Hansard -- Monday, March 24, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 1 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5535

Private Members' Statements		5535
	The work of a constituency MLA R. Hawes K. Krueger Business in B.C. B. Kerr Hon. G. Bruce BCIT J. Nuraney Hon. S. Bond Economic development B. Belsey Hon. R. Thorpe

Second Reading of Bills		5543
	Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill M201) J. MacPhail R. Visser J. van Dongen M. Hunter Hon. S. Hagen B. Belsey G. Trumper

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I have the privilege of having two second-year university students from the University of British Columbia visiting us. The first is Whitney Larsen. Whitney is from Vancouver, studying political science and economics. From Summerland, British Columbia, is Alicia Agur. Alicia is studying cell biology and genetics for pre-med. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: The Earl Marriott Mariners senior girls AAA high school basketball team is the provincial champion. On March 8, 2003, led by coach Bob Gair, this exceptional group of young women demonstrated class, skill and teamwork. They have made their school and the community of White Rock–South Surrey very proud. Their focus, dedication and belief in themselves have provided each of them with valuable life experience. I ask this Legislature to join with me in extending our congratulations and best wishes to the Earl Marriott Mariners, provincial champions.

R. Hawes: Today I want to talk a little bit about the role of an MLA. I want to talk about that because I'm constantly amazed at home with the number of questions and the number of calls I get from people who really, I think, don't understand what the role of an MLA is and what function we provide.

I get questions quite often — in the grocery store, for example — from people who will say, "Oh, are you just visiting for the weekend? How do you like living in Victoria with your family?" — that sort of thing. It just dawns on me that a lot of people don't understand that when you get elected to come here to this place, you still remain in your community, you're an active part of your community, and you're here really as an advocate for your community and for how it fits into the provincial interest. You're here to represent your community in the provincial interest. What I want to do is talk for a few minutes today about what an MLA does, what the function of an MLA in this place — Victoria — is and how constituents have their issues dealt with by their MLA as he comes to Victoria.

First, I want to just say that until this government was elected, the role of an MLA was quite different than it is today. The role of an MLA in previous governments has really been fairly limited. MLAs were given very little place in governance and in how regulations and laws were actually implemented in this province. They were frequently not part of any discussion as policy was unfolding, and sometimes only when legislation was introduced on the floor of the House were they first informed of coming legislation.

This has changed with this government, with the introduction of a number of features that were brought in by the Premier at election time. The first one was the free votes. All of us as MLAs have the ability to vote the way we feel we should vote on any issue to best represent our constituents. When we ran for office, the New Era document…. We published all of the promises we were making to the people. Those were the only issues that weren't subject to free vote, because we all agreed before the election that we were all supportive of those promises and those actions of government. We are busily implementing every single one of those promises. All other actions of government, though, are subject — for all of us — to free vote, to dissent and to disagree with the direction government is taking.

Another part of that has been the implementation of government caucus committees. Government caucus committees are…. For the first time in this province all members of caucus are able to take part in discussion of legislation as it is being developed, have their say and put on the table their arguments for or against what's happening, to be heard before it goes to cabinet for ultimate decision. What generally happens is that by the time legislation hits the floor of the Legislature, it has been thoroughly discussed, and all MLAs have had active participation to the extent that they wish to have active participation. So there's no need to vote against something or speak against something, because we've all had our say and are generally in accord with what has happened.

The other thing is that we have reactivated the legislative standing committees. They were inactive for a decade; they are now active again. There's the legislative standing committee on health, there's the legislative standing committee on education, and there are a number of them that are actively seeking input from the public, which helps guide the types of legislation that are being put on the table. As MLAs, we are busy taking that kind of input that for a decade was not happening in this province.

As an MLA, I can tell you that for myself, one of the biggest surprises was the time that this job takes. I had not anticipated — number one — the length of the days, which, generally speaking, start at eight in the morning and on a normal day end probably at ten at night. They're pretty much 14-hour days while you are here in Victoria, which is — when the Legislature is meeting — a minimum of four days a week. Monday through Thursday you're away from your family, and you are here, but you are in constant contact with your constituency office through the people that you have working there. So while you are away, you are a part of

your community, and you're representing your community all the time that you're here.

One of the biggest things that I think people need to understand, which I would want my constituents to understand, is that issues that arise that really affect our community are argued by myself — as all the MLAs do for their own communities — in caucus and in the caucus committees. Caucus is a place where any argument can be put forward, any discussion can be had, and it does happen there at every caucus meeting. We are all respectful of the democratic process, and at the end of the day democracy does rule.

There happens, in this government, to be not one area of this province, not one community in this province that's not represented by a member of the government. There is not one city, not one town — nowhere — in this province that a government member is not representing. When the arguments come to caucus and to the legislative standing committees, they are arguments that surround the entire province. In previous governments where there was a much greater split, there were in government caucus, of course, many areas of the province that weren't particularly directly represented by MLAs. This creates a much, much different and much richer type of argument that comes forward in our caucus. I know that it causes all of us, every single one of us as MLAs, to better understand the diversities of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I've asked the Whip to respond. We have a party Whip, and I don't think many of my constituents understand what that is. I've asked him if he would give a response to this.

K. Krueger: It's my privilege to respond to the member as he illustrates something of the challenges that a constituency MLA faces and the very progressive approaches that this government has taken to enable and empower elected people to fully represent the constituents who sent them to this place. I, like the member who spoke before me, am very proud of this government's legislative reforms — the fact that every member of this House is an empowered member, that members here now have free voice on the issues and the legislation that comes before this House and free votes when it comes time to vote on that legislation.

Every member is assigned to a government caucus committee, but he or she is also invited, on a standing invitation basis, to all the meetings of other government caucus committees, of which the agendas are published in advance so members know when issues crucial to their constituencies are coming up for discussion and debate within a GCC. Again, when they attend as guests at GCCs of which they are not members, private members have equal voice and equal vote on the things that are decided at those meetings.

All of this has made the role of the government caucus Whip a very different role, obviously, than it has been in the past. It's an ancient parliamentary position to be assigned as Whip, and it means a very different thing in British Columbia since May 16, 2001, than it has meant in parliaments around the world in the past. This job is a very fortunate job for someone to be assigned to. It's a matter of coordinating the tremendous energy, initiative and vibrancy of a caucus that really is empowered by a Premier who wanted every member to be genuinely able to represent the wishes and the voice of that member's constituents.

Whether it is the daily negotiation, argument and dialogue about who gets to ask questions in question period and in which order…. We do negotiate that every day, Mr. Speaker. We know that, sadly, you do feel this obligation to recognize the opposition members first, but private members of the government caucus have many issues they want to bring to the formal forum of question period, and there is constant negotiation as to who gets to go first in the limited time available after the opposition has had its lengthy turn.

That's part of the day. We start every morning with that in the private members group. Far more than that, of course, we're involved in the evolution of policy, bringing forward suggestions, requests and complaints from our constituents and making sure they find their place in the priority order of this government, bringing initiatives through the government caucus committees and ultimately seeing legislation come forward in this House that reflects the concerns of our constituents.

I've always felt there are a number of components of this job of being a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament that the people who send us here don't always think about. Like the member who spoke before me, I have people stop me on the street when I'm home in the constituency a couple of months into the session, and they will ask when the Legislature sits. They don't really realize that we've already been slogging away working on legislation for many weeks here in Victoria.

It's a job where, when you're in Victoria, you're falling behind in your constituency on the many work issues, and when you're in the constituency, there are matters accumulating here, so members are constantly buzzing back and forth. I know many of our members work seven days a week and are hard-pressed to pick a time during the year when they can actually take a break or spend a little quality time with their families.

That's one of the issues I try to address as government caucus Whip, because it truly is a responsibility to make sure that people are not shortchanging their families to the extent that family problems result or a member's health is adversely affected. I remember one time when I was getting on a plane in Victoria and the Minister of Advanced Education was waiting for the same plane. She got an urgent phone call at the last moment, and I found myself standing on the stairway of the plane refusing to go in so she wouldn't miss it.

When we got off on the other side, I noticed that the bag she was carrying looked particularly heavy. It was supposed to be a briefcase, but I took it from her and just about broke my shoulder. It turned out she had to run the length of the Vancouver airport, having delayed the plane, to get from the gate where Victoria exited to the gate where Prince George boarded. I was

packing this briefcase for her and running along thinking, I wonder how she does this. That night there were….

K. Krueger: Normally, she has the gigantic member for Prince George North who helps her.

But people really pour their lives into government here, and I'm tremendously proud of the job they do and the way the Premier has organized it. I thank the member for spotlighting the activities of a constituency MLA.

R. Hawes: I'd like to thank the government Whip for his response. What I want to touch on, as well, is what happens at the constituency office. I'm very fortunate in mine. I have two constituency assistants, Wilson Seig and Sharen Parkinson, both of whom are caring and very, very thoughtful people who are extremely dedicated to doing an excellent and outstanding job for the constituents where I live.

What happens is that as people come into the constituency office with problems they're having that need some kind of address from the MLA's office, because they haven't been able to work their way through whatever problem they're having with government bureaucracy, the constituency assistants help them to find their way through the problem and look for solutions. Where solutions aren't that evident, often they will come to myself as the MLA. Sometimes these problems require intervention from a ministerial level. That's another change that's been made here in this government by the Premier — that is, to give all MLAs access to ministers and, actually, to the Premier on a very, very rapid basis.

I recall sitting as the mayor in the community in which I live and trying to get to see a minister of the previous government and asking our MLA of the day if he could help us get in to see a particular minister and having to wait months and months and months. That simply does not happen now, with this government. The responsiveness is at a very, very high level. The Premier has insisted — and the ministers have all responded wonderfully — that MLAs have access almost instantly. They get priority access, and we are able to get our communities' and our constituents' affairs in front of ministers on a regular basis and on a priority basis. I think that really speaks well and does help us do our job.

The last thing I want to say is that I often get asked by constituents why I didn't get up on the floor of the Legislature and yell and scream about any particular piece of legislation that they don't happen to like. The answer is: first and foremost, because we've already discussed it at some length in caucus and in caucus committees and have reached some kind of an accord. Again, like I said, this is a democratic process. Through working with the caucus, you don't get everything you want, and you don't agree with every single thing that happens, but for the most part we do find some kind of accommodation and some kind of an agreement. Oftentimes it involves some kind of compromise. One of the things I'm learning very rapidly here is that you have to look at your constituents' interest, but you have to see it in the context of the broad provincial interest.

I hope some of my constituents will understand a little more about what an MLA does. It is a very challenging, exciting job that I am proud to do for them.

B. Kerr: On March 23 and 24 of this year, 2003, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers is holding its annual Grocery Showcase West. That's, in fact, this weekend. The CFIG is made up of over 3,000 grocers from Sooke, B.C., to St. John's, Newfoundland. They hold two conventions. They hold one in Toronto in the fall, and they hold Grocery Showcase West in Vancouver in the spring. Grocers from all across western Canada come to the showcase in the west to learn about the latest trends in equipment, to learn about making their business more efficient and to network with their peers to find out how they can provide better service to their customers.

On the matter of customer service, I would just like to say that we're somewhat spoiled in British Columbia and even more spoiled on Vancouver Island, because the number of awards that have been won on Vancouver Island far exceed what is given out to the rest of the country. I'd just like to mention a few here so people can understand. The CFIG gives these awards out in Toronto. They're called the grocer of the year awards. They pick out three categories: your large-surface, your medium-surface and your small-surface store. They pick regional winners, and then those regional winners get picked to become the winners nationally — to pick the best store in all of Canada among the 3,000-member grocers.

B. Kerr: Well, I could brag a little bit — a store on Whistler won it last year — but I'm talking more about Vancouver Island. Three times since 1998 a Thrifty's store has won the national grocer of the year award. Village Foods in Sooke won the award in 1997. Quality Foods in Parksville won the award in 2001. Peppers in Oak Bay, for the small-surface store, won the silver medal in 2000, and in 1997 they won the bronze. Next door to us on Vancouver Island, Mitchell Brothers won the best small store award in 1998.

You can see we've been pretty well garnering all the awards since about 1997. I didn't go back further than that, but you can see that we're clearly well served on Vancouver Island. It just shows you how high we have set the performance bar.

Of course, one of the problems when you have such a high performance bar is that you're also establishing

a new satisfaction bar — an expectation bar, if you will. Every time you get the expectations up there, in order to exceed the expectations, you have to do that much better. I'm sure, though, that the grocers on Vancouver Island and, indeed, in B.C. and all of Canada will be up to that task. More importantly, we like to get the benefit here in British Columbia, and I'm glad that we have such dedicated grocers here on Vancouver Island.

I have to say, though, that the grocers are facing a bit of a challenge. This is a challenge that is in keeping with the service to the community. This challenge relates to the beverage container stewardship program regulation. Under this regulation, grocers are required to accept returns of empty containers regardless of their source. It causes consternation for grocers, because a number of them really aren't set up to accept the containers.

I'd like to set the scene for you, if I can. You're in line at the cashier, and in front of you somebody's come with bags of bottles, Tetra-Paks and fresh juice bottles that are empty. They're bringing them in, putting them across the belt, and the cashier is taking them. They give the person the money, and the person goes off — without having washed their hands or anything — to feel the tomatoes and the cabbage in the produce department. Right after the cashier finishes bringing these bottles across, she reaches across and brings your broccoli and tomatoes.

There's a whole list of things that could happen with these containers, particularly if you're like me. I leave them in my garage until I finally see them piling high and I say: "My God, I'd better take these things back." I don't take them back to the local grocer. I take them back to a bottle depot where they can be handled properly. I don't have to worry about any cross-contamination, because there are problems even with the Tetra-Paks. They could develop mould. If you have empty juice containers, if they're fresh juice containers, they can attract E. coli or salmonella. These stores are required to take these things back. Some of the stores have it set up. They're okay, but some of the smaller stores don't have it set up. They don't have a place to store them properly or look after them properly. Yet they are required, under the act, to take these back under the stewardship plan.

There is an alternative. The alternative is through the bottle depots. Encorp Pacific is a non-profit corporation that is a product stewardship agent for all the non-alcoholic beverage containers. It doesn't set the targets. Encorp Pacific merely carries out the policies and ensures that the policies of the stewardship regulation are carried out. They act as the agency that takes delivery on behalf of more than 200 beverage brand owners throughout British Columbia who sell packaged beverages in B.C. So there is the alternative.

Their work has proven to be very successful. They handle, in a cost-effective manner, over three million products each year that come to them. They have spoken to me, and they've spoken with the CFIG, and they've said: "You know, really, we would like to have all the business. We think we can handle it in an efficient manner." The CFIG has said: "Well, we don't want to have to take containers back. We think, in fact, that in some respects we shouldn't be allowed to take containers back."

I'm not sure we should go that far, but certainly that's one of the considerations to maintain sanitation. So to me the answer seems quite simple. We have an organization that's ready, willing and able to expand to take containers back and, in fact, is doing a very good job of it right now. We have the retailers who don't want the return-to-retail policy to be included in that regulation. If we met both the requests and changed the regulation, we could make both people happy and serve the customers better. What would be the effect if we just made the return-to-depot is that it would create more business for the bottle depots, and they would be able to set up more depots in more convenient locations. It would also create more stewardship solutions, and that would mean they could hire more people.

I've asked the Minister of Skills Development and Labour if he would respond to me. He has been kind enough to do that, so I'll give time to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's been most enlightening today. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission first started with how things have changed in the House here and how parliament is working better. Then my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who is a grocer, spoke about grocery issues. Of course, I come from a family of grocers, and I'd like to say that part of the change to the House is because we actually have a greater proportion of grocers now on the floor in the House here in Victoria than we've had in many, many years. I've often said that if the House was full of grocers, because a grocer actually knows the cost of butter — what a pound of butter costs or a pound of bacon — we'd get much better government throughout the province.

I still actually have a problem in my office today, because I'm continually counting the pencils to keep track of what's going on in my ministry. That's just a holdover from being a grocer for so many years.

I think it's very instructive that there has been a full-fledged change in the House. Of course, this House now has two grocers. Let's hope that in the future, there will be many, many more grocers who come to the House here in Victoria to look after the affairs of the people of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's good to have a great proportion of grocers too, as my colleague next to me…. He's a lawyer, and there have been many lawyers in the House. It is, I think, very instructive that there are more grocers in the House today.

I'd like to come to the topic at hand here in regard to Encorp Pacific and the recycling that grocers do. Particularly on Vancouver Island and I know within

my own community, the whole recycling basis that's taken place has been very, very successful. In fact, I think in my community we have about an 80 percent return of recycled products to the recycling depots — I'm not talking about to the grocers. It has been as a result of the policy that was put in place and the encouragement of the general public as a whole to get into the recycling. The recycling depots that have grown from that are really another small business that has grown and flourished. I don't think my community is unique in that type of percentage of return to the depots — the 80 percent figure. From what I'm led to believe, it's around 70 to 75 percent throughout the province.

What my colleague from Malahat–Juan de Fuca is speaking about is the fact that if we were to now take out the regulation that was meant to fall away when we got to a certain level of recycling to allow people to make the decision of whether they need it or wish to take it to the grocery store or a recycling depot, then the grocer can decide whether or not they want to take as much as they have been taking. This would then come much more to what my colleague was mentioning in the health issues that are clearly there: the aspect that you do get, during the course of a day, a tremendous amount of return, albeit a small proportion relative to what the community is bringing back today, but enough that it can cause a significant handling aspect for staff within the grocery business. And it is not always the most clean, as my colleague has mentioned.

I think, from what I'm led to believe, that if we were to now make this change, we would actually see other small businesses starting recycling depots that would then be developed through a number of other smaller communities, which would allow even greater accessibility and frequency for the consumer to bring the recycled product back to the depots in a more efficient way. This will only lead to greater recycling throughout the entire aspect of those products that not only come from the grocery stores but come from other retail outlets and other consumer-type products that have the ability to be recycled.

I think my colleague raises a good point here. It is time we take a look. I hope the minister responsible, having heard the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, would take this under advisement and see whether or not this regulation could now be removed, as was meant to be, and that we could allow the consumer to make that choice and the retailer himself to make the choice as to whether they were going to have the full-fledged, unfettered return or whether it was going to be a reduced, and that could be returned to the actual retail outlet. It clearly has been demonstrated that with that type of initiative that was brought in place, people will take up on it. As I say, from the aspect of a greater ability for a recycling depot and a greater number of depots to be situated throughout the communities, I believe my colleague is on the right track.

B. Kerr: I'd like to thank the minister for his response. There's one other thing we haven't brought up that's going to be necessary in the very near future, and that's the change regarding licensed retail liquor stores. There's going to be more need for bottle depots. I'm not sure exactly how the return policy is going to be for the licensed retail liquor stores. As we allow the bottle depots to expand, they'll be able to take on more things such as liquor store returns and possibly even expand to other things such as computer keyboards and monitors, etc.

All in all, an amendment to this regulation could be a win-win for both parties. The grocers can do what they do best, and the bottle depots can do what they do best — both working in the best interests of the consumer. Of course, one thing that will have to be looked at is the effect on the environment and ensuring that the returns are kept up and not diminished because they are going to the bottle depots.

The minister was commenting about the grocery business. There are two of us now against the rest of you. I'm saying that somewhat facetiously, because we all get along here.

Grocers provide a tremendous service to the consumers. They're usually sponsors of your little league teams and your minor hockey teams. They contribute and give back to the community. So next time you go in there, you don't actually have to go up and hug the store manager, but go up and say hello to him. Say hello to the butchers. Say hello to your produce manager. Understand that they're doing the best that they can for you, and support your local grocer.

J. Nuraney: I have the pleasure of rising today to speak about the positive contribution that BCIT brings to our province and, of course, to my community in Burnaby. Since the institute was founded by the provincial government nearly 40 years ago, BCIT has been a central feature in Burnaby. From its creation in 1964, BCIT has educated hundreds of thousands of British Columbians, employed thousands of people and has been a strong contributing force in our economy.

Burnaby is home to countless technology firms, most notably Ballard Power Systems, Electronic Arts, PMC-Sierra and CreoScitex. These businesses are industry leaders in their fields and provide tremendous opportunities to many people in my community.

BCIT has a worldwide reputation of training highly qualified workers who can fit right into the workforce upon graduation. People come from all over the world to get their education at BCIT, and many of these graduates stay right here and work in our technology sector. Traditionally, we have been dependent on the extraction of resources to drive our economy. Though there is no doubt that our resource industries are still very important to our economy, I also believe that we need to look outside these traditional economic drivers

and find innovative ways to help flourish our economy. A very important part of any new initiative we undertake in our province would rely heavily on our most valuable resource, which is our people.

We have seen that our government is absolutely committed to the education of our workforce. We are increasingly making it accessible for all postgraduate students who wish to get higher education. We are creating more opportunities for students, and this will help provide the skilled professionals that British Columbia needs.

In the year 2002-03 the Minister of Advanced Education added a total of 2,700 new student spaces in our higher learning institutions. Of those, there are 825 new spaces for computer science and electrical and computer engineering. This is part of the $150 million commitment to double the number of graduates in these fields over the next five years, and BCIT and Burnaby will see direct benefits from these initiatives.

This commitment to educating our workforce was underscored last week when the Minister of Advanced Education announced she was adding more than a million dollars in unconditional operating grants to BCIT, roughly half of which will help the institute with its industry training programs.

In the past few months I've had the great pleasure of announcing funding for new and innovative industry training programs at BCIT. One will help assess key skills in math and science, where workers need improvement before entering their apprenticeship programs. It will also help deliver on-line training to meet individual needs. The other will partner the institution with local industries in a program that will offer customized training in yacht building and other industries. These industry training programs feed into what I would say is one of BCIT's key strengths: identifying the skills needed in a variety of industries and training students so they can walk into the workplace and meet the demand.

The range and quality of programs offered by BCIT is exemplary. It has the only prosthetics and orthotics training program in western Canada, the only marine engine room simulator in western Canada, a pulp mill, a fire simulation theatre, and even its own commercial aircraft hangar and training facilities located in the Vancouver International Airport.

BCIT provides training to refine and specialize not only the high-tech and health sectors but the resource sector as well. Extensive training in forestry has taken a traditionally straightforward practice into the twenty-first century. Sustainability and science are at the forefront, ensuring that British Columbia maintains its role as a global leader in forestry practices. In fact, BCIT operates its own demonstration forest and woodlot in Maple Ridge. The school, like this government, has a commitment to the future of British Columbia forests as evidenced by the new paradigm shift in approaching forestry solutions.

BCIT has initiated research and development projects designed to spur new investment in this province. Their Venture Development Centre has been vital to countless entrepreneurs looking to start successful and viable businesses in British Columbia. The Venture Development team is looking for a new way to spur investment in this province by offering services that will help entrepreneurs enter the business world, including business plan development, marketing research, intellectual property issues and financing options.

Now is the right time to develop new groundbreaking business strategies, which in the end will make B.C. a more competitive and attractive place to do business.

British Columbia is not the only part of the world that gains from the innovative, forward-thinking resolve of BCIT. The school has endeavoured to play a leading role globally. Dozens of nations have partnered with BCIT to train men and women in a variety of professions.

With that in mind, I can see nothing that can hold Burnaby and the rest of the province back from unprecedented growth in the technology sector. BCIT provides the highly qualified people to work in cutting-edge research and development facilities. It is an invaluable part of Burnaby, enabling the industries in our economy to hire within the province and keeping our talented minds within our borders. This has been a great benefit to Burnaby and to this institution. I am very happy that such an institution has made Burnaby its residence.

Hon. S. Bond: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon this morning.

Before I do that, I want to make a comment, as you can imagine I would want to after the comments by the Whip this morning in terms of how people support one another as colleagues. I do appreciate the fact that he did hold the plane for me and did lug my very weighty briefcase to the aircraft. I should say that he does a great job in terms of looking after our health and well-being, even to the physical fact of helping lug briefcases. That's not exclusive to him. I know my colleague from Prince George North does that regularly for me as well.

The citizens of our province are indeed extremely privileged to have the kinds of post-secondary institutions that we have in the province, and certainly a very responsive institution like the British Columbia Institute of Technology. As the member for Burnaby-Willingdon noted this morning, BCIT is recognized for its very high-quality programs that are attuned very much to the needs of learners and of the workforce. The strong relationships that have developed over the years with industry and BCIT graduates have become an extremely essential part of B.C.'s economic infrastructure. With over 9,300 funded full-time-equivalent student spaces and an additional 2,450 industry training full-time-equivalents for 2003-04, BCIT plays a very significant role in our post-secondary education system.

As a provincial institute, BCIT offers a specialized range of programs to learners from around the entire province. In addition to campuses in Burnaby, down-

town Vancouver, Richmond and North Vancouver, BCIT maintains a presence in regions beyond the lower mainland through significant partnerships with other post-secondary institutions. Certainly, as I move the sector forward, I am very much encouraging BCIT to continue to expand and increase the partnerships they have around this province.

BCIT also reaches out both nationally and internationally. The programs they offer cover a wide range of areas including advanced technology, electronics, trades, aerospace, business, health sciences and many others. BCIT also offers a wide range of credentials from certificates, diplomas and advanced diplomas to undergraduate degrees. With recent legislative changes that our government has approved, BCIT will soon have the opportunity to develop applied master's degrees.

With an annual operating grant of over $80 million from the Ministry of Advanced Education, BCIT represents a significant investment of public funding. This is an investment in our future and is absolutely essential for the continued development of our province. Our government, I am very proud to say, continues to protect funding to post-secondary education and in fact, as has been mentioned by my colleague, is able at this point to provide additional resources to increase student access and help address critical skills shortages. As was announced last week, we have increased funding to public post-secondary institutions by $12 million, and last week a further $10 million was allocated to the college, university college and institute sector. As was also noted by my colleague, over a million dollars of that funding was directed to BCIT.

The role of post-secondary institutions in providing education and training opportunities is critical, but there are additional reasons to acknowledge and celebrate our post-secondary institutions, including their role in social and economic development. In our increasingly knowledge-based economy, the ability to create and apply knowledge is essential. Through applied research and development, BCIT helps find solutions for industry from health care issues to Internet engineering to oil well technologies. We recognize the importance of research and have demonstrated our commitment through the establishment of the B.C. leadership chairs and the B.C. regional innovation chairs programs.

In addition, the B.C. knowledge development fund — which has to date secured a total investment from public and private sources of over $500 million in research infrastructure in B.C. — continues.

All British Columbians benefit from the good work that is done in post-secondary institutions like BCIT. I want to tell you that it's been a pleasure to have my colleague from Burnaby-Willingdon accompany me on several visits to institutions in this province. It speaks clearly to his interest and his support of post-secondary education in British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: It was very encouraging to listen to the minister speak about this. Not only does she have the power of delegating her normal chores to other members in this House, but she also brings a tremendous energy and foresight into the portfolio that she represents.

I've had the opportunity to meet and talk to the presidents of institutions of higher learning like BCIT and SFU. I've continuously been told that the vision and the energy this minister has brought to her work have encouraged them and that for the first time in their career they have now found that they are able to better manage the work they were originally designed to do. This is very encouraging to hear from all sectors in this process.

What is also encouraging to hear is the fact that she has been able to invite and bring into partnership the private sector and the business sector to partner with us in this very lofty goal. I think the question of higher education undoubtedly is very important to all British Columbians. I am most encouraged by the minister's remarks.

B. Belsey: I rise today to speak about some of the significant efforts this government has made to strengthen the economic recovery of British Columbia's central coast and north coast. In just under 23 months this government has made significant advances with a variety of projects throughout my riding. I'd like to share some of those with you.

A Calgary-based company is looking to run a pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to British Columbia's north coast. Prince Rupert is a leading contender to become the western terminus of this $2.5 billion pipeline project. The initiative is known as the Gateway project and is being spearheaded by a company called Enbridge Pipelines Inc. The regulatory permitting of this pipeline will, hopefully, start within the next year, and the entire project, hopefully, will be completed in five years. I do not need to explain to this House the much-needed potential economic boost this project means to the residents of not only my riding but across British Columbia.

The community forest licences are also becoming important economic tools for northern British Columbia communities. I continue to work with my constituents in the preparation of applications for community forest licences, a community forest licence that will give them more control over their natural resources. Bella Coola, Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands — Haida Gwaii — are three communities hoping that a community forest licence will help them to acquire the fibre they need to start the closed sawmills and to stabilize the operation of the current sawmills in these communities.

I am also pleased to note that more than one community is taking a partnership approach between local government and first nations. This will not only strengthen their application, but it will foster greater cooperation between the two peoples.

The search for a new source of coal and the effort to attract a prospective coal buyer in the global market

will help to keep Ridley Terminals, the coal port in Prince Rupert, in full operation. This is an important employer in the north coast. The potential development of new coalfields in British Columbia's north will lead to an increasing throughput of coal in my riding and further strengthen the northern economy.

A group of three entrepreneurs recently brought some good news to the residents of the central coast. A new heliskiing company called Bella Coola Heliskiing Sport has set up a successful business attracting skiers and outdoor enthusiasts from around the world. Now a second heliskiing company, M&W Guides, is applying for a second tenure in the valley. Our goal is to have these two companies in operation both summer and winter. Private companies like these are bringing important economic benefits in the way of jobs and opportunities to the residents of the Bella Coola Valley.

Fish farms continue to bring important economic benefits to parts of my riding. Finfish aquaculture, hatcheries, the wild salmon fishing industry, fish canneries — they employ hundreds of my constituents, boost local economies and produce top-quality products that are distributed around the world, and it is all done with very little impact on the environment.

The Minister of Energy and Mines has made some important policy changes that have fostered significant economic opportunities in my riding. For example, the tax relief on mining, the flow-through tax agreement and the one-window approach the ministry is using to approve mines are all benefiting communities in my riding.

This government's support for mining is greatly appreciated by the community of Stewart, B.C. Stewart has a history deeply rooted in mining and mineral extraction, and I continue to work with the mayor and council in Stewart to return their community to the leadership role that was taken away from them by the member opposite when they drove the mining industry out of this province.

The development of a new cruise ship dock and container port in Prince Rupert is a potential boom that is starting to put smiles on the faces of Prince Rupert residents once again, something that has been sorely missed over the last decade.

Finally, this government's policy to explore and develop the offshore oil and gas industry is installing much hope in the eyes of my constituents. People know the process will be long and hard, but it is definitely an industry worth fighting for. I hope the federal government soon heeds our cries to help unemployment and declining demographics in the central and north coast communities. They need to support the offshore oil and gas initiative that holds so much promise for B.C. residents. It is clear that all these developments and initiatives are good news for the people of the central and north coast communities and for British Columbia residents at large.

This government's commitment to small business owners of British Columbia's heartlands is proving to be both valuable and vital. In a recent poll, 74 percent of the small business owners in the province of British Columbia supported the B.C. heartlands economies that put the forest industry on a sound, sustainable and competitive footing and opened up new opportunities for economic growth through coordinated planning in transportation, energy, forestry, tourism and new technologies. B.C.'s small business owners know what needs to be done to improve the economy, and we are listening to them.

I want to yield the floor to someone that has helped me with many of these projects: the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Many of these projects that I have mentioned could not have been moved to the level they are at today without his help, commitment and support.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure to respond to the member for North Coast who, as he said, represents the central coast also.

Northwest British Columbia, part of the economic heartlands of our province, is an area that has high unemployment — whether it be our aboriginal or non-aboriginal people — and our goal is quite clear. The goal of our government, under the leadership of the Premier, is quite clear. That is to create an environment in which the private sector will invest and create jobs. To enhance the ability for people to invest in the north and central coast region, we must make sure we have infrastructure in place. Our government to date has invested over $6 million in northwest infrastructure to assist in providing water, sewers and recreational activities, and there will be more as we move forward.

The key to having a vibrant economy, of course, is having a transportation system that can have access to materials and that can get the materials to market. That is why my colleague the Minister of Transportation announced our transportation strategy for the heartlands of British Columbia into which we are going to put $609 million over the next three years. Much of that money is going to be spent in the northwest, and some of it is going to be spent in the riding of the member to make sure that we can have access.

One area that's very important — having visited this riding a couple of times, two or three times, and one that I'm looking forward to visiting in July of this year — is tourism. Having taken the ferry from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert, to understand the importance of it to the community, I'm pleased that our government — again under the Minister of Transportation — has made a commitment to ensure that the ferry services between Port Hardy and Prince Rupert and vice versa, which attract a significant number of tourists, are there for British Columbia and are there for tourists when they need them. Of course, the ferry service over to the Charlottes is very, very important. Our government is creating certainty with respect to ferry services.

The cruise ship industry is an industry that this year will see over 330 ships sail out of Vancouver. We

are working on a coastal strategy with the various coastal communities, including Prince Rupert, to ensure that these communities share in the benefits of cruising and creating employment. We have committed significant dollars to a cruise ship docking facility, working with our colleagues in the federal government and working with Prince Rupert to move this forward. We believe that this is going to have a significant impact on the community.

Looking to the future, our government recently committed $50,000 to assist in the study of a container terminal at Prince Rupert. Again, that was working with this member. We believe there is significant potential through that northwest corridor. In that regard, I have been working with my colleagues in Alberta responsible for economic development. Together, British Columbia and Alberta are asking Canada to come together and work together with us so that we can have a coordinated approach to building the port for the future.

Of course, one cannot talk about this area of British Columbia without talking about the need to ensure that we move forward with offshore gas and oil. To show our government's commitment to the development of offshore gas and oil, we invested $2 million for the University of Northern British Columbia to study and make sure that we're doing things on a scientific basis. I support strongly moving forward with gas and oil development off the coast of this riding. This will bring tremendous economic benefit to the riding, to the northwest and to British Columbia.

In wrapping up, let me say that I will work with the member to make sure that every government resource is brought to bear to work with Enbridge to make sure we have the opportunity to have that pipeline across.

One of the areas that's very important to me is the development of high-speed broadband. I call it the Highway 16 corridor. This is a project that government is working on — one that is important to our government, one that is important to the communities across 16 right through to Prince Rupert. This will create economic opportunity and level the playing field for both aboriginals and non-aboriginals.

Let me say that under the leadership of our Premier, this riding and this member know that we are committed to developing our heartlands economic strategy. I want to thank that member for all his hard work in putting that strategy in place.

B. Belsey: I thank the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. It is obvious that the minister has the economic health and development of B.C.'s coast as a priority. Although my riding has seen some tough times over the last decade, things are starting to get a little brighter, and people are beginning to recognize the tremendous potential that the central and north coast region holds. As the minister responsible for northern development, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has made huge efforts to connect B.C.'s northern communities and to heal their once robust economies.

I am happy to say that this government's commitment to provide high-speed Internet access to communities throughout the province and make B.C. the most computer-literate province in the country is already having some results in my riding. This government is excited about the opportunities to connect communities around the central coast, and the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is doing an excellent job to make sure that projects like this one on the central coast are up and running and will be operating as soon as possible.

Besides making significant headway in getting high-speed Internet access to rural communities, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has also established a program to help struggling industries in the heartlands. This minister's policy is helping to keep the blood flowing through the heartlands.

Even as we struggle to recover from a decade of despair, tax incentives and assisting fledgling entrepreneurial activities are keeping our people employed, keeping B.C.'s central and north coast communities vibrant. They help to keep our industries up and in business. It is clear that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is working hard for the communities of B.C., and it is for all British Columbians. On behalf of my constituents, I thank and congratulate him on his efforts and his successes.

J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill M201, standing on the order paper in my name.

J. MacPhail: This is a private member's bill that I have introduced. It's the second of the type of bill to protect our wild salmon stock and encourage the aquaculture industry at the same time. A bill that I introduced during the last session was defeated by the government on a technicality, and I hope that this bill will meet the needs of the government in terms of their technical destruction of the last piece of legislation.

This legislation standing in my name amends the Fisheries Act by adding a definition for closed containment that says "an impermeable or solid wall structure which is established for the rearing of finfish either on land or floating and which prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of bacteria, viruses, parasites, waste and other pollution into the surrounding marine systems."

Then it goes on to say that section 13 of the Fisheries Act is amended to read as follows: "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" and that "any new licence shall not be issued under this part for the purpose of finfish aquaculture unless that operation is a closed containment facility."

It is my great pleasure to rise in this House and once again introduce vital legislation to amend the Fisheries Act. This private member's bill acknowledges the crucial importance of B.C.'s wild salmon stocks to our economy, our heritage and our environment. It also affirms that government has a responsibility to the first nations people of our province and a responsibility to ensure that science, not money, is the motivator for protecting our ecosystems and wild salmon populations.

This bill will amend the Fisheries Act so that any new licence granted for the purpose of finfish aquaculture must be a closed containment facility. This bill defines closed containment, as I've already read into the record, as "an impermeable or solid wall structure which is established for the rearing of finfish either on land or floating and which prevents escape of those fish or the transfer of bacteria, viruses, parasites, waste and other pollution into the surrounding marine systems." This amendment is a significant step forward in dealing with the vast array of environmental impacts from open-net fish farms that have been plaguing our waters.

This bill comes at a crucial time. Since the current government took power, it has been steadfast in its drive to expand the fish farm industry in its current form. They have ignored repeated calls for better practices, and they have ignored credible scientists and denied their findings. Throughout this period, the Liberals have been supported by large multinational corporations that gave them significant donations to win the last election.

Serious allegations remain that they have even interfered in environmental investigations, all to ensure that their backers get what they were promised and what they were paid for.

This government's intimate funding relationship with big business, ignorance towards independent scientific study, inaction and indifference toward environmental warning signs have severely weakened the credibility of the aquaculture industry in B.C. It has been this government that brought the industry into disrepute, through its own reckless abandon — not previous governments and not groups opposed to fish farms. Since they came to power the former Minister of Fisheries and the current minister, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and even the Premier have repeatedly asserted that fish farms posed very little risk to wild stock. In doing so they have ignored mounting evidence that proves, at the very least, that there is unacceptable risk and uncertainty. The evidence has been mounting for months, and now it is overflowing.

The federal and provincial auditors general, the Leggatt inquiry, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, John Fraser, as well as independent scientists and experts like Alexandra Morton, Otto Langer and John Volpe have all warned of the dangers of fish farms. They have all called for government to take action above and beyond its current efforts in order to avoid the disasters seen in Europe. They have called for this government to listen.

Instead, we have a government that has relied heavily on small studies out of Washington State and the B.C. salmon aquaculture review. While I admit that the salmon aquaculture review was a thorough and comprehensive study of the aquaculture industry, it is from 1997. Much has changed in those six years. Much has changed in the several years since the data in the review was collected. Science has progressed. New studies have been conducted, and we have all learned a great deal more about the environmental impact of open-net-pen fish farms.

The previous minister and the current one have both been fond of saying that good science does not go out of fashion and that we should not dismiss the findings of the salmon aquaculture review. I agree. We should not dismiss those findings. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the statements made by the former Minister of Fisheries. Last year, when we were debating similar legislation, the former minister said: "I don't accept the argument that after five years, all that work is simply to be dismissed. It was a very good foundation, done to the full extent of the information available at that time. Certainly, we can continue to build on that."

The former minister was absolutely right. It was a good foundation. He is also right that more work needs to be done. That work has now been done. Report after report, study after study have confirmed that open-net fish farms pollute, contribute to colonization of Atlantic salmon in our rivers, transmit diseases and spread parasites to wild salmon. In the Broughton Archipelago alone we have recently seen an entire run of pink salmon decimated, as passing smolts were infested with sea lice. On this point, I am sure the minister will try to argue that they are taking action and that he has followed Mr. Fraser's recommendations, and scientists are out in the field actively gathering data in the Broughton Archipelago.

This panicked about-face in the government's policy shows that they are feeling the pressure of public outcry but cannot separate themselves from their industry-focused bias. Why else would they choose the high-risk options rather than the low-risk, precautionary, scientific approach? The previous government used the findings of the salmon aquaculture review to maintain a moratorium. Somehow this government has used the same information to lift the moratorium and to promote expansion of fish farms with open-net cages. While none have yet been built — and I'm sure

everyone will stand up and say: "We haven't built any yet, and before the moratorium the NDP government allowed nine" — many more are now in the works. It is simply unacceptable for this government to argue that a moratorium in 1996 was wrong — simply unacceptable.

How many more salmon runs have to be threatened before the minister acknowledges that the environment is more important than his pocket? Six years is a long time, and science has changed. That science was used to put a moratorium in place, and this government now wants to expand fish farming without the current technology being used. It's time for this government to admit its mistakes, acknowledge its bias and move on.

This bill will not kill the aquaculture industry. It will not hurt coastal communities. It will only apply the much-needed pressure to government and multinationals to develop alternative technologies to find the best solution.

During the last open cabinet infomercial the Minister of Fisheries spoke of adaptive management, a crucial principle in managing our resources. I would like to take this opportunity to help the Minister of Fisheries and all the backbenchers understand that term and where we are in the cycle. It's all very well and good for this government to use every opportunity to present infomercials, but today is about real debate. The Ministry of Forests defines adaptive management as a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. There are six steps to this circular process. First, one must assess the problem; second, design; followed by implement, monitor and evaluate. Finally, one must adjust to meet the new information.

Well, it's time to adjust. For this government to go back and somehow suggest that what was okay in the eighties, the seventies and the early nineties…is simply to ignore the best available evidence and is to absolutely shut down adaptive management. It's time to listen to the warnings that open-net fish farms are harming our environment and impacting the health of our natural heritage. It's time to acknowledge what we have learned and to move forward instead of backward. Sea lice, waste, colonization, disease…. It's time to take action.

I'm sure the minister and various members of this House, like the one for North Island, will rise to their feet and try to call the opposition extremists or fearmongers, like they do in their local papers. In fact, only a matter of weeks ago in this chamber the member for North Island accused opponents of fish farms of being offensive, relentless and oblivious. He accused the opposition, environmental groups, various first nations, people dependent on the wild salmon fishery and consumers and citizens from across the province of not caring about coastal communities and the jobs associated with the aquaculture industry. What he didn't say was that he, like the Minister of Fisheries, accepted thousands of dollars in his own personal election campaign from the aquaculture industry during the last election.

Never once has anybody from this Liberal government proven at all that the position of the opposition or those who want to protect the wild salmon stock are doing anything but encouraging jobs. In fact, under this government's policy of encouraging aquaculture, there will be a net loss of jobs between our commercial fishery and our aquaculture fishery. What this bill proposes is to grow both industries safely.

If any Liberal tries to suggest that they're on the side of jobs, they will have the facts put right in their faces to prove how wrong they are. I completely acknowledge that the aquaculture industry is important to many of our coastal communities since the coastal communities in the last 20 months have been starving for jobs. It is completely wrong to accuse anyone concerned with the impacts of fish farms of not caring about coastal communities. We are concerned because of the damage being done to wild salmon runs and thus the damage to the livelihood of those dependent on the wild fishery. We are concerned about B.C.'s heritage, the right of first nations and coastal communities.

By the way, there are many first nations I have met with who say zero tolerance for aquaculture, and that is not what this bill is about. I fully accept first nations positions which are calling for zero tolerance of aquaculture, but this bill is about promoting aquaculture in a safe, secure way that returns the salmon fishery, the wild finfish industry, to first nations.

No one doubts the importance of jobs to our coastal communities, but we cannot afford to ignore the reality of the situation. There are clear threats to our wild salmon stocks; therefore, it is time to act. It is time to move forward and make British Columbia's aquaculture industry safer. It is time to do something for the coastal communities other than just allow for the export of raw logs…

J. MacPhail: …like that member has done. No jobs. No jobs in town — all just the export of raw logs. That's why our coastal communities are in such trouble.

This bill exactly says that the aquaculture industry is to be made safer and therefore to flourish. It calls for closed containment aquaculture for all new licences. This will allow government to move all poorly sited farms while ensuring that no new damage begins. Furthermore, this bill is the first step toward reinventing the aquaculture industry and making it viable, unlike this government who does absolutely nothing to help the industry move forward in a way that all British Columbians can accept.

British Columbia has the opportunity to become the leader in safe, alternative aquaculture technology. This bill is a first step in acknowledging that reality. It is time the government faces the facts and breaks away from the hold the multinational corporations have on

all of them. It's time for them to stand up for the people and the environment of B.C., not for foreign CEOs.

Let's invest in a new, safer, truly sustainable industry. It's time now to support closed containment. This will help coastal communities. It will protect jobs and create opportunities for innovative companies like Agrimarine, Future SEA farms and Mariculture.

Studies have been done. In fact, I am proud to stand here today with the likes of the Georgia Strait Alliance and the Raincoast Conservation Society, who are both here with us in the galleries. I'm proud to stand with them. They have been working extremely hard to try to get the attention of government and government MLAs in this House to examine the feasibility studies of pilot projects in our waters, pilot projects put in place by the previous government.

The news is good. Fish grow faster, pollution is reduced, sea lice infestation can be avoided, and disease can be controlled. All of that information is now available to this government, and they choose to ignore it. They choose to stand up and completely ignore it. We have a real opportunity here. Every MLA in this chamber now has the chance to acknowledge the importance of our environment, the value wild salmon stocks hold for our heritage and the responsibility we all have to stand up and protect our natural ecosystems.

It is time to support our coastal communities and promote a more sustainable aquaculture industry. It is time to seize the opportunity to be innovative and become global leaders. It is time to learn from government mistakes and move forward. It is time to adjust the policy and begin a period of environmental protection and sustainability in all three spheres: economic, social and the environment. It is time to support closed containment aquaculture, which will mean good news for the aquaculture industry and excellent news for our wild salmon stocks, our commercial fishery and our sport fishery.

Those are my concluding remarks. I will close debate, as by agreement, at ten to 12, at which time a vote will be called on this legislation.

R. Visser: I'm going to speak against this bill obviously, but I wanted to thank the member for introducing to this House the concept of reinventing the industry.

I find it a timely thing to talk about today, because I think we should know in a few minutes exactly how much those fast ferries went for at auction, which was another attempt of that government to try and reinvent industry. It happened to be the ferry industry. If we're going to apply this logic that they've used over the last decade to aquaculture, I think coastal communities and the people in those industries are going to be ill-served by their ability or desire to reinvent industry.

There's a long list of these things I want to talk about, but I just wanted to add that I agree with the member opposite when she talks about becoming global leaders in aquaculture. I agree with that completely. I also agree with the notion of learning from past governments' mistakes and moving forward. I agree with that completely too, because that's adaptive management. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

What we saw in the 1990s was lurch management. It was this sense that there is a crisis, and we're going to change directions 180 degrees and run down that road and, unfortunately, leave in the dust entire communities, entire industries, families and people of British Columbia. That's not the type of government that we need or that we want to be a part of. That's not what this government's about, and that's not the kind of approach that we're bringing to the salmon aquaculture industry.

It's the same kind of approach that they brought to the Forest Practices Code, where their minister says that we inflicted on this industry a billion dollars' worth of costs with no net benefit environmentally or for this province. It's the same approach that put AOX standards — zero tolerance by 2002 — with no ability to get there for pulp mills in British Columbia. It's the same group that purchased a bunch of natural gas buses for Vancouver that sit today in Port Coquitlam. They can't be used because they cost twice as much as conventional buses, and they work half the time. It's this same kind of reinventing the industry that's gone on time and time and time again by the member opposite when they were in government. I don't think this government is going to stand one minute for that kind of attitude anymore.

You know, there was a report out the other day that the salmon aquaculture industry is $390 million. It's the largest agricultural export that we have in British Columbia. All those people do live in coastal British Columbia. They live in what we're calling the heartlands — what people want us to call the heartlands. She can rail about these folks, but I need her to remember that she's railing about folks.

I was in Browns Bay Packing the other day. When they're running at full throttle, 200 people work there. It's an amazing place. It's the new wave of the workplace. They're well paid. Occupational therapy people are on staff. They think; they care. They work hard, management does, to take care of their folks, and the folks take care of them. We've got lots to do with this industry. I'm pretty proud of the record that we have, because it's those people who work in this industry that we want to protect.

When it comes to sea lice, we make an action plan. When it comes to IHN, there's an action plan. There's money, resources, study and thoughtful presentation of government's position. It's open and it's accountable. We move from where we are, where there's the perception or reality of a problem, to mitigating, to understanding, to clarification and then to appropriate public policy to deal with the issue. That's the way to go. You don't change gears, directions — everything — all at once with the heavy hand of legislation. We've seen that for a decade, and we want to put that to an end.

That's why we have waste management regulations, some of the few and the toughest in the world.

We have monitoring regimes where we're understanding the impact on what's called the benthos — the marine life underneath, on the sea floor. It's not a concept that was ever uttered by the previous government. When we came here we decided to move forward, understand it and act in an appropriate manner to mitigate the impact of salmon aquaculture on the benthos.

We're looking at escapes and escape management, fish health — all of these things. They are all important. For each issue that arises, the minister, this government and the staff build policy that accounts for where we need to take this industry. This is a good place to do business. It is a good place for those folks who work in this industry to practise their craft, and it is a craft. Many of them are biologists. They are well trained and well educated, and we need to give them the opportunity to grow, to feel stability. If they take this industry, with encouragement from government, with further study and other things…. I don't disagree with pilot projects, pilot applications, building the technology. I don't disagree with that at all because most of it is going to happen up in my part of the world, and those jobs will be created in my part of the world. But we need to get them there. We need them to know we care about them in the broader provincial economic context and that we're able to move them to a place where they are starting to rebuild their trust with the public, growing their industry again and producing jobs for coastal communities.

I am going to close by stating my opposition to this bill. At 11 o'clock we auctioned off one of the last vestiges of lurch management in this province, one of the last vestiges of reinventing an industry by this last government. Hopefully, we can pass into a new era.

R. Visser: We hope. I'm sure we'll find some more out there. You know, that's why this bill is wrong. That's why the attitude is wrong. That's why we need to do what we're doing now and keep moving forward with this industry and rebuild public trust.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to speak to the Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2003, which was proposed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

This amendment, as proposed, is a great political document if all you want to do is cater to false and uninformed perceptions of our fish-farming sector. I am really amazed that this proposal has been put forward by the member who was part of a government that approved 34 new fish-farm sites using the open-net technology. The proposal suggests that on-land or floating closed containment systems are the panacea which will solve all the problems, real or perceived, in the fisheries sector.

(1) The proposal is not scientifically sound or scientifically honest. For example, this proposal will not prevent the transfer of disease, bacteria, viruses, parasites, waste or pollution as suggested.

(2) It is not an economic or competitive approach to farmed salmon production in British Columbia.

(3) It is not a realistic portrayal of the current state of research and development of closed containment systems.

The proposal is great politics, but not much else. Let me confirm that our government supports ongoing research and pilot projects to continue to develop technologies that will further reduce what are already low risks to the environment. These are risks, as I said, that are at a low level under good management and good regulation. If government and industry can find a closed containment system that actually works as claimed, then we would certainly be the first to implement it.

The salmon aquaculture review, as the member has stated, did study the issue of closed containment and compared this system to the conventional open-net system. The findings of this two-year independent study were that closed containment is not an economic way to conduct finfish aquaculture. It also confirmed that the open-net system, properly managed and properly regulated, was a viable approach to the production of farmed salmon.

I want to refer to a number of documents — first of all, a submission by Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who also has experience in the aquaculture industry. He stated in the Vancouver Sun on March 5 as follows:

The cost of this diesel fuel would be horrendous. So would be the environmental impacts that would be created by the burning of that amount of diesel fuel.

I also want to refer to a letter by David Suzuki in the Vancouver Sun on March 6 in response to Mr. Moore's paper. He says: "Mr. Moore's research was not thorough enough concerning the position of the David Suzuki Foundation on land-based closed containment farms. Precisely because of energy concerns, my foundation has not called for land-based containment operations. Precisely because of energy concerns, my foundation has not called for land-based salmon-farming operations." That's David Suzuki. I continue in the quote: "We do believe that closed containment in the ocean is essential if this industry is to have a future in Canada." Then he cites a closed containment pilot project on Saltspring Island.

A few days later we have a letter in the Vancouver Sun from Chris Hatfield, who operates that pilot project on Saltspring Island. In response he says:

Chris Hatfield finishes his letter by saying that instant solutions that might sound good to his urban supporters do not work in practice. This is someone doing a pilot project.

I know from talking to other operators of the pilot projects that these systems are not in their final state. They are continuing to research; they're continuing to develop. They're not the instant answer that some people claim them to be. Our government is supportive of an aquaculture industry that is responsible, that is environmentally sustainable and that is based on strong, well-enforced regulations.

A lot of the comments that have been made have not been true. We are not going to self-regulation. We are regulating. We are basing our whole agenda on continuous improvement and adaptive management. This proposal is a political ploy which is not backed by honest science or backed by the facts in terms of what needs to be accomplished to produce salmon in British Columbia.

M. Hunter: I know that time is short, so I'm going to be brief. I could go on like my friend from North Island for hours on this subject.

This bill is, frankly, a blunt, unsophisticated attack on an industry. It's an attack that's cloaked in pseudo-science and riddled with pretence and ignorance. We debated this last year. I think it was Yogi Berra who said: "It's déjà vu all over again." That's the way I felt when I saw this bill. I thought maybe the member had forgotten last year's debate, and maybe she has. I don't think she gets it. You know, ignorance, personal attacks on ministers and members and allegations of influence peddling are simply ridiculous. This government is basing its approach to aquaculture and fisheries development in this province on science, and that's what we have to do.

The fact that that member is trying to present herself in this chamber as the only environmental custodian in this House is offensive and not true. I've been in the environmental business for 25 years before I came here, and I take personal affront at those kind of attacks.

Let's look at what she did in her government: 34 new farms permitted with no regulation on waste management. She talks about the environmental assessment study of 1997 and says it's old. Well, science may have developed, but it hasn't changed the fundamental conclusions. That report is supported by more recent work.

What did the NDP do? They didn't try and do anything. They just imposed a moratorium. They stayed away. That member stayed away from tough decisions that we have to take if we're going to move this economy forward. They did nothing. She left investors hanging. She created uncertainty. We're moving away from that, and I am proud to be part of a government that's doing this.

If she thought closed containment was so good, why didn't she do something when she was in government in 1997, when the environmental assessment report was made? The very fact that she did nothing shows that this is all about politics and has nothing to do with the environment.

When we lifted the moratorium, we did so in conjunction with and at the same time as we imposed some of the strictest regulations in the world. The minister at the time said that if things need to be changed and tightened up, we will do that. That takes courage, and it takes a commitment to science, and I'm pleased to be associated with those who are making those decisions.

In short, I could go on about the economic impacts of this, but this is a bill which, if it were accepted, would kills jobs, kill initiative and kill investment in this province. I say to that member: let her go to Port McNeill. Let her go to Nanaimo and tell employees who are working in this business her good news.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to speak against this bill as well. Let there be no doubt, in this House or the province of British Columbia, that the number one salmon on the coast of the province is the wild salmon. Having said that, we also believe that there is a viable aquaculture industry supporting coastal communities and people who live and work on the coast.

The closed containment project that the opposition leader talks about, she knows well, was a pilot project set up. It's in year three of a five-year project. As usual, she's flip-flopping like a salmon out of water, which only would lead me to believe that she's totally out of her depth. These pilot projects will give us a good idea from an economic, environmental and social aspect of how their performance can be judged.

Somebody else mentioned that this is cheap and crass politics, which it is, in fact, Mr. Speaker. It's the cheapest politics there is, because you're actually playing with people's lives and careers. All the member opposite is doing is trying to claw back some of the vote that was lost to the Green Party prior to the last election. The NDP was in power for ten years — the ten worst years in this province — and they did nothing on this issue except start 34 new salmon farms. In 2001 we inherited a situation that we are now in the middle of. Our job is to clean it up, and we're taking that very seriously.

To date, the scientific weight of evidence is consistent in finding, first of all, that the risks of net-cage aquaculture are low, the impacts are localized, and they can be managed. We've had all sorts of scientific

studies, and we are continuing to spend money on science to make sure we get the best possible science that there is. On top of that, we had the recent report from the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and we have developed a plan of action in the Broughton which deals with their concerns.

This province will continue to invest money in research and development and to collect scientific information on aquaculture. Why? Because it's important, and it's important to have that information in our hands when we make decisions so that we don't make decisions for crass political purposes like the member opposite did when she was in government.

We are addressing emerging issues like the Broughton Archipelago through coordinated monitoring, management, research and public reporting. Let me make this very clear: so far, as yet, there have not been any new fish farms under this Liberal government. That's not to say that there won't be, but to this date there haven't been — as opposed to 34 by the previous government.

What we have done is put in place very strict comprehensive regulations, the most comprehensive in the world — policies on waste management, escape prevention, fish health, and compliance and enforcement. We're working to relocate the poorly sited farms, which the previous government didn't allow.

All this happens before we consider new farms. I urge all members in this House to defeat this bill.

B. Belsey: I would like to read a quote to the House that was taken when the member for Vancouver-Hastings responded to the throne speech. She said: "Too often we play to the lowest common denominator, looking for an easy hit and the quick headlines. Too often we declare enemies and polarize issues, believing wrongly that some political advantages will occur." Mr. Speaker, that was a quote from none other than the author of this poorly conceived bill. These are her words, taken from her response to the throne speech. I think the member opposite describes better than I could the real reason that she supports contained fish farms.

This member's fixation on closed containment as the only way to farm salmon is misguided. The member for Vancouver-Hastings's attempt to keep unemployed people throughout my riding in lineups for food banks only begs the question: why? This fixation is the NDP's second attempt to say to the people of the central and north coast: "We don't care how high your unemployment is. We don't care how long your food bank lines are. You don't need jobs."

I'll bet you that if we take a look at the unemployment numbers in her riding compared to my riding, you'll find it's about 2 to 1. We need jobs on the north coast and the central coast of British Columbia. By bringing in closed containment legislation, we will further eliminate jobs. Who would move to this process, this type of salmon farming, when the cost of producing a fish is two to three times more expensive than the present open-net-pen farms? Imagine telling somebody in her riding that they have to pay two to three times as much to produce a product in her riding. Of course they wouldn't go into business.

The people of my riding feel betrayed by the ignorance of a small vocal group that have attached themselves to the environmental movement. Some have attached themselves to first nations groups. Some have attached themselves to the members opposite.

Many of my constituents just don't understand why these groups continue to throw roadblocks in the way of this industry. Sites will be limited. Locations will be required to be located near grids. Or we can put in large generators that will add to both air and noise pollution.

To the Vancouver-Hastings member: she expressed concerns about viruses, parasites, waste and pollution into the surrounding marine system. As a north coaster who has had to listen to lower mainland and U.S.–based environmental groups preach to us about pollution into our waters, I suggest that they keep in mind just how much pollution is going into the waters not far from where we are today. If you were to tally up all the pollution that is going into waters in coastal communities, I bet you wouldn't find anywhere near the amount that goes in, in this general area.

Let me share a little secret that northerners and farmers know. When you grow a crop or raise animals in one spot year after year after year, you risk the development of bacteria, viruses, parasites. Why are some of the best and the brightest in the land so surprised when these viruses, these parasites, manifest themselves around farms that we will not allow to relocate? Northerners and farmers know that you must rotate your crop and that you must move your area and allow the area to fallow.

Well, we haven't allowed that. Every time a company goes for a permit to relocate, we throw a hurdle in its way. We say: "No, you can't move. You've got to stay there." Then we stand back just amazed that there would be parasites and viruses. Until we start allowing these farms to move, giving them new locations, we will continue with this problem.

The fact that this industry has resulted in the people of the Kitasoo first nation reducing unemployment in their village from 95 percent down to 40 percent is a testament to what aquaculture can do for coastal communities. One person in every household is working in the aquaculture industry.

The fact that a community near me, Port Edward, just lost 13 jobs this week because of a hatchery closing down — a hatchery closing down because they have no place to put their fish…. This industry does not need any more hurdles. This industry does not need any more environmental boondoggles. They don't need the likes of Lynn Hunter of the Suzuki Foundation e-mailing everybody around about the joys of tormenting fish farms.

I stand in the House today and ask my colleagues, when it comes time to vote, to stand and vote against this ill-conceived bill.

G. Trumper: I come from the west coast of Vancouver Island, an area that is often forgotten, I think, in the big picture of British Columbia. On the west coast the logging industry was decimated in the last decade by decisions that were made that laid off forest workers, killed small communities and had a direct effect on the community that I live in.

In that decade and a few years before, fish farms started. They were first of all started on the Sechelt coast, where certainly there were growing pains for the fish farm industry. But over those years they have learned. They have been able to, in some cases, move where they were to better sites. On the west coast of Vancouver Island it is now the biggest employer in the community and area of Tofino, which also includes — I might add — first nations people. In fact, one of the bands there has gone into a partnership with one of the fish farm companies.

There are also a couple of other fish farm companies that operate out there — one that certainly has put its reputation on the line for being environmentally friendly. It now no longer gives antibiotics to its fish. It is considered to be amongst the forefront of many of the companies. Many companies are now following what they have learned in the last few years and are now running good fish farms, which are a benefit to everyone.

I might add that the thought of having generators going all the time up that coast for enclosed fish farms, roads that might have to be built to get to these isolated areas where the best sites are there for fish farms…. It just boggles my mind that somebody would even consider that. Unfortunately, those of us that do live in the heartland of British Columbia, on the coast…. Too often those that live in the urban areas just do not understand the dynamics of what takes place. It's unfortunate, I believe, that not enough research has been put into this particular bill that is put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

I believe that the fish-farming industry is a great opportunity for those of us on the coast. For those who say that Norway and Scotland are changing their views…. Norway has 800 fish farms going. Scotland, I believe, has 300 fish farms. We are all learning every day, and we need to rely on the science that is out there before we make any decisions that are incorrect.

We also do need to work closely with the federal government to make sure we can re-site some of the fish farms, which we have found very difficult to do, from the provincial government's perspective. We need to work closely with the federal government.

Aquaculture on the coast is one of our life-savers out there. I urge everyone to vote against this bill.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY