a chance to re-establish British Columbia's still-known name in international seafood markets with new products produced in British Columbia — using British Columbia employment, British Columbia people — to beat that competition and re-establish ourselves in world markets.

There is, however, a place for closed-containment technology. Clearly, the technology exists. In fact, the home of the technology in Canada exists in my riding in Nanaimo. A company by the name of Future SEA Technologies Inc. has demonstrated this containment technology in Chile, Scotland and Canada, but it is a technology which has its use in smolt production and in the use of the development of the animals that are needed to stock the farms.

I've heard about the use of land-based sites as well. A lot of people say: "Yeah, let's let aquaculture develop, provided it's based on land." Well, again, Nanaimo is the home to a land-based aquaculture facility. Originally built some 15 years ago by a company called Hagensborg, it is now a facility in which there are aboriginal people experimenting with aquaculture. It is a place where there are significant numbers of seed oysters and clams being raised, but it is not the kind of facility that is going to be commercially viable in an era where the Chileans can put fish on the market in Los Angeles cheaper than you can pour the concrete and amortize it over a period of 20 years. Let's face economic and commercial realities here. When you're trying to establish a competitive product, you can't have your capital and operating costs so high that you can't get into that market.

What we have as an opportunity here is the growth and development of an industry which is already here. It's been here for 20 years. We have an approach which is cautious. The precautionary principle is a principle you hear a lot about in natural resource management. I would argue that the approach that this government has taken follows and, in fact, sets some pretty interesting guidelines for how intelligently this precautionary principle which exists can actually be applied in a real-world situation. The plan that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has announced appreciates the economics of the seafood business and seeks to take advantage of those economics.

I've heard, as well, that aboriginal communities are opposed to what this government is proposing to do. I think that like the arguments you hear about the impact of aquaculture on wild salmon, that is very simplistic. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows there are aboriginal communities up and down coastal British Columbia that are indeed looking at aquaculture as an opportunity for relief from some pretty serious situations in those towns and villages. The problem those aboriginal communities have, frankly, is the aboriginal fisheries strategy, something that the last government did not do very much to fix.

I say: let's give our modern, technically competent, responsible aquaculture leaseholders the tools to create jobs and wealth in British Columbia. Let's vote against this bill.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today we have a good friend of mine, Mr. David March. David worked tirelessly on my campaign in the last election and was very good at predicting our margin of victory. I want to welcome him to the House and ask members to join me in greeting him with a round of applause.

B. Belsey: I rise today to speak against the bill brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I would like to start with a letter I received not too long ago from a fellow who is a Canadian, went to school in Canada, became a veterinarian and lived and worked….

B. Belsey: He received a bachelor's of marine science, a master's in aquatic ecology and a doctorate in

veterinary medicine. I think he's well qualified. He goes on to say in his letter:

I thought that was a very important letter, because that man is experienced, that man understands the science and that man certainly has an opinion that I agree with.

In the debates, we've heard that first nations have not been in favour of aquaculture. I would like to tell you that is not true. There are first nations that are very interested in aquaculture. There happens to be one in my riding that has developed aquaculture: Kitasoo, or Klemtu, as it's often referred to.

The benefits of aquaculture in that community are far-reaching. The goal when they first looked at aquaculture was to have one person of every household working in fish farming. Today they've reached that goal. They had over 50 people working in their processing plant, processing this year over six million pieces of farm fish. They have six reefer trailers that come in and out of the community every week, taking that processed fish from the first nations village to Bella Coola and along the highway and down to points south. They have seine boats that work in the industry. They have created jobs, and they have benefited greatly from finfish aquaculture.

There are other first nations looking at finfish aquaculture in my riding and some further north anxiously waiting for the expansion of finfish aquaculture.

Some of the other arguments we've heard from the member who brought forward the bill…. What is Alaska doing about fish farming? I can tell you. In Alaska right now they do what is called ocean ranching. They raise fish at the mouth of the river. They turn it loose. That fish could be caught by the commercial fleet; it may be caught by sport fishermen. They're guaranteed a portion of the return, of what comes back.

They are also going to find themselves soon in the same position that our fishermen found themselves in. That is the falling prices of fish. Farm fish have taken over a huge portion of their market. Certainly, in British Columbia the prices have been so low that it's been very difficult for fishermen to make a living. I'm sure in Alaska they'll soon be faced with the same demise.

I have a note here given to me a while back. It's to do with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is a U.S. federal agency widely recognized as one of the best organizations throughout the world regarding fish aquaculture. In their report NOAA, as they're referred to, confirms that salmon aquaculture presents a low overall risk to the environment. Now, that's a U.S. firm. For instance, NOAA asserts that the potential for farm fish to spread disease to wild salmon represents a low risk and that the potential for escaped Atlantic farmed salmon to colonize or to completely wipe out a stream is very, very low risk. I think those in Alaska will be forced, not unlike our industry, to take a second look at the farm fish industry.

Some of the other issues brought up in this debate were escapement and the impact of Atlantic salmon on our rivers and streams. There was a report released not too long ago that described the survey that first nations have done on the streams in their traditional territory. First nations were trained in survey techniques and fish identification prior to conducting these surveys. They then went back to their communities and went through their streams.

There were 103 surveys completed, 49 rivers surveyed, 234 kilometres of rivers surveyed and 39 people involved in this survey. Let me tell you the results. The number of Atlantic salmon enumerated: two adults, zero parr and zero fry. The number of other salmonid enumerated: 45,731 adults, 300,000 parr and 10,506 fry. Now, that is evidence, done by first nations, that the likelihood of Atlantic salmon taking over a stream or a river is extremely remote.

The legislation introduced by the NDP has no sound scientific or economic base. Our government is working hard to introduce the most comprehensive set of performance regulations for the salmon-farming industry that we'll find in the world. We have worked with the scientific community, we have talked to the industry and environmental groups, and we are going to move ahead to give people on the north coast opportunities in fish farming. We can no longer decide that there are certain industries that can happen on the southern coast or the southern part of the central coast. We have to allow those industries to expand into the north coast and give opportunities to these people.

I received some information not too long ago on salmon aquaculture from a group called Georgia Strait Alliance. In that information, they make mention of sea lice. Well, when I think back as a kid, my dad used to take me out fishing all around the waters of the lower mainland and up the coast, and I remember it was rare that we ever caught a salmon that didn't have lice on it. Sea lice are naturally occurring. They've been in these waters for many, many years. I don't understand. From what I've read, we cannot attribute sea lice to salmon farming.

Also, in the presentation that was given to us and in the folder they provided, they talked about a dead seal found near Quadra Island. They blamed that on

the salmon farmers. Well, they do have the right to scare off these predators, and they do have the right to shoot these predators, but you know, every other fisherman out there has the right to shoot these predators. If they get into commercial fishermen's traps, they have to, from time to time, scare them away. From time to time, they have had to shoot them. We can't blame a seal lying on a beach on salmon farming.

Salmon farming has the opportunity to create jobs, to create an economy in my riding, and I support it wholeheartedly, and so do many of the people living on the north coast. All of us on the north coast get concerned when we see an industry that seems to be acceptable someplace else, but a rule or regulation is put in place preventing that industry from expanding in my area.

We've heard that there may be a problem with commercial fishermen and salmon farming. Well, four or five months back I had the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management come up to my community and agree to go on the radio. One of the first questions he was asked by a commercial fisherman was when we are going to open up finfish farming on the north coast. His concern was that he wanted to be able to use their live-kill facilities for his wild fish.

Those industries can work together. There are opportunities for those industries. A live-kill mechanism will allow him to bring his wild fish in and have them killed the same way as farmed salmon. He will be able to market them without the net marks, damaged scales or cuts and bruises that sometimes result when they have to bring fish aboard alive.

I'd like to end there. I just want to make sure that the rest of the members understand some of the concerns brought forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. When it comes time to vote on this bill, I will not be supporting it.

D. Jarvis: I rise to speak against this member's bill as well. Seafood has become an item that the population in our country and throughout the world has grown accustomed to. They now are having fresh fish on the table every day when they sit down either at home or in a restaurant. This is partly due to the fact that aquaculture has been brought into the food equation and changed the whole seafood industry in this world.

Open-net fish farming has proven to be the best way to go both environmentally and economically in this country. I say that on the basis that science does say so. Science is on the side of this method, regardless of those who say it isn't. The ministry has done its own homework. We wonder, if they hadn't done so, why they would pursue the fish-farm industry in this province. If it was detrimental to our society, I doubt very much you'd find the government of British Columbia supporting aquaculture in this province.

Let's just face it. I look at those that are against fish farming. It's the same sort of green movement that seems to be against every other resource extraction we have in this province. I'm really surprised at how the members of the opposition party have obviously lost touch with those who work in the resource areas of this province, by the fact that they are against this additional method of creating employment and bringing income to the north coast of British Columbia.

The unemployment stats of the north coast are unacceptably high and give me real concern. I worry about it, especially in the aboriginal communities. Those aboriginal communities that have taken on fish farming are doing very well. The member for North Coast mentioned the one halfway up the north coast. I can't think of the name right now, but I've been there — the fishing community that has a big fish farm outside of Bella Coola.

As I say, I wonder where the opposition is coming from when they bring forward a bill here that would curtail employment and jobs in British Columbia. I believe a lot of it is fishmongering — that is, fearmongering.

D. Jarvis: That's not a pun. It's fearmongering by those that seem to be against everything in this province. I question their experts, which in my opinion are special interest groups, and their scientists. I sometimes wonder when the David Suzuki Foundation brings in an expert — say, Ms. Hunter — whose experience is just short of five years of being an MP in Ottawa, and she suddenly becomes an expert in aquaculture in British Columbia. It gives us some thought as to where their experts have been derived from.

I am 66 years of age. I was born on this coast. I got my first boat and little 2¾ horsepower motor in it, and I've been fishing on the coast here for 60 years. I've seen what has happened to fishing, how it's gone up and down in cycles on this coast. I've caught many, many salmon over the years. There's always been sea lice on salmon. There's always been some years when there has been a lot of sea lice on them. It's a natural thing. There's always been years when there has been very little sea lice on the fish. It's a cyclical thing, depending on Mother Nature's method of control, I guess.

Last summer I did a lot of fishing off the west coast of Vancouver Island, Alberni Canal and south of Texada on the inside passage there. All the fish there had minimal amounts of sea lice on them. So those aspects they attribute to the fact that aquaculture is causing harm to the wild stock leaves me, again, somewhat questioning.

The member for North Coast mentioned a survey. I think it was Atlantic Salmon Watch that just finished it. The latest figures in regard to the concern of aquaculture and the escape of Atlantics from them would have

cross-breeding aspects of it, when they got mixed up with the sockeye, and all the rest of it. Well, there is no scientific evidence of any cross-breeding, and this latest Atlantic Salmon Watch survey showed — as I said, it was mentioned by the previous speaker — that of some 356,600 salmonids that were spotted, there was no fry, no parr and only two adult Atlantics found, out of 356,000-plus fish. The scare tactics of the cross-breeding of Atlantics are really just that: scare tactics.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go on much longer, but I do think we have to really consider where we're going in this province with regard to aquaculture, salmon farming and indigenous farming. The next thing we know, they'll be against sable fish, which is another word for black cod, a highly respected and thought-of fish that can be farmed.

I've been signalled to move on faster by Mr. Whip, so I'll just say that I'm certainly not in favour of this bill. I support the government and its attitude that the science has shown that aquaculture and fish farming are of advantage to the people in British Columbia. I'll leave it at that.

S. Orr: I rise today, and I am actually going to speak against this bill. You may wonder how an MLA from Victoria-Hillside would know anything about fish farming. Actually, I know a fair amount. I have a son who works in a fish farm.

For the record, I want everybody to know and I want to assure everybody that I have checked with the conflict commissioner, Mr. Oliver, to make sure that as I speak today, I am not in conflict, as my son is just an employee of a fish farm. We have lots of debates in my house about fish farming. There are a few things I have found very interesting that I haven't actually heard spoken in this chamber, so I think it's important to bring this up.

We talk a lot about containment fish farming and how much better that would be and how much environmentally friendlier that would be. That's very interesting, because I can't see that. I have tried to figure that out in my head, and I'll explain to you why I can't see that. To do containment fish farming on land — this is one fish farm — you would have to clearcut the size of one and a half times bigger than Stanley Park. The container would have to be 50 feet deep of salt water, and this would have to be pumped onto the land so that the fish could grow and thrive. Think about that. If you put one container on land, you clearcut a piece of space that's one and a half times bigger than Stanley Park, you fill it with over 50 feet worth of salt water, and you then have to pump it. Do you know the power that would be required to pump that one fish farm? You would require enough power to actually cover two cities the size of Coquitlam. All of the power they use in the city of Coquitlam times two would be required to pump the water to that contained fish farm on land. Now, you tell me where that is environmentally better. I think that is outrageous. That's number one.

We have put in performance-based measures. Again, I have these long debates with my son. My son is one of those people that needed a job and did not have a university degree. He got a job. He's got a good job, and it's a sustainable job with a good monthly income with benefits. We are going to create jobs for people not only in the coastal communities but for kids in the cities who need to be employed. They will go and work up there like my son has done, and they will build a life.

The fish farm he works for he calls environmentally friendly. I mean, this is a fish farm that only raises chinook salmon. He has pleaded a very good case to me, a case where he has shown that he can get a good job and his friends can get jobs. I thought that some of the facts and stats that he has given me — and there's a lot more than this — tell me that it certainly is no better. It is certainly not environmentally friendly on land. He has one phrase that he leaves with me every time. "Mother," he says, "you want to put the fish on the land, or you want to put the pigs in the ocean?" I think he's made a very good point, and I'm putting that forward. I will not be voting on this bill.

R. Visser: I have a few things to say. This is exactly the reason that I sought public office for the party that I sought public office for: to be able to come to this House and stand up for the people that live in my constituency.

When I left high school in 1982, the salmon farm industry was just in its infancy; it was just getting going. It started, largely, in the North Island but also in Alberni and Sechelt and down in the Saltspring Island area. For all that time — and I have to say I'm having my twentieth graduation reunion this year, and it kind of shocked me a little bit — I've watched that industry grow and watched that industry adapt and change and become what it is today.

I'm glad I'm here, and I'm glad I get to stand up and talk about things like Bill M201 because that's the same kind of legislation that the rural part of this province has been faced with for a decade. That is why we have the unemployment rates we have. That is why we have the community dislocation that we have. That is why we have not been as successful as we used to be. It's time we turned that around.

I am very thankful to the Minister of Fisheries for all the work that he's done to make this industry environmentally sustainable and to give it the opportunity it needs so that it can grow into the future.

If the critics weren't held to account, one would be led to believe that you could walk from Vancouver to Prince Rupert just on the fish farms alone, to step from farm to farm to farm. The truth of it is that all of the fish farms added together, all bolted together, equal the same surface area as the runways of the Vancouver airport. That surface area creates an extraordinary amount of energy in a community like Campbell River or Port Hardy for all the folks that

The members for Nanaimo, North Coast and Victoria-Hillside all spoke about the science of some of those things. I want to talk about the jobs and the energy that this industry creates. These are exciting times for these folks. We've got a number of small businesses — young entrepreneurs. You go into places like the Campbell River Netloft and see who's working there. You go into Englewood Packing and see who's working there. They're young. They're well paid. They're raising their families. They're moving forward with their lives in the communities that they were born and raised in. We haven't been able to do that for a decade.

It's time that we started to rebuild our resource economies, and I think fish farming is part of the cornerstone of it. I am going to vote against this bill. I am in full support of all the steps that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries have taken to make this industry what it is today and what it's going to be in the future.

Hon. G. Collins: I want to rise on a point of order, if I may, as Government House Leader and Minister of Finance.

It is a longstanding practice in Legislatures and parliaments around the world, in a history that probably goes back hundreds of years, that any legislation which creates a tax, a fee, a licence — any sort of charge on the public known as an impost — must be accompanied by a message from the Lieutenant-Governor or the Governor General or Her Majesty the Queen. That's a longstanding practice. Only the Crown has the right to levy an impost or taxation.

I note that section 2 of the private member's bill that's before us, section 13(5)(a), requires that a person pay a fee to be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Therefore, this bill is out of order.

J. Kwan: Speaking to the matter that has been raised by the Government House Leader, the motion which speaks to the issue around the fee as being prescribed. It follows the current government policy existing right now where people engage in business licences and such, that they be required to pay a fee. Therefore, it does not contravene the existing policies that are in place relative to licensing.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, government and the Crown levy all sorts of fees, licences and other charges and taxes. But I repeat what I said earlier: the proper way for that to happen is for it to come in the form of a message from the Lieutenant-Governor. This private member's bill does not. I would argue, therefore, that it's out of order.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take it under advisement and return with a decision at a later date.

Hon. G. Collins: To await your ruling, I would move adjournment of the debate.

J. Kwan: Formerly, where there was an issue raised with the Chair, the matter would be undertaken by the Chair to make a determination, and the debate would continue until such time. I seek your advice on whether or not we're able to continue debate at this time.

Deputy Speaker: The adjournment of debate is in order, so a vote will be taken.


	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Santori	van Dongen
Nettleton	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Murray
Collins	Clark	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
McMahon	Bray	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan