1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 6
[ Page 7319 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: I'd like to acknowledge the visit here today of my constituency assistant, Heather Sinclair, from Surrey-Cloverdale. She's in Victoria to observe our hectic workdays and to receive advanced computer training. Would the House please make her welcome.
F. Garden: In the precincts today are 39 grade 6 and 7 band students from 150 Mile House School, accompanied by their teachers, Ross McCoubrey and Warren Barkley, and other adults: Bonnie Kantymir, Tine Stace-Smith, Diane Hodgson and Bruce Donaldson. If you don't know where 150 Mile House is, it's on the crossroads to Horsefly and Likely. Would you bid them welcome.
F. Gingell: Although they're not here at this moment, I would like to introduce the House to the newest official opposition in Canada, the Liberal caucus in Alberta -- another government in waiting. We offer heartfelt commiserations to our friends across the House. There it goes.
BAMBERTON DEVELOPMENT AND PENSION FUND INVESTMENT
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On May 11 the Minister of Labour received a request from Mr. John Waddington for an investigation into the carpenters' pension funds that are being put into the Bamberton Investments Corporation. Can the minister tell us what action he has taken to date with respect to that?
Hon. M. Sihota: That letter was forwarded to the ministry. The ministry has the letter in its possession. I'm not aware of the exact status of the ministry's review of the correspondence, but I would be happy to tell the hon. member in due course. I'll undertake to get him a complete answer on its status and provide him with it.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us if it is usual practice for an administrator of a pension plan to be directing moneys into companies in which that administrator sits as a director? Is that a common practice in B.C.?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not my place to give legal advice to the hon. member.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: I assure you, hon. Speaker, that the minister wouldn't be my choice of lawyer to get legal advice from. I was asking for an interpretation of the law of B.C.
Given that the letter from Mr. Waddington to the minister has not been acted on to Mr. Waddington's satisfaction, would the minister make the commitment today to undertake a full investigation into the carpenters' pension plan moneys that have gone into South Island Development for the purposes of the Bamberton development?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not prepared to make that commitment today.
TATSHENSHINI MINING PROJECT
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that his government has undertaken detailed public opinion surveys on the various options for the Tatshenshini area, and will the Premier table those surveys in the House?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is no.
J. Weisgerber: According to estimates prepared by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Tatshenshini project has the potential to contribute $1.6 billion in taxes to this government, and that doesn't include personal income taxes that would be generated. The project also has the potential to create 2,000 highly paid jobs for people in northern B.C. Has the government polled people in northern B.C. to find out how they feel about this project?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I answered that with my first answer.
J. Weisgerber: I thought the Premier might have been somewhat sensitive to the people who live and work in northern B.C. Indeed, the survival of the mining industry in B.C. may very well depend on the decision this government makes on the Tatshenshini. We're soon going to see just how fair and how balanced this government really is.
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
G. Weisgerber: Has the Premier finally overcome his party's and his government's anti-mining, anti-northern, anti-industrial bias, and will he look fairly, honestly and openly at the Tatshenshini issue?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is that mining is a significant activity in this province and has been for a number of decades. It will continue to be a significant activity. Our minister is working very hard with the mining industry to develop new mines and new opportunities around the world for our mining products.
WCB EXECUTIVE BENEFITS
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. On February 24 of this year I requested some information from the minister regarding any bonuses, perks or
[ Page 7320 ]
severance packages for the CEO and the chief appeals commissioner of the Workers' Compensation Board. More recent and repeated calls have not pried that information loose from this government. What does the government have to hide? Doesn't the minister believe in his own freedom of information?
The Speaker: The Chair would note that that was a very broad question, and I would invite....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
While the Chair has been fairly lenient on the wide scope of questions, members must understand that the guidelines for question period require that questions be precise. I would ask the hon. member for a supplemental in this instance.
D. Symons: I'll just finish off the first question: will he supply the information?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think the member indicated that he had corresponded with me, and the correspondence will be replied to in due course.
D. Symons: In due course! It has been 100 days since I sent in the original request. Is his ministry in such a shambles that it takes that long to find information that should be at his fingertips if he knows what's going on?
Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the hon. member never even bothered to ask me the question in estimates, when he had ample opportunity to raise the issue. As he indicates, he has written a letter; the letter will be replied to.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
D. Jarvis: The Americans are drawing down water from reservoirs in the Kootenays, to the point of complete depletion. The environment is being devastated; the fisheries are being destroyed; tourism is near a state of collapse. My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Your ministry is responsible for the protection....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
D. Jarvis: Your ministry is responsible for the protection of Canadian rights under the Columbia River Treaty. Why are you allowing the Americans to destroy the future of the Kootenays -- the riding of the Minister of Mines -- which has unemployment of up to 38 percent?
[2:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question from the hon. member. It's not too often that I get to talk a bit about B.C. Hydro and some of the things that we're doing with that Crown corporation.
I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that this government announced just last week that we are holding a systems operation review to look at the options available to British Columbians to deal with the very problems that he refers to. The review is in terms of how we can deal with (a) our treaty obligations -- and the hon. member is obviously not well aware of what our obligations are under the current treaty; (b) how we can divert water from particular reservoirs in British Columbia to assist other areas, be it Koocanusa Lake or the Arrow Lakes on both the west and east side of the Kootenays; (c) looking at non-power values and the impact that the release of that water would have on fish, and other environmental problems; and (d) looking at operations on the Peace, as well, to see how they would impact....
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister conclude his reply.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that when we make these changes to divert more water into one area, it has an effect on the system elsewhere.
D. Jarvis: That answer is just plain rubbish. The Americans are using the water to flush the fish down the Columbia River and for a nightly light-and-water show over the Bonneville Dam. The Americans are breaking the terms of the treaty. The only two acceptable reasons for the use of water are hydroelectric power and flood control. The Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board has stated on two occasions now that what the Americans are doing is in contravention of the treaty. Why are you letting the Yankee traders once more devastate British Columbia's East Kootenay area?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me say to the hon. member.... In fact, I invite him to come to the Kootenays this weekend. This government is showing leadership this week by holding a significant public policy symposium in Castlegar to ensure that the people in the Kootenays, who have a legitimate and justifiable claim for some mitigation, begin to have a process to deal with those mitigation needs.
That area was neglected by the previous administration. This administration has taken a series of steps to deal with the problems in the Kootenays. First of all, we announced, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, a presence for B.C. Hydro through an office in Castlegar. We were pleased to do that. Secondly, we announced last week, for the first time in the history of B.C. Hydro, a systems operation review. Third, we have said this week that we will meet with the people of the Kootenays directly, face to face, at the symposium in order to deal with all of the kinds of mitigation issues that they deserve to have a government meeting them about.
Interjections.
[ Page 7321 ]
The Speaker: Order, please. Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: That's absolute garbage and rubbish -- absolute!
Madam Speaker....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
Interjections.
[The Speaker rose.]
[The Speaker resumed her seat.]
The Speaker: I invite the next questioner, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
ARTISTS AND WORKING LIFE PROGRAM
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture pertaining to the Artists and Working Life grant program. Can the minister confirm that with less than a month left before the first deadline, this program has yet to receive a single application?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm glad that the hon. member has put forward a cogent question. I must say that the Artists and Working Life program is coming up for program selection. Artists will be selected, and the due date for applications is July 1. How many applications have been received thus far? I am not aware of that, but I would be pleased to let the hon. member know.
W. Hurd: There haven't been any grant applications yet -- zero, the same number of seats the NDP won in the election last night in Alberta.
Will the minister scrap this Working Life program, put the money back into her ministry, where it belongs, and reward hard-working artists who are going to paint or write about anything?
Hon. D. Marzari: We have artists in this province who work on the Caravan theatre that wends its way through the Kootenays. We have artists in this province who sell their books on B.C. Ferries. We have artists in this province who are sponsored by business and churches. Artists in this province are important people to this province. There is absolutely no reason why artists should not be contributing their work and doing their performances in the workplace itself, where people put in eight hours a day. To that end, I believe that this program -- which was modelled on a Liberal program in the province of Ontario called Artists and Working Life -- is going to be properly monitored and evaluated. By July 1, I guarantee that there will be a number of properly funded programs. Funding will be shared between government and labour for the first time in the history of this province, and we will have an effective working-life cultural program.
W. Hurd: The minister doesn't seem to understand that you have to get union backing and you have to paint a picture or write something about workers in order to qualify for a grant. That approach went out with the collapse of the Soviet Union. You can get art by trading blue jeans to the U.S.S.R. these days. Will the minister scrap this program, which hasn't had a single application to date?
The Speaker: The hon. minister, for a brief reply.
Hon. D. Marzari: Absolutely not, hon. Speaker.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-fifth parliament. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.
Hon. Speaker, this report deals with ten recommendations for the retention and final disposition of the operational records of this government. It is a subject that the Public Accounts Committee spends some time on and for which it has a responsibility to this House. We are now pleased to report that we have done our duty, and ask the support of the House so that the retention and disposition of these documents can take place as recommended.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, for my usual plea on every occasion when I rise as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to ask this government, particularly the Minister of Finance, to follow through on the proposals that Public Accounts Committees have made many times in past years to allow the committee to sit out of session. Our time in Victoria is very busy. All members of this House are committed to certain responsibilities with respect to standing committees and to their duties as caucus members.
An Hon. Member: Is that in your report?
F. Gingell: Yes. We simply don't have enough time to be able to deal with the many important issues in a thorough manner. So I would once again make my plea that the government consider allowing the Public Accounts Committee to meet out of session so that we can get some good time to do the kind of work that I know this government will support. It is an important job, and I ask for that consideration.
Motion approved.
[ Page 7322 ]
COMPENSATION FOR HIV-AIDS FROM BLOOD SUPPLY
Hon. E. Cull: I rise in the House today to advise all hon. members of the government's decision to financially assist those British Columbians who may have contracted HIV or AIDS through the blood supply. By taking this action our government recognizes that further assistance is required for the people of our province who may have contracted HIV or AIDS through the receipt of blood products.
Before November 1985, blood was not screened for HIV, even though a specific test for the presence of HIV in blood was licensed in March of that year. One hundred and fifteen British Columbians have been infected with HIV or AIDS from the blood supply, 80 of whom are hemophiliac. Of those, 65 are still living with HIV or AIDS. Many of these people and their families have faced both serious illness and death as a result. While the government has provided support by way of covering the costs of medical treatment and care, many people have faced financial hardship.
Prior to the change in government, Canada's health ministers agreed on a national program of compensation for those who had contracted HIV or AIDS through the blood supply. This agreement included federal compensation only. On April 1 of this year that compensation ran out. Upon further review, this government agrees with the majority of other governments across Canada that further assistance is necessary.
I think it's important to take action to redress the suffering of both individuals and their families as soon as we can. So the first step, hon. Speaker, will be to negotiate the amount that will be provided in a financial assistance package. I've been in touch today with the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society to advise them of the decision that I'm now announcing, and I informed them that we will begin negotiations as soon as possible.
Over the past several weeks I've consulted with both the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and other provincial governments to review the situation. I strongly believe that receiving assistance should not depend on where you live in this country, but with two provinces now acting on their own it will be difficult to reach a national consensus. I am, however, still strongly committed to seeking agreement with other provincial governments on a guiding set of principles under which financial assistance will be negotiated.
I've therefore instructed my deputy minister to continue consultations with his provincial and federal colleagues at the deputy ministers' meeting next week to try to agree on those common principles. Hon. Speaker, I will inform the House of our progress as soon as we reach agreement on the amount of that assistance.
[2:30]
L. Reid: I'm delighted to respond to the ministerial statement today, but I must confess to this House that I'm indeed disappointed that it took so long. I truly believed that British Columbia could be on the leading edge in this. We've seen four provinces take decisive action on this question: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Alberta. I, like other British Columbians, really wanted to see British Columbia be in the number one spot on this question. We certainly had the expertise and the ability to take that difficult decision. That is what British Columbians were looking for.
Certainly this is important not just for the 75 members sitting in this House today, but for the families of people who have HIV today as a result of a government's inability to set a standard. We can share in that responsibility or not, but I don't think we can ever justify extending the time line beyond where it has gone today. The news coverage in the last number of days has shown this province pictures of families who do not have a future, who do not have potential at this time. We need to ensure that this is something that is addressed very soon -- because the issue needs to happen. The minister speaks of a time line. I trust it will be an immediate response. I trust that this will come very, very soon to the people who are waiting, because frankly, we can no longer afford to have people waiting and wondering. They simply have spent all the time that they have at their disposal.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand up and respond to this initiative by the Minister of Health. I recognize that it is indeed a very complex, dramatic and difficult issue to deal with. I concur with the minister when she suggests in her statement that this is something which should be consistent across Canada, and that deserves some negotiations with other jurisdictions on a mechanism and process that allows for consistency throughout Canada. As I said earlier, I do recognize the complexities of it. It's unfortunate that it took this length of time to develop this process, but I wish the minister well. I know that there are immediate needs out there within the province, and I encourage expeditiousness in developing this process so that we can get on with meeting the needs of those individuals who were affected in such a dramatic way.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the 1990-91 and the 1991-92 annual reports of the Ministry of Health.
W. Hurd: I ask leave for an introduction, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to introduce a teacher, Miss Val Hammell, from South Meridian Elementary School in my riding, and 43 students who are accompanying her in the precincts today. Val Hammell is the sister of the hon. member for Surrey-Green Timbers. I certainly welcome her and her class to the Legislature today.
H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 7323 ]
H. Lali: Today we have visiting in the precincts 55 grade 6 and 7 students from Riverview School in Lillooet, along with their teacher, Mr. Johnson, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe we have a report from Committee of Supply A with regard to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
L. Hanson: It was certainly interesting to take part in these estimates. I think we canvassed every road, highway, street, lane, bridge and probably every pothole in B.C. I have to give the minister credit: I believe he does have a good knowledge of his ministry, and I note that his answers were candid. I must mention, though, that with the capital program that's left in the ministry, he has less to learn than in better days. I think that we did canvass the ministry's estimates well. The minister brought forward representatives of the various Crown corporations that he is responsible for. I think it was a good process. We on this side of the House -- certainly in my party -- are all anxiously awaiting the announcements that the minister has promised us will come forward from B.C. 21, when they have their act together and are prepared to make those. So that's my contribution, and I was pleased to take part in these estimates.
D. Symons: I too would like to thank the minister for his thoroughness in answering my many questions. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, we had some wide-ranging discussions on very specific projects and the general direction the ministry is taking. The ministry has received the additional responsibilities of B.C. Ferries and ICBC, and it is appropriate that these corporations now come under his ministry. I applaud the government for that belated recognition -- better late than never.
I would like to briefly summarize what we have heard from the minister and, in some cases, give my thoughts on his comments. The minister and his B.C. Rail staff indicated quite clearly that that corporation is going to diversify into areas which are not directly related, and most particularly into trucking. While we congratulate B.C. Rail for its fiscal strength -- no longer requiring a government subsidy -- I must confess that the Liberal opposition is not entirely comfortable with the direction B.C. Rail is taking in its diversification. We are of the firm belief that Crown corporations should be involved in activities that cannot be adequately fulfilled by private enterprise. No doubt we will be having further discussion with the government regarding the role of B.C. Rail over the coming years.
In terms of B.C. Ferries, the opposition is concerned -- as I am sure most British Columbians are -- about safety on our ferry system. During the past year the Ferry Corporation has been plagued with accidents and with service disruptions due to employee disputes. It is hoped that the steps taken by the corporation will be adequate to address these concerns.
I was looking for some assurance that the minister considered the ferry system to be an essential part of the highway and transportation system, rather than an entity that must be made self-supporting through increased fares. Recent fare increases, reductions in subsidies and a reluctance to declare the ferry system an essential service did not give me that assurance.
The minister and I agree on the pressing need for improvements in the transportation infrastructure in the province. His government, however, continues to reduce the ministry's budget. Rehabilitation spending by both this government and the previous administration is about 75 percent of what is required to maintain the quality of the present infrastructure. Such spending-savings are false economies, to be paid for in the future.
The minister has suggested tolls on new structures, particularly on bridges in the lower mainland, as a method of paying off the loans needed for these projects. I have strongly suggested that any tolls or like charges should be site-specific. Tolls on the Lions Gate Bridge replacement should not be used to finance a bridge or road in Kamloops. A 1-cent-per-litre gas tax to the Transportation Financing Authority will not go far in addressing the province's transportation needs. I rather suspect that it will be doubled or tripled fairly soon. Taxes and fees have a habit of rising, especially since this government has taken over.
I would wish the minister all the best in the operation of the new Transportation Financing Authority. If it can be shown that that authority will provide British Columbians with a better system of financing provincial road construction, I will be the first one to congratulate the minister. However, the Peat Marwick report clearly stated that unless there could be a demonstrated and proven need for the continuation of special accounts, they should be discontinued. From the point of view of public disclosure, I would tend to agree with the Peat Marwick suggestion.
Once again, I thank the minister and his fine staff, who supported him during the estimates, for their time. I look forward to continuing our cordial association in the coming year.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have had a good session of estimates. I'm pleased to have the responsibility for three Crown corporations that are all well-managed. They were well represented by the staff who came. In addition, with regard to the ministry functions, we have a fine staff, and they too acquitted themselves well in the information they were called upon to provide me during the course of the estimates.
Of course, in the budget process this year, facing difficult fiscal times, we knew that we had to make some tough decisions at the Treasury Board level. One of those decisions was to reduce the capital budget in the ministry. With some regret, I had to support that. I point out, however, that we have maintained the maintenance budget at full funding, and we have been able to maintain the rehabilitation portion of my budget at near full funding. It would be nice to be able to spend even more on rehabilitation, but in this particular fiscal period we are not able to. We are doing the essential
[ Page 7324 ]
work, and doing it in a cost-efficient manner. On the capital side, we are able to continue work on the Hastings-Barnet people-moving system. On the Island Highway, in particular you can see the work around the McKenzie interchange going forward. We've been able to carry on the work at the new Columbia River bridge at Castlegar, much to the relief of the municipality, and the Savona bridge on the Trans-Canada Highway will be proceeding as well.
With respect to two budget issues, the member from Kamloops showed certain prescience during debate on the budget when he said that the opposition howls cut, cut and slash, slash. "Day after day in Highways estimates the same members who are now howling 'Cut, cut,' were then crying: `Spend, spend.'" I pointed out:
"Some marvels of nature can change their colours; they can change their plumage with the season. The species opposite, both Liberal and Socred, keep their colours, but they sure can change their tune. I think we should notify the local bird-watching society, and perhaps any noted ornithologists in the area, to be on the alert. In a few weeks, when estimates arrive again, we may well see these same birds changing their tune again."
I kept a running total of the requests made in the process of estimates, and it totalled some $3.912 billion. So when the time comes for estimates, do we ever hear the spend, spend, spend. Unfortunately, if you're going to be responsible in government, you can't do that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret interrupting the minister, but out of courtesy we would like the minister to conclude the summation of his estimates without further interruption. Please continue, hon. minister.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the Transportation Financing Authority, we will be in a position soon to announce expenditures on projects of some $75 million or $76 million. Those can be visited in the course of future estimates and will be subject to the same kind of rigorous debate that we have with the other Crown corporations that I'm responsible for.
With respect to the Crowns, I'm pleased to report that ICBC is continuing its recovery from a certain level of mismanagement a few years back, and we are now turning in a positive balance approaching $10 million a month. The returns on some claims initiatives commenced under the interim president are continuing under the present president; top-class management is in place at ICBC.
[2:45]
With respect to ferries, we put the first superferry into operation this year. Construction of the second superferry will be completed this year. Some 32 million passengers and eight million vehicles a year move in a safe and efficient manner. B.C. Ferries is a sound corporation. I'm pleased to report that the collective agreement is in place and there are currently good relations between management and staff. I can also report that the napkin committee, chaired by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, will be meeting shortly to resolve some issues.
B.C. Rail turned a profit of $50 million last year -- in very tough economic times, when the other major transportation companies lost a great deal of money. B.C. Rail did so by having top quality management who is able to find opportunity where opportunity is and run an extremely efficient organization.
In the past year we acquired Vancouver Wharves Ltd., a corporation that was not going to survive very much longer under the preceding management. We have received the compliments of the Vancouver Port Corporation and many other industrial users. They are thankful that we have taken over that port and are going to operate it in a sound manner.
There has been mention of caution with respect to diversification of B.C. Rail. I would point out to the members opposite that diversification of a transportation company is essential in this day and age. As B.C. Rail looks to intermodal trucking, wharves and possible development of a Squamish port, I applaud them in all of those areas, because it is through diversification that when future stress occurs -- be it renegotiation of coal prices in northeast or anywhere else -- B.C. Rail will be able to survive those tough times on the basis of sound diversification put into place at this time.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to thank the members opposite for their very helpful comments during the course of the estimates.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will be meeting to review the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture in the Douglas Fir Room. I also call Committee on Bill 40, hon. Speaker.
CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 40; E. Barnes in the chair.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to introduce staff here today: Alan Carver, on my right, is the administrator of the capital tax; and Ian Forman, on my left, is the manager responsible for the corporation capital tax.
This is just by way of introduction, hon. Chair. This is generally a good-news bill, a result of technical changes made in cooperation with the business community and some other tax breaks associated with the budget.
On section 1.
F. Gingell: I must admit I rose quickly because the definition of "apartment corporation" is here, but I guess the dealings with apartment corporations come up later on. Anyway, let us deal with it now.
[ Page 7325 ]
During second reading I made a plea to the minister to consider the consequences of this new definition of "apartment corporation." If I may, I'll quickly state what I understand the circumstances to be. The purpose of this amendment to the bill is to exclude owner-occupied strata units from the corporate capital tax, whether they be apartments or townhouses. The concern that I have is that it isn't logical for these people to pay a corporate capital tax. It's just a means of owning their home. As we all know, corporate capital tax gets passed on to the purchasers of goods and services. The way this world works, unfortunately, is that only the relatively wealthy are able to buy homes, and those less fortunate, or those who have fewer resources, generally speaking, live in rented apartments.
You have specifically made an exclusion for residences, in effect, but you have not included in that exclusion those individuals who are the least able to pay additional taxes -- namely, the people who rent on a month-to-month basis and don't have the resources to buy their own property. I really would ask the minister to reconsider this particular section and consider making an exemption for all apartments.
There is a second problem, one that often crops up on the issue of valuations. As one easily recognizes, the corporate capital tax is exigible on book values, not on fair market values. If an apartment building that's worth $5 million has been owned by this property owner for 20 years, was bought for $1 million but has now depreciated to $200,000, there won't be any tax. But the moment that property changes hands and you have a new buyer who has paid the fair market value of $5 million for it, there is a corporate capital tax immediately. That gets passed, in the end, to the tenant.
I presume that you have arrived at the conclusion that you shouldn't have a corporate capital tax on residences, because you've made this amendment so that those who live in a strata corporation home aren't taxed any differently than those who live in a non-strata home with a separate title for their property. It seems to me that the minister would be dealing with equity and fairness. I know that is something he is very concerned about, and I'd like to ask him to consider making an amendment to this to bring in all apartments.
Hon. G. Clark: There are a couple of premises underlying the member's comments which I don't agree with entirely. The first premise is that the capital tax paid by the owner of an apartment building would automatically be passed on to the consumer. I think the member neglects the free market. Perhaps I have more faith in the free market than members opposite.
Let me put it this way. In Vancouver there are renters in single-family homes. They, of course, wouldn't pay capital tax -- the owner would not necessarily. There are people in basement suites; in fact, some statistics on the number of people living in basement suites are staggering. There are people living in apartments, some of which are small and have a few units and some of which are larger. Frankly, to a great extent, the market determines the rent. Apartment owners are incapable of passing the costs of the tax on to renters if there are other supply considerations, or if there are ability-to-pay considerations. While I don't want to dismiss the argument, we do have a fairly fluid and competitive rental market, particularly in an area like the lower mainland. I appreciate that the tax has to be paid by someone. The owners of the apartments may try to pass it on to the consumers. In this current market I'm not sure that they could -- certainly not all of it -- and I don't necessarily accept the premise. We'll be monitoring rents, as we are in government generally, and there is a fairly significant supply. Even some of the VLC properties on the market in Vancouver are trying to attract renters, because there is an oversupply of rental accommodation in some areas. Similarly, a lot of condominiums, etc., are rented out. Generally speaking, I think the market is a good discipline in this area.
I have some sympathy for the member's second concern, but I think it is impractical. The member is concerned that the tax is paid on the book value rather than the market value. For the government to tax the market value each year would require the business to revalue each and every year. That would create a horrendous burden of paperwork for the business community, which we're not interesting in doing. Members opposite may be interested in imposing such a burden on the business community, but we're not. While this doesn't fully capture value, with a dynamic market and with trades in ownership, we see periodic revaluation in the market at the time of sale, and at that time the capital tax captures it. The member is correct; it's not perfect. But I think that the cure would be worse than the concerns the members have.
J. Weisgerber: I didn't want to see us move off this argument of rents, because I don't think the minister does this subject justice by simply saying that there are basement suites and single-family homes, so if people can't stand a small rent increase in a highrise building they can move into a basement suite or a single-family home. I don't think it's quite that simple, and I think if the minister were honest about the issue he would recognize that the competition is primarily within a class of accommodation, and for the most part, one class of accommodation is going to be impacted by the corporate capital tax. I'm not sure that the rents will be significant enough to cause people to move out of one accommodation into another. I think it would serve everybody well if the minister would simply acknowledge that there is likely to be a slight increase in most apartment rentals as a result of this tax, and we could then move on.
[3:00]
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not prepared to make that commitment to the member, and he has mischaracterized my argument. I didn't say that people would move to a basement suite; I said that there is a market in rental accommodation and the supply has a downward pressure on the ability of the landlord to charge rent. If there is some upward pressure on costs associated with this tax for apartment owners, they are fettered in their ability to pass that on. This is based not on the fact that people will have to move as a result of rent increases,
[ Page 7326 ]
but I think it's important that the gap between the rent charged in one sector and another be preserved. If the gap was widened, then it might result in people moving. That would have a depressing effect on demand, and rents would have to be reduced accordingly. I appreciate that it's not that simple and that there is a certain stickiness, and I appreciate that owners of apartments will have to absorb the tax. I'm simply saying that it's not clear at all that they will automatically pass on the tax to their renters. In fact, in the current climate, I would argue that they would be constrained from doing so by the free market, which I know all members of the House support.
F. Gingell: I was interested that the minister started his response to the member for Peace River South with the word "mischaracterized," because he certainly mischaracterized my discussion about valuations. At no time was I suggesting that you would put in revaluations and try to compute the corporate capital tax based on fair market values. But I would like to suggest to you -- and I believe it to be true -- that if you look at all of the types of assets worth in excess of $1 million, I would lay a wager that apartment buildings are bought and sold the most. You don't sell mills or mines or hotels; those things change hands very rarely. But there are a lot of apartment buildings, and they change hands all the time. Therefore I'd like to suggest to you that the majority of the inequity in the valuation problem could be solved by just excluding corporations that own apartments used as residences. Then you'd look after all of the problems that we all have, and I think you would have a fairer tax.
Hon. G. Clark: It's an interesting sort of academic argument, and it would take some empirical evidence to prove it. I don't want to mischaracterize the argument you're making, so let me see if I've got it right. The member is suggesting that because apartments are sold more frequently than other forms of property or assets that are captured by the capital tax, they are therefore more quickly revalued, and the capital tax rises with each transaction if you have an appreciating property market. Therefore, because apartments more accurately reflect the market than other forms of assets, which are more likely to be reflected in the book value, the valuation rises a little more quickly on the apartment side. Maybe the member could nod if that's.... Oh, that's not correct. Sorry.
F. Gingell: The first point that I was making was that you have made amendments to the act to exclude from the corporate capital tax residences that are owned in a certain form. I have suggested to you that it would be equitable to exclude all residential housing from this tax, because we're concerned about corporate capital tax costs being passed on to the group of our citizens who, generally speaking, are least able to pay increased rents.
Then there is the valuation problem that we discussed last year. The point I was making was simply that because apartment blocks do change hands fairly regularly -- and I would suggest there are more of those transactions than with any other type of asset -- you have this tremendous imbalance: somebody who hasn't sold their building, who has owned it for many years, is not paying any tax; somebody who happens to buy it this year is now suddenly subject to the tax; somebody else, with an asset of exactly the same value, getting exactly the same income from it -- all of the same things -- isn't paying. So the way to solve it is to exclude residential apartment corporations from tax.
Hon. G. Clark: Well, of course, the problem -- and I understand now, I think, the member's comments -- is that technically it can't be done; certainly it can't be done very easily. What do you do with a commercial building that has commercially rented property on the main floor and a couple of floors above it and then apartments above that? What do you do with corporations that own a factory retail outlet and a couple of apartment buildings. all in the same company, all on the same balance sheet? We would have to disaggregate the balance sheet. While there is a degree of elegance and simplicity to remedy the member is projecting, technically it's just not possible. As a result of that, obviously we can't make the changes the member requests.
F. Gingell: I'd like to move on to the definition of "current accounts payable." In the course of dealing with bills that are current.... I appreciate that the purpose of the act is to include in the corporation capital tax the use of funds within a corporation that one considers to be relatively permanent: debenture borrowings, mortgage borrowings and those kinds of things. But in your definition, it's something that isn't paid within 120 days. You will remember that last year we discussed two things. The first is that it may just be that a company is in financial difficulty and struggling along, and that's why they haven't paid their account in 120 days. So you're just adding a burden.
The next question is: when you're looking at a corporation's payment pattern, do you take it on FIFO basis or a LIFO basis? Is the payment applied to the earliest debt or to the latest debt?
One item that really bothers me, which is caught by this, is a holdback payable on a construction contract. It is clearly a current account payable. It is simply an amount that is held back so that they can protect themselves under builders' liens and those kinds of matters. It is common business sense to retain the 15 percent and show that the subcontractors have been paid out. But the wording of this act, as I understand it, catches those amounts in your definition of permanent capital, and therefore they are subject to the corporate capital tax, unless it is going to be paid within 120 days. I would suggest to you that an amendment to at least take the holdbacks out would be fair.
Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite has more expertise in this area than I do. But let me say this: we've had no complaints. We've been in operation a year. The concern the member raises has not been raised by any of the paying businesses. That's the first point.
[ Page 7327 ]
Secondly, we had a technical committee of chief financial officers, nominated by the various business communities, who worked very hard on this, and this was not an issue. I don't want to take their names in vain -- they may have concerns. But I would suspect they'd register those concerns with us.
This is moving the definition section -- certain definitions -- up in the bill, so it can be used throughout the bill. This definition is consistent with what it was last year. I know that the member has concerns. We've had no concerns expressed to us along the lines the member suggests. That would suggest to me that there isn't a requirement at this point to make changes. But I don't have any problem saying that we will continue to monitor it. If it does become a problem, we'll certainly review it.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Sections 1 to 31 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 40, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: The applause was a bit faint for the passage of that bill. It's good news for tax cuts to business, and I thought there would be a bit more applause.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 36; M. Lord in the chair.
Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to begin by introducing staff here with me. On my left is Neil Muth, director of corporate policy and legislation. On my right is Ed Turner, executive director of consumer taxation in the Ministry of Finance.
[3:15]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: Section 2 has some proposal to change methods of public access to financial information held by the government. I was wondering if the minister would like to explain to us exactly what this does and how it will tie into the new laws dealing with access to information.
Hon. G. Clark: Initially, the Financial Information Act had a fairly narrow directive with respect to the Minister of Finance. Members may be aware that we published this year for the first time a brochure on access to information through the Financial Information Act, independent of freedom-of-information and other initiatives the government is taking, just because there was some interest in the act. In fact, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale made excellent use of the Financial Information Act to access the salaries of administrative personnel in the North Vancouver School District. Partly as a result of his work, there was a flood of inquiries as to how to use the act. We prepared some information for broad public discussion, and I'm sure that members opposite received that brochure.
In the process of review, however, there was some concern about consistency not just in application but in the ability to prescribe the terms and the types of information, or, as you see, "the form and manner of providing public access to financial information...." So this is genuinely housekeeping legislation, but it allows the minister to give a broader directive to the numerous bodies covered by the Financial Information Act to ensure compliance and consistency in the "form and manner of providing public access to financial information."
F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. The minister may be aware that the auditor general has done quite a bit of work in the field of availability of financial information from various government organizations, and he found it to be wanting. Can the minister assure the House that he will not only use these new broader powers of his to ensure consistency of presentation but also, at the same time, ensure that all government agencies, bodies and independent bodies that are subject to the Financial Information Act are well aware of their responsibility to respond to inquiries about financial information? The problem that the auditor general found was not just lack of consistency but that people in some school, college and university boards didn't believe the public had a right to this information. I would appreciate your response to that issue.
Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. This is driven by a variety of factors, one of which was the concerns raised by the auditor general. Others were the heightened awareness of the act -- as I said, in part because of the activities of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- the Korbin commission, other information questions and the government's broader initiatives. We found that in order to ensure better compliance, some of the agencies -- and one can argue whether this was deliberate or not.... For example, the narrow directives of the Minister of Finance could not direct remuneration, however that was defined...and those kinds of considerations. So they would comply with the elements of the act, but some would comply more fully than others and give more information. So as a result of the concerns of the auditor general, the comptroller general and others, it was recommended --
[ Page 7328 ]
and that's why it's here -- to broaden the power of the Minister of Finance, not in any punitive way but to give some comfort to agencies that everybody would be treated the same way and there would be consistency in application and compliance with the legislation.
You're correct. We found that as there is more awareness, there isn't the same level of problem that the auditor general found. The Ministry of Finance has been putting on seminars with respect to access to the Financial Information Act, both for the public and also the various agencies. This bill ensures that we can continue that process, clean it up a bit and ensure consistency across the board.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
F. Gingell: I was wondering if there is any intent to change the purposes of the British Columbia Health Care Research Foundation by this amendment that takes out the word "Care" and makes it the B.C. Health Research Foundation. I'm not exactly sure, but is this the foundation into which 50 percent of the B.C. Lottery Corporation revenues are fed?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't exactly know the answer. It's not really the purpose of this bill. Fifty percent of lottery funds go to health care. Some of that does go the B.C. Health Research Foundation. I'm not sure how much of that 50 percent. I think there's more money available than that.
This is literally a consequential amendment which, it seems to me, should have been enacted somewhere or other. In other words, there has been a name change of the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, to B.C. Health Research Foundation. So to make sure the Financial Information Act applies to the new name we're simply changing the schedule of the Financial Information Act to bring it up to date, and to make sure that agency complies.
Section 4 approved.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Schreck: I see that we've just been joined in the galleries by approximately 17 grade 7 students from Norgate Community School in North Vancouver, accompanied by their teacher Miss Duncan. I spoke to the students earlier indicating what would be taking place in the House this afternoon. I think this is a good illustration of what a dynamic place this is, where things are constantly changing.
Interjection.
D. Schreck: The Minister of Forests, sitting at my left, tells me that he went to Norgate School in grade 4. So I hope you follow in his excellent footsteps. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
Sections 5 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
F. Gingell: I wonder if the minister has at any time set out a series of criteria that he believes are appropriate for Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments to the Real Estate Council.
Hon. G. Clark: No, I haven't. I'd certainly be interested in any comments the members have. Essentially what we're doing here -- and you see a pattern; at least, I think, with some of things that have been brought into the House; and if they haven't already been brought in, you will see a pattern -- is ensuring that self-regulatory professional bodies have some public representation in order to give the public some confidence that those bodies aren't simply self-serving protective agencies. In discussions with these bodies, and in particular with the Real Estate Council, they've been very supportive of this.
It applies to two out of 19 members of the Real Estate Council. The only criterion that's been developed at this point is that they must not be of the real estate profession. We want to ensure that these people have absolutely no connection. They're not real estate agents; they're not real estate salespersons. They can be from related industries, but we want to make sure that they simply reflect a lay perspective, and in that regard the criterion is fairly broad. Generally, I think you want to have people who are public-interest-minded in their activities; people who do not have a vested interest in the activities of this self-regulatory agency, and who can bring a fresh perspective so that if there are consumer complaints and the like, they are more representative of the consumer than they are of the agent. It's just a broad public policy initiative. Discussions were begun, I believe, by the previous administration and minister -- at least, the topic was broached. I have picked up the ball and suggested that we move forward on all of these areas under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance.
Frankly, and in some ways coincidentally, you can see that move in other areas of government. It's not revolutionary; it happens in many jurisdictions. In the Ministry of Health, for example, we now see laypeople on regional health councils and all those agencies. It's very good public policy; it enhances the stature of the self-regulatory bodies. They've been fairly supportive of it -- with a little hesitation or concern. We'll take great care with the nominees. We are not likely to get thousands of applications from people who wish to be on the Insurance Council or the Real Estate Council. Obviously, from the government's perspective, we want to take account of gender -- and region, if we can, although in this case I doubt whether that is a particularly prevalent consideration. There are no formal criteria. It's a modest initiative which enhances those agencies.
[ Page 7329 ]
As I said earlier in this House -- I hesitate to say it again -- there really isn't any consistent practice across government. We are moving in this direction. In this case it's two out of 19; in the health councils, one-third have to be from the public sector; on the Insurance Council, it's two out of 20-odd or something. It's moving incrementally, and it's positive. I'm not sure that it's earth-shattering that the lay representatives on these organizations aren't completely consistent or a fixed percentage. That's not absolutely critical. It is important that we have some non-industry people to give some comfort and, hopefully, a fresh perspective to avoid any concern that these agencies are really just self-protection agencies, rather than self-regulatory ones which deal with consumer complaints.
[3:30]
F. Gingell: I thank the minister for that. Does the minister ensure that there's some form of pre-appointment briefing, so that someone who the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has appointed at least goes in with a little background information from the government, not from the council to which he or she is being appointed? Is there a discussion that lets the person clearly understand that they represent the public interest, separate from the interest of self-regulating professions? Further, does the minister make a point, on a periodic basis, say once a year, of speaking to these people to make sure that issues they see as being in the public interest are brought to the minister's notice, rather than being bogged down in debate in the organizations?
Hon. G. Clark: Those are excellent suggestions. We have not proclaimed the section appointing two laypeople to the Insurance Council -- that was last year; this year we're doing it here. My only experience, frankly, with laypeople on boards is with the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I can assure the member that I have met with those public governors on a couple of occasions to discuss their concerns, or the government's concerns. I met with Mr. Couvelier and other appointments to the board fairly recently. It's an excellent suggestion. We haven't got a codified policy with respect to that. It's a good idea to brief them from a broad perspective -- maybe a bit of an educational briefing on the public interest. I'll definitely follow that up. It's also a good idea to have the minister meet, perhaps annually, with the public representatives to ensure that there is some reflection and understanding of where things are going.
In the scheme of things for the Minister of Finance -- and I don't mean to belittle this -- it is a modest initiative. Maybe that explains why we haven't got that well-thought-out policy you're suggesting. We've got a fair number of other things to deal with. I'll take those suggestions very seriously under advisement. In fact, I'd almost be prepared to give a commitment now that we'll follow along with something like that. I will be happy to report back to members of the House next year as to how it's proceeding.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I think this is a move in a direction that's consistent with public policy these days. More and more boards and regulatory organizations are looking for lay members or members from outside the profession. I therefore rise not to question the government's decision, but I'm curious to know whether or not the selection of people falls under the purview of John Pollard. I'm wondering whether, in his considerable responsibilities as czar of patronage, he has time to deal with these rather mundane kinds of appointments, or with appointments that might fall outside of his particularly busy schedule of putting people into other positions that the government sees as politically sensitive. Is this part of Mr. Pollard's responsibility, or are they selected in some other way?
Hon. G. Clark: As usual, the member has mischaracterized the role of Mr. Pollard. I'm not sure how it worked in the last administration, but literally thousands of British Columbians from all walks of life and all political parties write in to government and say: "I would like to be on this hospital board or that real estate council." Those go to Mr. Pollard, who essentially keeps an index of interests from people. When an appointment like this is made, it's made by the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and always with the recommendation of the minister responsible. Mr. Pollard's role is only to provide information to the cabinet minister and the cabinet as to the names of persons who might be interested. Those can be supplemented by the minister or anybody else, and usually they are; in my case they often are. I might suggest Mr. Couvelier, who I'm sure did not write in. That was my suggestion. Mr. Pollard would then take that suggested list of options for government and attempt to recruit other people.
Mr. Pollard will be involved in these appointments, as he is in all appointments. His position is more an advisory one. He collects the names of the thousands of people who request, keeps track of appointments as they come up and gives advice to ministers and cabinet. But I assure you he has no role in the selection and no influence on cabinet's decisions. It's a service agency. I assume it also existed with the previous government, but probably sort of behind closed doors, connected to the Premier's office. Perhaps our mistake, if there is one, in inviting misguided criticism from members opposite is that we have been open about the review and the procedure.
That's the procedure. If this passed I would likely ask Mr. Pollard if anybody at any time has submitted interest in this kind of agency. I'll certainly do my best to solicit the names of people who might be interested.
An Hon. Member: How about the NDP in Alberta?
Hon. G. Clark: That's not a bad heckle.
I assure members that this is not political in any way in terms of trying to get lay people on these regulatory bodies. It's not a perk; it doesn't pay anything; it's not an advantage. Mr. Pollard will be there, as he is with all
[ Page 7330 ]
of these appointments, to give us some sort of inventory of individuals who may be interested.
J. Weisgerber: One of the nice things about moving the defeated members from Alberta is that transportation and moving costs will be lower than for bringing them from other jurisdictions across the country. I suppose we can take some comfort from that.
The minister suggested that there was no compensation -- no honorariums, per diems, travel expenses and those kinds of things.
Hon. G. Clark: I apologize. There's no honorarium from the government. I suspect the Real Estate Council has some travel costs and maybe a per diem. I don't know the answer to that, but I can find out for the member. But I can assure the member there's no taxpayer implication for this.
Sections 10 and 11 approved.
On section 12.
F. Gingell: I think this is the most interesting section in the whole act, and I'm just longing to hear what circumstances have caused the need for this amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: I frankly think this is quite an innovative piece of legislation as well. I know that members of the consumer tax division were very creative in dealing with this.
What happens on occasion is that individuals with two residences -- those who own two homes or properties, one in British Columbia and one outside the province, usually Alberta -- purchase construction materials, boats, motor homes, and other large items in Alberta and bring them into British Columbia for use here. How it works now is that if you purchase something in Alberta for use there, it's obviously tax-free; if you purchase something in Alberta and you move it within a specified time period to use here, then you have to pay the British Columbia sales tax.
Unfortunately, for the sake of escaping the sales tax, some individuals argue that they own a property in Alberta, it is just here temporarily and their principal residence is in Alberta. They've been successful in making that case because they own property and maybe spend some time every year in Alberta. However, those same individuals then turn around and claim that their principal residence is British Columbia for the purposes of claiming the British Columbia homeowner grant, or for the purposes of going on the British Columbia medical system.
This is not an attempt to tighten the screws or anything else; this is just a question of being fair. If you declare this as your principal residence and apply for the homeowner grant in British Columbia and receive the $450, or $725 if you're a senior, you cannot in the same year argue the case that you're a resident of Alberta for the purposes of not paying British Columbia sales tax. Again, I think it's a good amendment, and I applaud my staff for their creativity in closing that loophole, which is not necessarily abused but is from time to time a problem.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
F. Gingell: This purely and simply reduces the number of years in which the same amount of tax is being paid. What happens in the case of equipment and parts, etc., that have already been purchased and are in the transitional process? I expected some transitional provisions here, but there aren't any.
Hon. G. Clark: My staff advise that this applies to aircraft only and not to equipment in any way. We exempted aircraft on April 1. If that's not the answer, maybe the member could focus the question a bit.
F. Gingell: I was under the impression that the section being amended causes a tax to be paid over a period of years on an aircraft that is used interprovincially. What happens if one is already in the process of the tax being paid? If they are in year two, and they've now paid two-fifths, instead of them being required to pay one-fifth next year, will they have to pay the three-fifths that remain unpaid?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that any non-turbine engines will be grandfathered, so to speak. I hope that answers your question.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was sitting here and heard you come to section 15, and when you said, "Shall section 15 pass?" I felt like shouting out: "No way."
I think this is an unnecessary change and creates an unreasonable burden on business. I presume I am correct in that what you are saying is that an auditor from the department of social service tax comes in to a business, makes an assessment and sends the estimated assessment out to the registered vendor, and they're only given 15 days in which to pay the amount of the assessment.
Hon. G. Clark: I wanted to catch the member and I should have risen, because I know that he raised this question in second reading. I have a note, but the bill was moving too fast for me in terms of dealing with it.
The member has an incorrect premise, and it's important that he know that the provision does not apply to billings for audit assessments. Once an audit assessment is billed, the taxpayer has a total of 60 days to pay the tax due or arrange for payment periods before a legal collection action is undertaken. The amendment applies strictly to situations where a vendor has collected tax already but has not remitted the tax collected, as required under the act.
[ Page 7331 ]
The tax collected during one month is due on the 15th day of the following month. If the tax is not remitted by that date, a letter is issued by the 5th day of the second month -- that's 20 days later -- requesting payment and advising that failure to remit tax due will result in an estimated assessment being issued if a response is not received within a further 14 days. If no response is received, an assessment is then issued, based on an estimate of the tax collected. The existing provision allows a further 30 days to pay the estimated assessment. The proposed amendment reduces this time from 30 days to 15 days. This results in an overall reduction of the payment period from 64 days to 49 days.
J. Weisgerber: I want to thank the minister for the clarification, because I too misunderstood. As I was contemplating the change from 30 days to 15 days, I had to reflect and wonder how the ministry itself was doing in paying its invoices and whether or not the minister had been able to achieve any similar success.
Given the periods of time that the minister now talks about, is the minister paying invoices within 45 days for goods supplied to government and invoiced in the proper way?
Hon. G. Clark: That's a good estimates question, and when we get to estimates I'll ensure that we have an answer to that.
Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.
On section 18.
J. Weisgerber: Essentially, section 18, with its various subsections, deals with the appointment of six governors to the stock exchange. I hope that we can just deal with that as a topic and go through it.
[3:45]
Following up on the discussion we had a little bit earlier about the appointment of two people to the Real Estate Council, it seems to me, at least on the surface, somewhat excessive for the government to simply take the position that they are, without any consultation with the exchange, going to appoint six directors. That starts to become a rather significant number of people who will have quite an influence on the direction of the exchange. I'm curious to know why, in the case of many other self-regulatory groups -- lawyers, the Bar Association, etc. -- a relatively small number of lay people are proposed. In this case the government has decided to put six, rather than the standard two or three people on the exchange.
Hon. G. Clark: That's not quite right. There are six public governors. Currently, one is nominated by the Law Society, one is nominated by the chartered accountants, four are nominated by the exchange and expected to be approved by the Minister of Finance, and then they become public governors. I want to assure the members that we intend to consult. We intend to continue to have one chartered accountant and one Law Society member -- that's in the act. I want to just say anecdotally -- and I don't want to get anybody into trouble -- that when we discussed this question with the Law Society, they were a bit surprised when they were given the power to nominate someone in the first place. They didn't ask for the authority to nominate someone; it was done by legislation, and then they were told that they could nominate someone. So I don't think it's a big burden for them if we say that now we will consult with them, rather than them having the power to nominate.
We wanted to make sure that this was consistent with lay members of self-regulatory bodies. We're not giving the Real Estate Council the power to suggest to the government who the two lay people are. That defeats the purpose of trying to put lay people on self-regulatory bodies. Why would we give the Vancouver Stock Exchange any say over the lay people on that board? I appreciate that there are more lay people on the board. There are now two lay people out of 11 on the Insurance Council, I believe. There are two out of 19 on the Real Estate Council and six out of 24 on the stock exchange. It's not completely out of line. There were six before; there are six now who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The exchange is not concerned about that, and in all likelihood many of the existing members will be reappointed to the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- or at least some of them will be.
As you can tell by the Jim Matkin inquiry and other amendments like this, the other more political point is that we're trying to give people more confidence in the Vancouver Stock Exchange -- it's hopefully to improve and monitor it, but also to give more confidence. I think that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointing lay people as public governors of the board without reference to the exchange enhances the confidence the public might have that there are people on the exchange who have no connection and who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. As you know, the exchange didn't ask the government to do this, but they are not opposed to the government moving in this direction.
There have been discussions -- and I'm sure Mr. Matkin will hear this, because I've heard it both in opposition and in government -- that there should be more public governors on this exchange. This is a dramatic change in getting more lay representation on the board. In this bill I chose not to do that. We are undertaking a review. We are not increasing the size; we're just changing the form. If Mr. Matkin recommends that, then certainly we'll have to discuss it in this House. I don't prejudge his recommendations, but I know that people will make that case to him.
I think it's consistent with other self-regulatory bodies. Two of them are from the legal and chartered accountant communities, and we will be consulting with them. This takes us a step further in terms of reform of the exchange, although this is a very modest initiative. I don't think the number of public governors should cause too much concern, because public governors are already there.
On that last point, despite the fact that we're doing this, I want to say very clearly that I have full
[ Page 7332 ]
confidence in the public governors who exist now, even if one is concerned about this cumbersome nomination approval. They are not fettered or tainted by the process that exists to date. I completely reject any notion that they are. Public governors like Mr. Couvelier, Ms. Rubin, Dean Lusztig and other members who are on the commission now, appointed under the old process before this change, are superb individuals doing a very good job. I don't criticize them. This bill is not intended to criticize their actions. However, because of the process by which they were appointed, because they have to be nominated and elected by the exchange, it is possible that the public might view their appointments with cynicism. That's what we're trying to deal with. It's more of a perception problem than an actual problem. Again, I think that's why the commission is not opposed to this. They know that the government is not taking action here to deal with an actual problem, but only with a perception problem. It's part of this overall attempt to try to build confidence in the exchange.
J. Weisgerber: I don't think that it's the role of lay people on boards to dominate them or to influence the decision of the boards simply by numbers. The fact that on most of them there are two or three is to have a presence, an awareness and to bring a perspective to the board. If that's the approach, I'm not sure that six are necessarily that much different than two or three.
My concern with the minister's response is that he talks a lot about what he intends to do and how he will use the act. I don't have any reason to doubt that he would use the act in the way that he says, and that he would continue to consult with an accounting agency in the selection of a chartered accountant and with the Law Society in the selection of a lawyer. But there's nothing in this bill that suggests that this has to happen. All the government has to do is identify a lawyer and an accountant and four other people. So my criticism is that this act will be interpreted by ministers responsible for the exchange in the future and may well be dealt with differently.
If the minister is looking perhaps to reduce the level of cynicism -- and I believe he is sincere on this -- he would also recognize that from time to time there is cynicism around government appointees. So I would try to answer that second criticism that may come up at some later time -- that these folks are seen simply as appointees, not necessarily always of the government but of the political party that happens to be in power. It's with those kinds of concerns that I raise this issue.
As I mentioned earlier in second reading, I think it may have been possible to achieve what the minister set out to do with two or three people directly appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and two or three appointed from other groups in society. This would achieve essentially the same goals, without the cynicism around either process being there.
Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
F. Gingell: I think it's appropriate that we raise the issue of the payment of the cost of the Matkin commission. It isn't often that an act or an amendment to an act is brought in that requires some third party to pay the bill of a program started by the provincial government, without any cap on it, although yesterday, of course, we were dealing with amendments to the Waste Management Act that contained all kinds of open-ended exercises. Maybe this is going to be a practice of this government in the future. I would appreciate some remarks from the minister with respect to the anticipated costs of the Matkin inquiry and whether there are guarantees that it will not exceed any particular sum.
Hon. G. Clark: This is a bit of a novel section. I grant that if the Minister of Finance were not responsible for the Vancouver Stock Exchange, I don't know whether this section would have made its way in. Let me try to give some comfort to the member in a general sense. Under the Securities Act -- which underwent a major revision by my predecessor, Mr. Couvelier, and lengthy late-night debates in the House, which members opposite are becoming more familiar with -- there is now a section which allows the Minister of Finance to order an inquiry, independent of the commission, and that is paid for by the commission. The commission's revenue comes from the exchange members.
For example, there was an option to appoint Mr. Matkin under that section of the Securities Act. However, the legal interpretations were that that section was narrow, and it was really designed for the Minister of Finance to order an investigation into a particular stock transaction. We chose to go the public inquiry route. I guess what I'm saying is that it's not without precedent. The existing Securities Act contemplates the industry paying for ministerial inquiries and regulation.
As you can imagine, I discussed with the Vancouver Stock Exchange their contribution to a review or inquiry into the exchange. They were sympathetic to contributing to such a review. We wanted to ensure that there was independence and that it was unfettered. There was some concern that the VSE paying for a review might give rise to some public cynicism. So rather than having them contribute to it or having the commission deal with it, we felt it much simpler and cleaner legally, in terms of legislative counsel, to amend the act -- as we were doing in any event for a variety of other things -- to enable the Minister of Finance to order an inquiry at any time and to charge a percentage, not all of it to the exchange members. Again, generally speaking, I think it's reasonable.
Public inquiries can cost a fair amount of money. I don't know if members opposite are cognizant of the fact that when the government of the day appoints a public inquiry, the inquiry commissioner has no budget. The member opposite may be interested to know that when the government appoints an inquiry commissioner, that commissioner is not fettered by the budgetary process in most cases. In that case the budget of an inquiry commission can grow somewhat. They're
[ Page 7333 ]
not subject to the same Treasury Board; they're a statutory body of independents, which arises out of some almost judicial process and gives inquiry commissioners independence, including the power to spend tax money. In this case, I felt that this was a focused inquiry dealing with a particular industrial sector that had a vested interest in enhancing it. It made more sense to have the industry itself pay, and as you know, the industry has not criticized this, so that's why it's here. I gave you a bit of history there.
[4:00]
We had a couple of choices: the Securities Act, which would have been by the commission and paid for by the industry; or the Inquiry Act, which normally means there's no budgetary restraint on the inquiry commissioner. It's normally allowed, and it has complete independence and access to the public treasury to spend money. We decided that rather than do that we would make it an industry review, paid for by the industry itself -- by way of an amendment here -- and that allows the government some flexibility. It doesn't put a strain on the taxpayer to fund a review which will, after all, enhance the exchange and therefore enhance the industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to introduce to the House the former Premier of Newfoundland, Hon. Brian Peckford. He was Premier from 1979 to 1990. He is here speaking at the University of Victoria on the subject of overfishing and what that does to domestic fisheries. I hope he gets the appropriate attention that his subject matter deserves here in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.
F. Gingell: I am somewhat surprised that this amendment deals only with the Matkin inquiry. You won't be able to use it for any other purpose in the future. I would like you to comment on that and also on the problem that might arise if you decide to change the current terms of reference of the Matkin inquiry. Presumably that would be required to be done through an order-in-council. You would need to have a new order-in-council, and it wouldn't apply; you wouldn't be able to use this section of the act, because it refers only to order-in-council 638/93. I wonder if you would like to comment on those issues.
Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent question. Let me say that if we were to have an open-ended section which required the Vancouver Stock Exchange to pay, then they would legitimately be a bit concerned about that being there. To be candid, we wanted to give some certainty to the stock exchange members that this is not an open-ended ticket that they would have to pay.
Secondly, we have the Attorney General's advice that there is a bit of latitude under the Interpretation Act. For example, and I hesitate to say this because I don't want to do this, if it were required to extend the time frame by further order-in-council, the Interpretation Act would allow this section to continue to be enforced for some modest changes. If there were substantive changes to their terms of reference, then I suspect the member is correct; it would cause great concern in terms of being able to require the exchange to pay the bills associated with that. All that would happen in any such regard is that the taxpayer, literally, would pay the costs of any expanded or dramatically changed terms of reference associated with it. That's consistent with the Inquiry Act and other inquiries that might occur. We wanted to give some assurance to the exchange that there is some certainty to this; it isn't a blank cheque for any minister to do a review at any time. But I appreciate that it's a bit inflexible as a result of that.
F. Gingell: Moving from subsection (1)(a) to subsection (1)(b), I notice that (1)(b) is permissive, rather than requiring the funds to be, in effect, paid out of the profits earned by the B.C. Securities Commission, because that's what the special account contains. Number one, is it your intention to have the remainder of the costs paid from the special account? Number two, if you were to have a problem in part (a), where you decided to expand the terms of reference, would you use part (b), which seems to apply, to pay the additional costs that you perhaps could not recover from the Vancouver Stock Exchange?
Hon. G. Clark: That's a hypothetical question. I hadn't given it any thought. You may be correct that you could do that.
I just want to remind members of how the Securities Commission functions. It is essentially a self-financing agency, but they have a profit target from government, which is fairly modest. The commission, like the exchange itself, generates revenue with volume. I don't know this for a fact, but I would anticipate significant increased revenues to the Securities Commission from fees as a result of the increased activity. On the other hand, if the commission and the exchange were struggling -- volumes were down and they weren't meeting their targets -- the government might not want to impose an extra burden on the commission to pay for this inquiry. That's why it's permissive.
If the commission is generating sufficient revenue as a result of a buoyant market and it can easily accommodate some extra pressure without raising rates, for example to industry, then we would likely have the commission pay 15 percent or more of the costs. That would be my intention. On the other hand, if they're struggling to meet their budget and would have to increase the rates to industry in order to pay the extra costs, then we have the option of taking money out of general revenue.
Sections 21 and 22 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[ Page 7334 ]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 36, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 34.
FORESTERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 34; M. Lord in the chair.
On section 1.
W. Hurd: I have a brief question on "practice of professional forestry," as it is a somewhat nebulous term even to those in the profession. Will this apply just to Crown lands in the province, or will the practice of professional forestry potentially apply to all lands? Is there a designation for the type of land under section 1, or is that matter dealt with in later provisions?
Hon. D. Miller: First, let me introduce Richard Grieves, senior advisor in policy and legislation, and Michael Grist, manager, policy development and legislation.
The answer is that it essentially applies to Crown lands, but there may be occasions where activity on private land would impact. Primarily the answer is that it applies on Crown lands.
W. Hurd: Is there a potential for this to apply as well to municipal land and band land, for example, or would that fall under a different statute? From speaking to the association, I understand there was a case involving an aboriginal timber harvest. Since the land was being harvested and was not actually subject to a reforestation program, it wasn't deemed subject to the forestry guidelines. Given the amount of municipal land that can potentially be designated community forest, I'm asking how the land designation would apply.
Hon. D. Miller: It would apply on those lands for which the Crown has management responsibility. Later on in the bill, under section 21, there are some specific exemptions -- for example, for woodlot licensees. But in the case you're referring to, Indian reserve land falls under federal jurisdiction.
In most instances people do employ a professional forester to draw up a development plan, but it's not an absolute requirement.
W. Hurd: One other brief question. I may have missed a reference to roadbuilding. Is that considered a matter for an engineering designation, or would it...?
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Oh, I see: "forest transportation systems." I assume that type of designation refers to all forestry roads and logging roads?
Hon. D. Miller: That's correct. The RPF would have the responsibility, but we clearly recognize there may be RPFs who do not have that particular skill. They would obviously employ either RPFs who did have the skill, or engineers, who would then have responsibility. But the final sign-off, if you like, would still be the responsibility of the RPF. So responsibility goes down the line. You can't avoid it or evade it simply because you as a forester don't have that particular skill. Of course, there is a range of particular skills in the profession of forestry. But you would still have the overall responsibility, which is as it should be. In terms of putting together a particular roadbuilding plan, you can employ a professional engineer to design roads and bridges and use forest technologists to do some of the work in developing the plan, but you would have the responsibility. That's not atypical. If I can make an analogy to engineers, quite often plans are developed using people with technical skills, but nonetheless there's a sign-off. One person signs their name to the document and bears the responsibility for it.
W. Hurd: I have one other brief question under section 1(a), which refers to integrated resource management values. What responsibility does the minister envisage for the RPF to sign off on any of those integrated plans that might involve spotted owl designations or other wildlife management studies? I understand that the situation, as it stands now, does not necessarily require the RPF to sign off those plans. While they're important from an integrated or total resource standpoint, they do not necessarily fall within the purview of the RPF over forest land management.
[4:15]
Hon. D. Miller: Section 1(a) is really the same as in the existing legislation, although there has been a wording change from "forest property" to "forest land," but subsection (b) is new: "assessing the impact of planned activities on forests and forest land." Now there can be a range of activities which are not necessarily harvesting. It could be that some development is planned for land in the forest class. In that case the forester would provide his or her opinion about the impact that development would have on that particular piece of land. Their expertise lies in managing the land, and clearly there's a variety of activities. We mostly think of roadbuilding and harvesting, but there can be other activities on forest land that have an impact. The forester would clearly have to advise what that impact might be.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.
Section 9, sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.
On section 9, section 15.
[ Page 7335 ]
W. Hurd: I just have a brief question with respect to the "board of examiners" -- the board that will be examining credentials. It might not be specifically relevant under this section, but can the minister advise us what percentage of the registered professional foresters in the province are employees of the Ministry of Forests? Is he aware of the percentage?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there are slightly less than 3,000 foresters in the province. It's in that range -- 2,863 to be exact. About one-third of those would be employees of the ministry.
W. Hurd: In examining section 15, one assumes that the RPFs will be subject to having their proficiency examined. Are we dealing with a one-shot analysis when they become RPFs, or is the board of examiners dealing with qualifications and performance over an indefinite period of time?
Hon. D. Miller: The association would develop criteria to deal with the issue of continuing membership. I'm not that familiar with the full range, but other professional associations have a mechanism whereby they can ensure that as professionals they are up to date. In other words, as knowledge accumulates and as things change, there needs to be an ongoing mechanism to ensure foresters keep up with that. I think that in a normal course of events foresters and other professionals take continuing courses. For example, as we introduce new regulations governing activities on the land, such as soil conservation guidelines, and as we move to develop and implement biological guidelines, foresters clearly have an obligation to be current in their understanding of what those guidelines are and what the implications are for implementation. The association will have to develop criteria to ensure that their members keep up to date with whatever is current. This section clearly allows that, but it does not delineate that criteria or the method by which the association would do that.
Section 9, section 15 approved.
On section 9, section 16.
W. Hurd: I have just a brief question with respect to section 16.
Hon. D. Miller: On a point of order, are we dealing with section 16, or are we dealing with section 9 of the bill, which refers to section 16 of the Foresters Act?
The Chair: We are dealing with the sections contained within section 9.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased that that point of order was raised, hon. Chairman. Now the confusion is complete.
I just have a brief question under section whatever-it-is. It refers to out-of-province permits to practise professional forestry in the province. Given the fact that the standards for a professional association vary from province to province, can the minister advise the committee whether we're talking about a significant number of professional foresters transferring? Is he aware of the numbers involved, or is this really up to the association to monitor?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm just trying to interpret the member's question to some degree. Is there a concern that people from outside the province are coming in in significant numbers and practising forestry? I don't believe that's the case. There has always been a provision to allow professional foresters from outside British Columbia to come in and practise forestry on a temporary basis or a permit basis. Again, that's not unusual. You will find that that same circumstance exists in other professions.
The specific criteria for those permits will be developed by the association, and obviously they'll be based on some of the work that exists. Visiting foresters are granted special permits if their education and work experience is equivalent to that of registered members of the British Columbia association. So there is an assessment based on work experience and criteria. The association examines an applicant's academic qualifications and checks references for work experience to ensure that they are equivalent to those needed by a person applying to become a member of the B.C. association.
L. Fox: I hope I'm on the right section. I am on page six, special permit area, I believe.
The Chair: That's correct, hon. member.
L. Fox: I'm a bit confused by the numbering.
I just want a bit of clarification. I understand some of the reasons why these professional foresters come in from out of province to do work, primarily based on a seasonal need. But it says in the explanation of this section: "...the other to permit the limited practice of aspects of professional forestry." Would the minister expand on what that particular aspect of this legislation permits?
Hon. D. Miller: Members will be aware that the act deals with the relationship between professional foresters and other professions, such as technologists. The act and the association have an ability to allow that relationship to work. In other words, the technologists work in a related field, much of which is work that falls under the practice of forestry and, in fact, falls under the practice of a registered professional forester. But the people doing that work might not have the full title; they will be technologists. So the permit system allows people from outside of our borders who fall into that category to come in and do the work that they are qualified to do, while recognizing that they are not RPFs.
Section 9, sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.
Section 10, sections 19 and 20 approved.
[ Page 7336 ]
On section 10, section 21.
W. Hurd: I'm going to have to get a math degree to follow the progress of this bill.
I have a question on this section as it relates to the woodlot program. The minister made reference to it earlier in the debate. Given that the owners of these woodlots often engage in practices described at least under subsection (4), can the minister advise us what role the RPF will have on a woodlot program? Will they have to sign off the activities that are normally undertaken by the operator or owner of the woodlot? Does he see any change there as a result of this particular section in the act?
Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated earlier in committee, woodlots would be exempt from the requirement to have a registered professional forester sign off the work, whether it's harvesting, roadbuilding or what have you. In a previous bill we eliminated societies from eligibility to apply for woodlots in the future, although we recognized that those societies currently holding woodlots could retain them. In many cases in the past you would find both societies and individuals who had applied to hold a woodlot when this expertise does exist -- not in every case, but the bill does recognize the uniqueness of woodlots. They are small, and in many cases the holders of them are very close to the land and, have the experience. As I indicated in the previous bill, experience is a major factor in the awarding of woodlot licences. Under this section they are excluded from the requirements of having an RPF sign off on those plans.
[4:30]
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Section 10, section 21 approved.
On section 11, section 25.
W. Hurd: Earlier in the debate we talked about the number of RPFs directly employed by the Ministry of Forests. In the event that an offence is committed by any of those ministry employees vis-�-vis this section, can the minister advise, to his knowledge, what role his ministry or the government would have in assisting the person so charged under this section, if, as a member of the ministry, the person was charged with professional misconduct under these revisions to the Foresters Act?
Hon. D. Miller: The offences under that section are for either misrepresenting yourself as an RPF or for practising when you are not an RPF. So that really wouldn't come into it. I'm happy to deal with it, but I don't have an answer.
Regardless of where RPFs are employed -- whether they are employed by the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, private companies or as private consultants -- they are professionals, and they are governed by their own act. In the same sense as other professionals who have their own act, they are self-regulating -- not completely, because the Crown retains the right, as you will note in the bill, in terms of approving bylaws and those kinds of things, but they do police themselves. If an RPF, whether working for the Crown or anyone else, contravenes the bylaws of the association in any form, they are dealt with through the disciplinary measures that are laid out. I don't believe there are any special circumstances simply because they may be employees of the Crown.
At the outset I indicated that I think this bill represents a challenge to professional foresters -- perhaps less to those employed by the ministry, and more to those employed by private companies. But I think the foresters are up to that challenge.
Section 11, sections 25 and 26 approved.
On section 11, section 27.
W. Hurd: I would restate the question that I had attempted to pose about section 25. Under this section, one assumes that a member of the public could bring a complaint against an RPF with the ministry. This occurred in the case of the Arrow Lakes situation where the association looked at the performance of ministry staff. Can the minister clarify exactly what role his ministry might take in assisting an RPF in his ministry to deal with a situation where a member of the public issues a complaint against that person for any aspect of his work with the minister?
Hon. D. Miller: The statute is pretty clear. Any person who feels that a member or former member of the association has been guilty of incompetence, professional misconduct or contravention of the act or the bylaws may request an investigation. It is stipulated that it must be in writing and include details, and the registrar must acknowledge the request and inform the person who requested the investigation, etc. I want to be very clear that the situation in the Arrow Lakes -- and I don't wish to interfere in anything the association might do -- relates to whether or not the preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, which are a requirement of the Forest Act and not the Foresters Act, were in all cases complied with. We are doing further work and will make that work public. The explanation is that in 1987, when the legislation changed and first brought in the concept of preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, it was a vast administrative task. It appears that in some circumstances the actual prescription was not advertised. We're working through that in an administrative way and checking in other districts as well to find out.
But let's not confuse an administrative foul-up with anything relative to misconduct or foresters not doing their work. The proof of the pudding at the end of the day will be -- let me give a mixed metaphor -- whether the land....
R. Neufeld: You could be one of those artists.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, right. Occasionally, hon. Chair, I do feel artistic. I would suggest that it's not something anybody should try to foster or promote.
[ Page 7337 ]
The proof will be whether the land that has been harvested has been restocked and reforested, and whether it is going to be allowed to go to a free-to-grow state. That's the issue there. It doesn't relate to section 27 of the Foresters Act.
W. Hurd: Without wanting to take us too far off the track, I'm rather curious to hear the minister's assessment of exactly what the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters is doing in relation to that case. My understanding was they were examining it under the terms of their existing association bylaws, rather than any interpretation of whether there were breaches of the Forest Act. Can he clarify that? My understanding was that they were actually looking at it as a professional competency issue under the existing act that governs their association. I'm just trying to anticipate this section, given the controversy we have about environment land use issues in this province. There obviously is the potential here for these cases to proliferate in the event that there are practices that an individual may feel are the direct result of some malfeasance or non-performance by the registered professional foresters. I just ask for clarification: if it were a member of the Ministry of Forests staff, exactly what role would the ministry be required to take in representing this person in any disciplinary hearing before the association?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not aware of whether or not the association is pursuing individuals. They certainly don't come to me and ask my opinion as to whether they should or shouldn't, nor do they advise me if they are or are not. I'm completely unaware as to whether or not they may be pursuing anybody. As I indicated earlier, there are specific provisions in the act so that if someone wishes to allege that there has been a breach, there are mechanisms for the association to deal with that. It's not something that I would want to interfere with.
W. Hurd: Just one other quick question under section 27 of the Foresters Act. Is there any grandfather clause for this section? Would it be theoretically possible for a member of the public to bring forth a complaint based on past practices, or does the section relate just to forest practices that occur from the date of incorporation or passage of this act? For example, what if a logging road built 20 years ago were to fall down and it could be traced in some way to the work of a professional forester? Is it the minister's understanding that a complaint could be launched under section 27 for practices in the past, or is it strictly for conduct from this point forward?
Hon. D. Miller: Section 27 does not limit anyone's ability to register a complaint with the association for activity that happened prior to the introduction and passage of the bill. It simply delineates it in a better way. Complaints against foresters are, by their nature, after the fact. Although there may be instances where someone could say, "I think what you're doing, or what you're going to do, will be detrimental," generally it's after the fact. I think it's unlikely that someone would pursue a complaint in the situation that you mentioned, where a road was built 20 years ago and subsequently failed; I would think it unlikely to try to pursue a complaint against an individual forester for that failure. I would say that the question should be directed to the association. I don't think there are any particular limits or strictures on individuals for pursuing complaints with the registrar and the association.
W. Hurd: My questions don't relate just to past practices. There are the ongoing issues in Clayoquot Sound, where as a matter of strategy, if we could use that term, some members of the environmental movement may decide that it's possible to bring some frivolous actions against professional foresters through this section of the act, which has the best of intentions but clearly has the potential to trigger a major investigation by the association. It's impossible to envision how this section of the act may actually be played out as it is dealt with by the association. Does the minister see any potential for concern under this section, or does he not really foresee it as being a significant issue?
Hon. D. Miller: I can't foresee it being that significant. It may be. I suppose complaints are lodged in any profession, some of which are frivolous. The legislation clearly requires the registrar to acknowledge a complaint that's filed in writing and to inform the person who filed the complaint of the results of any investigation and the disposition of the matter. They really do have that opportunity to respond. The allegation must be in writing, and they must respond in writing to the person making the allegation. There is no ability to pursue beyond that, except through civil law.
[4:45]
Foresters have a vested interest in trying to elevate the public view of their profession, It's one that they do take seriously. I think there has to be some ability to screen out frivolous allegations. The penalties are fairly severe. They are not matters that people should take lightly.
Section 11, section 27 approved.
On section 11, section 28.
W. Hurd: I just have one brief question. This particular section, in which the association undertakes an investigation of a fellow member, is, of course, one that is currently a source of controversy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The complaint in that case was about the time limit of these investigations. After an initial complaint is launched, at times there seems to be an unreasonable delay in processing it, and, of course, a lack of information to the complainant. That is understandable, given the need for confidentiality.
Would it be prudent to ask a question about the timing of an investigation? How long could or should that investigation continue in order to give the public confidence that in a situation where a society is called upon to investigate one of its own members the
[ Page 7338 ]
investigation is timely and that it's dealt with in a manner than fosters public confidence?
Hon. D. Miller: There are no prescribed time limits in the legislation. Again, it's in the interests of the association to deal with these issues in a timely manner. In the past disciplinary issues have taken a considerable amount of time. But from my memory of them, they involved a great deal of technical material and pretty deep discussion relative to professional differences, if you like. So while there is none, the association clearly must deal with issues in a timely manner.
Section 11, sections 28 to 34 inclusive, and section 12 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 34, Foresters Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 33.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
On the amendment.
J. MacPhail: We have before us today a motion from the opposition to hoist Bill 33 and put it on hold for a while. I rise to very strongly oppose any delay in bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993. I feel quite strongly about this. The reason I am opposing it is that any delay in bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, would put British Columbians in a lower position than other Canadians. It will have the effect of leaving British Columbians without any protection against hate propaganda, and that's not a situation we want to see our residents put into, nor our families and diverse cultural groups.
I would suggest that British Columbia is one of the last safe havens within Canada for individuals and organizations that promote racial supremacy and hatred, and that's just not acceptable. I know that those of us who care about our province see that as unacceptable. There are those who would like to delay and who feel a bit cowardly with regard to this issue, but they need not do so. It is not that we are breaking new ground here or that we do not have substantial constitutional protection for freedom of speech within Canada. But it is true that our province is one of the last areas that needs to have this final protection. The current Human Rights Act just does not do it, and our other laws are inadequate to prevent hate activities and to remedy the harmful effects of hate propaganda. It is important that we do not support the hoist motion, that we get on with bringing in the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, and that we pass Bill 33 so that British Columbia will be in the forefront in protecting against hatemongering.
For the sake of the opposition, let me just read some notes put out by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition, who are a well-respected group of advocates on behalf of all British Columbians and who advocate on behalf of balancing between the rights of the individual and the rights of freedom of speech with regard to hate-mongering. Let me tell you what the Human Rights Coalition is saying about Bill 33, the Human Rights Amendment Act:
"Without this amendment, the only piece of legislation which can be used to combat hate propaganda is the B.C. Civil Rights Protection Act."
I know that's an act that the opposition rests its laurels upon. However, the Human Rights Coalition goes on to say:
"This act makes it a criminal offence to promote hatred and contempt of a person or class of persons. If convicted, an individual is liable for a fine of up to $2,000 and six months in jail. If a corporation or society is involved, the fine could be $10,000. The Civil Rights Protection Act is punitive in nature and provides no remedy to the victim of hatred. In order to convict someone, a charge of promoting hatred and contempt must be proved according to a criminal standard; that is, beyond a reasonable doubt."
Those of us who are familiar with the court system know how difficult that can be. The Human Rights Coalition goes on to say:
"It is necessary to prove intent. Because of the foregoing, there has never been a charge laid under the Civil Rights Protection Act.
"The new amendment decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is the paramount consideration. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights which will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred. Free speech is not the issue. Even if the amendment contained a caveat which said nothing in it restricts the right to free speech, complaints would still go forward. The council would have to determine what is legitimate free speech and what is the promotion of hatred."
For those who may be concerned about the integrity of the Council of Human Rights, I might say that it has existed in this province and done an excellent job defending the interests of individuals against all forms of discrimination, and it has done that through some tough times. I know that in the early eighties there was substantial change to the human rights council, much of which was protested by those of us on this side of the House. Through it all, the human rights council, regardless of which government was in power, has managed to do its job in defending the interests of British Columbians against discrimination. I would say that that's going to continue. It will continue with the B.C. Council of Human Rights for years to come. Now the council will have added ammunition at its behest to protect us all against hate.
"The wording of this amendment is not as strong as the wording contained in the Saskatchewan human rights code," the B.C. Human Rights Coalition tells us.
[ Page 7339 ]
"Saskatchewan prohibits publication or display of anything `which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity....'" Then it goes on to list the various classes that will be affected by this. The B.C. amendments contain the words "hatred or contempt" only. The Saskatchewan code has been in force for a number of years, and there has never been an issue of free speech being threatened within that province. So I would hope that that would give the opposition comfort in reconsidering or perhaps withdrawing its hoist motion and allowing the Legislature to proceed with the Human Rights Amendment Act.
Let me read to you information received from just one other group in society, an excellent advocate and defender of the interests of all British Columbians regardless of background. That is the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of British Columbia -- AMSSA, to those of us who are well familiar with it. I quote their president, Riasat Ali Khan. He says:
"We believe the bill represents a good balance of the freedom of expression and the protection of rights of minorities. This is badly needed in a time when hate groups such as the White Aryan Resistance, the Ku Klux Klan and Western Guard seem to be growing in size and becoming more active. Hopefully, it may prevent the kind of racist violence that is happening in Germany, France and other parts of Europe."
They conclude their public statement on the Human Rights Amendment Act by pointing out to us that the Canadian Bar Association has in fact recommended that provincial human rights statutes be amended to include prohibition against hate and that the provisions of section 28 of the Criminal Code dealing with hate propaganda be strengthened. So we have good allies of the members of the opposition calling for such amendments as well. I hope that on this very difficult but important issue that would give all of us in this chamber comfort to proceed on this basis.
Bill 33 decriminalizes hate and moves it to a forum where the public interest is paramount -- and that's important to us all. It will be the B.C. Council of Human Rights that will determine whether a violation of the Human Rights Act has occurred. Again, free speech is not the issue. It is not a law that is aimed to suppress individual freedom of expression. In fact, the bill expands individual freedom of expression in the current law. I would just reiterate that section 2 in its current form is subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which prohibits any conduct or communication, whether public or private, that promotes hatred or contempt of a person or group. Bill 33 expressly protects private communications.
I would like to conclude by really urging all of us within the House to not delay, to have courage to proceed on this matter and to have the courage of our convictions. Everybody who lives in British Columbia deserves to have their rights protected, and we do not deserve -- any of us, whether we be an individual or a group of individuals -- to be subject to hatemongering. That is, finally, what Bill 33 protects all British Columbians against.
I would hope that my four-and-a-half-year-old, whom I often speak about in this House, will have the benefit of Bill 33 and grow up having friends from diverse backgrounds and not be targeted by any group. I would hope that he will be able to go through the education system and society knowing that the interests of free speech, individuals' right to free speech and society's right to be protected against hatemongering will be well balanced and protected in Bill 33. I really urge all of us to proceed quickly and pass this legislation.
C. Evans: I don't want this to be an indignant speech. A lot of times in politics, indignation is a feigned emotion, a dishonest way to speak. Yet I feel a little indignant about standing here. The general public might find what's happening in here a little arcane and difficult to understand, so I'm going to try to go through it. I rise to speak against a hoist motion on Bill 33. A whole lot of people probably don't understand what a hoist motion is or how it comes to pass that a government member would be speaking against a motion having to do with a government bill. I'm going to try to explain that to them, because having brought in a hoist motion on this bill, the people who did must understand that the general public will understand what they are doing.
[5:00]
Firstly, what is Bill 33? Bill 33 is the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993. What does it say? It says that a human being has the right not to be subjected to hate. For sure, there's nobody who works here who disagrees with that. The other side and members on my side would agree that it's a perfectly legitimate thing to make a law in this place that says none of us and none of the people we represent can be the object of hatred.
Because the discussion that brought in this hoist motion had to do with the existence of the present legislation, let me say to the people who might be confused that we already have a law in B.C. called the Civil Rights Protection Act. Some people would make the argument that you don't need a law that says that a human being has the right not to be hated if you already have a law that says that it's against the law -- a criminal offence -- to disseminate hatred. I hope I don't demean the intelligence of members, but I want to say to people who maybe don't follow these matters too much that there's a terrific difference. The law we have now says that I will be tried in a court of law as a criminal if I write down and disseminate something that demeans one of you because of your religion or that encourages my neighbours to hate you because of your religion or gender or sexual orientation or where you're from. We are proposing, in Bill 33, to replace that or to augment it with a law that says: "My human rights have been abrogated if you disseminate literature that encourages people to hate me."
Are we laying one good law on top of another? Is this smoke and mirrors or a duplication of effort? I don't think so. We're saying that the law that now makes someone a criminal for disseminating hatred doesn't work. The courts are expensive. The courts won't hear the case. The police will never charge the
[ Page 7340 ]
person. If it gets to court the person will never be found guilty. The criminal system just didn't work. Anyway, we wrote that law in 1981, before we had a Charter. The Charter, which supersedes all legislation in Canada and which guarantees me my freedom of speech -- and guarantees other hon. members and you, hon. Speaker, your freedom of speech -- makes it impossible for us to charge people and have them convicted as criminals under the present law.
Maybe it's wrong of me to use an absolute word like "impossible" in trying to make something simple. Maybe someday someone will be charged under the present law and convicted -- maybe in the year 2000, maybe next month, maybe in the year 2030. But it's a complicated and sophisticated society out there, with people doing crummy things every day, and it hasn't happened in 12 years. With all of the dissemination of hatred against Jews, the cross burnings, the Nazi-like activity and the organization of the skinheads, it hasn't happened. Maybe next month something will happen which is so clearly a criminal act that the criminal law will work, but it hasn't happened yet.
We're saying that in a pragmatic sort of a way, we're the leaders. We're the legislators. It's our obligation not only to say, "Gee, we did right; we passed a law," but to look at it ten years later and ask: "Does it work? Did we do a good job?" I think everyone who has experienced hatred against themselves in the last ten, 11 or 12 years and who found out that the law did not protect them might say: "Hey, you guys, we thank you for your efforts, but it didn't work. Maybe the criminal justice system isn't the right place to be trying to carry forward these cases."
So the present government and the present minister said: "Let's make a law that has nothing to do with the criminal system. Let's make a law that takes this problem out of the courts and puts it into some civil process that might work, not in a grandiose way like they use in Europe to prosecute German war criminals but in a small way, a British Columbia sort of way, some pragmatic way that might work." The present law would be replaced with a law that says that if one of the hon. members opposite is the subject of hate literature disseminated by myself, instead of going to court that person would have a right to go to the B.C. Council of Human Rights and file a claim. The council could hear the case, and if it found that the person had been offended against, the council would order me to stop. It would not put me in jail, but stop me from doing what I was doing. And if it found that I had injured that person, the B.C. Council of Human Rights would say that that person would get damages from me -- but not put me in jail, not give me a criminal record and not run sideways with the Charter.
I think that what is happening here is an incredibly pragmatic and fairly quiet attempt to make something work for the people of B.C. which presently doesn't work. It's broken. In 12 years we've never made it work. If that isn't broken, at least it's ineffective. What have we got right now? We've got nothing. Right now a person on the street who has been offended, who I disseminate hate literature against, has no recourse that works. We have brought in a law which will change that and make the system work. That brings us up to date with what Bill 33 is.
Next, I want to explain to people what a hoist motion is. Correct me if I'm wrong, hon. Speaker, but this is what I understand a hoist motion to be. The government brings in a law which is probably a good law or a law which most of the people in B.C. would like to see. It is on an issue which the general public believes in. The opposition is afraid, really, to oppose the law, because they know that everybody wants the law. But they're being paid to oppose, and they have to do their job. In a democracy we have a wonderful thing -- a thing that most people in the world don't have. It is a system in which people get wages to oppose the government. It's a wonderful system, but sometimes it gets a little strange. The government brings in a law that the opposition knows ought to be a law. They don't really want to oppose it, but they're being paid to be the opposition, and they have to do the honourable thing. So they oppose it by bringing in a hoist motion. It's a wonderful thing in democracy. It means that an opposition system works; the parliament is working. But it's dumb legislative business, because it says....
The Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt, but I think it's important to remind the member that there is an amendment on the order paper that is in order. I would ask the member to address his comments either in favour of or opposing the amendment, please.
Interjection.
C. Evans: That's right. I am opposed to the hoist motion, and I'm trying to explain how a hoist motion comes to be. The hoist motion says that this legislation will be lifted off the floor of this House and go somewhere else for six months.
My belief, and the belief of people on my side, is that that's utterly irresponsible -- because we don't at the present moment have a functioning law. If we had a law against the dissemination of hatred and we were just going to fiddle with it, it would be correct to take it outside and discuss it for six months. But at present we have no functioning law. So what the opposition is saying in their hoist motion is: "Go on having no law for six months' time."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
C. Evans: This brings me to the question that I....
Interjection.
C. Evans: I think this is a good thing....
Interjections.
C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, the back-and-forth in the room is well-timed, because it brings me to the question of indignation that I started with. I think that the people of B.C. would have the right to be a little indignant if we
[ Page 7341 ]
voted for this hoist motion and left them between legislative sessions without a law again. We have brought in a law that decriminalizes the process, that saves the public money, that gets it out of the courts, that doesn't run sideways with the Charter of Rights, that guarantees people their freedom of speech and that puts it into a civil process. To take it out of this room now and wait for six months would be absolutely irresponsible.
What might happen in that six months? What kind of terrible behaviour might we expect in that six months that we might we be responsible for that we could put a stop to right here today? I will give you a couple of examples. As a person watching this at home -- I know, because I called her up and said I thought this debate might happen today -- a person I've known most of my life.... When that individual was a young woman, some people painted swastikas on the front of her house. They told her to get her children out of their neighbourhood because they had a nice white neighbourhood, and they liked it that way. She phoned the cops; it wasn't against the law. They painted them again and she phoned the cops; it wasn't against the law. The third time they burned down her house with Molotov cocktails -- there were kids in the house.
An Hon. Member: Are you telling us that's not against the law?
C. Evans: If this law allowed the police to stop those people before they got to the third act -- the Molotov cocktails -- it would be a great success.
Interjections.
C. Evans: Maybe they want some more examples. To the south and to the west of me live white supremacist groups who occasionally drive into my constituency and dump literature on people's lawns that says hateful things about Jewish people, black people, East Indian people, Oriental people -- anybody except white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon males. At the present we don't have a law that will deal with it.
[5:15]
Let me give you another example. Last year or the year before -- in one of the villages that I represent -- there was an ongoing struggle between a few gay people and the general heterosexual community. People said very hateful things in public and created a atmosphere of hatred. There were three events, the third of which almost killed the person when he was being beaten with a baseball bat. If passing Bill 33 would make it so in the next six months -- instead of hoisting it into the ozone we could deal with people gathering together to say hateful things and to spread hate -- then we would have done a wonderful thing here.
Let me give you another example. A group of East Indian people came into my constituency to plant trees. A group of people went to a vacant lot a few blocks away, had a rally, stirred up some hatred against those people, and there was a brawl. Some people in the brawl went to hospital. It might be a wonderful thing if Bill 33 made it against the law for people to gather together to disseminate hate -- not a paper law, not an irrelevant, unusable law that only matters to people like us in rooms like this, but a real law that works on the street.
Hon. Speaker, you may have noticed that unlike other times when I've stood here and raised my voice -- when we had repartee and I fought with people opposite -- I have attempted to make this as gentle a comment as possible. I don't think it should be us and them. I am only able to do that because I know their hoist motion is very likely to lose in this chamber. If I thought that it was driven by how they really feel, or if I thought they had the votes to pull it off, I think I'd raise my voice. I understand that we have to do certain things like have this debate because it's correct; that's the way the parliamentary system works. But after the bill passes, I hope we all join one another to try and make this law work, not like the other one that never did.
G. Wilson: I rise to speak to the amendment on Bill 33. I do so, having been impressed by the position taken by the member for Nanaimo in second reading debate and having been very moved by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who entered into the debate and talked about the philosophical questions around what we're attempting to do.
I'm thankful that I have the opportunity to correct the errors of the last speaker, the member for Nelson-Creston, who simply doesn't seem to understand what we're doing here today. In his comments, he has -- inadvertently, I would assume -- misled the public, either because he doesn't understand or because he clearly has a different interpretation of what we're attempting to do with Bill 33 as opposed to what the bill itself suggests.
Let me start by saying that nobody in this chamber -- and I hope it's only a very small minority in the province -- will sit by idly and allow the promotion of hate literature or discriminatory or hurtful material that is directed against any group, whether that be on the basis of race, language, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. All of us in a free and open democratic society want a society where there is tolerance, understanding and compassion for our fellow human beings. That is a goal, and it's something that we want to target and attempt to develop. All of us also want to protect some fundamental individual freedoms, because within a free and open democratic system, the fundamental freedom to think and to speak of what you think is absolutely basic to the maintenance of a free society.
If what we heard just a few minutes ago is taken by anybody who may be listening or who may read Hansard to be the essence of this bill.... I don't think we have seen such a gross distortion of the facts in any debate I've been engaged in since being elected to this House. That was a complete and utter distortion of what is being done.
We do have a law. As a matter of fact, we have two statutes that apply. The Human Rights Act is already in situ. Under section 3 of part 1 of that act, there are laws against discrimination in public facilities; under section
[ Page 7342 ]
4, laws against discrimination in the purchase of property; under section 5, laws against discrimination in tenancy premises; under section 6, laws against discrimination in employment and advertising; under section 7, laws against discrimination in wages; under section 8, laws against discrimination in employment; and under section 9, laws against discrimination by unions and associations. It goes on and on.
Part 2 of that act sets out the establishment of the Council of Human Rights, the complaints and the inspection records, and how all of those shall be dealt with. There is a law. For a member to stand and say there is no law in this province is an utter fabrication of the truth, because there is a law. I think the member should avail himself of the accuracy of the information, so that he too can participate in a manner that contributes to the debate in a more constructive way.
The question is: why does this law not work? Let me tell you what we're dealing with in Bill 33 and the reason we have moved a hoist motion. The reason this bill is being delayed is that we are attempting to amend part 1, section 2, which simply removes from the existing law: "...subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." What exactly does that mean? It means that you are not free in this province today to promote hatred, and you are not free to distribute and disseminate material that promotes hatred on the basis of contempt for a person or class of persons, with respect to any other person. It means that you cannot talk about the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons. It means that in British Columbia you cannot discriminate on the basis of colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or place of origin, because under the Civil Rights Protection Act you are prohibited from doing so.
What you are now permitted to do under the Human Rights Act in the province of B.C. is express your opinion in writing or in speech. Expressing your opinion, hon. Speaker, doesn't mean that you are seeking to contaminate or poison the process by any kind of directed action that is prohibited under the Civil Rights Protection Act. The law as it is written today clearly says that "notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." That is freedom of expression. And in a democratic society, the freedom to think and to express what you think is the basic, most fundamental principle that we all stand by and that we must protect at all costs.
What we will see in this amended act, if Bill 33 goes through, is a change so that subsection (1) of section 2 will no longer apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private, end of story. No longer is there a "subject to" reference to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which sets out in very clearly delineated form the prohibitions that we wish to have in place against the kind of hatemongering that the member opposite and earlier the member for Vancouver-Hastings referred to.
We are not dealing with human rights and the categories of discrimination under sections 3 through 9 of the current act which I've just read out. That's not what we are talking about here. We're not talking about discrimination in employment on the basis of gender or race. We're not talking about an amendment to employment standards, which deal with fairness in the workplace. None of that is being discussed here, and for it to be entered into this debate is nonsense. We're talking about a fundamental principle, freedom of expression, the freedom to express orally or in writing what it is you think. I'm not taking issue with the human rights council; they do excellent work. But we are putting into the hands of the human rights council the right to determine what I as an individual can think and say. And if what I say is interpreted by some other individual to be offensive or hurtful, then they can then bring down a levy and prosecute against me on the basis of what I think and say. Hon. Speaker, this is a change in a fundamental principle that we in the Liberal opposition cannot, must not and will not silently sit by and allow to happen, because it is absolutely ridiculous.
Let me say that I was deeply moved by the member for Vancouver-Burrard when he spoke in a manner that brought personal memory to a debate which we deal with in principle. As members of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority -- or what was formerly the majority; I don't think it's a majority anymore -- it's often easy for us to speak in theoretical terms and not understand the extent of hurt that people who are not of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant background may feel because of discrimination and actions taken against them.
In my 44 years on this Earth I have often had the great privilege to live abroad. I lived for many years in Kenya in East Africa. I've seen colonial regimes, and I've seen the perpetration of injustice that's done against people. While I've witnessed it and felt the grief from my own perspective, I know that it is impossible to have a clear and deep understanding of the hatred put forward and the hurt that it brings if you are not actually a member of the group that is being persecuted.
But let me say this: in the protection of those minorities, as we look to those people who are indeed affected by the hate literature that comes forward, we must recognize -- and the member for Vancouver-Burrard made it very clear -- that freedom of speech is a two-edged sword. It is indeed. Regulation against freedom of speech is equally a two-edged sword. I heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings say that the B.C. Council of Human Rights would determine if what is said is in the public interest. What does having a human rights council to determine what is in the public interest mean? A human rights council that has a broad vision, a broad multicultural background, a good small-l liberal attitude toward what is acceptable or unacceptable and a vision of a society in which we are inclusive and compassionate and have understanding might see the public interest quite differently than a human rights council made up of people who are less small-l liberal-minded and who may believe that certain things could not be said to advance the cause of those who believe that they are discriminated against and could not be used to protest against the kind of
[ Page 7343 ]
inhibitions that we in society do not wish to see put forward in a discriminatory manner.
[5:30]
Unless you have been in a situation where you are indeed a minority and have seen that there are two sides to that coin, you don't understand how important it is to make sure that freedom of speech applies equally to every individual. The state, or the human rights council as an arm or product of the state, may become more involved in determining what is practical, possible and appropriate in the freedom to speak than free society may desire. That's the issue that's at stake here. It is indeed a two-edged sword. Do we really want government, or the hand of government, to determine what we are free to say or think? In my judgment, the answer is no, we do not.
Nobody likes the notion that there are those out there who are hatemongers, shallow-minded and ignorant people who put forward the kind of hatred that we see. Nobody likes to see that reference; none of us do. And yes, what the member for Burrard said is true: words hurt. There are times when people are hurt by those who are ignorant and self-serving, and who seek to promote undesirable segregation from those who are trying to build a society that is inclusive and compassionate and embraces people from different cultures, languages and religions. That society, by any other definition, is Canada. It's a society of people from virtually every part of this world who work and live together as Canadians, each of us equal with every other. That's why we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is completely false, as was suggested by the member for Nelson-Creston, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an act that we simply cannot avail ourselves of for civil action against people who promote hatred. That is just utter nonsense. We certainly can take criminal action, and we have taken criminal action. Where criminal action does not occur, we must take much stronger action outside of the courts of law, and that is called social action -- the action of informed, intelligent people who bring social pressure against those who would do it. We say as a collective that it is unacceptable in our society. It is only when we as a population rise up and say no that we will ever eradicate that kind of problem, no matter how strong and well-worded the law of the land. As was said by the minister herself when she rose in second reading debate, no matter how strong the words, you cannot legislate against ignorance, aggression and the kind of hatemongering that people perpetrate on the basis of a learned hatred that is systemic, unfortunately, in our society today. It can only happen through mutual coercion, and that is exactly what is required.
I would like to come back to a comment made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She said that she was upset that the members of the opposition were delaying this legislation. With the greatest respect, what an absolute and utter piece of nonsense. It is the government's agenda that brings forward this legislation. This legislation has been in the works. We in the opposition have been prepared to debate it. We note that the government has brought forward other pieces of legislation, such as an environmental act, that they wanted to put through. This government brought it forward, we went through second reading, we've gone through the committee stage, and it is now an act. Hon. Speaker, you yourself will know how many times in this session you have said: "And it is an act."
Nothing is preventing the government from bringing forward this legislation today -- right now. I would say -- and I believe I would have the full concurrence of every member of the opposition -- that if it was so important to sit until 10 o'clock last night doing Bill 26, we are prepared to sit until 10 o'clock tonight and we'll put this through or reject it. Let the government bring this bill forward now. Let's not adjourn at 6 o'clock; let's take it through.
My understanding is that if this hoist motion doesn't go forward, which is our preference.... We hear it won't, because they have the majority. It is my understanding that members opposite won't bring it forward, because they themselves are not even decided on whether this is a good, proper and sound piece of legislation for British Columbia; they have their own divisions.
An Hon. Member: Let's have a vote.
G. Wilson: We hear members opposite yelling: "Let's have a vote." In a sense, that makes very clear the distinction between what makes a difference with the members opposite, and why they can accept this, and why the members of the Liberal Party in opposition -- and the members of the third party, I'm assuming -- are not going to support it. Even though there is dissension in the government ranks, and the government knows there are government members who understand that this is not good legislation, they will work as a collective to push it through, notwithstanding the rights of individuals to stand up and freely speak their mind. The reason they can take freedom of speech out of this act is because not one of them is permitted it.
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member would like to return to discussing the substance of the amendment and the bill before us.
G. Wilson: We can see that the freedom of expression that is being removed in this bill is foreign to members in government. When the Canadian constitution that talks of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- which is something that has been debated in this bill -- came before the people, 50 members wearing Yes buttons all stood up saying the same thing. The people spoke, and the people were heard. When we look at the Human Rights Amendment Act, even though we know there are members opposite who recognize that the removal of freedom of expression by statute in British Columbia is a travesty of the fundamental right of freedom of expression for individual people in this province, even though there are members opposite who know that shouldn't go forward, the freedom to express that won't be there, because we know there's going to be a gag order here. When we in the Liberal opposition stand up as individuals to vote in
[ Page 7344 ]
accordance with our conscience and principles, members opposite find that hard to understand. One of the reasons this hoist motion is important is that we are trying to reform the system so that individuals are free to express their point of view. When a totally unprincipled piece of legislation came before this House, I rose to vote against it. Why? Because I had the freedom within the ranks of our caucus to stand and vote my conscience on that question.
F. Garden: They knew they couldn't control you.
G. Wilson: We know that that member, when he looks at this hoist amendment.... That is exactly what I'm talking about now. The member for Cariboo North knows that the freedom to express one's opinion and purpose is a principle that is absolutely fundamental to British Columbia society. As somebody who is a strong trade unionist, somebody who wants to stand up for the rights of individuals and speak out against injustices, the member for Cariboo North knows that his freedom to speak out against oppression and the kinds of things that he would deem to be wrong -- whether he is seen to be insightful or hurtful or going against the rules -- is a fundamental right that he has, which must be protected. This bill removes that.
It's been my great pleasure in life to have listened to many orators -- none greater than someone whom I feel privileged to have listened to, and that was Martin Luther King, Jr. Here was a civil rights activist who made it very clear that you cannot legislate people's hearts. You cannot say: "We are going to pass a bill that will remove hatred from people. We are going to pass a bill that will remove the kind of statements that may be deemed to be hateful and hurtful."
"You can't legislate the hate out of people. You can't legislate people's hearts." That's the quote from Martin Luther King. He was right, because he understood that notwithstanding the fact that as a society we want to work, stand up and speak out against the hatred that we see, we must also recognize that we must protect the fundamental right of an individual to speak his mind.
H. Giesbrecht: What about Doug Collins?
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, someone made a suggestion -- albeit I don't know that they are terribly well informed -- that Doug Collins was one of the reasons this legislation was introduced. Let me say....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: We're hearing the very member who said, "What about Doug Collins?" now saying: "Nonsense." So it isn't Doug Collins.
Hon. Speaker, let me address this question of editorial comment and editorial writers and their right to have the freedom to express their opinions. I can tell you that I find what Mr. Collins writes offensive. Therefore I don't read what he writes -- and it's my freedom to do so. Many people with whom I work, many people within our party and many people from different ethnic backgrounds, with whom I interact on a daily basis in British Columbia, find what Mr. Collins writes hurtful. They find it hurtful, distasteful and ignorant in its information.
J. Pullinger: And you think that's okay?
G. Wilson: Members are asking if we think that's okay. The fact of the matter is that if someone is prepared to publish that, if somebody is prepared to stand by that, and if that is the man's freedom to think, write and say those words, then quite clearly that is a right within a free society. Because the reaction of society should be to rise up and, by majority, say: "That is unacceptable." Who wouldn't be afraid to say, as I have just done, that they find it distasteful? I find it is based on principles that are ignorant and lacking in substance and direction.
I have a right to stand and countermand what I have just heard. Let's flip to the reverse: allow this bill to go through, and allow prosecution to come forward against some segment of society that I decide I'm going to say needs to have its rights protected. If I find that the new establishment -- this new Big Brother government that we've got sitting opposite -- is discriminating against a particular group of people, can I stand up? Will I be able to go out? Will I be able to speak clearly and openly and articulate against that hurt? Will I be able to use my freedom of expression in a manner similar to Mr. Collins, if it's not deemed in the public interest? On many occasions I have taken a minority point of view on a question not because I think it's popular but because I believe it passionately -- with every fibre of my soul. And if I believe it and think it to be true, I should have the right to say so. If people don't like it and find it hurtful, they should have the right to say so; they should come forward, and they should have the right to freely express to me, either in writing or orally, their concern. That is the right to freedom of expression; that's what this is all about.
[5:45]
There are those who argue that hate literature is part of what I'm saying should be free. That's simply not true, because in the existing legislation it says quite clearly that it is subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, and section 1 of the Civil Rights Protection Act has prohibitions in it. The reason that this hoist motion should go forward now is so that this government has a chance to rethink a hasty piece of legislation that has been brought forward and targeted at one, two or three people, who, I agree, provide insensitive, often-hateful material that is ignorant in its basis....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member says: "Let's do something about it." Yes, let's do something about it: let's stand up, united in our voice, and say we will not accept it, tolerate it, read it or allow our people and children to be subjected to it. You do so through passive resistance, by resisting the notions of those things that you don't accept. You do so through education. We educate our children in a manner that allows them to have the freedom to think and freely express their opinions.
[ Page 7345 ]
You don't legislate against it, because if you start legislating here, where does it end? Let's remove this freedom of expression. Let's stop the editorial writers. Goodness knows, hon. Speaker, many an editorial I've read about me contains factually inaccurate information. I found many an editorial written about me I found hurtful and painful. But, hon. Speaker, it is their right to write it.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: They say that's not hate literature. They are suggesting....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair appreciates that this afternoon we are debating a subject which many members feel very strongly about -- as it should be. We must also respect the rules of debate here. All members will have an opportunity to enter into the debate, but at this moment the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has the floor. I would ask other members to respect that and have the courtesy to listen to his comments.
G. Wilson: The members opposite have been saying that this is not hate literature and therefore I shouldn't be introducing this into the debate. The member for Vancouver-Hastings said that the B.C. Council of Human Rights will determine what the public interest is with respect to what is acceptable and what is not. By virtue of the fact that there have been a number of instances where we've had to get order in the House, I notice that my time has been eroded a little, and I'm sure that the Speaker will have some discretion on that.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot be selectively determining what you will say is acceptable within the rights unless you outline the prohibited acts.
D. Lovick: Read the first section.
G. Wilson: If I read the section 2 of the existing act, as the member for Nanaimo says, it says "subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act." This civil rights question of freedom of expression -- and it is that question -- is protected now under the Civil Rights Protection Act.
D. Lovick: No.
G. Wilson: The member for Nanaimo has to read the act to understand it. It says: "Notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject." Read the Civil Rights Protection Act.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I understand that I am the designated speaker on this and that as such my time would be extended.
The Speaker: On that basis, the member can continue. But I would remind hon. members that it would be very helpful to the Chair if the designated speaker would so indicate at the beginning of the speech.
G. Wilson: We will absolutely make sure we do that.
D. Lovick: Because we believe in free speech, we won't rise on a point of order.
G. Wilson: I have several more points to make, and I would like to make them without these frequent interruptions.
I go back to a point that I started with and that I would like to expand on just slightly: that is, that within this amended bill, communication intended to be private is no longer applicable with respect to the promotion of hate literature. One of the reasons that we want, with this hoist motion, to make sure that the government rethinks what it's doing is that it provides for and allows.... This is something that was pointed out earlier by the member for Vancouver-Kensington, himself a lawyer, who entered into second reading debate. He read the act and said that yes, this means that now you are able, on a mailing list, to distribute this hate literature among people who are involved in some society or group or whatever. This is something that is not necessarily desirable in our society, yet somehow this bill allows for it.
Let me say clearly that there are two ways in which you can put in place civil constraints when we start to look at the principles of what is being debated here. When we want to eradicate the kind of hate literature, discrimination and violence that is perpetrated against people, you can do so by enacting legislation to curtail fundamental rights and freedoms. Through the curtailment of those freedoms you start down a very slippery slope in which government starts to curtail by legislation ever-increasing amounts of the freedoms and liberties that we wish to have in a free and democratic society. Or you can attempt it through a process of mutual coercion -- the opportunity for society to come together through the agencies of our educational institutions, social organizations and religious organizations and affiliations and preach education of tolerance, compassion, understanding and intolerance against those who will knowingly, deliberately and willingly perpetrate hatred against others. Mutual coercion within our society is the preferred route. When that mutual coercive effect takes place, we are able to build a society in which those have become fundamental tenets. They are pillars in society on which a democratic and open society is built.
When you decide that you are going to remove rights by legislation, and you are going to put into the hands of a Human Rights Council the opportunity to determine what constitutes public interest and how that which is freely expressed -- either in writing or verbally -- is being served, then I think we have started down a road that is going to take us into some very difficult times.
[ Page 7346 ]
We are saying that as soon as we start to remove those individual fundamental freedoms, we start to curtail those freedoms in many other sectors. It is too easy to say that if we have legislated and can effectively legislate against what one person thinks and believes -- and a few minutes ago hon. members were using Doug Collins as their example -- and if what the members opposite are saying is true, should we then legislate against the right of Mr. Collins to write his column?
An Hon. Member: That's what they want.
G. Wilson: If that's what they are saying, then they had better come out and say that. If that isn't what they are saying, then this hoist motion is completely in order, because there is nothing wrong with section 1 that has a clause subject to the Civil Rights Protection Act, which can and should be used against those people who wilfully perpetrate against anybody else.
So what are they saying? If they are not saying that the right to freely express an opinion is in jeopardy here, then why has the one line that has been removed from this bill the one that says that a person may, by speech or in writing, freely express his opinions on a subject? Why not keep that in there? Why would you not say that this does not apply to a communication intended to be private, and notwithstanding subsection (1) but subject to the civil rights clause, there is freedom of speech in writing? Why wouldn't you -- if they are going to allow hate literature to be privately distributed, which is what this bill does? It says you can't say it publicly and you can't print it publicly, but you are allowed to go out and say it in a private memorandum, which might be sent to many people on a mailing list. That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
So what do we do? Do we now start to recruit underground organizations that are going to disseminate hate literature in a privately corresponded manner? That doesn't make any sense.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo says that we're talking about freedom of thought versus freedom of expression. So! In British Columbia you're now going to be free to think what you like, but you can't say it.
Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
G. Wilson: No way. You're not allowed to say it. Think what you want, but you're not free to say it, and you're certainly not free to publish it.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: They say you're not free to publish it. They need to read this so they understand the wisdom of this hoist motion. This hoist motion is here to save this government from serious embarrassment. I understand that they've already walked into it, because they themselves appear divided on this issue -- otherwise, this bill would have been brought forward and we would have moved in an orderly manner on it. It would have been presented in this House, we would have debated it in this House and they would have passed it in an expeditious manner, as they are so wont to do. It took us until 10 o'clock last night on another bill, which is far less critical in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms than this particular bill is today.
I'd like to come back to a comment made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings that she attributed to Riasat Ali Khan. It's really dangerous for elected members to come into this House and provide quotes from individuals, particularly individuals who hold a status position, as Mr. Ali Khan does with respect to the multicultural community, unless you know exactly what they are commenting on and put those comments into context. Mr. Ali Khan is somebody I consider a personal friend. He's somebody I know well, someone whose thoughts I know well. We have often debated at length about individual rights versus collective rights in society and how we protect the rights of collectives without eroding individual rights. It's something that we have a passion to debate in an intellectual way.
The question of racism and hate literature is something that we have discussed and we don't disagree. There is no disagreement that in a multicultural society such as ours we need to have some kind of protection against hate literature. There's no disagreement on this side of the House that those who willingly perpetrate hatred have to be prosecuted. There's no question that the country needs nationally not only a statute that puts out the fundamental rights and freedoms of people as we would see in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also a charter of rights and responsibilities, which we are not free to do here because we don't have the statutory powers to do it. The responsibilities of citizens is something that needs to be looked at in terms of where, as responsible citizens, each of us should play a part in terms of the development of society.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: When there's a suggestion that this is good legislation, I don't believe for a moment that anybody in a position of status would say that any legislation that seeks to remove freedom of expression in British Columbia is good legislation. It is not; it is regressive legislation.
And notwithstanding the fact that many of us understand that the freedom to think and the freedom to express what one thinks as a fundamental principle in our society is being jeopardized by this bill, all of us on this side of the House would be free to look at and to entertain any amendments that they may wish to bring in that would tangibly and sensibly address the question of difficulty for civil prosecution.
Let me say that clearly there is a chord being rung in the opposite benches that is causing them some serious discomfort, because I have never seen this government quite so uptight about a piece of legislation as they are about this. And so they should be.
Let me just say that those that would say typical white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant...
[6:00]
[ Page 7347 ]
J. Pullinger: Male.
G. Wilson: Particularly male. Let me say that even in our society -- strange to relate -- white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males have rights and privileges and should be treated in an equal manner with everybody else. As we look at this particular bill in terms of the amendment -- the hoist motion that we have put forward -- quite clearly this government has not thought through the implications of what they're attempting to do. Had they thought it through, had they understood that the freedom to think and to express what you think is a fundamental principle and tenet, they would know that if civil litigation or criminal litigation are a problem, there are ways in which we can address that through the offices of the Attorney General and through the amendments to the Civil Rights Protection Act. That's the way to do it -- not through the Human Rights Act, which is a different act entirely.
I heard members opposite say in their argument -- and I've read each of their arguments carefully -- that what they are attempting to do is amend the Human Rights Act so that we can, through civil process, curb and restrict the right of individuals to freely express their opinion if it is deemed....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I would be happy to go back to Hansard and quote it, if you'd like. In fact, it was said that it would be dealt with in a civil process if it was deemed to be outside of the "public interest." Who determines the public interest? There is a baseline that we would all agree we don't wish to cross, but when we start to recognize that the public interest is indeed affected if freedom of expression is impacted by such a bill, then we have to ask how civil litigation is going to be effective in stopping the kinds of issues that are at work.
There is no question but that this bill removes a fundamental right, and that is the freedom of expression. The language in the existing act and in the Civil Rights Protection Act is specific, and we understand how they relate to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is national legislation and is, we all understand, superior legislation. The government introduced this bill in a hasty manner. It was not thought through. They have not looked clearly at the implications of it. They have attempted to address a serious issue in our society, and that is the promotion and promulgation of hatred by those who are trying to divide our people. There is no better cause than seeking to build social harmony in a society, but you do it through mutual coercion, education and practice within society.
I come back to Martin Luther King, Jr., an outstanding civil rights activist, who said quite clearly that you cannot legislate people's hearts. In 1993 in British Columbia I certainly hope that we are not going to legislate against the right of British Columbians to freely express, either orally or in writing, what they think, subject to the prohibitions that currently exist within the Civil Rights Protection Act. If we start on this slippery slope, this government will have taken a giant step backwards in terms of individual liberties. This hoist motion is a sensible motion that is going to save the government from some serious embarrassment. I hope they act on it. I understand that they're going to be meeting this evening to discuss the bill, because they themselves are divided on it. Let them bring forward some sensible amendments. Let them bring forward something that will not remove a civil right from the people of British Columbia.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move adjournment of this debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted to leave sit again.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Before we adjourn, I wish everybody a pleasant evening. Perhaps tomorrow we will come back in a little better frame of mind. I now move that the House adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:56 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
On vote 14: minister's office, $291,891.
Hon. B. Barlee: It is my honour and privilege to present the 1993-94 budget estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would like to preface my remarks with a number of points and statements about the sectors under my aegis.
Agriculture, fisheries and food industries create real wealth for the province of British Columbia. It grows, unlike many industries, at a steady rate of about 3 to 5 percent annually. It generates, including food, $12 billion in annual sales and exports worth about $2 billion per year. We sell an additional $850 million in products to the rest of Canada, and it supports the economies of our rural and coastal communities. This sector also has other advantages. It improves our quality of life through ensuring a continuous supply of high-quality foods. It sustains the green space via the agricultural land reserve, which is approximately 11.5
[ Page 7348 ]
million acres. It allows British Columbians to enjoy some of the lowest -- the second-lowest -- food prices in the world relative to income, and it provides jobs in regions where they are most needed, especially in those small towns of coastal British Columbia and the interior.
It is generally not known that, from producer to consumer, the B.C. food chain employs one in seven British Columbians -- about 209,000 jobs. The agricultural food industry provides a buffer against job losses during times of economic downturn, and in those times people tend to fall back on farming and fishing to provide income as other job opportunities are lost. The real dollars generated in this industry circulate largely within the province's economy, not to international corporations or offshore interests. By and large, they are British Columbia dollars, which makes them much more valuable. Only 5 percent of this province's land -- one acre out of 20 -- is available for food production. The government recognized early the need to preserve our food lands and established the agricultural land reserve some 20 years ago.
From within the agricultural land reserve, British Columbia farmers last year produced over 280 different commodities, valued at $1.2 billion. There are other compelling reasons to preserve our food lands on a global scale. During the 30-year period from 1960 to 1990, the world produced as much food as had been produced during the entire 10,000 previous years of agricultural history. Twice again as much food must be produced between now and the year 2025. In that kind of environment our agricultural land reserve will become even more valuable and perhaps more vulnerable. The government has stated its intention to restore the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission. We will do this through legislation being brought in this session. The routes of appeals to cabinet will no longer be available.
[3:00]
B.C. is well placed to do well on the world stage. Within the industry there are a number of rising stars with tremendous potential to generate future wealth, jobs and prosperity in rural and coastal communities throughout the entire province. Certainly our greenhouse vegetables compete internationally with California produce and do extremely well against that competition. The floraculture and nursery trades are environmental winners and are growing every year. The blueberries and cranberries were bumper crops with very good prices in 1992.
For processing hake into surimi for the Japanese market, we have a number of new plants in the Alberni-Clayoquot area. We also have other areas in that sector: sea urchin, marinated groundfish, turbots, squid and snow shark -- which is also known as dogfish, but I think I prefer the term snow shark. Aquaculture generates about $120 million in sales -- a quarter of the landed value of the commercial fishery, yet it utilizes less than 0.5 percent of our foreshore area. There are significant opportunities for expansion of shellfish aquaculture: scallops, manilla clams and geoducks. Farm salmon has grown from virtually nothing in l985 to producing about $120 million this year, and it is destined to become the second-largest commercial sector by 1995.
So the fiscal reality of the situation is that more and more British Columbians are becoming aware that the government is facing a difficult challenge to protect and preserve essential services, to strengthen the economy and to reduce the deficit. We have a host of new challenges which are having a profound effect upon industry itself. Consumers, by and large, are demanding that a wide range of products be produced and packaged in ways which preserve our environment. Many environmentally sustainable technologies, which will be common in food production ten years from now, are being developed or have yet to be developed.
Globalization is leading to new products and new competitors in our markets. We have a number of them, ranging from Chile to Australia to the United States to New Zealand, and the list goes on and on. The GATT negotiations have our supply management systems hanging in the balance -- extremely important -- and it will affect the future of dairy, poultry, eggs and hogs. Jobs are being lost to the U.S. and Mexico as a result of the proposed NAFTA. Federal off-loading is forcing the restructuring and rationalization of agricultural support programs across Canada, so this again provides an extra burden for the province. Land and water -- the basic resources of food production -- are under increasing pressure from growing populations in the province, and there is a growing recognition that we must work together to share our fisheries resource among a number of competing interests.
So we're looking at future directions -- no doubt about it. This budget reflects a commitment by the government to help industry meet these challenges head-on. It reflects the recognition by this ministry and by government that change will be the norm. The 1993-94 budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is $89 million and includes a full-time-employee complement of 491. This budget also includes $1.5 million for this year's component of the Buy B.C. market development program, and a lot of effort has gone into this program on the part of government.
We have had two sets of consultations with industry stakeholders and two pilot projects -- Thrifty Foods and B.C. Holiday Meals -- both of those in the Victoria or Greater Victoria area. We have established a 16-member Minister's Council on the Food Industry to advise how best to accomplish our far-ranging objectives. The program is designed to foster cooperation and build alliances between industry, industry stake-holders and the various levels of the trade. It involves the development of a long-term marketing program to build a consumer awareness, loyalty and demand for agriculture, fisheries and food products grown or produced in British Columbia.
The government has also placed a priority on regional development, and these initiatives are helped by a budget which includes $500,000 to help fund a regional strategic planning process in the Peace River district of British Columbia.
[ Page 7349 ]
Similarly, a strong priority is placed on preserving our environment. Industry faces a number of agrifood environmental sustainability issues. The budget includes expenditures of up to $800,000 per year under the federal-provincial Green Plan to address these priorities. The budget includes $1.4 million to fund activities which help preserve our soil and water for future generations. Another $100,000 has been allocated to fund activities encouraging adoption of integrated pest management techniques. This IPM reduces the amount of chemicals required in food production and involves the use of natural predators to destroy harmful insects. It's the wave of the future obviously. There has been $4.4 million approved for the agricultural land development assistance program, which is generally known as ALDA. ALDA will focus increasingly on environmental issues which face the province.
Finally, the budget includes $248,000 to support employment equity initiatives through development of a special employment program. Training and farm business management has again been identified as a priority by our ministry. This budget includes expenditures of up to $700,000 under the federal-provincial farm business management program.
I find it rather interesting that a number of consumers from all economic strata have informed me that they believe B.C. food is of better quality. I don't think there's much doubt about that. It's generally safer than imports. They want the government to promote B.C. products in domestic and export markets. Those within the industry recognize the benefits that can be achieved from doing this. They want to get on board -- and, by the way, they are getting on board.
We intend to be proactive and innovative, and to facilitate the development of new products and markets for British Columbia foods. We intend to do this in a way that is sensitive to the environment and ensures it is preserved for future generations. We have chosen to be leaders in this industry. We are going in new -- and I think advantageous -- directions.
R. Chisholm: The fact that one British Columbia farmer feeds 120 fellow British Columbians, yet has to find off-farm work to pay his bills and put food on his own table, is a sad reflection of economic conditions in British Columbia's agriculture. There are British Columbians who insist that our farmers must accept world market prices, when our farmers have to purchase their inputs at costs that range as much as 25 percent higher than those in the U.S. To those taking this position we point out that such differences -- which include interest, fuel, labour and equipment costs, to name a few -- will destroy British Columbian and Canadian agriculture unless the farmer receives a fair share of the consumer food dollar -- or massive subsidies are implemented, which we know will be against the agreements. Consequently, as we examine the fact that net farm income has not kept pace with the increased input costs, British Columbians must realize that our province's long-term food supply is in jeopardy.
As I review the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food budget for 1993-94, I realize why it was left out of this year's throne and budget speeches. It was left out because it is a disaster to the fishing and agriculture industries. Therefore, as we discuss this budget in detail over the next few days, I want to remind the minister that I've spoken to many representatives in various sectors of fisheries and agriculture. They are very unhappy with the budget.
Therefore, my efforts will be to encourage the minister to change his budget in order to strengthen the industries and thus our economy. Along with criticism, I will endeavour to give positive solutions and alternatives. My desire is to work in cooperation with the minister for the betterment of agriculture and fisheries in our province. First I will discuss the overall budget and its effect. Then I will deal with each specific area in the budget.
First, on a positive note, I'm glad to see British Columbia produce in our legislative dining room. I would like it extended also to the schools and other government cafeterias throughout the province. I encourage the minister to continue this effort, and that this Buy B.C program be a policy for all government purchases.
Since this government has taken office a little over one year ago, the budget for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been reduced by $7.3 million. The public's first impression might be government restraint, but this budget is far from restrained. This budget gives increases for the minister's office and operations at the expense of the farming and agriculture industry. This spells disaster. In a little over a year, the minister's office expenditures increased by over $20,000. The ministry operations staff expenditure has increased by $2.9 million. Out of the total 1993-94 Agriculture budget of $89.1 million, $66.7 million was spent on the minister's office and ministry operations. That leaves only $22.4 million for actual agriculture, ALR, foods, fisheries and aquaculture. That is 25 percent of the budget for the industry and 75 percent for the minister's office and operations. I suggest that the minister reduce his office and operation costs and put the money where it belongs -- in the agriculture and fisheries industries -- to strengthen our economy. Will the minister do the correct thing and reduce the minister's office and operation costs and put the money where it belongs -- in the agriculture and fisheries industries?
The Chair: Hon. member, I would bring to your attention the rules of debate in committee. In debate in committee it is out of order to redirect funding within the ministry and to increase or decrease the size of the vote. So right from the beginning, I bring your attention to this blue piece of paper that we have circulated in the committee for that purpose.
H. De Jong: First of all, I want to say hello to the staff; I know many of them quite well. I have worked with them and have always appreciated working with them. If there's any ministry where there is a team effort, it's the Ministry of Agriculture. I understand it continues to be that way, and that's the way it should be.
It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise and respond to some of the statements the minister made this
[ Page 7350 ]
afternoon. I'm very pleased to see that the agriculture industry is still growing in British Columbia, because it is a very important industry not only for jobs but, as the minister mentioned, also for food. We have a very small portion of land available for the agriculture industry, and certainly that land has to be utilized as much as possible. That, of course, does have its problems, and we talked a bit about that in the Ministry of Environment estimates. I'll be touching on some of those issues later during these estimates as well.
The minister talked about rising stars, and I can also speak for the rising stars that have been generated in the Fraser Valley. I believe the minister will agree that there are many more rising stars in the industry besides the ones he mentioned, and that's good to see. That certainly bodes well for the ministry not only in terms of the budget.... I have a concern about the budget, too. Certainly an industry that provides as much economic strength as the agriculture industry should be supported by a budget. However, even though there are many new challenges facing the agriculture industry, they don't necessarily require high budgetary figures. What it does require is a sincere attempt -- which I am sure the staff, together with the minister, will make -- to assist farmers in meeting those challenges.
There are a number of different challenges, and I will get into some of them in more detail. But there is one in particular that I would like to throw out at this time, and that is a kind of assistance or perhaps the testing of new equipment. I think it may be something new in British Columbia, but I know it's done in European countries. It is a great assistance to the farming community because, from time to time, machinery companies will put out a piece of equipment that is totally new to the agriculture industry. Even though farmers like to be progressive, sometimes they jump into these new, very expensive pieces of equipment, and it would be nice to have some.... Perhaps some communication could be established among the machinery companies for prototypes to be tested on experimental or ordinary farms, so that the agricultural community would be more aware of what the machinery can do, what it will do for them and what the return will be for the industry.
[3:15]
As I said, farming will always remain a challenging occupation. As I mentioned in a private member's statement in the House not long ago, the farmer is faced by many things, including things that affect the farm financially. One of the big factors is very unpredictable weather. I believe we have noticed this in the Peace River area in the last couple of years because of dry summers and winters. I'm glad the minister mentioned that it's raining now; that's good. At least they may be looking for a better crop this year. But at the same time, the present rains in the Fraser Valley are a bit of a problem for the strawberry farmers and pickers. So there is no type of farming -- unless it is done totally within greenhouses -- that isn't affected by weather conditions. There is always a certain amount of risk involved, and the farmer knows that. There is no guaranteed crop or crop return at the best of times.
But overall, I commend the minister for the interest he has taken. There have been statements made by the farming community from time to time -- and I have a couple of them here, which I'll get to later -- but it would appear that the minister now at least knows the difference between cabbage and lettuce.
Interjection.
H. De Jong: This is on the lighter side; I am not saying this in a negative way. I bring this up on the humorous side.
I think that we will have a good time together in the estimates. I believe that there are a number of challenges, which we are all aware of. Perhaps if we discuss these together -- and with the agricultural community -- we will be able to better see the budget that is before us and also how the ministry will use that budget. That's what it comes down to, and I think those are the important parts. I am glad to be able to participate in these debates. I hope we can all learn from them and that the agricultural community will indeed benefit from them.
R. Chisholm: First off, I would like to ask ten questions or so on the budget itself, then move into fisheries and aquaculture, if you so wish, and after that into the agriculture end. First, I will discuss the general summary of the budget in terms of discrepancies or what the money was spent on. I shouldn't say discrepancy as such, but rather, what the money was spent on, the purposes for the differences in the budget and that type of thing.
The first question is on STOB 7, boards and commissions. There has been an increase of $48,000. It is interesting to note that the ALR is frozen at the same level as last year, while ministry operation gets an increase from $40,000 to $68,000; that's an increase of $28,000 or 70 percent. Why is there an increase for ministry operations, and what is its purpose.
The Chair: Hon. minister, before you respond, would you be so kind as to introduce your staff for the benefit of the committee?
Hon. B. Barlee: Bruce Hackett, to my immediate right, is my deputy minister. Al Sakalauskas is my ADM. Tom Pringle is an ADM, Stuart Culbertson is another ADM and Karen Wilk is an adviser.
The basic reason for the $27,000 increase is food industry market development. That is a new initiative of ours and really quite important.
R. Chisholm: What exactly does this development entail?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is basically the Buy B.C. program.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 7, the B.C. marketing boards got an increase from $115,000 to $135,000 -- 17 percent. What was this for?
[ Page 7351 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: This $20,000 increase was for more meetings. We have to reflect that there is more interest in the marketing board area, so we have given a little extra money -- $20,000 isn't a lot -- which allows them to operate with a little more freedom.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 10, travel, I note that the total in 1992-93 was $1.69 million and has increased by $263,000 in this budget to $1.95 million. How is this increase justified?
Hon. B. Barlee: Most of this is under the fisheries part of the ministry. We are concentrating on that and have been -- I think significantly -- for about a year. When you are concentrating on an area and trying to improve the marketability of the product, which we have done, and bringing new products on the market, this requires a little more financial backing.
R. Chisholm: I find that answer a bit on the unreasonable side, and I will explain this to you. You and your government are yelling restraint, yet you feel you have the right to engage in expensive travel at the expense of agriculture and fisheries. Now you're saying you're doing this in the fisheries area. You feel justified in saying that ministry operations should be allowed an increase from $1.6 million to $1.9 million in travel, but the ALR commission, for instance, which protects farmland and should do extensive travel to evaluate which lands should be protected, must remain frozen at $60,500 for travel. The B.C. Marketing Board, which markets our products, goes from $15,000 to $20,000. How can you justify the fisheries when you are holding these other valuable arms under these restraints?
Hon. B. Barlee: Fisheries and aquaculture is one of the fastest-growing areas of our ministry and requires more funding. There is no doubt about it. I think it is very obvious that we are careful of travel expenses. I am allowed to travel by 1992 government car. If I so wish, I can take my own car -- a 1983 Toyota -- and it saves a significant amount of money. I never go back to my riding on the weekend by government jet. We are very cognizant of the importance of tax dollars and how they are spent, and I think that is indicated by the budget proposal before you.
R. Chisholm: I would have thought that equipment such as modems, computers and such would reduce the cost of travel rather than increasing it, but obviously not. Under STOB 20, professional fees, the total is over $5.4 million, in addition to $24.9 million for salary. This is excessive. In 1992-93, the total salaries equalled $22 million, and professional services totalled $4.8 million. The 1992-93 total of salaries and professional services was $26.8 million, which has been increased to $30.3 million -- an increase of $3.5 million in one year. Why is the staff not doing the work, and why are we requiring these professional services?
Hon. B. Barlee: We put more money into integrated pest management and farm management, and when you look at the overall increase, it isn't really that impacting. For instance, we probably grow by an average of 4 percent per year. Agriculture, Fisheries and Food brought in $2 billion last year. Next year it will probably bring in $2.08 billion. So again, we're being very careful. I think increases in these areas are really quite logical.
R. Chisholm: I would like to see more money spent on agriculture too, but I realize that the government is yelling restraint, and the economic climate behooves us to restrain our spending. In a time of restraint, would it not be better to forgo the $3.5 million in this professional budget and cut your budget by more? If we're going to spend money or need to spend money, it's one thing to go out and justify it to Treasury Board. But if we're yelling restraint, yet we hire $3.5 million worth of professional services, it seems kind of hypocritical. I'm just wondering if this could have been done without.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member will agree that there are certain areas you have to put some money into once in awhile. We hired 21 university and college students this year because it was a tough time for them. We spent about $200,000 on that. Some people would call that wasted money; I do not. We also put more money into hiring in the Buy B.C. program, and I think that's money extremely well spent.
R. Chisholm: The ministry operations of professional fees were increased from $4.57 million to $5.3 million, but you feel justified in keeping the ALR at $70,000 and decreasing the marketing board from $187,000 to $49,940. How is this justified?
D. Lovick: Sounds like spend, spend, spend over there.
R. Chisholm: I want to know why they raised it.
Hon. B. Barlee: The explanation of the ALR is this: we are strengthening the rules as government for the Agricultural Land Commission. That reflects back on the ALR -- an extremely well-run part of the ministry -- so I think that's adequate, and they have not been reduced overall. Our budget was slightly reduced -- the ALR's was not -- and, of course, they could use more help. We could say that for every part of the ministry.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 25, information systems, operating costs have increased from $3.1 million to $3.7 million. Why has this occurred? Were there salaries in addition to what was there before? Is this an increase in FTEs?
Hon. B. Barlee: Most of this comes under GRIP, NTS and revenue projection programs, and we have to institute those. This is a type of insurance for most farmers, and the price varies from year to year.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 30, office and business expenses, why have ministry operations gone from
[ Page 7352 ]
$936,643 to $1,043,428, when the ALR and the B.C. Marketing Board are frozen at $20,000 and $12,000 respectively? There appears to be a double standard: one for the ministry of spend, spend, spend, and one for everybody else of freeze, freeze, freeze. Why the double standard?
[3:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll take a little latitude on this question. For instance, I travel a lot to see the various fishing operations and farms in all parts of the province. The last time I was in Creston, the total hotel bill was magnificent: $23.60. You can check that. When I came back from Calgary in my holidays last year to attend an agricultural conference with all the ministers from across Canada, I decided that I didn't want to pay too much for a hotel, so I slept in my car. This didn't really cost the taxpayers of British Columbia very much, but I don't like to do that. So occasionally I do stay in four-star hotels -- we get a cut rate there -- but often I stay with my relatives. Some of them are Conservatives and a few of them are even Liberals, which really takes a great deal of....
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think we are quite careful, and generally the ministry is extremely careful in travel.
R. Chisholm: It was a nice story, but unfortunately, hon. Chair, I don't think I got an answer there. We had an increase of $107,000. The ministry is spending, but other parts of the ministry like ALR and the marketing board are frozen at $20,000 and $12,000 respectively. My question is: why the double standard? Why is the ministry spending, and why are these other areas frozen? Why not freeze them all, if you are in a time of restraint?
Hon. B. Barlee: Again, $20,000 of that went to employment for students, who certainly can use it this summer. They're hard-pressed, and there aren't that many jobs around, although we are doing the best in the country. Additional funding is for information and privacy implementation and various other new initiatives that have come down from government as a whole, and they reflect upon every ministry -- mine is no exception.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 40, advertising and publications, there has been an increase from $511,700 to $619,700. What is this for? Where is the funding for the ads for the Buy B.C. program? And what firms are involved in the new tenders for the Buy B.C. program?
Hon. B. Barlee: To be specific: extension education and market material came in at $100,000; integrated pest management, which we are concentrating on, came in at $10,000; and base reallocation to extension came in at $14,000 and a little more in the Peace River -- $4,000 or $5,000 -- so that covers most of the increase.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 42, statutory notices and annual reports, these have been cut from $110,000 to $81,000. I think this area is important, especially where we're educating the general public by sending these reports and statutory notices to them. Why was the cut made, and why the drastic cut? It's not that much money when we look at the realm of things, but $29,000 worth of information going out to the farm community or the fisheries community is an awful lot of information. An awful lot of people will be misled because they won't know what's going on.
Hon. B. Barlee: My ministry is no exception to the other ministries. We are transferring some of these operations -- that's a considerable saving -- to government communications.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 50, utilities and materials, it still baffles me how the ministry operations are allowed the only increase in this area from $805,758 to $851,021, while ALR's $13,000 must remain the same as last year. I'm back to the old point: everything else is rising and these other areas are not, even though they have responsibilities too. How does the minister explain this? Why do we have spend, spend, spend in certain areas of the ministry and restrain and freeze in others?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have not turned out the lights in the Agricultural Land Commission offices. That's all they require from year to year, and the commissioner would inform me if he needed another $1,000 -- immediately, probably.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 80, grants, ministry operations have gone from $1.4 million in 1992 to $1.9 million in l993-94. Can you explain this increase and where it went to?
Hon. B. Barlee: One was for ALDA -- just over a million dollars -- and one was to the estate winery area, which is doing extremely well, by the way. It grew by 36.84 percent last year. I don't have the figures here, but that happens to be correct. It came up by 200,000 litres; it's a real winner for us.
R. Chisholm: Special account grants have gone from $18,200 to $1,104,200. Can you explain the vast difference between the two?
Interjection.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members. I guess the Chair is going to have to quit reading.
Hon. B. Barlee: This is the difference between the interest rate spread under all of them and what we lend it out at, so we have to make provisions for that.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, are you telling me that we are paying somewhere in the vicinity of $1,080,000 in interest?
[ Page 7353 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: As in other parts of the ministry, this is simply a paper transaction; that's all it is. We are required by law to include that there.
R. Chisholm: Under STOB 84, farm income assurance fund, could you explain the decrease from $13.1 million last year to $9.2 million this year -- a decrease of $4 million?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes. That is because of the decrease -- in fact, the elimination -- of FII for the tree fruits industry in the Okanagan.
R. Chisholm: With the cancellation of FII, how much of a saving is there between that and the new RPP you have instigated?
Hon. B. Barlee: On review of the programs we have offered in place of FII, which are essentially administered under the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, it's almost exactly the same as the year before.
R. Chisholm: I gather you are saying that there is no savings in going from FII to the new programs -- the RPP and what not. You could answer that partially with this upcoming question, and that comes under STOB 95, other expenditures. Special accounts have decreased from $36.86 million to $27.3 million. Could you explain the reduction in this?
Hon. B. Barlee: Basically, $10.2 million of that came under FII. That has been reduced, of course. In this program, we are going -- I should elaborate slightly on this -- in a different direction. The federal and provincial governments in the last 18 years have handed out $450 million in mostly ad hoc payments to the orchardists of the Okanagan and the Similkameen. We feel we have to go in a different direction, because the public purse really cannot stand this. So we're going into new varieties, and this is part of the initiative for the future.
R. Chisholm: If we reduced it by $10.2 million on FII, how much did we spend on the replacement programs? What are they worth in your budget?
Hon. B. Barlee: The $10.2 million includes $5.1 million put up by the orchardists and $5.1 million by the government.
H. De Jong: I think the minister introduced only half of his staff here today. Perhaps the minister might take the opportunity to introduce the others as well.
Hon. B. Barlee: Jim Anderson is a fisheries officer. Kirk Miller has been sitting in the back listening to all the information about the ALR. Susan Irvine is one of my advisers, and Ross Husdon is the head of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority.
H. De Jong: I notice the red light on your desk is on continually, Mr. Chairman. Is that sort of a warning to keep the minister brief -- or the people who question?
The Chair: That's in view of the remarkable progress this afternoon. I just thought I would let the clock run out and ignore the lights.
H. De Jong: The minister mentioned this afternoon that some 280 commodities are under the ministry's jurisdiction. The minister also mentioned that we have 491 full-time employees within the ministry. Has there been any growth in employment within the ministry in the past year, and for what specific purposes?
Hon. B. Barlee: It's a good question. The growth is about 11 FTEs. Seven are part of our total complement of student employment -- which I think is really 21, but they're employed for only about four months each -- and another four are for Buy B.C., which was really quite necessary. My staff was literally working around the clock on that. I believe they should work hard, but not that hard. So we put an extra four into Buy B.C.
H. De Jong: The minister in his comments this afternoon also mentioned new regional development, a new program the minister was going to go into, particularly for the Peace River area. The minister almost in the same breath mentioned $1.4 million for protection of land. Was there some combination in that statement, or did I hear that wrong? The minister may want to elaborate a little on the regional development initiatives planned for the Peace River area in particular, and whether those initiatives could also apply in other areas of the province.
Hon. B. Barlee: It doesn't apply to any other areas in the province. We put aside $500,000 -- which is a significant fund from my ministry -- specifically for the Peace River area, partly because that area is a marginal area. I have to elaborate slightly on this. About one out of every three years the crop fails there, as the member well knows: either too much or not enough rain, or too early or late a frost. We put extra FTEs up in that area as well. We're trying to go in new directions in the Peace River. We are diversifying. The Sparks report indicated that the Peace River was probably one of the finest areas in North America for backgrounding cattle. We're encouraging the farmers up there to go in other directions -- into fescues -- away from the traditional wheat products and so on. I think we're having some success there.
[3:45]
H. De Jong: The other day we were having a discussion among the Six-Pack about the new initiatives that could perhaps be -- or why they weren't -- tried in the Peace River. We talked about the hog industry, for instance. There's a lot of feed grain up there, and there wouldn't appear to be any problem with climatic conditions in terms of.... Mind you, you would have to have pretty good facilities, I suppose, to keep them
[ Page 7354 ]
warm, although the animals themselves do provide a certain amount of warmth. Has there been any discussion about whether the hog industry could be a successful venture up there?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. In my portable filing system I just happen to have the answer to why we haven't really emphasized hogs in the Peace River. The Americans were successful in a long battle over hogs, and we were hit the other day with a $20 tariff on hogs. That means we don't get that extra $20; it goes straight into the pockets of the United States. We would rather go into backgrounding of cattle, which I think is the wiser move at the present time. We fought this hog thing with the United States; that is why I opposed the free trade agreement and the NAFTA as well.
H. De Jong: I notice quite a reduction in the funding for the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. If I recall correctly, that program was to be phased in over a number of years, realizing that not everyone could plant new varieties all at once. It was to be done on a gradual basis, and I understand that there was success in the first couple of years. Is the reduction because of lack of interest on the part of the Okanagan tree farmers, or is it simply a matter of cutting back as a budgetary measure?
Hon. B. Barlee: Surplus funds carried over in the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority are being used for this. Rather than creating a new account and adding to the budget deficit, we have fallen back on some of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority reserves.
H. De Jong: If I understand what the minister is saying, this authority is on its own. Once money has been allocated, it stays with the authority; it's not returned to the general treasury. Is there a reporting system from the authority to the minister, and does that indicate, really, that those surpluses are there?
Hon. B. Barlee: The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is a Crown agency, so this money does not return to treasury; it stays within the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. We look at the annual report and see where that money can be best used. If there is a carryover -- extra funding available from the year before -- that is used in the next year's plans, rather than coming directly into our budget. About every three months we have a report from this Crown agency, so we see exactly how that funding is being expended.
H. De Jong: I would guess, then, that the take hasn't been as great in the first couple of years as was initially anticipated under the program.
Hon. B. Barlee: The subscription to the various directions we are taking is increasing. It is becoming more and more acceptable to the tree fruits industry, which has not changed, in many ways, since 1893. In fact, it was 100 years old last year, so it is since 1892. When people -- especially farmers -- are used to doing things a certain way, it takes a while for them to pick up on new methods of delivery.
H. De Jong: I can certainly vouch for that. Farmers are pretty independent people, but they are also very determined. If the right direction is provided, they will take that up through their determination.
I am rather surprised that the take hasn't been as great as what it could have been -- or perhaps should have been -- for the good of the industry.
On another matter, the minister mentioned that the estate winery growth within the British Columbia wine industry has been 36 percent this past year. But I also understand that the minister has made a statement that there was going to be another 20 or 25 percent tax levied on the wines produced in British Columbia. I would like to have the minister's comment on that. In the article I read on this, I know that the industry is very concerned about a higher tax levy being put on the wine and the wine industry in British Columbia. It has just got back on its feet after a few tough years during the early eighties, and it would be nice if the industry could carry on without additional taxes being put on its product. Perhaps the minister might comment.
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't know where that statement came from. If it came from me, it was not 25 percent. It did go up by 5 percent. That is not onerous. Of course, it makes an impact on the wine industry, but this industry is doing extremely well.
Talking about the replant program that you mentioned, it did take up about 550 extra acres last year. I should concentrate on that, because that brought on new varieties such as Fuji and Empire, which we think we have an advantage with in Canada.
H. De Jong: One of the aldermen in Matsqui, when I was mayor there, said in reference to a news article: "You can only believe 6 percent of what's printed in the media."
Hon. B. Barlee: Five percent.
H. De Jong: Maybe it has gone down, but at that time it was levelled at 6 percent. Anyway, that being the case, I want to share that article with the minister in private, rather than going through it in these estimates. On the other hand -- and the minister may want to comment after he reads the article -- maybe I am on the wrong track, or I don't understand it quite right.
The minister also mentioned that there is about $4.5 million for all the projects. All the projects, as they used to be, were available for a variety of uses and purposes on various types of farms. Is the program still much the same, or is it basically geared to environmental issues? When I hear the words "environmental issues," I become a little skeptical -- whether it is to assist a farmer to address those issues on the farm, or whether it is some government body implementing things that may not necessarily be of help to the farmer.
Hon. B. Barlee: About 65 percent of that funding is for waste management. There are certain farms in the
[ Page 7355 ]
province that require updated waste management plans, and this is to provide some help to them to get on with that planning because there are impacts on the environment.
H. De Jong: That brings up an interesting subject, although it may sometimes be a little difficult to describe it in normal language.
When we talk about waste management, I notice that a number of farmers have spoken to me about this. They are rather concerned about some of the requirements that are put on the farmer. If I look at these requirements from a practical point of view, I share those concerns with the farmer.
For instance, it appears to me that it is going a little too far. When a farmer is told to have a waste-holding facility to accommodate the waste of a farm operation for an entire year, providing him with only three or four weeks in springtime to dispose of that waste, it could really cause another problem by having to dispose of that much waste in such a short and limited time.
Secondly, the cost of those facilities is humongous. Even if that money was available at half the interest rate they normally pay, it is still a considerable additional cost to the farmer. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.
Hon. B. Barlee: This code of practice, hon. member, was developed in consultation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They had a special committee which I believe was headed by Larry Campbell, a noted cattleman. They had a significant impact on this code of practice. When barbed wire first came out, virtually every farmer and rancher in the country opposed it. They certainly opposed the motor car when it came into British Columbia in about 1912. This is just a simple extension of the reality of the times. Farmers realize that they cannot pollute the water-courses; it has happened in certain areas.
The BCFA and the committee they struck had the major part in drafting this policy. They were quite happy with it. There are exceptions, of course, but the exceptions are indeed that: just exceptions.
H. De Jong: I guess I've strayed away from the actual budget figures, but the agriculture industry is a matter of practice and practical things, rather than a lot of budget figures. I don't see much point in going through where every $5 is spent.
Hon. B. Barlee: Please don't, Harry.
H. De Jong: I'm not intending to, hon. minister.
On the waste management point that I described, I made specific reference to the amount of waste, under those requirements, to be spread on the fields in such a short time. We are not guaranteed three weeks of dry weather in spring. If that amount of waste has to be disposed of on those farms, I can see a whole lot more of that waste leaching into ditches. It eventually gets into streams and creeks and down to the river, which is going to create a greater problem. While there may have to be some restrictions on the spreading of waste and the times thereof, I don't think a whole year in a holding facility is necessary or practical.
Hon. B. Barlee: Indeed, this is one of the recommendations by the committee struck by the BCFA. I think they are very practical, generally speaking. It isn't a perfect world; I admit this. It was a recommendation advanced by that committee. They accepted that and did not come back to me and say: "Hon. minister, we really don't like that at all." We didn't hear that. There would be times when it does not work perfectly; I will concede that. But generally speaking, I think it's going in the right direction.
[4:00]
R. Chisholm: I'll talk about a few more figures, and then I'll get off the budget. I find the figures either misleading or confusing, and so I'd like to see if you can straighten it out for me, hon. minister. It states that in l992-93 this budget was $66,232,757. According to the l992-93 budget this was $63,885,472, which was up from $63.5 million in l991-92. Is the minister trying to say that he has increased his l993-94 budget by $151,000, when in reality the ministry operations have increased by $2.9 million from l992? That is where the confusion comes in. When I do the figures it comes out to $2.9 million, and I'm just wondering how we got these two differing figures.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the actual difference is $2,498,000.
R. Chisholm: Then the way the figures are done is very misleading because it looks like $151,000, but once you do the actual accounting work it changes on you. So I am not too sure how you want to go about this, but maybe in the next budget we can rectify how it's talked about.
Administration and support services have increased from $12.3 million when this government took office, to $13.9 million in l993-94 -- up $1.6 million. We all know the Socreds overspent; therefore, Mr. Minister, why is there a drastic increase of 13 percent for administration and support services, when the Premier claims there are salary cutbacks and restraint?
Hon. B. Barlee: Salaries and benefits accounted for in employment equity were $248,000, information and privacy implementation accounted for $96,000, and operating costs went up 4.2 percent. So that accounts for most of the increase the hon. member mentioned.
R. Chisholm: Salary and benefits have gone up from $3.2 million in the l992-93 actual budget to over $3.9 million in l993-94. That is $730,000 since you have taken office. Again, why the drastic increase in a time of restraint?
Hon. B. Barlee: I just addressed that. Salaries and benefits went up 8.4 percent, and that would pretty well include most of the increase that the hon. member has mentioned.
[ Page 7356 ]
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, you came out with a number of around $200,000 for that salary increase. Mine comes up to $730,000, so we have an obvious difference there. On vote 15 -- operating costs -- administration and support services have gone from $7.97 million when you took office, to $8.57 million. How come the increase of $600,000, and what is the justification?
Hon. B. Barlee: Basically computers, increase in rent and salaries again.
R. Chisholm: Under vote 15 again, if you are talking about computers I would think that would be under acquisition, which leads me to my next question. In administration and support, asset acquisition is an area that I would think would be cut drastically. The previous government spent $982,000 a year, and this government spent $1.36 million in 1992-93. According to the minister, he now wants to spend another $1.33 million on assets. Once you have assets, you shouldn't have to keep buying them for administration, especially if your FTEs have not increased that drastically. Why do we constantly buy information systems, office furniture and computers -- like you just justified -- under operating costs? You do not buy computers under operating costs; that is a capital expenditure.
Hon. B. Barlee: I read those figures differently. Our asset acquisitions in 1992-93 were $1.363 million, rounding it off. This year they are $1.332 million -- a decrease of $31,000, not an increase.
R. Chisholm: I guess that's why I had the question: we read the figures differently.
Under vote 15 again, the budget tries to make it look as if the minister has decreased salaries and benefits from $3.07 million to $2.91 million, when in fact he has increased salaries from $2.87 million to $2.91 million. Remember that your budget for last year was different from what was spent last year. If you went overbudget in spending, what is overspending -- not staying within your budget?
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, we always stay within our budget. We're very careful managers, and I think any very close scrutiny of our budget would indicate that we are some of the best managers in government.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. You look slightly better than the last one. I think it's the glasses.
Getting back to the budget, you say you are very restrained and are well within your budget. Unfortunately, I wouldn't have these questions if you were. Under vote 15 -- you were talking about asset acquisitions -- unfortunately, you take capital assets and throw them all over the map. Asset acquisitions have increased drastically from $130,000 in 1991-92 to $215,000 in 1993-94. We're now talking about multi-millions of dollars. Why is there a drastic increase in these assets?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have the latest figures on that. The asset acquisitions in 1992-93 were $362,000; in 1993-94 they are $215,000, which is a decrease of practically $150,000. We're good managers, but we can't do much better than that.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, hon. minister, you'll have to find that under financial programs under assets.
On vote 15 again, we'll talk about grants and contributions. The minister has decreased grants. In 1991 this area received $32.09 million; today it has been reduced to $27 million. That is a $5 million reduction in 18 months. Where are these reductions, and why are there reductions, hon. minister?
Hon. B. Barlee: I answered that before. That is almost entirely due to the decrease in FII and the elimination of FII to the tree fruit industry.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, that was under a different vote, so that's why the questions were asked twice.
Under vote 15 again: asset acquisitions, FDP. Asset acquisitions in 1991 were only $130,000. Can the minister justify spending $215,525 for assets in the financial development programs, after spending $362,000 on assets in this area last year?
Hon. B. Barlee: That's an interesting question. We actually saved about 40 percent from one year to the other. My ministry is used to saving money, but as I said before, we really can't go down much beyond that. We do require new computers, new systems analysis and so on, and I think it's pretty good management.
R. Chisholm: With all of these computers, it must look like NASA over there.
My next question comes under vote 15 on recoveries. Recoveries in financial development programs of ministry operations are decreasing every year: from almost $7 million in '91-92 to $6.85 million in '92, and now $6.75 million in 1993-94. Why are these recoveries decreasing? What is causing this reduction?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is really locked in with our agreements with the federal government -- NTS, GRIP and so on. We are winding that down, so there is a decrease.
R. Chisholm: Again under vote 15: travel costs of the civil servants under ministry operations is exorbitant at $1.87 million, up from $1.6 million in '92. The Ministry of Agriculture's total travel costs are $1.95 million, up from $1.68 million in '92. These figures are even higher than the previous government's, and theirs were disastrously high -- especially with all of those faxes and computers that were purchased, which were supposed to decrease travel.
Do you see a reduction in travel costs? When I go out and talk to the farmer in the interior of British Columbia, and he sees these figures, one of the biggest complaints I hear is about how much is spent. When I go and talk to people in the farming federation they say
[ Page 7357 ]
the same things; they find these to be very exorbitant travelling costs. One of their main questions is: is there any way that these costs can be justified or decreased in the future?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think this has to be seen in a more holistic way. Travel costs are necessary. My staff goes out to Peace River; they go up-Island; they go up the Inside Passage; they go into all the corners of the province. We do not have a big ministry -- 491 FTEs -- and travel is part of the cost of doing business.
The business is very good, by the way: it grossed 4 percent. We have the lowest per capita bankruptcy rate in Canada, by far. Ten farmers out of 20,000 went bankrupt in British Columbia last year. That's way down from the year before, when it averaged 25 or 30 farmers. We have made significant progress. In 1991 we had 15 bankruptcies; in 1992 we had 10. Really, you can't ask for much more. Our farmers' average income went up 21 percent in 1991. It went up 24 percent in 1992. You can't do much better than that.
R. Chisholm: It's amazing that this ministry can spend $2 million in travel costs and the Ministry of Health can spend $600,000 -- and they have a $6 billion budget. Somehow, I don't think the farmers find it justified -- these are the quotes that they give me. I have checked the Ministry of Health's travel budget, and it is in the $600,000 bracket.
To get on to things other than budgets, I would like to start off with Fisheries, and then ask a few questions about aquaculture.
[4:15]
Fisheries and Food's total budget for '93-94 is $8.4 million, up from $6.4 million in '92-93 -- an increase of $2 million. At first glance it appears that the minister is helping the industry, but on further investigation we find that $6.2 million has been allocated to salaries, operating costs and asset acquisition. Direct assistance to Fisheries and Food is $2 million. How much of the $2 million goes to Fisheries for aquaculture, commercial fisheries, research, development, projects related to shellfish, marine plants and finfish farming? I'm looking for a breakdown of how much you're spending in these different areas, considering that they are quite diversified in nature.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think that you have to decide what we're doing with that money -- $6.4 million in 1992-93 and a little over $8 million in '93-94. I've looked over the figures of every other province in fisheries; nobody comes close. We take in about $872 million -- for the expenditure last year of under $7 million. That's over 100 to 1. That is superb management. I am very glad that the member brought that up, because nobody else can compare. You can look at PEI, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or Quebec, and believe me, it is really quite superb. What we are doing, of course, is including the fishing industry and the aquaculture industry in our Buy B.C. program, so there is a little more funding going into them -- and indeed that is part of Buy B.C. There is an increase of about $1.5 million that comes directly under that, which goes straight into the Buy B.C.
R. Chisholm: Which brings us to another question: how much of the $9.5 million Buy B.C. program has been allocated to the fisheries industry?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is in consultation with the minister's advisory council. We have a certain set of criteria, and we wait for either the farmers or the fishermen, whether they are in aquaculture, farm salmon or whatever it is, to come forward with various proposals. They have to meet the criteria drawn up by the board and by my ministry. If they fit those criteria and if they pass they are allowed into the program, and it's a fifty-fifty sharing. If we put up $50,000, an individual group has to put up another $50,000. This is the way it must work, and it is working quite well. The announcement of the first successful applicants will be June 29, which is not too far away.
R. Chisholm: I am not going to go into the Buy B.C. program at this time. A little bit later, I will ask a couple of questions on that. I would rather stick to the fisheries end of it, but the obvious question jumped out.
Another question that jumps out at us is B.C. 21, and the amount of money that is allocated to the fisheries aquaculture industry and to the agriculture industry or to your ministry as a whole. The salmonid program, for instance, has been allocated $1 million, which is your line ministry responsibility. The marketing of salmon has apparently been bolstered by $100,000. How much more money has been allocated out of B.C. 21, and how much has been allocated and broken down into your ministry responsibilities?
Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially, Buy B.C. does not come under the aegis of my ministry. I did hand out the $1 million cheque for salmonid enhancement. That is specifically under B.C. 21, so this is not under my ministry. We have handed out, however, an $85,000 grant to the salmon marketing board.
R. Chisholm: You are stating that you have given out $85,000 for the marketing of salmon. They have apparently been given another $100,000 out of the B.C. 21 program, which is your ministry's area of responsibility. Just how much more money has been given out into areas of your responsibility by B.C. 21?
Hon. B. Barlee: The $100,000 was given under B.C. Trade auspices by the Hon. Dan Miller, I believe, last week or the week before in Prince Rupert.
R. Chisholm: If that be the case, then whatever is getting out to the news media is completely different than what you are telling us here now. They have reported that as being under B.C. 21 and that the Hon. Dan Miller did give it out.
The salmonid enhancement program, which comes under your ministry, has been allocated $1 million. Do you have any control over how this money is used?
[ Page 7358 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: We are the lead ministry in this $1 million extension to the salmonid enhancement, so therefore we give direction to the various individuals who apply for grants under this. There are other ministries involved -- Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Environment certainly is involved; Tourism is involved; and Aboriginal Affairs is the fifth ministry.
R. Chisholm: Very little is obviously going to the agrifood industries and programs to expand sales and utilization of B.C. food products in the provincial market. Last year the minister claimed he was committed to the Buy B.C. program. How much was spent on the Buy B.C. program last year, and where? You're now talking about $1.5 million being spent this year -- this is the second year of a five-year program.
Hon. B. Barlee: About $400,000 in 1992, and $1.5 million this year. I anticipate about $2 million next year, $2.5 million in '95 and $3 million in '96.
R. Chisholm: What programs was the $400,000 spent on last year? If I recall correctly, your 16-person committee recommended that you spend in the vicinity of $2.5 million in each of the first two years, and then split it up in the last three. So how was the $400,000 spent? And why didn't you follow the recommendation of your own committee?
Hon. B. Barlee: My own committee was struck late last year, of course, and this is a 16-person committee representing virtually everybody in the food chain, from the producers and the unions, right through to the processors and the retailers. By the way, I should mention -- and will elaborate slightly on this, which I'm trying not to do today -- that all of these individuals are at the table. They're there for nothing. We do not pay them anything. They sometimes get a free lunch, and that's all. They pay virtually everything else. They spend ten hours a day at this job, and they're very keen on it. The other moneys were spent on research, and the two pilot projects were successful -- that's why they're there. We have virtually all the major retailers at the table, which is the first time this has ever happened in British Columbia history.
R. Chisholm: I'm glad you have glowing reports, because from what I hear, the committee is not exactly of the same accord as you. Like I said, they recommended $2.5 million for each of the first two years and then splitting up the program after that. They were not in favour of your restaurant program, for instance. If you want to talk about Thrifty stores, there were other people involved in that called marketing boards, and they put up a lot of the money and so on and so forth -- but there's not much sense getting into that.
In a time when this government is claiming restraint, why have salaries in Fisheries and Food gone from $2.8 million to $3.9 million, and operating costs from $1.7 million to $2.2 million? Since you took office in 1991, that's a $1.1 million increase in salaries in 19 months, and a half-million-dollar increase in operating costs. Considering that you hired somewhere in the vicinity of 11 FTEs and seven of those are students, I feel that these salary increases are far too extravagant for that time frame.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are several reasons. One, we put more resources and staff into this area, which is growing -- we track it very well. Part of it goes into Buy B.C.; part of it goes into Aboriginal Affairs for aboriginal issues; and the food branch is a new branch, so this is very important.
I should also make a brief comment on the member's statement about the restaurant program. The restaurant program was not just successful, it was very successful. The greater Victoria restaurant association last year at this time had 225 members. They charge each member $160 and now have 405 members. It's the fastest-growing restaurant association in British Columbia. This was the only area we concentrated on.
I should mention something else that perhaps the member does not know. The British Columbia government did not tax the restaurant industry with an extra PST of 7 percent. Every Liberal government in Canada without exception has done that. The Liberal government of Quebec has a 15 percent tax on restaurant meals -- 7 percent plus 8 percent. The Liberal government of New Brunswick has 16 percent -- 8 percent plus 8 percent. The Liberal government of P.E.I. has 17 percent -- 8 percent plus 9 percent. The record is held by the Liberal government of Newfoundland, 19 percent -- that's 7 percent plus 12 percent. So Liberal governments have decimated the restaurant industry right across the country, and it's the most fragile of all the industries.
As far as Thrifty Foods is concerned, we've done extremely well. They had almost a 10 percent increase in traffic. They've held most of this traffic. They've opened another new store, and they are sitting at the table. Not one member who has been at that table and has worked hard for us for a whole year has quit.
R. Chisholm: Amazing speech. Maybe I'll quote from a letter I have regarding local restaurant promotions:
"I am forwarding a letter from the British Columbia Wine Institute, regarding the subject of promotion. I regret that I must wholeheartedly endorse their position. I understand that Tony Wood, president of the British Columbia Restaurant Association, is attempting to get Don Monsour to seek a postponement of the program to a period when the trade can properly turn their attention to the promotion -- preferably May or "Wine and Dine." Can't we get these matters on a professional basis, through...?"
Well, it goes on and on. The point is that it wasn't a success, hon. minister. Even though you say that everything is roses in that little committee of yours, I think you'd better go back and talk to your people, because they aren't too happy. These programs can be constructive, but you've got to do it in cooperation with the people who are there to advise you.
D. Lovick: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to make a big thing of it, but I've been sitting in
[ Page 7359 ]
this chamber now for about an hour. Consistently the comments are not made through the Chair; they are made directly to the minister. That doesn't serve parliamentary practice or anybody else very well. So I would ask you to please caution members about the appropriate parliamentary procedure.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. On this point of order?
D. Jarvis: On a point of order, I have been sitting here for almost two hours. I have to say that whenever the hon. member for Chilliwack has asked a question of the minister, it's either to display what the vote is on, or it is directed through the hon. Chair. Now you are completely out of order.
D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, clearly my point of order escaped the understanding of the member opposite, so let me explain it. When we talk about going through the Chair, we don't simply refer to the Chair. We say: "I would like to say to the minister, hon. Chair...." Or: "I would like to ask the minister...." We don't say: "Can you, minister, tell us...?" That's the point of order; that's the correct procedure. I am not trying to hurt anybody's feelings. I am sorry if my effort to educate members opposite hurts their feelings, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Well, thank you very much for the instruction by both members. All of us are fairly new, and I think we understand the parliamentary practice of addressing all comments through the Chair. I am sure that both members and the minister will take that into consideration as they proceed.
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you, hon. Chair.
The hon. member mentioned Tony Wood. I had a very nice lunch with Tony Wood last Friday. He took me on a tour of Vancouver Community College, and he was very pleased with everything. But Tony Wood, like anyone else in this business, is interested in how this program works. So they are allowed to criticize it. We welcome the criticism. If there is any criticism, it comes right back to me, and we make adjustments in the program. The Restaurant Association has made an application to the Buy B.C. program, and we are onside.
We are also onside.... If you travel by ferry -- and certainly the member does -- the food served on the ferry is British Columbia food. That's a change. The food served in the members' dining room is British Columbia food; that's a change. And the food that will be served in numerous other institutions in British Columbia will be British Columbia food, because they are working with the various ministries that are in charge of the hospitals, the schools and so on.
I think the wineries and restaurants of British Columbia are extremely pleased. We work hand in hand with both these players in the game, and they are doing extremely well. The B.C. Restaurant Association is healthier than any other restaurant association in Canada -- in a large part, thanks to this government.
[4:30]
R. Chisholm: Through the Chair to the minister -- now that we're through with our little temper tantrums -- you were giving us glowing reports, but unfortunately not every member of that committee is giving us the same thing. That is one letter; I can give you a dozen more if you want them.
I am going to go back to fisheries for a while and try to accomplish something with this. What were the asset acquisitions in Fisheries and Food that caused the budget increase to go from $48,000 to $138,000?
Hon. B. Barlee: That increase is for the food industry market development program, joint stewardship and some internal reallocation.
R. Chisholm: Like I was saying, we have a $1.1 million increase in salaries and half a million in operating costs. Putting it where it belongs -- in helping the fishing and food industries -- would help immensely, considering only 11 FTEs of the whole ministry have been hired over the last year, seven of those being students.
In 1991-92, Fisheries and Food grants and contributions were $110,000. In the 1992-93 estimates, page 63, vote 14 shows $145,000 for this. Now the '93-94 budget says that in 1992-93 it was $1,145,000. Is this a typo, or what has happened here? For some strange reason we've increased a million dollars, and I don't understand how this happened.
Hon. B. Barlee: Part of that, almost all of it in fact, is $622,000 for the food industry market development program; joint stewardship -- which we have no control over but must go along with is $134,000; and internal reallocation, $221,000. That makes up $977,000. Those are the major expenditures there.
R. Chisholm: It is my understanding that all fish must be landed at licensed landing stations. Does this include freshwater as well? Could the minister outline the provincial regulations regarding the licensing requirements for these stations? For example, are they inspected? How often? And what are they inspected for?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have landing stations, but the freshwater fish are almost all under Environment, not under my aegis or mandate.
R. Chisholm: Then how often are these landing stations you control inspected? And what are they inspecting for?
Hon. B. Barlee: They're marine landing stations for salmon and commercial fisheries off the coast.
R. Chisholm: Are all landing stations inspected equally, in terms of frequency and thoroughness? Again I ask, what are we inspecting for?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, every one of the stations is inspected at least once a year. We're basically concerned
[ Page 7360 ]
with the conservation of the species, so in these stations we watch allocation as well.
R. Chisholm: How do the provincial and federal governments share authority over these licensing stations? Are you telling me these are strictly accounting stations, accounting for a species? Or are they actually inspecting for botulism or whatever we're actually inspecting for?
Hon. B. Barlee: The majority of the inspection routine is handled by the federal government, probably over 80 percent. Once that fish is out of the water, then we have some jurisdiction over it. That's why we have the landing stations.
R. Chisholm: It seems that we are having problems in some of these areas, like shellfish and areas of that nature. Will the province be increasing its enforcement in this upcoming season? Will they be having more stringent inspections? If so, what will all this entail?
Hon. B. Barlee: Most of this health inspection falls under Health and DFO -- Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- which is a federal agency, of course. We have five more inspectors this year; but that's unusual for us, because we are putting more resources into that part of our ministry.
R. Chisholm: Currently a processing plant must pass inspections from the Ministries of Health and Environment as well as Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Are there not some duplicated tasks that could be eliminated in order to save time and money? Why are the Ministries of Health and Environment not coordinated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to health and safety regulations? Every time I ask a question, I get an answer from the other ministries stating that there is ongoing negotiation as to who is responsible for what. I'm sure that when the general population approaches these ministries they get exactly the same answers, and they are rather confused.
Hon. B. Barlee: There is no duplication of inspection. This is handled by the Health ministry, not by us.
R. Chisholm: The last time I talked to the Minister of Health -- about five weeks ago -- she stated that you had ongoing negotiations about responsibilities. Just where are you in these negotiations? Is it all Ministry of Health now, or is there anything left with the Ministry of Agriculture?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Health; they essentially govern us.
R. Chisholm: On March 15, 1993, a letter from the director of the provincial aquaculture and commercial fisheries branch reminded industry participants that any fish harvester selling directly to consumers must have a fish vending licence. Does this include vendors who export their catch out of the province and/or out of the country?
Hon. B. Barlee: Anyone exporting fish or fish products out of the province must have a federal licence, so this does not fall under our mandate.
R. Chisholm: That answers how this will be enforced. But why would this be a direction from the provincial government to the industry? I don't understand why this letter was written, then, if it is a federal jurisdiction. Why would a provincial employee be writing this letter? In that same letter it is stated that anyone wanting to process fish for sale must have a fish processing-licence. Smoking and cutting, cooking, packaging or preparing fish for market by other means are included in the definition of processing. Could the minister tell us whether a vendor could be deemed to be processing a fish for market by placing an unscathed fish in a bag for a buyer?
Hon. B. Barlee: To the latter question, no, and to the first one, we have provincial licences, but there is a federal registration, so there is some cooperation between DFO and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the province in that respect.
R. Chisholm: Could the minister explain the reasoning for the new fish business licence and who requires one?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is a little more involved. A lot of the fish buyers are cash buyers, and we have to be extremely careful how we govern them. That's why we have our fish buying stations -- and we have to licence them as well -- to cover cash buyers who may come from various parts of the province, not necessarily from the local area. So they buy for cash, and often they sell for cash.
R. Chisholm: How will the Salmon Marketing Council levies be collected from the fishers operating under the aboriginal fishing strategy?
Hon. B. Barlee: Any fish caught for commercial selling by aboriginal fishers are levied, and they must pay their fair share -- which they pay.
R. Chisholm: Is the provincial government represented on the all-party federal advisory board on fisheries in the aboriginal fisheries strategy? And if so, who is the representative?
Hon. B. Barlee: Our representative is sitting right behind me: Stuart Culbertson.
R. Chisholm: How much provincial funding will go to the habitat conservation fund this year?
Hon. B. Barlee: That does not fall under the aegis of my ministry; it falls under the aegis of the Ministry of
[ Page 7361 ]
Environment, Lands and Parks, so I couldn't comment for them.
R. Chisholm: On April 5, 1993, the Premier made a joint statement with the Governor of Washington, including an agreement that the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations must have a successful outcome in order to maintain viable fishing industries. What has the minister done to follow through with the Premier's agreement? Of course, we know that the talks are stalled or broken at whatever stage. Can you give us an update on exactly where this treaty is going?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm pleased to state to the hon. member that, for the first time in British Columbia history, we are at the negotiating table with the federal government. I believe our representative there is very well qualified to sit at that table of eight members. His name is Bill Lefeaux-Valentine. His knowledge of the fishing industry and treaties is really quite extraordinary. The federal government acknowledges that he is one of the most valuable members at the table.
R. Chisholm: The last part of that question was: what exactly is the status of these negotiations at the present time? Are we making any headway? Are the negotiations still stalled, or have they completely fallen apart at this point?
Hon. B. Barlee: This is an extremely important treaty for us. The Americans dipped into our sockeye stock for about 361,000 extra sockeye last year, which would be around $7 million or $8 million. Those were our fish. They receive other benefits to about $65 million or slightly more per year. Some of the various annexes of the Pacific Salmon Treaty are coming up this year, and some of them are coming up in 1994.
I must confess that I believe that the federal government is doing a very good job of negotiation. They are not knuckling under to the American demands. I must give credit where credit is due. I think the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. John Crosbie, has done a very good job. He is consulting with us continually. He did this week; he did last week as well. I won't give you the specific details of the negotiations. It is at an impasse. The negotiations continue, but they are difficult negotiations.
R. Chisholm: The Queen Charlotte City commercial fishing plant proposal was held up by the Ministry of Environment. That's the last word I had, anyway, on who was holding it up. Do you have an update on that situation?
Hon. B. Barlee: No, I don't have the latest information on that. That would have to come from the ministry that is directly involved.
R. Chisholm: I asked the other minister, and he said roughly the same thing as you did. And guess who's responsible? You. So that's why I'm asking you the question....
The Chair: I'll just remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair.
R. Chisholm: Thank you. I will speak through the Chair.
I put the same question to the Environment minister, and he said it was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's department. Either way, we're not getting an update for the people of British Columbia.
[4:45]
My next question to the minister is: why are the Health, Environment and Agriculture ministries not coordinated a bit? I guess my last question sort of proves the point. Why are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment not coordinated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to health and safety regulations? This processing plant must currently pass inspections from Health, Environment and Agriculture. Are there not some tasks that could be combined? If not, could we not get the communications into a better state so that these ministries could answer the questions when it comes to estimates?
Hon. B. Barlee: I would certainly like a more complete definition of the exact name of the plant, and who the principals are. This is news to me. There is a plant right now at Masset. That may be the one the member is referring to; I don't know, but it isn't very clear. If he could be more specific about exactly which plant he means, I will answer his question.
R. Chisholm: That was in the prior question. It is the Queen Charlotte City commercial fishing plant proposal.
Hon. B. Barlee: This is only a proposal, so it has to go through the various routes. One of those routes is through the Ministry of Environment, and one is through us. There are many proposals at our table -- literally hundreds in the agriculture and fisheries areas -- and of course, we don't look at all of them until they have passed the various criteria we have laid down.
R. Chisholm: I am not going to spend very much more time on this question, because I'm obviously not going to get any answers. But if we have proposals out there that people are trying to get through the ministries, and they are lost in those ministries, so much for economic development.
Is this government contemplating enacting legislation which would guarantee that fish caught off the British Columbia coast would be processed in British Columbia if the capacity exists -- such as we see with the Magnuson Act in the U.S., which has given preference to local producers? According to the DFO, unprocessed groundfish in 1990 was 22.125 million kilograms, and this was exported to the U.S. by truck or boat. Stats Canada figures show that 23.297 million kilograms of unfilleted fresh B.C. groundfish was exported to the U.S. during the same period. If we mirrored their legislation, we would be able to process a heck of a lot more of this ourselves and thus save an
[ Page 7362 ]
awful lot of jobs in British Columbia. These facts show that large quantities of B.C. fish that could be contributing to the B.C. economy are being lost annually. This would produce over 500 jobs and add another $11 million in value-added moneys to our economy in groundfish alone. Approximately 35 percent of all British Columbia seafood products are ending up in foreign processing plants. Does this ministry have any programs or incentives to attract more value-added industries to our province, thus enhancing employment and provincial revenues?
I might add that a former member of your caucus came up with a bill that mirrored the Magnuson Act, which would have given us just that opportunity.
Hon. B. Barlee: Let me comment on that. We can take a few examples and show how much progress we are making. The take and processing of hake, which is a fish found on both sides of Vancouver Island, totalled zero tonnes in 1990 -- virtually nothing. In 1991, we processed 6,000 tonnes. We then made an agreement with the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. John Crosbie, and last year we processed 19,000 tonnes. That is a 300 percent increase -- a pretty good increase. We also have thousands of tonnes of American fish coming in from Alaska to be processed in Prince Rupert, so we are doing a very good job picking up in that area. Where we haven't had processing before, we now have processing. We have new plants, such as Browns Bay, which are doing a landslide business shipping all around the world -- into San Francisco, into Los Angeles, and so on. We are working very well at this, and I think we are succeeding.
R. Chisholm: Enacting the legislation that I mentioned would guarantee that fish caught off the British Columbia coast would be processed in British Columbia if the capacity exists. Like I said, this type of legislation was introduced as Bill M206 in 1991 by the New Democratic Party when they were in opposition. It was based on the Magnuson Act, which guarantees production for U.S. seafood processors. Do you foresee enacting legislation that would mirror the Magnuson Act?
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe the hon. member knows that this is not under our aegis; this is under federal jurisdiction. We work with the federals, but this is certainly not under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to shift gears a bit, out of Fisheries and into some issues that affect my constituency -- particularly the drought situation, which is now going into its third year in the Peace. The minister will recall that last year was a particularly critical year: there were some very serious drought conditions in the Peace. The water table or ground subsoil moisture has never been replenished. There has been enough rain this spring to get the early crops started, but canola, for example, is suffering from drought already, and rain continues to be far below normal for the third year in a row. What kinds of contingency plans does the minister have in place? I hope that he can give me some indication that he and the ministry are not going to stand by if this turns into a third year of drought, serious crop failures and reduced crop yields. Can the minister tell me what kinds of contingency plans are in place?
Hon. B. Barlee: There have been significant problems in the Peace River district for the last 30 or 40 years. Approximately three years out of ten, there is a significant crop failure -- and I mentioned this when the hon. member was not here -- with not enough water, not enough rain, too much rain, early frost, late frost. As I think the hon. member well knows, some areas are marginal farming areas -- not much different, in some respects, from the Peace River section of Alberta.
We have, however, put some funding into the Peace River area, knowing that it is an important part of our breadbasket. We put in $500,000 for a long-term strategy in the Peace. We have had the $200,000 Sparks study done, which indicates areas in the Peace where they have significant advantages. One of those areas, as I think the hon. member well knows, is the backgrounding of cattle. There probably is no other place in North America where cattle can be backgrounded better than in the Peace River district. A lot of the farmers in the Peace River district are going into the backgrounding of cattle. We have promoted the examination of different types of grasses, such as the fescues. There are a number of individuals going into bison farming. A number of farmers up there are following a new practice in agriculture called zero till -- which, by the way, does have a significant impact upon the ability of soil to retain moisture.
We have also put several full-time employees up in the Peace River district. It is not a forgotten corner of the province. I have been up there three or four different times in the last 12 or 13 months, and we're tracking the difficulties. Some of the farmers who had severe difficulties did not avail themselves of the insurance schemes that were available to them. So we have some safety nets. There's the Peace River program, the diversification; and we have variety trials for seeds -- we gave another $77,000 for that.
Under my ministry, we have devoted a significant amount of money to the Peace River district. We recognize that things are not always.... If I remember correctly, the rainfall -- and we have been tracking it -- is a little better this year. It still isn't up to where the member would like to see it, or to where I would like to see it. But we have devoted a number of funds to this area, because it's an extremely important part of our agricultural scene -- and I have not neglected it. I have really tried to concentrate on it, and put some funding in there -- which we have some difficulty finding occasionally. I put it as one of my first priorities, and it was accepted as that.
J. Weisgerber: I'm disappointed that the minister seems to now be picking up the tone of the Minister of Finance, which is essentially that farming isn't particularly viable in the Peace. There are 50, 60 or 70
[ Page 7363 ]
years of history of grain farming in the Peace country. The fact is that the Peace country has been virtually drought free, with the exception of the last three years. The Peace country was in fact settled during the thirties when people were being forced to leave farms all across the central United States and Canada. So this is not a historical problem in the Peace.
There are frosts in the Peace, as there are in most areas on the prairie. But the minister should know -- and I'm sure he does -- that varietal improvements are shortening the number of days that are needed for seeding, and equipment improvements allow farmers to plant their crops more quickly and take them off more efficiently.
I certainly hope that the minister is not going to pick up on this theme from the Minister of Finance, because it's not going to serve the people of the Peace or the people of British Columbia well. The Peace River country represents a significant grain-growing area in Canada. The minister might know that at one time Dawson Creek was the largest grain-shipping point in the British Commonwealth. It's tough for me to balance that with a suggestion by the current government that somehow farming isn't viable in the Peace, because historically that's just not the case.
Every industry, from time to time, has difficulties, and every agricultural commodity and region occasionally finds years or a series of years with unusual weather conditions, whether it be raspberry growers in the Fraser Valley, ranchers in the interior or grain farmers in the Peace. Because there have been two years of drought and there may be a third year, I don't think the answer is to say: "Well, we've got to find something else for farmers to grow."
I've got no argument with the notion that we should encourage diversification in agriculture. Indeed, I believe very much that we've got to look at diversification. But I think a far better motive would be to diversify the economic base of farmers in the Peace, rather than to suggest it's necessary because there is some decision now by the ministry that the climatic conditions in the Peace make it unacceptable for grain farming, because that just is not the case.
[5:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: There are several problems in the Peace, and I'll explain how closely I followed the situation up there. I went over to UBC, which has tracked farming in the Peace River district for about 35 years. There were ten crop failures in that time, which is really quite significant, and the researcher called them significant. So it has not just been exclusive to the last two or three years. Many Peace River farmers themselves -- and they're on the ground; they know what the problems are -- have suggested that they want more options. As the member well knows, many of them are going into backgrounding of cattle significantly, and doing extremely well at it. The worldwide prices of wheat and grains and oilseeds have also had an impact; they are very low. This is not unique to the Peace; it goes right across the Prairies. It goes to the Peace River side of Alberta, through Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is a difficult time for the grain farmers of Canada as a whole. That's why we're trying to say there is room for a different sort of initiative in the Peace River district, and the farmers up there are doing it by themselves. Most of them are innovative and creative, and I think they're doing an excellent job. That's not to say there aren't difficulties there; I confess there are.
J. Weisgerber: It occurred to me as I was listening to the response from the minister that if a crop or commodity concern rather than a climatic issue drives his desire for diversification, there are some real parallels with the situation faced by apple growers in the minister's own constituency. In that situation, we saw a government unprepared to let farmers do it on their own, a government quite willing to come in with millions of dollars for diversification. So I'm not quite sure what separates the Peace River grain farmer from the orchardist. If the need is to diversify, if the issue is that people are growing their own crops, then I'm not sure that I can see a significant difference between those two situations on the surface.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think there is a difference. A significant amount of money was given to the farmers in the Okanagan -- specifically the orchardists. That was to get their feet on the ground, which I hope they did. Since that time, FII has been cancelled. I hope we have turned them in a different direction. There were 550 acres of new varieties planted last year in the Okanagan -- new varieties such as Fuji, old varieties such as Empire and a number of other apples. Where we have an advantage over our competitors, they are going in that direction. We feel that is absolutely necessary. The total contribution of the two governments -- federal and provincial -- was $450 million into FII and ad hoc payments. This includes the government before us that was constantly giving ad hoc payments. That $450 million -- essentially free money -- was extremely hard on the public purse. We feel we have to go in a more innovative way. That's what we're doing in the Okanagan, as well.
J. Weisgerber: Let there be no misunderstanding. My criticism wasn't of the program in the Okanagan. My argument was that the minister seemed quite willing to deal differently with a problem in my constituency than he was with an issue in his own constituency and his own region. I'm not suggesting for a minute that there shouldn't have been money for replanting in the Okanagan. My point is that there is a parallel between the minister's own interpretation of the situation in the Peace and the situation that there was in his own constituency. I'm curious to know why the minister sees such a radically different resolution to the problem.
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps I should give a different perspective on that. The hon. member keeps referring to my own constituency. The orchardists of the Okanagan received $19 million. A good portion of that $19 million went into Okanagan West, which is the constituency of a Social Credit member -- that's fine. Another
[ Page 7364 ]
significant portion went into Okanagan-Vernon, which also has a Social Credit member. Another significant portion went into Okanagan East, which has a Liberal member. The rest of it, 40 percent.... So 60 percent of that money was not given to government members; it was given to ridings not represented by the government. The government represent two-thirds of all the ridings in the province. I think that was extremely even-handed. It's very obvious that three out of five ridings represent 60 percent of that money, and the other two represent 40 percent. So we certainly weren't playing politics.
J. Weisgerber: The minister is sensitive, and understandably so. The point is.... The minister, I suppose, doesn't want to address the point. I'm not arguing with the Okanagan program; I'm not arguing whether it went into Okanagan East, Okanagan West, the minister's own riding or other ridings in the Okanagan. That's not the point. The point is that the minister, his government and the federal government looked at a situation in that region of British Columbia and decided that they were going to provide significant financial support to the industry.
I've been here now for the third year talking to the minister about the drought in the Peace River country. His response, year after year, is: "We're not going to give any financial support. The farmers are going to diversify and find a way to deal with the problem. They are already dealing with the problem; they are in the wrong crop, but they should diversify, and we're pleased that they are doing it." I originally asked the minister what kinds of strategies and contingency plans he had in the event that this year turns out to be as serious a drought situation as it was last year. Let me say to the minister that the people affected last year by the drought were not only people who were eligible for coverage under GRIP. They were cattle ranchers, hay producers, sheep farmers, hog producers, cattle backgrounders, cattle feeders and ranchers, who found themselves bringing in not only grain but hay and straw in order to winter their cattle. Most of the farmers were able to work their way through this by eroding their capital. It becomes increasingly difficult as this drought continues. I'm looking for at least some kind of indication that the minister has some contingency plan.
Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member is understandably concerned about the Peace. Indeed, he should be. So are we. However, I must restate we have put significant resources from my ministry into the Peace River district -- $77,000 for variety trials, another $500,000 for a Peace River strategy -- in consultation with the farmers in the district. We've added staff up there. We're encouraging diversifying, and indeed they have a number of individuals who state that they are, by themselves. With the federal government, we have addressed some of the issues.
Certainly I would like to say we would put much more money into the Peace, but this is only possible under very unusual circumstances, and my ministry, like every other ministry, is facing some economic problems. The payments to the farmers of the Peace River in grains and oilseeds came to, I think, $11 million last year. The payments were slow and there were complaints about that. That's true. But the Peace River district is going in the right direction. As I say, I think the farmers are creative. They're going into areas that are not so dependent upon cyclical weather conditions. And certainly they have some advantages. One of them is backgrounding cattle, and we're trying to help them in this area.
J. Weisgerber: To take it from the top, regardless of what business they get into -- whether it's cattle ranching, feeding, backgrounding, or other kinds of crop or livestock feeding and breeding -- a drought of this magnitude is going to affect them. To say that the solution to the drought is diversification is simply to close your eyes to the problem. The drought exists there for hay, pasture, feed, barley....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: It's a particular problem for Barlee, I suppose, or at least should be a particular problem for Barlee.
You know, $577,000 shouldn't be sneezed at. It's welcomed, but given the magnitude of the problem, it's not a large contribution -- welcome, but not large -- and not a response to the drought. It's part of the useful and worthwhile functions the ministry performs. The ministry has a responsibility in the Peace, as it does all over British Columbia. I don't think we should confuse those kinds of activities with the situation that exists -- which may well develop into a more serious one.
Last year we talked about this issue at about this time. Unfortunately, the debates in this Legislature concluded a lot sooner than the drought did. As a matter of fact, the drought never did conclude. We find ourselves back in the same situation. We find ourselves here on the sixteenth day of June -- within 30 days, at least, of the end of this session -- and another drought is developing -- or the potential for one. Apparently there is no contingency plan to deal with the drought, should the situation worsen. The $11 million, if I understand correctly, would be GRIP payments that farmers were entitled to as a result of their participation in the crop insurance component of that program. I hope, as you do, that more grain farmers have availed themselves of the coverage that's available under GRIP. The Peace River agriculture sector -- as the minister must know -- is certainly broader than those crops that are covered under GRIP. There are significant areas in the agriculture community that aren't eligible.
I'm not suggesting today that the minister should make some kind of payment or commitment to payment. What I'm looking for is some indication that the minister has a plan, a strategy or some contingency plan, and that while this House is closed for the season, farmers in the area can reasonably expect some avenue to deal with difficulties, should they develop and as it appears they may well develop.
Hon. B. Barlee: When I look at the situation, I concur; it's not an easy situation. I have also examined
[ Page 7365 ]
the results of the drought last year, and out of all the Peace River farmers, the majority of them carried crop insurance or GRIP or NISA. Most of them told me that it helped them get through a difficult time. Out of all the farmers in the Peace River district, I do not know of one who went bankrupt, and I track it pretty closely. One almost went bankrupt. I intervened with Jim Hewitt, who is a former Social Credit member, and asked him to ease back. He did -- I happen to know him -- and I appreciated that. But we have a long-term plan and a strategy. I think that strategy is working.
I can't do a lot about the drought in the Peace River district. As you say, if it occurs this year, it's the third year in a row, and that makes it very difficult. However, I encourage every farmer there to take out the various insurances that will protect them over those areas when there are significant climatic changes, such as a drought. Our staff is working with the farmers and encouraging them to take a more diverse look at farming and a different approach, which they are doing. So they are looking at the options, and there are a number of options that work relatively well in the Peace.
[5:15]
One of them, as I mentioned before, is zero till. It does quite a significant job. Those farmers who have practised zero till find that their yield, even in years of drought, is much higher than that of their neighbours who do not practise zero till. And of course, as the member mentioned, the variety trials are helping -- putting in different crops that are suitable to the area -- because of the limitation of the growing season in the Peace.
No, there is never enough money in agriculture, aquaculture or fisheries. I'm quite aware of this, but I have certainly not abandoned the Peace. I think the farmers up there realize this -- even farmers not of my persuasion. Of course, most of them in that area are not. But I think they realize that I have given it a lot of thought. There is more rain this year than there was last year. Evidently the last month and a half has not been too good, so if there is another crop failure and another drought in the Peace River district, it's going to be very difficult. I don't know if there is any easy answer there.
J. Weisgerber: I am proud to say that the farmers in the Peace demonstrate extremely good judgment in all matters. That, I suppose, is one of the reasons that they have been able to succeed for as long as they have.
I don't want to belabour this, but the reality is that not all farmers are eligible for GRIP or other kinds of insurance. There are sectors of the farm community that aren't eligible. The minister says that if there is a drought for the third year, it will indeed be difficult. I can't help but reflect that it will be difficult for the farmers. I'm not sure that the minister meant to imply that it would be difficult for government, because the reality is that government didn't do anything last year. Government essentially extended a series of maybes through the crop year, but at the end of the day they came to the conclusion that it couldn't provide any assistance. So it has been difficult, but it has been difficult for the farmers. Again, I hope that there is something on the horizon that will be of more significant benefit this year.
Hon. B. Barlee: In this difficulty in the Peace River district, we have worked toward the areas which we and the farmers think are advantageous to them: the forage seed area, the backgrounding of cattle and the cultivation of other fescues that have a ready market. For instance, we are working with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, saying that we don't want them to buy their fescues from the state of Oregon. That is ongoing. Our staff are living in the area -- either in Fort St. John or in Dawson Creek -- and they are very aware of the difficulties in the Peace. All operators in the Peace River district have the option of availing themselves of the safety nets, and a vast majority of them are doing that -- we have the figures. Those who have not done that are putting themselves at risk.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I recognize that you're pursuing a very important line of questioning here, but you mentioned in your last statement that you didn't want to belabour it. I think you have made some pretty strong points. I would ask you to make sure that you don't continue to reiterate the same points.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to continue to repeat the same point, but the minister keeps coming back to me with the same answer, regardless of what angle I come from. The reality is that if you want to encourage things like diversification into grass seeds, clover and fescue, those are precisely the crops that are not eligible under GRIP and precisely the areas in which a farmer does not have safety nets available. Those are exactly the same crops that in a drought year do not produce seed. So the minister can't say that they are doing the right thing, that they are going into these diversified crops and the farmers there are availing themselves of the safety nets. I would agree that most grain and oilseed farmers are now taking advantage of GRIP, and I have encouraged them to do that for a number of years. The experience last year certainly underlined for them the importance of doing that. But the minister must recognize that this is not something that covers all crop areas and particularly doesn't cover the specific crops he mentioned.
Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member mentioned forage seed crops. The price last year was about double the year before. That's not to say it will last; I'm not saying that. But the price was significant.
J. Weisgerber: Because there was no crop.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, in certain areas that is true. In other areas, it is not true. Some had a good crop and some did not, depending on which part of the Peace River district they were from and how much rain they got. All I am saying is that those farmers who have availed themselves of the safety nets, those farmers who have gone in different directions -- whether it is
[ Page 7366 ]
backgrounding of cattle or buffalo -- are doing relatively well. It is not an easy area. I admit this; I concur. We have made some significant argreements for the Peace River farmers. You will also find we have not given out one cent in ad hoc payments in the past year, because we simply don't think that is the right way to go.
R. Chisholm: For a while, we will go back to things that swim instead of grow, cultivate and plow.
The minister mentioned something to the last speaker, and that was that there is no money, there is no facility.... I guess this is what I was trying to get at when I was talking about budget, and about the moneys and where they go. When we talk about 75 percent going to the ministry, and roughly 25 percent going to the primary producer and into programs, this is exactly what I am driving at. We have to end up putting more money back to the farmer or the fisherman. When we talk about things like this Magnuson Act and the 1991 Bill M206, I find it rather amazing that those of their political stripe would say that this is a good bill when they are in opposition, but now that they are government, this bill is not a good thing. I find that kind of strange.
Anyway, we will go on to the next questions. I am going to go into the aboriginal fisheries strategy a bit, and I would like to know where the minister stands on a few issues. Does this minister support the concept of one single manager of the resource, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Or do you have another thought on this matter?
The Chair: I will just remind the hon. member to address his remarks through the Chair.
Hon. B. Barlee: Conservation of the stock is essentially a problem that falls under DFO. This is not our provincial ministry, of course. We have a hand in it, and we think conservation of the stock is of extreme importance.
As far as the Magnuson Act is concerned, perhaps the member does not know that the act allows for fish and fish products to be shipped into British Columbia for processing here, and that indeed happens. It happens in Prince Rupert in a very large way. We are keeping workers in the various plants in Prince Rupert processing Alaska fish. The Magnuson Act is something we cannot put in, anyway; it's under the federal aegis. It doesn't work entirely against us.
R. Chisholm: One thing you must realize about the Magnuson Act is that it ensures that only products which that state cannot process get exported. Anything they are capable of processing is processed in their own state, which is the point behind it.
On the question I asked about the DFO, I wasn't talking about conservation. I was asking if you support the concept of a single manager of the resource or if you had other thoughts in that area.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I have a small point. I guess the word that gets the hon. member in trouble is "you." You can't address the Chair by saying "you" and have that directed to the minister. Just substitute "the minister" for "you," and I think we'll be okay.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly the conservation of stocks belongs under the auspices of the DFO. There is not much doubt about that at all. I think they have done a much better job in British Columbia than they have in Newfoundland, for instance, where the northern cod have virtually disappeared. That affects the whole chain in the system. The whales are smaller by ten or 15 feet, cod have virtually disappeared, and there has been a moratorium on cod fishing. I do not find a lot of fault with the DFO and the conservation of stock on the west coast.
Of course, there are always some species that are endangered. I think they are monitored extremely well. We have our own monitoring device as well. Generally, the work done by the officers of DFO is significant, and I think it's generally fine work.
The Chair: The member.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will try to insert the word "minister" instead of "you."
Has the provincial government conducted or concluded any economic impact studies of the aboriginal fisheries strategy or program in this province?
Hon. B. Barlee: I sit as a visiting guest minister on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee when the aboriginal share of fish is being discussed. We work closely with Aboriginal Affairs, as well, on initiatives that affect aboriginals, and we have to be very careful of that. The aboriginal fishers on the coast represent -- and I think my memory is correct on this -- about 22 percent of the high seas fishermen. Most of the aboriginal fishers are very successful in their given trade -- and whether that's genetic memory or not I don't know. But we certainly have a great interest in the eventual evolution of the fishing industry. Part of that, of course, will be under the auspices of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
R. Chisholm: I am still asking the same question: has this province done any economic impact studies? Could the minister answer that? The second part of that question would be: does the minister have a judicial interpretation of the Sparrow ruling? If so, can the minister make that available to the opposition?
Hon. B. Barlee: The Sparrow decision is essentially under the auspices of the Ministry of Attorney General, and that would be available under his good offices. Certainly that belongs in that ministry and not in ours.
R. Chisholm: As the Minister of Fisheries, I would think that you would have an interpretation of that, considering how important it is in the aboriginal fishing strategy. That's why the question was asked of you, but we will go to the Attorney General on that one.
[ Page 7367 ]
The question of whether this ministry has done economic impact studies of the aboriginal fisheries strategy has still not been answered. The aboriginal input into the commercial fisheries is at 30 percent at this time.
[5:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: Generally speaking, the data we get from DFO is that the aboriginal fishers in the inland fisheries such as the Fraser, the Stikine, the Skeena and so on get between 3 percent and 5 percent of the fish. Again, that falls under the auspices of the federal government. They dictate, for instance, the Fraser River aboriginal fishing strategy. We play a part in it, but not a major part. We are aware of how much of the catch goes to the aboriginal fishers. And of course, we are in touch with the federal government, but we do not participate significantly, because that does not fall under our jurisdiction as far as allocation is concerned.
R. Chisholm: Does the minister believe that native rights to natural resources supersede the rights of non-natives? Does the minister believe that the non-natives are dependent upon the goodwill of the native nations for any allocation of fish resources?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is a decision that I do not take, nor should I. That falls under the auspices of the federal government.
R. Chisholm: This is my last question before we go to the other hon. member.
Does the minister agree that a portion of the food fish should be allowed for commercialization? Whether this minister wants to walk along the plank is one thing, but sooner or later he will have to make decisions on these situations, because that's exactly what is facing this province in the next couple of years.
Hon. B. Barlee: That is definitely a decision made by the federal government -- as the treaties were originally made by the federal government -- so that does not fall under the auspices of my Fisheries ministry.
H. De Jong: To go back a bit to the debates of this afternoon, there was a concern expressed by my colleague here about the amount of travel and the cost of staff travel. I know that it may sound like a lot of money. The farming community are not looking for handouts; they're looking for guidance, direction and help when needed. The hands-on approach by the bureaucrats, if I may call them that, or the ministry personnel, is extremely important, as I see it. I believe that on too many occasions -- it will happen in other ministries -- things are dreamt up here in Victoria or in high offices in Vancouver with little hands-on knowledge of an industry. Certain problems do arise on the farm from time to time. It can be a bloom on a fish farm or a sign of an upcoming bloom, which may be something different from what they have experienced before. Then it's very important to get an official who has the knowledge of how to deal with such situations. Those things can happen in one place on the coast one day, and perhaps 200 miles further north on another occasion.
It can happen on poultry farms, where a certain disease strikes, and if it's not looked after in quick order -- and again, this takes specialists in the field -- it can go to many other poultry operations. It could be a disaster not just for one farmer, but for a number of poultry farmers. I can go on and on about situations where the farmer needs that help as quickly as possible. It also comes across with special crops. I know that a few years ago there was a problem in the raspberry fields. Many fields were affected before the problem could be properly looked after.
Those are the things that all add to the risk of farming. We can minimize the risk of farming by proper allocation of staff so that staff are available to deal with those problems, to help the farmers to put those things to rest -- or to bed, or whatever you want to call it -- so that the farmer can at least sleep at night because they've been looked after. So I would like to ask the minister: is the travel budget in fact sufficient to deal with that kind of approach, which the farmer expects?
Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member has taken the directly opposite side from the other opposition party. They say our travel is too much; the hon. member says our travel is too little. So I think we probably come right down the middle. Indeed, that's why we're not in Victoria. We do travel out to these areas. That's why there has been an increase in the travel allowance. We get into the orchards, the dairy farms, the turkey operations. We get into the various parts of British Columbia. Indeed, we have specialists in those areas. So when I find that I come straight down the middle between the two opposition parties, we must be going in the right direction.
At any rate, hon. Chair, the time goes on inexorably. I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:37 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]