[ Page 7199 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Events in China. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 7199

Mr. Harcourt

Employee Investment Act (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 7200

Oral Questions

New Westminster pool incident. Mr. Rose –– 7200

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 7200

Mr. Harcourt

Japanese trip of Education minister. Ms. A. Hagen –– 7201

SAFER program changes. Ms. A. Hagen –– 7202

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7203

Mr. Sihota

Mr. B.R. Smith

Third reading

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. smith) –– 7205

Mr. Lovick

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7208

Mr. B.R. Smith

Third reading Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Committee stage

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7208

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7214

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. De Jong

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Jones

Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill PR404). Mr. Rabbitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7229

Appendix –– 7230

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today Mr. Garrey Carruthers, the Governor of New Mexico. Governor Carruthers is here with 123 New Mexico roadrunner amigos. They are goodwill ambassadors representing the non-profit, non-partisan organization of New Mexico. They are selected as distinguished civic, business, industrial and professional leaders throughout New Mexico.

It's certainly been my pleasure to spend a few minutes at lunch with the 123 amigos and see the enthusiasm and dedication that these people have towards the product called New Mexico. The Governor tells me the second choice they now have in the world is going to be British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, a proud guest: Gov. Garrey Carruthers.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, a former colleague here as an executive assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and now an official with IWA Local 1-217. I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Don Jantzen.

HON. J. JANSEN: Visiting Victoria and in the precincts today is His Excellency Dr. Kurt Herndl, Ambassador of Austria to Canada. He is here with his wife and Mr. Harwalik, who is the Austrian trade commissioner from Vancouver. Would you please make them welcome.

We also have three legislative interns here from Oregon State. They have been here since Sunday and will be leaving on Wednesday. They are accompanied by an academic adviser, Dr. Marko Haggard. The three interns are: Roman Lupinek, Julie Jacobs and Eva Seydel. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: There are 60 grade 7 students and eight adults from Cedar Drive Elementary School, with Mr. Foulkes, their teacher. They arrived at 2 o'clock and the other half will be here at 2:30. Would you please welcome them.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, all members in this House are served in their constituencies by constituency assistants. They all serve with dedication, they serve on the front lines, and none of us could do without them. Today in your gallery are Social Credit constituency assistants from all over this province. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Today I have a friend in from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet and the little gem of Lillooet. Balwant Sanghera is a teacher and a coordinator for the special services of School District 29, which is the Lillooet School District. Bal also serves as an alderman on the village council and does an extremely good job. I would like the House to give him a very warm welcome today.

MRS. McCARTHY: I'm pleased to welcome to the House, and ask all members to join me in welcoming, two visitors from Vancouver, Lynn Upton and Ed Kisling.

Ministerial Statement

EVENTS IN CHINA

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Premier, who cannot be here today, has asked me to speak on an issue of global importance. It is also an issue which deeply affects many thousands of residents of British Columbia.

I'm sure all of us in this chamber today shared the horror as we learned over the weekend of events in Beijing, China. The violent deaths of many hundreds of students in Tiananmen Square was shocking, horrible and beyond the comprehension of those of us who believe in the rights of individuals to express their desire for greater democracy without threat of violent repudiation. The direct impact of events in Beijing is many thousands of miles away. However, the indirect impact touches many thousands of our Chinese British Columbians who still have both cultural and family roots in China. There are also many students today in our universities who feel the implications of the weekend much deeper.

On behalf of the Premier and this Legislature, I would like to convey our heartfelt condolences to the people in British Columbia who may have had relatives or friends affected by the actions in Beijing. Our hearts go out to them. We urge the government of Canada to protest the actions of the government of China in the strongest possible way and to ensure the safety of Canadian citizens still in that country.

MR. HARCOURT: On behalf of the New Democrat members of this Legislature, I would like to say that we heartily concur with the statements made by the government House Leader. The brutal murders that have occurred make a sad day for the world community. These were students expressing their very strongly held beliefs in the best tradition of peaceful protest. To have students who were peaceably dissenting from their regime brutally murdered is indeed a sad day for the world community. The students were practising in the great tradition of Martin Luther King, of Gandhi.

We as democrats, all of us in this Legislature, support that yearning for democracy, for the very basic rights that we sometimes take for granted: the right of free speech, the right to assemble, the right to have freedom of the press, and freedom from corruption of government officials. Those basic rights we can all agree with.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we express our solidarity with and support for the students who have come to study at our fine educational institutions here in British Columbia. I think those students can see from

[ Page 7200 ]

the members of our caucus and of this Legislature who have been there with them that all British Columbians are democrats. Those very basic concepts of justice and freedom — again, sometimes they don't seem real until something like this happens — are real, and they will prevail.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the statements. I want to welcome to the House, on behalf of all of us, a number of Chinese students from the University of Victoria who are in the gallery today. I hope I pronounce their names right: Xing Hua Pu, Shijian Chu, Shuguong Kang, Jinsong Liu, Zhihui Wang, Ning Shi, Mr. Gao, Jim McNaught, Jie Chen, Jianxun Li and Mr. Li.

On behalf of the House, I want to make it clear that they're welcome not only here but also in British Columbia as long as they wish or need to stay in our country.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employee Investment Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The bill before you is a significant milestone on the road to a better and brighter economy for British Columbia and for Canada as a whole.

This bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various business, employee and professional groups. Two central themes emerged from these discussions: the need for more equity capital and improved relationships between employer and employee.

The Employee Investment Act is the combination of two separate initiatives. The employee share ownership plan component will facilitate direct investment by British Columbia employees in their employer's company. The employee venture capital corporation component will allow British Columbia employees to pool funds in order to invest in a variety of British Columbia businesses. The incentive to individuals to invest will be a provincial tax credit equal to 20 percent of the amount invested, up to a maximum amount of $2,000.

The federal government has also been asked to support the program, and we expect their response, in the affirmative, to arrive shortly. In addition, for both ESOPs and EVCCs, the province will share setup costs to ensure professional advice is available to employees and employers alike.

Employee participation in business ownership, which is a component of the act, seeks to encourage and can also foster an atmosphere of improved labour relations. Owning a share of an employer's company gives employees a greater feeling that they and the company share common interests. This increases motivation, commitment and loyalty to a common goal. Labour-management conflicts can be reduced if managers and employees come to see each other as partners rather than adversaries.

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

Oral Questions

NEW WESTMINSTER POOL INCIDENT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise with the Minister of Health a very serious matter concerning public safety. I wonder if the Minister of Health can explain why a resident of Coquitlam's Forensic Psychiatric Institute, classified as criminally insane, was permitted to visit New Westminster's Canada Games pool with no visible escort during a public swimming session last Saturday.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the incident. I will take it on notice and get the information back to the member,

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also investigate how it was that the perpetrator of a vicious sexual attack on a young mother and her two children a year ago or less was allowed to visit a facility frequented by women and young children?

HON. MR. DUECK: What the member opposite refers to are very serious allegations, and I certainly don't take them lightly. I will certainly investigate, and I will get back with a full report to him.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Crown Lands. We showed last week that a bid on the Westwood lands from Westwood Plateau Development Corp. offered 50 percent profit-sharing and a base backup amount. Would the minister confirm that offers were received that would have provided an even bigger share of the profits?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Well, first of all, let me say that there were 18 proposals –– 18 very different proposals, 18 proposals that do vary in a large degree. All of these proposals were well prepared; some of them were with participation. But if you look at present-day values and at the risk involved, you'll see that we did accept the best possible offer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister confirm that there were at least two offers that indicated 75 percent profit-sharing?

[ Page 7201 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'd like to ask the hon. member opposite: what about the losses?

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister confirms, then, that there were at least two. Were there more than two, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let me just repeat it. With the all-cash Wesbild offer — or proposal — we have absolutely no risk after closing. BCEC or its successor will not be reliant on the success of the development to receive its full share. There will be no requirement for Crown Lands to set up any kind of monitoring device. Newspaper articles that BCEC would receive $68 million plus a bonus are absolutely unfounded.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister table with the House all the offers and his present value analyses?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I would remind the member opposite.... I'm sure he doesn't need any reminding, since he was in the planning department and so on. He's got a history of development. I don't really have to remind him that those proposals were paid for by the people who submitted bids and are the property of the people who submitted the proposals.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Crown Lands, who seems to have a credibility problem on this issue. Doesn't the minister feel that his government has an obligation to prove to British Columbians that he got the best deal, by tabling in this House all the bids on Westwood?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I guess there's a philosophical difference here, which is obvious. I have to remind the House of what I said the other day. I'm hearing mixed messages from over there, because basically, I believe, they would like to see us in the development business. When I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the Rafe Mair show — as I said the other day, and I will repeat again today — he said that he'd make land available to developers and let them solve the housing situation. So again, I'm not sure what the problem is.

MR. HARCOURT: We have the minister admitting that this is another Socred secret deal. Doesn't the minister understand that the confidentiality requirement imposed on those bids is inconsistent with open government as practised everywhere else in this country and this world?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly resent the implication that there was anything secretive about this whole proposal. The only thing that was secretive, apparently, was the time from December 14, when we asked for proposals, until the NDP finally found out about it on January 10 and asked for a proposal package. We went out to the public; we advertised; we sent out 70 packages. One, I might add, was free to the NDP caucus for their research. We received 18 proposals back, and those proposals are the property of the bidders.

MR. HARCOURT: Isn't it true that the requirement isn't because you're respecting the confidentiality of the bidders; the requirement is this government's privatization plan, which requires that these be kept secret? It's not the bidders; it's your plan for privatization.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Negative, negative. There is nothing secretive about this whole process that we've gone through. We went out in public, we asked for proposals, we got proposals. We are not a secretive government. It's totally aboveboard and honest.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister of Crown Lands advise the House of any other jurisdiction in Canada which is selling 1,400 acres of highly valuable urban land for which they would not table all the bids?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I know of no other jurisdiction that would reveal someone else's property.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, having these people manage the Crown lands of British Columbia is like having Dracula manage the blood bank.

JAPANESE TRIP OF EDUCATION MINISTER

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to welcome back to this House the Minister of Education, who has been absent for a couple of weeks on a journey to Japan, a journey about which there has been no public announcement. As my welcoming question to the minister, I would like to ask him to advise this House what public business he was conducting during the time he was absent from this House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We will be preparing a full report. I can assure the member that any absences I have from this House are working absences. We were on an education mission to Japan; we made many contacts. We responded to a great deal of interest in locating schools and education in this province, and I think the trip was well worthwhile.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think I heard the minister say he made a great deal of progress in locating schools for this province. Could he please clarify.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If I could perhaps suggest that the member listen louder.... I said that we had made a great deal of progress in acknowledging or finding the interest in the Japanese people who want to locate schools, who want to internationalize their education program, who want to work with us in the development of their English language progress and of Japanese language teaching in British Columbia schools.

[ Page 7202 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Is it the intent of the minister to privatize the offering of Japanese in the schools of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. We thought we might try and privatize some of the schools in Japan.

SAFER PROGRAM CHANGES

MS. A. HAGEN: To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. In the budget, the government announced improvements to the SAFER program. Can the Minister of Social Services and Housing explain why the ministry's own seniors' counsellors were not provided with a full briefing on the changes in the SAFER program during their recent annual workshop in Kamloops?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I spoke to several of the seniors' counsellors at their conference in Kamloops on that subject, and they were told that they would have a full set of briefing notes on the changes to the SAFER program. If they haven't already got it, they will have very shortly.

MS. A. HAGEN: My second question was to ask when they might expect that information. As of Friday, no seniors' counsellor I've been able to locate in the province has any information.

Let me ask the minister a new question. The seniors' line in Victoria advises people who will now be eligible for SAFER that they may expect an application on July 4 if they call again. They're not taking any names. Is it the minister's intention to pay interest on back payments to eligible seniors who should be getting these dollars on July 1, since it will take at least two months for his ministry to process those new applications?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm pleased to inform this member, this House and the people of British Columbia that we have been able to expand on a marvellous program that was brought in by this government many years ago — the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program. We have expanded SAFER now to include everyone 60 years of age and over, so the scope has expanded to a tremendous degree.

[2:30]

As I said to the member just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, some of these new programs, when you expand them as widely as we have, take just a little bit of time to implement. I'm sure the people over 60 years of age in British Columbia will have just a little bit of patience if it takes a few more days or a couple of weeks longer to implement than that member thinks it should. Since the budget, many more people are able to take advantage of the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program.

MS. A. HAGEN: Given that 50 percent of the presently eligible population don't take advantage of SAFER because they don't know about it.... The minister's habit of hiding the program under a barrel is a discouraging one.

Could the minister please advise why, at the same time he told us the age limit would be lowered and that the ceiling would be raised, he failed to advise us that there was a major change in how the benefits would be paid, and why there is no public information at this stage about a sliding scale of a quite different range of benefits than is presently being offered? Why is that information being kept secret from the people of the province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we're very proud of the SAFER program. It's one of the leading programs in the country. When we can expand it to cover many more people — we've lowered the age from 65 down to 60 — we're the last people who want to keep it secret. In fact, I don't know of any seniors who don't know about the program. If the member knows of some, then would she please furnish us with some names, and we'll make sure we get the information to them.

We're constantly reviewing the program, making it better, changing it, and when we do implement something like an expanded SAFER program, we try as diligently as possible to make it as good as we possibly can. It is already the finest program of its kind in the country, and it's getting better all the time.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order relating back to the statements that the government House Leader and I made earlier on the events that have occurred in China, I would like to ask the House to stay the normal rules that apply to motions and have us place our remarks in a stronger context. To that end, I have put forward a proposal, which I think both sides of this House can agree to, that expresses in strong terms our feelings on this matter.

The motion would be that this House express its condemnation of the Chinese authorities' massacre of unarmed students and civilians engaged in peaceable assembly for greater democratic freedoms; further, that this House encourage the government of Canada to allow Chinese students at Canadian universities to extend their stay in our country until such time as their personal safety can be assured; and that this assembly recognize the freedom of Chinese students and Canadians to freely assemble, speak and protest against the brutal action of the Chinese authorities.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, one, of course, could not argue with the thoughts of the Leader of the Opposition. I think they were well conveyed in our opening statement, where I urged the government of Canada to protest the actions of the government of China in the strongest possible way and to ensure the safety of Canadians. I think it goes without saying that we all feel very strongly about this. But we must also remember that international relations are in the purview of the federal government. So I think it is strong enough when both

[ Page 7203 ]

sides of this House urge the government of Canada to protest in the strongest possible way.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition knows that procedurally his motion is out of order, no matter how much merit there may be to the case.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 23.

SUPREME COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. SIHOTA: I have just a quick question here. The interpretation of this is fairly short. I'm just wondering what the reason for that was. The stuff that you would see in the other Supreme Court Act definition of "action" and "defendant" and so on is not in here. Perhaps the minister could explain to me why that was done.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The language that the member refers to isn't used anywhere in the act, so it isn't necessary for it to be in the definition section. But the meaning of it is in the rules.

MR. SIHOTA: I have another question. It may be better if I just raise it now in the interpretation section, instead of raising it later on when we get to section 12. I'm not too sure if it's within the rules for me to raise it now.

I have no problem with the word "master" being in the definition section. I'm wondering if the government had given consideration to a more neutral term. "Master" certainly has male connotations to it, and it would seem to me that in this day and age it might be appropriate for the government to consider a different word to describe that job. I am not asking for the minister to come up with a word off the top of his head; something like "officer" had crossed my mind. I don't know if that's even appropriate, because I know it's used in some other connotations.

It seems to me that he would be well guided to consider a different word for that function. I just wonder what the minister's thoughts are on that and if he would be prepared to look at some other wording while we go through this and subsequent pieces of legislation.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we looked at a whole host of names, not only in that regard but in regard to the name of the court; there was some suggestion that it ought to have a different name. We decided in relation to "masters" that it is a term that is well understood in the role and the history of our system. As well, it wouldn't import any confusion in a constitutional or jurisdictional way, so it was decided that it described the function that's going to be carried out in a meaningful way and in a way that is understood.

MR. SIHOTA: Am I correct in assuming that the Attorney-General doesn't see it as a sexist term?

HON. S.D. SMITH: You would have to explain to me how it is that kind of term. I'm obviously not on the same wavelength as you are. Perhaps if you explain to me why you think it is, I might....

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not going to get into trying to educate the Attorney-General on the floor of the House on this type of matter. It is a concern that has come to my attention; I think it's appropriate. If the Attorney-General doesn't consider it to be somewhat of a sexist term, that's fair enough. We'll get on with it.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'd be happy if you could explain to me in what way you think it takes on that attribute.

MR. ROSE: Masculine term.

MR. SIHOTA: The House Leader says it's a masculine term. Again, I don't want to get into a protracted debate, because there's other business here, but it's a point worthy of note. If the Attorney-General, to use a word someone else used over the weekend, feels so enlightened as to think that that be the case, that's fine, we'll just leave it at that.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The term is frequently used not in any gender way, but to describe someone in charge. It's used in marine matters; it's used in other matters. I don't quite follow why it imparts some other connotation.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 2.,

(a) in subsection (2) by deleting the proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) and substituting the following:

(b) an Associate Chief Justice, and

(c) 81 other judges.,

(b) in the proposed subsection (4) by deleting "the Senior Associate Chief Justice and", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "and both of the Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "and the Associate Chief Justice".]

On the amendment.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, you've not been recognizing me, and I want to just speak on this section, because I wasn't here on second reading. I think that this section is correct in keeping the name

[ Page 7204 ]

Supreme Court of British Columbia. There was a recommendation before the Hughes commission to put a new name on this court, and various examples were given of Queen's Bench and High Court and so on. I happen to be pleased that the name Supreme Court of British Columbia has been kept. It's an honourable and well-known name.

I also support the expression "master." No more should we change that expression than change the name of a noble golf tournament in Augusta. You'll forgive me for departing on this issue, because you didn't recognize me on the previous section.

What this section will do in combining the two courts is give people clarity that they are going to one superior court, and not force people to argue that maybe they should be in Supreme Court instead of the County Court. That clarity, I think, is long overdue. But it must be remembered that there are already present in the field all these judges. The judges are all there, the court is decentralized, and County Court judges will now be called Supreme Court judges.

I support this section and support the retention of the name and the new administrative procedures that are being set up to run the merged court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes for not recognizing the honourable member. It certainly wasn't intentional.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 3., by deleting "Associate Chief Justices"

and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 4.,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "and

Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "and the

Associate Chief Justice", and

(b) by deleting the proposed subsection (2).]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 5 is apparently to be deleted. We should vote this number down. Does the Attorney want to speak to this?

[2:45]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would like to move this amendment and ask the House to amend it by deleting it, which means to vote "no."

MR. SIHOTA: I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us why he had to delete this. I'm not sure why it was necessary in the first place, but why was it deleted?

HON. S.D. SMITH: This section appeared in the predecessor legislation and was recommended to be placed in this legislation by two former chief justices of this court. Subsequent consultation with the members of that bench drew us to the conclusion that it was indeed unnecessary, and I agreed to delete it.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Indeed it should be removed, because it's an unnecessary disciplinary slap in the face which isn't required. You send people to Coventry without sending them to conferences, and there's ample means for someone running a court to ensure that upgrading and skills are maintained without having a section like this, which is unnecessarily heavy-handed.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would just like to place on the record that this section has nothing to do with disciplinary matters. In fact, it was placed in the former legislation at the request of the court, because at one time it was not possible to get reimbursed for expenses to go to conferences that were put on by the judiciary without this enabling piece of legislation. It was necessary to bring that in so that they could be reimbursed. I gather that it is no longer needed because of the changes that have occurred.

Section 5 negatived.

On section 6.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 6., by deleting "Senior Associate Chief Justice, ".]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

On section 7.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 7., in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "within 12 weeks".]

Amendment approved. Section 7 as amended approved. Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7205 ]

On section 12.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 12., by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) A master shall be a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure if this is the time to raise it; there may be another place in Bill 24 to do so, but because this section is called "vexatious proceedings...."

HON. S.D. SMITH: Speak up; I can't hear you.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry. I'm not too sure if this is the section to raise it, Mr. Chairman; it might be more appropriate to raise it in the context of Bill 24 later on. I will raise it here, and if there is a problem with it, I will try raising it later on.

There is a provision, of course — if a person doesn't have adequate means to pay for costs — which allows them to waive the costs. Rules for that haven't been developed with any level of clarity, in my view. I am just wondering why that matter was not dealt with other than — well, I'll ask it in this legislation — in this type of section.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I am assuming the question is: why wasn't this issue dealt with by way of costs, rather than this way? There are, I think, some people to whom the question of costs really is moot, inasmuch as if they did bring vexatious actions and proceedings, the cost would not be an impact. There are instances in the court itself, as in consultation with them.... They are desirous of this enabling authority, although I suppose inherently they may have the jurisdiction.

There are simply instances where they have found that people — very rarely, I might add — bring copious numbers of actions which seem to have no merit at all. They may have merit to the person bringing them but do not appear to have merit to virtually anyone else and certainly not to the courts This simply enables them to deal with those kinds of circumstances, rather than to try and do it through costs, when costs probably would have no impact -particularly if they are impecunious.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the interests of expediency, if members would indicate if they have anything in any one of these sections — there are so many — the Chair would be pleased to accommodate them.

Sections 20 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper,

[Section 49., in the proposed section 4. (3) by deleting "Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

Sections 50 to 194 inclusive approved.

On proposed section 194.1.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 194.1, by adding the following section: Social Service Tax Act

194.1 Section 14. (1) of the Social Service Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 388, is amended by striking out "or a County Court".]

Section 194.1 approved.

Sections 195 to 222 inclusive approved,

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Peterson in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 23, Supreme Court Act, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Supreme Court Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I call committee on Bill 24.

COURT RULES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 7206 ]

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: I note that under section 1, "Rules of Court," provision is made for the establishment and payment of fees and allowances. I wanted to refer specifically, under the aegis of that section, to the payment of jurors. I raise this matter here because I couldn't, frankly, find another place where I might raise it, and also because I've had a number of questions brought to my attention from my constituency concerning the rate of remuneration for jury duty. I know that the standard explanation concerning why the rate has not been significantly increased for a long period of time is that most collective agreements make provision whereby individuals on jury duty can collect their wages for the time required to do their public duty However, in cases where individuals are self-employed, let us say, being appointed to a jury — having the honour, if you like, of being called to jury duty — constitutes an onerous burden indeed.

The "Access to Justice" report that came down apparently makes no reference at all to changing the rates of compensation to be paid. My question to the Attorney is whether any thought has been given recently, or is presently being given, to this whole question of improving compensation and remuneration for jurors.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The answer is yes, we are reviewing the compensation for jurors. You're right that it is an honour. It is also a high responsibility of any citizen to undertake duty as a juror.

It doesn't directly apply to fees, but we are looking at the way in which the selection process carries on; there's evidence of the same names coming up over and over again, which poses a hardship on those individuals. It obviously means that the selection process may not be as broadly rooted as it ought to be.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer. I'm wondering, however, whether the Attorney-General might be a little more specific in terms of how long the review process might take, and when we might have a recommendation.

HON. S.D. SMITH: To be frank with you, I can't be overly specific. But it will take place over this summer, as we're doing the implementation of what is being passed here.

[3:00]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I have a good deal of reservation about section 2, and I hope that justice officials will be slow to proclaim it. While it's well motivated in trying to have an expeditious and inexpensive system for dealing with claims under $20,000, the creation of an economic litigation program may be largely for the benefit of underutilized practitioners, instead of for the benefit of people who should have access to decision-making tribunals for matters that don't involve large sums of money. Had small claims been expanded further in jurisdiction, together with some resources, I think it would have been a better approach than economic litigation.

But at least it's to be done by rules and by proclamation, and there is time in the scheme of the act to see what kind of format can be proposed. It could work with a great deal of cooperation, but it's going to require cooperation by the bar. There has to be a forum where people can get into court on these minor matters without being harassed by legal argument and battered by expenses.

This may not be the route. I think an expanded people's court was a better route, but since it's in here, I hope there will be caution in the proclamation and a great deal of care in the rules before the experiment is embarked on.

HON. S.D. SMITH: The implementation committee that has been assisting this process is comprised of members of the bench and the bar, as well as the CBA and the Law Society. The rules committee has been doing a very good job and has moved some ways forward in developing the rules that will assist the implementation of this.

The small-claims jurisdiction was moved up a couple of years ago from $2,000 to $3,000. At that time there was some concern expressed about the possible constitutional limits, and that is why it did not go to $5,000 at that time. We will review the limitations in the small-claims jurisdiction over the next couple of years. We don't want to move rapidly, because we don't want to change the character of the court. There is, in fact, an access problem for individuals in this monetary amount. It is something that properly should be addressed, and this program will go some distance in addressing it. I strongly support it and its early implementation.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Indeed, it was not constitutional arguments that stopped the expansion of jurisdiction; it was waiting for the conclusion of the Justice Reform Committee that held it up. The intention a year ago was to greatly expand small-claims jurisdiction into a people's court, but to do that in the face of an inquiry around the province did not seem appropriate in terms of timing.

Again I say — haste or no haste — the experiment has to be carefully monitored to ensure that it's for the benefit of litigants who need ready, inexpensive access and a simplified procedure. That's going to be the test of the bar, if that can work. I hope it can.

I still think small-claims expansion is going to be required and is going to be a better route. I'll speak briefly on that when we get to the Small Claim Act.

MR. SIHOTA: This section is a concept that I like. I said that in second reading debate on this piece of legislation.

[ Page 7207 ]

I think the Attorney-General is correct that there are a number of cases whose monetary amounts are around $20,000 and that simply don't get heard. It's not economical from a cost-benefit point of view for a lot of people to take them to court. The provision of expeditious rules will try to keep those court costs down and make it a better cost-benefit decision on the part of people who take it to court.

Secondly, it may encourage some people to do it alone. Although that argument applies as well for small claims, I'm not convinced that people with $15,000 or $20,000 worth of litigation are going to want to do it alone. Nor do I think that in a lot of personal injury cases, where the amount is below $20,000, will economical litigation be looked at as an appropriate route. I can't see the insurance corporation wanting to forgo some of the discovery processes; nor do I look at plaintiffs' counsel wanting to forgo some of the benefits of the mechanisms that exist now. So in principle I really like what has been recommended here in terms of economical litigation.

There is one very serious problem with what's being proposed here in section 2 of Bill 24. As I said at the outset, it's in many ways a fairly significant — some would call it almost radical — change in the way we dispense justice, at least for monetary amounts of $20,000 or less. Everything in this legislation is deemed to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who will then make the rules, and off we go. I would have preferred some other process which would have allowed us to consider these matters in this chamber before the implementation of rules and before the imposition of those rules on the bar. In other words, leave it up to the consultative process that I'm sure the Attorney-General has with all members of the bar, draft a set of rules and bring them to the House in the form of separate legislation, known as economical litigation legislation, and allow us to go through the process that we do here to canvass the pros and cons of what's being proposed and whether or not it can achieve the goal that the Attorney-General, and all of us, would like to see in this regard.

As I said during second reading, it's going to require some very careful drafting of the rules to make it worth one's while to engage in economical litigation and to bypass the traditional protections and opportunities that people have with respect to litigation right now. I really do regret that it is going to be done by order-in-council and not come before the House for appropriate debate. We're not just making technical rules when we talk about economical litigation; we're really changing the way we dispense justice in this jurisdictional amount. I thought it would have been far more appropriate if it had been dealt with that way rather than through the regulatory process as envisioned here in section 2. That's my only real reservation: one of process,

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm really functioning from memory here, on rules for money in court. I believe — and I stand to be corrected on this — that the previous legislation allowed for money in court to be developed in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That doesn't appear to be here. As I say, I'm functioning from memory, and I could even be wrong in what I'm saying. Could the Attorney-General just clarify, first of all, whether I'm right in my recollection; and, if so, explain why we have gone this route as opposed to that?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll have it checked, but it's my recollection that this comes right out of the former act, as is.

Mr. Chairman, maybe we could go on to the next ones, and I could get the answer to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, if everybody is in agreement we'll stand this down and proceed.

On section 4.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to say I'm very pleased to see this section in there. I know it's going to give fits to some lawyers who are involved in commercial matters, but I think it's an appropriate role and one that's welcome and overdue. I think the government must be applauded for having come through with this provision.

Section 4 approved.

On section 3.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Section 3 is virtually identical. There's a little plain language initiative going on there. I see "keeping of accounts for money in court" used to be "keeping of books of account for money in court." But that seems to be the only change to this section.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 5 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 24, Court Rules Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 25.

[ Page 7208 ]

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this bill is a great improvement over what we had before, in terms of both scheme and language. There is even a shred of purpose in the bill. Rarely in legislation do you have language such as "proceedings concluded in a just, speedy, inexpensive and simple manner." I hope that language will act as a guide and will be the governing factor that Provincial Court judges sitting in small claims court will follow when they come to deal with the litigants before them.

Again, very much will depend on the rules that are drafted under the Court Rules Act. Those rules have to be kept very simple and understandable, so that it doesn't require a litigation department to tell you what they mean. It's got to be possible for people actually to get into this court; it's got to become a people's court. It's not going to become a people's court unless we have some really good, streamlined, workable, simple rules.

It would have been better to have extended the jurisdiction of this court to $10,000, something that could have been done constitutionally, I believe, with the abolition of the County Court. When the province of Quebec eliminated its County Court and merged it with the Supreme Court many years ago, it then extended the jurisdiction of its provincial civil court considerably beyond the bounds of any other province. I think that would be upheld by the courts. I believe that the jurisdiction of this court will have to be increased in the years ahead, and it probably should go to $10,000.

It may well be that if we're going to make it a true people's court, we’re going to have to look, in urban centres where's there's heavy volume of civil court work, at having available some kind of civil court counsellors to help laymen find their way through these proceedings. I don't think that would have to be an extensive bureaucracy, but it would be of assistance. Right now organizations like the People's Law School and others do a great job of providing guides to people for how to go through these sorts of proceedings. But if the rules are done properly and do not simply become some kind of permutation of the old "white book, " requiring a great deal of legal background to understand, then we may actually be able to truly move people through a people's court.

Sections 2 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 17., by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) In accordance with the directions of the Chief Judge, a registrar of the Provincial Court may give a direction respecting the practice or procedure to be followed by the parties in a proceeding under this Act or the rules.]

[3:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 19., by deleting the proposed subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) The Provincial Court shall not order that one party in a proceeding under this Act or the rules pay counsel or solicitor's fees to another party to the proceeding.]

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 46 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Small Claims Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Small Claims Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 26.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7209 ]

On section 7.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 7., in the proposed section 4.(3) by deleting "Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 8., in the proposed section 18.(1.1) by adding at the end "and the justice may make any other order to preserve the rights of the parties pending further proceedings".]

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe the Attorney-General can explain here what the effect of the amendment is.

HON. S.D. SMITH: This enables the Court of Appeal to stay an order where there is an action required or to take any other proceedings that they might consider to be appropriate when there is a pending appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; in other words, to preserve the position of the parties if the matter is then going to be appealed.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. SIHOTA: I just think it's a good section and I think it's peculiar that we didn't have this kind of provision in here before. Having practised in front of tribunals, I think it is very appropriate.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm just wondering what the thinking is here. I can appreciate that — if I understand the section correctly — 24 hours before a report is to be given would always invite an application for an adjournment, but 30 days before a report is to be given seems to me to be quite a lengthy period of time. I am just wondering what the considerations were in arriving at 30 days. It would, in some ways, I guess, force people to wait a little bit longer than one would think necessary for these types of matters in terms of investigative reports of family matters. I'm wondering what the consideration was to arrive at 30 days. What was that based on?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The report of the Justice Reform Committee actually recommended a substantially longer time, so this was a compromise — for all of the reasons that the member articulated. It was considered that this was sufficiently long, not to provide an opportunity for there to be settlement but it wouldn't provide the kind of onerous activity that takes place — adjournments and so on that you are talking about — with 24 hours. It was simply a compromise off the 60-day proposal. It was a compromise brought about by all the people involved in the implementation group — the courts and the bar and particularly the family bar. Their collective wisdom was that that period of time, on balance, was about the right amount.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm surprised at that. I must confess, I didn't do a lot of family work, but I have to say that 30 days seems to me still rather long under the circumstances. We are taking about some fairly critical matters here and my attitude is: let's get on with it and deal with these types of matters fairly quickly. I just think that 30 days is too long. I can't see why you would have set anything longer than 15 days, and then force the parties to get their reports in, and everyone knows where they stand, and litigate the thing if it's going to get litigated. If it's 30 days, people are going to talk serious on days 27, 28 and 29. If it's 15, they might talk serious on days 13 and 14 and force resolution on some of these situations or at least expedite litigation of it.

I guess I say that for the record, because I'm sure the Attorney-General — after his consultative process — is not going to be open to an amendment. But I really do think that 30 days is still too much when you're looking at the types of issues that are at stake here. I would have liked to have seen that period halved. Certainly 24 hours doesn't make any sense, but 30 days, I think, is still too far along the spectrum towards the other side of this.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to endorse section 17. It's very proper that this type of injunctive remedy exists and be provided for. Again, I have limited experience with family matters, but certainly in dealing with property and family matters these types of orders are always handy. On the cases I have dealt with, I would have liked to have had this type of remedy. It's overdue and welcome.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, on a positive vein, I think this is a good section. It will be very interesting to see

[ Page 7210 ]

how this one works out over time and to monitor its interpretation, particularly as it relates to the usage of "grossly unfair" together with the extent of leeway the court gives in terms of the applicant's explanation. I think it's a good section, and hopefully the courts have gotten the message with respect to cancellation or reduction of arrears and how that ought not to be done as lightly as it has been in the past. By escalating the test, maybe the message will now be clear to the courts that this is not something that we would like to see as a Legislature go on in the fashion that it has in the past. I think, again, the government should be commended for bringing forward this section.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm beginning to sound repetitious. Everyone will believe I agree with the Attorney-General on a lot of these matters, and it's true. Again, I think this section is long overdue. I'm certainly glad to see this is here now.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I think this is a good drafting in terms of this section and the articulation of the rules in subsection 71.1(2). The provision in 71.1(3) that deals with the agreement and, I believe, with the matters of hourly rates is welcome to the consumer of legal services. First of all, I like the way this is drafted. I'm glad to see it's included. It opens it up to an area of review that to date has been not open and should be. People hold themselves out to be specialized in particular areas, not being as skilled as people have been led to believe and, hence, it allows for some variation of the hourly rate. I think this section is commendable.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I would like at this juncture to point out that this section is in this bill with the active participation and consultative concurrence of the Law Society of British Columbia. I say that because frequently I think it is the case that there is a kind of cynical view of what lawyers charge and how they charge it.

I would like to commend the profession for putting this kind of review process with the goalposts for review embedded in a piece of legislation and to invite other professions in this province — accountants, engineers, architects and physicians to the extent that they provide billable services outside the medical plan, such as medical-legal reports, and all other professionals — to incorporate within their own processes an independent review procedure that sets out in advance what the goalposts for review are. This is good, progressive stuff, and other professions ought to stand up to the plate and emulate it.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. SIHOTA: Unlike the other sections, I don't think it comes as a big surprise to the Attorney-General that I'm not enamoured with what's being proposed here, contingent-fee agreements. Let's make it very clear off the top that this is an area where I practise and have practised a lot. In fact, basically the entirety of my practice is personal injury litigation, and contingency-fee arrangements with clients are par for the course. I want to put that right up front so people know what my feelings are or what my biases may be.

[3:30]

Having said that, I don't understand why we have to move into an area of regulation that. ... The old adage is that if it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. There are very few, if any, complaints to the Law Society with respect to contingency-fee arrangements. On the whole, I think the public is well served by those arrangements. The public has protections now, and we're all told that we must bring to the consumer's attention the protections that exist for them now with respect to review of these types of agreements.

I don't think that a section should be injected into legislation that will allow for the benchers to make rules on contingency agreements, because there is no problem there. I understand that it is a permissive section, but I also understand that some dialogue is already ongoing with respect to the Law Society drafting appropriate rules that are not that far away from what is in the Hughes report.

I just think that that's unfortunate. It's not necessary. The record very clearly indicates that it's not necessary. I know that the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made some comments with respect to the amount of income that lawyers can earn, but I think it's oblivious to the fact that they're open to review. The grass always looks greener on the other side. Until people actually begin to realize how much work is involved on what may appear on the face of it to be a rather routine personal injury claim, it's very easy to be critical.

The arrangements work very, very well. I just don't see any reason whatsoever to intrude. I'm very annoyed that this provision is injected into this legislation. It is simply not necessary. The Attorney-General had representations along those lines — I've seen those representations — and obviously there has been some type of compromise to reflect it this way. There isn't a problem there, and I would defy anybody to produce statistics that would show that it's a problem. As I said at the outset, I've done a lot of work in this area and not once have I had a client come back to me. I've had clients come back to me on other areas and complain, but not once have I had a client come back and complain about work performed under these types of arrangements where there's a percentage arrangement between a lawyer and counsel. I've had a lot of people come to me from

[ Page 7211 ]

other counsel, and never have I seen a contingency fee or percentage agreement that has been out of the norm. Most counsel know what the market will bear and operate within those parameters.

It's therefore unnecessary for this section to be in, and although I can commend other provisions, I simple can't commend this one from being introduced in the justice reform package.

HON. S.D. SMITH: My concern here is that we have a provision that enables the Law Society.... The Law Society, after all, is charged with the responsibility to regulate the legal profession, and I believe they should. This is enabling them to do just that. The benchers have agreed with this provision that it be here so that they can do what it is they're preparing, which is something that has been a debate for them for some time, since the Bert Schmitt committee report a number of years ago which addressed the same problem.

There are very few problems. Where there are problems is the size of contingent arrangements in some very large sums where liability is not particularly, if at all, at issue. This simply provides a mechanism for the Law Society to deal with matters which are anomalous, and which always get referred to — and cause concern and difficulty for — the rest of the overwhelming number of members of the profession including, I dare say, the member opposite from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who conducts himself in a way that doesn't give rise to those problems.

I think the Law Society is doing the right thing in providing the rules they need to deal with issues, and this enabling legislation is appropriate to give them that authority.

MR. SIHOTA: The Law Society may be doing it because it may not have any choice.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I don't think they have any other effective choice. The word is out that either they do it themselves by way of regulation, or it will be done to them by way of enactment, and that really isn't much of a choice.

Obviously there are lots of cases where liability is not at issue, and you're simply dealing with the medical aspects of an injury. In fact, I would say the vast majority of cases that I have done on a contingency basis are along those lines. Very few of them are million dollar cases, and I think the assumption that underlies all this is that there are a lot of those cases around. That is simply not true.

Because of some concern that would assume that there are more million dollar cases around than there really are, we now have to introduce rules that are going to be imposed upon all the people who practise in this area, or who practise by way of contingency agreements. You've got very few — if any — problems; you've got very few cases that fall into the range that the Attorney-General and the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was thinking of, yet we have rules that are going to apply to everybody.

I just don't think that's the way you operate. If you've got a problem with those few cases where there is a large award, then you may want to deal with that. But the rules, as I understand them as they are being drafted, go well beyond that and talk about compensation — $100,000 and then up — and a sliding scale that works as you go from there.

I don't think there is any need to regulate those lower-end cases. If you want to regulate on the upper end, I might have a different attitude about that. Even then, I don't like it, because the consumer has protection. The individual who signs a 40 percent — if there is such a thing — contingency fee agreement on a million dollar case has an option to have that agreement reviewed. It can be held that the agreement is not binding.

In fact, we just passed some rules that would allow a greater examination of those types of agreements. Those agreements don't exist — not to my knowledge. But there is an image and a perception that they exist. The Attorney-General is right: most people who practise in this area and in this profession do it honourably and provide a very good service, and they are prepared to have their service reviewed and to account for the actions that they have taken. That's all that's necessary.

But the imposition, because of a perception of a few cases involving inordinately high awards, does not warrant rules imposed upon everybody. It's a mistake, and it's not going to go over well — nor has it gone over well — with the people who practise in the area. Everybody knows that at the end of the day the buck stops here in the Legislature with the Attorney-General. You know where all the numbers are, so it's a fait accompli as to whether this section should pass.

I think you're wrong; it's unnecessary and it's peculiar. Here I am arguing to let the market decide on this one, but it has worked very well. If it hadn't, I'd be the first person — in terms of some of the other positions I've taken on consumer-related issues — to stand up and say: "Yes, this is an area that needs regulation." This is not an area where the consumer in any way has been victimized. I think that the bullet that you've bitten on this one is the wrong bullet to bite.

Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

MR. SIHOTA: This provision establishes an adjudicator, who is akin to — or now replaces — a Provincial Court judge. First of all, am I correct in that assumption?

HON. S.D. SMITH: This provision is one which we've had operating experimentally for about ten years in the city of Kamloops. What will be called the adjudicator has been called a sitting justice of the peace. It provides another vehicle, a relatively inex-

[ Page 7212 ]

pensive vehicle, a very expeditious way in which municipal bylaws — and some traffic ones, for that matter — can be heard. They're very flexible in terms of the sitting times and locations. They frequently sit in the chambers of the municipal hall and so on. It's a very good and sound way of doing it. I know municipalities in the Okanagan were also interested in getting this.

So the general answer to your question is yes.

MR. SIHOTA: I have no problem with what's being suggested here. It expedites the matter and allows people to deal with the situation. There are some pros and cons with all of this ticketing stuff that appears here.

I'm sure you've taken this into consideration, but it seems to me you might have some difficulty in terms of someone challenging the ability of an adjudicator to make the types of determinations which, as I understand from previous sections, will be made by these people. I guess that's always a risk, but I certainly see that risk here, perhaps more than in other sections. I guess we'll wait to see whether or not the government finds itself being litigated on the powers and appointment of these people.

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I say, we've had this in the province for ten years now, and it's worked successfully. To my knowledge it hasn't been challenged, but I dare say that in this post-Charter era in Canada, when one legislates one simply knows that any piece of legislation may be challenged, and doubtless at some point it will.

Sections 40 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 48.,

(a) in the proposed section 2.(2) by deleting paragraphs (b) and (c) and substituting the following: (b) an Associate Chief Justice, and (c) 36 other judges. , and,

(b) in the proposed section 2.(2.1) by deleting "the Senior Associate Chief Justice and", and

(c) in the proposed section 2.(2.2.) by deleting "both of the Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "the Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

On section 49.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 49.,

(a) in the proposed section 4.(1) by deleting "Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice", and

(b) by deleting the proposed section 4.(2).]

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

On section 50.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 50., in the proposed section 15. by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) A master shall be a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.]

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

On section 53.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm really having some difficulty with this one. First of all, can the Attorney-General generally describe the scheme to me? Am I correct that you're simply going to be paying a 15 percent surcharge on top of a fine that exists now under the Offence Act? Is that basically how it works for provincially regulated matters?

[3:45]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA: This would be on all offences with the exception of offences committed by young people?

HON. S.D. SMITH: It's only acts that are prescribed enactments of the province. Any federal enactment such as the Young Offenders Act would not be included.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand that. I'm saying that if you're a young person as defined in the Young Offenders Act, then you don't have to pay a fine. Am I correct on that understanding of it?

HON. S.D. SMITH: As I understand it, if you're covered by the Young Offenders Act. But there are also other acts of Canada where this would not apply.

MR. SIHOTA: We'll try again. Section 11(2) says: "Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a young person as defined in the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act." Does that mean that if you're 17, for example, and you're hit with a provincial offence, you don't pay the surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH: Yes. For anyone under that Young Offenders Act of ours, where it applies — and I believe it applies virtually universally — that would be the case. There may be some instances where it doesn't apply, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

[ Page 7213 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm just trying to understand the scheme generally. I guess my concern here is that people who simply can't afford to pay fines in the first place are going to have to pay a surcharge on top of the fine. Is there any leeway in the legislation that would allow an individual, because of financial circumstances, not to pay that surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The question of their ability to pay the fine — and the surcharge, for that matter — would be raised at the time of sentencing. Beyond that, once the fine has been levied, the surcharge for victims will apply.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me clarify that: the ability to pay a fine is something a judge may or may not consider, but once having determined the ability to pay a fine, the judge has no discretion as to the ability to pay a surcharge. Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's right. The judge's discretion rests with respect to the fine. If he or she orders the fine, then it will be known to them that the fine will be surcharged by the amount prescribed.

MR. SIHOTA: I know I'm jumping to the next section, but it talks about amending section 15 by adding "not exceeding 15 percent." I take it then that a judge can't say the fine would be 10 percent or 0 percent as opposed to 15 percent. Once that number is arrived at, that's the amount of the surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH: That's right. The judge's discretion will rest with the amount of the fine. If the judge wants to exercise that discretion in the sentencing submission, then presumably he would make a decision about the size of the fine itself. Once the judge determines the size of the fine, the surcharge would apply across the board. If it's a $100 fine, it's a $15 surcharge. If it's a $50 fine, it's a $7.50 surcharge.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know how many people end up in jail simply because they can't pay fines. The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) probably knows better than I do. You see statistics quoted all the time I'm not mindful of statistics as they apply to British Columbia. I've seen statistics as they apply to some of the prairie provinces. I don't know if they extrapolate in B.C. or not.

I don't think anybody can or would dare to argue against where the money is intended to go; it's just the way in which the money is being raised. I think there should be some ability on the part of courts to direct that the surcharge not be applied. I guess what the Attorney-General is indirectly telling the courts is to consider the surcharge when considering the fine — to make your determination on the basis of that.

I have no idea whether imposing a surcharge on top of a fine is going to throw more people over the threshold level and into prison simply because they can't pay. I don't know what the numbers look like in that regard. I also have some philosophical considerations that make it difficult for me to support provision where the fine is going to be automatic. There are some practical considerations, I guess, in terms of the incentive now provided to people to make sure there are more prosecutions and, hence, more money into the fund.

I'm just not comfortable with what is being proposed here. I think there are other ways to achieve the goal, and there are other ways in which to raise money. I've long advocated the establishment of legislation that would allow the province to attach to funds in bank accounts that are procured by the drug trade, for example, and to put those funds into a victims' rights and services type of fund. That's something I think is remiss at the provincial level, and something we should actually have established in this province some time ago. That might be a way to provide the funding necessary for the type of program envisioned here which is preferable to a surcharge program. I don't know what the province intends, and I guess it's not for me to ask in this venue what your intentions are, but I would think such an approach, which could allow for attachment of those types of funds — drug money, as I guess some would call it — would be a better way of going.

What comes to mind most quickly is the case involving a bank here in British Columbia, in Vancouver — I can't remember the name of the bank off the top of my head — which was the depository for funds from a Panamanian drug trade. It was a well-documented case. There was about $180,000 sitting in British Columbia. Legislation which would allow to attach those funds to set up a victims' fund, in my view, is preferable to a percentage program where you may really be taxing those who can't afford it, first of all. Secondly, you may end up forcing someone to default and end up in jail because they can't afford to pay fines. We know that happens with great probability. And thirdly, you're developing a program where ability to pay is not a variable on the matter of the 15 percent surcharge. For those three reasons, I am not going to be able to support what's being proposed here. Perhaps more thought should go into what's being done.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, a number of issues have been raised in relation to this, and I don't think they're quite as neatly packaged in this section as it might be supposed. The issues of whether it's appropriate to levy a fine and whether people are then being incarcerated because they can't pay it I think are very important and legitimate ones. I have said many times that we have far too many people in our jails who ought not to be there — for example, if it's simply because they can't afford to pay a fine. I think the way to deal with it is to use diversion much more creatively and sensibly than we have in the past. In fact, we're undertaking ways in which we can do so.

The issue of the surcharge is really about the fine being used as society's way of imposing punishment for the commission of an act. Then we're saying that where that vehicle is being used, it's appropriate to surcharge it by 15 percent so that the money can be

[ Page 7214 ]

directed specifically for victims, so that there is a relationship in the perpetrator's mind between his action and the punishment extracted by society. In addition to that, there is something specifically targeted for victims. I don't think there's an inconsistency in that.

On the question that the member has raised with respect to the proceeds of crime, I think the member knows that Canada has passed legislation in relation to the drug matters, which allows for the proceeds from drugs to targeted back to police. I, together with my colleague the Solicitor-General, have previously informed the House — certainly I have discussed it — that we will be introducing a program to allow us to get at the bounty of crime so that the rewards that have gone for criminal behaviour will be extracted and targeted back to police so that they can catch more criminals with the criminals' own money. To the extent that there is a surplus, it will be targeted as well to victims. So what you're really talking about, member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, is either in process or about to be in process in this session.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to see that it's being considered and, as the Solicitor-General says, well in hand. If that's the case, it's good; I didn't realize that. Maybe I wasn't in the House when the government indicated its intentions in that regard, and if it was in the throne speech, I guess I missed it. I think it's appropriate. If you're going to do that and if it can be targeted towards victims as well as policing, in whatever proportion the government wants, then that's great; that's fine. The minister says it’s mainly to policing. Again, it says to me that maybe that's a better way of going than this. I guess I'm expressing my preference, that I'd rather go that way than this, and that's why I don't share the same level of comfort as the Attorney-General does with respect to section 53.

Section 53 approved on division.

Sections 54 to 57 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

[4:00]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $249,374 (continued).

MR. BARLEE: Mr. Chairman, a number of members on the government side of the House, notably the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), defended the decisions of the Environment and Land Use Committee and their increasing propensity — which I think is increasing — to overrule the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission. Perhaps I should canvass that matter again, and I think I will.

I think that no political body should be the final appeal body, and it seems that I'm not the only individual who thinks this. The individuals who comprise the ALC are acknowledged experts, and they are generally seen as such by the public. They are the defenders of the ALR. But ELUC has a slightly different reputation; people regard it with some suspicion — and I believe rightly so. Their decisions — and I mentioned a few the other day — are regarded with some suspicion. They seem to be curiously affected by political considerations. There are a number of highly respected individuals who question the impartiality, or lack of impartiality, of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

This is rather interesting. Cyril Shelford, as the minister knows, is a former Social Credit Minister of Agriculture. In the March 1989 issue of Country Life, he commented on this very thing when he said that section 13 — the appeal to cabinet — should be repealed. Then he goes on to say that if this were done, the Land Commission would be able to get away from charges of political interference. So Cyril Shelford, ex-Minister of Agriculture, makes the statement that if ELUC were done away with, these charges of political interference would probably be negated.

Any appeal body must be regarded as completely impartial; ELUC certainly doesn't fall into that category. The public regards their interference with the decisions of the ALC as political interference, and I believe that in this instance the public is very close to the mark.

Shelford — and remember that he is and was a highly respected former Social Credit Minister of Agriculture — went on to say: "So far, it has been too easy to get land out of the agricultural land reserve, and too many of the appeals to cabinet have been successful." These aren't my words; these are the words of a highly respected ex-Minister of Agriculture from this government.

[ Page 7215 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Former minister.

MR. BARLEE: That is correct, but he was a minister.

He goes on to say this: "If we are to preserve our ability as a province to produce food for our own needs 100 to 200 years from now, we as a society must make a firm decision now to protect our limited land." All I can say is that I agree with Mr. Shelford.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like an answer on this. Mr. Minister, are you satisfied with the present policy of this government of allowing an obviously partisan political body — ELUC — the right to overrule decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission, which generally has the trust of the public?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my hon. critic, I think we had a lot of dialogue relative to a former Minister of Agriculture in this government. I'd like to say, with due respect, that I sure can't speak for him, but he is certainly entitled to give his opinions.

In any procedure, no matter what, an appeal process should be allowed. Even if you deem it to be political, I think the Environment and Land Use Committee, which is a committee of cabinet, does have the right. There are several committees that review a number of government policies. I think that in this particular case, politicians, rightly or wrongly, have to be able to stand up. If you are going to be criticized, fair enough. The people vote for you to make decisions, and whether you call them political decisions, or whatever they are referred to as, I think you have to, as a politician, pass judgment at some point.

MR. BARLEE: I couldn't disagree more vehemently. I don't think a partisan political body has any business passing judgment on a commission that has a great deal of expertise and is viewed by the public as a commission with expertise and without political bias. When the court of appeal becomes a political court, then it loses the trust of the public. I believe — and I'm not the only one; there are many people within your own party ranks who believe this as well — it does not have the trust of the public.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I really feel that the minister has missed the point here, and I am disappointed in his reply. However, I will go on to something else.

Last week I stressed that the difficulties facing the tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan and Similkameen valleys are almost insurmountable. I would say that 90 to 95 percent of the growers are in severe economic difficulty; they have been for almost a decade I also emphasized that I did not believe the social contract between the growers and the government had been kept.

Here is where the minister and I differ. The growers are locked into the land, and they have kept their' part of the bargain. I do not believe the government has kept its part of the bargain. Many of these guys simply can't eke out a living. My question to the minister is this: does the Ministry of Agriculture have immediate plans to alleviate the economic difficulties facing the tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan, the Similkameen, Creston, Vancouver Island and other areas? If so, what are these plans?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: just to go back to the preamble of the first answer I gave and the subsequent remarks made by the opposition critic, let me assure you that in the issue of the mandate of the Land Commission in making decisions and responding to applications, they basically have to look at the land itself. Where you have support from communities or regional districts — for instance, for school properties or whatever; the required used of that land — the judgment generally comes down on the basis of what the condition of the land is: CLI 1, 2, 3, or whatever. The decision might be that it is good soil. It does not necessarily look into the community requirements, and often those things become an appeal to ELUC. I think that system still has to prevail.

On the other question about the Okanagan fruit growing industry, I guess I am going to reiterate basically what I said on Friday last in this assembly: we are prioritizing what has to happen in the food industry. In fact, it is the number one priority item in our ministry to try and get on with the issue of identifying how we can make the Okanagan food industry viable and competitive with the world around it.

I suppose the issue of the contract — if you like to call it that, hon. member — for farm income insurance, which is between the province and the Federation of Agriculture, and on through to the fruit-growing sector.... That contract lays out very quickly the ground rules for participation. If you recollect, in the 1987 apple crop they would have fallen far short of being able to qualify for maximum eligibility under the program. We instituted a special payment of nearly $2 million to help them overcome what would have become a terrifically drastic situation for them.

I think we did respond very positively, along with the federal government, to get an answer to the questions they had relative to whether they could survive for another year. I agree with the hon. member that we've got to look at how we respond to try and keep this industry healthy, and at how we can help them as a ministry.

MR. ROSE: The minister said in response to the question about an appeal that you pretty well have to do it the way it's done. That's where I disagree with him, because I don't think it needs to be done the way it's done forever. There isn't any magic about it. I think it leads to all kinds of suspicions about political influence of one kind or another, and I don't think that's healthy.

Whether they are justified or not, ELUC operates in the dark. They don't give reasons for their decisions; they don't have any published guidelines or principles. That's a rather vague term: community

[ Page 7216 ]

interest. That can mean the interests of a developer or the interests of a development-minded council, or a group of people or individuals who don't really care about these matters. I don't think it's a good procedure at all, and I will give you a suggestion of a better one if you want to go that route.

Under the veterans' administration — and your deputy minister will know this as well as I do — they have a pensions branch. In my time it was under a Mr. Solomon. In the same industry they have a separate appellate division, which presumably operates autonomously without any interference by politicians. We're all politicians; we all have our own biases. It's the same with unemployment insurance claimants. Even in workers' compensation you've got umpires. You even have consultants who provide information to the board or provide a separate appeal assistance and mechanism. No such system exists in the Land Commission and ELUC, and I think it should.

The only capital of a province in Canada without a CBC outlet is Victoria. Do you know why we don't have one? Because around 1972 it went to cabinet and they killed it, after the building had been built. Now CHEK 6 occupies that building. There's an example of an appeal to cabinet and how damaging it was to our broadcasting system in this capital.

I would heartily recommend that your ministry look into the possibility of other forms of appeal. It's not that there shouldn't be an appeal; there has to be As a matter of fact, I fought for an appeal mechanism in 1972 as a federal member, because if people are locked in with no appeal, then that's it. They're trapped. I would like the minister to consider avenues other than ELUC. I pointed out that it worked reasonably well for the first three years, when 70 percent of the applications were turned down There's more pressure now than ever, especially because of the economic returns to farmers; all the money they have is tied up in their land.

I think the minister would agree that if it were let go, we could blacktop the Okanagan. We only use economic considerations. Higher and better use, of course, is going to be blacktop, shopping centres, whatever. Now we're looking for a place for a racetrack. There were two of them out in Richmond, in my memory. Higher and better use will always be what brings the largest return. The assessments on Mayfair industrial park, right next to Colony Farm, are roughly $90,000 to $120,000 per acre. Colony Farm assessments are probably between $6,000 and $10,000. If you use only the economic arguments, it makes much more economic sense to make the whole of Colony Farm an industrial park. There might be a community interest to do just that in terms of assessments, but woe betide anybody who tried it.

So there are other interests that I think need to be protected, and a separate, absolutely clean independent appeal body should be developed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I respect the remarks that were made. I hope the member is aware that the ministers of state are going through a review process. I think some of the comments are probably things that have already been presented to some of them. We'll wait until those review processes are completed to see what the recommendations are, but I respect what is being said.

[4:15]

MR. ROSE: That brings to mind something else. If this means decentralizing the Agricultural Land Commission, splitting up what few people they have now and putting them into God knows how many regions, I would certainly regret that recommendation. We'll have to wait until we see them, but I put that caveat forward at this time.

MR. CLARK: I just want to make the point that there is another way of dealing with agricultural land reserve appeals than was suggested by my colleague the opposition House Leader, and that is the growing gap between the cost of agricultural land and the value of urban development. The fundamental question is that if someone can get their land removed from the land reserve — as the Premier did or as Mr. Ilich did — then the land is worth millions of dollars more. One can't blame a farmer for wanting to have his or her land removed from the land reserve. I certainly don't blame someone for trying to reap that windfall benefit, particularly in light of the fact that it's more and more difficult to make a living by farming.

It seems to me that we have to do several things. One is to improve the lot of farmers in terms of their financial return. Another way of dealing with it is to toughen up the appeal procedure. Another is to remove the windfall profit that accrues to the farmer. Does the minister have any comments in that regard?

The original proposal of the agricultural land reserve, when it was the Land Commission, was to tax away the private benefit to the farmer if he or she was successful in getting their land removed from the land reserve. In other words, if we taxed it all away, people could still have their land removed from the land reserve. They could still develop housing on it, if the Land Commission chose to allow the land to be removed from the land reserve. They could still make money on housing as a developer, but they simply would not make the dramatic windfall profit that is so tempting for farmers today.

A very simple solution to farmers moving to have their land removed from the land reserve is to take away that tremendous temptation and that dramatic windfall profit that they would receive if the land was removed. If they took that temptation away, some land would still come out — legitimate land that couldn't be farmed, but could be used for housing — but we wouldn't see the flood of applications that we are constantly faced with and the appeals to cabinet, which make it very difficult politically. We would remove that financial incentive. I wonder if the minister could comment on that approach.

[ Page 7217 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I find it somewhat appalling that you would suggest taking something away from farmers. Holy doodle, who in the world toils any harder than they do? You just said you would reduce the tax if they sold the land, and you would tax them until....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, you wouldn't want that message in the farming community, my friends. That would be the last thing they would want to hear, and it would be a mistake if you thought that the farmer should be prevented from making something. Holy doodle, you don't toil your whole life.... They have a hard enough time making a living as it is. They own a piece of land to retire with, and you want to take it away. That's not proper at all. You don't do that anywhere else. That's the last message I think you would want to get out there.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon, because I think it needs some clarification. When the Land Commission and the land reserve were actually established, they were not established because of certain needs of land for expansion to townsites, or because there had been an abuse in that regard. The basic reason why the land reserve was established was the rapid subdivision to small five-acre, two-acre, three-acre, ten-acre parcels. Large farms were cut up into smaller pieces without any reason for the subdivision, other than making a buck on the land.

I am not saying there is no room for five- or ten-acre pieces. It depends on what type of farming you are in, and for what purpose the land is intended. The Land Commission was established to police that type of thing. But it was not established to judge whether in fact a town or townsite needed expansion for growth.

The Land Commission deals with the applications — whether it is exclusion or subdivision — on the basis of its soil class, the variety of crops that can be grown, general soil capability and a number of other things related directly to the farming aspect of the land. If an application made to the ELUC is much more widely looked at - not only from an agriculture point of view or the potential loss to agriculture, but also the economic growth and the economic situation as it applies to that community.... In fact, they are consulting with the local governments as to whether the local government is really in favour of that application as well.

I don't think the members of the opposition could suggest that this government has no business trying to provide a proper economic climate in this province, which is also good for the farming community. They need to dispose of their goods and make a living. The farmers also benefit from the expansion and growth in British Columbia. From time to time there is a shortage of urban lands. It happens in our own community; it has happened in communities all through the Fraser Valley and I am sure through the Okanagan Valley too. I don't think that the intent of the agricultural land reserve was ever to stymie the economic growth of the communities in this province. So much for that.

On the whole, the farmer has no problem with being in an agricultural land reserve. In fact, the protection measures introduced in the House the other day will undoubtedly assist the farmer to better carry out his operations within a community where there may be a mix of small and large parcels. We know that some aspects of farming are not a pleasure to the neighbours, but they must be done from time to time.

I was a little concerned the other day when the critic from the other side mentioned that he felt — and he put it this way — that this government sees the agriculture industry as a sunset industry in this province. I think, if the member had studied what agriculture has done over the last few years, the many different crops that are now grown in British Columbia and the greater variety of fruits and vegetables of many kinds, surely he cannot say that this is a sunset industry.

I must commend the minister and the ministry for assisting the agriculture community by providing the information — and the economic viability — as to how these new fruits and vegetables can be grown in this province. They are grown very successfully with that assistance.

There was also a comment made by the critic of the other side. I'll read from Hansard: "I think the original social contract" — and he refers to the contract that was made in 1973 when the land reserve was instituted — "should be honoured. I know that it places a burden upon government. I know it may not be popular. I know it may not fit the marketplace. I'm saying it's worth it."

Well, I don't think any farmer within the ALR at the time of the institution of the agricultural land reserve thought of being tied into a social contract with the government. That is the last thing any farmer would want. Farmers are individuals and they're hard-working people. Surely they are not prepared to be tied into a social contract with the government.

However, at this time I would like to ask the minister a question, because it's of importance and I think the member of the opposition has also touched on this. While we are entering the free trade era — and over the next ten years we will undoubtedly see many changes as they come about under this agreement, Mr. Minister — are you contemplating anything so that the climate of this new era can be prepared for by the agricultural community?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I would say that, yes, we have gone through a number of things. I think my honourable colleague has identified under free trade that there are some adjustments that will have to be made. I think the most important thing is to work with our industry to be able to help them compete in free trade. Of course, down the road, if we look at the possibilities of GATT, when we get into the GATT

[ Page 7218 ]

rounds, which we're doing under the Uruguay round through different stages, then we globally will have to be able to compete as well. I believe that under those discussions among all the countries that are signatories to GATT, they will expect that there will be a reduction at some point of some of the subsidies.

As the hon. member also knows, under the industrial milk agreement we have a freeze or a cap on industrial prices. All that being part of an overall agreement, we hope to see somewhere down the road that we try to come to grips with the world subsidy situation. I think Canada well recognizes, albeit it is a large country geographically.... But in comparison to some of the countries, from a population point of view.... An area of very grave concern is the one of revenue generation or taxation generation. Then we will have a problem competing to match some of the subsidies that exist on a worldwide basis.

I would say to my honourable colleague that we all are working towards trying to identify areas of concern which we see as maybe problematic down the road. But we are more concerned, absolutely, with the fact of being able to advise our farmers how to compete on a level playing-field with our trading partners.

MR. DE JONG: We know that in every business, no matter which type of business it is, a certain amount of risk is attendant with that. Every business is subject to the economy, whether it's strong or weak, and competitive prices. Of course, to offset that in the farming industry, the best farm practices — up-to-date on food trends and to serve people's needs — are very essential. However, comparing the agriculture industry to other businesses, they are somewhat different. In fact, they are quite different.

[4:30]

Farming is often very dependent upon weather conditions, specifically during the growing season' but also during the off-growing season. Some of the natural causes can be disastrous to the farmer. Take last winter's freeze-out, the three days of heavy frost. It has created extreme problems for some of the farming industry, particularly the strawberry-growers in the valley. While they didn't have too successful a year last year, even with the good crop, many of the fields have been completely ruined by the three days of extreme frost last winter. Think of the raspberries; and I'm sure there may be some effects on the fruit industry in the Okanagan as well. Many of the hay fields around the Kamloops area as well as throughout the central Fraser valley were completely frozen and needed to be totally reseeded, plowed and what have you. These are additional costs to the farmer. It's an unexpected cost in addition to the high interest rates which they have at the present time, and certainly it was a cost nobody had prepared for.

I'm not saying the farmers should have an additional pocketful of money to do these things, but there are a number of farmers, particularly young farmers who have perhaps just purchased and have high interest payments to make and high mortgages, who have some real difficulty in obtaining the funds to either replant or reseed and to carry them over these two years — because it takes two years to get some crops back to normal.

Has the minister considered in some way perhaps — not by a direct grant, because we know that things need to be paid for and farmers know that things need to be paid for.... But has the minister considered providing a loan guarantee to those who would have difficulty obtaining such money from the bank in order to re-establish their crops as they were before?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think three specific crops were mentioned here as to the February winter kill, which I recognize and will say was disastrous. He recognized hay, specifically the alfalfa in parts of Nicola, up on through into Kamloops and a little north. There was drastic kill there because there was very little snow to cover the land, and the root system suffered badly and was killed off. As you know, the same problem arose in '86, I think it was, and at that time we were asked to help. If you look at the record of crop insurance, there were very few participants in it, but we encouraged them to become involved. The same thing with raspberries and strawberries. I believe about 70 percent of the strawberry crop is ruined and about the same in raspberries. But in most cases the producers have crop insurance and should be able to collect on it.

We have tried to encourage the industry.... It's no different than insuring for buildings, homes or whatever you have as a risk. You obviously should carry insurance. The vast majority, as I understand it, hon. member, do have crop insurance coverage.

The specific areas of concern are those around Abbotsford and on out into the prairie a little way; in fact, down as far as Aldergrove. But I think the Langley area was not too drastically hurt in that frost, because the winds weren't near what they were in the Sumas Prairie area.

I recognize the concern, and we are looking at it, but what we do with it remains to be seen, because we have a number of reports to come in yet. I have met with the strawberry growers and the raspberry growers. They've been in my office in Delta to express their concerns about the loss. I'm also well aware of a considerable amount of that crop being covered by insurance.

MR. DE JONG: I would just like to emphasize to the minister the importance of loan guarantees, which should be available to farmers in those situations. For the economic viability not only of the farmer but for the total industry, it's essential that we assist farmers in those situations in a special way. If I make any comparison to loan guarantees that are granted to business through economic development, then surely farmers who put in 16 to 18 hours a day should be eligible for the same type of treatment when they happen to get into situations over which they have had no control.

I'd like to get on to the dairy industry now. For two years the dairy industry has been in a state of

[ Page 7219 ]

uncertainty in this province, mainly caused by a press release of September 28 or 29, 1987, really opting out of the national system. The release included a number of commodities. There were the various broiler and chicken commodities as well as the milk. I'm not sure if there were any more, but it covered a number of farming commodities.

The poultry producers have now opted out. They have employed new marketing strategies, and as a result of those strategies some 20 new producers will be added in the coming year.

The Milk Board — a somewhat different board — basically has not been a marketing board; it's been a board of control. Your deputy minister stated in the back of the newest Country Life: "'The Milk Board will change the way we want them to in the next two or three weeks or we will bring in legislation to make the changes fast,' he said." This was in a meeting held with the various news organizations. I'm curious as to what will be done. Perhaps the minister will elaborate and explain.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: First, on the issue of the notice of September for the opt-out. That is correct; we made that announcement. Through subsequent negotiations to the four different sectors — turkey, chicken, eggs, milk — we went through those and looked at the market share as it related to our share in British Columbia as opposed to the overall global market across Canada. We had negotiating strategies; in fact, some of those different groups did go through normal procedures in negotiating with their national supply management systems and were successful in getting what was deemed to be by the industry a fair share in a Canadian market as it relates to British Columbia's population.

The broiler sector. I was approached on several occasions that there were opportunities for greater consumption. In fact, in British Columbia the British Columbia chicken industry decided to launch — as you rightly say, hon. member — a program to encourage the consumption of chicken, and that was part and parcel of the health concern at that time as it related to red meats and so on.

They had an opportunity to go ahead and produce more chicken. In so doing, they approached us as to the opt-out, which is the end of this coming December. But they had to give notice by February. That notice was given, and I signed off the notice. It went back to Ottawa, and they were well aware of our position. That does not mean to say that negotiations stopped. We have served the notice on the required time-frame, but the negotiating process continues until such time as either there is a resolve or there is not; at that point there will be a final decision made, suspect, by the industry. In the meantime, the industry has continued along and in my opinion is doing a good job in promoting chicken and its health aspects in this province.

I'll respond on the milk industry. As you know, the milk industry has conducted negotiations through the membership of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee. This is the only province that has an appointed board; the rest of them are run by producer boards. And the negotiating process has been carrying on, and will continue to do so in that instance.

We have been given an offer, on which we have not yet made a decision. I think the member has asked me where we are with that, and I am not sure that we are finished with that, by a long shot. But we have an offer which we have to deal with, and I'm not at liberty to reveal those at this stage until we study them very closely.

MR. DE JONG: A further question to the minister. Could the minister perhaps explain whether he would see a similar potential for the dairy industry on the opting out as is anticipated by the poultry people?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To my hon. colleague, that's something, I think, we would have to assess as a dairy industry, and as far as I understand, the industry is looking at it. The dairy industry has launched a very good marketing program of TV advertisements through the B.C. Dairy Foundation. Any time that consumption goes up in the province, certainly from a fluid point of view, I'm sure the member is well aware that adjustments are made to the fluid consumption.

On the industrial side, it's tied in on a formula on the basis of the amount of milk that is consumed, albeit we have had some problems with the amount of milk coming from the U.S. side. I believe the numbers used were something in the neighbourhood of — and I stand to be corrected on this — 65 million litres, and we produce over 300 million litres for consumption in British Columbia domestically. We have some concerns, obviously, about how that relates to our ability to produce the industrial side, or the MSQ share of that. That's the issue we are trying to deal with. How much more we can produce? If you opted out of anything, I guess you'd produce any amount. If you looked at opting out — I don't care if it's agricultural or anything else — if you continue to produce, at some point people are going to realize that you manage supply.

In the case of dairy, as far as I understand the industrial sector, British Columbia has a 30 percent gain since 1973. I don't believe there's another province that can show that. We have seven provinces that have taken a reduction in that time-frame. So British Columbia has managed to gain something in the national system, albeit there's a lot of frustration from the point of view of the fact that we know we could be doing more. Whether opting out is an answer remains to be seen, because I would suspect that we would be faced possibly with supporting our dairy industry and being in a head-to-head competitive atmosphere in competition with other provinces who may wish to ship who knows how much product. Once you opt out, there is no control.

MR. DE JONG: Further to that, I would like to ask the minister a couple more questions. The minister

[ Page 7220 ]

has on various occasions stated that he's looking for a more level playing-field in British Columbia as well as across Canada, but particularly in British Columbia where we now have three quota areas and three price areas. I have no problem with the three price areas, because that's based on the cost of feed, transportation, etc. But I do have a little problem with the three quota areas while we are one milk shed. Could the minister perhaps say something at this point about whether, under this new system, the field would be levelled to truly represent the one milk shed, and whether the members of the Milk Board would be elected by the industry and become more of a marketing board than a board of control — or perhaps equal on both counts?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On the issue of quota regions, as the hon. member recognizes, with your pricing structure you have the three zones. When it gets down to pricing structure, if you have it all at the same price.... There are some differences — as you recognized — between Vancouver Island, the interior, the Okanagan areas and the Fraser Valley. They relate an awful lot to input costs. That's the reason there are those differences.

[4:45]

I think it would be good if we recognized that it's one industry, and it should be all under one milk shed — as we commonly use that term. I would hope that the industry had some input into whether in fact that should go ahead, or whether they wish it to remain as is. I think we'll get that feedback.

I can't quite remember the other question the hon member asked; perhaps he could repeat it. I think that on the milk shed it's important to be certain that the industry is cognizant of what they themselves want.

MR. DE JONG: The other part of the question was whether, under your new system, Milk Board members would be elected by the industry or appointed by government.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't think I can answer that in detail, because we're looking at legislation, and we're looking at options. I wouldn't want to respond to that at this stage.

MR. DE JONG: We've had a problem with the penalties being collected under the MSQ from a number of producers through a couple of processors over the past few years. Last year it was stated that the penalties — as far as the minister knew at the time — were being collected. If they had in fact been collected, the court ruling having come down in July 1987 — I know that for a few months the Milk Board had difficulty collecting, but even if they did for a year and a half, since the beginning of 1988 — the farmers could not have survived. What is the current status, Mr. Minister, on the penalties? Are they being collected or not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope you're well aware that that is sub judice. I will not comment on It. It's before the courts.

MR. DE JONG: Well, I think that's a cop-out. Anyway, we'll take it as is.

Could the minister perhaps tell me whether the Flamingo plant is a licensed processing plant?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I am not positive at this stage, but if the member so wishes, I will certainly find that answer for him. I know it is not a licensed fluid plant.

MR. DE JONG: Has the minister or the Milk Board ever given any thought to ensuring the collection of penalties from the processing plants, taken from the producers? I know that 95 percent of the producers run into penalty situations each year, to some degree because of overshipment, and the penalties are being collected. But we have a number of shippers, together with their processing plant, that totally ignore the regulations in place. I just wonder whether the ministry or the Milk Board has tried to strengthen that process by obtaining a letter of credit or at least by some measure — either a bond or a letter of credit, in case of default on the part of the processing agency — that can be drawn upon to avoid future court costs that are going on from day to day.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think the hon. member knows — he may not know — that we have done an audit. The results of that audit should be before me before very long. I can't comment on the details at this stage, but I share the concern of the member. I guess in any system somebody will try to go around it, or whatever the proper terminology is. I certainly would like to see the thing be fair for one and all, if that is what the member is really getting at, and that's what we should address.

MR. DE JONG: A further question to the minister. Under what conditions is the milk that is accepted by the Flamingo processing plant accepted by the government or the Milk Board? What conditions have been laid down by the Milk Board for Flamingo to accept milk from the four "dissident producers" and perhaps some others?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I believe that Flamingo Foods has applied for a processing licence. Again, I would have to research the details of that with the Milk Board, which is the agent responsible for issuing that licence. I wouldn't want to jeopardize anything I'd say here, but certainly I will find out for the hon. member what the details are and who is shipping to that particular plant.

MR. DE JONG: Is it normal procedure for a processing plant of that kind to be allowed to accept produce for a period in excess of three months prior to having been given a licence?

[ Page 7221 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: There again, I won't comment until I find out the details from the board on the issuance of the licence.

MR. DE JONG: Back in 1954 the equalization of the dairy industry was introduced by the Hon. Ken Kiernan, then Minister of Agriculture. The program has worked very successfully, because before 1954 some of the farmers in British Columbia were receiving about one-third less for a similar product than others who were selling a major share on the fluid market. Equalization was a benefit to the entire dairy industry.

I understand that at the present time there is a dairy in Sumas Prairie named Birchwood Dairies which only carries a 100-litre fluid milk quota. From what I am told, they sell far in excess of 100 litres of milk to the fresh milk market, or related products which would qualify under the fluid milk category. I alluded earlier to whether any measures have been taken, since it has gone on for nearly two years on the collection of penalties under the MSQ system.

The plant has been there for some time, and it was started on the basis of being allowed to process its milk on its own property — what was produced on that particular farm. I now understand that a number of other shippers or farmers are also shipping through that processing plant. Again, the penalties are not only not being collected on the MSQ part of the milk; neither is the equalization payment paid by that particular plant to the Milk Board. What actions have been taken in that regard?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That one also is before the courts. It is sub judice, and I will not comment on it, because it is part and parcel of the same considerations I mentioned earlier.

MR. DE JONG: Does the minister, while it is before the courts — and I think only what has happened might be before the courts, not what is going to happen — see any urgency for taking some measures on the milk to be shipped tomorrow and the days after?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, could I have the member ask the question again, please.

MR. DE JONG: Well, I can appreciate that perhaps the minister cannot comment on things that are before the courts. I believe those things before the courts are only from the days gone by, like yesterday and before. However, because of its ongoing nature.... While many other farmers who are currently producing excess milk, in terms of their MSQ as well as their fluid quotas — this being the equalization payments not being paid by Birchwood, which I think is something that hasn't happened with any dairy during all the 35 years of operation.... Does the minister see any urgency in having something in place for the milk being shipped out of or to that plant and being processed there for the days after today and tomorrow?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the hon. member realizes that you do not step into something that's before the courts. It is sub judice, as I've already mentioned, and the decision of the courts will render future actions.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the minister has a lot of faith in the current system — at least he's said this on many occasions — and in the system of supply management. He has said on many occasions that we are working towards a level playing-field and everybody should be equally treated. However, we have a situation that I cannot find under any of those points.

Representing a strong dairy community, you can imagine what I run up against as I walk the streets or visit the auction market, whenever I go into the public. They're all very unhappy with what is occurring and has been occurring for quite some time. Nothing appears to be being done, even though the courts may be dealing with it. But as I say, they are very unhappy, and the agriculture industry, particularly dairy people, are losing patience out there.

I would also like to ask a question regarding the testing through our private labs. I'm informed that the cost of testing has been increased substantially for this year. I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with privatization, but apparently it was part of the contract. As I am told, the industry was given no warning of this increase. I am asking the minister whether that is true and, if so, what the minister is going to do about it.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, the first comments made there about the industry being frustrated.... Surely the hon. member realizes that it is not the right of a politician to interfere with the courts of this land. Politicians have the mandate to draft legislation and present bills to become acts, but we do not, nor should we, have the right to interfere with the law of this land.

The question suggested that the dairy industry is frustrated. I met with a number of representatives of the dairy industry this morning. I agree with them; they are probably frustrated. But they also realize that we have to let the law take its course. I realize that it does seem frustrating for them, and it has been a substantial amount of time, but we cannot interfere with the right of any individual to challenge anything in law.

[5:00]

On the issue of the private labs and the fee structure, I believe the chairman of the privatization committee did have discussions, although I can't verify it at this stage; the gentleman is not here with me today. But I can find you the answer to that question as well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the member proceeds, the point that the minister has made about a matter being before the courts is correct; the question is out of order. I would like to remind the member of that and ask him to proceed.

[ Page 7222 ]

MR. DE JONG: In regard to the sale of raw milk, which is still a problem within our province.... I brought this up last year and was somewhat concerned by the inspection of raw milk being shipped out of farms being turned over to the Ministry of Health — not that the ministry is not doing a good job; I think it's doing an excellent job in many ways. But I do not think that the people in the Health ministry are properly informed as to what is going on with the sale of raw milk. Is the Minister of Agriculture satisfied with the progress made on the Inspection of the sale of raw milk in this province through the Ministry of Health?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think it fair to say that via a special request, the Ministry of Health is looking into this particular issue.

MR. DE JONG: I think I got a somewhat similar answer last year. I hope that the looking-into isn't going to take too long anymore. I think it's a shame that while in this province we've had laws on the books for perhaps 20 or 30 years that all milk provided to the consumers in British Columbia had to be pasteurized.... I take offence to having this still occurring on a daily basis: raw milk. If it was a highly sanitized operation, I could probably accept it, but that is also lacking.

In many ways I am disappointed. I can see the Minister's difficulty in changing the situation, as it applies to a number of things we've touched on; yet I think that the people of this province and particularly the dairy industry need a better way out. They need clearer answers. If this continues, the industry will collapse by default. That's what I'm very much afraid of.

MR. BARLEE: I think there's one thing we have to get back to, and that's ELUC. I've listened to four members from the opposite side of the House. I've listened to the first member from Langley (Mrs. Gran), the second member from Richmond (Mr. Loenen), the second member from Central Fraser Valley and the minister. The answers are all the same.

I really don't think it's good enough. If you examine the individuals who've had their land excluded from or taken out of the ALR, you come up with the same old thing. You come up with names like Milan Ilich, and I think everyone knows Milan Ilich is a longtime supporter of the government. You come up with names like R.J. Bennett, brother of the former Premier, a longtime supporter of the government. You come up with names like Dick Stewart, another longtime supporter. You come up with a name like Gerard Kapchinsky, another longtime supporter.

What I'm worried about is that the public does not perceive it as a fair and honest sort of arrangement. You know, they're not the only ones. The government on January 24 of this year sent around the Land Commission to a hearing in Duncan, and five farmers got up. I imagine that of those five farmers — and I'm guessing a little bit — one would be ours. Here's what they suggested. These are from individuals who have supported the government, by and large, as this community does. They suggested retention of the present agricultural land reserve boundaries. That's number one. They also suggested the retention of the Agricultural Land Commission as a central provincial authority with standard policies and procedures applicable through the province. Then they suggested the removal of the present appeal procedure at cabinet and ministerial level. It's filtering down to people that it is an unfair process.

In answer to one thing else, too: you say that there's natural growth going on in the communities. That's very true. But these guys also said that if one region chose a pro-development approach on agricultural land, another region would soon follow suit in order to compete. This would very soon break down the whole system of protecting farmland for future generations. In their opinion, these recommendations are applicable, and I agree with them.

However, we don't seem to be making much headway on that, so I have another question for the Minister. Negotiations are presently underway to legislate or implement a national marketing board for apples. My question is this: would the provincial government be prepared to support the British Columbia producers and other Canadian producers if this plan comes into being.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I wouldn't want to comment, I think, from the point of view of whether they're successful dealing with the federal government, even though I recognize that, under the FTA, new commodities are allowed to establish national systems. As I understand it, the negotiating process is still being carried on and there are some problems, albeit maybe minor, with Ontario's considerations in that negotiating process.

As far as we're concerned, I think it's allowed within the national system, and we would look at it appropriately when it comes before us.

MR. BARLEE: I have another question, which is a small question but is fairly important and indicative. There's a public focus right now on organic farming, and there's a program in the Okanagan called the sterile insect release program. This is ready to be implemented. This particular program was tested about ten years ago in the Similkameen section of that area. It was proven to be very successful. As the Minister of Agriculture knows, this program is ready to go. It can eradicate the codling moth. The thing is, some of these producers and growers are very worried that the necessary legislation will not be passed this year. Will the legislation be passed in this session?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I have approached the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) on this particular issue, where the obligation lies, and have said that we would like to have this through as quickly as possible so that the program could be implemented.

[ Page 7223 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind both the minister and the member that in Committee of Supply we're limited in our discussion not to discuss future legislation.

MR. BARLEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I realize that. I also appreciate the answer.

I asked this question last week, but it did not elicit an answer. The so-called disaster relief fund is presently being discussed. Are negotiations still in progress on this matter?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not positive of the state of the negotiating process, but that is being carried on, as I understand it, between the Federation of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) or his office. I could not reveal to you where the discussion is at.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get up for a couple of moments to reply to a couple of statements I heard the second member for Boundary-Similkameen make. I believe he's not giving all the facts when he talks about removing land from the agricultural land reserve. Let me remind you....

MR. MILLER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe the purpose of estimates is for members to ask questions of the minister concerning the operation of his ministry, expenditure of money, etc., not for members of the government side to stand up and correct the record about what may have been asked of the minister. Surely that is the minister's job.

MR. PETERSON: That sort of point of order isn't even worthy of a reply. Anyway, I would just like to carry on.

I would like to bring up a few facts. When the agricultural land reserve legislation was brought in by the NDP in those unfortunate years when they were the government in this province, technically the legislation was flawed, and the decisions were flawed. I just want to remind the second member for Boundary-Similkameen that indeed it was their own cabinet minister at that time — I believe his name was Mr. Stupich, a well-known man here — who was the first cabinet minister to approve land being removed from the agricultural land reserve. The area in question was in Kamloops. It was the first one. It was done by the executive council, which is the cabinet. When he stands up and rattles off about our ELUC and things like that and what they have, he seems to be unaware of all the facts and all the history. I am told through private sectors that he is supposed to be a bit of a historian. I guess I must question his credibility on that statement and ask that he bring all the facts to this House's attention when he stands up and makes such statements.

MR. BARLEE: I am accustomed to a little diatribe from that corner, which I find rather interesting. In fact, I was just corresponding with the former minister, Mr. Dave Stupich, on that very subject, and perhaps your history is slightly flawed on that. I think that our view of ELUC and that of the members on the opposite side are entirely different. However, we canvassed ELUC fairly closely, and there are a few other things that I want to talk about.

In several provinces there are compensation schemes in place where farmers or ranchers who have suffered economic losses because of grazing by wildlife.... It could be deer, elk or a number of other wild herds. In some instances there have been considerable losses. I think this is indicative in various parts of the interior, through the central interior, up into the north, especially where herds have increased dramatically. Is the ministry prepared to implement compensation legislation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I suppose this issue goes around and around within the farming community — and rightfully so. I have had a lot of farmers talk to me about damage they have suffered from wildlife — whether it's migratory or it's deer and elk getting into either orchards or alfalfa fields. It causes a lot of grief for the farming community. We have been discussing this with the Ministry of Environment, and we have not resolved it to any great detail yet, but discussions are continuing.

MR. BARLEE: I can think of one instance where one of the ranchers in the Similkameen has watched the mountain sheep herd grow from seven to 23 — these are in consecutive years — to 35. Now there are over 100 animals, and he's having his problems.

I have an entirely different topic. British Columbia has about 12 percent of Canada's population, we are apparently 100 percent self-sufficient in fluid milk, but we are given only 3.8 percent of the provincial industrial milk requirements. There have been negotiations going on for several years — I think I'm correct on this. What numbers would the minister consider probable in this long negotiation during 1987, 1988 and 1989, in which we fight for our rightful share? It should be 12 percent. What numbers does the minister find acceptable?

[5:15]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I concur with what the hon. critic is saying. We go through the negotiating process, as we are participants in the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee through the Canadian Dairy Commission. We will continue to negotiate. I would be reluctant to say at this stage what the number comes out at, because we are still in progress relative to that negotiation.

It's usually for a five-year term, but in some cases different terms are suggested. You are very close to right on the percentage. I think we have 6,158,000 kilograms of butterfat in this province. We were given an extra 90,000 to go up to 6,248,000, and that's where we presently sit. We're still negotiating for finalization of a final offer from the committee. Once we have that, we will discuss it.

You suggested 12 percent. Right now, I believe Quebec produces about 47.6 percent of the global

[ Page 7224 ]

Canadian MSQ. As I stated earlier to the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong), we have historically been down around the 2 percent level. Then we started to climb in 1973, saying that we wanted a greater share.

In fact, going over the record, we have gained 30 percent between 1973 and the present negotiating process — 1988 and now into 1989. Of course, when you look at some of the other provinces who have had to give up some of that, they are concerned. You effectively put some farmers out of business in those provinces. I think they rightfully have some concerns We continue to lobby and to negotiate very strongly to get a greater share for British Columbia.

MR. BARLEE: I appreciate that answer. I know it's difficult, because it's negotiating the wrong way.

Finally, I have one more question that I think is really quite important. Perhaps I should preface my remarks with an observation. In my position as agriculture critic I am increasingly concerned about the direction this government is going in its attitude towards the agriculture industry. I think that is borne out by three things, which I've mentioned before: the erosion of the budget from about 3.5 percent at one time down to 0.7 percent; the erosion of the staff of the ministry from 700 to just over 400; and the erosion of the ALR and the overruling of the ALC by ELUC.

When you look at the global conditions, which are pretty important.... Here's what the Globe and Mail said on January 26, 1989: "Last summer's drought in North America, China and the Soviet Union has left world grain stocks balanced on a knife edge between supply and demand." This, of course, could apply all the way across the board. "By the end of July 1989, experts calculate that there will be enough wheat in the world for only 75 days' consumption" — that's all — "enough corn for 50 days and enough soybeans for 47 days."

Then they go on to say this: "Conditions in the southern plains of Kansas and Texas are not particularly good right now, and there is a very severe drought in Argentina. They could lose the entire crop." They finish up with this: "If there is another drought this summer, all hell will break loose.... Without question, we will have starvation, especially in the cities of the Third World."

We've got a very serious situation. We have to protect the agricultural community. I think you're interested in it. I don't think the government generally is interested. I think this is fairly obvious by the figures that have come out this year. So my question is this: does the minister believe that the present budget for the Ministry of Agriculture meets the entire needs of the agricultural community?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: If I may be given the opportunity to respond to the preamble to the question, world grain supplies have never, if I recollect properly, been beyond about a year and three months. I could be corrected on that, but that's the maximum we've ever had, as I understand it. But to pin it down to 79 days, 50 days or whatever.... I remind my hon. critic that in Saskatchewan in the last few days they've had two inches of rain. In Saskatoon they've had four inches of rain. In fact, if they have one more rain by the end of next month, they'll have a bumper crop. I think we shouldn't be all fearful. While I still recognize the concern.... It's more of a concern, I guess, from a global point of view. None of us ever likes to see people who are short of food or who are, to quote you, starving. That is very unfortunate. I think Canada does a good job, quite frankly, in helping those countries who are in need of food aid.

To get back to the question about the budget, as you know, when we're presenting our cases for budget we identify some of the programs that exist within the ministry, and we have to adjudicate our budget according to those programs we can identify with. A number of them are really relaying what market conditions may well return to the farmer. It may require an upward adjustment, but that will be covered under contract. If extra things happen.... As you know, I went for special warrants last year on a couple of occasions to help the industry out in the grain sector and certainly in apples; also in beef, when we had a drastic situation in which a lot of beef cattle were leaving the province and going to Alberta. We put special programs in to try to help, and I think the industry well recognizes that we as a government have been responding to those desperate needs.

MR. JONES: I've been listening to the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture with some fascination because I am interested in the agricultural land reserve. I've been listening to the comments of my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen and the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), and I have a very clear picture in my mind of their view of this, in my view, historically important piece of legislation. I disagree with the second member for Langley that it was a flawed piece of legislation. As with all legislation, it may not be perfect, but it is clearly a very critically important piece of legislation for this province and one that I think the Minister of Agriculture, of all people — and I understand that he does come from Delta and the farming community — would be in a position to be an advocate for and a defender of, in the protection of farmland in this province. Yet in going through the Blues from last Friday, the member for Boundary-Similkameen levelled some fairly heavy charges at the minister when he said that you do nothing but pay lip-service to the agricultural land reserve, that you have no commitment to the farming industry and that you are treating it as a sunset industry as a result of your treatment of the agricultural land reserve.

I'd like to provide the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity at this time to clarify for me, this House and the province what his view of the agricultural land reserve really is.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion on Friday, and I think I answered all the

[ Page 7225 ]

concerns you had quite adequately. Having been in the farming business in Delta for over 100 years, as our family goes, as have several of the original developers in the agricultural community.... I guess that's one community — as you can say in the ranching community of this province — where the generations go on and on. I commend them for that, and they are doing a good job.

While they are in the agricultural land reserve, they are not so concerned about the agricultural land reserve as about having good returns for the investment they make in the particular commodities that they produce. Quite frankly, if the marketplace returns them a fair living, I don't think there is any fear that the land will be gone.

MR. JONES: I am still not clear on the position of the minister. Of course we want a viable industry, and I would like to talk about that further with the minister later on. But I would like to focus for a minute on the agricultural land reserve. Every time the question of the agricultural land reserve comes up, the minister not so cleverly deflects that question away from what his position is. You are the minister, the person most responsible for the protection of agricultural land in this province. In recent years we've seen a good deal of what I consider to be quality farmland removed from that agricultural land reserve.

Does the minister who is most responsible, who influences cabinet decisions that often overturn recommendations and result in removal of farmland from the agricultural land reserve, envision a shrinking land base in the agricultural land reserve — perhaps a more viable industry, but a shrinking land base — or does he want to preserve that land base? I'd like him to answer that question specifically.

Let me throw in another one, and not to provide him with an opportunity to deflect the question. I'd like the minister to comment on the shrinking size of that land base, as we've seen it, but I'd also like him to comment on turf farming. Turf farming, we know, very clearly has a detrimental effect on the quality of soil over a period of time. I understand there are a number of turf farms in the minister's riding, and I'd like to get his comments on turf farming.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I guess the hon. member is trying to hit out at my turf.

To get on to the issue of my feelings relative to the ALR, I think I've made them known very often. But I'd like to remind the member — my hon. critic, whoever rises to raise those concerns — that 92 percent of the applications for the exclusions you talk about are handled by the Agricultural Land Commission, through several discussions and community plans and dealings with regional districts and municipalities. Those are the exclusions that are granted not by ELUC but by the Land Commission. They look at the concerns of the municipalities, but they can generally only pass a decision as it relates to the types of soils; and they will report on a number of those things.

On the issue of turf farming, I'm, quite frankly, personally concerned about the areas where turf farming is carried on. There are areas in this province where you can go 30 feet deep and have the same type of soil. There are some other areas in this province where you have only six or eight inches of what we commonly call topsoil. That's where I have the concern. And I think that's going to cause us some problems in the future. But I remind the member that there are some areas where there's up to 30 feet of the same type of soil. I don't think turf farming in those particular regions really poses a great threat.

I should also remind the member that the Land Commission has put in place a number of criteria as to what has to be put back in the soil once the turf is harvested. So there are some — if I can use the term — ground rules that have to be met in turf farming.

MR. JONES: In terms of the agricultural land reserve, the minister reiterated the view of the Agricultural Land Commission and that it is most active in removals, but he still did not express any great deal of concern about the shrinking farmland base that we see in this province. As far as turf farming goes, I appreciate the minister's comments that there may be instances where there is a great depth of topsoil and it may not be a problem. I thought I heard the minister express some concern about turf farming where there may not be that depth of topsoil and where we could see a tremendous loss of farmland as a result of turf farming.

I would like to raise another question with the minister, which has to do with an order-in-council passed some time back. I believe it's No. 1141. That was the order-in-council which permitted removal from the agricultural land reserve for the purpose of providing golf courses. If we envision a pastoral setting with the odd golf course here and there, I don't think we see a great problem. But I think the minister who co-authored that particular order-incouncil knows, from his own constituency, that there is a tremendous impact on the farmland in Delta and Surrey as a result of the order-in-council. In Delta, I understand, there are something like 19 golf courses proposed, many of which are in the agricultural land reserve. In Surrey there are something like nine new golf courses proposed, and all of them are in the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. REID: Not at all; they're not used for anything right now.

[5:30]

MR. JONES: Very clearly, the member for White Rock has no concern about the removal of land from the agricultural land reserve.

The minister also knows that the majority of these golf course proposals are adjacent to Boundary Bay, Mud Bay and the rivers feeding into those areas. Very clearly, over many years, these have been identified as critically important wetlands of international importance, to the point where not only local and

[ Page 7226 ]

provincial but also international groups representing over 52 countries have been lobbying the provincial government to protect these areas. What we see now as a result of the threatening of these areas is international outrage. There is a threatened loss of these areas to the birds, the waterfowl and the raptors that use them — the natural wildlife that need this kind of wetland as part of their natural life cycle.

I am concerned. Rather than the protection of these farmlands through this order-in-council co-authored by the Minister of Agriculture, what we see is a real endangerment not only of farmlands but also of natural preserves which are of international importance and of importance to the world community.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture to comment on the removal of farmland for the purpose of golf courses — some nine in Surrey and some 19 in his own constituency of Delta — which I think is going to have a serious impact on the natural environment in those areas.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope you reread the order It does not remove the land from the ALR. There are five conditions laid out in the order. It says that soils, etc...and some of the borders that are required have to be maintained before the establishment of an acceptable golf course.

I might also remind the member that.... In the case of Delta, I believe there are 19 applications; I haven't checked recently. If you understand the bylaws in Delta, a bylaw was put in place to cover those applications. The council goes to the Delta Farmers' Institute, the farmers' organization in Delta, to ask them for their concerns about whether an application should proceed or not. I might say that the farmers of the community have responded and shown the very same concerns. They have accepted a couple. The two I can think of you have referred to, basically — down near the Boundary Bay area.

You're talking about a Ramsar designation, through the participation of Canada, which volunteered to go in 1981, even though Ramsar started in 1971 in Iran. Certainly we are cognizant of that, but the arguments used are that we should be concerned about raptors, our migratory birds, which I'm sure we all are. Agriculture in Delta and, I'm sure, in Surrey has gone on for years and years and years. Those birds have been there, and I imagine they will continue to be there. If you put infringements in place, such as declaring the area for one kilometre — or two or three or four, whatever it happens to be — a reserve, then what do you do to the farmer? The argument was used about voles. I'm sure you've heard that. But as soon as you turn that land over, how many voles do you have left? I would like to find the answer to that, because you have very few; in fact, virtually none. The land should remain undisturbed for voles?

I might remind the member that I've had a meeting with the processing sector, and if they see much more restraint of their ability to operate in growing processing crops in the valley, they will consider going elsewhere. We have to be very careful. On the one hand, we're saying that environmentally, which I have full concurrence with.... I share your concern about how we protect our environment around us. The other one is the agricultural land reserve, which is, in a way, related to the environment. How do we provide the opportunity for the farmer to stay in business? For that matter, once it leaves the farm gate, where does it go from there? If the processors leave us.... We say there are going to be a couple of kilometres zoned for raptors, etc. — or migratory birds. I can't see how migratory birds or raptors will even know that zone. There's not a fence to stop them from going five miles out and eating the farmer's crop anyhow.

We've got to come to grips, quite frankly, with these issues before we just march off and declare certain zones. We have to look at the implications all over: environmentally and, of course, as it relates to agriculture in any one of those given communities.

MR. JONES: The minister very conveniently sets up the natural environment and the wildlife against the farmers. At least the minister, in his statement, expressed concern for farmland and for farmers. Those two are not mutually exclusive. It's quite natural that the natural habitat.... The wildlife that lives in that area can live in perfect harmony with the farmland and with the farmers and not interfere with that farmland.

What's really threatening the farmland — as a result of the minister's order-in-council — is permitting golf course construction on the agricultural land reserve. The minister knows what's happening in his own community. Rather than farmers being concerned about this land, what we see is developers purchasing huge tracts in the area because they know that as soon as that golf course goes in and the clubhouse is set up, we have to put in the infrastructure. We have to put in the water lines, we have to put in the sewer lines, and we have to upgrade the roads in that area so that people can get in there.

When we have 19 new golf courses in Delta and nine new golf courses in Surrey.... By the way, I have one golf course in the entire municipality of Burnaby, with a new one on the drawing-board, and I am sure that that will be ample for the whole population of Burnaby and the surrounding areas of the GVRD. To envision 19 new golf courses in Delta and nine new golf courses in Surrey, with all the infrastructure — the roads, the sewers, the water lines.... We no longer see the pastoral agriculture community that the minister is alluding to. We see huge development tracts of barrack-like condominiums that will result in tremendous windfall profits for those who are able to remove that land from the agricultural land reserve.

We are going to have tremendous competition in this province for golf courses where we know the surrounding areas are going to be taken out of the land reserve and turned into very profitable market housing for the developers. It's going to eventually produce the situation throughout this province

[ Page 7227 ]

where people are going to be looking at the erosion of the agricultural land base in the lower mainland. We are going to see a huge sale of farmland in this province. The developers — and the minister is very familiar with the developers in his own area — are going to be the major benefactors of that kind of thing.

Very clearly, the minister understands the long-term impact of that number of huge golf courses and the resulting infrastructure in the area. Does the minister not want to reconsider the order-in-council that is going to destroy the agriculture community in his own riding?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think the hon. member well realizes that each and every one of those 19 applications has to come forward separately in a presentation to council. In the case of a number of them, they are reviewed, as I stated earlier; the farm organization looks at them; if they do not concur, they generally do not go anywhere. I have no reason to believe that 19 golf courses will be established in Delta, because I think the farming community is very responsible.

I'd like to remind the member that the two that were under question, at the end of 72nd Street and at the end of 64th Street, are both in high-salinity areas. Virtually every time a high tide washes into the Mud Bay area or Boundary Bay area, we have salt forced up through; you couldn't even grow weed in a number of those areas. So it's not highly productive farmland, as you are trying to assert here. I do have a concern, quite frankly, if it is. If it is high-production farmland, it should remain as such. But it's not coming out of the land reserve.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Further to the upgrading of the infrastructure, I think the farmers would like to see better water lines down some of the community roads. They would also like to see wider roads to move their machinery on. I think that's part and parcel of the considerations. We can then keep our equipment off some of the main thoroughfares in the municipality. At least we'd have a chance to move it without impacting on traffic that's expected to move through. When you're operating at 15 miles per hour as the maximum you can move a piece of equipment — some up to 25 miles per hour — it causes a traffic hazard. We'd be delighted to see the roads upgraded, so we could move equipment down the side roads in the farming community, where it should move. But I do not share your concern that we'll have 19 golf courses in Delta. I don't believe that will happen.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the farmers are seeing through the remarks of the minister, and that the wider roads, the new sewer lines and the new water lines are clearly not for the farmers. They're for development and the windfall profits of the developers who are going to benefit tremendously from the zoning changes in that area and removal of agricultural land.

I'd like to ask the minister a question about greenbelt land. My understanding is that greenbelt land is government-owned land that was purchased under the Greenbelt Act, and that the purpose was to protect farmlands and environmentally sensitive areas. Is it true that the government is planning to sell a greenbelt area in Surrey for the purpose of developing a golf course?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'm not sure of the specific parcel you're referring to, nor would I necessarily be the one to respond to it. I'm not aware of it, if that's the case. I have not seen any such application. From a greenbelt point of view, it has been my opinion that if some of those greenbelt lands are ever returned, they should go to the farmer for farming purposes. I think farmers would love to have the opportunity to have some of the land back for that purpose.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that answer. I'm surprised the Minister of Agriculture is not aware of proposals that are relatively common knowledge in the community, but I accept the minister's answer on that. I would hope, though, that the minister would be interested in protecting farmland, at least in the greenbelt area.

As the minister is aware, there are plans for a racetrack in Delta that's going to encroach on agricultural land reserve land. I understand that Delta Downs involves an $85 million proposal by Pacific Coast Turf Ltd., which is going to situate a racetrack on 300 acres of farmland east of Boundary Bay Airport, south of Highway 10. The land, just by some coincidence, happens to be right next door to 800 acres owned by the Agriculture minister and his family. I wonder if he does not feel that, because he has made statements on the need for a racetrack in this province, he places himself in a serious conflict of-interest position by commenting on this racetrack or by even having the racetrack go anywhere near property he owns.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I find that an interesting assumption, because if you'd like to check with the land title office — and I wish you would.... You might well require a search before you make a statement like that. Part of the land that may be considered, not necessarily planned.... I believe it would come forward as a proposal, not necessarily a plan. To say that the minister or his family own 800 acres nearby is not correct. I can tell you this much: we lease a piece of land that may well be considered. It is not jurisdictional for me to say. I don't have anything to do with the ownership of that land, nor does my family. I don't think you should assume, unless you check records in the land title office, that we own 800 acres in the area.

[5:45]

MR. JONES: Is the minister saying that he does not own, with his family, a large tract of land situated

[ Page 7228 ]

near the proposed racetrack, east of the Boundary Bay Airport and south of Highway 10?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can unequivocally state in this House that neither I nor my family own any of the land under consideration east of the Boundary Bay Airport.

MR. JONES: That's not what I said. I asked the minister if he and his family own a large tract of farmland situated near.... Then I described the portion where the proposed racetrack would go, which is the 300 acres of farmland east of Boundary Bay airport and south of Highway 10. That's not where the minister owns land, but that's where the racetrack will be situated. Does the minister deny owning, with his family, a large parcel of land near where the proposed racetrack is going?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Before I answer a question like that, would the member clearly define to me what is classed as "near"? I would like to know.

MR. JONES: It's a very good question that the minister asks. The question of nearness is relevant, because as a result of the development of that racetrack, property in the area is going to appreciate tremendously. There's going to be a need for the kind of large infrastructure that supports the very heavy commercial activity of a racetrack. I would expect the nature of that community to change considerably within an area of three miles around the racetrack. In answer to the minister's question, I would suggest a definition of nearness as something in the order of three miles. Does the minister own a huge tract of land within three miles of that proposed racetrack?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister answers, hon. member, I'm having difficulty seeing the relationship between the questioning that's going on and the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

MR. JONES: It's my contention that the Minister of Agriculture has a tremendous responsibility to make sure the farming community is viable, to make sure we're not eroding the important farmlands in this province. There's a real question of credibility in terms of the minister's action in this regard, the potential loss of agricultural land, particularly when the minister has made statements with respect to the racetrack, particularly when nearby, as I understand it, there's a large tract of land owned by the minister and his family. Very clearly, the minister is in a conflict-of-interest situation. I think the credibility of the minister is in question here. That's my line of questioning to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in his estimates.

Interjections.

MR. JONES: We're talking about millions of dollars here.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find the line of questioning incredible, quite frankly. If you'd like to, as I said earlier, check with land registry, be my guest. You may well get the answers you're searching for. What in the world is "large"? You said a large tract of land. Who's going to define what is large? Are you? I'm asking you.

MR. JONES: Does the minister own any land within three miles of the proposed racetrack?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that question is relevant, hon. member.

MR. JONES: I think the record shows that the minister failed to answer any questions; was not forthcoming enough to answer questions about his own particular interest in land development in his own community, and his own personal interest in that.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are public hearings currently going on with regard to the Southlands in Delta, more commonly known as the Spetifore lands. I also understand that these hearings have been going on for five weeks now. There have been hundreds of impassioned pleas on the part of the community for preservation of that area. I understand that on May 26, on a local public television program, the minister made comments, similar to ones he made a minute ago, about the salinity of the lands in question. It seems to me that because the minister's brother-in-law, George Hodgins, purchased a $15 million debenture on those lands, the minister is in a conflict-of-interest position with respect to the disposition of those lands. Does the minister not agree that by making public comments with regard to the future of those lands, because of his relationship with his brother-in-law, he's in a conflict of interest in that situation?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: You are encompassing in your assumptions that I mentioned the whole property. If you look at the tape of what I said on that public television station, you'll see that the property I talked about was to the east of the barn. I'll invite you out there any day of the week — I went through some soils at UBC as well — to take a look at the structure of that soil. If you can prove to me that it isn't salty, then I guess I'll back down; but I know very well that it is.

MR. JONES: The minister did not appreciate the point that I was making. The point I was making to the minister is not whether the soil is saline but that we have a minister who seems to take very strong positions on certain issues and avoids others, as we've seen in this House in the last few minutes. He's taking a strong position on the salinity of the soil in a certain area, when we know that the area is one where the disposition of the land could result in millions of dollars of profit to his brother-in-law. My question to the minister is: does he not see himself in a conflict of interest by taking a public position with

[ Page 7229 ]

regard to the salinity of that soil and thus influencing the decision on the disposition of the land?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I will not be in conflict. I was asked on that television station about the soils. As the minister responsible, in a public television discussion, I believe I answered the question appropriately. It has nothing to do with who owns shares in the property; I was asked about the soils. How can you draw conclusions like that? Are you trying to mislead this House?

MR. JONES: No, I think if anybody's trying to mislead this House, it's that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. JONES: I'd like to ask the minister about another public comment he made with regard to a meeting of the Delta Farmers' Institute in May. A local farmer made a comment after that meeting. He said: "Why does the Minister of Agriculture insist on scaring his farm constituents with dire warnings about environmentalists who 'want to take over Delta'?" It seems to me that rather than protecting these farmlands and looking for a harmonious development of the area with protection of those farmlands that can also serve the vital wildlife habitat, the minister is working to create disharmony among his own constituents.

I would like to ask the minister why, in a government which I recently heard is setting the environment as its top priority, he wants to make comments about environmentalists who are concerned about land use in his own area and set them up as bogeymen to divide the community that he represents?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, if you listened to what I explained a little while ago about the problems we are going to have relative to the processing sector and other capabilities of agriculture — not only in Delta but the whole Fraser Valley — then I think my response was rather appropriate. Either we make a decision to farm the land without encroachment too far.... As I said, I have a great respect for the environment — I told you that a few minutes ago. But if we don't look at the facts that face us relative to what options there are for farmers to stay in business and if we force other sectors out, then the environment obviously will then have the preference. That's the statement I made on that particular issue. We must address the fact — and I think the hearing process has gone through some of it — that there is some concurrence, that environment and agriculture do work together.

The migratory birds presently do go on farmlands and, with some chagrin, there are people in Delta who have lost thousands of dollars. In one night they could wipe out ten acres of cauliflower, as happened on Westham Island. But there wasn't five cents remuneration for that loss. That might be great for enhancement and everything else, and that was part and parcel of the problem of the enhancement program. I'm not against that per se, but the farmer has borne the cost.

In this particular case, we're saying — I'm not worried about the environmental sensitivity — that if we come too far inland with our zoning on environment, if it's Ramsar designation or whatever, then what do we do to the farming community? What option is left for them? They have to know from now on where they are going. Are they going to have an opportunity to make a living as farmers? Otherwise, the pressure, hon. member, is going to come back to us and why in the world we have a land reserve. That's the obvious question. We've got to have some correlation between the environment and agricultural use and the inherent costs that farmers bear.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: As the hour of adjournment draws near, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Introduction of Bills

APPLIED SCIENCE TECHNOLOGISTS AND
TECHNICIANS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr. Rabbitt presented a bill intituled Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Amendment Act, 1989.

MR. RABBITT: This bill is a private bill which attempts to find a definition and a scope of practice for applied science technologists and technicians. The private bill process allows a group, such as the technicians and technologists, to bring forward a concern in the form of a bill, to have it go before a select standing committee that deals with private bills, and to bring all the affected parties to the table to discuss the concerns and find a resolution.

Although this bill may change in substance during the review process, it exemplifies the way an individual or a group can have access to the parliamentary process in British Columbia through a sponsor such as myself.

Bill PR404, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 7230 ]

Appendix

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

44 Mr. Barnes asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. What programmes exist in your ministry to address multiculturalism?

2. For each programme identified in No. 1: (a) What are the criteria for the programme; and (b) how much money has been budgeted for the multicultural component (i) this fiscal year, and (ii) last fiscal year?

The Hon. A. J. Brummet replied as follows:

"Multiculturalism is a theme that pervades all educational program development activities in the Ministry, from the setting of education goals to production or selection of materials. For this reason it is sometimes difficult to relate that part of the budget that could be applied directly to multicultural programs.

"1. All resources are analyzed and evaluated for balance in ethnic or cultural portrayal. The definition of the educated citizen refers specifically to tolerance/acceptance of cultural differences. Multicultural issues pervade social studies curricula and materials; the primary social studies program is exemplary in this regard. Pacific Rim activities are fundamentally multicultural in nature.

"The Ministry of Education is involved in a joint project with CIDA entitled Global Education which is a multicultural project. Curriculum development in ESL addressed multicultural issues among recent immigrants. ESL is recognized in the fiscal framework in the form of grants to districts offering ESL to immigrant students. A full-time multicultural co-ordinator is to be hired this summer to establish policies in multicultural education and heritage languages.

"2. If we include the Pacific Rim Initiatives project along with other curriculum areas, the budgets are as follows: 1988/89, $3.8 million; and 1989/90, $5.7 million."