2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE Thursday, May 18, 2006 12 p.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON 
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006

ISSN 1718-1062

[ Page 59 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006

          The committee met at 12:12 p.m.

           [R. Austin in the chair.]

Attendance of Witnesses

           R. Austin (Chair): I would like to thank you all for attending this meeting on short notice. As this session comes to an end and we are about to begin public hearings and site visits, I thought it important to complete some business.

           I have been greatly frustrated at our inability to get more informational background on one of the most important and contentious issues that we face on the aquaculture file. As all members know, one of the terms of reference speaks to assessing the regulatory regime and how it compares to other jurisdictions. At our first briefing it was clear that we received a very high-level or general briefing, and it was our understanding that we would receive more detailed briefings at a later date.

           I believe it is crucial for all members of this committee to have a good understanding of both the recent history and current status of B.C.'s regulatory regime before we face the contradictory views and evidence that will be presented to us as we engage in community hearings. With that in mind, I invited Mr. Bud Graham, who prior to the last few months had worked for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and has a lot of experience and knowledge in this area. Unfortunately, he came and decided on his own accord to not speak to the regulatory regime but rather to give us an overview of the marine and ocean environment.

           I then asked — and gave over two weeks' notice — to get the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Lands, the Deputy Minister of Environment, as well as Kathy Evans, section head of licensing, and Mr. Graham to attend a meeting for yesterday. In response to my request, they either refused to attend, saying that they had nothing new to say to the committee, or said that it was not convenient.

           I would like to remind all members that we are here at the behest of the Legislature, and in order to complete this very important work we must have the full cooperation of all those in government who work on a daily basis for the people of this province.

           When I heard that yesterday's meeting was being cancelled due to a lack of cooperation, I wrote to Minister Bell asking for him to direct these witnesses to come before the committee and brief us more fully. Actually, I had a response from Minister Bell about three minutes ago, but up until then, I'd had no response from the minister, and frankly, I am disappointed by the lack of cooperation and support.

           Our inability to get senior officials to engage the committee indicates to me that the minister and the government have been dragging their feet. The minister and the government must demonstrate sincerity about this committee in order for it to succeed.

[1215]

           I've called this meeting to ask that a motion be brought forward for me to exercise a Chair's warrant to ensure that these civil servants be present on June 1 to give us the information we need so that the committee can productively continue its work.

           C. Trevena: I move that the Clerk of Committees secure the attendance of witnesses the committee decides to call before it, and should witnesses so identified by the committee fail to give a satisfactory undertaking to attend, the Chair issue a summons to appear to the witness.

           R. Austin (Chair): Any debate on this motion, please.

           J. Yap: I have to admit that I'm somewhat surprised at this motion that we're proceeding to talk about: issuing summonses. Perhaps, not being part of the subcommittee that's trying to manage the processes for our committee, I'm not as aware of the challenges that you've had in trying to organize witnesses.

           I'm wondering, Chair, if you could comment on what has been done to date to try and get witnesses lined up and coming to attend hearings with us.

           R. Austin (Chair): Certainly. After Mr. Graham came and spoke to us on April 25, I think it was, and gave his presentation, I'm sure you and all of us were aware that he was reluctant to speak about the regulatory regime. He commented then that there had been a miscommunication between the Clerk's office and himself as to why he was coming to speak to us.

           I am assured by the Clerk that there was certainly no miscommunication on his part, which made me wonder as to why Mr. Graham then came and informed us only when he arrived that he was here to give a presentation about his new job as head of the oceans and marine fisheries division.

           By the way, I had already seen that presentation when I first started working as the fisheries critic. It was not relevant at all to the aquaculture file. I let him make his presentation and asked him whether after he'd finished that presentation, because he was here anyway, he would then engage in the discussion about the regulatory regime.

           He pointed out that he felt uncomfortable doing that, although it's my understanding that as a legislative committee, we can ask anyone to appear and to discuss any matter that we request, and they are obliged to do so. Nevertheless, he left on that understanding.

           I then asked the Clerk of Committees to organize a meeting, which was supposed to have happened yesterday, so that we could have all of the people in the room necessary to have a much more detailed discussion about the regulatory regime. I was informed just last Thursday that they would be either unwilling to come — because they had been here, in the case of Al Castledine, for example, once before, and he felt he had nothing new to add — or that it was not convenient to come and meet with us. Now, I feel strongly — having requested their presence and given them over two weeks' notice — that, given the topic that they were coming to help us with, they should have been here.

[ Page 60 ]

           On Monday I expressed my concern by writing a letter to Minister Bell saying, basically: "Please, can you use your influence to direct these people to come to a meeting. This one's now too late, but we want to meet again on June 1 in Vancouver. I haven't seen much cooperation so far. Can you please direct them to come?"

           In my letter I stated that if I didn't hear from him, I would then organize a meeting here to request a Chair's warrant so that I could have them attend. As I mentioned earlier, I got an e-mail from Minister Bell about three minutes before this meeting started. I haven't even read it. But that's how this has come about.

           Now, I spoke to Mr. Cantelon this morning and told him about my frustrations. He's known about this for a while, because we met in Mr. James's office, where I said to him: "Listen, you know, these people are just not willing to come, and we need to find out far more before we go on the road." Because once we're out there in the public, we are going to hear very, very different views, and there's going to be evidence presented to back up those views.

           I think it's important for us, as committee members, to be able to discern between what is fact and what is fiction and to be able to ask pertinent questions. That's all I'm asking for. I think it's a matter of information for us so that we can do this job well. That's how we've arrived at this point.

[1220]

           I hope that this motion will be passed, and I hope that the minister and the civil servants will come on their own accord anyway, but we have this motion then in place, so if we have any more difficulty, as this committee goes forward in the ensuing year, we can then use it to ensure that people do come here and share their views with us.

           J. Yap: Chair, you mentioned that minutes ago, before the meeting, you received an e-mail. What's the possibility that in that e-mail there might perhaps be a response to the concerns you've expressed? I'm wondering if we should take a quick opportunity here for you to read the e-mail. Before we move forward with this motion, which is to my understanding quite extraordinary, we should at least see the minister's e-mail to you. If it's addressing the concerns — going to get cooperation of civil servants — this warrant may not be needed. Just a thought.

           R. Austin (Chair): Certainly, I will take a look at it. I would like to say, though, that my letter to Minister Bell went out on Monday evening, and for me to be checking into my e-mail three minutes prior to a meeting, I think, is a little bit unusual. I think it would have been a matter of courtesy for him to have replied earlier, but I will check into it.

           G. Robertson: In terms of protocol, in terms of that e-mail, the meeting was scheduled to start at noon. Probably the easiest way to draw a line here as to whether it's appropriate or not that it's part of this meeting is if you received it prior to the beginning of the meeting or in the expectation that you would read it in advance of the meeting versus after noon — just to be clear that this e-mail was intended to be read before versus after.

           I will voice my concern that there was nothing for these days leading up to it, and we've had a meeting cancelled because of the unwillingness of people to participate. We have a job to do here. Frankly, we've been entrusted with a very important role by this Legislature, we have a lot of people in this province counting on us to do our best with this work, and we're not able to do that, given these circumstances. We're not having the cooperation that's necessary to get our work done.

           R. Austin (Chair): In response to your concern, I received the e-mail well past noon, when we were supposed to have this meeting scheduled.

           S. Fraser: I'll support the motion. It's unfortunate that we are required to take this step to get a warrant, but regardless of what the letter from the minister says, at this point it's very difficult. This is the last day of our sitting. It's very difficult to get us all together. As we can see even now, we're having trouble getting significant numbers of our committee together, so if there was a further problem following this getting cooperation from ministry staff and bureaucrats, then I think it's wise that you have the authority to deal with this without having to try to get us together again. So I'll support that.

           Along with the warrant…. I'm not familiar with the process. I don't know if it requires an amendment, but the terms of reference for what we're asking witnesses to do, can that be a part of the warrant? If we have to get together on June 1 and hear the history of the sea again, I suspect that won't be in our best interest. We have a very tight schedule coming forward here in June, so if we don't get cooperation, we won't be prepared to fulfil our mandate in this very tight schedule coming up in June.

           R. Austin (Chair): No, a Chair's warrant, if issued, will ask specific people to come to speak about a specific topic.

           S. Simpson: Just to speak about this a little bit before making a comment about the motion, I think there has been some growing frustration. I've certainly felt some growing frustration on the committee, and that really comes to a bit of a head with what we've seen in the last short while. We see here some reluctance on the part of senior staff to cooperate with the committee, for whatever reason. That's very concerning to me.

[1225]

           The minister does not appear to have been particularly helpful in this exercise, and quite frankly, the decision of the minister to approve a new fish farm at Bennett Point was not helpful in terms of the work of this committee and in terms of moving the committee

[ Page 61 ]

forward. What we see here is a bureaucracy that, for whatever reason, doesn't appear to be cooperating with the committee in the way that I envision it should. We have a minister who's approving fish farms while we're doing our work, which I don't think is very helpful to the work of this committee. It seems to me that we should be receiving much greater cooperation, both from the minister and from officials.

           I guess it's important to point out that this is not a committee of the government. This is not a committee of the minister. This is a committee of the Legislative Assembly. It was put in place by order of the Legislature. It reports to the Legislature, and it doesn't report to government.

           It's critical that we should be able to receive all of the support and cooperation possible to be able to do the work that we need to do. It's critical to the work of this committee — whatever the results are, come next year when we finish our work — for that work, that report and, hopefully, those solutions to be of a nature that the people of British Columbia can embrace.

           They need to have confidence in the committee and confidence that the committee can move forward and do its work in as complete a way as possible. That's not going to occur if the government isn't cooperating with the committee to make it possible for us to do our work. To date, frankly, I'm not comfortable with the level of cooperation we've received.

           We need to make it absolutely clear to government, to the minister and to the civil service that we have full expectation of their cooperation, that we look forward to that cooperation and that we will take whatever steps are available to us as a committee of the Legislature to make sure we receive that cooperation. It appears at this point in time that that cooperation requires us to deliver this message, so I support the motion for a Chair's warrant to direct senior staff to come and deal with this committee.

           In addition to that, I want to make it clear — and we'll do this as a motion after this, if necessary — that I would ask the Chair to write to those civil servants we are asking to come and be very explicit about our expectations as to what they will talk to us about. If we've done it, then we write them again.

           There can be no mistake that we expect them to come and talk about the regulatory regime, to talk about what has gone on previously around fish farms and aquaculture — how we have got to where we've got to today — and to explain some of the inconsistencies that some of us may see in what has gone on in the past. There can be no mistake on their part as to what our expectation is that this discussion on June 1 in Vancouver will be about.

           I will support the motion, and if need be, we'll move a second motion asking and directing the Chair to write a very explicit letter to those officials we've identified and want to attend on June 1.

           G. Coons: To keep it brief, noticing the time, I want to echo the sentiment here. Going through the frustrations of a meeting in this room, a meeting without any information — basically, no new information — a meeting cancelled this week and having to come to this meeting, I think it's imperative that we do follow through with this motion for the Chair's warrant. We owe it to the stakeholders out there: the pro and con, the public. We need to sort out the fact from the myth.

           I had a real concern about the approval of the fish farm application while we were meeting. In the approval process it was noted that one of the reasons why the farm was approved was that this committee is in existence. I wanted to question that and see the reasoning behind that. So I hope that we follow through with this motion, and I support that.

           C. Trevena: Again, much of what I was going to say has already been said, but I think one of the things we have to bear in mind here is: a number of people have been invited to the committee, and they actually refused to attend. This is very troubling, because it is a legislative committee. It isn't a government committee. There is a responsibility for both civil servants and elected officials to respect that.

[1230]

           This is why I think this motion is important. Hopefully, we won't ever have to execute it, and people will come of their own willingness to participate in this, but I think that it does give the Chair the authority — for those people who are reluctant to come, for whatever reason — to ensure that they do come. This is an important committee. It is a legislative committee. The issues that we are looking at are very important for B.C., for our economy and for our development. I would hope that the Chair doesn't actually ever have to use this tool, but that it be here in case it is needed in the future.

           R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): I think I understand what the concerns are, and I don't know if it's a bit of misunderstanding or inconvenient times, but I understand. We certainly have another appointment set up. I've spoken to the minister this morning. He assures me that at his next meeting he will have given out proper instructions to see that whoever we want will be there.

           I think there was perhaps some misconception too. As you know, we had some of the individuals we're inviting with respect to regulations in this office in February, I believe it was. They met and gave us an overview of the history of the regulations. I think all committee members recall that.

           In subsequent conversations I've had with the Chair, however, I think he's made clear to me the concerns raised to him. I haven't seen them, but I certainly accept that they are of a more specific and technical nature that would require them, instead of giving us the 10,000-foot flyover of the history, to come back and provide us with more specific details so that when we go into the field, we have a better, more in-depth understanding of the specifics.

           It had been my thought that perhaps we might be able to do that with the officer there, and we might still

[ Page 62 ]

do that — with the enforcement officers present at the time of the site visits. I still think that would be very beneficial, and I hope that can be arranged. However, the minister's certainly made it clear to me — and I think perhaps he's said something to you — that he's willing to make them available, or willing to insist that they become available. I don't think it's necessary to take any more severe action to ensure that they're there.

           G. Robertson: I think Ron's point is spot-on in terms of the overview that was provided — and Robin mentioned this in his remarks earlier — being way too general. This industry and the relationship between this industry and government have been very controversial in the past. There are issues around the regulation of the industry that we need to understand a whole lot better before we go out in public.

           We are dealing with a wide range of opinions on that history and a wide range of opinions on what happens next in this industry and how it's regulated. It's critical that we have detail in this next meeting and that we're able to understand that history, understand the reasons that there has been controversy around the regulatory regime.

           Although I take your point from the minister in your meeting this morning, that he's willing to ensure that staff is present, the motion is in play at this point, and there does need to be a very clear message here. Regardless of whether it's just the minister and his ability to deliver some of these people and some of his staff, it has to be demonstrated now that this committee is going to do its work and is committed to looking towards solutions.

           By the means that have been vested in us by this Legislature, we are going to ensure that all the people that we need to talk to or that we need to hear from, and all the contentious elements of this issue, are going to come forward. I don't think it's appropriate for us to have to call these emergency meetings to clarify our position on this. I think the authority for our Chair to be able to call witnesses and to ensure that they come before us has to be there. We don't need to second-guess that.

[1235]

           We need to know that these meetings are going to have the people we need at them and that they're going to speak pointedly to the issues that we need to be educated about in order to make proper recommendations on the future of sustainable aquaculture.

           S. Fraser: Thanks to Ron for the update. We won't get another shot at this. We're going on to a very, very tight schedule in June. We haven't had the cooperation that we need to do our job yet. The warrant will ensure we get that.

           With all the assurances…. I mean, we had assurances with the creation of this committee that we would be getting full cooperation. That hasn't happened. So I believe it wise to proceed. I will still be supporting this motion.

           As far as having regulatory officers in the field during our trips, I've got to ask…. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but I don't recall us having that discussion. Was there a discussion that I missed, at the executive level or something, to include regulatory officers on our field trips?

           R. Austin (Chair): That was a discussion Ron and I had, where it was suggested that perhaps regulatory officers could come out. But then we had a discussion and realized it would be very hard to ask questions in front of the regulatory regime of those working on the aquaculture sites. So we decided to have that separately.

           I also just want to correct something. This is actually a committee summons, rather than a committee warrant.

           S. Fraser: That's fair enough. I, too, have concerns that the whole tone of our trips could be changed if we had officers present during that. I think that would warrant a larger discussion if we were to go ahead with that.

           R. Austin (Chair): For the benefit of the committee members, it is our intention to have a meeting on June 1 in Vancouver, where these people would be asked to come and present facts about the regulatory regime.

           J. Yap: A couple of things. On Shane's point about the fact that our committee started its work and that while we were getting going, an interim approval was provided for another licence…. My understanding is that there was no commitment by government to place a moratorium on additional licences being issued under the current regulatory regime and that our work as a committee was to get out and talk to all the stakeholders and come back with recommendations to improve the regulatory framework.

           But the work continues. The industry continues under the existing framework, and our job at the end of 18 months, or whatever the time frame is, was to come up with recommendations to enhance the framework. Just to clarify. I understand where Shane is coming from — that it would have been nice if there was a suspension of further applications. But that was not part of the terms of reference — just to clarify.

           My understanding is that the issuing of a summons or warrant is quite rare. I'm wondering if the Clerk could clarify that for us. Is it rare that these are issued by standing committees or select committees? And what is the effect of issuing such a document?

           C. James (Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees): The last time this instrument was used was in 2002 during an inquiry into part 9 of the Police Act, where the special committee on part 9 of the Police Act undertook to secure the attendance of certain witnesses from the Police Complaint Commissioner's office.

[ Page 63 ]

           J. Yap: So it hasn't been used in four years. Okay.

           S. Simpson: A couple of comments in reference to John's comment about fish farms and moratoriums. I would agree with John that it is not the prerogative or mandate of this committee to approve or not approve of fish farms. That's not our job. That's the minister's job. Clearly, the minister knows that, because he approved Bennett Point.

           The point I make here, though, is that we now have less than a year to complete our work. There are questions raised in the field by folks out there who have interest in this as to whether it is at least a complication to have new farms being approved at the time that the legislative committee is in fact doing its work.

[1240]

           This is an important enough issue, and a complicated and challenging enough issue, that the Legislature through the throne speech saw fit to put in place a special committee of the Legislature to deal with this issue. It had that degree of importance. It's not something that happens all that frequently — that special committees get put in place and resourced to go out and deal with specific issues, that they're deemed to be of that level of importance, as this question has been.

           It seems to me — and I don't disagree on the authority of the minister to do what he did — that if the minister wants this committee to be successful and wants to help accommodate that, he should consider whether it makes good sense to be approving these farms while the committee is doing its work. It is his choice to make; it's certainly not our choice to make. I understand that. It's not a question of whether we have any authority here. It's a question of the minister's judgment over whether this is a good or bad idea.

           I want to come back to the point…. Ron made the point about having spoken to the minister earlier, and I'm pleased to hear that the minister is cooperating and calling on his staff and Ministry of Environment staff to come on June 1 and talk to us about the things that we want to talk about. But the point is — and I'll make it again, because I know Ron wasn't in the room when I made this point earlier — that this is not a committee of government. It is not a committee of the minister. It is a committee of the Legislature, appointed by the Legislative Assembly and accountable to the Legislative Assembly.

           We need to operate on our own authority, not on the good graces of the minister, and be able to operate independently. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't — and, hopefully, will — cooperate fully with the minister on these issues and work closely with his officials. I would hope that would be the case, but the independence of the committee as a committee of the Legislature is critical. We need to be able to bring the witnesses, to do our business as we see fit as a committee, operating as an independent entity.

           I do believe that passing this motion…. I think, as others have said, that in giving the authority to the Chair…. Hopefully, the Chair doesn't have to exercise that authority, but it's in his hand, then, to use the tool if he needs it. I would be very hopeful that the officials we're talking about, as Ron has pointed out, will be coming most willingly of their own accord and giving us full and complete answers to the questions that we have.

           I do think that we need to assert the independence and authority of this committee. If that means saying that we will get the people before us that we deem appropriate, then that's what we need to do. I have no qualms about passing this resolution.

           R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Speaking to the motion, I'd just like to review that, once again, we did have the discussion, in talking to Scott's motion…. We did have the review in February from all the people involved in setting up and enforcing the regulations. We had the opportunity to question them specifically.

           Subsequent to that, we have had informal discussions with the Chair regarding more specifics. We were of differing opinions. I take the point well that if we want to do investigations with the officer in the field, that would be a possibility. I didn't really get a lot of push-back on that. I think it's one thing to learn a thing in front of a panel; it's another to look at what they're doing and understand what they're doing while they're doing it.

           I don't want to brush aside any concerns that there might be attempts to hide things or cover up things. That can easily be handled in the field. People can explain what they're doing privately before we do it and go out in the field. You learn more by hands on than not.

           However, I do accept — perhaps this is a discussion that we should have had in February, and we didn't do it — that we need to do this. Certainly, the point was made very clear to us by the people that the regulations in the '90s were hopelessly inadequate. I think we all knew that, that there were virtually no regulations. The regulations now in place are considerable, severe — monitoring the bottom, and so on and so forth. They are tighter than they've ever been.

           Now, yes, we need to go and look in the field. I think that's what we'll do, and I think the committee also has to appreciate that this is probably the busier season. As the weather warms and they become more active, fishing officers are busier. However, the minister's made it perfectly clear that it isn't a question of unwillingness. They're really willing to cooperate, and they will cooperate to whatever extent this committee needs to do that. We have the minister's assurance in writing on that.

           I don't think this is necessary. I don't think it's any more than…. This meeting was called at great haste. We all had other conflicting meetings. I'm sorry I was late. I had to come from one to another on very short notice.

[ Page 64 ]

           I think that it won't really be required, frankly. I think this has been a bit overdone. They'll be there. The minister has assured that they'll be there.

[1245]

           I agree with all the committee's concerns. It's absolutely critical. It's at the core of what we're doing to understand fully all the specific intricacies of the regulation process. That is a very, very critical aspect. We need to know it inside and out. We need to know it backwards and forwards so we can recite it verbatim in great detail. It's certainly our intention to have what ever resources made available to us to answer those questions.

           R. Austin (Chair): I'd like to call the question. Time has been waived.

           Motion approved on the following division:

           R. Austin (Chair): I will circulate the agenda for our meeting in June. I will speak to the minister and, hopefully, will not have to use the summons but if necessary will do so.

           Motion to adjourn?

           The committee adjourned at 12:47 p.m.

[ Return to: Sustainable Aquaculture Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2006: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada