Hansard -- Thursday, April 10, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 6 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6193

Petitions		6193
	Hon. M. Coell D. MacKay J. Bray Hon. J. Murray J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply		6193
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hagen

J. Bray: Joining us this morning in the gallery is a group of grade 5 students visiting the Legislature today and having a tour. They're from the wonderful school in my riding, Glenlyon Norfolk, which is located right here in Victoria. Glenlyon is one of the top schools in the province and produces wonderful students. They are joined by their teacher, Ms. Tanner. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a petition regarding day use in provincial parks and Montague provincial park on Galiano Island.

D. MacKay: This petition is signed on behalf of 1,300 residents from the small community of Houston who are seeking health care beyond the eight hours, five days a week they presently get — something they've never had.

J. Bray: I wish to table a petition signed by 99 constituents who are opposed to the closure of the Downtown Community Activity Centre.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to table two petitions that are opposed to the closure of St. Mary's community hospital. In addition, I'd like to table a petition from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee with respect to Manning Provincial Park and a petition from the community of Douglas College with respect to the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

J. MacPhail: It's quite a day for petitions, isn't it? Lucky I showed up. I'm sure it's all good news for all of you. I'm sure they're saying: "Keep up the good work." Oh yeah, I'm just sure they are.

Hon. G. Abbott: At the risk of intervening in what promises to be a lively if premature debate, on orders of the day today I call the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Hon. S. Hagen: I am pleased to have with me today, to my right, the Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, Jon O'Riordan, and, to my left, the president and CEO of Land and Water British Columbia, Mr. Bill Valentine.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to start with fish farms, Land and Water B.C. issues. I don't know whether that's appropriate staff. Okay. It's on fish farm relocations. I'm working from the Salmon Farm Relocation Summary Report from Land and Water B.C. It's dated January 6, 2003.

During last year's estimates process the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries said: "Our ministry will also work with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to relocate poorly sited finfish farms and manage coastal resources for finfish and shellfish aquaculture." Furthermore, that minister also said: "We're focusing right now on relocations to ensure that operations we have on sites where we don't have good environmental conditions are prioritized and relocated." That minister then continued with: "The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is working to identify the appropriate sites for new locations."

To this minister, then: how many fish farms have been relocated in the last year?

J. MacPhail: Okay. We'll get to Humphrey Rock in a moment, particularly to do with first nations issues.

One in the last year. During the debates the Fisheries minister gave me the following breakdown. He said there were 11 farms originally identified for relocation by the previous government. Nine of those had already been relocated by the previous government. The minister then said that another 25 needed to be relocated. Has this government relocated any of those farms in the two years it's been in government, other than Humphrey Rock?

J. MacPhail: The Salmon Farm Relocation Summary Report lists 37 tenures that need to be relocated. How many of those are in the Broughton Archipelago?

J. MacPhail: Why is that? Is it a hard summary to get? I would have thought that that would have been available. We can actually go through it. I have the summary here. We can actually go through it tenure by tenure, and the minister can just tell me whether that's in the Broughton Archipelago. Is that a preferable way?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm prepared to get that information as quickly as we can during the debate.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That's good, because that'll help me ask my questions. I need it during the debate.

Maybe I'll ask this question, and the minister can tell me whether he also needs to get this. Looking at the proposed relocation sites, how many of those are in the Broughton Archipelago?

Hon. S. Hagen: As a result of the recently announced Broughton Archipelago plan, those sites are all now under review.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The relocation sites are under review? The minister's nodding yes.

When John Fraser and the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council made their recommendations, the first one was to fallow farms in the Broughton. This was deemed to be the low-risk, precautionary approach, but the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, while filling in as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, chose the higher-risk option. The higher-risk option was to strategically fallow some farms and not the whole area.

Could the minister tell us if the farms that have been identified for fallowing under this safe route for pink salmon migration in the Broughton will also be put on the list now for relocation?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I can't say that, because we are under constant evaluation of the plan to make sure it's working. We won't know the answer to that certainly until the smolts have run out, which is probably another couple of months from now. We will be evaluating how that plan worked at the end of the run-out of the smolts.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could detail, first of all, the monitoring and then the evaluation of what he's just listed that will occur after the smolt run.

Hon. S. Hagen: The Atlantic salmon in the pens are being monitored by the farms or the farmers. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is monitoring the wild salmon. The process and the results are a very transparent process. The results of the testing are being posted on the website of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries every two weeks and also on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website. The results of all of this testing that takes place over this period of time will then be assessed by the team of scientists we brought together in February from Norway, Scotland, Ireland, the United States and Canada together with the scientists in the Hon. John Fraser's group.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries said the safe migration route for the pinks required 11 of 12 farms to be fallowed. Does the minister have any information on how many of those were already on the relocation list?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have that information, but I will get it during the debate.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister can answer a specific question. For instance, I know that the Stolt Sea Farm on Eden Island was on the relocation list. That was one of the ones to be fallowed. Could the minister explain why Stolt's Eden Island farm was placed on the relocation list, but one very nearby on Baker Island is not on the list? I have a map I could give…. It sure helps in debate, Mr. Chair. It's highlighted. Eden Island — I've circled it. It's the left highlighted circle. Eden Island is the one that's just immediately south of the fallow route for pink salmon migration.

Hon. S. Hagen: Because of the reassessment of all of the farms in the Broughton and because of the monitoring that's being done, those decisions are still under consideration, and the decision has not been made.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. You mean the decisions for relocation are now all up in the air. All right. The minister is still going to get me what the decisions were prior to that. All right. It will be interesting to know the thinking that went into the minister's relocation decisions before and how that's changed as a result of what the minister is saying will be examined after this smolt run.

Perhaps the minister could explain — because this is Land and Water B.C.'s responsibility: what's the difference between the Baker Island farm and the nearby farm on Gilford Island? The Baker Island farm is in the

Hon. S. Hagen: That decision is not made by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. That decision is made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'm aware of it, but I thought that Land and Water B.C. established or had an involvement in the criteria for siting of fish farms and also the criteria for identifying what needs to be relocated. I assume that there must be some role for Land and Water B.C. in determining the fallowing route. Was there not?

Hon. S. Hagen: The decisions that were made with regard to fallowing were made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'll just note that some reporter referred to some of these discussions as Alice in Wonderland. I feel a little bit more like Alice in Wonderland, because the now Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries wouldn't answer my questions on these, and this minister — who was the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries — won't answer them, because he's now the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

Actually, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries did give us the service agreement amongst all of the ministries. Perhaps the minister could identify exactly what his role is now as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the minister responsible for Land and Water B.C. in setting criteria for siting fish farms and identifying those that need to be relocated.

Hon. S. Hagen: To bring a fish farm into operation in British Columbia, you need two approvals. You need a tenure approval, which comes through Land and Water British Columbia, and you need an aquaculture licence, which comes through the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. With regard to fallowing, this is an issue of operation, which therefore comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

J. MacPhail: I think this minister, as the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, sets the criteria for siting fish farms. What are those criteria?

Hon. S. Hagen: I will provide the list of criteria to you, and I'll get that as quickly as I can during the debate. We do this in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but it's quite a lengthy list of criteria.

J. MacPhail: Okay. What about the criteria for identifying those that need to be relocated?

Hon. S. Hagen: We also have a set of criteria for relocations. What happens is that if they're out of compliance with any of the first criteria that I talked about, then they would become subject to relocation. I will provide the criteria to the member.

J. MacPhail: I've got the service agreement here, and I will be referring to it. If the staff of the minister need to get the Service Agreement on Coordination of Compliance and Enforcement Programs, it will help later in the debate for our discussion.

I'm going to work from a map that I took from the Land and Water B.C. website. Unfortunately, I couldn't print it off because it's highly coloured and it doesn't print off easily. The map is entitled North Island Straits Coastal Planning Area, Salmon Aquaculture Opportunity Analysis. It's from the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management website. It's dated March 4, 2002. I'm going to spend some time on it.

I'll tell the minister what data I'm working with from his own websites. On the map…. I'm sure his staff can get the map, because — and my apologies — I couldn't make a printout of it with my technology in my office. The notes on it say:

I'll just stop there for a second. Which first nations in the Broughton Archipelago have given support, and which are opposed?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think what I'll do is provide this piece of paper to the member, because I'm going to have difficulty pronouncing the name of the band. There is one band in support of finfish aquaculture, and there is another band or tribal council that does not support finfish aquaculture. I'm pleased to share…. I'll actually write the names out for you, and I'll give you the names.

The support of four is not a tribal council? The ones not supporting it are a tribal council? Am I right on that?

J. MacPhail: Okay. So one band supports it, and a tribal council is against it. Okay.

Now, this map goes on — again, I'm referring to the same map — to talk about salmon aquaculture siting criteria used for this study being drawn from B.C. Assets and Land, commercial finfish aquaculture. B.C. Assets and Land, I think, has become Land and Water B.C., so we're talking about the same thing.

It says: "Management Plan, Schedule C — New tenure siting criteria, March 2000."

The other definition on this map that I'll highlight is aquaculture biophysical capability.

So that's from the map. I've told the minister the map title. It outlines all the areas that are not recommended for fish farms under the criteria that I just read out. The map is very large. It's very difficult to read — I already told the minister this, so I didn't print it out — but it is clear that several fish farms currently exist in areas deemed not recommended.

Can the minister commit to getting me a list before these discussions are through of all fish farms that are located within the not-recommended area, give me what their location is and information on whether or not they are on the relocation list?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. We will get that information just as quickly as we possibly can.

J. MacPhail: When I was examining this map, I couldn't help but notice that the migration routes — even the current one and the current ones that we know about — are not in any way on the siting requirements list. These are the smolts' migration route. Even though the map is from 2002, it is the most current information on the Land and Water B.C. website. So we know the migration routes. The government is working on fallowing along migration routes, and now that we have learned about the threats to the young pink smolts, shouldn't the migration routes be added to considerations for siting?

Hon. S. Hagen: What we've done is fallowed one of the routes that the pink salmon come out. There are other routes that the pink salmon also use, which the smolts use to come out. What we are doing is comparison testing between the fallowed routes and the unfallowed routes, because we currently have no information on record of this type. This will give us information that will be good scientific information. It will be a comparison between the fallowed route and the unfallowed route, and it will enable us to make decisions we will need to make in the future, if they need to be made.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I understand that, and it was this minister who created the Broughton Archipelago action plan that talks about fallowing and not fallowing. What I'm saying is: shouldn't siting requirements now have to consider the migration routes of the smolts? They're not a consideration now, from anything that I can tell from the website or from this map.

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the foundations of the North Island straits plan is that as new and scientific information is provided, which it will be in the Broughton, there may need to be adjustments made with regard to siting. If science proves that there is a detrimental issue between siting of fish farms, the smolts coming out and sea lice, then that would be added as new information to the North Island straits plan and have an effect on siting of fish farms.

Hon. S. Hagen: The evaluation will be completed whenever the smolts have finished running out, which is probably within the next two months. Then that evaluation will have to be looked at by the scientists and a recommendation brought forward to my staff and, ultimately, to me.

J. MacPhail: I assume that if the decision is made that the migration routes of smolts is a consideration for siting, then the map that we're discussing now will be updated.

I want to turn to the issue of Humphrey Rock which, of course, is the only relocation that has occurred under this government. I'll also note that I recall one of the reasons why this government lifted the moratorium was because relocations needed to happen. It is interesting that the previous government relocated nine fish farms and did it under the moratorium.

This government lifted the moratorium and has now done one relocation. I'll say it's a bit controversial — the Humphrey Rock relocation. I asked the Minister of Fisheries some of these questions, but he actually said that this Minister of Sustainable Resource Management had responsibility for tenures, so I'm referred here. The Minister of Fisheries referred me to the Attorney General, to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, so here I am.

Why is the ministry allowing Stolt Sea Farm to set up a new farm at Humphrey Rock, which is on the east side…? Perhaps we can look at this map again. The map I'm referring to is the fallow route for pink salmon migration in the Broughton, dated January 2003. The Humphrey Rock fish farm is on the east side of Gilford Island, and it's in the Tribune Channel. The Tribune Channel actually splits into a southern route and a northern route very near this point, and the Humphrey Rock Stolt Sea Farm is being set up on the eastern point of Gilford Island, very near the migration route.

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to outline the approval process or what has happened to approve Humphrey Rock. The initial application came to BCAL, at that time, on April 9, 2001. The tenure offer was accepted February 7, 2002, subject to federal approvals. The aquaculture licence was granted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries on September 10, 2002. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided the final approval on March 26, 2003, and the tenure was issued on Thursday, March 27, 2003.

The member's description of where Humphrey Rock is, is quite accurate. I've spent a lot of time in this area. It is not in the fallowed route. The fallowed route is the North Channel. This is in the southern channel, the southeast side of Gilford Island. It is one of the areas we're testing in to get the comparison testing I talked about, so that we will have test results for the fallowed area and test results for the non-fallowed area. The Humphrey Rock is in the non-fallowed area.

J. MacPhail: I have many more questions on this, but what is stunning, given the precautionary principle that most scientists approve, is that the way this government tests to see the effect of fish farms on smolts is to put a fish farm in their path. That gives new meaning to batting aside the precautionary principle.

Frankly, Thompson Sound is where the smolts start their migration route. They go along for a tiny bit, and the Tribune Channel then breaks into a northern route and a southern route right at the eastern tip of Gilford Island. This government has decided to make the fallowed route along the northern part of the channel, but who the heck knows whether the smolts know enough to go into the northern route? I asked the Minister of Fisheries the day before: is there some way that this government communicates with salmon smolts to tell them to take the northern route and not the southern route? Are there signs posted? Well, no, they're not. There are no signs posted. In fact, I'm not sure any of us are fully familiar with the language yet. However, what this government does is to only fallow the northern route. They don't fallow the southern channel. More to the point, they put a fish farm in the southern channel before they actually know whether their fallow route makes sense for the pink salmon migration. Wow. That gives new meaning to scientific testing.

Let me just go through the application process here. All of this has been under this minister's responsibility pretty much from day one. Maybe for the first days of receipt of the application it sat on a desk while the election was held, but this is this government's total responsibility.

Let's see what the first nations are saying about this. The people of Gilford village are on Gilford Island and are directly affected by the location of this salmon farm. They recently wrote to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Given where the minister is suggesting consultation happened…. Is it DFO consultation that the minister relies upon?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to go back to one of the previous comments before I answer that question with regard to Humphrey Rock and the siting of a fish farm. Presently there are no fish in that farm. The high probability is that there will not be fish in that farm during the running out of the smolts. Some of the possible crises pointed out by the member are highly unlikely to happen.

Going to the consultation process, yes, DFO does consultation with first nations, but Land and Water B.C. have extensive consultations with first nations under the consultation guidelines set in place by the provincial government.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister might want to read the North Island Gazette. That's in the area where he lives. The article is dated last week. Stolt Sea Farm is saying there are fish in the water. That's what it says. The site opened last week to replace the Stolt Farm at Eden Island, and there are fish in the water. Maybe the minister isn't up to speed, but the North Island Gazette is reporting that at Humphrey Rock there are fish in the water.

Let me carry on, then, about what kind of consultation has been done, and perhaps the buck-passing will continue. This site was approved, and the first nations say they were not consulted. The people of Gilford village recently wrote a letter to the federal Department of Fisheries, the DFO. It's relevant here, so I'm going to read it into the record. Again, as I stated in previous estimates, the letter was sent to the opposition by the Living Oceans Society. They have been advocating on behalf of the first nations band, and they have specifically asked us to get answers from the minister. It's from the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ah-mish band residing in Gilford village on Gilford Island. It was sent to the DFO.

We see from the article in the North Island Gazette that it has already occurred. This is from Calvin Johnson of the first nations of Gilford village. What checks does the ministry do on matters to see whether, indeed, first nations have been consulted?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't think there's ever been a government in the province in the history of British Columbia that has worked more closely with first nations than our government. We just recently updated the consultation principles that are used by all ministries in the government. I recently toured the Broughton Archipelago with the Hon. John Fraser and representatives of all of the bands in the Broughton Archipelago.

I am meeting with representatives of the bands of the Broughton Archipelago next week. We have ongoing discussions with first nations. We are very respectful and are trying our very, very best to build relationships of trust and respect with the first nations not only on the coast but throughout the province.

The licensing officer with Land and Water B.C. aboriginal interests assessment report concluded that, based on the information with regard to Humphrey Rock and pursuant to the provincial September 1988 consultation guidelines and the aboriginal rights policy framework 1997, the licensing officer was satisfied that the Crown had met its first nation consultation duties with respect to the Humphrey Rock proposal.

J. MacPhail: Didn't the government publish new consultation guidelines late last year?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. They were published subsequent to the provincial approval that was given.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Tell me the dates again when the approval was given by the province.

J. MacPhail: So I guess these poor schmucks, the first nations of Gilford village…. Gosh, they're just out of luck, are they? It's the only relocation they've done. The minister isn't even aware of what's happening there. The North Island Gazette article is from yesterday, and here's what it says: "The Humphrey Rock site is located adjacent to Knight Inlet approximately 55 kilometres from Port McNeill and was stocked with smolts last week. 'The freshwater-raised smolts are free of sea lice,' notes Blackburn." That would be Dale Blackburn, vice-president of B.C. operations for Stolt.

That was done last week, and the letter from the Gilford Island first nations is dated April 7. I guess they're just out of luck, because this government, in meeting the needs of Stolt Sea Farm…. Isn't it interesting how Stolt Sea Farm gets such good action from this government? That Indian band had to rely on consultation guidelines from 1997, and this minister has the nerve to stand up…that no government has done more consultation with first nations. I expect the Stolt Sea Farm located now at Humphrey Rock will become a huge burden around the neck of this minister in particular, and he'll be forced to eat the words about how cooperative he is with first nations.

Hon. S. Hagen: The company loses the tenure at Eden Island because it's a relocation to Humphrey Rock.

J. MacPhail: In the same North Island Gazette I just quoted from, last month the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is quoted as saying: "One of the biggest reasons for lifting the provincial moratorium on new fish farms was if a farm is poorly sited, we need the ability to relocate it. The moratorium didn't allow for that." Is that the minister's view still?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm informed that when the moratorium was originally placed by the previous govern-

ment, no relocations were allowed. That was changed in 1999 to allow relocations.

J. MacPhail: Why would the minister in 2003 be saying the moratorium didn't allow for relocations?

J. MacPhail: In fact, I wonder whether the minister will be revising his little message box on aquaculture now. It's interesting how this government tries to say, "Oh, it was because of the decade of decline and the anti-business attitude that we have to make all these changes. One of the changes we had to make was to lift that terrible moratorium put on aquaculture" — which actually erred on the side of the precautionary principle.

This minister stands up as recently as this past month and still continues to say that the reason why his government had to lift the moratorium was because it didn't allow for relocations. Mr. Chair, here are the relocations that took place under the fish farm moratorium and under the previous government: Kitasoo Aqua Farms, the marine harvest relocation while the moratorium was on; Liard Aquaculture, relocation while the moratorium was on; Omega Salmon Group Ltd. at Marsh Bay; Stolt Sea Farm at Doctor Islets; Omega Salmon Farm Group at Robertson Island; Kitasoo Aqua Farms at Arthur Island — the first one of Kitasoo Aqua Farms was at Jackson Passage; Creative Salmon Co. Ltd. at Fortune Channel in Clayoquot Sound; and Homalco first nation at Downie Range. Those are all the relocations that have occurred, and they were done under the previous government while the moratorium was in place.

In fact, Mr. Chair, here's what the Minister of Fisheries said last year. That would be the then Minister of Fisheries who became not the Minister of Fisheries but is now the Minister of Fisheries again. This is what he said in estimates: "There were 11 farms originally identified for relocation by the previous government. Nine of those have been relocated…."

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to correct the member's statement. That was not the excuse used to lift the moratorium. The reason for lifting the moratorium was to provide new opportunities for salmon farms on the coast of British Columbia, to actually help create jobs in the coastal communities and to help sustain the 3,500 families who depend on this industry for jobs.

I would also like to correct something else in the record in the statement the member opposite made. To give her full credit, she did read it from the North Island Gazette. The site at Humphrey Rock was inspected yesterday, and there are no fish.

J. MacPhail: Funny, I guess we can't trust anything out of the fish farm industry, because it was from their news release that the article was written — right out of their news release.

Again, the minister should read his own press clippings and demand a retraction if he's being quoted inaccurately then, because here's what he was quoted as saying in the North Island Gazette last month: "One of the biggest reasons for lifting the provincial moratorium on new fish farms was if a farm is poorly sited, we needed the ability to relocate it. The moratorium didn't allow for that." Will the minister be asking for a retraction because he was wrongly quoted?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I won't be asking for a retraction, but as I pointed out previously, I was misinformed.

J. MacPhail: Misinformed or deliberately misled? If he wasn't deliberately misleading, then he'd be asking for a retraction.

Now, I want to go back to the Humphrey Rock. What was the date of the DFO final approval, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: DFO approved the application on March 26 of this year, and the tenure was issued on Thursday, March 27.

J. MacPhail: So the DFO approved it March 26 — about four or five months after the new consultation guidelines for first nations were approved by this government — and yet this minister is still relying on the old 1997 guidelines for consultation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Government has been using the updated guidelines since they were issued. The province had issued the aquaculture licence back in September.

J. MacPhail: I feel like Alice in Wonderland, and I'm sure the Gilford Island village will feel even more so, because this minister is hiding. He refuses to actually come clean and say that he would do anything to approve the licence for Stolt Sea Farm, including ignoring his own consultation guidelines for consulting with first nations even after they changed. Hide behind the bureaucracy and hide behind the red tape, even though there was plenty of time for him to consult.

Well, unfortunately, the Gilford Island first nation is completely left out in the cold. Their questions have not been…. Actually, they have been answered by this minister: "You're outta luck, Gilford Island village. You're outta luck. Stolt Sea Farm prevails." Could the minister describe what his definition of consultation is as it relates to his own document and recent court decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: Upon the receipt of an application, the application is looked at to see if there's any potential impact on first nations in the area. If there is potential impact, then contact is made with the first nations and consultation takes place.

With regard to the new consultation guidelines, these are being developed for each of the ministries in

government. Those consultation guidelines on a ministerial basis have come back to the deputies committee and are being assessed now to make sure there's consistency in application. We expect that that process will be finished very quickly.

J. MacPhail: The Stolt Sea Farm Humphrey Rock application couldn't wait for that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll just go through the process again. The application was received on April 9, 2001. That leaves about eight months in 2001. The aquaculture licence was issued in September of 2002. That's another seven months, so that's 15 months — 15 months in time to get the provincial approval out. It wasn't until seven months later that the federal government gave their application. That's 22 months in total to get an application for one farm. The process for getting a sea application approved for the Confederation Bridge didn't take that long.

J. MacPhail: I can't possibly speak for the inefficiencies of this government, but if during that whole period of time there was no consultation with first nations, then who cares how long it took? Clearly, there was no consultation — or what was it? Perhaps the minister from his records there can give the dates and times of consultation with the Gilford Island village.

Hon. S. Hagen: We have a record of the consultations that were carried out. I'm satisfied that they were carried out as completely as possible.

J. MacPhail: It's so unusual that the information for the tough questions just doesn't seem to be available during estimates. What about accommodation?

Hon. S. Hagen: The discussions with regard to accommodation are ongoing. As I mentioned earlier, I'll be meeting with first nations representatives of the Broughton area next week.

J. MacPhail: There's a legal duty to accommodate. What accommodation took place in the approval of the…? What duty to accommodate was fulfilled during the approval process for Humphrey Rock for Stolt Sea Farm?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the member I'm sure understands, the term "accommodation" is very broadly based and far-reaching. It might be something as simple as sharing information with the band to working with the band to enter into partnerships or joint ventures. Every case is different.

J. MacPhail: How was the duty to accommodate fulfilled prior to the approval of the Stolt Sea Farm licence at Humphrey Rock?

Hon. S. Hagen: That will be one of the topics we're canvassing with the first nations at our meeting coming up in the weeks to come.

J. MacPhail: That will be interesting, because the duty to accommodate is a legal obligation that's been in existence for several years. Perhaps the minister could show, when he gets me the information, where the duty to accommodate was met on the Humphrey Rock Stolt Sea Farm approval.

What about the ministry approval on the salmon farm application at Ocean Falls? What record of consultation with the affected first nations was done there?

Hon. S. Hagen: With regard to the Ocean Falls site, I'll give the same answer as we did before. The ministry was satisfied that the consultation was carried out. I will make an attempt to have that information provided to the member.

J. MacPhail: What transboundary issues does the ministry consider when approving applications for new salmon farms near the Alaska border?

Hon. S. Hagen: Within the last month or six weeks the acting Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has visited the state of Alaska. I understand that the discussions were very open and that good progress is being made with the state of Alaska in the discussions on fish farms located in their vicinity.

J. MacPhail: It's my understanding that Alaska outlawed fish farms in Alaskan waters. Is that true?

Hon. S. Hagen: At the present time I think the member is correct. They don't allow salmon farming, but they do allow ocean ranching, which is a type of aquaculture.

Hon. S. Hagen: That's not my portfolio. I'll take that question under advisement.

J. MacPhail: Well, here's why I'm asking it of this minister. He's responsible for siting — approval of sites — and there are applications in the Prince Rupert area now for sites. I'm wondering whether any issues have arisen in the consultation with Alaska around consideration of escapes — disease and parasite transfer to wild stock — of wild stock that swim into Alaskan waters. Are any of those being requested from Alaska as siting requirements when approving applications for new salmon farms near the Alaska border?

Hon. S. Hagen: Even though this doesn't come under my responsibility, I'm told that the issues the member has just raised were on the agenda for discussion between the acting deputy and the officials in the state of Alaska.

J. MacPhail: I can't proceed on the matters relating to Land and Water B.C. until I have the information, so I assume I'll do that after lunch and carry on with other aspects of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. But I will need that information over the lunch-hour. Okay?

I'll carry on with sustainable resource management. Perhaps the minister would like to know the order in which I'm going to discuss things. I'm going to talk about tenure issues for Land and Water B.C., then south Chilcotin and, generally, land resource management plans, working forests and contaminated sites.

The staffing fell in this ministry from 1,292 FTEs in '02-03 to 954 FTEs this year, '03-04. The number of FTEs devoted to sustainable economic development dropped from 246 FTEs to, now, 177. That's a decrease of 28 percent. With these decreases in mind, how does the minister expect to fulfil the lofty goals set in the ministry's service plan, including the completion of land resource management plans?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that most of the people who are part of the reduction are part of the inventory team — the people who keep the vegetation and forestry inventory — which is moving along to completion. The land use planning team in the ministry is in place and will be in place until the LRMP process is completed, hopefully, in '04.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister be specific about the FTEs assigned to those two departments, both in '02-03 and in '03-04?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I thought the minister listed two departments, saying the reductions were in one area and not the other.

I have information here that the integrated land and resource information branch is reduced by 20 percent, and that's the division charged with providing scientific and geographic information to LRMPs. That's my understanding; maybe I'm wrong. I would like the specifics of where the cuts are. The minister has suggested there aren't any cuts that will affect the LRMP process.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm just going to bring in an additional staff member, Sheila Taylor, who will have that information. So if you give us a couple of minutes.

J. MacPhail: I will try to carry on with my discussion, then, just in the interest of time. If we can't, that's fine. I'll wait.

There has been a promise made by this minister in particular and by the New Era document that there would be improved access to Crown land. I wonder how, with the reduction in FTEs, decisions will be made on tenures that still ensure the appropriate environmental and socioeconomic assessment. It's my understanding there have been cuts to the integrated land and resource information branch.

Hon. S. Hagen: The disposition of Crown land, of course, comes under Land and Water British Columbia, but they do operate with information from our ministry. The ministry has been compiling this information over time, and we feel very confident we can supply the information to Land and Water B.C. that's needed to make decisions on the disposal of Crown land. There have also been efficiencies made by combining the land and water aspects of Land and Water B.C.

J. MacPhail: BCAL always had responsibility for water tenures as well, so I'm not sure what efficiencies were there.

It is interesting to note that this government, when they were in opposition, used to kick the living bejesus out of BCAL for its backlog of tenures. That's why I'm asking what information this minister is giving to Land and Water B.C. in order to make sure the decisions are science-based. This government has made a commitment — they say it over and over again — that their decision-making is science-based. How many scientists are now in the ministry to ensure that all decisions are science-based?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I just want to correct something the member opposite said. Water was not under BCAL; it was under the Ministry of Environment. It was transferred under this government to Land and Water British Columbia.

We operate now under data warehouses, which operate far more efficiently than in the past. In the past there were ten different ministries that had to feed information into BCAL with regard to the science that was needed to make decisions on the disposition of land. That is all now consolidated under this ministry and run much more efficiently and effectively.

J. MacPhail: Well, data warehouse isn't a being unto itself. Real human beings doing scientific research feed the data warehouse. Perhaps the minister could describe the data warehouse. Who are the scientists that gather and analyze the information?

Hon. S. Hagen: I agree with the member opposite. One area that we can agree on is that the work done in the ministry is, in fact, done by real people. They're very good at what they do. They're very competent. As I travel the province now, I get nothing but compliments, as a matter of fact, about Land and Water British Columbia.

The information that goes into the data warehouse is compiled by staff, experts, biologists and foresters.

The data is then created into information, which is also done by staff, and that is fed into Land and Water British Columbia. This might be information on wildlife; it might be information on forests or other uses for the land.

J. MacPhail: But somebody has to analyze the data, so let me just be very specific. How many biologists does the ministry employ, and how many will be cut throughout the three-year workforce adjustment? I assume we've got my previous request for information now.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. What does impacted mean? Is that good news or bad news for those nine biologists?

J. MacPhail: My gosh. I find this extremely frustrating, because how the heck can we possibly know whether it's been 10 percent, 1 percent or 50 percent cut? This government prides itself on science-based evidence — making decisions by science. I can't possibly tell whether they have any capacity to do that or not.

How many hydrologists are being laid off, and what percentage of all hydrologists is that this year?

Hon. S. Hagen: We will pull all that information together by classification and provide it to the member.

J. MacPhail: Then I expect, Mr. Chair, that we won't be passing estimates until I get this information. Is that true? Do I have to wait for science officers as well?

Hon. S. Hagen: The number of science officers laid off in 2003-04 was a total of eight.

J. MacPhail: What percentage is that? I guess we're going to get that information. Is the minister nodding yes?

Perhaps the minister could explain to me, through me to the world, how decisions are science-based and what kind of decision-making regime is set up that actually is science-based, because you could have a data warehouse that nobody's looking at.

Hon. S. Hagen: In order to operate efficiently and within our budget, we have instituted and struck up a number of partnerships. We have partnerships with five licensees where we share data on forestry and hydrology and wildlife and other information. We have partnerships with the federal government of Canada. We have partnerships with B.C. Hydro. That has allowed us to operate very efficiently and still provide the information we need to make good, science-based decisions.

Hon. S. Hagen: Canfor, Weldwood, Weyerhaeuser, Slocan Forest Products and Lignum.

J. MacPhail: Excuse me? Partnerships with the private sector who have a vested interest in the decisions? It's their information upon which the government is relying to make land use decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: Is the member opposite suggesting that professional biologists who work in the private sector are not professionals and will not provide accurate information?

J. MacPhail: Answer the question. It is not about the integrity of the individual; it's about the source of the information. Is the minister suggesting that in land use decisions he claims are 100 percent science-based, the information for making those decisions comes from the very companies who benefit from those decisions? Can the minister spell "conflict"?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll repeat my question to the member opposite with regard to the professionalism of these individuals who are working together with our professionals. We created the professional biologists act to make sure that objectivity would be in place. Is the member opposite suggesting that only people who work in the Ministry of Finance should be able to do audits on financial statements?

J. MacPhail: Yes, I am, when it comes to taxes. Yes. That's the way it works.

The Chair: Order. I think the minister should finish his comments before the member….

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess what we're seeing here is the philosophical difference where under the previous government the private sector is bad. Okay. Under our administration we actually appreciate the private sector. We actually depend on the private sector to make investments in the province, to create jobs in the province, so our people can get back to work, come back from Alberta, get jobs in British Columbia and get back to work where they want to be. Then we can have the

taxes we need to pay for health and education as we are doing, which is the top priority of our government.

J. MacPhail: Always when this government is caught out, and particularly this minister, he goes to absolutely irrelevant rhetoric. Tell me: when the minister introduced the College of Applied Biology Act, did he reveal in this House that he was in five partnerships with private sector companies, all of whom benefit from land use decisions that he makes?

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like the member to know — and actually, all the people in this House and the province to know — that we are proposing legislation for this session that will set standards for all of the data going into the warehousing to make sure that standards are in place by legislation.

J. MacPhail: I asked a question of the minister. I'll get to that in a moment.

Did the minister reveal when he passed the College of Applied Biology Act or Agrologists Act or Foresters Act that he had partnerships with five companies for receiving information from those companies that would also benefit from his land use decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know where the member opposite was last year, but I can remember canvassing this thoroughly in our estimates debate last year. There was never a secret about us making partnerships in the private sector.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the names were provided to your colleague as a result of the debates in the House on the estimates.

It is unbelievable that this government lays off its own professional scientists and forms partnerships with the very companies who benefit from the decisions that this minister makes. It has nothing to do with the professionalism of the individuals providing the data. Who knows what instructions they're given to provide the data?

In fact, the oath and the standards of conduct for individuals require an oath to the company that employs them. That's by their own standards. I'm told that in the ranking the oath to the company is pretty much up there at the top, and that's understandable. That's why you have public servants doing the kind of data collection where they're not beholden to anybody except the taxpayer — just like the auditors in the Ministry of Finance are only beholden to the taxpayer.

How much is this government spending on those partnerships? Or let's ask the flip side of it. How much benefit does this government receive in the donating of the data from those companies to the government?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm informed that last year $60 million was spent on inventory collection. This money came out of the forest investment account to provide the information that we need.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The $60 million was paid to the five partners: Canfor, Weldwood, Interfor…? The five that the minister named? Those companies received $60 million to collect data?

Hon. S. Hagen: The $60 million went to all licensees in the province, not just the five. The purpose of the partnerships with the five is to make sure that the information is assessed and that it's accurate before it goes into the data warehouse.

J. MacPhail: How much money is exchanged amongst the five partners and the government, one way or the other?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's shared. Some money comes from the government, and some money comes from the five licensees.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are controls in place now by the forest investment account, but they're not in legislation. We're going to be putting them in legislation this session.

J. MacPhail: Tell me about what decisions the government makes as it relies on the data received from forest companies.

Hon. S. Hagen: The information goes to two levels. One is the land use plans that our ministry does; the other is the forest stewardship plans under the Ministry of Forests.

J. MacPhail: These companies are directly affected by land use plans. The government actually brought in a whole new system about land use planning that they now call forest stewardship plans. That's the new Forest Practices Code base for determining sustainability. Are the very companies who are subject to these plans

providing the information to the government about how those plans should be made?

Hon. S. Hagen: The professional biologists and other professionals who work for those companies are providing information in conjunction with professionals who work for the government.

J. MacPhail: Help me with the checks and balances that this minister has in place so that it isn't entirely the private sector planning, for its own benefit, the use of public land.

Hon. S. Hagen: The staff in the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management are the gatekeepers who look at the information and check the information before it goes into the data warehouse.

Hon. S. Hagen: None of the professionals who I classed as the gatekeepers are being laid off.

Hon. S. Hagen: The gatekeepers, as I call them, are the people in our ministry who set the standards. They're professional biologists, professional foresters and professional hydrologists.

All right. Are the only ones that are left, not being laid off, gatekeeping the private information that the minister is getting? By the way, in estimates last year there were no layoffs of the hydrologists, the science officers or the biologists, and the minister said he was testing a pilot project.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the precinct today we have a group of students from Latimer Road Elementary School. They are grades 4, 5 and 6 students. I believe they were just recently in the Legislature here. Unfortunately, I just missed them, ever so briefly. They are joined by three of their teachers: Mrs. Harvey, Miss Skjonhals and Mr. Mullen. I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: The pilot project referred to by the member opposite and by myself in last year's estimates was the initial formation of the partnership I spoke of. We've done the testing. The testing is complete; it works. A business plan is now going into the forest investment account, and if it passes the test, we'll get funding to carry on.

J. MacPhail: Then my shock is absolutely legitimate, because this government is formalizing and making permanent the partnership that will now use private sector data, science data, from the very companies who will benefit from the decisions of this government about land use both in the LRMP planning process — in land use planning generally — and in forest stewardship plans, and the gatekeepers are being laid off.

The minister can say all he likes that, oh no, the gatekeepers aren't being laid off. Well, they are. They are being laid off. If the only people left in the ministry are the ones checking the work of the private sector, who gets to do the science-based data in the ministry themselves? There's no one left. Just the gatekeepers? They're not gatekeepers. They're rubber-stampers. That's what they are. Prove me wrong.

Hon. S. Hagen: The people who are being laid off are the people who used to gather the information. The people who are not being laid off are the gatekeepers….

Hon. S. Hagen: They're the people who set the standards, and I'm amazed that the member opposite would question the professionalism of people in the ministry, in the government that she used to be part of. I mean, that absolutely astonishes me….

The Chair: Members, I want to remind…. The member will have an opportunity to respond when the minister is finished.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the utmost faith in the people in my ministry, the people who are actually the gatekeepers who check the information that comes in. I have also got ultimate faith in the professionals who work in the private sector.

I don't know how many jobs the member opposite has had in the private sector, but I would venture to guess that I've probably had more than she has. I have never signed an oath of allegiance to a company. I don't know what she's talking about when she says they sign an oath of allegiance. I might remind her that even if such a thing existed — and I'm not aware of it — it would be superseded by the professional act of the

profession. I have no idea either where she's coming from or where she's going to.

J. MacPhail: That's because the minister's incompetent. That's why. He's straight-out incompetent.

It's always the last refuge of scoundrels to try to shift the debate. This isn't about the professionalism of biologists or science officers. It's absolutely ridiculous. The minister's been caught out admitting that the people who used to collect the data on behalf of taxpayers, so that an independent science-based decision could be made, have been laid off. He just said it. He just confirmed what I said.

The only people left in the ministry are those who are rubber-stamping the information that comes from the private companies who are actually going to benefit from this government's decision. It would be like putting…. Let's see. What would be a good example of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse that this government would absolutely abhor? This government would absolutely abhor having to rely….

Let's say that they would have to rely on information from the B.C. Federation of Labour about advice on how to regulate the WCB, for instance. Would this government accept that? No, and no government would dare do that. But what this government does is take donations from the forest companies and change all of the laws in favour of the forest companies.

J. MacPhail: Not only do they do that, they say: "You know what? Oh, that public service — it's too expensive. It just gets in the way of collecting scientific data. Let's get rid of the public service that does that kind of work. Forest companies, would you mind providing that data to us of, oh, science? Then we'll use your data on the land use decisions that we're going to make in your favour. Would you mind doing that? And, oh, here's some money. By the way, we know how difficult it is for you corporations to continue making your political donations to us, so here's some money for you in the private sector to provide data to us in the government after we've laid off our independent scientific officers."

That works out well. God, is that what this minister means when he said he's streamlined and made his ministry more efficient?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a privilege for me to read into the record my answer to the member opposite's colleague's question in last year's estimates. I'll read it verbatim: "We will be ready in roughly a month to sign our first public-private partnership agreement with regard to data collection in forestry matters. The partners are Canfor, Weyerhaeuser, Weldwood and Slocan Forest Products." To that list we added one other company — Lignum.

I would like to comment, with the member's indulgence. Her comment about professionals in the public service rubber-stamping — I find that comment reprehensible. For you to make that sort of comment, having been in government for ten years, I think is disgusting. The idea….

Hon. S. Hagen: The idea of public-private partnerships in data collection on forestry matters was actually the idea of a group called Forest Renewal B.C., which I think was put in place by the previous government. Whatever the member is trying to build into some sort of conspiracy actually came out of an agency that was created by the government that was in power for ten years — the worst government that this province has ever seen, which ran this province from being number one in the country to number ten in the country. That member has the audacity to stand up here and talk about….

Certainly, she wouldn't understand cost-cutting, because that was not part of the vocabulary of the previous government. Costs were no object. As long as the taxpayers could pay, costs were no object.

Anyway, I just want to stress that I don't look upon the professionals in my ministry as rubber-stamping anything. I have full confidence in them to be the gatekeepers, to assess the information. I also have full confidence in the professionals in the private sector who gather that data and information.

J. MacPhail: This minister keeps a thin veneer of public interest in mind always, and it's a thin veneer until he's caught out. This public-private partnership was listed as a pilot project. That's what it was listed as. Secondly, we now find out there's no public part to the private partnership. There's no public part. Those public servants are being laid off.

The minister won't actually reveal the data of what percentage of layoffs he's making. He doesn't seem to have that information available. It's interesting how his staff can get the results of what he said last year like that, but he can't get the information about what percentage of layoffs his ministry has made.

Here's what this government has done. They have laid off the public servants who actually do the data collection, and the only ones left are the gatekeepers,

which is just a nice word for rubber-stamping, because they don't have any other resources available. They do not have any other independent resources to check the information given by the private sector. The minister just admitted that he laid those people off. There's no independent scientific evidence being collected by this ministry — none. Do you know how I know that, Mr. Chair? From the people employed in his ministry directly — employed in his ministry directly.

So here we have a government that has abandoned any responsibility to the people of British Columbia in land use decisions. Their 100 percent science-based commitment is 100 percent private sector data collection. That's what it is, Mr. Chair.

We'll have much more to say about this. Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and certainly 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.