Hansard -- Tuesday, April 8, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 4 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6123

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6123
	Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Bill 31) Hon. G. Plant Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (Bill 32) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6124
	South Fraser perimeter road and 176th Street connector D. Hayer Terrace R. Harris Smithers ski race D. MacKay

Oral Questions		6125
	Competition minister's fishing trips with Alcan executives J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Groundwater protection on Gabriola Island M. Hunter Hon. J. Murray Mountain pine beetle control T. Bhullar Hon. M. de Jong B.C. credit rating R. Sultan Hon. G. Collins Coal-fired power plant in Elk Valley B. Bennett Hon. R. Neufeld Comments by Solicitor General J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman Compensation for impact of U.S. softwood lumber duty B. Belsey Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt Concession stands at highway rest areas D. Chutter Hon. J. Reid

Petitions		6128
	K. Krueger

Committee of Supply		6128
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued) M. Hunter Hon. J. van Dongen J. MacPhail Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) J. Les Hon. S. Hagen J. Wilson

J. Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing to the House 36 members of my community from Burnaby. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am very pleased today to say that we are joined by Nicholas James Campbell, back from his time in Copenhagen, back from his time at the London Daily Telegraph and back in the arms of his family, in the province of British Columbia, where he has nothing but a spectacular future. Could we make him welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have three people to introduce to the House today, two young British Columbians — terrific and talented young people — Kelly Strongitharm and Desiree Dupuis, along with their friend Bob Hefferman from England. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two prominent West Vancouverites to the House this afternoon. Deborah Spicer is with Angell Hasman and Associates, a very successful realtor on the North Shore. I can give you their cards later. Mr. Peter Kains is a friend, a prominent West Vancouver business person and chairman of my fundraising committee.

T. Christensen: It's my privilege to introduce to the House today one individual from my constituency, Joe Pearson, and an individual from Kelowna, Janice Myers. The two of them are down this week on behalf of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board and here for meetings with the B.C. Real Estate Association. Both of them do good work in their communities. Would the House please make them welcome here.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine, Ann Hayes, from South Country Realty. If you have the opportunity to bid on a good Rotary dinner, she does a fabulous job of cooking it. Would the House please make her welcome.

P. Bell: I'm very pleased to introduce a realtor and an executive from the Prince George area, Dorothy Friesen and Daryl Muchowski. I understand they were recently in Ottawa witnessing question period, and they are looking forward to today's expedition, so I would ask that the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Santori: This afternoon in the gallery I'm pleased to have a constituent of mine and a good friend from the beautiful city of Rossland, Ardis Urquhart, who is also the president of the West Kootenay Real Estate Board. I would ask that the House make her welcome.

R. Harris: I also have the pleasure of introducing a couple of real estate people from the northwest. One of them is one of my constituents, Lisa Godlinski from Terrace, and Ron Lapadat is from Smithers. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber today two students from the University of Victoria. Kate Waters is a law student, and Melanie Friesen is a student in the school of public administration. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Suffredine: It's a pleasure today to have a constituent who has come all the way from Creston to attend in the gallery. Creston is a community in the heartlands, where they have the best of four seasons recreation, outstanding agricultural land and the home of the Kokanee brewery company that distributes beer all across the country. In the gallery is Scott Veitch, a realtor representing the Kootenays with the B.C. Real Estate Association. It's great to have him come here and visit. Would the House please welcome him.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act. This statute is based on a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada at the request of the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice. The purpose of the bill and the uniform act upon which it is based is to establish clear and harmonized statutory rules to accord with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the basis upon which a court in a province or territory may properly hear and determine a matter upon which its decision is sought.

In two decisions, Morguard Investments and Amcan Castings Ltd., the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the basis upon which a court may properly take jurisdiction is where there is what is described as a real

and substantial connection between the province or territory and the parties or the subject matter of the proceedings.

Another important element of this bill is to provide a statutory means by which the superior courts of Canada may transfer litigation from one province or territory to another, in particular to a forum that may be more appropriate. In some cases, it may be a forum outside Canada if the receiving court accepts such a transfer.

This bill is an important part of our continuing commitment to law reform and the modernization of law and procedure in a way that I believe is consistent with access to justice and the building of a strong economy.

I move that the bill — with all of that said about it and more that will be said about it in due course — be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. This act is also based upon a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to address changes in the law respecting the enforcement of Canadian judgments.

The purpose of this bill and the uniform act on which it is based is to provide a harmonized statute to accord with the principles respecting the enforcement of judgments amongst Canadian provinces and territories, enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in Morguard Investments Ltd. and De Savoye. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the principles of the Canadian constitution require that the courts of each province and territory of Canada should give full faith and credit to the judgments of courts in other provinces and territories of Canada.

This act will provide that a judgment or an order of the court in another province or territory may be registered in the B.C. Supreme Court by filing a certified true copy of the judgment and that a judgment so registered may then be enforced in British Columbia as if it were a judgment of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The reports upon which this act is based were prepared by the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and the British Columbia Law Institute, and I want to commend the members of both of those organizations for their hard work over the years in putting together a statute that I believe represents a model for good practice in reciprocal enforcement of judgments. As is the case with the bill I earlier introduced, this act is also consistent with government's commitment to law reform and to the modernization of the administration of justice.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Hayer: I'm happy that the location of the new crossing of the Fraser River between Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and the south side of the Fraser River has been finalized. I'm also pleased to see that TransLink is planning a new route connecting the south end of the bridge with the 176th Street interchange and the planned South Fraser perimeter road with input from my community.

As you know, I have been involved in many meetings with the residents of the Fleetwood, Fraser Height and Port Kells areas of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are concerned about the impact the new perimeter road and connector routes may have on their community.

From the discussions and input I have had from the residents and from the plans for the new routes, I think we can achieve a win-win route, one that can minimize community impact and provide a commercial truck route along the Fraser River from the 176th Street connectors to the industrial areas of Surrey and Delta.

The construction of the South Fraser perimeter road will take the heavy trucks away from the residential area and improve safety and traffic flow, which will save commuters and businesses time and money. With upcoming bridge construction and the south side connector routes from the bridge to 176th, we will see a substantial upgrading of the 176th Street interchanges, and this will be a great benefit to both my riding residents and commercial traffic.

I will, however, be closely monitoring the progress of this construction to ensure that all work on the interchanges, the connector routes and the South Fraser perimeter road have the least impact on the neighbouring residential areas and that all reports we receive from my constituents are given careful consideration in the final planning of those routes.

R. Harris: A couple of weeks ago I stood in the House and invited the members of this Legislature and the people of the province to come to Kitimat to help celebrate that community's fiftieth anniversary. I rise today because in the northwest this year we're celebrating another special occasion, the seventy-fifth birthday of the city of Terrace.

The town had its founding meeting in 1928. The inaugural party was attended by the male residents of the community. Special guests included Mr. Curzon, the then mayor of Prince Rupert, as well as dignitaries from Usk and Smithers. After a series of speeches to officially recognize the occasion, the evening progressed with each additional speaker trying to outdo his neighbour, and by the time the last one spoke, they had convinced themselves that the new city of Terrace was the greatest town in the north.

Well, Mr. Speaker, Terrace is a great town. It has grown to become the hub of the northwest and is indeed a great place to live. It is, in fact, the home of the largest spring salmon ever caught, and I'm sure that comes as much of a disappointment to the members from the North Coast and Vancouver Island North. Throughout the year Terrace is going to be filled with celebrations and events, and unlike 1928, we've come a long way. I'm really pleased to say that we're inviting everyone, even the women, to participate this time around.

When the holiday season comes, I encourage everyone to take the circle tour of your province. A trip up the Inside Passage is one that few will forget. Spend a couple of days in the northwest seeing the beauty of the region and enjoying the events. Riverboat Days on the long weekend in August are an especially interesting time as the community celebrates its history with the Skeena River. Terrace is bordered by Kitsumkalum on the west and Kitselas on the east, and while there, tourists will have a unique opportunity to experience the histories and cultures of those communities.

On that note, I'd like to extend Terrace's invitation to the members of the House and to the people of B.C. to come to Terrace this summer — in fact, to the whole northwest — and experience a quality of life that's the envy of many.

D. MacKay: The nineteenth annual Schuss Boomer Downhill ski race was held in Smithers on Hudson Bay Mountain this past weekend, April 6 and 7. The race itself was held on Twinkletoes. The run itself is about 2,000 metres in length. Eighty-seven competitors took part in the race, ranging in age from 64 down to six. At this time I'd like to thank the many volunteers, including Bob Rozell and Don and Bev Davidson, who helped make this race possible.

The teams were made up of three racers, and some of the team names are rather unique — to name a few of them: Three Blonde Mice, Broken Boners, Till the Cows Come Home. Three South African doctors working in Smithers had a team entered, and they called themselves the Hospital Horrors. Prizes were given out for costumes as well as the total team times, which had to be estimated at the end of the completion of their first training run.

Ski racers were clocked by radar at the finish line, and prizes were awarded for the fastest time. This year the course was somewhat slow, and the top speed was 105 kilometres an hour. The Smithers Ski Club would like me to enter a team in this event next year, so I am looking for two volunteers from caucus to join me in a team effort next year. We'll discuss the team name at another time.

J. MacPhail: In 1999 the now Deputy Premier accused the former Minister of Economic Development of a conflict of interest. I'm sure that she and others in the House are familiar with the commissioner's ruling. The opposition has learned that last summer while meeting with Alcan, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise enjoyed two days of guided sport fishing with senior Alcan executives including Mr. Louis Delage, an Alcan vice-president.

The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is the government's lead man on the aluminum file, so my question to the Minister of Competition is this: what official business was he on, and who paid for the fishing trips he took with Alcan executives last August 16 and 17?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Last year I did a 19-day trip around British Columbia — started in Whistler, worked my way up Vancouver Island, across Highway 16 and ended up in Fort St. John. The business aspects of my trip, the government paid for. The personal aspects of my trip, I paid for. And for the member's information, I do not fish.

J. MacPhail: I remind the minister that section 7(1) of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act says that the minister must not accept a fee, gift or personal benefit that is connected directly or indirectly to the performance of his or her duties of office.

When the Deputy Premier accused the former Minister of Economic Development of a conflict, she said he was ethically challenged and insisted that he had an obligation to the House to come clean. The now Attorney General said that minister had broken a trust and demanded he be fired. So, again to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise: will he table the payment for the two trips he took — I'm sorry; I'll get the dates exactly — in mid-August? Will he table it,

and will he reveal what business was conducted with those Alcan executives while on those trips?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I take my responsibility as a member of this House very, very seriously. I make my filings on time. That is public record. I put in the expenses that are applicable to the government duty. Personal expenses I cover myself. I follow the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: Well, then on the fishing trips he took with Alcan executives on a boat chartered by Alcan…. Perhaps he can produce the receipts of the trips on August 16 and 17.

I remind the minister that in the conflict case brought forward by the now Deputy Premier, the conflict commissioner cleared the member because the alleged gift was incidental to carrying out his ministerial responsibility. The last time I checked, Alcan is in the aluminum business, not sport fishing. It was an Alcan charter that the minister was on. Unless Alcan was asking the minister to test some new aluminum fishing rod or the latest beer can technology, it's hard to see how taking a fishing trip on an Alcan-chartered boat meets the conflict commissioner's test.

Maybe the minister can produce the receipts. I doubt it, but if he can, that's the end of it. The minister is the Premier's lead man on aluminum, not sport fishing. He's in a position to make decisions that directly affect Alcan's operations. He took at least two guided fishing trips with senior Alcan executives. If Alcan in any way covered the costs of those trips, does the minister agree that that puts him in a conflict of interest?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know the rules of this House. I make my filings according to the rules of this House.

J. MacPhail: No, it's not the filing. Did you pay the receipts? Did you pay the cost of the trip?

M. Hunter: Last week I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection about her visit to the third World Water Forum in Japan, and I now want to ask her a subsidiary question to focus on a local water issue in my constituency.

Over 90 percent of the residents of Gabriola Island get their water from private wells. Some weeks ago I had an opportunity to discuss the issue of groundwater protection with island residents and heard a number of concerns on this subject as well as some suggestions. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell me what progress has been made on this issue of groundwater protection, and what her ministry is doing with respect to Gabriola Island and other areas of B.C.?

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry staff are working with a groundwater advisory board. It's made up of professionals and scientists. That board is assisting government in developing regulations for the protection of groundwater. It will be the first time that groundwater is protected by law in British Columbia, so I think this is a very important initiative. The panel is undertaking consultations now. I'm hoping for a conclusion over the coming months.

The Gabriola Island concerns about the safety of their drinking water are ones that I'm concerned about. I know the member has called meetings that my staff have been at — in fact, the meeting that I attended with the group. I appreciate the member's concern. Clean and safe drinking water is a top priority for this government, and we're acting on it.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Could he please inform the House of the steps that have been taken to control the pine beetle infestation and whether there's been any success with the attempts to control this pest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member. He refers to, obviously, a crucial situation that exists over much of the province. We have, as the member knows, launched a specific action plan that has seen the appointment of a beetle management coordinator — the beetle boss, Bob Clark. We have established specific emergency management zones. We have allowed for the transference of cut within timber supply areas, and we have allowed some additional streamlining to allow for sanitation logging.

The bottom line is that the infestation continues to spread. Over 100 million cubic metres of fibre is impacted. I think it's fair to say we have slowed the spread of the infestation, but it continues to grow. It continues to put a lot of people and a lot of communities at risk.

R. Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Around this time last year I asked how the bond rating agencies had reacted to our fiscal plan. This is important. The agencies indicate to investors whether B.C. has its fiscal act together. Now that they've had a chance to review our recent budget and fiscal plan, to the Minister of Finance: what's their verdict?

Hon. G. Collins: The member may know that following each budget each year, the credit rating agencies come to Victoria and spend a full day each with us being briefed on the plan, on the progress we've made to date. We did that this year as well. I want to thank particularly the two

Ministers of Health, who provided additional briefings for the rating agencies as they did last year.

I'm pleased to say that over the last week or so, we've had a confirmation from all three credit rating agencies — Standard and Poor's, Moody's and Dominion Bond Rating Service — of a double-A credit with a stable outlook. We, however, have to continue to work hard to hit our targets. There's good comment on the good progress we've made so far in our three-year plan but also a very clear message that we have to continue to stay the course and keep our spending under control. We intend to do that. We want to make sure that our credit ratings go up, not down, as they did under the previous government. We're going to continue to work hard to make sure we get this job done.

B. Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. In the East Kootenay there's a lot of coalmining, as you all know. I've talked about it in this House.

The coalmining families that depend on the coal industry in the Elk Valley and all the businesses that also depend on the coal industry in the Elk Valley have had a question for over a decade. That question is: when will the provincial government allow a coal-fired power plant to be constructed in the Elk Valley, bringing hundreds of jobs and an expenditure of between $250 million to $300 million?

It's my understanding that this government has made some changes to allow that type of project to proceed. I'm asking the minister today if he could tell this House what those changes are.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there's great economy that could take place in the East Kootenays above and beyond what they do now with coalmining. We introduced an energy plan that is inclusive of coal. It's inclusive of transmission access for people who want to build plants in British Columbia. It is inclusive of independent power producers to generate our incremental electricity needs moving forward. That's in the energy plan. We've got standards for coal for the first time in British Columbia that are competitive with our neighbouring jurisdictions, which were developed by Water, Land and Air Protection.

We have wide regional support, and it's now up to the private sector. We've done our job. The private sector now will review all that and decide in those parameters if they can actually put a plan together that will make economic sense for the people of the Kootenays and the province.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Solicitor General made comments that were deeply offensive to the first nations. Would he like to apologize to the House and, through us, to our constituents?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was asked some questions in a scrum yesterday, and I gave an example which proved to be unfortunate for some people in the aboriginal community. I apologized to them this morning, and I apologize to the House today.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. A recent announcement by the federal Industry minister to provide funding for those communities that have been hard hit by the softwood lumber dispute was welcomed throughout my riding. The announcement indicated that there would be somewhere around $110 million spent in communities hurt by the softwood lumber dispute. To date, it has become confusing as to whether this money is still available and how a community applies for it. Can the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations tell the Prince Rupert community adjustment advisory working group if this funding is still available, and what course is necessary to make application?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Yes, indeed, the money is still available. It's $110 million that's going to be spread across Canada. We're expecting at least half of it to be spent in British Columbia.

As the member is aware, there's been an advisory group set up under the mayor of Prince George, Colin Kinsley, to oversee this program under the auspices of Western Economic Diversification. We're expecting their call for proposals over the next couple of weeks. I would remind all members that this is based on calls for proposals from groups within your communities, so it's incumbent upon them to apply for this funding. The Community Futures development corporations around the province will be handling those. I would suggest, if you or any organizations in your community have any questions about accessing those funds, getting in touch with those corporations.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Each year hundreds of thousands of travellers come through my riding of Yale-Lillooet, and I understand that concession stands may appear at rest stops on the highway starting next month. Some people in my constituency are worried that services at these rest stops will discourage motorists from visiting some of their communities and will possibly impact local businesses. Can the Minister of Transportation tell us why the government is moving in this direction, and has she anticipated the effect this may have on local business?

Hon. J. Reid: British Columbia is a huge and very diverse province. We had some concerns with rest areas across the province. We had vandalism at some rest areas. There's the cost of keeping up rest areas. Some-

times they wouldn't be in good condition when tourists came. I received a number of complaints about conditions, even though they are regularly kept up. We also have problems sometimes with seasonal vendors locating on the sides of roads in areas that aren't safe for motorists to stop.

When we looked at the opportunities, we looked at what neighbouring jurisdictions do with their rest areas, and we realized there was an opportunity to improve service to people travelling our highways. Certainly, in some areas where there are very long distances between communities, it would be a safety issue where people could stop and perhaps get refreshed — a cup of coffee. We looked at how they were done. In some areas service clubs get involved; in other areas it's seasonal vendors.

We are starting a program this year that would allow activity at rest areas. We are working with communities. We are going to be sensitive to the needs and wishes of communities. But again, there are many different situations, so we're going to look at each rest stop in its situation and look at proposals that come forward and make those decisions.

K. Krueger: I rise to table four petitions: one with regard to the cosmetology industry, one from the Barriere and District Seniors' Society concerning seniors issues, one from a group of constituents concerning B.C. Hydro and another from a group of constituents concerning the Coquihalla.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

M. Hunter: This morning I sat and listened to the Leader of the Opposition in this debate making acerbic and accusatory remarks about the minister, and I want to promise the minister that my questions are going to be a lot more friendly. I'm delighted to see him back around the executive council table. There hasn't been a minister responsible for fisheries, at least in this province, in my time here that has had more respect than the member for Abbotsford-Clayburn. As I say, I'm delighted he's back.

I wanted to start my questioning by talking about food safety and food quality. I've made some remarks and asked some questions about this before, but I see that we are scheduled to spend another $6.189 million on this activity in the new fiscal year. I am again curious about what progress we are making with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I'm mindful that as long ago as 1986, there was a federal-provincial-territorial agreement on integration of food inspection, including seafood. I know that 17 years later, we are still inspecting British Columbia seafood producers who don't export beyond our boundaries. I'm wondering if the minister can report any progress on getting this file into the hands of the federal government, where the competence is, where Health Canada resides and where they have a program that I think is a lot more beneficial to consumers across Canada as well as in B.C. I'd be interested in how we're making out on that 17-year-old commitment to harmonize.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member for Nanaimo, certainly the issue he talks about — trying to harmonize food inspection standards and processes with the federal government — is a critical objective. It's something that has gone on a long time, as he said. In our food safety branch we've tried to distinguish between food safety issues and food quality issues, first of all. The responsibility of the government to protect the public through its food safety programs is critical.

Referring specifically to the issue of the relationship with the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and attempting to harmonize standards, we are actively working on a memorandum of understanding with the CFIA. Provincially, that process also involves our Ministry of Health Services. As he says, I'm hopeful that we can make better progress in the next little while than we have made in the last 17 years. It is an important issue, and I think it's good that he helps keep it in front of everybody and tries to help move it along.

M. Hunter: I want to focus on seafood because I don't know, in terms of agriculture, what we are expending. I know that a few years ago we had three provincial officials involved in seafood product inspections. Is that still the case today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As the member says, we have inspectors within our ministry. We have six inspectors. We're currently in the process of adding two inspectors. About 10 percent of their time is involved in food safety issues and processing plants.

J. MacPhail: I know that the members will have a chance to ask their questions. I will be completing before the end of today.

I left the minister exploring the minister's responsibilities with enforcement and compliance. I'm not going to spend much more time on this issue, the investigation, because I have many other issues I want to ask the minister about.

There was one part of the letter from Stolt Sea Farm to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection that I want to pay close attention to. A quote from the letter says: "Examining the potential for expansion of the aquaculture industry is considered a key ministerial priority, and sending conflicting messages to industry and, further, potentially affecting public perceptions relative to authorities and efficiencies will only have negative impacts."

I'm just wondering whether the minister could say what negative impacts on public perception he is worried about.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can report to the member that we have always been very clear with the industry that any expansion — if there were any expansion — and even the existing operations were subject to good environmental standards in terms of performance, which would be monitored, inspected and enforced by our government. All of the activity is subject to that, and I want to assure the member of that.

J. MacPhail: I wonder whether the minister thinks it's any worse or any better now, after this fiasco and the poor handling of the entire file.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In fact, if we look at the history of the aquaculture file and if we start out during the period of time under the previous government, we're all aware of the moratorium which was put in place in 1995 and the comprehensive study that was done by the salmon aquaculture review. The previous government put in place 34 new salmon farms before this salmon aquaculture review was done. I think that's a very significant piece of history.

The salmon aquaculture review made 49 recommendations. The previous government had not done anything with most of those. We have gone through systematically and put in a new fish escape regulation, put in a new waste management regulation, reviewed all the fish health requirements, put in place an enhanced compliance and enforcement provision, and put in an MOU between the two ministries so that we have a very comprehensive and effective enforcement process. That's what we've done before we ever talked about the moratorium.

In fact, even though we made a decision on September 12, 2002, there have been no new licences issued. Part of the requirements that have been put in place is very comprehensive application requirements for a new site or a relocation. We made it a stipulation that any relocations that needed to be done had to be done first. There are sites that were put in place by the previous government where there are environmental issues. They were not relocated, and we are prioritizing those as part of our comprehensive process for establishing and promoting better environmental performance in the industry.

J. MacPhail: Gee, I don't know where to start on that. It's always interesting that when this government gets into a corner and gets in trouble, they go: "We're no worse than the previous government. We're no worse." Gee, is that ever wonderful. Is that what this minister campaigned on? In fact, they are worse than the previous government.

The expansion by 34 licences. I love the way this government stands up and repeats it. They've been given their little script, and they were told to repeat that, regardless of the facts. If indeed the government of the day had not carried on with the groundwork that the then Social Credit government had put in place, many of whom are now sitting in this government, that Liberal opposition would have said: "Anti-business. You have no basis for doing this." So we did. We actually investigated. We put a moratorium on to err on the side of caution.

The minister is dead wrong on the recommendations around the salmon aquaculture review, and I wish he'd stop being wrong — absolutely stop.

The difference between this government and the previous government is that the previous government wasn't beholden to anybody through financial contributions from one side of the industry. We actually made a decision based on science.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I wonder. What's everybody so upset about? Nervous about some events or something? Kind of antsy about what happened? I don't know. You know, as long as you're all doing your jobs properly….

J. MacPhail: As long as everybody's just telling the truth and doing their jobs properly, nobody has to worry. I just want everybody to calm down.

This government comes in and clearly sides with one aspect of the industry. In fact, this is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of with this minister. If he wasn't siding with one ministry, shoving them letters, e-mailing them or telephoning them about investigations, why doesn't he just stand up and say what his role is?

No, he's stonewalling. He's a hostile witness. "Speak to my lawyer," he says. "Speak to my lawyer." In this case, it's the special prosecutor. The problem is that the special prosecutor's report won't be revealed.

Let's carry on, then. Let's just see what's happening in the industry now and this great approach that this minister is taking to fish farming. It's interesting to note that no one is buying the minister's spin about his record versus the previous government's record — nobody. It ain't working for any side of the debate on fish farming.

Does the minister think that the industry has a higher standing in the public's eye now than it did under the previous government?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, as I said, we have put in place — right across the board — new, more effective and more focused regulations. We are enforcing those.

In the coastal communities where aquaculture is a key industry, certainly those communities consider this industry important. They have seen job losses in the forest sector and the commercial fishing sector. If you look at places like Port Hardy, for example, the largest employer is a farmed fish processing plant. If you add to the farm sector and the processing sector all of the jobs in the service and supply industry, I suggest to you that the people today in those communities consider that industry very, very important.

We have always believed, and we have always developed policy in such a way as to put the wild salmon first…. We are confident that the wild salmon and aquaculture can coexist, and all of our efforts in terms of policy and enforcement are geared towards that objective.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's interesting that the minister didn't answer the question about whether there's a higher standing in the public eye of the industry now than under the previous government, because he'd have to answer that it's this Liberal government that's brought the industry into disrepute. It's this government that's refused to support initiatives that would help the industry and protect the environment. It's this government that's brought it into disrepute. Today is another perfect example of how the reappointment of this minister to the fish portfolio will further damage the credibility of the fish-farming industry.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The current price of farmed salmon on the world market is fairly depressed, based on additional volumes that have come into the global market from countries such as Chile. We're seeing some firming-up of prices and expect them to improve as time goes on.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In our discussions on this issue we have always made it clear that the marketing issues are the industry's problem. They're not our problem. What we have said is that our objective is to create conditions where the opportunities exist, but for the farms to get approval for a new site or relocation, they have to go through a very comprehensive process. They have to meet all of our environmental standards.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware of any comment internationally on the salmon-farming industry here in British Columbia — Los Angeles Times or anything like that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There are always comments being made internationally and locally about all of our natural resource industries. Our job is to represent the interests of the people of British Columbia on these issues, and we're doing that.

J. MacPhail: I wonder what the minister feels about British Columbians taking him seriously now. He actually says that wild salmon are the most important, when his actions show that he's more concerned with the aquaculture side of the industry. He won't come clean today about what his involvement is with the aquaculture industry, either prior to his suspension or after his suspension. What does he think the perception is today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the past year we've certainly engaged in a lot of activity focused on the wild fishery. I should say, first of all, that the management of the wild fishery is within the responsibility of the federal government. Our interest as a province is to ensure that we maximize the economic benefits to British Columbians from the management of that fishery. We work with the federal government, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in a collaborative arrangement to try and ensure that subject to the conservation requirements of the wild fishery, we promote the best use, the economic benefits and the distribution of those benefits within British Columbia.

We have, for example, been very actively engaged with the federal government in a review of the Fraser River fishery. We've also been involved with the Ministry of Attorney General on issues involving the use of fish in the treaty process. As I said, we have worked hard in this ministry to develop a good, active working partnership with the federal government on any of the issues that involve the wild fishery.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering what the discussion has been amongst the officials of all of the ministries — the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and Land and Water B.C. — since the special prosecutor's report.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answer to the member's question, I can say that I'm not aware of any particular discussion between the ministries that she mentioned since the special prosecutor's report was filed.

J. MacPhail: Well, who did review the special prosecutor's report and then learn from it and make changes, if necessary? Or is the minister saying no changes were necessary?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said earlier, the special prosecutor's report was forwarded to the Attorney General's ministry, and that's what I understand is the procedure.

J. MacPhail: I think it will be interesting to see what the results of that special prosecutor's report are — the meaningful results — and what it means for the public in terms of learning anything from that investigation. Clearly, so far the public doesn't seem to have benefited at all from (1) the investigation and (2) the minister being reappointed. I must say it's my view that as of today's discussion, many more questions remain unanswered rather than answered.

I want to switch to a topic now dealing with McLeod's By-Products. McLeod's By-Products is a rendering plant in Armstrong. It has been the subject of complaints to both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection because of violations by it of its waste management permit.

In February of this year it was ordered by Provincial Court to pay a total of $46,000 in fines and compensation for its conduct. In October of 2001 the Citizens for North Okanagan Clean Air wrote the now Minister — the then-minister and again-minister — of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, sitting in the minister's chair now, requesting that he take action against McLeod's. The group then received a reply from the company stating that the company had been contacted directly by the Minister of Fisheries and wished to find a solution to the ongoing complaints. This group then wrote to the Premier and to the ombudsman complaining of the minister's action. In response, they received a written apology from the minister for interfering with this case.

McLeod's, through its corporate parent, has donated $9,200 to the Liberal Party. All of this took place in the same time frame as the minister's interference with the investigation into Stolt Sea Farms.

The two cases demonstrate a pattern of behaviour by the minister. Did the minister write the apology to the Citizens for North Okanagan Clean Air after he interfered with the Stolt Sea Farm investigation or before?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I indicated to the member, all of the information that was relevant to the special prosecutor would have been available to him. That report has been filed, and I refer the member to the Attorney General for the results of that report. The results were made public.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The results of the special prosecutor's report were made public.

J. MacPhail: They were made public? I'm sorry, I didn't understand that phrase. What special prosecutor's report?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The results of the report were made public in a press release by the criminal justice branch on April 2.

J. MacPhail: Okay, the minister is saying…. That's not even the question I had, but my gosh, you almost want to save the minister from himself by shutting down these estimates. Unfortunately, my job is to explore these issues on behalf of the public.

The minister is saying, when I ask a question about McLeod's By-Products, that those people are supposed to go and find out about the minister's behaviour by reading a news release from the Attorney General about an investigation into Stolt Sea Farm?

Let me try to ask the question in a different way. I read out what the minister did. The minister had to send a letter of apology to the Citizens for North Okanagan Clean Air. All I'm asking the minister…. It's got nothing to do with the criminal investigation. The minister has already revealed that he contacted Stolt Sea Farms. He's already done that publicly. He said it was a mistake. So let's not even worry about the criminal investigation. Did the minister write the letter of apology to the Citizens for North Okanagan Clean Air after he made that mistake with Stolt Sea Farm or before?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, any information that the special prosecutor felt was relevant, I would assume, would have been available to him. The issue that has been raised by the member is also a matter of the public record, and as she said, I've apologized to the individuals. I've never interfered in any investigation.

J. MacPhail: It would be nice to have some proof of that. There's no criminal interference. But it would be nice for the minister to be able to prove his last statement, and he can't. When did the minister make the mistake to which he has admitted publicly?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the special prosecutor's report and that process. My conduct as a minister was fully investigated by the special prosecutor. The report has been filed, and the report has been forwarded, in the form of a press release, to the public.

J. MacPhail: I just want to tell the minister that there's been a lot of feedback from this morning, and it isn't looking good so far for the minister. He might want to be a little more forthcoming in his answers.

Did the minister act alone in writing the apology to the Citizens for North Okanagan Clean Air in October of 2001? Did the minister act alone in writing the apology, or did he get advice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think it needs to be stated that the McLeod's By-Products problem is resolved.

Again, that was a problem that went on for many, many years. As minister responsible for agriculture, food and fisheries, when I received the letter, I felt it was important to take action on it and inform the owners that there was an issue here that had to be dealt with. I've always supported the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection on that issue, and that issue is now resolved.

J. MacPhail: Wow, that doesn't sound like much of an apology to me. The minister interfered, took a complaint from a citizens group and notified the person against whom the complaint is made. He just tried to justify it.

Look. I'll tell you something, Mr. Chair. It is the Premier's responsibility to appoint people to cabinet, and it does seem to me that the Premier — we'll see; we'll see whether this is the case or not — is going to have more questions to answer about the reappointment of this minister to cabinet. It is simply unacceptable. The questions I'm asking…. The minister tries to defend, justify or obfuscate, but the last thing on this minister's mind is actually answering the questions directly and clearing up some confusion. I was giving the minister an opportunity to say that he sought advice and that he would continue to seek advice after having to write the letter of apology to McLeod's, but none of that is forthcoming at all.

I want to move to the issue of what the minister claims to be their good record on ensuring protection of water — the water quality and the wild fish stock — by his ministry. I don't know. Does the minister have before him the Fallow Route for Pink Salmon Migration in the Broughton, January 2003? I have an extra copy. I can send it over.

I wanted to make it clear. I was going to give the minister a copy of this. I have a copy of it.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have a map here entitled Pink Salmon Migration Corridors in the Broughton, January 2003.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I'll send my map over. This is the map I'm working from. It says: "Prepared by Decision Support Services for Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries." Anyway, that's the map I'm working from; it's probably the same one.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to ask my questions based on the map that I have. Is that okay?

Questions around the Broughton Archipelago action plan. In February the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was also the Minister of Fisheries while this minister was under investigation. During that time the ministry brought forward an action plan to deal with the threats facing pink salmon runs as a result of fish farms and sea lice. In doing so, the plan called for a safe migration route. This route, according to this map, begins at the Thompson Sound and travels through the Tribune Channel, then through the Fife Sound and out to the Queen Charlotte Strait. Am I right in that that's the route?

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's the fallow route for pink salmon migration. I'm sorry. That's the route that the ministry decided to deal with.

The route goes directly through several fish farms that the ministry has instructed lay fallow during the migration, and on this particular map the ones that have been told to lay fallow are marked by a star, and then other salmon sites that aren't laid fallow are marked by a circle. How was the migration route determined?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The route was determined by consulting with the local community as to what appeared to be the best route for pink salmon migration.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The consultation on this issue took place at a workshop in January 2003, and it included a broad cross-section of people from the community, including commercial fishermen, citizens, environmentalists and people within the fish-farming industry. It was designed to determine the most logical route from the point of view of the migration of the pink salmon.

J. MacPhail: So, was science used? I know the meeting that the minister is talking about, and this report…. It actually looks like maybe this map was presented to the group for their confirmation. I'm wondering: was science used to determine this route? Were there any studies completed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In speaking to the issue of selection of route, there was limited data available through DFO. On the issue of selection of route, the ministry and DFO jointly, in this workshop process, consulted with all the stakeholders in the community.

J. MacPhail: The minister and I are working from the same map, but I want to try to explain this so that it goes on the record properly. The fallow route for pink salmon migration that the minister invoked starts at Thompson Sound and then goes up the Tribune Channel, but the actual route that the smolts follow is this. The Tribune Channel splits into two arms at Gilford

Island. One arm goes up north through the Tribune Channel, and a smolt route then also goes south around the south of Gilford Island into Knight Inlet.

I'm wondering: what evidence does the minister have that he knows for sure that the migration route of pink salmon smolts only heads strictly north and around Gilford Island and not down to the Knight Inlet?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the process of consulting with the community and DFO, it was certainly recognized that pink salmon can take different routes. In establishing the action plan…. The plan was designed to allow strategic fallowing on one of the routes and then look at other options and other management regimes to put in place on the alternate routes that pink salmon could also travel. Things such as accelerating the harvest or coordinating monitoring and treatment schedules on those alternate routes were put in place so that we were able to test two different management regimes.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister got any signs…? Sorry, even I can't ask that question. I was going to say, "Are there signs telling the young pink smolts which way to leave Thompson Sound?" but I couldn't bring myself to ask that of the minister, not knowing how salmon actually write.

What evidence does the minister have that the smolts are migrating north of Gilford Island, and is he willing to adjust his fallowing migration route?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We went with the best available information at the time in selecting the routes and the management regimes on those routes. Part of the plan is to increase monitoring and increase research so that in the future we have better data on which to base these management decisions.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but if the minister didn't have the science to start with and if he's not certain the pinks do not use Knight Inlet, what is he doing to ensure that the Broughton Archipelago action plan will be successful at all?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In terms of the monitoring program, DFO, together with ourselves — because we have staff involved in that process — are monitoring sea lice levels on pink salmon both in the fresh water at the exits from the rivers and in the marine areas around the Broughton. In addition to that, farms have reporting requirements every two weeks in terms of sea lice levels on their farms. All of that data is being collated to help drive the management regime in this area during the out-migration of the pink salmon.

Hon. J. van Dongen: To date, the results show very low sea lice levels in the area. There have been treatments put in place on a couple of the farms, and as I understand it, there will be further reports posted on a website in the near future.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is monitoring the out-migration of pink salmon smolts from the river and streams, and we are doing standard sampling on both the north route and the south route, those different areas. At the present time, based on what are really very preliminary numbers, the indications are that there are more pink salmon going the north route that the member talks about than the south route.

J. MacPhail: I have a technical question about the north route. On this map where the fallow route goes from Thompson Sound, through the Tribune Channel and out into the Johnstone Strait, there are two islands: Gilford Island, which I want to talk about, and Eden Island.

I note that there's a fish farm that has been laid fallow at Eden Island, and there's one that's been laid fallow on the western tip of Gilford Island. In between those two, there's another fish farm that hasn't been laid fallow.

Does the minister see — I've got it circled in yellow there — why? It's the lower right-hand yellow circle.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The plan was based on strategic fallowing along the major migration routes. The farms the member cites that are not fallowed were not on those major migration routes.

J. MacPhail: Based on this map, the one that wasn't laid fallow is right in between two that were. Perhaps the minister could provide the science that excluded that farm from being fallowed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, it was viewed that, generally, the pink salmon would take the northern route — the main channel — and the fallowing was done on that basis.

J. MacPhail: Okay, but there's a fish farm south of the one that wasn't laid fallow, which was laid fallow. So help me. Can the minister see it on the map there? My apologies. I've circled it. One fish farm on Eden Island has been laid fallow. The southern one on Gilford Island, the tip of Gilford Island, has been laid fallow. The one that's between Baker Island and Eden Island hasn't been laid fallow.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Sometimes farm sites are fallowed for reasons other than this Broughton Archipelago pink salmon management plan. Sometimes they may be fallowed for purposes of the Waste Manage-

J. MacPhail: Well, does the minister know? I'll ask my next question: on the ministry map and in the government announcement I counted 12 sites that were to be fallowed. How many of those 12 sites were already empty or slated for relocation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: One of the sites that was fallowed is a site that is scheduled for relocation. At one site, Glacier Falls, the ministry had to force the company not to restock. All of the other sites were fallowed voluntarily.

J. MacPhail: So there were only two of those 12 that had some other direction, and all the rest were in full operation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, on the balance I'm going to say ten. I'm not sure about the exact number, but the member talks about ten sites. The farms voluntarily agreed to cooperate as part of this action plan to fallow those sites and keep them fallow through the critical out-migration period for the pink salmon. We can't say with any certainty whether or not possibly some of those sites might have been fallowed for other reasons or whether they might have been restocked if the action plan didn't exist. We know that in some cases on those sites, following normal management procedures, some of those sites would have been restocked. All of those other sites, the ten sites we talk about, were fallowed. That was part of the commitment that was secured from the industry in putting together this action plan.

J. MacPhail: I'm surprised the minister can't give me a more definitive answer about that. I was told that at least four of them were already fallowed. I assume my information wasn't better than the minister's.

On the map there's a site in the Simoom Sound. I've got it circled. It's above the migration route north of the fallow route for pink salmon migration. Now, one farm is to be fallowed, but the one that's actually closer to the Tribune Channel is not to be fallowed. What's the story there?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member's earlier comment — she talked about four sites already being fallowed — I think the point there is that we secured commitments from the farms not to restock when they could have restocked during the critical out-migration period.

In terms of the member's question, that particular site she referred to is stocked with juveniles, where the science says there's little risk in terms of sea lice. That was agreed to between our ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Now, the minister will see that I've got, on the right side of the map, an area marked in yellow. There's an arrow to it calling it Humphrey Rock. Why is the ministry allowing Stolt Sea Farm to set up a new farm at Humphrey Rock? It's on the east side of Gilford Island in the Tribune Channel, and it's near the migration route for smolts.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Humphrey Rock site was the subject of an application for a relocation, and that application went in and was received on April 10, 2001. It had gone through a very comprehensive application process through all of the agencies and was approved by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act approval in March of 2003.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain why Humphrey Rock is getting a fish farm when the local Gilford Island first nations band has been told the fish farms in their territory will be removed?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The first nations consultation would have been done on this site by Land and Water B.C., which is under the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. It is one of the agencies that receives a referral. It's actually Land and Water B.C., which is the single window for applications. It receives the application, and it would have followed all of the applicable consultative processes with first nations.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because the people of the Gilford village recently wrote a letter to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's very relevant here — even more relevant pursuant to the minister's most recent answer. I'm going to read it into the record, and I want the minister's response.

The letter was sent to the opposition by the Living Oceans Society, which has been advocating on behalf of the first nations band, and they have asked us to get the answers here. The letter was written yesterday. It's from the — and my apologies to the band for my pronunciation — Huksotaniauk-ayquay-ameesh band. It's on Simoom Sound, B.C. This is a letter to John Davis, the regional director general of Fisheries and Oceans Canada:

The application was first made two years ago. What proof does the minister have that they've done any consultation with the first nations? Clearly, the first nation affected hasn't been contacted.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to say, first of all, that I cannot speak for agencies other than the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, but in the process of working through an application, we do rely on the consultative process that is implemented by Land and Water British Columbia for the province. They follow all the procedures and guidelines that are laid out by the province in conducting that consultation with first nations.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister downloading this onto the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management for the answers? I mean, I think it's a bit specious for the minister to slough this off by saying that the Gilford village wrote to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Yes, they did write to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but what they said was that they haven't been consulted by anybody. Is the minister passing the buck to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Under the single-window approach that we've developed, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, through Land and Water British Columbia, has the primary responsibility for siting and tenuring. As part of that process, they carry out full consultation with first nations, as I said, following procedures and guidelines prescribed by the province for that purpose. In issuing our licence, we have to be satisfied that the consultation process took place. Again, I can't speak for Land and Water British Columbia in terms of the actual process they engaged in on this case.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, through those listening up there, stay tuned. I'll be asking that same question of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management after we finish here.

Now, the Fraser report. Let me just…. Is the minister familiar with the Fraser report, Making Sense of the Salmon Aquaculture Debate, prepared for the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in January 2003? I assume the minister is familiar with that. Perhaps the minister could answer: is it not true that the Fraser report's first recommendation was to fallow the entire Broughton?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Fraser report really set out two options. One was complete fallowing of the Broughton, and the second option was a strategic fallowing of the Broughton. Ultimately, the management plan that was put in place, using the best information available from both the community and the scientific community, was the second option.

J. MacPhail: But I asked the minister what scientific evidence, scientific input, he had for the strategic fallowing, and he didn't have any. It was community input. You know, consistency is important on this issue. Perhaps the minister could explain what he sees as the precautionary approach.

Hon. J. van Dongen: When we were talking earlier with the member about the use of the community, we were talking with specific reference to the selection of route and establishing one route where we did fallowing and another route where we did comprehensive management of the operations.

The overall objective of the action plan was to protect wild fish, and we engaged the international scientific community, including people locally from institutions such as the University of British Columbia and Malaspina University College, in the development of this plan. There was a lot of scientific input into this plan from a number of sources and a very broad-based approach.

We engaged in an area-based management approach that involved a combination of a lot of different management practices, different aspects such as strategic fallowing, which we mentioned, and we accelerated harvest to get more sites fallow. We coordinated the monitoring, and we're working with DFO and the farms on monitoring and treatments. We backed that up with research to improve the data on which we can base our management regimes.

We're committed to continual improvement, including auditing for compliance and enforcement and public reporting. As I said, some of the data that's be-

ing collected in these early stages will be going up on both websites — the DFO's and our own. Overall, we have taken a precautionary approach on this action plan to ensure the viability of the wild stock.

J. MacPhail: Who were the scientists from UBC and Malaspina College, please?

R. Lee: In the House today we have a group of 26 students and their teachers, Mrs. Pritchard and Mr. Austin, from Westridge Elementary School in Burnaby. Six parents also came with this group. They are Mrs. Crivici, Mrs. Brizzi, Mrs. Pandur, Mrs. Tran, Mrs. Finamore and Mrs. Larden. They are visiting the House today to study government, parliamentary procedures and the history of this great province. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: There was a broad-based group of scientists, a list of scientists, involved in this workshop that included Dr. Bill Pennell from Malaspina College and Dr. Scott McKinley from the University of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked about the precautionary principle is because the Rio declaration, for which Canada is a signatory and therefore it's legally binding on us, defines the precautionary principle as this: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." That's No. 1.

No. 2 is that the Fraser report said, as its first recommendation, full fallowing — complete fallowing. This minister chose not to go that route, so let me ask this: why didn't his ministry follow through with the precautionary approach on this action plan?

The complete fallowing of the Broughton was the precautionary approach. It was the first recommendation of the Fraser report. How does the minister justify that while he also claims to say that wild salmon are his number one priority? He's now just admitted — or I cannot get any more confirmation — that the migration route set up is just a guess, at best, and that there are salmon farms that have been left all over the pinks' habitat.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The conservation council's report certainly recommended the precautionary approach, and we've applied that based on scientific advice in the Broughton action plan, including a combination of strategic fallowing, managing treatments on farms based on scientific evidence of sea lice, enhanced monitoring, etc.

I think it needs to be stated that the conservation council also said, in advising a precautionary approach, that to date there is no direct evidence of salmon farms causing the sea lice issue or being the cause of the pink salmon numbers as they unfolded between 2000, 2001 and 2002. All of that information was factored into the scientific advice we got to develop the approach that we took.

J. MacPhail: A couple of weeks ago my office received a letter from Alexandra Morton. As everybody knows, she sent a letter to all MLAs in the hopes of raising the awareness of what's going on in the Broughton Archipelago, the area we were just talking about. Her letter is largely a response to what she heard during the last open cabinet meeting. However, she does take the time to go through the aquaculture debate issue by issue. My office actually contacted Ms. Morton, and she has given us permission to use this letter to try and get some answers out of the minister. I'm wondering whether the minister saw this letter.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall the letter. I've certainly seen letters by Alexandra Morton, but I don't recall the letter the member is talking about.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, we'll go through this then, piece by piece. This was to all B.C. MLAs, and it was at the time when the minister wasn't in cabinet, so I'm surprised:

I'll just stop there for a moment in Dr. Morton's letter, and I'll ask a couple of questions. Dr. Morton has provided quite a specific and technical description of sea lice biology. Is her description accurate?

Hon. J. van Dongen: My staff indicate they are in the process of preparing a technical response to Alexandra Morton and the letter the member cites. I should also say that Alexandra Morton was a participant in both workshops — the workshop in January that was conducted and then the larger, more comprehensive workshop, I think, in February that included all of the other scientists, including the international scientists and the people we mentioned from Malaspina and the University of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I think all the more credit to Alexandra Morton for that. She's willing to work inside the tent.

This letter was written after this and particularly after the open cabinet meeting that I think occurred…. The former Minister of Fisheries' presentation was within the last month. Thank you for pointing out just how important Ms. Morton's questions…. Well, she didn't ask these questions; I'm asking them as a result of this letter. This letter is a couple of months old, so I'm going to continue on. What scientific study has the ministry done on sea lice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have not been previously engaged in specific studies on sea lice. With respect to that matter, we've been engaged in implementing whatever the recommendations were in the SAR report. We are currently involved very actively with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in monitoring the sea lice issue in the Broughton and using that data to do further research on this issue, and we are in the process of putting in place four further studies on the sea lice issue.

J. MacPhail: What work has the government examined from Ireland, Norway and Scotland about sea lice issues?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The purpose of our workshop in February was to bring together experts from all over the world, including scientists from Europe, and they brought all of their experience and scientific knowledge with respect to the sea lice issue to that international workshop. That was all input into the development of our action plan in the Broughton.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister aware that the Norwegian government recently committed to the complete removal of open-net salmon farms from the fjords that are major salmon habitats?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We are aware that in Norway they are engaging in some area management in terms of siting their farms, and this would be part of the siting process that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, through Land and Water British Columbia, will be…. It's within their area of responsibility to take into account all of the factors that go into determining whether or not a site is an appropriate site for a salmon farm, so they would take into account the same kind of factors that Norway would be considering in their area management regime.

J. MacPhail: Ms. Morton then goes into further detail about the differences our salmon face here in the Pacific and how the threat of sea lice is even more severe in B.C. I'll continue to read from her letter.

I'm just going to pause for a second and ask some questions of the minister. Last year during estimates the minister admitted that in the summer of 2001, there were reports of sea lice infestations. He said in those estimates: "There were certainly such allegations made last summer in the Broughton area, and those allegations were fully investigated. The scientists and veterinarians with both the federal and provincial governments confirmed in their report that there were low levels of sea lice present. None of the allegations were proven to be valid."

That's what the minister said last year, and since then there was a pink crash, and the Fraser report insisted on caution, and the government had to do a 180-degree shift in policy. If the minister was aware of the sea lice threat, why did he wait two years to take action?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think a couple of things need to be pointed out. First of all, the run of pink salmon in the year 2000 was a record run — eight times the previous average. During the time that salmon aquaculture was in place in this region, we saw a significant increase over time in the odd-numbered years in terms of the run of pink salmon.

When it became clear that the pink salmon run of 2002 was down very significantly, we embarked on an action plan, together with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to bring together the best possible information and put in place this action plan. We included, as I said, all of the scientific community and the local community to put together the best possible precautionary plan that we could, involving identifying different routes with different management regimes that will allow us to collect data and better improve our knowledge of the pink salmon run in this area.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Slice is a medical treatment that is used to control sea lice.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I was talking inappropriately. Could the minister please repeat that?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Slice is a prescribed treatment for sea lice, which is medicated and put through the feed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: That's a very technical question, and the staff I have with me are not able to advise me on that question.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't the minister using Slice or recommending the use of Slice to eliminate sea lice or reduce sea lice, as opposed to laying fallow fish farms?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The product Slice is a medical treatment, which can only be prescribed by a veterinarian.

J. MacPhail: Okay, sorry. Slice is being used now to control sea lice at the advice of the ministry, is it not?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As part of the Broughton action plan and the management of sea lice issue, we recommend treatment on farms when they get to a certain point or if the data shows that it's warranted. But the actual treatment itself — the product that's used — has to be prescribed by a veterinarian, and as I understand it, there are some options that veterinarians could use.

J. MacPhail: Is Slice controlled under the Canada Health Act? Is it controlled under the Pesticide Control Act?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The product Slice is a therapeutant, and it is controlled by the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, which is, I'm told, a federal agency.

J. MacPhail: I'm advised that it's also controlled under the Canada Health Act and the Pesticide Control Act, and it is considered a pesticide. But I'm happy to have the minister say that's not the case, if that isn't the case. His website does say there are no pesticides used in the aquaculture industry in British Columbia, and I am advised that Slice wouldn't meet that test. There are lots of people watching out there who will correct the minister if he's wrong — or me — but I'm willing to take the minister's answer for it.

Also on the website on the sea lice information page, it says: "Compared to other jurisdictions, sea lice have not yet posed a significant problem for farmed salmon in British Columbia. The ministry monitors the amount of antibiotics and other treatments prescribed by veterinarians in the control of diseases and pests like sea lice." Would the minister consider that statement accurate?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm going to ask the member to repeat the question, but on the Slice issue, in the application that it's being used on salmon farms, it's considered a therapeutant, and it is under the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.

J. MacPhail: That's the auspices under which it's being used on salmon farms. But it is also, I am told, a

neurotoxin. It is controlled under the Canada Health Act; it is controlled under the Pesticide Control Act. It may also need to be prescribed by a veterinarian, but it doesn't mean that the rest of this doesn't apply.

I read this quote out from the minister's own website on sea lice information. It says: "Compared to other jurisdictions, sea lice have not yet posed a significant problem for farmed salmon in British Columbia. The ministry monitors the amount of antibiotics and other treatments prescribed by veterinarians in the control of diseases and pests like sea lice." Would the minister consider that statement accurate?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, member, I consider the statement accurate. The industry has to meet very stringent requirements on antibiotics for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and they have to provide fish health reports and the treatments they use to our staff in Courtenay.

J. MacPhail: I find it surprising that the minister still confirms that that's an accurate statement after all the recent developments and reports.

Okay, a pause here from Ms. Morton's letter. Is the minister aware of the regulations in place in Norway in regard to sea lice?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, we are aware of the program for sea lice in Norway. In British Columbia we have amended the conditions of licence, and farms do have to report sea lice numbers, again, to our staff.

J. MacPhail: If the minister was aware that sea lice was an issue in other jurisdictions — he just admitted it now, and he has admitted it on his website — why has it taken so long to take any action? This issue has been brewing completely, as Ms. Morton has said, for the last two years. Combine the information out of other countries and the knowledge that pink and chum and B.C. are especially at risk, it would seem obvious that the ministry wasn't doing enough. Ms. Morton warned of the dangers almost two years ago.

In his opening remarks, the minister said that he developed the most comprehensive regulations for aquaculture. How is it that he's just getting onto this now? When did the regulation come into effect where sea farms will have to report sea lice, and how do those regulations compare to Norway?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Sea lice were not identified in the SAR report as a significant issue in British Columbia. When we were aware it became an issue, we took immediate action, and all of the farms in the Broughton, as a condition of licence, have to report their sea lice data to the ministry.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It came into effect this spring as a result of the two workshops that we conducted into the sea lice issue, which included, as I said, a broad base of scientists and community stakeholders in the process.

J. MacPhail: The minister uses the salmon aquaculture review as the reason to lift the moratorium. Sea lice weren't a problem reported in the salmon aquaculture review. Not surprising — it was completed in 1997, almost six years ago now.

Ms. Morton, as a registered biologist, brings it to the attention of this ministry almost two years ago, and this minister acts…. When? Last week the regulations came into effect — April 1? How will the regulation work?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member, the ministry, together with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, did act when the relatively low returns of pink salmon were clear in 2002 as a result of the 2002 numbers.

It should be stated that pink salmon runs fluctuate very significantly in nature. The actions that we take to improve the regulatory regime have to be based on some evidence that has some base of scientific knowledge to it. We put in place in a condition of licence, under the aquaculture regulation, the requirement for these farms to report their data on the monitoring of sea lice on those farms and the treatments that they were using.

J. MacPhail: Just for the sake of the members of the House, this would go a lot faster if the minister would actually answer my question. That was the answer he gave previously.

What is the regulation? How does it work? How often do they have to report? What's the fine for non-compliance? Is it equal to Norway's? Is it made public?

Has anybody started doing this yet, or was it April 1 that it came into effect — six days ago?

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, in answer to the member's question, the methodology that's used is consistent with other jurisdictions. The farms have been collecting the data for the past three months. It has been a condition of their licence since March. They report every two weeks. The first set of numbers will be posted on our website tomorrow. The fines are $2,000 under the regulation, and each day is a separate event or could be a separate fine.

J. MacPhail: Well, I guess that doesn't compare to the $100,000 daily that the Norway regulation has. It's probably not the most comprehensive. Maybe the minister should stop saying they have the most comprehensive set of regulations on fish farms.

Recently, when this minister was on hiatus, his replacement stated publicly that aquaculture fines were nonsensical. What is the minister doing to bring some sense, then, to the fines system?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The aspect of fines is within the legislation itself. We are working with the Ministry of Attorney General to seek amendments to the legislation, and we expect to have amendments tabled in the fall with respect to fines.

J. MacPhail: That information was all available to the previous Minister of Fisheries, and he still called it nonsensical. Has industry commented on what an increase in fines would do to business? Have they offered up any opinions to the minister?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall having any opinions from industry on the issue of fines.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to go back to Ms. Morton's letter now. She turns to the issue of escapes — escaped Atlantic salmon. "The minister is mistaken in drawing the conclusion that escaped Atlantic salmon will not colonize the B.C. coast because the experiment failed in the 1940s and fifties." I'll just pause there for a second. What was the 1940s and fifties experiment that Ms. Morton cites?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I think what Alexandra Morton is referring to is the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans attempted to stock a number of rivers and streams with Atlantic salmon for recreational purposes.

J. MacPhail: How does that experiment validate this government's position on escapes?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The experiment Alexandra Morton referred to is one of a number of attempts around the world to introduce Atlantic salmon into a non-native environment for Atlantic salmon. All of those attempts have failed in all locations where that was tried. Simply, it speaks to the scientific experience of trying to proactively introduce that species in a non-native location for that species.

J. MacPhail: How many Atlantic salmon have been found in B.C. rivers as of current data?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I would refer the member to the ministry website. All of the data dealing with Atlantic salmon escapes is posted. We have a rigorous system with the escape regulation under the Fisheries Act whereby there are monitoring requirements for the farms and reporting requirements if there is an escape. Whether it's five fish or 2,000 fish, those farms are required to report.

They have extensive record-keeping requirements on farms. If they do a net change, for example, that all needs to be recorded. If there is an escape, one of the first things that our staff will do is review the records, and all the data is collected by Atlantic Salmon Watch. If they have concerns about specific situations or specific rivers, they will embark on a proactive program of doing diving. At one point, for example, they trained about 60 native divers to do additional diving on particular rivers to monitor any presence of Atlantic salmon.

In answer to the member's question about how many Atlantic salmon were not recorded, obviously, I couldn't give that number, but the requirements we have today are more stringent than they ever were. Whatever escapes do happen are being reported, and we are investigating and enforcing those escapes. As I said, we have the most rigorous regime in place for escapes that we've ever had in British Columbia, and the escape numbers are going down.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I didn't ask a question about how many have not been reported. I don't know how anyone could answer that question. I asked how many have been found in the rivers. Here's what Ms. Morton had to say about the forties experiment. Reading from her letter:

I'll stop for a second and ask a couple of questions. Does the minister dispute these claims? Is Ms. Morton's analysis wrong?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Conditions may not be the same as they were in the forties and fifties, but we don't necessarily agree with her analysis of the situation today. Information such as the fact that Atlantics have never been…. On agencies or anyone who has

ever tried to establish Atlantic salmon in a non-native environment for Atlantic salmon, that is one piece of information. All of the monitoring we've done is another piece of information.

All of the studies that have been done, both in Canada and in the United States and other areas, show that potential escape of Atlantic salmon is a low risk to the Pacific salmon, a low risk to our wild stock.

Our mission as a ministry through the regulations, through the reporting requirements — the monitoring requirements — through effective enforcement, is to reduce that risk even further. Our target is obviously zero escapes, and we want to get as close as possible to that target.

It's a risk-based approach, but as I said, it's a low risk. We are targeting all of the key streams for additional monitoring as required, based on the data that's coming in.

J. MacPhail: With the elimination of Fisheries Renewal B.C. by this government, how much money is this ministry putting into protecting wild salmon habitat?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The responsibility for wild salmon habitat is in two agencies — that is, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is irrelevant to this government. That's a federal agency.

This minister has said his highest priority is protection of wild salmon, and he doesn't know how much money the government is putting into wild salmon habitat protection?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We as a ministry have a responsibility to protect the wild salmon and the wild salmon habitat on issues within our mandate, such as aquaculture. We don't have a budget, as does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for example, that is strictly dedicated to the protection of wild salmon habitat.

J. MacPhail: No, the government doesn't have a budget, because they killed Fisheries Renewal B.C. They killed it. They took the money away. The government took the money away from Fisheries Renewal B.C. — tens of millions of dollars that was set up by the previous government going into protecting wild salmon habitat. The minister's right: no budget, no commitment. How much money is the ministry putting into aquaculture development?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member talked about Fisheries Renewal. That decision was, in part, based on the fact that we have serious budget problems in British Columbia. That was inherited from the previous government. The previous government ran up deficits of about an average $2 billion a year when you look at the ten-year period. We had a very serious fiscal situation in British Columbia that we had to deal with.

The decision also took into consideration the level of spending by a number of other sources on the wild fish habitat, including some of the funds that were made available on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. If the member was honest about it, she would acknowledge that the funding of fish renewal was becoming more and more difficult as time went on, even under her government.

The amount of money that we're spending on aquaculture, in terms of development of the industry for '03-04, is a little over $2 million.

J. MacPhail: How dare this minister try to get into an argument about deficits? Let me be very clear. There are many areas where size matters, and deficits is one of them. This government excels at large deficits. They're unprecedented in the history of British Columbia, in terms of having large deficits. The deficits of the previous decade have been completely, in total, surpassed in size — for that whole decade in total — in a couple of short years by this government. For those of you who care about size, then you win. Your deficits are the biggest.

Balancing a budget isn't even in the realm of possibility without cutting funds for Fisheries Renewal B.C., let alone cutting funds to people on welfare, schools and hospitals — closing hospitals. So how dare this minister somehow suggest that he inherited a problem that required him to cut the money for Fisheries Renewal B.C.? He cut the money for Fisheries Renewal B.C. because he only cares about aquaculture. That's it. He only cares about aquaculture, as does his government. He should stop saying that protection of the wild salmon stock is his highest priority, because there's not one iota of proof for that — not one iota of proof.

The $3.9 million that's being spent by Monty Little and his committee is being spent to do research into aquaculture development. When is that being spent?

Hon. J. van Dongen: All of the dollars — it was $3.75 million that we've allocated to the Science Council of B.C. to manage — are going into protection of the environment and protection of the wild stock and the habitat. Some of the projects that are being defined include research projects around sea lice, IHN and waste management.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to finish quoting from Ms. Morton's letter with this final section that I'm quoting from. Her letter goes into much more detail and I think will be a seminal point of discussion amongst all who care about wild salmon stock and promoting a safe, environmentally strong aquaculture industry.

That's the end of the quote. Ms. Morton's letter goes into great detail about sockeye disease and IHN impacts to coastal communities and the ecological footprint. There are many points upon which we could have a discussion, but I will leave it at that, because I want to allow…. Sorry, I have one other area of discussion on fish farming and two very short questions in another area. Then I know other members have questions to ask.

I want to turn to alternative technology used for salmon fish farms, because of course there is technology out there that can assist greatly in reducing or perhaps eliminating escapes. Considering the economic and environmental advances in alternative technology over the last decade, is the minister willing to support a transition to closed-containment technology for finfish aquaculture, even if that transition is gradual?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of other types of technology for salmon aquaculture is certainly one that is the subject of a number of pilot projects. I think there has been some good work done by some of the players in the industry who are working on developing technical options. I understand that there will be some interim reports coming out of that pilot project process, and we will continue to encourage not only the research on alternative technologies but constant improvement and upgrading of existing open-net technologies. There's certainly legitimate debate about the merits and the pros and cons of the open-net system and the alternative technologies being researched by some B.C. companies.

J. MacPhail: I was wishing that the minister would take a more aggressive approach. In the wake of the recent collapse of the over three million pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago, I was hoping that the minister would be a little more assertive in supporting a transition to closed-containment technology. How much money has the minister committed to research and development funds for alternative technologies in fish farming?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have not put up any cash for the development of new technologies, but we have provided and supported incentives in the way of some alternate sites to test the new technologies, combined with an existing site using conventional technologies. That provided the incentive for the companies in the industry to engage in research projects on these alternate systems.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The purpose of the program is to provide incentives to industry but ultimately to better understand the data around both the environmental and the economic impacts of these alternate systems.

J. MacPhail: The minister just gave me a status report on the pilot project programs. How much funding is being provided to the pilot programs under this government?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We don't put in any direct cash. We have staff involved in the regulatory side on these sites. We also have staff that receive the prescribed reports under the program and evaluate those results. We don't put in any actual cash.

J. MacPhail: What's the minister's view on incentive programs to help companies make the transition to alternative technologies? I heard his view on getting conventional technology to work better, but what about incentives to move companies to the alternative technologies?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue of cash incentives for these pilot projects would have to be dealt with, with some caution so they don't become a subsidy for these fish farm operations. Certainly, it's something to consider, but our government does not support subsidies to business. If we were putting cash into these programs, then probably the member would be the first to say we are subsidizing business and subsidizing large fish farms.

We have put in place a very rigorous regulatory regime, a compliance and enforcement program. We have put in place increased fines. We are working with the industry and the stakeholders to identify environ-

mental issues as they come up. We are putting in place adaptive management approaches to deal with new information as it comes up. I would expect that the development of new technologies will continue, both in the case of alternate technologies and in the case of net pen aquaculture. Certainly, there have also been very significant improvements and upgrades made in those facilities, in the design of those facilities, and enhancing the reduced escapes and the rigorous management of all of the risk. As I said, it's a low risk. But we will continue the drive to minimize that risk for the wild salmon.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, this government believes in subsidies. The government's giving major subsidies to the coalbed methane industry in the form of reduced royalties, which is the tax that the coalbed methane companies have to pay for, because they have to invest more. This government knows that they have to invest more to get the methane out. So the government…. I mean, the minister is just sort of spewing forth the mantra that this government doesn't believe in subsidies. Nobody believes the government when they say that.

Has the minister looked at any of the closed containment technologies himself? Has he visited companies like Mariculture or Future SEA that are trying to develop safer technology?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I've had some discussions with those companies, and I have visited some of their sites.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to move on to two questions about agriculture that will take me about five, six or seven minutes, depending on the answers.

I just want to close by saying that this minister is moving back into troubled waters with his reappointment. There is no confidence that this minister can manage this file — this very important aquaculture file that means jobs — in a way that it will actually not harm our waters. Moving forward on salmon aquaculture is good news if it's safe, environmentally sound, sustainable, and also doesn't in any way detract from enhancing wild salmon stock. That's got to be the first priority. There's no evidence that this government has as its first priority the protection of wild salmon stock — none. Or else the minister would have told me.

I also think the minister himself is under a cloud by relying on a report to clear his reputation — a secret report that this government refuses to release. The minister refused to come clean today in the estimates by answering the questions that could have cleared up all of the questions that remain unanswered. So I'll be monitoring that aspect of his file, of his responsibilities, very carefully, Mr. Chair.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The ministry has made an agreement with the B.C. Agriculture Council. We've licensed the label and the program to them through our trademarks section, and they are working with the private sector to develop a promotion program that will be supportive of agriculture, the various commodities in both the farm and the retail side of the agrifood sector. My understanding is that there will be a relaunch of the program through the partnership involving the B.C. Agriculture Council and the private sector.

J. MacPhail: Well, I've been missing it in the store. Am I correct in saying that it doesn't exist right now?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There is no active campaign right now under the program.

J. MacPhail: When is the relaunch supposed to occur, and how much is this government investing in it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Any relaunch of the program will be up to the B.C. Agriculture Council and their private sector partners. We as a ministry are not putting any new money into it.

J. MacPhail: Well, there — that's another dubious private sector initiative, isn't it? Buy B.C., an extremely successful program, guided me in my choices. This government put it out to the private sector, and no one has picked up the ball — no one. So there's another example of how this government tries to privatize everything and so far no action.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We maintained the B.C. Sharing program, together with the Canadian Association of Food Banks, B.C. branch, and we recently concluded an agreement with them which we hope to announce shortly.

J. MacPhail: The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority has been privatized, as is my understanding?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is being wound down as originally intended, and the final disbursement of the dollars that were budgeted for the replant program has been turned over to the Investment Agriculture Foundation. All of the dollars that had been budgeted will be available for the replant program, and the Tree Fruit Authority will be wound down shortly.

J. MacPhail: When did the minister first announce the winding down of the Tree Fruit Authority? I can't recall.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We first announced that at the annual general meeting of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association in January.

J. MacPhail: When did the minister first plan on…. We discussed this, I think, in estimates last year — the winding down of the Tree Fruit Authority. Or am I incorrect?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The decision to wind down the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority came out of the core review process.

J. MacPhail: When was the decision made? This minister has dipped into the contingency fund for 10 million bucks to wind down the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, and so his salary is saved. When was the core review process finished?

Hon. J. van Dongen: We did accelerate the disbursement of funds and the wind-down of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority by using the B.C. Investment Agriculture Foundation as a vehicle for disbursement. We have met the full commitment to the industry, and they were satisfied with the outcome when I talked to them about it at the annual meeting in January.

J. MacPhail: That concludes my questions for this portfolio, and thank you to the minister and his staff.

M. Hunter: I must say that a selective memory on fisheries is a wonderful thing, because it allows you to make observations and throw accusations across the floor to this minister that simply don't have a basis in fact. I think we should correct the record a little bit.

The accusations that this minister and this government don't put wild salmon conservation and management at the top of the heap are simply not true. I'm reminded that it was the NDP government that thought fish management was about throwing rocks at Ottawa. As a result of that mentality, we probably set back federal-provincial relationships in this province by five or ten years. It ended up with the expropriation of a big piece of property in the gulf of Georgia outside Nanoose. That was the kind of record of her government, and she has the temerity to stand here with selective memory and accuse this minister of not caring about wild salmon. I find that quite obnoxious. I think we need to set that record straight.

I want to talk a little bit and ask the minister about wild salmon, because I happen to know that he has put some considerable effort into that part of his portfolio. I wanted to ask him if he had an estimate of the kind of dollar losses that the entire wild seafood industry has suffered through over the last five or six years — but perhaps focusing on 2002 — as a result of application of the precautionary principle, Ottawa style, in the way the federal government has managed our wild salmon fishery — for example, some of the activity that they've done in other fisheries like shrimp fishing and exorbitant licence fees. Those kind of management activities have troubled the wild fishery for the last half decade, about which the last government did nothing. I'd like to know if the minister has some idea of what has been lost to the provincial economy because of federal actions and the lack of a response from the previous government.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We haven't done any studies of the estimated economic loss for British Columbia, so we don't have precise numbers or estimates. But we do believe that the losses have been very significant. When you look at losses at the commercial fishing level, for example, you're looking at losses in the tens of millions of dollars. The member cited the year 2002. Certainly we faced, we believe, very significant losses from the lost opportunities that were simply allowed to go by because the federal ministry, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, didn't have the ability to respond to in-season changes in the data that were coming in.

We have worked very actively with the federal minister and the federal agency to try and develop a management regime that puts us in a better position at the beginning of the season, with a framework going into the season, and then a system whereby we can have more responsive decision-making in season. The federal minister did commence a review. We had involvement through our staff on the steering committee. The review did have some outside work done to provide input to the process. Certainly, there are indications that some of the changes, such as ensuring that the decision-making authority is ultimately vested in one person for in-season decisions, will be very helpful in achieving better economic returns, as well as all of the other social impacts that are critical to British Columbia as a result of a healthy fishery.

We don't know at this point if the result of this process will be perfect. We certainly hope it will be better. We have always stressed with the federal minister that conservation is certainly important, but the very risk-averse approach that has been pursued by the federal agency in the last five or six years has really resulted in lost economic opportunities for our B.C. fishery.

Certainly, a lot of the commercial fishermen feel that the commitments they made, the investments they made at the time of the Mifflin plan in 1996, have been ignored, have not been considered. The agreement, the commitment that they felt they had at the time from the agency, has not come through in terms of a return on their investment and their commitment to the fishery. We continue to work with that. I think it's very, very critical that we get better results as we go into the next season because the industry has had some very difficult years, particularly in 2001 and 2002, where we believe that the very significant salmon runs did allow fishing, which was simply a total lost opportunity for British Columbia.

M. Hunter: The minister referred to the Mifflin plan. I assume he was referring to the federal rationalization plan that was opposed by the NDP government in British Columbia.

M. Hunter: On the question of the value. I know that not so many years ago wild salmon harvests alone, let alone other parts of the commercial fishing industry, were worth in the order of $350 million in wholesale value to British Columbia. I think the recreational fishing industry would say that they contributed at least that and probably more. They count every bottle of beer, and that's fine. That's their methodology.

I guess I hear from the opposition this proposition that we've got all our eggs in the aquaculture basket. I personally don't believe that. I wonder if the minister has some estimate of what we could really expect if we had a sensible management system of our offshore salmon fisheries. What's the estimate of what's possible here in the wild fishery, in the minister's view?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the member's question, I refer him to our service plan, page 15, where we set out the current level of the wholesale value for all of fisheries and aquaculture, which is just over $1 billion. In working together with the B.C. Seafood Alliance, which represents a broad-based organization of most of the interested parties in the fisheries sector, they have set a target of about $1.5 billion in growth in the total fisheries sector.

If we look at the $1 billion today, approximately $300 million is the aquaculture industry, and all the rest of it is the wild fish sector. Overall, we see a 4 percent increase a year. We're targeting a 4 percent increase a year in the total sector, and we see a very modest growth in aquaculture. We see at least as much growth in the wild fisheries sector. We have been very actively engaged with the B.C. Seafood Alliance to develop a vision, together with the federal agency, to derive increased economic benefit based on these targets over the next three years of our service plan.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that we rise, report resolution and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. Les: Earlier today when we started these estimates, the minister talked about gravel removal from the Fraser River, an issue I'm very much interested in, in my riding, as are others in the Fraser Valley. It was good to hear the minister outline the ministry support for the removal of gravel on an ongoing and sustainable basis.

I wonder if the minister could comment on this matter. We've had a problem in years past whereby the approvals always seemed to come out about a week before the fisheries window closed, which has led to a very erratic and irresponsible removal of gravel from this river and, in fact, any other river.

I would suggest we ought to set a target of November 1 every year where those approvals would be in place, which could then lead to an orderly and systematic removal of gravel. I think that would be better for the industry as well, so that it can properly plan its activities throughout the winter period, which often is a period of higher unemployment where that type of work would be more welcomed as well.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the problem generally and if he agrees with my suggested solution.

Hon. S. Hagen: There's no question that probably the only person more frustrated than I have been has been you and your colleagues from the Fraser Valley. In the last three weeks I've had two meetings with the federal minister. One of the issues we talked about was the timing and shooting for the November deadline so that we had a longer window during which the work can be carried out.

Your message has been consistent, and there's no question you're right. That's exactly what we're shooting for through the collaborative management group and the work it's done. I think you will agree that the group, with the leadership of Land and Water B.C., has made considerable progress on this file, but we have lots more to do, not the least of which is to increase the amount of gravel that has to come out.

J. Les: As I outlined this morning, every year about 350,000 tonnes of gravel move into this reach of the river. Given that for so long now there has been inadequate removal of this material, there's been a considerable accretion of gravel into that area to the point where some suggest that the average elevation of the bottom of the river has risen anywhere from a half to a full metre, which, in essence, means that the freeboard to which the dikes were designed has disappeared. Consequently, it has increased the risk of the dikes

Would it be reasonable to suggest that, over time, we ought to work towards lowering the average elevation of the bottom of the river to, for example, 1972 levels? I use 1972 as a reference point because that is when the major dike work was done that I referred to earlier today.

Would the minister have any comment on, perhaps, increasing the rate of gravel removal for a number of years so that we could get back to that elevation, which would allow the river to handle a greater capacity of water?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view at all, which has been expressed. We want to get away from the one-year agreements. We want to get into a long-term program to try and get ahead of the issue.

I have the advantage that I actually do remember the flood of '48. I remember going into a relative's house in Matsqui and seeing how far up the wall the water had been, and it was pretty close to the ceiling.

What you're saying is not only reasonable, it's actually an intelligent comment, and that's something we're shooting for. What the collaborative management group is doing now, together with the staff — as you know, they've done more than enough studies on the river — is pulling this information together to come up with a long-term plan, which we will have in place before November of this year, so that we can work collaboratively with first nations, the federal government and communities to make sure we get ahead of this issue and accelerate the amount of gravel that's to come out of the river.

I'd like to commend the minister and his staff for working on this issue very productively over the last number of months, in particular. I look forward to increasing the flood protection available to residents of the Fraser Valley through the removal of gravel from the Fraser River and, thus, protecting the dikes and ensuring that we have an efficient and cost-effective river management system in place in the Fraser Valley.

J. Wilson: I've had a number of constituents approach me with some questions around agricultural leases. My understanding is that we have a number of existing leases that are under a pilot project this winter. A considerable number of people have approached me to see when those will be complete and whether or not we are going to extend this program, because they would also like to become participants in some form of program that they can acquire their leases with.

Does the minister have a time frame as to when these pilot projects will be completed?

J. Wilson: Thank you for that information. I will pass it on to my constituents, and then they can look forward to that.

The other area they have an interest in is the design or development of a new policy for agricultural leases for expansion. Does the minister have anything in place now or a committee or anything struck that is designing a new agriculture lease policy?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to report to the member that once the pilot project is completed, which will be in the fall of '03, that will then become the new policy we will have developed for agricultural leases.

J. Wilson: What I hear you say is that in the future, when someone wants to apply for a lease — whatever the pilot project works out — that will be the form all future leases are going to take. Or is this the form that existing leases will take that really are still in limbo? They've been put on hold in the last year or two. Most of it was due to forestry issues — stumpage-related issues which couldn't be resolved. There are a lot of leases out there that exist today that clearing has ceased on because of the stumpage issue. They can't afford to remove the trees. Is it those leases that we're going to address with this pilot project, or is it going to be future leases that are going to be taken up by people in the industry?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to make a statement with regard to that pilot project in Prince George, which is going to be very important for formulating future policy. Land and Water B.C. and the ministry are looking at the sale of agricultural leases at market value rather than the stumpage value. I think that's the point you're trying to make. We think that is the result that's going to come out of the pilot project.

J. Wilson: I thank the minister for that information. It's good to have. I can relay that to those constituents that have been wondering what is happening with it.

Seeing the time, perhaps we should rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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