1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 4, Number 5
[ Page 2237 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Prayers.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of 24 grade 5 students from South Carvolth Elementary School in Langley and their teacher, Ms. Reynolds-Wallis. They are seated in the gallery. Would the House please join me in acknowledging their visit to this precinct and to beautiful Victoria.
H. De Jong: On this beautiful British Columbia morning we have with us five students from the Abbotsford Christian School, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Blair McHenry. I would ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
Deputy Speaker: The government House Leader. Not yet -- the opposition House Leader.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to point out to hon. members who are here this Friday morning that in the gallery I notice a constituent of mine from West Vancouver, someone who is well known to British Columbians as an actor: Mr. Jackson Davies. I wonder if the House would welcome him here this morning.
Hon. D. Miller: In terms of that introduction, I would thank the hon. House Leader from the opposition side. I thought the Premier was in the gallery, Mr. Speaker.
F. Garden: I am sure that some people on the floor of this House are old enough to remember a day nearly 48 years ago, of which the anniversary is being celebrated tomorrow -- June 6 -- when thousands of young Canadian men and women went overseas and fought for democracy and freedom in the liberation of Europe. We have lived to enjoy that all these years. I am sure that many of the older people around here have memories of that and maybe of losing a loved one. I think it would be wrong for us to go through this session without recognizing that day, as we won't be here tomorrow.
There are some young people in the gallery who won't have any recollection of that. But it was because of the sacrifice by these fine young Canadian men and women that we're living in a democracy. We have a long way to go yet, but Europe is working towards a model that should be for freedom. I think it's appropriate for us today to recognize these people that remember that day and might have lost a son, a sister or a brother or a daughter.
A. Cowie: I'd like to respond very briefly. My father took part in that. I think it was an event that many Canadians are proud of. Many of us here, of course, were fortunate that we have never had to take part in such an event. I think it's a very honourable thing to recognize.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the hon. Administrator is awaiting, and we will have a break.
His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Clerk-Assistant:
Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1992
Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act
Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1992
Income Tax Amendment Act, 1992
Corporation Capital Tax Act
Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1992
Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1992
Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1992
Natural Resource Community Fund Act
Land Surveyors Amendment Act, 1992
Energy Council Act
Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1992
Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992
University Amendment Act, 1992
Water Amendment Act, 1992
Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1992
Marriage Amendment Act, 1992
Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992
Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992
Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1992
Golf Course Development Moratorium Act
Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1992
Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1992
Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992
Municipal Amendment Act, 1992
An Act to Incorporate the Coquitlam Foundation
Vancouver School of Theology Act
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these bills.
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
[10:15]
Hon. L. Boone: I ask leave of the House to table a report from the community grants branch of my ministry.
Leave granted.
Hon. L. Boone: This report is in two volumes. The first volume covers all grant payments made from the Lottery Fund by this ministry in the fiscal year 1991-92. The second volume shows commitments and payments against those commitments made from the Lottery Fund by this ministry for fiscal year 1991-92.
[ Page 2238 ]
PENSION STATUTES
(TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENT) ACT
Hon. L. Boone presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act.
Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 54, which provides for technical amendments to our public pension acts in order to comply with the new federal requirements. The acts affected are Auditor General Act, Ombudsman Act, Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Public Service) Act, Pension (Teachers) Act, Provincial Court Act and Public Service Act.
As part of a broad overhaul of federal taxation policy, the federal government has recently made changes to requirements concerning the registration of public sector pension plans under the Income Tax Act. The new federal regulations were finalized in December 1991, and the provinces have been asked to conform by January 1993. While the cost impact to the province is anticipated to be minor, technical amendments to the pension acts are required to ensure existing member benefits are maintained in a consistent manner. Because the details of these arrangements have yet to be finalized and because there are no costs implications this year, this government has elected not to introduce specific technical amendments at this time. The purpose of the act is to temporarily delegate authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make detailed amendments to the public sector pension plans in order to comply with the new federal requirements under the Income Tax Act. This will allow the technical changes to be made later in the year, after administrative arrangements can be clarified with the federal government. This bill does not provide for any permanent amendments. Any temporary changes made under this act will be brought before the Legislature by August 31, 1993, or be repealed at that time.
Bill 54 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.
THE POVERTY PLAGUE
V. Anderson: I rise in the Legislature today to focus on the greatest destructive force menacing the lives of countless thousands in this province. At least 15.3 percent of our families are directly affected -- children, women, men. And indirectly it has an increasing negative effect on all others. This force of poverty undermines our health care, our educational development and our social growth. Indeed, poverty undermines our social structure and our economic future. It destroys individuals and families.
A society that has rot at its core needs to take an urgent look at itself, regardless of how shiny it appears on the outside. We are somewhat aware of the disorientation in our cities, the uncertainty in our small towns, and the unease in the countryside. We are aware of growing unemployment, of community unrest, of abusive relationships, of people sleeping in the streets, of engaging in crime to survive, of children and their parents going hungry daily.
The above is only to describe the visible side of the hidden ravages of our communities. The hidden side is the individual personal catastrophes of thousands of people in our midst, at inhumane cost to all of us. But horrible as this plague of poverty is, the fact that it has such a low priority in our concerns here in the Legislature is equally intolerable.
I'm not suggesting that we are not in part aware, or that we don't care, or that we are totally disinterested, but I am saying that our collective actions do not demonstrate our positive concern. Indeed, I venture to say that there is presently not a single item on our agenda that deals with poverty itself. The legislative actions we are discussing, may I suggest, deal with the effects and results of poverty, not with the cause and eradication of poverty.
The organization End Legislative Poverty has in its title the point they wish us to hear. Poverty results, at least in part, because it is in effect legislated by the actions of the Legislature. The federated anti-poverty groups, representing 92 low-income groups in British Columbia, challenge us to confront the poverty that is built in to the present economic structure we support -- no doubt often by default or carelessness, but it's nevertheless a fact.
Legislated social service payments at 50 percent of the poverty level ensure that poverty continues. The minimum wage at 44 percent of the poverty level ensures that poverty survives. Lack of support for small business, which hires most of the employees of our province, ensures that jobs are not available, and so poverty grows. Education, in reality only readily available to middle-and upper-income persons, ensures that in poverty they do not rise above it.
Let us think of those who are striving to survive in poverty: it is the youth who have finished school and cannot afford further education, yet cannot find a job; it is the widow of 53 who has raised children and supported her husband, who suddenly finds she has no income, no pension and no support; it is the single mother of one or more children who is left on her own with no job, no current skills and no relatives nearby; it is persons with disabilities -- physical, mental -- who are hampered by the obstacles put in their way; it is the university graduate whose skills do not apply, who has a family to support.
The adage is very true, hon. Speaker, that if one is not part of the solution, one is part of the cause. Poverty is a social plague to be eradicated. It's not a simple task; it requires specific research and planning. It needs a specific focus bringing together many areas of concern. It is not a one-ministry task.
Therefore I would challenge us in this Legislature to do two things now: one, to recognize and acknowledge
[ Page 2239 ]
the plague of poverty that is around us, and two, to join together in a committee of this Legislature to research and develop plans and to carry out those plans so that poverty might be eradicated in our midst.
C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I would remind members of this House that the urban poor don't really need our charity, our concerned talk and our gentle rhetoric. What they need is a job. The rural poor don't really need our caring hearts; they need land, resources and work.
This chamber is organized to allow us in a very special way -- a privilege for very few people in the world -- to tell the truth and to pass laws. The opposition in this system has a huge responsibility. Unlike the monarchy or despotism or military regimes around the world, or oligarchies, unlike even the American system where every legislator is an individual and can say anything they want, in the system we have here the opposition is paid a wage essentially to oppose government. That's unique in the world. They're given a good living wage, a living-out allowance, a research staff and a library in order to oppose the abuse of power.
Well, hon. Speaker, in raising the issue of poverty, we're essentially talking about the abuse of power. The hon. member opposite is doing his job in raising the subject and in asking for understanding, but the job of the opposition goes way past that. You need an analysis. Concern without analysis is the root of condescension, and that's not what this Legislature is about.
In order to oppose power, you have to recognize that poverty is maintained by some powerful people because it's useful to keep people in poverty. Laws passed by governments are often boxes to keep people in poverty. Let's take free trade and taxation as examples of foreign and domestic policies. Those policies are not accidents; they're here because they're intended to either expand the power of the rich or to limit it.
I would suggest that if we're going to talk about poverty here, we ought not talk about it as accidental poverty, or "it's too bad about the poverty." We need to recognize that it is legislated on purpose, in defence of the poverty of limited individuals. Poverty is on this planet because it is useful, and the policies of governments often exacerbate the pain of the poor.
I am not here as an individual, nor is the member who raised this question; we're here as members of a collective. In our system the issue is raised by the collective. I have absolute belief in the integrity of the member who raised this issue. But it gets a little difficult to understand when the collective that the member is part of stands up and attacks the government for being against capital if we raise taxes and attacks the government for being against people if we restrain budgetary expenditures.
[10:30]
Hon. Speaker, I am not going to demean the member or his party. But I would point out that time after time in this House we have attempted -- through raising the minimum wage, through changes to social services legislation and taxation policies and through our attempt to change the free trade policies of this country -- to deal with structural poverty where it lives. It was put on this planet by capitalism to keep people poor. We are trying to deal with it. I beg of the member opposite: don't see it as just your problem. Your entire party has to join in this conversation, and it must be an analysis that runs through all your criticism. I thank you for raising this issue in the House.
V. Anderson: I agree with the previous speaker that we need to be concerned that people have jobs. We need to be concerned that people have the opportunity and the privilege to be involved in businesses and have the opportunity to care for themselves, which is exactly what people like to do.
I also agree with the previous speaker -- at least as I understood his implications -- that it's the collective responsibility of all of us in this Legislature to work together. That's why I suggested that I'm not blaming the government or the opposition. I'm not blaming people for what has happened; I'm looking forward to what will happen in the days ahead. That's why I've suggested that there should be a legislative committee representing all members of this Legislature to do the analysis and develop the plans together that he's suggesting.
There are some 416,000 people in British Columbia living in poverty. Those are the people that we need to respond to and deal with one by one. They make up about 15.3 percent of our total population. It seems to me that the 84.7 percent of the population have a responsibility to them. Words are not enough.
Here in Victoria some years ago, a member of this Legislature, David Barrett, spoke to a church group that was struggling with the very issues we're considering this morning. He talked to the group, whose hearts were in the right place and who felt the need. He talked to the people who intellectualized the need and talked about it from that point of view. Then he said to them very simply that it's not enough to have your heart in the right place or to have it in your head; there must be a third category, and that is that you must have the will to do something about it. I encourage us as a Legislature to acknowledge the situation and act with the will to change it.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the member for Okanagan-Penticton has now come into the chamber. With your agreement, we will recognize the member.
BORDERLINES '92
J. Beattie: I wish to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to rise in the second place.
On May 22, 1992, a unique conference took place in the Okanagan Valley. Not only was there an interesting mix of participants, but the event took place on both sides of the international border on the same day and with the same people. The conference was called "Borderlines '92," and was conceived by Dr. Allan Markin, director of the Penticton campus of Okanagan College, and David Lindeblad of Wenatchee Valley College of Washington State.
[ Page 2240 ]
The purpose of the conference was to identify regional border issues, and I'll quote from Dr. Allan Markin when he stated: "Community colleges have many roles to play, and one of the most important is to be community builders in their regions. I believe that Borderlines '92 is the sort of event that helps Okanagan College discharge its responsibility in this regard."
There was also the hope that a new forum for dialogue could be created which would assist in the improvement of the social, economic and cultural lives of all the peoples living in the Okanagan bioregions. The organizers invited a mix of people whose daily activities naturally lead them to seek resolve of issues through dialogue. The 75 participants comprised students, professors, chambers of commerce members, economic development officers, independent business people, interested individuals and politicians. Political representation included Senator Scott Barr and Washington State representatives Steve Fuhrman and Bob Morton. Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt Member of Parliament Jack Whittaker, Osoyoos Mayor Tom Shields and myself also attended.
What this conference achieved was an exchange between two distinct nations at the grass-roots level. There was discussion on issues that impact both on a regional, provincial and state level, and these were profound issues: the acknowledgment of the important place of the first peoples in the past and today, the challenge of protecting the semi-arid environment of the Okanagan and the water system that flows through it, the importance and impact of cross-border trade, the need to provide fully supported educational opportunities to the students of the rural areas, the importance of appropriate industry and enterprise to provide work to the graduating students and others so they may continue to live in their birth or chosen homes, and last, but not least important by any stretch of the imagination, how to maintain separateness while enhancing and benefiting from our close quarters along the border.
A key ingredient to the success of Borderlines '92 was the fact that it is and will continue to be the child of the educational community. I believe the students and professors have every reason to direct community discussion. In fact, I would say that it is their responsibility. As a society, we depend on the education system to train the leaders who will create the future. We live and act in the context of the world around us, and the more quickly we are able to involve ourselves with the difficult problems facing the community, the better.
Building a relationship takes time. Working cooperatively with neighbours requires a subtle understanding of relationships if substantive changes are to be achieved. So it seems clear to me that it is valuable to have the educational community creating the opportunities for dialogue so students find themselves early on face to face with the world beyond the institution. Beyond the importance of people talking to other people, the focus of this conference was the reality of people separated by a border.
There is a political minefield working here, and it's not my intention to wade in and touch on specifics. The invisible line that separates us has many forms and creates different impacts. The members of this House have their own views of what's at stake, and each one is slightly different and valid in its own way. The point is that there are challenges to be met in our relationship with our American neighbours, and one way or another, with or without our input, these challenges will be resolved or will continue to fester.
Let me give you one example of a positive result of the Borderlines '92 conference. Peter Beulah, owner of a wood remanufacturing company in Penticton, was invited as an independent businessman. He spoke of the countervail and how, despite his understanding that the duty was to be charged on the first mill price, he was being charged at the wholesale price of his finished product. Senator Barr expressed concern, along with his Canadian counterparts.
In the ensuing days we obtained the proof that this overcharging was indeed taking place. The Minister of Forests' office set the wheel in motion, and just yesterday I received a confirmation from Mr. Beulah that the matter had been corrected. It was a slight bureaucratic glitch perhaps, but a significant one nonetheless. The resolve came about directly as a result of rural Canadians talking to rural Americans in their own communities.
I see no reason why many other fundamental concerns like the maintenance of the environment, problems of regional isolation and the mutual understanding of the effects of cross-border shopping cannot find their solutions in a similar manner.
I think it is significant that the government of British Columbia and the government of Washington are increasingly recognizing the mutual benefits of working on initiatives together. Governor Booth Gardner's statement that his state and our province are environmentally entwined is more than stating the obvious; it's an indication that a new political will exists. Similarly, the work done by this government to help northwest lumber producers join us in fighting the unfair countervail reinforces the reality that despite borders, similarity in environment, geography and industry are strong motivations to work together.
In wrapping up, my point is that there are two distinct elements involved in dialogue, and both are important: the macro and the micro. We should resolve that we are strong and independent enough to talk in a straightforward manner with our American neighbours, and we should encourage the communities along the borders to take the lead. We should be especially supportive of our youth and give their concerns frontline attention as they visualize what the future relationship between the two nations will be.
I take my hat off to the staff and the students of Wenatchee and Okanagan colleges, and I wish them well in their future Borderline conferences. I look forward to being there.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I definitely agree with the member for Okanagan-Penticton that there is a lot of value in communicating with the communities along the border. But as the member is aware, one of the greatest threats to our economy also lies in the interrelatedness of the communities along the border. He was talking about the challenges facing his community.
[ Page 2241 ]
I would put to this member that one of the greatest challenges facing the Okanagan communities is cross-border shopping. One thing we have to realize as Canadians is that the majority of our population is very close to the border between Canada and the United States, and that one of the greatest threats to our sovereignty is for us to be absorbed economically by the giant south of us. There's a very great danger there, and I would put to this member that the most productive thing he could be doing in terms of community-building is to enhance the separateness which he referred to in his speech.
On "Canada AM," they often on Fridays have a talkback section, and this morning they had videotapes from this member's riding and from the riding of the Minister of Agriculture. They were videotapes of people who were what you would consider to be average people. They were not legislators; they were in the business community and they were farmers. The first message they got out, and the message that continued through the videotape, was that cross-border shopping has to stop.
We as legislators have to recognize that. There are some recommendations coming forward on national task forces, and if the provincial government would like to address the greatest concern to the province, it's with regard to cross-border shopping. The provincial government should put together its own task force, bringing together all the stakeholders and recognizing that in enhancing our separateness we really have to move toward setting up our own infrastructure, and recognizing some of the great burdens that we put on the retailer and the small business person in terms of taxation, in terms of lowering their competitiveness with the very state that this member is talking about building bridges to. Although I recognize that, particularly from the point of view of the environment, there is an inseparable regional connection, we can't allow the regional connection to put us in a relationship where we can't then enforce the paramount concerns of our own unique identity. The province of B.C. has to put together a strategy to deal with cross-border shopping.
We are entering a stage in the Okanagan where the agricultural products are coming up for sale. As this member knows, in his riding all the fruit stands are now available for the Okanagan fruit. In any communication with the state to the south of us we have to encourage them to take part in our economy by coming north of the border and purchasing our products and try to build up relationships that will really promote B.C. products and B.C. fruit.
When this member is talking about the educational values that the college can represent, one of the things that the college can do is help us in setting up a strategy by which we can deal with the problems in this member's riding, in my riding and in ridings around the province, which have to do with cross-border shopping. I would encourage the member to go back to his riding, to go to the educational institute and to say to them: please help us now in developing a strategy. We must deal with cross-border shopping. We must deal with our regional problems and our B.C. problems, and as a group then try to deal with the regional connection.
[10:45]
J. Beattie: I thank the hon. member for Okanagan East for her comments, and I agree with much of what she has to say. However, I'd like to say that it was not my initiative, and I don't think it will be my initiative in the future, to encourage the college, because they've taken the bit in their teeth on this issue.
What I find especially interesting about the conference itself was that although the parties came together to talk about similar issues, there were quite different points of view about what the real problems are. With regard to cross-border shopping, the American side had a very laissez-faire attitude about it, because they didn't see it as being a problem. But when we began to talk about the real impacts of the relationship of cross-border shopping, the understanding that they began to have and the light that came into their eyes when they recognized the challenge that it was for the Canadian industry and Canadian businesses was quite astounding. I think they were able to grasp it because it was being presented within a context of many other issues; it wasn't just cross-border shopping. It was the fact that we share native bands who have the same heritage, that we share the environment, that we share the same type of wood industry and the same type of fruit industry. It was that commonality of purpose which began to give them a sensitivity to our problems. I think that's the true value -- we must recognize that we have to be sensitive to the issues on either side of the border.
With regard to cross-border shopping, we're very aware of the fact that the northwest of Washington State feels a much closer allegiance to southern British Columbia than they do to the rest of the American coast. I think that's very interesting. It's not those people with those enterprises that are aggressively trying to attract Canadian people across the border; it's larger national American firms that are setting up shopping centres across the northwest to draw people across. The member is right in that a dialogue has to be maintained, not only on both sides of this House but on both sides of the border. It's a serious problem for my community and for other communities in the Okanagan. With her and other members' cooperation, and with the work of the Okanagan and Wenatchee colleges and of other communities across the border of British Columbia and Washington State, we will resolve some of these issues. If we take the view that we're independent and strong, we'll be able to develop a new understanding.
SENIORS
L. Krog: It is with great pleasure this morning that I remind members of the House that June 1 to 7 is Seniors' Week in British Columbia. We honour the contribution of seniors to the province and to its people. I will begin by citing some statistics which are somewhat surprising. There are 400,000 seniors in British Columbia. They represent 13 percent of our population provincewide. From 1980 to 1990 their numbers in-
[ Page 2242 ]
creased by 42.3 percent. That means that British Columbia has become a retirement Mecca for much of Canada, let alone reflecting the demographics of our population.
Who are those seniors? Those seniors are mothers and fathers; they are the people who nurtured us. They are the people who gave us the ideals and ambition that brought members to this chamber. They are the people who in large measure built this country.
It is interesting to me that this government has taken the appropriate step of recognizing seniors significantly. The title of the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors. I say that with some amusement, because those seniors were at one time very much responsible for us -- in every sense of the word. Those same seniors are now making significant contributions to British Columbia life. Many of them have challenged laws prohibiting their right to work beyond the age of 65, because they have so much more to contribute. Where they've been denied the opportunity to work for remuneration, they have gone out into our communities and filled the boards of charities and societies, and they have continued to make contributions for all of us.
Who are they? For me, they are a number of people. They are very personal to me. They are the aging Chinese that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington spoke of so eloquently a few days ago. They are the people who helped make the province. They are the people to whom we owe so much. They are people like Jim Kingsley in my constituency, who walks today with a limp, a significant reminder for him of his participation in that historic battle on Vimy Ridge, when he fought for freedom in the very fundamental sense of the word. There are people like my own uncle, who has finally been recognized by the government of Canada as being eligible for a pension, having served for years in the North Atlantic in the merchant marine during the Second World War. There are people like Gordon Ireland, who recently retired at the age of 69 as the head of the Society of Organized Services in Parksville-Qualicum -- a man who has made much contribution to the province. They are people like those few remaining veterans of the Mackenzie-Papineau battalion. Today the hon. member for Cariboo North reminded this House that tomorrow is the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day. There are still a few Canadians alive today who fought the fight against fascism and survived -- very few of them -- without any recognition to this very day by the government and the people of Canada for their contribution to preserving freedom in the twentieth century. Those are the seniors. Those people deserve our respect and recognition.
It is my hope that the members of this House will take the opportunity this weekend to call on some of their constituents to thank them for their contribution. Quite frankly, statistics tell us that we will soon be seniors ourselves. By 2001, one in five Canadians will be a senior; and how we honour them and the respect we show to them, I suggest to the hon. members of this House, should be reflected selfishly. We must organize our society so that we honour those who have gone before us.
Many of those seniors are women in poverty. Those are the constituents who, of all of us, need the government to act on the issues of housing and transportation. I trust the government is going to move in that direction.
The government has taken many appropriate steps. I pay tribute to the former government for establishing the Seniors' Advisory Council, which this government has continued. It's now approaching its second anniversary. Its mandate is to advise the Minister Responsible for Seniors on current and future issues of concern to seniors, to represent the interest of seniors throughout the province and maintain close ties with them so that, hopefully, this government will continue to take steps that are appropriate to the care of seniors.
The council has identified many areas of concern. Housing is one that I've already mentioned. But also health and wellness, more community-based health care; drug and alcohol misuse among seniors; the transportation problems I mentioned; and in a very fundamental sense, particularly in the cities of Victoria and Vancouver, the issue of personal security. They do not walk our streets easily; they walk with some sense of fear. We shut them in their homes, because we have not dealt with the issues of poverty that the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara spoke of earlier this morning. The council addresses the issues of women and aging, a significant problem in our province, because women survive men. Statistics tell us that there are more women alive after the age of 85 than men. Their problems are peculiar to them and need to be addressed. There is the issue of social and mental isolation that comes with aging, the availability of support services and the need of those seniors who are frail and elderly for transportation services that are suitable for them. It's that kind of work that the Seniors' Council will continue to assist the government with.
Some social planners suggest that the problem of aging will be the most important factor influencing our future. As I've mentioned already, in less than a decade one in five persons will be seniors in this province. One need only look around the province to see where that is becoming very apparent. The city of White Rock has the highest percentage of seniors in Canada; Kelowna is now the retirement capital of the interior; in my own constituency of Parksville-Qualicum, 30 percent of the residents of Parksville are seniors.
But they are not seniors who are sitting back.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I regret that the time for your opening remarks has elapsed.
L. Fox: It's a shame that these statements have to be limited to such a short time, and the responses as well. I think it's very fitting that the member has stood up today -- this being Seniors' Week -- and made this statement.
Seniors have played a very large role in the development of our province and our country. In the next 20 years the B.C. seniors population is expected to grow by 50 percent and reach nearly 660,000 in number or 16 percent of our population. I think that indicates that the problems we see today, unless action is taken, will only
[ Page 2243 ]
be enhanced by the increased numbers that we project for the future. The vast majority of our seniors are independent people, living on their own and still contributing to the well-being of their communities and their families through various activities, some of which the member has mentioned. It's extremely important that we value those seniors and their contributions and that they be recognized, as they are here today.
Most seniors are retired and on fixed incomes. Therefore that sector of society is hit the hardest by inflation and increased consumption and property taxes. We should be extremely concerned about the impacts on this sector whenever we pass legislation.
We should understand that any cuts to our health care system will reflect directly on seniors, because nearly 50 percent of the $5 billion in that budget is spent on seniors.
I appreciate that the member recognized some of the initiatives of the previous administration. I feel good that with the accomplishments of the earlier government, seniors were moving forward in substantial steps. The Toward a Better Age report, released in April of 1990, provided a blueprint strategy for improving the quality of life and independence of seniors. I am pleased to see that this government is still using it as a guiding instrument. The Seniors' Advisory Council, created in 1990, was mentioned by the member, and I don't think I have to expand on that. There were many other initiatives. Pharmacare funding was increased from $148 million to $224 million over five years. We increased funding for the premium assistance plan by over 83 percent to help seniors with the payment of their MSP premiums. There are many other initiatives out there that have improved the lives of our seniors. We should continue to see those grow and reassess them, given the growth factors that we will be seeing.
Given the fact that many seniors live on their own in buildings that won't allow pets, and given their need for companionship, I filed a private member's amendment bill with the Clerk this morning that would allow seniors to have pets irrespective of where they live. It's my hope that this bill will be supported by the government, and that they will allow it to come forward and be debated in this session.
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate the member's statement.
[11:00]
D. Jarvis: We in the official opposition believe that the underlying theme of all government policies that affect seniors must rest on the importance of allowing them to maintain their sense of dignity as they age. Seniors in our society are frequently marginalized, and the system tries to shunt them off as efficiently as possible. Seniors are too often viewed collectively as a problem and not as an individual resource of our society.
It is crucial that governments recognize the importance of allowing seniors to maintain a sense of independence as they age, during their declining-health years. Government and its agencies must also respect seniors' abilities to continue making their own decisions, despite the fact that they no longer participate in the workforce. Our caucus has targeted many issues of importance to the older citizens of this province.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the time for a response has elapsed.
I now recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum to conclude.
L. Krog: I want to thank both of the members who have just spoken for their sensitivity to this issue, in particular the member for Prince George-Omineca, who talked about their independence and the contributions that seniors continue to make. In my own constituency, the Society of Organized Services that I mentioned earlier is staffed largely by volunteers who are seniors. They provide a social agency in that community that is a model for the country. They provide counselling, family support services and provision for battered women and children. This is all done through their good offices. These people are continuing to make a significant contribution.
I would be remiss this morning if I did not remind the House of the activities of the Canadian Grandparents' Rights Association, who met with the social development committee of the New Democratic Party caucus the other week. These people are actively seeking legislation that will protect the rights of their grandchildren to have the appropriate interaction with them, which I think is crucial to the development of children in our society. It is my sincere hope that this government will not simply honour seniors in the way it is doing and simply proceed with the programs it has undertaken, but that it will make the extra effort to bring about appropriate legislation to guarantee interaction and access between grandparents and grandchildren in this province.
The accumulated wisdom of those seniors and their abilities must not simply be shut away and locked away. They must continue to remain active participants in the life of the province of British Columbia. I'm sure that all members join with me in appreciating the leadership, practical assistance and wisdom that many individual seniors still contribute to our lives today.
POWER
D. Jarvis: We are all familiar with the saying that the origin of the universe commenced with a big bang. I read a statement earlier that the big-bang theory did not give rise to our economy, but that it threatens to finish it off. Somehow I equate this statement to this government's policy -- or lack of -- on power, be it export or domestic.
Power in this province will probably be one of the main economic drivers of our resource industry in the next decade. This government fails to realize that this investment in British Columbia at this time is critical to creating a positive environment. The perception throughout the world of this province at this time will not be one of a positive attitude, but rather a negative attitude, if we continue to present the agenda or the present consensus of programs that this government is now presenting to us. At this time, a clear, strong
[ Page 2244 ]
message is being sent that there is nothing happening out there. This government fails to realize that visions of this province were achieved through independent businessmen and companies and not imposed from above. Corporate vision is what has built the resource industries that supply the power that drives this province. Any thought that any government which holds a minority position in the total vote all over this province has that it can assess through the consensus of what is basically an uninformed, biased minority is foolhardy, I feel.
Let us look at the southeast corner of the province, where a lack of policy and foresight is causing economic havoc to the existing suppliers of energy and the future suppliers, in both the export and domestic fields. Let us look at the Elk Valley. Here's an area of the province that is fighting for its very life and its very existence. For example, the largest coal mine in the town of Elkford, Fording Coal, with over 1,000 employees, is presently on strike. There is the Sparwood area with over 1,300 men on strike at the Balmer mine. In all this area, over 4,000 people are out of work or have been looking for work for over one month now, and this continues to disrupt four different communities. In a sense, this is affecting hundreds of jobs all through the valley and all the way down the railway lines, right down to Roberts Bank on the coast here.
Two cogeneration plants are at this time pleading with an indecisive government to make a decision. These plants will create jobs and revenue for all of this area. They will thus be creating power for industry, from both a utility perspective and societal perspective. For example, cogeneration for an industry has direct benefits, primarily in the savings of total energy costs from the displacement of electricity purchases and, additionally, in any revenue derived from the sale of surplus power. Cogeneration from the utility perspective can be seen as both a source of electric power to the grid and a direct saving in capacity and energy costs throughout. Cogeneration from a societal perspective is that the net benefits are derived from devoting scarce resources to cogeneration, as opposed to the alternative uses. The broader perspective is perhaps factors of employment and environmental concerns.
I might also add that back in early February the council of the district of Sparwood, for example, passed a motion to propose the Fording thermal plant. They sent this to the government. Here is an additional power development for this valley. However, there have been no answers yet from the government, and as usual it's reviewing the proposal. Here is a community that relies on coal for its very existence, and they propose an opportunity to show the people and the government that they can provide an environmentally safe source of energy to the economic benefit of all the people in the valley. These citizens all say that the towns will not die as the town of Cassiar appears to be doing. There may be a lack of political foresight in Victoria, but not in the Elk Valley area.
Hon. A. Edwards: I was wondering what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was going to talk about, since the title that he put in the books was simply "Power." I wasn't sure whether he meant person power, water power or what. I think what he's trying to talk about is policy for energy in British Columbia.
It's an issue that has great interest to the government. The government has responded to the lack of energy policy so far with a number of initiatives, which very clearly indicates that this government wants to have an energy policy and wants to proceed on the basis of energy policy, that it wants to have continuing public input into energy policy and that that will come through an Energy Council -- which the Liberal opposition for some strange reason has decided is not appropriate. They have decided that public input isn't appropriate and that all energy policy should be decided by the minister. I'm not sure why the opposition chose to do that, but that's what they did. Having done that, they then go ahead and say that there is no policy coming from this government. First of all, they say that nothing is happening, but they have been yelling and screaming because something is happening. Then they suggest that what's happening in the southeast corner of British Columbia is indicative of a disastrous energy policy.
It's rather strange that the member suggests there are two cogeneration plants "pleading for decisions," as he put it. Well, well. There is one cogeneration proposal that has been a matter of discussion between the government and the company, Fording Coal, for some considerable time. There have been a number of opportunities for that company to make its case. As I say, the discussions continue. But obviously the member is not up to date on the fact that the company has been given an opportunity to make its environmental case.
With regard to the other cogeneration plant, I would say that they are not in a position where they have asked the government for anything. They don't have a proposal to put forward yet, and they have not been asking for any government action so far.
It's very interesting that the member suggests that that is a problem -- that somehow those two proposals indicate a lack of energy policy in British Columbia. We are doing what the people have asked for. They have asked for a part in developing energy policy, and they will have a part in developing it. That is very much the bottom line of what the people have been asking for in this province.
I might suggest that the member has decided that independent businesses -- not government -- are the basis for achievements in energy in this province. I'm not sure where he was, because basically there has been very little initiative, until recently, to allow independent developers to participate in energy generation in British Columbia. This government has said we believe that there should be the opportunity for independent development, and we are working toward that as well.
Basically, the member opposite has brought forward a number of undefined and somewhat foggy suggestions, which he suggests indicates that the government is at fault. I would put it to you, hon. Speaker, that what the government is doing on energy policy is very clear and very active, and we're very proud of it.
[ Page 2245 ]
D. Jarvis: Another issue regarding power in British Columbia that this government should consider, in my opinion, is the proposal to repatriate West Kootenay Power. Let us bring this power company back to Canada. As you are aware, it was sold to the United States a few years back, and it should be brought back to service the people in the Kootenays and in the Okanagan and boundary areas. We should be retaining Canadian ownership and local control of all Canadian electrical utilities, not only for maintaining reasonable rates but, even more so, for securing a continuous supply of hydroelectric power to the interior of this province. This repatriation would also protect our water rights in all aspects, including environmental aspects and our basic Canadian heritage.
We can only control our economic growth if we have control over our energy resources. We have diverse and abundant energy resources, so why don't we protect them? It's time that British Columbia took the initiative in the federal and provincial courts, as in past administrations this province has possibly abrogated some of our jurisdictional rights over our natural resources. At this time there is no clear impact as to the regulation of our resources, and now is the time to clarify these points -- now and not later.
[11:15]
Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of bill 40.
SOCIAL SERVICES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. J. Smallwood: This bill proposes amendments to sections 13 and 15 of the family services act.
Section 13 deals with the continued supervision of a child by the superintendent of family and child service upon being returned home following the termination of a temporary custody order. Under the current Family and Child Service Act there is no provision for the court to make a supervision order following the expiry of a temporary custody order or an extension of such an order. When a social worker still has some concerns about the well-being of a child who is to be returned to his or her own home, as is sometimes the case, the options available to the worker are either to apply for an extension of a temporary custody order, return the child to the parent without supervision or apply for a permanent custody order. The amendment to section 13 of the Family and Child Service Act will allow the social worker and the court the option of returning a child home while continuing a level of supervision, rather than achieving further supervision through an extension of custody which prolongs the separation of the child from his or her family.
The amendment to section 15 of the Family and Child Service Act allows for the extension of support for permanent wards beyond their nineteenth birthday. There is currently no provision in the act to allow for a continuation of support to a permanent ward after the ward reaches the age of majority. Most youths at 19 years of age are still dependent or semi-dependent on their parents because they are pursuing educational goals or plans leading to independence. The section 15 amendment will allow the superintendent of family and child service to enter into an agreement with the former permanent ward to provide support up to the former ward's twenty-first birthday. The agreement will require that the former permanent ward be enrolled in an educational or vocational training program, be terminally ill or have a serious mental or physical disability that could delay independence.
I turn now to the amendments to the Social Workers Act. The Social Workers Act establishes a board of registration for social workers and gives the board various powers and responsibilities over the registration and conduct of social workers who are registered. The board of registration currently has ten members, each appointed for a one-year term by order-in-council.
The amendment to section 1 of the act extends the definition of the word "board" and defines the new term "hearing panel." The amendment to section 3 provides for the establishment of hearing panels by the board and broadens the available range of disciplinary measures that can be applied to a registered social worker who has been found guilty of misconduct or of having displayed incompetence. The creation of hearing panels as defined in section 1 will enable board members to make more efficient use of their time, reduce the likelihood of bias on the part of board members involved in disciplinary procedures and address the situation whereby the board may be unlawfully delegating its powers to panels currently established under the rules of the board.
Currently the Social Workers Act requires the entire board to participate in hearings flowing from allegations of misconduct or incompetence against a registered social worker. Board members serve in a voluntary capacity, and their time is precious. Requiring the full board to convene for disciplinary hearings creates significant time commitments. The use of small hearing panels would enable the workload to be spread over several panels, thereby reducing the demand on each board member's time.
Hearing panels could also reduce the possibility of bias by board members when hearing matters of misconduct or incompetence. Currently an original disciplinary hearing by the full board can be followed by an extraordinary suspension application to the same board. This situation may make it difficult for board members to remain unbiased when hearing a suspension application on a social worker following their involvement in an original disciplinary hearing regarding the same social worker. The existence of hearing panels would make it possible to ensure that no board member is required to deal with both an original and subsequent disciplinary hearing involving the same social worker.
Under the rules that apply to the work of the board, three-person panels have been used to hear allegations, to make findings and to impose sanctions, including the cancellation or suspension of a social worker's registration. It seems likely that these functions cannot lawfully be delegated by the board under current legislation. The amendment to section 3 will remedy this situation by empowering hearing panels to act in place of the board in disciplinary matters, thereby having the
[ Page 2246 ]
powers of the board to cancel and suspend registration. The amendments to section 3 and 3.1 will broaden the range of disciplinary measures that the board or a hearing panel can apply. In addition to existing powers to cancel or suspend registration, the board or panel will be able to set terms and conditions limiting the way in which a registered social worker can practise her or his profession. The B.C. Association of Social Workers considers the disciplinary function of the board of registration to be an essential component in the regulation of practice of social workers in this province. The amendments to section 3 and 3.1 will enable the board of registration to be a more effective regulator of social work practice in the years ahead.
V. Anderson: I rise on our behalf to give support to the intent and the actions of this bill that is being brought forward. It's our understanding that these are moving in the right direction, so we would encourage their implementation. Just a few comments on them at this point, going through them number by number just to clarify the order.
The opportunity for the court to return children to their homes for six months under supervision is one that we affirm. We would also then be cautious about the kind of supervision so that families are supported rather than hindered during that period of time. It would also be my understanding that it would make it possible to apprehend children for a shorter period of time away from their home, because there is the option now to put supervision into their home. Previously, if there was time needed, they had to almost be kept away from their parents, and the longer they are kept away, the more difficult it is to realign them once again. The bonding, once broken, is harder to re-establish. So I commend the direction of this bill, because it gives flexibility both before and after.
In the second section of this bill, we again commend the government for continuing support of persons who have been wards after they are no longer wards until their twenty-first birthday. We have recommended an amendment to the government in the presentation of this bill, so that if a young person is in study session and their twenty-first birthday comes in mid-term, they should be able to be supported till the end of that study year. The government has agreed to this amendment and will be bringing it forth in their presentations.
We also affirm the amendments to the Social Workers Act, because we think this gives more flexibility. As has been pointed out by the minister, this gives more support to the workers themselves. It also broadens the range of possibilities that can be constructive, if there needs to be some disciplinary action or some change that is supportive of the workers themselves and is not simply in a negative fashion.
I also was pleased by the minister's indication -- because it was a question I had -- of how a person appealed. She explained that in the presentation of the hearing panel, separate from the board, it gives a much better route of appeal and a much fairer and open possibility. That is important.
We agree to the protection that's given to social workers, so that they cannot be held liable if they have been undertaking their work in good faith. The government has maintained their own possible liability, which is a protection for the other side of the ledger as well. We commend the government for their balance and their willingness to accept our amendment, and we encourage them in this bill going forward.
Deputy Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the opposition for their support in this bill and in recognizing the considerable work that needs to be done with policy changes. I want to assure the member that this is one of the first of many moves that will be brought about by the good work that the community panel is presently engaged in around family and children's services.
It's appropriate for me to recognize the supportive fashion in which we are able to work in addressing family and community needs. With that, I move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 40, Social Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
SOCIAL SERVICES STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 40; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Fox: I apologize to the minister and the House. I was called out of the House for a few moments and missed my opportunity to comment on second reading, but I want to clarify one fact with respect to section 1.
The present act appears to allow for the supervision of children in virtually every case but this one. Is that in fact the case, and would this make it an almost unanimous situation where all children were covered under this act?
[11:30]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am sorry that the member was unable to hear my introductory comments, because I very clearly set out the purpose of this provision in the introductory comments. Currently the options for a social worker are very limited in regard to custody matters. When a temporary custody order has reached its limit, the social worker has the opportunity either to apply for a permanent order, to extend the temporary custody order, or send the child back home. If they have a concern around the safety or support of that child, they have very few options for continued involvement. What this particular section does is provide additional support through involvement of the court to ensure an opportunity for social workers to provide support and place that child back in the family home.
Section 1 approved.
[ Page 2247 ]
On section 2.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move that the proposed amendment to section 2 in the hands of the Clerks be made. The changes are self-explanatory. In particular, the changes enable the superintendent to extend the voluntary agreement with a former ward to the end of the school year during which he or she turns 21 years old if he or she is enrolled in an education or vocational program.
On the amendment.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this amendment was suggested by the opposition critic, and that we have worked with the opposition critic in ensuring that the language reflected the realities for these particular young people. I would like, again, to recognize the cooperative working relationship.
Amendment approved.
On section 2 as amended.
L. Fox: I don't have a lot of problems with the section. The only concern I have is that, with the amendment, this section now allows for continued support for the wards until they reach age 21. I'm concerned that other people, once they reach age 18, may have the same needs as a ward but do not have same opportunities. My question is: just because a child has been made a ward, why should that child have opportunities beyond what other members of society have?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think there would be some value to the member recognizing that the province's role in the relationship with wards, children in the permanent care of the province, is one of parent. Our responsibility to that young person is, in many ways, similar to the role and responsibilities that you may have with your children, hon. member. This amendment recognizes that the relationship between parent and child does not all of a sudden end at a specified age, and that for many of our mutual children, there is a continued relationship and opportunity to support children to independence.
When we are talking specifically about children in the permanent care of the province, they have had some very disruptive years in their lifetime. This amendment recognizes that, as a parent, it not only is in our best interest to support that child to independence but certainly is in the best interest of the child and the taxpayers. Should we, as in the past, all of a sudden abruptly end our relationship with a child once he turns 19, but is not ready for independence? As a province, a community and a society, we will end up having to support the child in perhaps a far less productive relationship.
L. Fox: Just one further question that might help me to understand the magnitude of this. Could the minister enlighten me as to how many wards would be affected by this?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am advised that there are approximately 300 and that there will be approximately 200 next year.
V. Anderson: I would also like to speak to the issue raised about the continuing care of these young people. One of the unfortunate circumstances that many young people face when they have been taken into care by the province is that, although they might appreciate the care, because it's legislated there is a sense of being angry about what somebody else does for you, even if it's for your own benefit. When you have the freedom to make your own choice, suddenly you have no ability or resources to go ahead and do that. This is a very healthy change, whereby they can move from feeling that other people are making decisions for them to feeling that they are making decisions for themselves, while also being supported in that new experience. I commend the change that is being put forward.
Section 2 as amended approved.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On Section 6.
L. Fox: A question with respect to this section. It appears to remove the possibility of civil action against the board or any of its members. While I can appreciate that the individual members should be protected, I wonder if it's in the best interest of the whole process that a board should be beyond action, given that it my make a decision that is not in the best interests of an applicant. He should have some right, I believe, to come back and protect his interest. Even that limitation sometimes gives boards a little more sensitivity towards how they treat an applicant. Perhaps the minister might enlighten me on that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: What this amendment does is recognize the responsibility of the board, not particularly of individuals, and it protects that responsibility in acting in regard to disciplinary actions against members.
L. Fox: I'm aware of that, but my concern is that a board should be collectively responsible for its actions. I'm concerned that this may limit them, or give them the feeling that they won't have to be held responsible. That's the issue I'm really concerned about.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
[ Page 2248 ]
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 40, Social Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. Smallwood: By leave now.
Leave granted.
Bill 40, Social Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 55.
RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 55: D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to have the hon. minister explain section 1 to us. I have received information from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. They have some feelings about this with respect to a problem with land that is next to the Crown lands. You were talking about a plan whereby if you were utilizing Crown lands you would have to have the plan incorporate your own lands or other lands owned by other people on private property. Can you clarify that this is the case?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. It is generally the case when you are requiring plans; for example, tree-farm licence plans, which often include adjacent private lands. In fact, that was the original concept behind that particular licence. It was meant to induce management on private lands, and it's the same here. The section defines the tenure management plan and makes it clear that that tenure management plan would apply to the three other classes that you see in (a), (b) and (c). I hope that clarifies the section.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
L. Fox: I see that this particular section 6.1 brings in a period not exceeding a year. Previously permits could be authorized for a term not exceeding five years. Could the minister give me some rationale as to why that change was necessary?
Hon. D. Miller: The permit in this case is not a permit obtained through competition, where the longer provisions would apply, but is in fact a direct award. Given that, it's appropriate that it would be for the shorter time.
[11:45]
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
L. Fox: I have just a very brief concern here. This section appears to be one more example of what has been pretty common in legislation during this sitting, where the ultimate authority for government actions is being transferred from the elected people into the bureaucratic network. Would the minister please give his observations with respect to that and the rationale for making that change?
Hon. D. Miller: Again it's common, if you look at other acts and other ministries that have a structure system in place with the province. There were extensive revisions, for example, to sections of the Forest Act over the last few years, replacing the wording that previously specified only the minister and making it clear that senior managers -- whether they be regional managers or, in some cases, district managers -- had the responsibility and the authority to carry out the functions contained in the act. That's simply what is taking place here.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
L. Fox: Just some clarification, once again. This appears to rewrite two sections that ensure licences and permits can be cancelled in whole or in part. Other sections already allude to this. Could the minister give me some of the rationale for this change?
Hon. D. Miller: Currently the act really only allows people in my ministry, who administer the act, to cancel the entire tenure. It seemed appropriate. There's no flexibility in there, so this provides the managers with the flexibility to administer in a more effective manner by reducing, in part. Clearly, no choice is available. Often the penalties were extreme. We think that more effective administration would take place given a range of penalties.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
R. Chisholm: While our caucus does support the general intent of this legislation, there are several questions that have arisen which the minister may want to take some time now to address. The first concern has to do with the role of the district manager. In most cases cited in this bill, decisions are made under the authority of the district manager. We would appreciate if the minister could explain to us what sort of appeal procedure is available to those affected by these decisions, if any. What process would be available for ranchers to contest the decision of the district manager?
Hon. D. Miller: I would note, for the member's benefit, that we have just passed two sections, sections
[ Page 2249 ]
10 and 11. Both deal with the issue of appeal and provide for appeal from a monetary penalty and on a reduction in the animal units per month.
There is an appeal provision. We could have debated it under those sections. If the member wants me to get into the absolute details in terms of the specifics, I could check with my officials here and try to outline that in general terms. I'm not certain if the member has a concern beyond that, or if he requires that detail, or is it sufficient that the act does contain the right to appeal decisions made under this section? They're normal provisions of appeal. As I said, I'm prepared to give some amplification on the process, but there is an appeal provision for both of the issues.
R. Chisholm: I realize that. I brought that point up because this individual seems to have an awful lot of power -- judge and jury -- considering the clause allows for a $2,000 fine per day for any cattle that stray onto Crown land. This seems rather excessive when you consider that if cattle break out of the farmer's or other lands onto Crown lands -- they can get lost up in the hills -- and they're there for a week, that could be to the tune of $14,000. Considering that cattlemen with 200 head of cattle generally earn approximately $100,000 a year, and that's not including their costs, that is a substantial amount of money. You could break them with this bill if it is not utilized fairly. And this individual has an awful lot of power.
I'm also surprised that you have stated that you had no problems from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association over this bill, considering that they sent me two pages of problems. This was one of the articles they had a problem with, and this was the main one. I'll quote to you from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, from a Mary MacGregor. They express concerns over Bill 55. They were talking about section 42.1 under section 12: "The fines imposed seem to be a bit excessive. If any cattle are loose for a week on Crown land, a rancher could face a fine of $14,000." Mary MacGregor indicated that an average rancher with 200 head, like I said before, makes $100,000 gross, and this fine could severely hamper the profitability of a ranch. This fine could be applied in a knee-jerk reaction to an accidental incident.
Therefore they are proposing that we should amend this section, and I propose to amend this section by adding the words "who is wilfully and negligently" after the word "owner." In that way, when this fine is applied, it will mean that the individual went out of his way to utilize Crown lands and that it wasn't an accidental situation. I move this amendment at this time.
On the amendment.
Hon. D. Miller: I hope I can offer an explanation to illustrate why the amendment is clearly not required. I can understand the concerns that the member has expressed, but let me back up a moment. I want first of all to assure all hon. members and the B.C. Cattlemen's Association that we have had extensive meetings with the Cattlemen's Association and that the general issue of having a better administrative regime and more flexibility under the act has been endorsed. In fact, some of the provisions in this bill were called for by the association.
There is nobody in my ministry who has any intention of doing any harm to people in the cattle business. We do our best to manage that land base. It's a land base that is often the scene of conflict between various competing users -- between cattlemen, wildlife, water users. There are some very complex and difficult issues, and some are still in a stage, I guess you could say, that is unresolved. An example is the Naramata area, where there is fierce conflict between the various competing users. It is not our intention to try to do harm to people in the cattle business. We go to great lengths to try to assist them, and I think we do a commendable job in that regard.
The current act, as I said, only allows for the extreme penalty. Under the existing legislation we can currently take away a tenure. The normal appeal provisions are essentially to the district manager first of all, then to the regional manager, on to the chief forester, then to an appeal board and then to the courts. There is a series of steps that anyone can take to appeal a decision by a district manager. And it ultimately goes to an impartial appeal board. If the person is not satisfied there, they certainly have access to the courts.
But the central point is that if we were not debating this amendment, the legislation grants authority to my ministry to render a far more extreme penalty than the ones that are outlined in this act. Having said that, I think the need to put the terms "negligent" and "wilful" into this particular clause is unfounded.
Further to that, in terms of the issue of negligence, it will ultimately be determined if a penalty is determined under this section. The issue of negligence, obviously, goes to the heart of it and will be determined through the various appeal provisions. It doesn't need to be stated. The term "wilful" causes extreme problems, because it may be one thing to deal with the issue of negligence, but it's quite another to deal with the term "wilful." In terms of the kinds of issues that we're dealing with, for example cattle roaming free and grazing where they shouldn't be, you might be able to say it was negligence, but to say that it was wilful may, in some cases -- even though it might have been -- be virtually impossible to prove. From that point of view, we find it unacceptable to have that in there.
I think the hon. member's concerns, although well-intentioned and well-founded, are really overstated. The need to have this amendment go forward has certainly not been demonstrated.
F. Gingell: When one starts a new career as an MLA and gets involved and goes to B.C. Telephone Co. for a telephone for the office, the telephone starts to ring. The first thing that happens is you are barraged by a plethora of citizens of this province who are having problems dealing with the provincial bureaucracy. It really was quite a shock for me to find the number of problems that people have in their everyday lives dealing with provincial civil servants. It's surprising how simple it is on many occasions to get those problems solved. The MLA can phone the Workers'
[ Page 2250 ]
Compensation Board or the Social Services ministry and get everybody talking again and solve the particular matter. After six months I've become really quite cynical about the way in which many bureaucrats operate. Misunderstandings happen between them and the particular citizen they're dealing with, and small problems become big problems.
[12:00]
I can quite understand the minister's concern with the word "wilfully", because that clearly requires you to prove an intent. But one could perhaps consider that it would be appropriate to have some qualification in this penalty provision so that there is some proper wording -- the word "negligent" does strike a chord -- that will ensure that fines of this nature will only be levied when there is clearly a lack of proper precaution taken by the cattle owner. I'm sure cattle can be stampeded and break down fences by many acts that have nothing to do with the farmers: planes flying overhead, helicopters, trespassers, whatever.
It really does seem to me that this particular section does require some qualification that will make sure that it is not intended to be applied when clearly there has been some accidental happening that was outside the control of the owner of the cattle.
Hon. D. Miller: I really do appreciate, I suppose, the abundance of caution that seems to be suggested by the remarks of the members of the opposition. It is simply not required. At the risk at repeating myself too much, I'll go back and cover just a little.
Currently, without this amendment, we have the power under the act as it currently reads to render the worst possible penalty: we can remove a tenure. There is no wording in there that uses the term "negligence." If violations occur, we have the authority under the current act to render only one penalty: the removal of the tenure. By this amendment we are simply adding the ability to impose lesser penalties, smaller penalties.
If you look at it in that context, I hope you would agree that the clause does not require the addition of the term "negligent" or "wilful." In fact, from the remarks of the last member, it would appear to me that the opposition is acknowledging -- at least that part of their amendment -- that the use of the term "wilful" should not be there, and perhaps they may be appearing to speak against their own amendment in part.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's Friday.
It is simply not required. I certainly respect the basis you're putting forward, but it really isn't required. The law applies to many things. The law says -- whatever the words used -- that you can't commit murder. The courts, the process, determine the cause, the motive: whether it was accidental or whether it was premeditated. You can't possibly put all of the reasons why a certain act might happen as caveats within a clause. You have to have the process that follows determine what took place.
As I've already explained, the process that is in place allows an appeal; first of all to the district manager, next to the regional manager, then up to the chief forester, then to an appointed appeal board and finally to the courts. I hope that the members find that explanation acceptable, because I think I've illustrated that the amendment is simply not required.
R. Chisholm: I guess I'm rather cynical myself, and so is the BCCA.
The problem here is that they foresee problems where this could be just arbitrarily.... Cattlemen could be fined. Once you get into the bureaucratic system, you know yourself how hard it can be to convince different levels of government to see the way clear through the smoke.
I'll read here from the actual bill. You say that this would be a fine in lieu of the heavier fines. It states in the bill that: "...livestock or both of them to pay the Crown, in addition to any other penalty under this Act, a penalty of up to $2,000 for each day that the livestock are on the Crown range without authority." That clearly says to me "in addition to." It doesn't say that it's replacing; it says that it's in addition to the fines that they can already be fined.
If the Minister of Agricultural happens to be in the precincts listening to this debate, I would urge him to come in and support this amendment, along with the members for Kamloops, Yale-Lillooet and the Cariboo. It's a very big issue for them. The BCCA would not have sent these documents down to us if they weren't overly concerned about this section of this bill.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain that the amendment deals with the issue that the member just talked about. I don't think it does. It's a separate issue. It's somewhat confusing in terms of the debate. Is the mover of the amendment abandoning the amendment? Certainly it would be preferable for the House to know where we stand with respect to that.
R. Chisholm: Remember open government and consultation? Try it.
Hon. D. Miller: The member talks about it. I'm just trying to figure out where we are here, hon. member.
You put some arguments in favour of your amendment. I think I offered some very clear explanations for why it wasn't required. Now we appear to have moved on to additional wording in this section that's not covered by your amendment. Let me know where you're coming from, and I will try to respond.
Again, the wording is typical for this kind of bill. It may be that on an issue of seizure, for example, there is a considerable cost to the Crown. It may be that the trespass is of such a nature that the penalty provisions are quite appropriate in terms of the Crown trying to recover its costs. I want to repeat, for the benefit of people listening and for the benefit of my staff, who, with the best of intentions....
I don't think that anybody in the B.C. Cattlemen's Association could stand up and say anything negative about people in my ministry. There wouldn't be any suggestion that we would somehow have people out
[ Page 2251 ]
there who would go out and issue penalties all over the place just for the sake of doing it. That kind of characterization of the men and women who work for the government, whether in my ministry or in others, is quite unfair.
There seems to be some confusion with respect to the amendment. Where do we stand on it? If the opposition is withdrawing it, I would like to know. If they have further amendments on the application of the monetary penalty as it relates to any other penalties available under the act, maybe they should have been thinking of amendments to deal with it.
R. Chisholm: Just to clarify it for the minister, all we're asking is for two words to be entered into this bill. All that will take away from it is the chance of fining accidents. We want wilful error or negligence put into this bill. That way, when a regional or district manager looks at an accidental situation, he cannot fine them these fines. It's pretty straightforward. It just clarifies that clause.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, if by some strange circumstance there is an accidental fine levied that's not caught by the district manager, the regional manager, the chief forester or the appeal board, hopefully at the end of the day the courts will discover it.
There is a laid-out appeal procedure. We're talking about bringing in a series of amendments to this bill to make the administration of the Range Act work in favour of the users -- the cattlemen. We can talk about what-ifs until the cows come home. My apologies for that. I won't ask the hon. member where the beef is, in terms of their objections. I don't know what more I can say. It's my view that the amendment is not required, and perhaps we should move on.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, as interesting as this debate can be, it has certainly reached the point of tedium. The minister has explained the confidence of his staff, and that the amendment won't work. It's time to end the debate and get on with voting.
Amendment negatived.
On section 12.
L. Fox: I have a couple of points of clarification. I'd like to know how many incidents of trespass we had over the last year that may fall under this particular section now.
The other concern I have is: how many animals have to wander onto Crown land -- perhaps from a range -- before this particular section would cut in?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that in terms of infractions, it may run to ten to 20 per year per region. As to the specifics, that may be a difficult question. For me to stand up and say that, for example, if one cow wandered into a field because the farmer hadn't maintained the fence, that would be the kind of infraction.... I suspect not. It certainly is a matter of administration on the ground. The cattlemen and the people who administer the act know what's acceptable, what's an accident and what's what.
It may be very difficult for me to characterize precisely what kind of infraction would cause a district manager to seek the penalty provisions under the act.
The Chair: As a point of clarification for the members of the committee, the amendment was defeated, and we were on section 12.
Sections 12 and 13 approved.
On section 14.
D. Symons: I have some concerns about this section, because two or three other bills have come before this House during this session with the same sort of wording, and it causes me concern. One of them was Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act, and another was Bill 33, the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act. Both of these bills have in them what this section has in it: no compensation.
The government seems to moving a great deal in that way. You are cutting off the opportunity for people who have laid out money, who have an investment in something, to have recourse to recover the moneys that they have put out. I'm not too sure how this part labelled "No compensation.... I don't have the complete act here, but section 14 says: "Notwithstanding any provision of this act, the Expropriation Act, and any other enactment, no damages or compensation of any kind is payable by the government in respect of...."
I am concerned. Can the minister offer his explanation of this particular section, and the extent of protection that it is going to offer the government from the results of its own decisions? I understand that there is a bit of concern among the ranchers that this may absolve the ministry of all responsibility for its operations. I think it would be useful for the minister to explain the extent of protection granted in this, both to the ministry and also to the people who have animals and so forth that may be using Crown lands.
[12:15]
Hon. D. Miller: To the people currently using the land, there is really no protection required, because if they do their job properly, there will never be anything that will be a question of compensation. Really, the short answer with respect to the clause is that we are changing, through the act, some of the administration and management terms -- for example, the requirement of the tenure management plan. What we're saying here is that because we're doing that -- changing and putting this in place on people who currently have tenures -- they're not liable for any compensation as a result of having to meet the provisions of the act. The act does not detail any taking from anyone. We're not going out and taking land away. The only time that would occur is through the penalty provisions that are outlined if there were infractions. So we're putting in place a new management regime, if you like, where it didn't previously exist, and we're simply saying here that because of doing that, the Crown is not liable to
[ Page 2252 ]
compensate anyone as a result. I think you were suggesting that it fell into the area of taking away without compensation, and it is clearly not the case in this act, hon. member.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, and I'm not sure whether it has quite answered my concerns. I'll try and be more direct, in the sense of saying that if somebody had built up a farming operation and had tenure for a certain area of Crown land, and the government, for one reason or another, is going to remove this tenure because of some other claims -- possibly an aboriginal claim on the land -- will there be compensation at that moment for expenses? The person's got a business going. Is there going to be some compensation for what was laid out on the expectation that he was going to be able to use the land for a certain period of time?
Hon. D. Miller: That is a completely separate matter. It does not fall within the purview of this bill whatsoever.
L. Fox: I concur with the previous speaker. I do have some concerns with respect to this section. The reduction of a permit, the reduction of the number of animals on a particular grazing lease or the reduction of rights with respect to those tenures for just cause is one issue. Normally, if the ministry has just cause, it doesn't have a problem with compensation. My concern, even though, as I understand it, the individuals would have the right to appeal through the ministry, is that when arbitrary decisions are made with respect to.... For instance, let's say that on a particular grazing area an individual had the right to graze 200 animals, and all of a sudden somebody assesses it and says: "We can no longer allow that to happen; we're going to cut you back to 100 animals." It may put a respective rancher in a very difficult position. It's done on an arbitrary basis, not necessarily for just cause, against that particular rancher. I'm concerned that this legislation brings forward the opportunity to make arbitrary decisions and that the government is then not liable for any compensation made by those arbitrary decisions.
Hon. D. Miller: I clearly indicated that the act does not contemplate a taking away. On your direct question, which is hypothetical, if there are 200 AUMs, for example, on a particular area and it's determined that an appropriate management level would be 100, is the member suggesting that we continue to allow 200, and overgraze and thereby destroy the land? No, you're not. Clearly you wouldn't suggest that. Is the member suggesting that if only 100 AUMs were appropriate for the land-base, somehow we should compensate the tenure-holder? I don't think the member is suggesting that either. Really, I would ask the members.... Perhaps not everyone is interested, and I appreciate that. But if you look at the provisions in this bill in terms of their administrative impact, we all agree with the requirement of having a tenure management plan -- but plan those activities. There are provisions in here that are not contained in the act which allow my officials to offer forage that currently may exist, but under the current act they can't make that available to cattle. This act allows managers the flexibility to offer that benefit to people in the industry. So look at the whole act to see what its intent is. I think your reasons for caution are not valid.
Finally, with respect to this issue, the word "compensate" must be a red flag that people hone in on and somehow think of all the nefarious things they could ever think of. "Compensate" can mean many things. People compensate for things every day. It doesn't necessarily mean money. In this section compensation does not refer to a taking away. I don't know how much clearer I can be. It refers to the fact that we are putting in place a new administrative order that will allow all of the things described in the act -- tenure management plans and the flexibility to allow my managers to offer grazing that is currently there -- but they don't offer it because their hands are tied, and they can't.
The act simply says that by putting this management regime in place, the Crown is not liable to compensate anybody for doing so. It's as simple as that. With that, I hope I have convinced members opposite that their fears on this Friday afternoon are unfounded, and we can proceed through the next few brief sections of the act.
L. Fox: This little lecture that we get every once in a while from this minister is really a learning experience, and I know that given a few years, I will be equal to the task.
I have to say that it specifically states in the act that there will be no compensation or damages of any kind paid by this government. Perhaps the analogy that I used was not a correct one. I'm not a rancher, so I don't have a lot of knowledge with respect to that particular business. However, I am concerned. If the minister can assure us -- as he just did -- that there is really no need for it, why is it stated? That in itself has to be a cause for concern. Certainly members within the Social Credit caucus are extremely concerned about this government's attitude towards the average public and the average business in this province. I can only say that, while I believe in spirit I can support the bill, I'm really concerned. I don't trust the minister, to be quite honest, with respect to his statements on no compensation, because I've been around long enough to know that if there was really no need for it, it wouldn't have been mentioned in this amendment. So while I appreciate the lecture I got earlier.... I look forward to others, because the minister likes to stand up and show his talents. With that, I'll sit down.
Section 14 approved on division.
Sections 15 and 16 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
[ Page 2253 ]
The House resumed; Mr. Barnes in the chair.
Bill 55, Range Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH
HOLDING SOCIETY
Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to take this opportunity to make a very short ministerial statement. Having announced to the Legislature on June 1, 1992, that I have decided to initiate an investigation pursuant to section 85 of the Society Act on Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, NCHS Charities Society, Harewood Community Hall Association, and Harewood Social Centre Society, I am appointing Mr. Ronald Parks of Ernst and Young, chartered accountants, Vancouver office, to conduct the investigation. Mr. Ronald Parks will review the affairs and conduct of these societies, including compliance to the Society Act and protection of the public interest, and provide me with a written report of his findings by the end of August 1992. His investigation will be coordinated with the audit of the same societies initiated by the public Gaming Commission.
Hon. D. Miller: I wish all members, having put me through a very tough and gruelling debate on the bill, a productive weekend, and I would move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada