British Columbia Hansard — TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (20030408am-Hansard-v14n3)
20030408am-Hansard-v14n3
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003
Morning Sitting
Volume 14, Number 3
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
Hon. J. van Dongen
J. MacPhail
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
Hon. S. Hagen
J. Bray
B. Bennett
W. Cobb
P. Bell
B. Lekstrom
J. Les
[ Page 6095 ]
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003
The House
met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be
debating the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management in
Section A, and in this chamber we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
[1005]
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 10:06 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES
On vote 10:
ministry operations, $49,133,000.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I am very pleased to present the 2003-04 budget estimates for
the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
I would
like to introduce the staff who are with me: first of all, the acting deputy
minister, Bud Graham, and acting assistant deputy minister of resource
development and sustainability, Al Martin. Behind me we have the executive
director of finance and administration, Jacquie Kendall. I'd very much like to
express my thanks to the dedicated and professional staff of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. They have done a great job in the past year on
behalf of the people of British Columbia.
When we
were elected, we were given an overwhelming mandate for change. We as a
government are delivering. The B.C. economy grew 1.9 percent in 2002, faster
than the 0.7 percent expected at the time of last year's budget. This is
according to B.C.'s independent Economic Forecast Council. The council now
expects growth in B.C.'s economy to be up to 2.7 percent in the year 2003.
With the
2003 budget we are beginning to see the benefits of our fiscal discipline. The
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries met its budget target at $64
million. Our government's new B.C. heartlands economic strategy is opening up
new opportunities for economic growth throughout our entire province. The
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries will support this initiative through
its work with the agriculture and seafood sectors.
As the
oldest ministry in the province, I could say that the heartlands strategy is
just catching up with what we have always done for coastal and rural
communities. Indeed, agriculture and seafood production provides important
benefits to rural and coastal communities. Farming and fishing, and the large
and small businesses that support them, provide stability to local
resource-based economies. Our role is to provide an effective policy framework
so that the agriculture and seafood industries have the ability to thrive.
We state
our service plan vision as a competitive and profitable industry providing safe,
high-quality food for consumers and export markets. With that vision guiding us,
these industries can expect continued economic growth while managing
environmental and social expectations. The ministry is adapting and changing to
address challenges and opportunities by building partnerships and relationships
with food industry organizations, other ministries and other governments,
including first nations, through targeted advocacy on behalf of the industry,
with effective policy and legislative frameworks and by giving industry the
tools to be more self-reliant and less dependent on government.
[1010]
As I
mentioned, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries brought spending in
on budget at $64 million in the past year. This year we'll bring in our budget
at $49 million, and by '04-05 we'll be on target for a budget of $45 million.
The bulk of the reductions for the coming year, $9 million, comes from phasing
out the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. The final stage of the program
will be delivered by Investment Agriculture.
The plan
for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was a tough one. The
ministry chose to make changes early on, to refocus what we do and how we
deliver. As I told this House last year, six district offices were to be closed
by March 31 of this year, and this has been done. The long-planned closures
resulted in more than $1 million in savings. Other savings already announced
include almost $3 million for a reduction to the whole-farm program and close to
$1 million for the crop insurance premium subsidy.
The
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries is now able to fully focus on
achieving its vision, specifically through six key areas: industry
competitiveness, food safety and quality, risk management, environmental
sustainability, fisheries and aquaculture management, and corporate services.
For industry competitiveness we want to see an agriculture, fisheries,
aquaculture and food sector that is competitive in a global economy while
providing economic benefit and stability to British Columbia's rural and coastal
communities. We can do that by taking on an advocacy role to ensure that B.C.
farm and fisheries interests are considered in government programs, services and
regulations; international and interprovincial trade negotiations; and a fair
share of federal funding.
We're
helping industry with self-funding systems so they can increase self-reliance
and reduce their dependence on government. Last year we started the shift
towards industry-elected councils. New dairy industry and tree fruit councils
were established.
We want a
food system that provides consumers and customers with full confidence in the
safety and
[ Page 6096 ]
quality of B.C. food, agriculture and seafood products. Last year, for
instance, staff handled significant health and plant issues, such as E. coli in
irrigation water, insect problems that threatened hay imports and support in
isolating the listeria problem in a small cheese plant on Vancouver Island. We
signed two agreements to control foreign animal diseases and the gypsy moth.
We believe
B.C. can have both environmental sustainability and resource development. This
year we'll roll out the environmental farm planning strategy that we finalized
last year to get environmental farm plans and best management practices in
place. Our goal is to have 50 local government agriculture advisory committees
that represent the major agricultural lands in the province. There are 18 local
agriculture committees in place already. We'll keep working with municipalities
to facilitate support of local government agriculture bylaws, and we'll advocate
with other agencies for access to land and water for farming and resource
stewardship.
This year
we will see the signing of the new national agriculture policy framework, which
will bring a major change in risk management programs such as crop insurance.
Over the next five years Canada and B.C. farmers will have new tools, services
and options to strengthen their businesses, increase prosperity and meet the
demands of consumers at home and abroad. Part of that will be continuing to move
crop insurance to the private sector as appropriate.
[1015]
Under
corporate services, one of our main goals is to streamline legislation and
regulations. Last year we said we wanted to reduce the regulatory burden by
one-third over three years. We are on track. We reduced unnecessary or
duplicated requirements by more than 12 percent in the past year.
Our final
core business area is fisheries and aquaculture management. Our goal is to see
an optimum economic benefit to British Columbians from fisheries and aquaculture
while protecting the environment. We're already on that path. We have developed
one of the most comprehensive regulatory regimes in the world for our
aquaculture industry.
Government
has a responsibility to put in place good public policy and to reduce risks by
putting in place tough regulations and strict monitoring and enforcement to make
sure the public interest is protected.
With
respect to aquaculture, in the past year we were able to finish putting in place
a strict regulatory framework before lifting the moratorium. That means a new
escape-prevention regulation, a new waste management regulation, improved fish
health management, addressing siting and relocation issues, supporting
alternative technologies and research and development, and putting in place a
comprehensive compliance and enforcement strategy. Indeed, we will continue to
review and improve regulations to make sure that our environmental goals are
met.
Last year
we worked out with DFO an allocation decision for pacific hake that supports
processing 100 percent of the harvest onshore in B.C. communities. This was a
major achievement in support of B.C. jobs.
developed a proposal for the creation of the Canada–B.C. Council of Fisheries
Ministers. This new forum would update the agreement on the management of
pacific salmon fisheries issues. We initiated a full analysis of strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the marine, commercial and recreational
fisheries that will help us address changes to support revitalization of the
industry.
The
ministry continued the surveillance and monitoring of fish health issues such as
IHN and sea lice, and we received cabinet approval to develop a strategy to
improve the provincial government's influence on federal decisions regarding the
management of marine, commercial and recreational fisheries.
conclusion, I am pleased to be here to talk about the plans of the B.C. Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and I'm proud that our government's fiscal
plan is working. It hasn't always been easy. There are more changes required,
but we are beginning to see the benefits. We are now able to concentrate on
encouraging further growth and investment in B.C.'s heartlands, providing jobs
and economic activity for both native and non-native communities. The Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries work will be taking place within the context
of government's overall fiscal plan — a fiscal plan that is on track and ahead
of schedule, a plan that is prudent, responsible and focused on the future.
Thank you
for the opportunity for those opening comments.
MacPhail: Thank you to the minister. I note that the minister introduced two
of his senior executives as "acting." Can the minister tell me what
activities he conducted yesterday as minister on behalf of his ministry?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I was in a meeting interviewing candidates for deputy minister.
MacPhail: Is it the practice of the Liberal government that ministers
interview for deputy ministers?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: It is a practice in terms of the final stage, the final
decision, of hiring a deputy minister.
MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could describe that. At what stage was it
yesterday, and what exactly was the role of the minister?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I was involved in a process that involved the interviewing of
the final two candidates for the selection of a deputy minister.
[1020]
MacPhail: Just to confirm, then, that this is the practice of the Liberal
government — that ministers involve themselves in interviewing for candidates
for deputy minister. Is that correct?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I can simply state for the member that I was invited to this
meeting by the Pre-
[ Page 6097 ]
mier, and that's the extent to which I can comment on the question.
MacPhail: But that the minister was involved…. It wasn't a confirmation
hearing. It was that there were two candidates and that the Premier asked the
minister to attend. That's the information around hiring a deputy minister. Who
else was at the meeting?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I simply confirm for the member that I was at a meeting
yesterday at the Premier's invitation to interview two candidates.
MacPhail: I'm going to explore recent events with the Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, both the events that led up to his resignation
and the recent reappointment. The minister's biography on the ministry website
that's been posted called that little period a hiatus, so I want to discuss the
details that led to the hiatus and what caused the removal of the hiatus and the
minister being back in cabinet.
The
minister, of course, in his opening remarks talked about the ability of his
ministry to now perform compliance and enforcement responsibilities. These are
line items, and this is what I want to discuss with the minister, including his
ability and his credibility. I must say that the opening question leaves me
troubled, Mr. Chair.
Recently
the CBC television program Disclosure ran a story that featured the
controversy that forced the minister to resign. I want to run through that story
and get to the truth of what happened. The government has not released the
special prosecutor's report. There is a past practice of special prosecutors'
reports being released. In this particular case, the government has decided not
to. We hear from the Attorney General's communications director that there was
no criminal intent. I have no other details, so I need to explore this here with
the minister.
This goes
back to a fish farm owned by Stolt. It's the biggest player in the B.C. salmon
farming industry. It donated $12,000 over the last two years to the Liberal
Party. It donated zero to any other political party, as far as I can tell. It
was reported that this farm suffered a massive escape and that thousands of
Atlantic salmon poured into B.C. waters. According to the CBC, this was Stolt's
second major escape in the past year. Could the minister explain why his
ministry chose not to lay charges?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The member indicated that she is reviewing the issues involving
my conduct as a minister. I will simply confirm that I did step aside when I was
informed that I was under investigation by the police on that issue. They have
done their investigation. The special prosecutor that was named has reported
out, and she should consider his work to determine what happened in the process.
[1025]
MacPhail: Oops. Oops. I'd be happy to consider his work, except that the
government won't release the report. The special prosecutor's report is being
kept secret by the government. I asked for the report. The minister now — the
minister, then backbencher — was sitting in the House when I asked for it. It
has not been released.
The
minister is back in cabinet. There is no one else I can ask these questions of,
so please — through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister — answer the questions.
Could the minister explain why his ministry chose not to lay charges against
Stolt?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The member should approach the Attorney General on the issue of
the Crown counsel's report, if that's her interest.
MacPhail: The Crown counsel's report on not laying charges against Stolt?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The Crown counsel report that was done in terms of my conduct as
a minister on that file.
MacPhail: That's not what I'm asking questions about. I'm asking questions
about the actual events. We're not going to get the special prosecutor's report.
The Attorney General is not going to release it. He's made that quite clear,
even after asking. These aren't anything to do with the special prosecutor's
report, I assume. I don't know — unless there are answers in the special
prosecutor's report. If those answers to my questions are contained, I'd be
happy to review that report, but this government isn't going to release it.
It's got to
do with the minister's compliance. My questions are around the minister's
ability to enforce regulations and ensure compliance. He referred to that
himself in his opening remarks. That's what all my questions are about. Could
the minister explain why his ministry did not lay charges against Stolt?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I can assure the member that all of the procedures for
investigation and enforcement will be maintained and continued within our
ministry. We have always been very clear with the industry, both before being in
government and in government, that we would effectively enforce regulations and
that we viewed it important public policy that the government is a third party
enforcing regulations against the industry. If the member wants to canvass these
issues, she — as I said — should approach the Attorney General in terms of
my conduct, and she did indicate that's why she's asking the questions.
MacPhail: Sorry. I'm going to keep asking my questions, and this minister
can keep trying to stall and stonewall if he wishes. It has nothing to do with
the criminal investigation, unless the minister can prove it does by releasing
the report. But this government is not going to release the report.
Interjection.
MacPhail: Actually, we did. The Minister of Finance comes in and always adds
his helpful comments.
[ Page 6098 ]
"Yes, we did release some special prosecutor reports." Perhaps he'd
like to….
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Simply to confirm for the member that if there's an allegation
of non-compliance or if there's a report of something like an escape, our
ministry will investigate and does investigate through the compliance and
enforcement branch. They write a report. The report goes to Crown counsel, and
the charging decision is made by Crown counsel.
[1030]
MacPhail: Even though the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries didn't
lay charges, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was conducting an
investigation. Internal documents show that Water, Land and Air Protection was
going after Stolt Sea Farms. Could the minister tell this House what his role
was in advocating whether to pursue or not pursue Water, Land and Air
Protection's investigation?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: This matter was fully investigated by the special prosecutor,
and that ends the matter. It was all reviewed by that prosecutor.
MacPhail: What the public knows about the special prosecutor is that there
was no criminal intent. We know that from the AG's communications director, not
from the special prosecutor and not because the report has been released. That's
all we know.
Could the
minister tell me, then, how the public is supposed to find out the answers to
these questions?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: That issue is not within the control of my ministry. As I said,
I'm referring the member to the Attorney General and the Ministry of Attorney
General on her question.
MacPhail: Sorry, that isn't going to work. The Attorney General has already
been asked to release the report. He has refused. Would the minister like to
stop estimates until he actually gets legal advice on this question about how
he's supposed to conduct himself in estimates?
These are
legitimate questions. They go right to the responsibility of the minister. In
fact, they would be legitimate questions if the special prosecution
investigation had not occurred. They would be entirely in order. I'm not quite
sure why the minister is hiding behind the special prosecution, about which
nobody knows anything, and why the government refuses.
I asked the
question about what the role was that the minister played in either helping or
hindering the Water, Land and Air Protection investigation into Stolt because of
comments made recently by members of the Public Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics. People in that organization claim there was a great deal
of secrecy surrounding the decision of one ministry to press charges versus
another ministry not to. These are employees of the minister's ministry. They
have a public role to play. Could the minister explain whether that discrepancy
as alleged by them is legitimate or not?
Hon. J.
van Dongen : Again, I would refer the member to the Attorney General. She may
not like the ministry's answer, but it's something that I can't answer and I
can't provide.
MacPhail: Why can't the minister provide the answer to this? What has this
question possibly got to do with the criminal investigation? Were these
questions asked during the special prosecution investigation?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The matter was fully investigated. All of the issues that the
special prosecutor considered relevant were available to him. Again, I refer the
member to the Ministry of Attorney General.
MacPhail: No. I'm going to continue, Mr. Chair, to ask this minister these
questions, because it's his responsibility to answer. It's his responsibility to
answer these questions. He was reappointed after what his website calls a
hiatus. The reason for the occurrence of the hiatus and the ruling of
reappointing him is secret. This is the only time that members of this
Legislature have to ask this minister questions directly about his
responsibilities. These questions have to do with compliance and enforcement.
The minister himself introduced in his opening remarks the fact of how proud he
was of his record on compliance and enforcement.
I'm
prodding that claim. That's what I'm doing here. These questions have nothing to
do with the special prosecution, unless the minister can prove that they do by
revealing that report.
In the
Fisheries ministry service plan on page 8, it states: "An improved and
harmonized compliance and enforcement regime for the finfish and shellfish
aquaculture industry."
The
paragraph continues to say that this minister is the "provincial lead on
all compliance issues associated with the industry." Can the minister
explain what Water, Land and Air Protection's role is, then, if this ministry
has the lead?
[1035]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: We do have a compliance and enforcement agreement — a
memorandum of understanding — with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection on compliance and enforcement procedures. That agreement sets out the
respective responsibilities of each ministry for the different pieces of
legislation and the different requirements that we need compliance on.
MacPhail: What's the date of that memorandum of understanding?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: To the best of our recollection, the date of that agreement is
approximately February or March 2002.
[ Page 6099 ]
MacPhail: March or April of 2002, I think, is what the minister said — was
it? He can just nod.
Interjection.
MacPhail: February or March of 2002. Thank you.
What
happens if there's a conflict between the two ministries?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The ultimate decisions on enforcement procedures are made by the
ministry whose responsibility the particular act is, which that investigation
was carried out under. For example, if it's a Waste Management Act issue, the
ultimate responsibility is the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. If it
were a fish escape issue, it would be the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries under the provincial Fisheries Act.
MacPhail: Could I have a copy of the memorandum of understanding?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Certainly. We can provide a copy of that document to the member.
MacPhail: Yes, I'd appreciate that before estimates finish, please. I'm sure
that some officials are listening. Maybe some of my questions would be answered
by it.
What
happens, according to the memorandum of understanding, if one ministry wants an
investigation and the other does not? Is it the ministry who has the lead under
the legislation that gets to decide whether to proceed or not?
[1040]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, the ministry with the respective responsibility for a
particular act under which a particular investigation would be conducted has the
final authority about whether or not an investigation is conducted. Again, if it
were an investigation under the Waste Management Act, the Ministry of Water,
Land and Air Protection would have the final authority to investigate that
decision. If it were something under the provincial Fisheries Act, the Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would have the authority to make the decision
on whether or not to investigate.
MacPhail: Who has the responsibility for investigating fish farm salmon
escapes?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under the
provincial Fisheries Act and the escape regulation.
MacPhail: So that's the minister's direct responsibility. Let me ask this
then: on a written account of the Disclosure story relating to the Stolt
Farm salmon escape, it said: "We know Stolt wanted the investigation
stopped."
Did this
minister know that Stolt wanted the investigation stopped? How did he know that?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, that matter was part of the review done by the special
prosecutor, and I will refer the member to my earlier answer.
MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. The minister is just digging himself deeper and
deeper. He just admitted that he has the authority for investigating salmon farm
escapes. He's the lead on it. He's the minister responsible. He's got to answer
the questions. Please stop obfuscating. What is the minister trying to hide?
What's going on here? He's trying to hide behind the criminal investigation
report that the government won't release, and now he's trying to hide from his
own duties. How did he get back in cabinet? What's he doing back in cabinet if
he won't answer these questions?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, as set out in the compliance and enforcement agreement, I
can assure the member that all escapes and all reports of escapes are
investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
MacPhail: Here's an e-mail that was exchanged by departments. It comes
from…. Let me just say that one e-mail is from the Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection around this escape. "Thanks, Lance, for this and also the
meeting agenda. On this one I'm a little curious why Jon" — J-O-N —
"is still apparently dabbling. I am also curious why the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an
investigation or whatever."
That comes
from Water, Land and Air Protection. Now, we have searched out how many Jons —
J-O-Ns — there are in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. There
is only one Jon — J-O-N — that this could be referring to, which was, I
think, this minister's previous deputy, Jon O'Riordan. Is it? Was that the
minister's previous deputy?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the fact that a special prosecutor
has reviewed this matter and has reported out. That ends the issue.
MacPhail: I'm sure the minister would like it to end the issue, but he's
back in cabinet, and he's got to earn his living. The way he does that is to
answer for his ministerial responsibilities. Here's a simple question: did the
minister ever have a deputy minister named Jon O'Riordan?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: No.
[1045]
MacPhail: Who is Jon O'Riordan, then?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: There is a fellow named Dr. Jon O'Riordan, who is the Deputy
Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.
[ Page 6100 ]
MacPhail: Ah, yes. Here's another memo from Water, Land and Air Protection:
"I understand from Jon…." J-O-N — and I'm sorry…. The minister
is correct. Isn't this good that we're having this exchange? The minister is
correct. The only Jon — J-O-N — that could be at the deputy minister level
is in Sustainable Resource Management. Thank you.
Here's
another memo from Water, Land and Air Protection: "I understand from
Jon" — J-O-N — "that a great deal of discussion is continuing at
John van Dongen's level regarding the follow-up investigation we initiated into
the Sergeant Pass Stolt fish escape that occurred in the spring of 2000. The
criticism of our action is coming from Stolt, B.C. Salmon Farmers Association
and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries." There's a memo that's
in the public domain.
That e-mail
exchange pretty much shows that this minister was involved in the discussions
around the escape from Stolt into — sorry, I want to make sure I've got the
pass right — Sergeant Pass. The minister has admitted that it's his ministry
responsible for enforcement around fish farm escapes. What were those
discussions?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, the matter was fully investigated, and I refer the member
to my earlier answer.
MacPhail: In the same e-mail exchange, another public servant that I've
already read from states: "I'm curious why the Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an
investigation." Let's just generalize, then. That's what actually happened.
The minister refuses to answer any of these questions. He's back in cabinet, God
knows why. God knows why he's back in cabinet. He won't come clean, so let's
just generalize.
If there's
a dispute about investigating a salmon farm escape, whose decision is it in the
final analysis to actually pursue the investigation and recommend — if needed
— charges?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: As I stated in my earlier answer, under the compliance and
enforcement agreement it sets out the responsibility for the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to enforce the provincial Fisheries Act. An
investigation is conducted with respect to any complaint or any allegation of an
escape or any report of an escape, and the results of that investigation are
forwarded to Crown counsel for a charging decision.
MacPhail: If it's this ministry's responsibility to do the investigation on
fish farm escapes, under what circumstances would the minister feel it necessary
to criticize Water, Land and Air Protection for doing and for participating in
such an investigation?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, the matter of my conduct on that file was fully reviewed
by a special prosecutor, and I refer the member to that process.
[1050]
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I was asking a general question. Maybe the minister
could look at the memorandum of understanding, of cooperation, between the two
ministers about compliance and enforcement. Under what circumstances would the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries be advising Water, Land and Air
Protection that an investigation was inappropriate? Just generally — just talk
about it generally.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the compliance and enforcement
memorandum of understanding which sets out the respective responsibilities and
authorities for each ministry that has legislation that governs fish farms. In
the case of a waste management infraction, the decisions around that would be
governed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. If it's a fish
health issue or fish escape issue, the decisions around that are the
responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
MacPhail: Okay. Well, I'd be happy to take a five-minute recess if the
minister can give me that memorandum of understanding now.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: My understanding is that a copy of the agreement will be
available to us shortly.
MacPhail: It's clear from the documents about the original investigation for
which this minister was responsible that he did object to an investigation being
done by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — very clear by the
exchange of memos. We'll just have to see what the memorandum of understanding
says in terms of this minister's ability to stop an investigation.
Does the
minister often have conversations with major fish farm operators that are under
investigation or potentially under investigation? What system is in place for
the minister to know about potential investigations and guide his behaviour
accordingly?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: My conduct with respect to a fish farm file is fully
investigated. I want to simply say that the member has her options to deal with
the Attorney General on that. Other than that, I can assure the member that the
normal procedures of staff doing an investigation, writing a report to Crown
counsel if they consider it necessary — all of those procedures — are in
place.
MacPhail: What are the procedures?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The investigations staff have a policy and procedures manual
that they follow in the process of conducting an investigation and writing a
report in that investigation.
MacPhail: When do they notify the minister of investigations? The minister
clearly knew about this investigation into Stolt. He's back in cabinet now.
What's changed?
[ Page 6101 ]
Hon. J. van
Dongen: Again, the procedures that staff would follow are set out in their
policy and procedures manual.
MacPhail: Could the minister tell me what those procedures are, how they've
changed since the time that…? I mean, the minister hasn't denied that he
called Stolt and told them about the investigation. That's part of the public
record. He himself admitted to that. Now, people are judging his ability to
actually do his job on the basis of that, but it's not secret. It's part of the
public record. How have the policies and procedures changed, post–criminal
investigation?
[1055]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I can report to the member that in the past year and a half,
there's been a lot of work done in terms of improving the escape regulation
itself. There were improvements done in the policy and procedures manual and
further upgrading of that. There was further training of enforcement staff done,
and there were two additional enforcement staff detailed to deal with
aquaculture issues and fisheries issues.
MacPhail: Again, what's changed in the policy and procedures about informing
the minister of investigations?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I'm not aware of the details of changes in the policy and
procedures manual that have been done in the past year.
MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. How many fish farms are under
investigation right now?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: We don't have that detail with us today, Mr. Chairman, but we
can get the member that information.
MacPhail: My gosh. I wonder if the minister didn't think it was going to
come up. Maybe he thought I was going to be absent or something. The fact that
the Premier put him back in cabinet without any change in the policies and
procedures required of him means he got off scot-free. Well, here we are. It's
unbelievable that the minister doesn't have the information about how many fish
farms are under investigation now. How many have been under investigation in the
last year?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: We can get that information for the member, Mr. Chairman.
MacPhail: How would the public have any reassurance that this minister isn't
talking to fish farms under investigation, when he can't even provide me with
that information? How many fish farms in the last year have been found to be in
non-compliance with either Water, Land and Air Protection on their specific
responsibilities for fish farming or the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries regulations in their specific area of responsibility?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: In response to the member, I can inform her that on an annual
basis, there is a compliance and enforcement report which is tabled. It is put
on the website of the respective ministries. There was one tabled and made
public sometime last spring for the previous fiscal year, and sometime this
coming spring there will be a report on the past year by both ministries. I
can't report on the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's data, but I
will get the data for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
[1100]
MacPhail: Maybe the minister could just hint at what the trend is in
compliance or non-compliance.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I'll use escapes as an example — fish escapes from fish farms.
Based on the requirements of the new escape regulation, there are very stringent
reporting requirements, so we're seeing more diligence in reporting. We're
seeing more investigations in the short term, but we're seeing a higher level of
compliance with the legislation and a reduced number of escapes.
MacPhail: When did the new regulations come into effect?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: We put new escape regulations in place in April of 2002.
MacPhail: It's been reported by the David Suzuki Foundation — Jim
Fulton…. I'm sure the minister will disregard his value, but he is a
world-renowned spokesperson. Here's what he said: "A company like Stolt has
huge clout. When they call and want to go to the Premier's office or to the
minister's office, they're in, and they're in at the top. They don't deal with
bureaucrats. They don't deal with enforcement."
Let's just
review that statement. According to the policy and procedures or the memorandum
of understanding about investigation, where do people like the companies go when
they have concerns about investigations? Where do environmental groups go? Where
do first nations go when they have concerns about investigations?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I want to confirm for the member that with respect to compliance
and enforcement issues, our staff are open to meetings with all stakeholders.
Similarly, the minister's office is also open to meetings with all stakeholders.
I can
assure the member that I do listen to things that Jim Fulton and others say and
to reports that are written. I've always had a policy of being open to all
comments with respect to the aquaculture industry and, in particular, comments
of concern on environmental issues and the wild fishery. We pay attention to all
of the comments of our critics.
[ Page 6102 ]
MacPhail: I'm sure the minister wouldn't now be standing up and saying that
if people have concerns about an investigation, they go to the minister. I'm
saying: where do they go to?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, the member is asking questions about my conduct, which
was part of a special prosecutor report. I refer her to my earlier answer.
[1105]
MacPhail: Actually, I'm asking questions about how you're not conducting
yourself. I would hope the changes in the policies and procedures show that the
minister doesn't get involved in investigations. I'm surprised he didn't stand
up and say: "That's right. I don't get involved in investigations."
My question
is: where in the ministry do people concerned about investigations go?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Based on the compliance and enforcement MOU that we have, people
can go to the manager of licensing and compliance. They can go to a fisheries
officer or a conservation officer.
MacPhail: Well, that's good to know. Clearly, Stolt Sea Farm didn't know
that. Let me just read this letter into the record from Stolt Sea Farm
vice-president Dale Blackburn of west coast operations. The Stolt vice-president
sent off a stern letter to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, Joyce
Murray, dated October 4, 2001.
I break
here for a moment to show I'm very anxious to see how this procedure has
changed. That's why I'm asking for all of this information.
From Mr.
Blackburn, the vice-president of Stolt Sea Farm:
"Dear
Hon. Joyce Murray:
"It
is m y understanding that your ministry's Nanaimo
office has written a report regarding the August 2000 farmed salmon escape
from our Sergeant Pass site near Gilford Island and has recommended to Crown
counsel that charges be laid against our company under
section 55.1 of the
federal Fisheries Act. In addition, I'm led to believe that the fundamental
reason for this decision, a year after the fact, is to emphasize the serious
nature of any escape of farmed salmon.
"Please
rest assured that no one takes the escape of farmed salmon more seriously than
those of us who depend upon the sale of this product for our livelihood. No
one, not even the most strident conservation officer, could possibly believe
that a salmon farmer takes an escape lightly.
"Accordingly,
I am very concerned about the recommendation to lay charges, particularly
as this unfortunate event was thoroughly investigated at the time by the
Ministry of Fisheries, which found that due diligence on our part had been
observed and that there were no grounds for laying charges under provincial
regulations. In addition, the recent meeting" — this is interesting —
"our industry had with yourself and your colleagues Hon. Stan Hagen and
Hon. John van Dongen buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of
the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and
rebuild troubled relationships.
Unfortunately…"
Interjection.
MacPhail: Sorry. The Attorney General is objecting, and I accept the
Attorney General's objection to naming people. Unfortunately, I'm reading from
the record of a letter, but I accept that. I'll try to adjust it in the future.
It is
important, though, Mr. Chair, just as I cited. It is important in this area
because the people named have been Fisheries ministers at the same time as well.
I was trying to distinguish on that basis.
Anyway, the
letter says:
"…the actions of your staff in Nanaimo indicate that not much
has changed, at least within the bureaucracy. Instead of working with us, I
see this recommendation to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit
British Columbia's salmon farming industry and our operations here in Campbell
River.
"At
the same time, it is no secret that the government's
taxpayer-funded legal resources outstrip that of any company in the province,
including ours. As a result, having to defend ourselves only adds to the costs
we are already incurring in a weakened market.
[1110]
"Minister,
in view of the fact that this case has already been investigated and that no
cause for further action was found, I am requesting that the recommendation to
lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped. At the same time, I would like
to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us so
as to ensure the viability of our industry as well as the important
stewardship and environmental responsibilities we share as British Columbians.
look forward to hearing from you in the days ahead and hope
that this issue can be put behind us as we work together to build a strong and
sustainable aquaculture industry, one that demonstrates by its day-to-day
operations a solid commitment to our communities and the natural environment
we all value and respect."
"Yours
very truly,
Dale
Blackburn, vice-president, west coast operations"
It was
carbon-copied to the then — the former and now again — Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It was copied to the Minister of Sustainable
Resource Management, copied to the Attorney General, copied to the MLA from
Vancouver Island north and copied to Earl Warnock, the regional director of
Vancouver Island.
I'll go
through some quotes and ask the minister what's changed. This is his
responsibility now. This is why the minister is back in cabinet, I would assume.
From the letter: "In addition, the recent meeting…with yourself" —
meaning the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — "and your
colleagues" — the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the
Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the
tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair
and rebuild troubled relationships."
That was a
meeting that the minister had at the time of an investigation. So what's
changed?
[ Page 6103 ]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, I repeat for the member. I have acknowledged publicly
that I have made a mistake with respect to that particular fish farm file, the
Stolt file. The matter has been fully investigated by the special prosecutor,
and he has reported out under the normal procedure to the Ministry of Attorney
General.
MacPhail: Yes, and what's changed?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: In response to the member's question, we did develop the
compliance and enforcement agreement between the two ministries, which sets out
the respective responsibility of each ministry under the legislation they're
responsible for.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask for a minute, if I may. I just
got the document — thank you to the minister — and I'll just take a minute
to look through it. The minister is referring me to it.
So, thank
you. I'll just need two minutes.
Interjection.
MacPhail: Oh, sure. That's good, yeah.
Interjections.
MacPhail: I'm going to try and get some outside help on looking through this
document. The minister just gave me the compliance and enforcement document. I
noted that Water, Land and Air Protection just signed off on it earlier this
year, '03, so we'll have to….
The Stolt
Sea Farm vice-president felt buoyed after that meeting. Fair enough. The
minister clearly isn't going to talk about that period of time. He thinks he
doesn't have to answer questions on that particular letter. Tell me this: if
there hadn't been a criminal investigation into the minister's behaviour, would
he still refuse to answer questions about that letter?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The question is a hypothetical question. The matter has been
investigated. I refer the member to the Ministry of Attorney General.
MacPhail: Well, it's actually not a hypothetical question, because the
avenue that the minister is offering me to explore these very issues has been
closed off by his government. The door has been slammed; a veil of secrecy is
over it. I'm not sure what the government is trying to hide. I'm not quite sure
what the minister himself is trying to hide. But these letters would be on the
public record regardless of the criminal investigation into the Minister of
Fisheries, and the minister is the minister. He's back in office. He's making a
big salary. He's got a lot of power. He's still got powers over these very
issues. He's the minister responsible for salmon escapes, and he refuses to
answer questions on them. It's ridiculous, Mr. Chair — absolutely ridiculous.
[1115]
Mr.
Blackburn refers to efforts to repair relationships, and he means relationships
with the salmon aquaculture industry. How's that going?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I can state for the record that my compliance and enforcement
staff have always had a standing order to investigate and enforce thoroughly and
effectively. They've always had that standing order, and they have that standing
order today.
MacPhail: No, Mr. Blackburn refers to repairing troubled relationships. I
want to know the specifics on that.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, on the issue the member is asking about, my personal
conduct was fully investigated, and I refer the member to my previous answer.
MacPhail: Okay, let me try this. How's his relationship with environmental
groups around salmon aquaculture? Has he had meetings, such as the one he had
with Stolt Sea Farm, with environmental groups?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I'm open to meet with environmental groups at any time. I've had
many meetings over my term as minister with environmental groups, including one
as recently as a week ago.
MacPhail: On fish farms?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Yes.
MacPhail: How's it going? I guess the minister is willing to answer this
question: how's it going?
Oh, I'm
sorry. As recently as a week ago in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The meeting I had a week ago was as an MLA. As I said, I'm open
to discussions with environmental groups at any time. Our ministry has had a
process through the salmon aquaculture advisory committee, and we are very
anxious to work together with the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation
Council recommendation of a salmon aquaculture review process that involves all
stakeholders — and one that we're looking to engage with John Fraser to put
that process in place….
MacPhail: Who was at the meeting a week ago, both on the government side and
the environmental group side?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: It was simply a meeting I had as an MLA with an environmental
group.
MacPhail: Which environmental group?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform.
MacPhail: Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. Sorry. Who's in that
alliance?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I can give the member a list of the groups that are part of that
coalition, but they do
[ Page 6104 ]
include groups such as the Raincoast Research, Watershed Watch, Living Oceans
Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Raincoast Conservation Society, Georgia Strait
Alliance.
MacPhail: Tell me: as a local MLA, what are the interests that the minister
has in salmon aquaculture? Are there any aquaculture farms in the minister's
riding?
[1120]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I certainly have an interest in all of the issues that impact
rural and coastal communities. Our government has been very committed to trying
to foster and develop new jobs and new economic opportunity in coastal and rural
communities. I've always taken an interest, as an MLA, in both environmental and
economic issues.
MacPhail: When was the minister told that he had been cleared of charges by
the special prosecution and that he would be back in cabinet?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I received a phone call from a member of the media.
MacPhail: When was he told by the Premier?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Sometime after I received a call from the media.
MacPhail: And when was that?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I received a phone call from the Premier sometime after the
press release that was put out by the criminal justice branch.
MacPhail: How many meetings, then, did the minister have on aquaculture as
an MLA? Was he continually involved in the file throughout that period of time?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I stepped aside as minister, and Minister Hagen took over
responsibility for the ministry. I was not involved in the operations of the
ministry.
MacPhail: My question was how involved he was in the matter.
I am
getting more and more troubled by the minister's answers. He refuses to answer
questions about his involvement in aquaculture and his involvement in compliance
and enforcement. He refers the matter to a special prosecution report that will
never be revealed by this government — never. It appears that he's been
meeting groups while he was a backbencher — that has absolutely nothing to do
with his MLA responsibilities — and while he was still under investigation. He
didn't know that he wasn't under investigation anymore — or did he? He's
meeting with the industry by himself, and we're supposed to just accept all of
this. The minister refuses to answer questions about his behaviour and his role
and his credibility.
From the
time the minister stepped down as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries,
how many meetings did he have with anybody concerned with aquaculture until he
was reappointed?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I simply confirm for the member that as a minister and in my
involvement as an MLA, I've always been open to meeting with all stakeholders.
It's as simple as that. The member is creating an issue where there is no issue.
We have been open to meeting with all stakeholders, including environmental
groups.
MacPhail: How many meetings with stakeholders — whether industry,
environmental or first nations — did the minister have concerning the
aquaculture industry in the last three months?
Roddick: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Roddick: A school, Southpointe Academy, from Tsawwassen has just joined us
in the gallery. There are 31 grade 5s, two teachers, the headmaster and three
parents.
We just had
an excellent question period in the foyer about an hour ago, and I would ask
that the House grant them a good resounding welcome.
[1125]
Debate Continued
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Simply to confirm for the member, as an MLA, I continue to
participate in committees such as the Government Caucus Committee on Natural
Resources and to maintain an interest in these issues that affect rural British
Columbia. I can't answer the specific question. The point is that we have always
been open. I have always been open to meeting with all stakeholders, including
the environmental groups. That's the point.
MacPhail: How many meetings did the minister have with the then Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries while this minister was on his hiatus?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: As I said, I stepped aside as minister, and the minister that
was named by the Premier had full charge of the ministry. I was not involved at
all.
MacPhail: How many meetings did the minister — this minister — have with
the minister responsible for the file while this minister was on hiatus? It's a
simple question. Zero, two, 15?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The answer to the member's question is that the only meetings I
participated in
[ Page 6105 ]
were meetings that involved my role as a member of government caucus
committees.
MacPhail: Was this meeting that the minister had just last week with the
environmental group, the Coastal Alliance, part of…? He said he did it alone.
Was he mistaken when he said that?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I met with that group as an MLA.
MacPhail: Boy, I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, I think it is unbelievable the way
this minister is stonewalling — unbelievable. He refuses to come clean on any
front.
Let's go
back to the letter from Stolt Sea Farm. It says: "I am requesting that the
recommendation to lay charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped." The
minister was copied in on this letter, by the way. "At the same time, I
would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than
against us…." What avenue should Stolt Sea Farm have followed rather than
writing this letter requesting that charges be dropped?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, the matter was fully investigated by a special
prosecutor, and I refer the member to the Ministry of Attorney General on those
issues.
[1130]
MacPhail: I'm looking for change here. I'm looking to see how things have
changed. Nobody knows what the special prosecutor reported on these matters —
nobody outside of the little cabal over here, nobody — so I'm trying to figure
out what's changed. We have Stolt Sea Farm writing directly to a minister asking
her to drop charges. If that same scenario occurred today, what should Stolt Sea
Farm do?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Again, I refer the member to the compliance and enforcement MOU,
which has been developed between the two ministries. It lays out the respective
responsibilities and procedures for dealing with investigations and enforcement
issues in aquaculture.
MacPhail: Okay, let's go there. First of all, it's a service agreement on
coordination of compliance and enforcement programs between the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection;
the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; and Land and Water British
Columbia Inc. In fact, I note in this document that the time lines for
implementation of all of this…. The transition phase is supposed to be
complete by April 2003. Theoretically, according to this document, it should be
in full force and effect.
I note on
page 2 the goals of the service agreement. Here are the goals of the service
agreement: "Development of this service agreement is based on the following
common goals: efficient use of staff resources to minimize duplication,
one-window approach to aquaculture development, high level of compliance, early
intervention to avoid non-compliance, effective enforcement, successful
prosecution and rehabilitation where required, public confidence and" —
here's a key — "transparency."
I'd say the
kind of goals I'm trying to explore here are high levels of compliance, early
intervention to avoid non-compliance, effective enforcement, successful
prosecution and rehabilitation where required, public confidence and
transparency.
Before this
document was in effect, Stolt Sea Farm thought it just fine to write to a
minister telling her to back off from the investigation. What would happen now?
That's my question. Well, here's what this service agreement says. Environmental
monitoring: "For the purpose of this service agreement it is agreed that
environmental monitoring activities pursuant to the aquaculture waste control
regulation will remain with the lead regulatory agency, Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection, with participation by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries inspections staff."
Can the
minister explain the relationship now between WLAP and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Using the example of the Waste Management Act, the investigation
would be controlled and directed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection but would involve participation by MAFF inspection staff in terms of
doing the base inspection of the issue.
MacPhail: Is there any participation by the ministers?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: No.
MacPhail: What about on fish escapes — is it the same?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: It's the same in the sense that there wouldn't be any
involvement by the minister.
[1135]
MacPhail: Okay, so that's a change then. The minister isn't supposed to be
involved in any of this stuff, so I don't know why the minister just didn't
stand up and say: "Yeah, I'm not supposed to be involved in any of these
things."
It says
here that the agencies agree to conduct joint environmental monitoring
activities on site in order to achieve harmonization between compliance
inspections and on-site activities. How does that work?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: All fish farms are inspected on an annual basis for the range of
compliance issues. This
section sets out the goal of the various ministries
involved to coordinate those inspection procedures to avoid the situation where
we have duplication of activity and different visits at different times. This is
an ef-
[ Page 6106 ]
fort to coordinate activity to get more efficient use of inspection staff but
also to ensure that all of the issues that need to be inspected for are fully
inspected.
MacPhail: No. 7 of this service agreement says: "Compliance and
Enforcement Roles and Responsibilities: For the purpose of this service
agreement, it is agreed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has
the lead role in compliance and that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection has the lead role in enforcement." Is that the way it's working
now?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Yes, we're moving in the direction of the Ministry of Water,
Land and Air Protection being responsible for enforcement.
MacPhail: It says here, then: "The Ministry of Water, Land and Air
Protection will also assume the lead role in consultation with the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries" — but they'll be the lead — "when
environmental conditions at marine finfish facilities exceed the 'trigger' level
established in the aquaculture waste control regulation."
What does
"trigger level" mean? Is this where people can complain? Is that the
stage at which people can complain?
[1140]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The trigger level refers to a specific standard at which
non-compliance would come into effect or the performance of that farm would be
in non-compliance with the regulation under the Waste Management Act.
MacPhail: There really is no role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries in enforcement. If there was no role, why did the minister have
anything to say at all with any aquaculture farms around enforcement of
investigations after investigation? I mean, according to these documents,
there's a zero role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in
enforcement, and there sure ain't any role for the minister. Is that correct?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The
section cited by the member deals with the Waste Management
Act, which is exclusively the ultimate authority of the Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection.
MacPhail: Is this document limited to the Waste Management Act? It just says
"Coordination of Compliance and Enforcement Programs." Let me see
whether I can find compliance and enforcement somewhere else. It turns out, no.
This is the only
section that talks about compliance and enforcement. I'm just
working from the minister's own documents. I've had ten, 20 seconds to read it.
Maybe my questions are wrong, but I certainly am willing to have the minister
stand up and tell me that.
Okay,
here's another section: "Compliance and Enforcement, Roles and
Responsibilities, continued."
"'Enforcement'
is defined as carrying out the following activities: verifying and
substantiating an alleged offence; recommending and implementing necessary
enforcement responses."
"Specifically:
(
a) MAFF compliance staff will serve as the lead in developing site-specific
management plans and conducting all finfish and shellfish inspections,
monitoring (subject to
section 6) and audits on behalf of MWLAP, LWBC and
MSRM."
Then
another (a), but I think they probably mean (b):
"(
a) MWLAP enforcement staff will serve as the investigative lead on all
enforcement activities associated with formal prosecutions, court orders and
administrative penalties for finfish and shellfish aquaculture on behalf of
MAFF, LWBC and MSRM."
this a change?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Yes, these two sections are a change and lay out in our MOU the
way that our respective inspection enforcement staff will divide up the
responsibilities. Sections (
a) and (
b) set that out for our staff. Our staff in
the two ministries work as a team, and this provides the parameters as to how
they do their jobs of effective investigations and enforcement.
MacPhail: My last question is on 10, "Resolving Differences," of
this agreement:
"Where
conflict arises relative to different opinions within the scope of relevant
authorities or appropriate sanctions, it is agreed that differences are to be
resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible by staff involved in
discussions and at a maximum within 30 days of the issue being identified.
"If
the issue in question cannot be resolved within 14 days at this
level, it will be brought forward to respective assistant deputy ministers for
discussion and resolution within 14 days."
[1145]
This
clearly indicates there's no role for the minister. I'm wondering why the
minister then couldn't stand up and answer my question and say
straightforwardly: "I have no role and no information about
investigations."
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Well,
section 10 is self-evident. It sets out the procedure now
where we have disputes. Previously, before this MOU existed, we had no
formalized way to resolve disputes between the two ministries where there were
joint or overlapping enforcement capabilities.
MacPhail: It's only by my revealing this that the minister confesses to
that. He couldn't answer the question prior to my revealing this. In fact, if I
hadn't actually brought this forward, the public might think that the minister
is still involved in investigations — still interfering — because God knows,
it doesn't come from inside him to understand the role of a minister in
administering his responsibilities.
Is this now
in full effect? It says April 2003.
Hon. J.
van Dongen: Yes, it is.
[ Page 6107 ]
MacPhail: Why does the minister's service plan, on page 8 again, say:
"The ministry takes the lead on compliance and enforcement"?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I'm not sure which part of the service plan the member is
referring to. On page 8, line 4, we talk about our ministry having the
provincial lead on all compliance issues associated with the industry. What that
refers to is the fact that in pooling our inspection staff, we would do the base
inspection as set out in the compliance and enforcement agreement. When it's an
issue that involves the Waste Management Act, all of the governing authority is
with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
MacPhail: I don't know what the minister's having trouble with. It says….
I'll just read it:
"Government
has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework for the salmon aquaculture
industry that includes" — and this is this minister's service plan —
"an improved and harmonized compliance and enforcement regime for the
finfish and shellfish aquaculture industry and designates the ministry as the
provincial lead on all compliance issues associated with the industry."
says that this ministry is the lead on it. Well, let me ask this, then. It's
clear from this document that Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is
the lead on enforcement and that it is staff that are supposed to take the
lead on all of this stuff. There is no ministerial role in compliance and
enforcement.
I want to
ask some questions about how that's changed at the staff level, then. According
to the CBC, the Water, Land and Air Protection investigator around the Stolt Sea
Farm fiasco got a personal call from Mr. Blackburn. The members will remember
that he's the vice-president of Stolt Sea Farms.
Now, that
matter was investigated by the RCMP, and we'll never know what the result of
that was. We do know that someone inside government leaked confidential details
of the case to Stolt. We'll never know whether it was the minister himself. He
admits to calling them. He admits to faxing them. No, I guess, actually, he
doesn't admit to that. Some of his colleagues have admitted that on his behalf.
[1150]
It was
clear that the Water, Land and Air Protection investigator on that file got a
call directly from Mr. Blackburn. Can that occur under this service agreement?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: The issue that the member refers to was fully investigated. I've
acknowledged that I made a mistake on that file. Again, I refer the member to my
previous answer, which is for her to go to the Attorney General's ministry.
MacPhail: Oh yes, the minister has admitted that he made a mistake. What I'm
trying to figure out is what's changed since he made his mistake. Can the likes
— the people who are…? Sorry, that's rude of me, Mr. Chair. Can people like
Mr. Blackburn, a vice-president of a fish farm company, call a Water, Land and
Air Protection investigator directly?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: I'll refer the member to my earlier answer, where people could
contact the manager responsible for compliance and licensing. They could contact
the fisheries officer. They can contact conservation officers who are operating
under this MOU agreement in terms of their responsibilities to investigate and
enforce effectively.
MacPhail: My last question before we rise for lunch is…. The minister said
he made a mistake. Well, what was it that he didn't understand about his oath of
confidentiality that he took as a minister, which he didn't…? What was it that
he didn't understand about that?
Hon. J.
van Dongen: As I acknowledged publicly, I made a mistake in the handling of
a document on this file. The matter has been fully investigated by the special
prosecutor. The results of that investigation are available to the member from
the Attorney General's ministry.
MacPhail: No, they're not. The government is keeping the documents and the
report secret. They're not available. Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister:
stop saying they are, or table the report.
I'm trying
to find out about what's changed with this minister now that he's back in
office. What does he know? What would he do differently? What does he now
understand about his oath of confidentiality? He understands that his oath of
confidentiality is keeping things secret from the public. The oath of
confidentiality isn't to work against the public. It's supposed to work for the
public.
Mr. Chair,
I have many, many more questions. Noting the hour, I move that the committee
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 11:54 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee
of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee
of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G.
Bruce moved adjournment of the House.
Motion
approved.
Mr.
Speaker: The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.
The House
adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
[ Page 6108 ]
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply A; G. Trumper in the chair.
The
committee met at 10:10 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
On vote 37:
ministry operations, $90,001,000.
Hon. S.
Hagen: This is the third time I've had the honour of presenting the budget
estimates for the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. With me today is
Deputy Minister Jon O'Riordan and Sheila Taylor, acting assistant deputy
minister, corporate services division. I would also like to briefly note that
not here today but certainly worthy of mention are the hardworking staff of the
ministry and the agencies which report to me.
The
ministry role. Our government supports excellent health and education. They are
our priorities, but we know we need a strong economy to underwrite those
priorities. A thriving economy is more important than ever if we hope to support
such vital social programs. In the new year the Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management will continue to help to diversify the province's economic base,
especially in British Columbia's heartlands communities.
Reduce
conflict, strengthening relations with first nations. We will also contribute to
enhanced certainty on the land base. Certainty is essential for economic
development and to support the goals of the B.C. heartlands economic strategy.
The draft
sustainability principles we have developed and the science-based data for
LandData B.C. will also play an important role. We base our decisions on these
foundations, sustainability and science — decisions that are crucial to the
long-term well-being of B.C.'s communities.
The
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management will continue to work hard to
realize our vision of a vibrant economy and to support the social and
environmental values of British Columbians.
We're
exploring new economic opportunities and looking for innovative ways to add
value to natural resources. Let me take a minute to talk about those resources.
Too many naysayers are trying to say our government's land use decisions are
primarily for extraction of trees or minerals or oil. I want to remind everyone
of the other valuable resources in our heartlands: the culture of our first
nations, the diversity of our environment and the purity of our water resources.
Our goal is
to make decisions that enhance, value and support all the resources that make up
B.C. We won't carve this wonderful province into a patchwork of single-use
ghettos; we will accommodate other sectors like oil and gas in the
Muskwa-Kechika or tourism in the southern Rockies and Golden, protecting key
environmental values.
I can tell
you that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management assists much of that
economic development through our ongoing land use planning, whether it's in
Lillooet, the central coast, the north coast, the southern Rockies or the Queen
Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii. We're striving to come up with land use plans
that strike the right balance between economic, social and environmental
concerns.
We are
making progress and finding sustainable solutions with all parties at the land
use tables: first nations, industry and communities. We are making progress on
the central coast LRMP. We've extended the time line for this to be resolved,
and for good reasons. This decision gives the coast information team time to
ensure the application of appropriate science and information for the table to
use, and it gives first nations more time, as well, to negotiate
government-to-government agreements on land use plans.
We are also
proceeding with the north coast LRMP. I'm pleased to say we've recently signed a
framework agreement with the Haida for the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii
land use plan. The people at the table are taking an ecosystem–based
management approach. That includes using environmental risk assessment and other
innovative modelling and analysis tools to develop land use options.
We expect
to receive final land use recommendations for the central coast table by the end
of this year and the north coast table by the spring of 2004.
In the
interior we're moving quickly at setting land use objectives. These will support
the results-based code for forestry. We are setting balanced objectives that
will protect biodiversity while providing access to the forest resource. In the
end, sound land use planning now will help achieve sustainable economic
development in the future.
[1015]
I'd like to
talk briefly about the working forest. Our government is taking bold steps to
ensure that we have a leading-edge forest industry once again. The forest
industry makes an enormous contribution to the provincial economy and to
communities throughout the province. However, over the past several decades it
has been subject to unprecedented change.
The
management of B.C.'s forest resources has fundamentally changed. It now
incorporates a variety of values, including timber, biodiversity, ecosystem
conservation, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, trapping and tourism, and
that is how it should be. But it also means the commercial forest land base
deserves legal recognition through a new land base designation. Therefore, we
plan to introduce legislation to create a working forest land base, something
our government committed to in its New Era document.
[ Page 6109 ]
I have to
take a minute to make something clear, to undo some of the misinformation being
bandied about. The working forest is more than just forestry. The working forest
recognizes other uses, including tourism, mining, ranching and recreation. It
is, in fact, a working landscape, a stable land base for activities that meet
many objectives. But make no mistake: there is no intention to privatize the
forests, none of the hidden plans some people insist upon. The working forest is
about providing greater certainty for the forest industry, the communities and
all other uses and values from the land whether it is tourism, recreation,
mining, oil and gas initiatives, agriculture opportunities or ranching. None of
the existing land use planning going on — efforts to secure treaties with
first nations or the province's obligation to consult with first nations, all
current parks, protected areas and private land — is impacted by the proposed
working forest designation. Those who cry doom are deliberately missing the
point.
As you
know, the public comment period on the working forest discussion paper has been
extended to April 30, 2003. We've made this decision in response to several
requests from different groups who want more time to analyze the proposal. As
well, I have written over 200 individual letters seeking input from British
Columbians from all walks of life. We are getting many, many responses on our
website, and staff are meeting with a wide range of groups. We will consider all
responses as we arrive at the best public policy.
I would
like to say a few words about how the Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management is living up to the government's throne speech commitment to first
nations. As we move forward on land use and resource access, our ministry is on
the front line to accord first nations the respect, support, and social and
economic opportunities to which they are entitled. This past year the ministry
led the development of a new provincial policy for consultation with first
nations. We are now building new relationships across ministries with various
first nations, new relationships that are key to rebuilding the trust and
certainty we all seek. We do this through consultation and accommodation in our
land use planning processes. We are helping first nations' capacity to
participate in planning processes — in resource allocation, like forestry, and
in economic progress, like tourism or industrial park development.
Under
consultation this ministry has signed 26 planning protocols with numerous first
nations groups on the coast and in the interior. These agreements provide a
framework to complete our land use plans and objectives and provide certainty
for economic access to Crown resources for all our major land use plans. We have
significant agreements with Turning Point on the north coast and with the
Kwakiutl tribal council on the central coast and with two dozen others around
the province. Under accommodation, another 66 agreements, signed or in
discussion, deal with economic measures and data sharing to build capacity for
first nations to access the economy. Some examples are a coordinated regional
tourism strategy with coastal first nations, an economic development strategy
with the Gitanyow nation and a number of traditional new studies. As you know,
we are engaged with first nations and others regarding the Lillooet LRMP.
Further steps in this area are expected this summer.
Meanwhile,
we have a timber and economic recovery plan in place that involves many of the
first nations. We have strategies that cover regional units in the province. One
is on shellfish aquaculture opportunities assessment. Another provides an
aboriginal tourism strategy for B.C., and a third is an information-sharing
protocol for a range of first nations. Such agreements, strategies and
frameworks bring clarity for first nations, business and communities. Goodwill
and stronger government-to-government relations have developed with first
nations throughout the province, and they will grow in the coming year.
[1020]
I'll take a
few minutes to talk about the budget of the ministry. Last year the Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management kept its spending on budget at $117 million.
That will be held to $92 million in the coming year. Some of that reduction
reflects a transfer to Land and Water British Columbia for the administration
and licensing of Crown water resources. That means water and Crown land
allocations are now fully integrated into Land and Water British Columbia.
We have
also transferred the capital and operating budgets for park and ecological
reserve acquisitions to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
I'll spend
a few minutes talking about our agencies. In addition to the activity of the
ministry and its staff, I am also responsible for several other agencies. These
include Land and Water British Columbia, known as LWBC. It is responsible on
behalf of the public for optimizing two of our most valuable provincial assets:
Crown land and water. These assets offer us significant opportunities to
contribute to the economic, social and cultural well-being of British
Columbians. By placing a continued emphasis on innovative business approaches,
enhanced client service and continuous improvement, LWBC can facilitate economic
development and job creation through enhanced access to Crown land and water
resources.
As an
example, Land and Water British Columbia is turning around more than 90 percent
of all applications within 140 days. Changes made in how they work means that
applications are processed in half the time. It is no longer a goal, no longer
even a bragging point; it is just good service and good business.
LWBC has
successfully eliminated a large backlog of over 1,480 land applications and a
longstanding backlog of 1,980 water licence applications. The success that has
been achieved in the water program reduces the backlog to its lowest in more
than 30 years and for the first time implements strong service levels and target
turnaround times.
The
environmental assessment office is a neutral agency that undertakes
environmental, economic and social reviews of proposed major projects. The
provincial government is committed to more flexible, efficient
[ Page 6110 ]
and timely reviews of proposed major projects to help revitalize the
provincial economy. This is why a new, streamlined environmental assessment
process was introduced last year. This year's target is to have 90 percent of
application reviews completed in 180 days or less.
The
Agricultural Land Commission has been restructured and renamed to be more
regionally responsive. This year it aims to reduce the number of regulatory
requirements by 70 percent from 2001-02 and to have 80 percent of applications
decided within 90 days.
The
Assessment Authority of B.C. reduces uniform property assessments that form the
basis for local and provincial taxation and provides real estate information to
the public. The Assessment Authority's broad business strategy is to provide
property tax bases that are predictable and stable for tax authorities and
property assessments that are fair and equitable for property owners. The BCAA
has set a number of specific targets for this year that make it even more
efficient and effective.
Other
agencies, boards and commissions that report to me as the minister include the
Fraser Basin Council, the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board and the central region
Clayoquot board, and we are just completing the first year with responsibility
for the property assessment review panels and Property Assessment Appeal Board.
I look
forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as this estimates debate
continues. We'll be debating my ministry's budget for the fiscal year 2003-04.
Net operating expenditures will be $92.297 million. Our projected FTE
utilization for the coming year is 954. Each agency and board under my portfolio
has separate budget and FTE allocations, which we can discuss in further detail
if you wish. I welcome questions and comments from all members.
J. Bray:
I certainly appreciated the opening comments that the minister had. I just have
a few questions this morning. I know that many of my colleagues also have a lot
of questions.
First of
all, I want to acknowledge the minister's service plan. As I have said before
many times, service plans sometimes seem to be documents that governments churn
out. Sometimes people aren't aware whether they provide any benefit or not.
Certainly, having come from the public service, I know the importance of service
plans for giving direction and guidance to the ministry to ensure that staff
know what the goals and objectives are and also for the public to really get a
sense of where ministries are going, where government is going and how to
actually measure those goals and objectives and whether or not they're being
met.
[1025]
Certainly,
the staff of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management should be
commended, because it's an excellent document. It's very detailed and very
thorough. It provides both government and the public with a lot of very valuable
information on the ministry, and I encourage people to have a look at it. I just
want to acknowledge the hard work by members of the minister's staff that
obviously went into producing this document.
I have a
couple of questions on the working forest legislation and that process. I
appreciate the minister's initial comments in his opening address. Certainly,
constituents of mine — where there's not a lot forestry — are somewhat
concerned by that. They're not necessarily entirely clear as to the intent of
the working forest legislation. I understand there is quite a bit of information
on the ministry website, but I'm wondering if the minister could just clarify.
The working forest is not about handing over Crown lands to private companies;
it's a planning context in which there's certainty provided for forestry
industries in conjunction with all other users. It's not about giving away land
to the private companies but more about making sure that investors have a sense
of what is available for them as a first-choice use. All other considerations
are still there, and in fact, the Crown still retains full title. I'm wondering
if the minister could clarify that.
Hon. S.
Hagen: It's an important point, and that's why I made that comment in my
speaking notes. The working forest initiative and proposed legislation will be
another piece of the puzzle that we have to construct to ensure we have
certainty on the land base. The other pieces of that puzzle are the
results-based code, the consultation with first nations and the other changes to
forestry that the Forests minister has brought in. It's part of that.
What we
want to be able to show the public and prospective investors is that there is
surety on the land base in British Columbia even though we're still going down
the path of negotiating treaties, which I look upon as a medium- to long-term
part of this puzzle. We will actually be able to see the working forest on a
map, the lands that are available for working forest in the province of British
Columbia. That message will then translate to certainty, investment and jobs.
J. Bray:
One of the concerns members of my community express is around environmental
issues. From the minister's comments, then, is it fair for me to say that the
working forest planning context has absolutely no impact on the strong
environmental regulations in place and the emphasis on sustainable management of
our forest resource — that this is not in any way affecting the environmental
standards we've set up in this province?
Hon. S.
Hagen: The short answer to that is no, it won't.
J. Bray:
I also understand, and I have been suggesting to constituents of mine who've got
concerns, that there is a public consultation process currently underway for
members of the public to actually make their comments directly to the ministry,
based on the information that's on the website of the Ministry of Man-
[ Page 6111 ]
agement Services. Can the minister advise whether or not that public
consultation is still available and when constituents have an opportunity to put
that input forward?
Hon. S.
Hagen: We've extended the time period for that public input to April 30, so
there is still about three weeks left to go. We've had considerable input from a
number of groups. I sent out over 200 letters to very specific groups like
industry, the environmental community, first nations and community leaders to
make sure we got a broad cross-section of information coming back to us. That is
happening. We will certainly take all of the feedback we get into consideration.
This is going to be a very important piece of public policy, and we want to make
sure we've got it right.
J. Bray:
That's certainly good news. I know my constituents appreciate the opportunity
for real consultation, and I'm pleased to hear that on an issue that's important
and generating a lot of interest, access for public input has been increased. I
think that's excellent news.
[1030]
The other
area I'd like to canvass the minister on is one of the areas the minister is
responsible for, B.C. Assessment. There have been some changes recently with
respect to how some properties have been assessed. I'm speaking specifically
about bed-and-breakfasts.
In a
community like Victoria, which relies heavily on tourism and also has a lot of
older heritage homes, individual entrepreneurs have taken up the provision of
bed-and-breakfast as a mainstay employment for them. In fact, there are several
hundred units available in the Victoria area through bed-and-breakfasts.
However, the changes that occurred recently changed the classification under
B.C. Assessment for some bed-and-breakfasts and had some significant tax
implications.
There has
been a process of consultation underway with respect to that. I know the
minister has heard from me and from various industries, both in resort towns and
in urban areas like Victoria. I'm wondering if the minister could update us as
to where the consultation is with respect to this whole area of assessment and,
in particular, bed-and-breakfasts — if he can provide some information on
where that's at.
Hon. S.
Hagen: An excellent question. I want to compliment the member, because he's
really been quarterbacking a lot of this for me and has introduced me to a
number of people in Victoria who operate bed-and-breakfasts. I realize we have
significant problem here.
First of
all, I went to B.C. Assessment Authority and said: "Look, we've got a
problem. Can we try and solve it?" That didn't work. I actually
commissioned an independent contractor, a chartered accountant and longtime
municipal administrator to do a report. I received that report yesterday, I
think. I've only had a chance to give it a cursory look. We're going to be
discussing it with my ministry staff and B.C. Assessment staff later on this
week.
I'm hoping
there are some ways to accommodate these problems. They're very serious
problems. We take them very seriously. We're honestly looking for a way to solve
this issue so that it's seen as fair by everyone.
J. Bray:
I'm very pleased to hear that report's gone forward.
I don't
have any more questions, but I want to commend the minister for working so hard
on this. He's met with several members of my community who run
bed-and-breakfasts. It's clear he's heard their concerns and is working with the
community to try and develop some positive solutions. I'd like to thank the
minister for the effort by himself and his staff to work with these very
important members of our community and our tourism industry.
Bennett: I have a few questions for the minister. Before I ask those
questions, I would like to say I've had probably more interaction with this
ministry in my riding than any other ministry. It's been a very positive
experience. The staff located in the Kootenays, based out of Nelson and
Cranbrook, do an excellent job. They're very professional and good to work with.
I wanted to
start my questioning by going right back to the creation of this ministry and
hearing from the minister, if I could, about the reason why the ministry was
created with respect to bringing all the different ministries together, the
different disciplines, to take a more integrated approach to land use planning.
My constituents, and constituents in rural B.C. generally, are still a little
bit in the dark as to what this ministry is about. Some of my constituents —
and I've talked to others in the province — think that Sustainable Resource
Management is the same as Land and Water B.C., and, of course, it isn't. Perhaps
I could ask the minister to clarify what makes up the ministry and what its
focus is, particularly with regard to land use planning.
[1035]
Hon. S.
Hagen: Thank you for the question. I can only assume that you're going to
have some questions on coal later on.
I think the
people who put this ministry together tried to gather all of the parts of
government that deal with Crown land and water. That includes the agencies I'm
responsible for, whether it's the Land Reserve Commission or Land and Water B.C.
or B.C. Assessment. All of these things have something to do with the land base
and the water base in the province.
The other
thing that's happened — certainly since I was in government last time — is
there have been a number of conflicts that have taken place between uses of
land. Usually the conflict is between an environmental expectation and an
economic development expectation. The ministry was created to try and find the
balance between economic development opportunities
[ Page 6112 ]
and environmental integrity, maintaining that integrity. Wherever you live in
the province, people are concerned about both those issues. They're obviously
concerned about jobs and economic development opportunities. They're also
concerned about our environment. It doesn't matter whether you live in downtown
Vancouver or downtown Cranbrook or in Bella Coola; people do have that concern.
What we try
to do is resolve conflicts. You complimented my staff, and I want to compliment
my staff too, because I think they do an exceptional job. As I've travelled the
province, we've come into communities where there's been a conflict between
snowmobilers and caribou, for instance. This was certainly something I never
thought I would get involved with as a politician, but the reality is there are
conflicts out there like that. That's another thing we do.
The other
area of expertise we have generated, particularly in the last 20 months, is the
interaction with first nations, building those relationships of trust and
respect with first nations around the province. We're continuing to do that. As
you heard in my notes, we've done something like 92 agreements with different
first nations bands around the province. A lot of those are economic development
opportunities, and some are related to land use planning.
We're here
to serve the public. Our staff understands that. We look upon the public as
customers coming in, and we assist agencies like the Oil and Gas Commission, for
instance, in processing those applications for drilling. We are responsible for
areas like the Muskwa-Kechika where the high values of environment have become
known, but there are also high values from an economic development perspective.
We have people around that table, from environmentalists to first nations to
industry people to community people, who work at solving those issues before
they really become huge issues.
Bennett: The minister answered two or three of my questions there, which is
a good thing. I am interested in going a little further with the land use
planning process, as the ministry is involved in it.
One of the
issues for people in rural B.C. is that previous administrations have
concentrated more on the environmental leg of the sustainability stool, if you
will, and less so on the second and third legs, the social and the economic.
Because we are identifying and acknowledging all three legs of the stool, some
people in rural B.C. have said that we are weighting one leg more than the other
and, in particular, that we're giving more emphasis to the economic side than to
the environmental side. To bring it down to specifics, in my riding some folks
have expressed concern that we're weighting the economic factors in planning
higher or greater than we are in wildlife. I wonder if the minister would like
to comment on that.
Hon. S.
Hagen: There's no question that the economy is important to British
Columbia. I can speak from experience here, because when I was in government in
1991, British Columbia had the strongest economy of any province in Canada. In
five relatively short years — long to some people, I guess, but relatively
short years — we were demoted to last place, to number ten among the provinces
in Canada. I don't think that's something the people of British Columbia accept,
and I don't think that's something the people of British Columbia believed would
ever happen.
[1040]
If you
think about that and extend it to the fact that we are now classified as a
have-not province — that we have actually received transfer payments from the
feds, probably for the first time in our history as a province — I don't think
that's something the average British Columbian accepts either.
Our
challenge in the ministry is to find that balance where we can drive the economy
and provide the opportunities to the private sector to create jobs and, at the
same time, not compromise our environmental integrity. That's the balance we try
to find. When I talk to people around the province, there's no question that I
give accent to the economic part of the ministry. If we don't improve our
economy, we're not going to be able to afford to deliver the health care and
education and social services the people of British Columbia need. I think
there's a difference between saying what they expect and what they need. We're
trying to fulfil the needs aspect of it.
I would
like to think that we are maintaining our environmental integrity, but there is
no question, if you look at applications for Crown land and water, that we do
focus on the economic development opportunities, on who that land may be sold or
leased to. That's one of the questions that's asked. We want to know how many
jobs are going to be created and when that's going to happen.
Bennett: Just one further question on the land use planning exercise as we
know it here in British Columbia. Prior to the election of this government in
May of 2001, when government talked about land use planning, what that meant to
most people in rural B.C. was reduced access to the land. There was this
implicit assumption that if land use planning was going to take place, it was
going to result in reduced access for recreationalists, for industry, for
commercial tenures, etc.
understand from reading the service plan and from some direct experience with
the ministry that the planning the ministry now does today has a different
emphasis — more around certainty and identification of an inventory of values
and that sort of thing. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. S.
Hagen: I think it's very safe to say that our government is approaching land
use planning differently than the previous government. One of the issues that
came out of your part of the province was the fact that too much land had been
set aside and there wasn't enough land to generate job-building or economic
development opportunities. I don't want to repeat what I
[ Page 6113 ]
said in the previous answer, but we took those complaints very seriously.
As you
know, we went back into your area, and I want to thank the member for the
quarterbacking that took place there. It is important, again, to find that
balance. There's no question that our government is focused more on economic
development than the prior government was. I think that's one of the reasons the
public gave us the overwhelming mandate they did. The public has this innate
sort of knowledge that when things are not going well they want to change
governments. Certainly, the average British Columbian understood that prior to
the election in 2001. That's why this government was given the overwhelming
mandate to turn things around so that people don't have to leave the province.
I live in
an area of the province on Vancouver Island where WestJet runs very successful
flights from Comox to Calgary and Comox to Edmonton. Then I found out that one
of the reasons it's successful is because people live in the Comox Valley and
work in Calgary. That's certainly not my idea of what a province should be, and
I doubt that's the idea anyone in this room has. We do have a responsibility to
the electorate and to the people of British Columbia to build back the economy
we once had.
Bennett: I'd like to switch gears a little bit and just ask the minister for
some comments with regard to a specific issue that he's aware of in the East
Kootenay, the West Kootenay, the Cariboo and parts of the north, certainly, up
in the Smithers area. It's the grasslands restoration issue. Another way to put
it, I guess, would be the wildlife-rancher conflict. Another way to put it is
the forest ingrowth situation that we have.
[1045]
Where we
had fire-controlled ecosystems in this province and no longer have those
ecosystems because we put the fires out, we have a situation where we're losing
grasslands at a very fast rate, and we're losing all of the wildlife that depend
on those grasslands, as well as reducing the amount of forage available for
cattle. It's kind of a double whammy.
We've had
this minister up in the East Kootenay to look at that problem. We've had the
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries up there to do the same thing. We
have the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection coming in May to take a look
at that same problem. There is a myriad of regulations, particularly within the
Ministry of Forests mandate, that seem to prevent us from dealing with this very
difficult problem.
On behalf
of my constituents I would just like to take this opportunity to allow the
minister to comment on that and ask him specifically whether he might be able to
take a leadership role in helping us resolve this problem.
Hon. S.
Hagen: It's a huge problem, and I wasn't even aware of the problem until you
took me around. I don't want to talk too much about going out at night with a
spotlight, but I certainly was made aware of the issue. Thanks to you and other
MLAs and also some of the citizens of your riding and adjoining ridings, I
understand the seriousness of the problem. Up until last Friday I was playing a
direct role in this for a couple of months.
This issue
is being dealt with by WLAP, Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries. As to our role in it, we assist with the land use planning aspect and
also the inventory aspect. When we're finalizing the working forest paper, which
will lead to legislation, we're also going to involve ourselves in the grassland
or the encroachment issue. I realize it's something we have to come to grips
with, and I'm aware of all of the players and the various aspects and the
involvement with licensees and contractors from a forestry point of view as well
as cooperating with the ranchers. It's a huge issue, and we remain committed to
fixing it.
Bennett: I have one additional question. I didn't have a chance to ask the
estimates leader whether we're doing Land and Water British Columbia questions
around tenuring and that sort of thing.
Interjection.
Bennett: Okay, thank you.
I have a
question about the way Land and Water British Columbia manages their tenure
process for commercial tenures, particularly in the back country. There is a
concern out there — and I don't speak strictly for my riding in the East
Kootenay — across rural B.C. that we as a government are so committed in a
positive way to improving the economy that we may have encouraged Land and Water
British Columbia to layer tenures one on top of the other.
For
example, if you have an existing tenure for a guide-outfitter or some sort of
back-country operator and allow another tenure to go in and use the same area of
land, perhaps for a different type of tenure…. Perhaps it isn't another
guide-outfitter or another hiking operation; maybe it's a different kind of
tenure. The concern out there is that by layering tenures one on top of the
other, we're doing two things. First, we may, in fact, be reducing the business
viability for the operation, and secondly, we may be reducing the overall
quality of the back-country experience if we have more than one or two tenures
operating on the same piece of land.
[1050]
The
question is really for the minister to comment on the terms of reference, I
suppose, that Land and Water British Columbia uses to decide whether they will
approve that application for a tenure. On what basis do they approve that
application for a tenure when there's already an existing tenure on the ground?
Hon. S.
Hagen: This is an issue that we are currently engaged in, and we've been
asked by Treasury Board to bring a submission to them by June 30. That
submission will also be going to the Cabinet Commit-
[ Page 6114 ]
tee on Economy and Environment before that time. We realize there is an issue
here, whether it's overlapping tenures or non-single use or whatever the issue
is. It's something, I think, that has become more of an issue the more tenures
we do. When you start doing them, it's not an issue, and then as you get more
applications, it becomes an issue. It's one of those important questions that we
are presently engaged with, and we'll have a submission in to Treasury Board, as
I said, by June 30.
W. Cobb:
Well, as you know, I've been involved in a lot of land use planning over the
years, and I'm appreciative of the fact that we do have a ministry now that's
trying to address and find ways to manage some of the concerns.
I'd like to
go one step further on what the member from the Kootenays mentioned in regard to
the different agencies. If you go to page 9 in your service plan, it has to do
with stronger emphasis on client services and interagency cooperation, ensuring
effective cooperation and coordination with the ministries and agencies.
I guess one
of the problems I have in my riding is exactly what the member from the
Kootenays was talking about. I have lodges and businesses that have been there
for 20-odd years and what not and have built their businesses around some of
these tenures. Now with us going out to bid for tenures on different issues, we
have people who would be eligible to bid who have no infrastructure in place.
They have no investment or anything.
Will those
kinds of issues be addressed in that work you just mentioned you were doing with
this report that will be in by the end of June? It is a major concern,
especially when you've got a couple of hundred thousand dollars invested and all
of a sudden somebody can come in…. It's overlapping. There are rod-days with
the other ministries. Will it all be tied together, and will those kinds of
things be considered when these new tenures are being bid for?
Hon. S.
Hagen: The answer is yes, they will be. It's not just in your area of the
province where these become an issue; it's on the coast as well. What we don't
want Land and Water B.C. to get into is a situation where somebody gets a tenure
and then flips it for a profit instead of actually wanting to generate jobs and
activity on it. There are a number of issues around the province that we're
having to deal with, but that is part of the overall examination that we're
giving that part of Land and Water B.C. and will be dealt with in their Treasury
Board presentation.
W. Cobb:
I'm glad to hear that, because that is one of the issues, with rod-days as an
example — the guy who's built up his business, and then I as an individual
could go out there, get rod-days and virtually flip them and have to sell them
back to him for him to be able to meet his client commitments. So that's good to
hear.
With some
of the conflicts that have happened on the land…. I know with reductions and
the core review process there has been elimination, in my area, anyway, of what
are called regional resource boards. The funding for those kinds of agencies is
gone now. My question would be: if there are conflicts now, what mechanism will
be in place to address some of those conflicts if we don't have local groups
that can actually be an intermediary, rather than have the ministry do it?
Hon. S.
Hagen: The boards themselves weren't done away with; it's the funding that
was done away with. In many areas the boards are still operating, and they've
sought funding elsewhere. The other thing we are doing is working very closely
with other agencies and other ministries in these regions so that we can combine
our resources and then provide the people to help work through some of these
conflicts.
[1055]
I think of
an example up on the Babine River, where fishing lodges have been concerned
about forestry activities up there. They sat down together at a table brought
together by our manager in Smithers, and they've actually resolved that issue.
The opportunities for resolution are still there, but because of fiscal
constraints, we haven't been able to fund those activities through our ministry.
W. Cobb:
I understand the concerns with funding and what not, but I think sometimes maybe
all these groups need is just a little encouragement. The fact is that they were
actually doing a good job. I'm sure the one in my area, at least, will continue.
Thank you for that. I think we do need to encourage them. It sure takes a load
off other people when they know they've got some place they can go when there's
a conflict rather than having to go in and deal with ministry staff.
mentioned earlier, there's still some concern about the working forest. I guess
the concern still there is that there isn't enough emphasis put on tourism,
ranching or trappers. I think it's more of a misconception than anything.
My question
would be: how are the reports coming in? I know the working forest strategy is
on the Net, and people can respond. My question would be: how has the input
been? Are you getting a fair input on it, or are people just out there wondering
what's happening and not actually commenting on it?
Hon. S.
Hagen: One of the reasons I extended the time was to give as many people or
groups as possible the opportunity and time they needed to give a response. I
understand there's a meeting going on April 10 with the Cattlemen's Association
up near where you live. I think we've had two meetings with the Council of
Tourism Associations so far, and the woodlot owners association.
As I say, I
sent out over 200 letters under my signature to make sure, first of all, that
people would know about it and hopefully respond and also so that we wouldn't
have groups coming to us at the end of this and saying: "Well, we didn't
know that we had a
[ Page 6115 ]
chance to respond." Therefore, I sent those out to a broad
cross-section, including the environmental community, industry, first nations,
community leaders and some individuals. We really do want a broad-based response
so that when we stand up at the end of the day and introduce this legislation,
we can say that full consultation took place.
W. Cobb:
I've encouraged anyone that's contacted me on it to get on the website, if they
can, and get their information in. I do believe it's important. If we're going
to solve some of these issues, it's crucial.
One of the
other things is with the regionalization and changes in offices, and
regionalization particularly in our area, I have a huge geographic area, and
many times these individuals have to drive five or six hours to get into town
— specifically for the mapping and how it fits on the mapping. That is now
moving to Prince George, which is another three hours or so away from Williams
Lake, so they've got to get into the main community, and then it's another three
hours from there.
Is there
going to be some other avenue where these people can actually get some
on-the-ground assistance? When they go into the water and land office now, with
the changes being made, they're saying: "Well, you have to get that
information from Prince George." If it's the registering and everything
else, okay, it may have to go to Prince George. But will they actually be able
to see the maps and see it on the ground in the local offices? Who will be there
to make sure they've got the information?
Hon. S.
Hagen: I'm told we are going to be maintaining a presence in Williams Lake,
for instance, so they will be able to get the answer there, even though there
might be some movement of people to Prince George. But we're going to have a
presence there, so there will be an actual person that people can talk to.
W. Cobb:
That's good to hear.
One of the
other issues, of course, that was brought up is the assessments. As you know,
we've had to deal with some assessment problems. With the recommendations you're
making with the assessments and what not, are there going to be some clear
guidelines on how a place is assessed?
[1100]
What we
have in one particular case, which I'm sure you're aware of, is lodges and small
operations. Basically, we've got about a three-month season for some of these
lodges to operate. The difference is in what they're classifying for residential
use compared to commercial use. There seems to be an anomaly. Is there going to
be a clear mandate for the people who actually do the appeals to know exactly
what the guidelines are? And is everyone is going to be treated the same? Or is
it going to be left open for
interpretation, because the
interpretation seems to
be where it always falls apart?
Hon. S.
Hagen: That's a very valid point. I've seen some clear examples of different
interpretations in different offices or different areas. Certainly, from my
perspective and, I'm sure, from your perspective we would like to come up with
something that removes the chance of that happening. This is also referred to in
the report, which I referred to in the previous question, from the person from
whom I went out to get an independent sort of view on this. And he also has some
recommendations in for different ways of looking at placing values on a
business.
Having said
that, whenever we make changes in how we do things, if it has an impact on the
Crown, then we have to deal with Treasury Board. The challenge I have is to come
up with a plan that actually works for the user out there but also is acceptable
to Treasury Board, because they're pretty sensitive to seeing any sort of
reduction in revenue coming in. But the fact of the matter is if something is
not operating properly, then we have to fix it.
W. Cobb:
I'm glad that some work is being done on it. I've continually had that problem
with assessments in my own personal life. The problem I have is that when they
value a building, premises, on the revenue generated, then I have a serious
concern with it. In saying that, if I decide not to rent out my premise, does
that mean I shouldn't have any assessment on it? It should be on the actual
construction or replacement cost of it. What I'm able to generate in revenue
shouldn't have anything to do with it, especially when you're looking at
commercial property. There are other aspects that have to be looked at when
you're looking at a land base and what not, but in particular commercial
entities, and things like that. I'm glad to hear you're doing some work on it.
Lastly,
effective delivery of client services. I must say that I don't know what you've
had to do with it, minister, but the people in the Williams Lake office are
doing an exceptional job. I think they deserve credit from you. With all the
changes that have come down, they've done an excellent job. They're trying to
deal with their clients, and I'm getting good reports from them. Thank you very
much for the work you've done.
P. Bell:
I'm wondering if you could give us an update — and I'm sorry if I missed it in
the
preamble — on the working forest in terms of the time frames for
legislation and then moving forward to implementation.
Hon. S.
Hagen: We've extended the time line on the input back to government to April
30. We plan on having enabling legislation introduced this session, and then the
regulations will be coming in the fall. So we've got a hold on a slot for
legislation for the spring and the regulations in the fall.
P. Bell:
One of the concerns that's been expressed to me through the agricultural
community is the loss of available ADA lands — agricultural development area
lands — to working forests. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an
outline of how that process would
[ Page 6116 ]
move forward. Should that be a concern for folks in the agricultural
community, or is that something we've taken into account in this process?
[1105]
Hon. S.
Hagen: First of all, within the working forest the agricultural land reserve
will remain in place. It won't be replaced by the working forest. Anything
that's under the agricultural land reserve now will be there under the working
forest.
The second
thing is, as I'm sure you know, there's a joint project of Land and Water B.C.
and my ministry looking at the sale of agricultural leases at market value
rather than stumpage value. Six agricultural leases are part of the pilot. Two
of the leases have been sold. Negotiations continue on the potential sale of
three others. The pilot project is moving along, but it's been slowed down
somewhat due to issues around spring breakup and the beetle kill, market
conditions and legal agreements.
Land and
Water B.C. will be doing an evaluation of the pilot project over the next few
weeks and will bring forward recommendations to the Cabinet Committee on Economy
and Environment.
P. Bell:
I'm actually looking perhaps not so much at the ag lease area as I am the
ability to access ADA lands in future, not lands that are currently under
agricultural land leases. There exists throughout the province — I don't know
the exact number of hectares — a substantial amount of land that has been
classified under previous land use designations as agricultural development
areas, lands that are suitable for agricultural. Many of those lands are
captured within the working forest. The concern on the part of the agriculture
community is that those lands will not be available to them for agricultural
purposes as a result of the working forest designation. I wonder if the minister
can expand on that.
Hon. S.
Hagen: I guess the issue there is the value of the land for forestry versus
the value of the land for agriculture. One of the things we do is a
socioeconomic analysis of the land to see where it would bring the best return
to the province. This could impact on the analysis of how the SRMP impacts
individual companies. I know some of the members have done some extensive work
on trying to calculate the value of land under agricultural use versus under
forestry use, and we've incorporated that into our process now as well.
P. Bell:
Moving on, then, I wonder if the minister could bring some clarification to the
issue of land use as it relates to the ability to mine in different parts of the
province. There were, for many years, some grey areas in the province where it
was unclear whether mining was allowed or not. I'm wondering if the minister can
give us an indication of how much of the province, as a percentage, is actually
out of bounds to mining and how much is available to mining at this point.
Hon. S.
Hagen: Excellent question. To the mining industry, this is critical. We've
introduced a two-zone policy, so the mining industry knows they can either mine
there or they can't mine there. The amount of land that's been set aside and is
unavailable for mining opportunities is approximately 12.3 percent of the
province.
P. Bell:
That would mean, conversely, that approximately 87 to 88 percent of the province
is open and available to mining?
Hon. S.
Hagen: The answer is yes, subject to the completion of land use plans that
are underway, but I don't think the percentage will change substantially.
[1110]
P. Bell:
That's great news, and I'm glad the minister clarified that. At times the mining
community appears to be unclear that this is in fact the case, so I'm pleased
they'll be able to clip this out of Hansard and utilize it for future
purposes.
I'd like to
move on to a comment that was made last weekend by some executives of TimberWest
accusing this government of the sale of forested lands. I'