1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 22
[ Page 11207 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
PUBLIC EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Education Labour Relations Act.
Hon. E. Cull: The introduction of this bill fulfils the commitment we made on March 10 of this year to restructure teacher collective bargaining in British Columbia.
Bill 52 has three purposes: to improve collective bargaining practices and procedures in the public school system; to establish a two-tiered provincial system of collective bargaining; and, through these measures, to promote positive working relationships in the public school system.
The bill will improve cost-effectiveness for B.C. taxpayers and, more importantly, provide greater long-term stability for students. It creates a more balanced bargaining structure, which will help to alleviate the threat of frequent district-by-district disruptions. The bill will allow the bargainers the opportunity to determine which issues will be provincial and which will be local. It allows for responsiveness to local issues while ensuring that the major cost matters are negotiated provincially.
The bill makes the Employers' Association for School Boards, which has been created out of the Public Sector Employers Act, the accredited bargaining agent on behalf of school boards, and it recognizes the B.C. Teachers' Federation as the bargaining agent for teachers in all 75 school districts. The bill also recognizes local school boards and local teachers' unions for issues that are agreed to be local bargaining.
The right of teachers to strike and of school boards to lockout will continue, but only on a provincial basis. The legislation provides for a transition from the current 75 agreements to one provincial agreement with local issues. This process will commence with the 58 school districts where the current collective agreement expires on June 30, 1994.
Overall, we believe this legislation will balance the need for a better system of bargaining in education that will cause less disruption in the classroom with a commitment to free collective bargaining.
Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Let me first of all inform members that the House will sit tomorrow. In addition, I should inform members that the House will sit tomorrow until 10 p.m., and again on Thursday until 10 p.m. -- or 11 p.m., if members wish.
I call Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Social Services estimates. In the House, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 30.
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
G. Wilson: I did adjourn the debate on this, and I have only a few more comments to make in the time that I have remaining with respect to Bill 30.
I have talked in principle about the reason we cannot support Bill 30: because of the provisions and powers it provides to municipalities in giving them similar powers to those of the commission. In looking at that with respect to the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, and the powers that it provides there, we believe in principle that it does not allow for a review that will be consistently applied around and across the province with respect to the maintenance and protection of agricultural land.
It is clear that we must, above all, protect our farmland and those people who are engaged in the activities of farming, provide whatever opportunities we can for farmers to make a living in British Columbia, and provide British Columbians with produce grown in this province in a competitive way. There is no doubt that in some areas -- such as the Okanagan, because of expanding municipalities in and around agricultural land -- there is an enormous pressure to have land removed from the agricultural land reserve in order to allow for residential, commercial and possibly industrial development to occur. It is clear that that pressure has to be looked at and addressed with a view to regional planning that can provide for a more sensible approach to transportation planning, residential development, the provision of sewer and water services and the provision of corridors in which commercial activity can occur. We must be vigilant in making sure that as we put in place those regional plans, we do not do that at the expense of the integrity of the land base on which the primary activities would be agricultural.
It is also clear that we have to reflect on the community planning process, and as community plans are established and zoning bylaws are put in place at the municipal level, on the fact that farmers are, by nature, seasonal occupants and have a seasonal basis to their industry. A review of that industry must take into account the need for farmers to engage in alternative and supplementary sources of income.
By just one example, I can give you some of the problems associated with Bill 30, with respect to regional powers in the hands of municipalities. In Kelowna we have a farmer who is engaged in reconditioning and selling antique furniture. It doesn't meet the guidelines under which the commission reviews primary and considered uses of agricultural land, so the municipality is moving in to close that industry and create great hardship for those people. Here is an example of where we need to have greater flexibility in the provision of zoning bylaws that provide for the multiple use of agricultural land. Agriculture may be the primary income generator, but people should be allowed to engage in other activities with respect to how that land may be used.
We'll have much more to say in opposition to this bill when we get into committee stage, because there we can look to the intent of the actual language and wording in the bill. In principle, three issues arise out of Bill 30 that we believe must be maintained. First of all, the integrity of the agricultural land base in British Columbia must be maintained with a view to providing an opportunity for farmers to be able to make a living. There is a need to put in place the appropriate legislation to provide for farmers, so that farmers can in fact make a living. That is critically important for British Columbians.
[ Page 11208 ]
Bill 30 jeopardizes the long-term viability of agricultural land, because it does not provide for a consistent review process but indeed will provide for variances to be made on the basis of municipal or regional district application. We have some serious concerns with how that will occur, because, rather than eliminate political influence, we believe this will in fact increase political interference in that sense. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, from my review of a couple of municipal jurisdictions in the Okanagan, that if those municipalities have the right to exempt land from the agricultural land reserve, change its zoning to commercial and industrial and then move for further development, as this bill will provide for them to do, there are sectors of the Okanagan that are now viable agricultural areas that will be simply decimated at the stroke of a pen.
The third issue -- and it's an important one -- has to do with the matters of resolution that can be established and the criteria the commission may use with respect to section 20 applications. We need to discuss that in much more detail as we get into committee stage.
[10:15]
In principle, we believe that there needs to be a revision of the agricultural land reserve and how the commission operates. We do not believe that we should use an inconsistent method, by which we will then hand down to municipalities the right, essentially, to make application and administer self-application, with only a provision to move to a board that will be established under a separate statute, being Bill 29, which has not yet passed this Legislature. Therefore we believe that Bill 30 is premature. We believe that it has not been clearly thought through. We believe that the language of this bill does not indicate the intent that the minister described. And we believe that this government needs to move very cautiously on this question.
This bill provides for municipalities to be able to exercise greater powers for the exemption of agricultural land with a limited appeal process. We believe that to be an enormously dangerous precedent to set without applying a consistent standard and without maintaining some protection for agricultural land. As the member for Chilliwack most eloquently pointed out yesterday, we should have a view to making agriculture a viable activity. This government should put a great deal of interest into making sure that the laws we pass enhance farming, embrace agriculture as a long-term economic activity that must be protected and maintained in this province.
As the member for Chilliwack so eloquently said yesterday, if we don't make farming a viable economic activity, all of this is nothing more than paper upon which the rhetoric and lip service that we provide farmers with will be found. Bill 30 is a dangerous piece of legislation because it is not properly thought through. I would suggest that those people who really have an interest in protecting farming and agricultural land would want to seriously reconsider whether Bill 30 is the way to go.
L. Hanson: I suppose that this second reading debate could open up the debate of the ALC that started almost 20 years ago now. The principle argued at that time was one of government taking over, or at least of having a serious effect on, the private ownership of land. I suspect that the government that originally brought in the ALR and the government here today place little importance on private ownership of land and the rights of the owner of that land to have some flexibility in the uses of it. Since this government has come into power, the changes made and the direction given to the ALC have not amounted to a huge increase in exclusions from the agricultural land base. As a matter of fact, if my suspicion is correct, the direction from the minister to the Agricultural Land Commission has been to refuse exclusion from the land base in almost every case. That brings back the question: why is this necessary? Is there something happening with the ALC that this government doesn't support? Looking at the record, it seems to me that not many exclusions are being authorized.
The principle that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast opposed -- giving elected councils more authority in the decisions -- seems to me to be an improvement. The elected councils are required to be available and answerable to the people who make requests. But I see in this act that the Land Commission is now going to have a flexibility in deciding whether they should have hearings or simply make decisions based on written submissions.
There is something about our democratic system that seems to make people believe there is a benefit in face-to-face presentations, which would obviously be eliminated by this act. It is something to be able to talk and present a case directly in front of a group of people, as opposed to some anonymous body that never really has the responsibility or accountability of a personal presentation. Although I doubt that the Land Commission is going to give very many municipalities a very wide range of approval sanctions -- or approval permissions, at least -- that will make a huge change, it seems to me that the councils in regional districts are elected bodies who are accountable to their citizens and available for public presentations and hearings. To me, that would be a step in the right direction, because again, those people are accountable to the electorate, as opposed to the government on the basis of a reappointment.
It seems to me that different areas of the province have different problems. To suggest that the land included in the land reserve in the lower mainland has the same difficulties and is guided by the same principles as land in, say, the Peace River country is totally foolish. The process would better answer the needs of the citizens if different boards gave different considerations in different areas -- such as the Peace River versus the Okanagan as an example. The regionalization of agricultural land commissions would certainly seem to me to be a step in the right direction. That would give the opportunity for people who own and are responsible for farming the agricultural land to present, face to face, to people who know the problems of particular areas of the province.
It seems to me that the flexibility for the ALC to now be able to get rid of the requirement for a public hearing or a personal presentation will be nothing but a negative in a process that is already looked on by people in the agricultural community as being negative and an infringement on their rights to do whatever they see as being reasonable with their privately owned land. I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made a good point when he suggested that one of the difficulties the farming community has regarding land included in the ALR is with their ability to have a profitable agricultural operation on a piece of land and their ability to earn a living on it.
In this government's attitude toward the agricultural community, we've certainly seen less than enthusiastic support for their ability to earn a living from their land. From that lack of ability to earn a living from their land comes the interest and energy directed at exclusion from the ALR, because they have little alternative. They're faced with bankruptcy or changing the use of some of their land.
I suppose the last concern I have is that the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is being changed from uses compatible with agricultural production to the
[ Page 11209 ]
encouragement of agricultural production. That seems to be quite a change in direction. I wonder what we're going to see the Agricultural Land Commission empowered to do through the regulation and order-in-council process to encourage agricultural production on those lands. That seems to me to be a very basic change from the original intention.
So with those few brief remarks.... We will certainly get into some in-depth discussion of the individual sections of the act to see if we can get some clarification as to the intention. But we have great difficulty in supporting the act in the manner that it is written now.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to rise to speak on the philosophies and principles of Bill 30, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994. I think the very first observation that came to my mind is that this bill seems to suppose that all the land within the agricultural land reserve is in fact farmable and under threat. But when we look closely at the particulars of what has happened within the land reserve over the course of the last 20 years, we see that 99.6 percent of the original 4.7 million hectares is still within the agricultural land reserve. When I review my years as vice-chairman of my regional district, the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, during which time we saw many requests for both inclusion in and exclusion from the agricultural land reserve.... When we look at the statistics there, 96 percent of the time the Land Commission reacted in support of the regional district's request. So I don't know what the emergencies were. My experience in my region of the province is that the system worked and worked well.
When we initially delineated the area for the agricultural land reserve, we did very little soil testing -- if any. We did not rough out the rough terrain -- what was not farmable in the rural regions of the province. As we talk about this legislation, we envision farmland in the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan; but this legislation covers far more vast areas than that. I guess we can see the Peace River being somewhat different from the area I come from in that the demands on that land certainly aren't as high for residential purposes or development purposes as they are in the Fraser Valley.
We heard the minister speak yesterday about the first two actions with respect to bringing this legislation up today. One of those that he talked about so proudly was the fact that we took away the appeal process last year, which I believe should have remained in the legislation. It's only right that a property owner should have the right to appeal any decision by any bureaucracy or local government. Unfortunately, the legislation now does not accommodate that. That's really an injustice to the taxpayers of British Columbia.
[10:30]
Over the course of the last year we have also seen new initiatives by the Agricultural Land Commission. While over the course of the last 20 years they've had the authority to require all approvals for home businesses and others in the ALR to come before their council to be sanctioned or not sanctioned, that has never been enforced before. But now we see a situation where we're going to see day care facilities.... Should you want to locate one in your home as a home-based business, you not only have to have the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission but you now have the privilege of paying a $400 to $500 fee just to request their consideration. If we look at a preschool or home school facility that provides more than one on one, we must now acquire the sanctions of the Agricultural Land Commission and have the privilege of paying a $400 to $500 fee to get that approval.
That's really an infringement on those who are looking at supplementing their farm income through other activities. What have we seen historically with respect to those initiatives? Historically, we've seen that those zonings, whether they be home-based businesses or small entrepreneurial developments, have been taken before the local council or regional district and have been given approval on that basis. We see that as being somewhat eroded now, putting more bureaucracy in front of the home-based business sector of this province through the Agricultural Land Commission.
When we talk about protecting farmland, I think we've got to talk about social requirements outside of just protecting farmland. We've got to look at what's putting the pressure on farmland development, specifically in development regions such as the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan. What's putting the pressure on is the increased population base that has come to British Columbia over the last ten years and the requirement for more property for homes. The government has to look at other means of encouraging people to locate in other regions of the province. We have to look at economic development policies which encourage growth in the regions closer to where the resources are extracted; we have to look at energy policies which encourage industry to locate closer to where the energy is generated; and we have to look at moving people out of the highly populated areas, thereby also requiring less of our very valuable farmland for residential occupancy.
There are so many issues in this bill. It talks about community planning and community zoning. Back in 1986 the municipality I happened to represent at the time went through a planning process in conjunction with the Agricultural Land Commission. We identified areas within that community that would be required over the course of the next ten to 20 years for residential and industrial development. We also identified areas that would not be required but were legitimate farm properties and could be included within the agricultural land reserve. While it took some time, that process worked well. I do not understand why we all of a sudden now have to bring legislation forward which gives more authority than what was allowed before. We have to understand that while municipalities and regional districts had the power to recommend, they were recommending to a central board that looked over what was in the province's best interest and made the decision based on that. It removed it from the local arm-twisting of a small municipal council by a local developer or entrepreneur, and gave that council the background and support it needed in order to make those tough decisions.
I'm concerned that through this legislation we are going to make it extremely difficult for the local mayor and council in smaller communities, who are very close to the grass roots and are available to individuals on the streets every day, to protect the integrity of the farmland within their municipalities.
I think there are many issues that will have to be covered in committee stage of this legislation. I look forward to that stage; we can examine them clause by clause to make sure that our interpretation, and my interpretation, of this legislation is correct. I believe it is, but I look forward to that opportunity.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak in principle on Bill 30. I find this to be an interesting debate. Certainly the Agricultural Land Commission is in need of amendment. I think the bill is commendable to the extent that it reflects the government's willingness to allow local planning to have some impact on
[ Page 11210 ]
removal of lands from the ALR. Where I have a problem, when we talk about the principle of Bill 30, is that I believe we're dealing so much with the land and so little with the farmers.
To give a concrete example of where I have a difficulty in principle, there are a couple of farmers in my riding who have a small farm. It used to be an orchard years ago, and now they're raising some sheep and cows. They're having a difficult time, because they desperately want to farm and cannot make enough money in the initial years if all they do is farm. So they have been trying to produce some local crafts, and have tried to take in some old antiques, refurbishing them and giving them a bit of an upgrading. In doing that they have been able to generate a bit of revenue through a process similar to garage sales; every Sunday they allowed people to come into the barn and pick up some of the antiques they had refurbished. That was bringing in enough money to make the mortgage payments. With the revenue generated by their farm products, they were able to invest in the farm and fix up the barns and fields.
In that case, because they are in the agricultural land reserve and have agricultural land, they're under the policy regulations and legislation of the agricultural land reserve. Yet the bylaws of the city were going to be shutting them down -- and in fact may be shutting them down as we speak. That was happening because the city was interpreting what they were doing as not a home operation or home-based business. The city was choosing to see it as a retail outlet. In that respect, through their bylaws -- bylaws that haven't even passed yet -- they will probably preclude the Newtons from continuing to do what they've been doing to try to supplement their farm income and therefore remain as farmers.
If that happens, then we see a local bylaw in contravention of the policies that the Agricultural Land Commission governs itself by. When this family went to the Agricultural Land Commission for a ruling, they found out through the Minister of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission that what they were doing was not only consistent with the policies of the land commission but commendable and completely in line with where this government wants to go with regard to farming, in terms of diversifying some of the income so the farmers can continue to farm. They were finding that, because they were precluded from doing that by the bylaws, the bylaws were overriding the policies of the government. When we get into committee stage obviously we can canvass that to a greater extent.
I hope to see that the principle of this bill will be that farmers -- who are governed under this act and are in effect trapped, whether willingly or not, on their land -- will have the freedom to pursue that lifestyle of farming and to diversify and continue to meet what's in everyone's best interests, and that is to continue to farm and to be able to do that without being shut down by local government, without having bylaws that in effect contravene the very policies this government is supposed to be pursuing through amendments to the act, such as in Bill 30.
I'll have more to say about that in committee stage. I put the minister on notice that I would like to propose an amendment to this bill in committee stage that would allow for some of the policies the ministry is drafting to have legislative weight, so that -- as this act says later on -- in the event of a bylaw being inconsistent with this act, this act will prevail. If that is true, as it is written out in this bill, then the act should have the weight to allow for diversification within the farm. So if the majority of the income is from farming and the majority of the time allocated is to farming, there would still be some allowance for other activities on the farm to supplement farm income so the people can actually afford to continue to live as farmers.
I have some concern here with regard to the definitions. The act is very specific by saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be regulating some of the provisions of the act, most particularly how the plan of action will proceed in terms of the agreements entered into by the Agricultural Land Commission and local government. So we know that there will be cabinet regulations. What will those be? I have a difficulty if there's going to be a definition that will allow the Agricultural Land Commission's powers to be transferred to the municipality or regional board, in consultation with the local government.
I don't have a problem if the intent of this bill in principle is to allow for the Agricultural Land Commission to be ruled by a community plan with respect to not removing land from the ALR, and when the bill is drafted to say that in the event of the Agricultural Land Commission planning to remove land from the ALR, they would be overridden by an amendment to a community plan. That's a very good safeguard to farmland. I would have a problem if somewhere in the regulations they're allowing for the municipality or regional district to decide who's going to be in charge of the powers of the commission. If the powers of the commission can somehow end up in the hands of local government without being delegated to local government by the Land Commission, then I would have a problem with that.
I am curious about the implementation of the act. The act talks of the commission being governed by the official community plan, and obviously resolutions of local government will now be binding on the commission. There could be some horse trading going on in terms of how it actually comes into practice. The commission might want to exclude some land, and the municipality might want to exclude some land. Perhaps the commission isn't all that willing to exclude the land that the municipality wants excluded, so they do a trade-off. The local government agrees that they won't override the Land Commission provided the Land Commission allows the local government to exclude their land. That would be a big concern to me. We know that even though we have the legislation here, sometimes the practices that occur under the legislation are contrary to the principles brought out in the bill. The way the bill is drafted would, I think, allow that to happen. There are no safeguards against trade-offs occurring between local government and the Land Commission.
The fundamental point of the Land Commission.... We know that the Environmental Assessment Act is going to be governing the Land Commission now. The environmental assessment board will be one of the bodies that will be governing some of the decisions with regard to the Land Commission. Where are the farmers in this? We know it's in everyone's interests to ensure that the 8 percent of the province that is agricultural land be preserved. We all know, I'm sure, as Canadians and as British Columbians, that we want the ability to produce our own food. Even if we don't produce all of our own food, we want to make a significant contribution in the market, so we can have some comfort in self-determination. Those of us who come from agricultural areas and have spent some time dealing with the production and distribution and retailing of food will feel very strongly that an element of our sovereignty, an element of what we are as British Columbians and as Canadians, is directly tied
[ Page 11211 ]
into our ability to produce our own food and have some comfort in what's in it.
An example of a great frustration to farmers is pesticide regulation and use. We know we have some of the best laws with regard to pesticide regulation and use, yet we import fruits and vegetables from other countries that have lower standards. They have lower labour and environmental standards, they come in at a lower price, and they bump our food off the market. When we start to talk about the Agricultural Land Commission and governing our farmers and the land that the farmers are on, I really wish there was some legislation in place that would allow our own produce to have precedence and easier access to the market, whether that's through farm-gate outlets....
[10:45]
Farm-gate outlets are consistent with the policies of this government but are not enshrined in law. I was talking earlier about introducing an amendment in committee stage. That's the kind of amendment we need to this statute. We need a clause that would allow some form of produce retailing in order to supplement income -- a retailing of the crafts of the farmers. So in addition to putting aside land and saying that you are now on agricultural land and you shall be governed by that, you will also be allowed to supplement your income in recognition of the service you're providing to everyone else in the province by protecting that land from development or other uses. If we all value our greenbelts and our environment and the contribution farmers make to the province, then we should be prepared to put it in writing and put it into the act.
Although this bill tries to bring in some level of community planning, it doesn't really go far enough. This bill deals with levels of government, levels of jurisdiction. We've got the environmental assessment board, the Agricultural Land Commission, municipal governments, regional districts and the provincial government. What we don't have, what we don't see in this legislation, is the farmers. We don't see any direction from the people who will be directly impacted by this bill. We also don't see any input or implementation from people in the community, other than through their elected representatives at local government. As the Alliance leader said earlier, we know that in municipal and regional district elections there is often a very small voter turnout, so whether or not that is really representative of the public's interest would be an interesting debate.
In principle, I have some concerns with this bill that we will have to address in committee stage. I have concerns with the level of power and authority that will be delegated by the commission to the local government. I have a lot of concerns with regard to farmers. I would hope in committee stage that we could also canvass -- and this issue, I think, has not been addressed adequately -- the role of the B.C. Assessment Authority with regard to the assessment of land values that will be affected by this act. That is the comprehensive view of the impact of this act, because as any of us who live in farming communities know, it's not enough to legislate, regulate and advise farmers. We've got to provide enough of a safety net within the statutes so they don't end up being left on their own to deal with how they're going to possibly manage to meet all the various demands of government, whether demands for taxes or setting aside their land.
With that, I end my comments on second reading and look forward to committee stage. I would like to put the government on notice that some amendments will be put forward in committee stage, which I hope will only serve to strengthen the bill in terms of its intent. We should be putting in writing some of the policy and regulations -- most particularly, the policy this government has stated publicly that they're committed to -- because unless some of that policy is put into legislation, we will have local bylaws overriding the policy. In that case, when the farmers are bankrupt, it will be no good legislating onto their land, because there will be enough development pressures on the bankrupt farmers. The farmers won't be the ones reaping the benefits of that development, but they will be the casualties of what is, I believe, a very well-intentioned bill.
F. Gingell: I felt it appropriate to speak to second reading of this bill to make a plea that I've made on previous occasions. It is critically important for government to recognize that simply putting a freeze, a charge or a condition on the land is not enough.
In Delta -- where by far the greatest portion of the land, geographically measured, sits within the agricultural land reserve -- farmers try to operate their businesses, grow their crops, raise their herds and produce their agricultural products under the most difficult of circumstances. It is really important that this government and future administrations recognize that we have to give the farmers the kind of assistance they need if we are going to require their land to be used for agricultural purposes only or, alternatively, allow it to lie fallow. The way things are, they are unable to deal properly with the problems of the urban interface -- such things as drainage, irrigation, the moving of their equipment on local roads, their ability to fertilize and even their ability to move farm equipment on provincial highways. We all recognize the problem we had this spring when the Insurance Corporation of B.C. stopped the movement of wide fertilizers on provincial highways.
It is time, I think, to recognize two things. The first is that the agricultural land reserve does a lot more than its title implies. It's not only in the business of preserving land for agricultural purposes, but it also clearly has a role in preserving the green space that all citizens want in and around their communities. If a major purpose of the agricultural land reserve is to ensure that we have green spaces and the preservation of these open areas, we have to recognize that it should not be just the farmers who bear the costs of doing that; communities need to accept and recognize that and contribute their share of those costs, too.
The second point I'd like to make is that everything is fluid as far as this issue is concerned. The wheels may turn very slowly, but let me assure members of this House that climatic change is happening in this world -- ever so slowly, but without question. It may well be that in 50 years' time, areas of this world that are presently agricultural will no longer be capable of sustaining crops, and pressures will be placed on other fertile lands -- perhaps back to our own. That will change the circumstances that presently exist.
Five or six years ago I was able to see some computer modelling that had been done to measure changes that were taking place in the climate in North America at that time and that had taken place over the previous 10 or 15 years. That clearly showed some trends that seemed to indicate that the areas of the great American central agricultural basin would perhaps not be as productive in the future as they are now, and the more important areas of agricultural production, with the most suitable climate, would be in northern British Columbia and in the northern parts of our prairies. We have to recognize that the world does in fact change, and we have to ensure that we are in a position to subsequently make changes which will ensure the continuation of food production.
Basically, I support this bill. I believe it is important for us to be planning regionally and ensuring that the rules and
[ Page 11212 ]
regulations regarding land that is set aside meet local needs while clearly recognizing the overall policy of the agricultural land reserve. With that, before I take my seat, I have one last reprise, and that is that government must recognize that climatic change could well change the agricultural potential of this province. We must ensure that we do nothing in the 1990s that will in any way affect our ability to respond to changes that will happen perhaps in the middle of the twenty-first century.
J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to stand up during second reading and speak in favour of Bill 30. I am also very pleased that the official opposition has recognized the importance of this amendment, which will strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I am not surprised at some of the comments made by the members from the Reform Party and the Social Credit Party, and I'll try to address some of those points raised in debates a little later on. The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast took a rather strange interpretation of the act, in my view, and I was wondering whether we were reading the same amendments. In my comments I will try to address his concerns as well.
It shouldn't need to be said, but for something as basic as food, as we all know -- especially in this province and elsewhere in North America -- we tend to treat the land that produces that food with a very cavalier attitude. Maybe it's because, as we become a much more urbanized society and buy our food in Tetra-Paks and nice cellophane-covered packages, we have become very distant from understanding that unless we have the land base to produce the food -- and as members have pointed out, unless we have the expertise of the farmers to produce that food and unless we have the stability of farm communities that create the kind of environment that farmers need to function -- we won't have the ability to produce our own food in British Columbia. That is a really scary thought.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I don't want to go much further along that track, but I think it's important to put this amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act in perspective. It is the first time that there have been substantial amendments to the act that was brought in 20 years ago. The predecessor to this government took a very bold and courageous act in bringing in that legislation in early 1973.
I have to disagree with the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, who suggests that the original reserve came in with very little soil testing. Of all of the land preservation programs in North America, British Columbia's was the only one that was based on an understanding of the capability of the land to grow food. Perhaps that is one of the reasons it has managed to survive with reasonable integrity throughout these 20 years.
When I was looking back at the original land commission act -- and I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be interested in this -- in addition to the objectives for preserving farmland, it did have some secondary objectives in terms of preserving greenbelts, land banks and parkland. It's interesting to speculate that if the original legislation had been implemented and retained in its present form, we might not be facing a lot of the land use planning problems in the rural-urban fringe areas that we are facing in this province today.
[11:00]
I am sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is working almost daily with municipal governments and regional districts on growth management issues, thinks back fondly to how much easier our problems on growth management would have been if the Agricultural Land Commission Act had retained that broader focus. But it didn't, hon. members, because in 1975 the government that came in narrowed the focus of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and brought in the amendment to allow appeals to cabinet -- which one member already commented upon.
Only last year that amendment was rescinded to ensure that the very reason the Agricultural Land Commission Act came into being -- to ensure the preservation of scarce farmlands -- would be preserved, because politicians at any level could not be relied upon to do that. I'm very pleased that the act was amended in terms of the appeal process just last year. I'm very pleased that we are now proceeding to utilize the 20 years of experience the Agricultural Land Commission has had in terms of administering and strengthening the act in the province in a number of different ways.
Before I go into those ways, I might just mention that ever since 1975 it has been a struggle for those people who have worked hard to support the preservation of farmland. The reason it's still here today is that the public has developed a strong sense of commitment to and support for farmland and the preservation of the rural way of life in British Columbia.
I think we should take a moment to say that despite all the trials and tribulations of maintaining this program up until the time of this amendment to strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission, it is still the most successful agricultural land preservation initiative in North America. For those who still suggest that it's not really necessary I would speculate -- and of course there's no way to measure this, thank gosh -- that without this program in place for these past 20 years, the hon. member for Delta South would probably not have agricultural production in his riding. There would probably not be any viable vegetable production in Richmond or the lower Fraser Valley. Berry fruits would probably be gone from the Abbotsford area. We would not have the option today to still bring in positive programs to support farmers and farm communities or to plan for a viable agricultural industry. That's how important this legislation has been in British Columbia.
The opposition members for Chilliwack and Delta South have mentioned that it doesn't do enough for the farmers and the farm communities. I have to say that I agree with those members, but I would also remind them that we cannot accomplish all those things in one act. Without a land base to build upon, all the programs in the world for farmers and farm communities would not do any good. The first priority must always be to ensure that the land base for food production is protected.
The amendments in this act will strengthen the Agricultural Land Commission's role by ensuring that it can carry out its mandate. As has already been mentioned in debate, there is a wide divergence of support from local governments for the Agricultural Land Commission Act and its role. There are some communities that have developed very strong support. There are many municipal governments that have approved official community plans after talking with the Agricultural Land Commission to ensure that ALR land is designated by bylaws that support agriculture. I'm very proud to say that Burnaby has been one of them. Although I am constantly begging the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds to lend me the Burnaby Big Bend farmlands for my riding, he hasn't done that yet. But I share with him the pride in knowing that Burnaby as a
[ Page 11213 ]
municipality has strongly supported its ALR lands in its official community plans and bylaws.
Those are the kinds of linkages that can now be developed with the expanded powers of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. And that is to recognize that where local governments are onside with the Land Commission, where they have agreed upon policy areas, then certain powers will be able to be delegated to local governments upon agreement to carry out certain decisions. We also know, as the member for Okanagan East has mentioned, that other municipalities have not been very cooperative. They have continued to pass official community plans and bylaws in direct contravention of the agricultural land reserve and the provincial interest in preserving those farmlands for farm production.
That's why I am very pleased that one of the provisions in this act is to ensure that in official community plan areas that contain ALR lands, local communities will not be able to zone or designate those areas for uses other than farm use. It's really important to get rid of the mixed messages and confusion in people's minds, where you have an agricultural land reserve designation and a local government that refuses to acknowledge the future of agriculture on those lands. That's some of the flexibility that this legislation will allow. It ensures that the Land Commission's designation of the ALR takes precedence.
There has been some concern that perhaps too much has been delegated to local government. I don't agree with that, hon. members. The Land Commission has had a small staff, and I would agree that it hasn't been able to fully live up to its mandate to be the advocate for the farm communities and to promote the use of agricultural land, perhaps because it has had to process an increasing number of applications. I'm sure those people in agricultural areas will attest to the waiting period that sometimes occurs with those applications. These amendments will free up the commission somewhat, relieve it of some of the more routine applications in areas of well-established policy, and it will help the Land Commission speak in favour of the very concerns that the hon. member for Chilliwack has mentioned in terms of farmers and farm communities, for instance. It will allow the Land Commission to do more work on the impact of estate and residential use of agricultural lands, to do some more work on the competition between agriculture and other uses for water or drainage and to try and help farmers and farm communities deal with the rural-urban conflicts that they find within the ALR. I think that's a positive step, hon. members.
I don't share the perspective or panic of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the amendments weakening the Agricultural Land Commission powers. He's clearly confused. After all, it was the predecessor to this government that brought in this legislation. This government is strengthening the ALR to ensure that it is safeguarded in the long term. As somebody who has worked consistently for 20 years to ensure our provincial commitment to agricultural land preservation, I will go on record to say that I would be first person to stand up in this House to speak against a piece of legislation that weakened the powers of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I assure the hon. member that far from weakening, this act strengthens in a modest but very important way the strong linkages being built between the Agricultural Land Commission and supportive local communities and regional districts.
I know that the hon. members for Abbotsford, for Okanagan-Vernon and for Prince George-Omineca have made arguments that we have heard before in this chamber. We heard them 20 years ago, when the legislation was brought in -- that somehow the ALR can be held responsible for rising land costs and housing prices; that somehow we shouldn't be worried about preserving farmland, in that the marketplace will take care of those things.
I want to say that I disagree with that. On the first argument, clearly all of the studies that have been carried out in the two highest-growth areas in the province -- the lower mainland and the Okanagan -- contradict the concern about the ALR restricting the amount of land available for growth and development. Clearly the studies show that there is more than enough land outside the agricultural land reserve to manage the growth that we need.
The second point was that the marketplace will take care of things for us. There's the view that if we can import food from elsewhere, why should we pay more for local produce? If our B.C. farmers can't be competitive, why not convert the land to a so-called higher use? This is the view that somehow the free market will produce the alternatives and will set the prices that we're all prepared to pay.
Hon. members, that is a faulty economic argument. We only have to look at what's happening to food lands around the world and ask ourselves if we want to put ourselves in such a tenuous position. Not only are food lands in North America being gobbled up by development, but food lands all over the world are being destroyed through soil erosion, desertification and drought.
I have a couple of statistics that should remind hon. members who would make the argument that agricultural land preservation is not essential in British Columbia. The best grain-growing soils in Canada have lost more than half of their natural nutrients and organic matter since the turn of the century. Similarly, U.S. states with some of the best soils report losses of one-half of their topsoil in just over 100 years of farming.
I have a whole page of statistics that suggest what's happening elsewhere in the world in terms of food lands. That's not even to mention the uncertainties of climate change or things like loss of biodiversity. Those of you who listened to my Earth Day message know that I reminded members we were losing species and varieties every day. In fact, I understand that half of the varieties of some of our main food crops -- half of the varieties -- have disappeared since the beginning of this century.
In that kind of climate, surely if there was one lesson that we can learn -- not only from what's happened to agricultural lands around the world but from what's happening in terms of environmental degradation -- it is humility. Humility means that when you have a scarce land resource, as we have in British Columbia, then you need to protect that natural resource to ensure that we and future generations can make decisions on how we're going to produce our own food.
[11:15]
Benjamin Franklin said that it's not until the well runs dry that we know the worth of water. In terms of farmland in British Columbia, we already have too little water in the well. We cannot afford to squander it. It's a matter of priorities. I'm not prepared, and I know this government is not prepared, to hold future generations of British Columbia to ransom to buy whatever food might be available, at whatever quality and price. We in British Columbia have very little land, but what we lack in quantity, we gain in diversity. Because our agricultural land in British Columbia has incredible diversity, we have the ability to respond to the marketplace.
[ Page 11214 ]
C. Serwa: You haven't invested in any. You haven't produced any crops.
J. Sawicki: The hon. member is suggesting that I don't have any experience in producing crops.
C. Serwa: Put your money where your mouth is. Buy some.
J. Sawicki: I would suggest to the hon. member for Okanagan West that I did grow up on a mixed farm. We were almost self-sufficient.
C. Serwa: Do you still own one? Do you produce crops?
J. Sawicki: I don't produce crops. But I will tell the hon. member -- through you, hon. Speaker -- that I have spent 20 years talking to farmers and working on rural planning. I really believe in and support the concerns that farmers in this province have. I will be the first person to stand up here and say yes, we need this act to strengthen the ALR; yes, we need policies to promote and support farming communities; yes, we need an agriculture and food policy, which the Minister of Agriculture is working very diligently on; and yes, we need to ensure that agriculture remains a vital part of our economic future in British Columbia. In order to do that, we need the land base. That's why the amendments to this act are important, and that's why I hope that all members of this House will support them.
C. Serwa: I hadn't intended to speak on Bill 30. My colleague spoke on the philosophy and principles of it. But I just couldn't afford to miss the opportunity to talk about the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994. When listening to government members speak, it reminds me that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a socialist. That's what I'm hearing today.
The greatest theft ever perpetrated on free people by a duly elected government in British Columbia was the agricultural land reserve. It was outright theft, taking away the established rights of individuals....
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Well, well, well. We certainly have woken up the government of the day.
If they actually believed in the agricultural land reserve and the legislation, they would have compensated through British common law. One of the rights landowners had was confiscated by the socialist government of the day, the NDP government of '72 to '75. Something was taken away from those individuals without giving any compensation. Laugh, hon. members. It was stolen by a duly elected government. Why? Because only 2 or 3 percent of the population of the province owns agricultural land.
This government has denied any sense of responsibility for ensuring that farming in the province is economically viable for farmers. It's a big joke, isn't it, hon. member? It's the funniest thing you've ever heard. You haven't invested a nickel in agricultural land. All those farmers who tried to make a statement by dumping apples, in opposition to this government and certainly to the federal government's activities, don't consider it a joke. They're bound to living in this province, with its highly inflated wage scale and it's highly inflated cost scale for machinery, equipment, fertilizers, and all the input costs, and there's no recognition.
All the government of the day does is say: "We stand solid and foursquare in preserving agricultural land. Mindless of the fact that agricultural technology has changed dramatically; mindless of the effect of the greenhouse industry in British Columbia, which can produce four or five crops annually rather than one or two; mindless of the fact that we're limited in most types of agricultural production; mindless of the fact that it's not economically viable, we stand tall and proud. We play that simple and very senseless game, knowing that the majority of British Columbians don't own agricultural land."
Interjections.
C. Serwa: All of that laughter and all of the smiles from the government side would change dramatically if I said this: you own a home in Kamloops or Vancouver East or whatever, and we're going to take away development rights on that property for all time; we'll take away the appreciation of that property; we'll take away any change in accommodation for local governing forces to change the zoning of that property to upgrade it to commercial or duplex or whatever is required -- perhaps apartments. All of a sudden it would hit these members the way it hit the farmers in British Columbia.
There has been no commitment from this government to preserve agriculture or the economic viability of farmers. They only pay lip service. What has happened to that agricultural land reserve, which is so important? Do you know what it has turned out to be? A greenbelt reserve. That's all it is. There's no commitment. Again, these individuals stand proud and say: "Look how wonderful it is. The people in the Okanagan can go and wander in because the orchardist who owns ten or 20 acres of orchard must be very wealthy. He must be a capitalist; he must have oodles of money." Members from the government side can walk into the orchard and say: "I can take a box of apples. After all, there are lots there. This fellow must be very wealthy; look at all of the apples he's got." And there's more and more conflict.
The member doesn't even understand the conflict that is imposed on agricultural operations in the increasingly densely populated valleys, not just in the Okanagan but in the Fraser Valley. We can't start our sprayers up in the early morning, because it disturbs the people sleeping in their beds. We can't use the chemicals required to control pests, because we're concerned about toxic elements in the water supply and in the environment, and all of these wondrous things. The reality is that there are so many restrictions that we don't even have a right to farm. What we're asking for in the philosophy and principles of this legislation is more strength for the Agricultural Land Commission, more dominance, more influence and more bureaucracy to thwart the opportunity for agriculture in the province.
I have listened to some of the speakers, and certainly to the last one. First of all, the economics of it are exceedingly important, because if you don't preserve the farmer there is no point in preserving the land. If this government were concerned, they would make certain that the farmers could survive in this dual economy we are creating. When we talk about agricultural wages and the return to the farmers, they are very low compared to any other segment of the industry. An agricultural worker in an orchard or a field has to know a wide variety of things, but the farmer can't afford to pay that individual. If we had a job description for that individual and they worked for the provincial government, they would be getting at least $25 an hour plus benefits for what they have to know. The agricultural industry certainly
[ Page 11215 ]
can't pay that. They have to live in an economy where they are producing products that have to be competitive in the world market, and they have to produce them on an inflated internal cost. And the government is primarily responsible for those inflated costs.
When the government was elected they made a pledge to Okanagan orchardists to support them, and they gave them a bunch of money right after the election. They gave them half the money, and the other half was going to be invested in orchard upgrading and all sorts of wondrous things. I don't know that this has actually transpired, but the interesting thing is that they gave it with the one hand and they quickly took it back with the other. So there was a great deal of deception in that gift. The then Minister of Finance -- now the minister of all ministries in British Columbia -- took it back very quickly by increasing taxes on agricultural land by 6 percent for general taxes and 6 percent for school taxes. They quickly pulled back that money from all of the agricultural enterprises in British Columbia, because the tax on the land was increased substantially. So it wasn't a gift at all. They want to stand tall and proud, but on the other hand they have minimized and diminished the opportunity for economic viability in the province.
The previous speaker said we can't afford to squander agricultural land. Sounds great! Does that member own any agricultural land? Does that member try to produce a product under highly inflated input costs and then sell that product in the world market? No, the member doesn't own agricultural land. Does the member take into account the increasing technology that we have? Does the member understand that our problem is not underproduction, it's overproduction, and that the economics of it are such that the world marketplace can't afford to buy our products? When we talk about mining the soil -- the member did talk about natural nutrients being reduced in the soil, and I understand and appreciate that -- the reason is that we have gone to chemical fertilizers. Why? Because we have to produce more volume per acre. They are doing it in the Prairies. They are mining the soil, and they have to. Natural organisms have vanished. Economic demands.... It impacts on the type of machinery that agriculture has to use.
You folks have to get real. You want to sound altruistic, and you want to take a motherhood issue and say you stand tall and square, but you are ripping off a very important part of this province.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: That's right. You can't alter the fact.
The previous member spoke about the high cost of housing, saying we have lots of other land that is not in the agricultural land freeze. It's really interesting to hear that statement, because it's another statement that is fundamentally untrue. What the member is saying is that we've already alienated natural land for agricultural purposes. It wasn't cleared before we came. The greatest environmental threat anywhere in the world, let alone in British Columbia, is deforestation.
The other thing that we're doing with this really limited scope of vision is forcing development -- and I'll speak about the Okanagan, because I am most familiar with what is happening there -- away from the valley floor into the upper elevations. "Fine," say the member and the government. It just costs the developer more for water and sewer systems and for running phones and hydro up there; that's not a big cost. But it isn't the developer who has to bear the cost; ultimately it's the consumer. That's one side of the picture. But what about the other side of the picture, and all of these people who are so altruistic and concerned about the environment? We're impacting on a very limited winter range for ungulates in British Columbia. Do we care about that? We pay lip service, but we really don't care about it because we're talking about agricultural land.
[11:30]
We have this tremendous area of plateau land where we can support a strong ungulate population -- deer, moose and elk -- but we don't have that winter range because we're being forced to encroach more and more. What happens when that occurs? The problem of conflict between agriculture and wild animals occurs again. Certainly we hear a great deal about it. It's a tremendous cost to the orchardists in the Okanagan. Does this government do anything to mitigate it? Has this government initiated any extensive fencing to try to protect against that? No, they haven't. They just pulled back and said: "We have to protect agricultural land." Folks, you're creating far more problems than you think you're solving. The reality is that with agricultural technology advancing, we don't need all of this land -- and if we need the land, I can assure you that we can pull back the pavement and knock down the buildings. They have done it and they have fed themselves. Well, look at the horrified look on the face of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon!
In any event, if the public were to understand the challenges of the farmer, I would say this: if the government is really concerned about agricultural production in British Columbia, then it would say that each homeowner owning a lot larger than 8,000 square feet must plant a garden, and the surplus....
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!
C. Serwa: Thank you very much. It's nice to see that there is at least one intelligent individual on the government side today.
The fact remains that if they are forced to produce, then they will more readily understand and appreciate the challenges that the farmer faces -- yes, indeed. This is important. It's like men speaking on the abortion issue; we will never stand in the shoes of women, and we can never truly understand that particular issue. It's the same thing as non-farmers talking about the agricultural land freeze and making it sound altruistic.
An Hon. Member: Are you a farmer?
C. Serwa: Yes, as a matter of fact I am. I farm hay, grain and cattle, so I've got a basic understanding. It is the most frustrating enterprise that I have ever been in. As a matter of fact, it's the one enterprise where you can do everything right, produce a perfect product.... You can control to the best of your ability everything you want to, including costs, but you have no hand in the ultimate market price and can lose your shirt on it in spite of doing a good job.
If more people were forced to grow products and to understand the amount of work and time that goes into it, not only could we ensure agricultural production but we could ensure a more relevant understanding. Rather than this desire for greenbelt legislation, as the former Minister of Agriculture alluded to.... The member for Okanagan-Boundary said it many times. Rather than referring to the agricultural capability, the member spoke of the greenbelt legislation. That's what it has become.
I think those who own agricultural land should have a greater opportunity. The communities that are surrounded.... Kelowna is an example of an expanding
[ Page 11216 ]
community being forced into the upper elevations, simply because of this legislation -- which I don't think is very bright to start with.
Certainly the extensive powers that have been given.... First of all, the agricultural land reserve was only made to create and recognize the difference between agricultural and non-agricultural land capabilities. That particular bureaucracy has continued to expand their mandate. If they release land from the agricultural land reserve, they state the purposes it can be used for. It's a bureaucracy that's gone absolutely wild. This particular bill and its philosophy and principles only encourages that. It is centralization. It doesn't give the communities what they should have: an opportunity to develop their own planning and zoning and to handle their own growth. In the initial legislation this government brought in, for example, golf courses were an allowed use of agricultural land. But all of a sudden -- with this new, enlightened government of the current day -- that was tossed out. It was very controversial, except that one in a member's riding in Kamloops was certainly let in.
If we require the agricultural land, I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that we will get the production out of the agricultural land. If we create a situation where the market forces play, then the public will respect the requirement for the economic viability of the farmer. If we fail to do that, no amount of legislation is going to protect agricultural land. We have to protect the farmers on that land, and their work has to be valued by society. But it is not valued by society.
In most parts of Europe, agricultural land has a high value. In representing a lift manufacturer from Austria many years ago -- it was in the late sixties -- I learned that agricultural land there was valued at about $90,000 per hectare. How do we value agricultural land capability here? In the Okanagan, if capable agricultural land were truly valued on the basis of production so that it could be economically viable, you'd probably be looking at $5,000 to $8,000 per acre for the right variety of apples. The market is paying probably $15,000 to $30,000, and that land is being bought by fairly well-off people who are buying a place and an opportunity for a good homesite. But the reality is that agricultural land that has come out in Glenmore Valley is selling for $100,000-plus an acre, because society has developed its own assessment of the value of agricultural land. Society, collectively -- not government, not you or I, hon. member -- is saying that it's not valuing agricultural land, because it does not produce adequate revenue for the time and effort and capital invested in production. When you are creating a situation that is going to be more aggressive, much harsher on those who own agricultural land, and centrally dominated by a bureaucracy that has no relevancy to the actual requirement to produce a living on agricultural land, crafting legislation to strengthen its hand and trying to make it sound altruistic is taking advantage of many people in British Columbia.
We've covered a number of areas, and I hope that the members of government, if they are objective and realistic and if their concerns are truly to represent the public interest, would be far more conservative -- if you can pardon the expression -- in their approach to this matter. Local communities have to be recognized for the ability of local elected officials to make decisions for the expansion of those communities.
British Columbia is a very attractive province and over the years has been made very attractive for migration of other Canadians into it. It's the most desired destination in all of Canada, and many people from the United States and other countries in the world continue to come here, regardless of the types of controls. You can't put up a fence. We will have natural population increases, other people will continue to come into this area, and we will have more and more pressure. The thinking has to be realistic. There should be an appeal process, for example, where we can appeal to elected officials rather than through a board. I know the government is thinking, and is going to say: "Well, it's not us; they done it." But the board has been set up, and it represents socialist philosophy.
We will see a dwindling of land and a move from production to fallow. That is happening in the Okanagan: more and more orchards are being cut down and not replanted. The land is still agricultural and it's still used; it probably grows forage and cattle are pastured on it, or perhaps alfalfa is put up. But the actual productivity for the highest and best agricultural use has been nullified by the dual economy in the province. The farmers simply cannot get the return for their final product, they cannot afford to pay better wages, and the government sits there, very much immune to something that they speak so highly and supportively of. They have simply backed away from their responsibility.
This legislation will only increase the unfairness that exists in the province. If this government had any intestinal fortitude, and any commitment to agriculture, they would make certain that the Ministry of Agriculture gets proper funding and financing -- and it is being diminished year after year under this government. It doesn't show much leadership. It doesn't show any commitment to agriculture in British Columbia.
The support programs in the province have vanished. "Stand on your own" is the word of this government, which is meanwhile creating a situation which makes it untenable to continue. So now optimum productivity is really almost minimal productivity on agricultural land, because you can't afford the input costs to produce premium-quality products. The marketplace is very competitive. If we want the agricultural industry to continue in British Columbia, we have to recognize that we're going to have to support that industry. They do it in Japan. The government has made a strong commitment to the agricultural industry -- not a hypocritical commitment but a real commitment. I haven't seen any commitment on the part of this government toward agriculture -- no strong commitment at all. Yes, the words are mouthed, but there is not a shred of evidence of any deeds. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in talking about it.
I would like to see a strong, sincere commitment to agriculture from this government. Don't simply say that we're preserving the land for the unborn generations of the future. I've talked about technology, and I've talked about productivity, and the fact remains that we don't require that. If they were sincerely concerned about it, the government would buy agricultural land. All of the members of this Legislature who spoke so long and were so supportive of the agricultural land policies would buy land and donate it to the government for agricultural land use in perpetuity. But none of them are doing it.
This is a hollow bill. The philosophy and principles are to encourage the centralization of power and more dominance and influence on the hard-working people who farm in the province. I would be ashamed of putting more of a burden on them.
T. Perry: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 11217 ]
T. Perry: I'd like to introduce to members of the House students from the Vancouver Talmud Torah school, in my riding of Vancouver-Little Mountain, and their teacher Mr. Bauer. There are two groups, one of which I think is with us in the House now. They've had an excellent tour and are looking forward to enjoying some of the other pleasures of Victoria as well as this scintillating debate. Would members please make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Does the member continue with another introduction?
T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I'd like about 30 seconds to speak to this bill, if the member would yield to me.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed.
T. Perry: I'm going to vote for Bill 30, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994. I want my young constituents to know that I think it's very important that we preserve the agricultural land reserve.
What the member for Okanagan West said is true. Market forces would have destroyed much, if not all, of our agricultural land in this province -- in the Okanagan Valley and in parts of the Fraser Valley -- if society did not take steps to preserve them. The young people who've been observing the debate realize that they will have to eat in the future. They can't always rely on the rest of the world to export the food that we import. It's important that we preserve the ability to grow food in our own province.
I'd like to say before I sit down that I agree with the hon. member, although I don't agree with his doctrine of Social Credit state socialism that people should be forced to grow food in their yards. I think they should be strongly encouraged to do so. I'd invite him to visit my garden anytime he likes. I think all people should be growing vegetable gardens, grapes, fruit trees and anything they possibly can grow. It adds oxygen to the air, it beautifies the neighbourhood, and it produces healthful fruits and vegetables for us to eat -- but I don't believe in forcing people the way the Social Credit Party does.
L. Krog: To everything there is a season. The birds know it, farmers certainly know it, and we here in the Legislature know it as well. I must say the announcement of night sittings has clearly brought the silly season upon us.
I could not resist rising to speak to this matter after listening to the member for Okanagan West, who, like the dinosaur party that he still represents, has managed to articulate views that have no reference to forward-looking people in this province. The state of California has been a net importer of food for a number of years. What does that tell us? It tells us that agricultural land is disappearing around the planet and that all the technology in the world will not begin to meet the food requirements of the millions of people born each year around the world.
[11:45]
What the government of Dave Barrett did in 1972 to 1975 was pass one of the most farsighted, progressive pieces of legislation in any democracy on the face of the planet. What it said was that there will be no agriculture without a land base, just as this government has said there will be no forest industry without a forest base. Maybe economic factors right now dictate that its better to create more condos instead of maintaining fruit trees in the Okanagan. But when we are desperate for food in this province 20 and 30 years from now, because the capacity of the planet to provide it isn't there anymore, and we can't import or won't be able to pay for it, people will look back on this government and its desire to enhance and protect farmland as being farsighted -- exactly as I said the government of Mr. Barrett was. The member can talk about giving power to regional districts, local politicians and everything else, but unless we preserve that land base -- and these amendments are directed at enhancing the power of the Agricultural Land Commission -- we will face disaster, if not in our lifetime, then in the lifetime of our children or grandchildren.
The minister is to be commended for bringing in this legislation. I strongly suggest that the opposition members who have articulated their views on this bill should look to the future for once, instead of simply relying on the dear old market principle that everything will work out and that if people don't collectively say today, through the capacity of the marketplace, that they want to preserve it, then we should let it go. That would be silly. It would be an abandonment of this government's responsibility not only to the people living in this province today but to those who will live here for future generations. I commend the minister for bringing this forward, and I condemn the opposition for their ridiculous attack on one of the best pieces of legislation this province has ever seen.
M. Farnworth: The ghost of Richard Nixon must be smiling down on the leader of the Social Credit Party today, because he's obviously found a new caped crusader for anti-communism. All I could think of when the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party talked about the theft of development rights, in his diatribe against this piece of legislation, was the fact that the real estate industry might have been a slight bit inconvenienced some 20 years ago when this government brought in a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
As the hon. member asked, why, in their 17 years in power, when that legislation was there, did they not scrap it if it was so evil and so confiscatory? The leader of the Social Credit Party never did comment on that. Why did they leave it in place? Because it worked. The biggest threat to agriculture in this province comes from the development of agricultural lands. It comes from piecemeal sprawl and the sustained attack on the integrity of agricultural lands. Houses belong on the hillsides, not on agricultural land that could be used to produce food. The only people who want the houses on the farmland are the leader of the Social Credit Party and his developer friends, because it's easy to build roads, lay sewers and put water pipes on flat land, but it's not very easy to take a tractor up the side of a mountain.
This is a good piece of legislation. It has the support of a great many municipalities in this province. One day, in 30 or 40 years, the leader of the Social Credit Party may come to appreciate it like the predecessors of his party still appreciate it. This is a piece of legislation that deserves the support of this House, and I'm sure that it will get majority support -- with or without the leader of the Social Credit Party.
Seeing the lateness of the hour, I move adjournment of this debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Marzari moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
[ Page 11218 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:17 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $392,165 (continued).
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, I want to present to the member for Vancouver-Langara a document I promised, entitled When the Bough Breaks. It deals with the child and youth committee and some of its interesting reports.
The Chair: The document has been passed over to him.
V. Anderson: I want to start this morning with a report I heard yesterday on the news that the minister had made an announcement about a youth apprenticeship program. I want to ask for some information about that.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm glad I got credit for that, because it was the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour who announced it, but I was there with him. Let me describe it to you because it is important.
We were at New Westminster Secondary School yesterday. The high school, in conjunction with the Meat Cutters' Union, our ministry and the Ministry of Education, is looking at putting together what is called the Discovery to Apprenticeship program, whereby people between the ages of 17 and 24 will have access to eight months of training. These are people who have previously severed their ties with school. There are trades shops sitting idle in the New Westminster high school. The union is working with Canada employment centres and our ministry to come up with unemployed people -- half of whom will be on social assistance and between the ages of 17 and 24 -- to be introduced to a wide range of apprenticeships through these shops. The program will also involve a component of work experience. At the end of the eight-month program, they will be eligible to enter an apprenticeship program. For the first time ever, social assistance clients will have access to apprenticeship training. So it's really quite exciting.
V. Anderson: Perhaps this is an opportunity to preview again with the minister the auto service training and employment project headed by David Dranchuk. I was talking to David, and he tells me he now has a garage which is a very excellent facility. He's waiting for a positive response from this ministry, which he hopes will come this week. I just highlight and affirm this because they would like to get on with it. It is interesting that there are applicants coming from referrals even before the program is underway, so he has lots of applicants. He's also very excited about the areas from which the referrals are coming. He's ready to go and just needs the go-ahead from the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and your ministry. I hope that will be affirmed at the meeting later this week. I want to highly recommend that program and that possibility; I know we've discussed it before.
I would like to follow along the same discussion. A press release on May 11 stated: "Skills Now Provides Funding of More Than $400,000 For Nine B.C. Secondary School Pilot Projects." It talks about the kind of cooperation between Social Services and Skills, Training and Labour. Let me quote this part: "Funding for these programs is part of B.C.'s Skills Now plan, a program funded jointly with the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and the Ministry of Social Services."
Can you tell me how much the Ministry of Social Services will be putting into that program? The press release is vague; it talks about $200 million to make skills training available in high schools in one paragraph and then about another $200 million in the next paragraph. It talks about $400 million in another place and then about $20 million for K to 12, of which $5 million will be available at the moment. It's uncertain about who's doing what or what really is happening in the funding, so I was interested about the participation of Social Services.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I look forward to discussion of this through the estimates of Skills, Training and Labour as well. Let me make some general comments about our participation in some of these skills initiatives.
In an incentive program, we provide GAIN recipients with an allowance to allow them to participate in the work experience. People stay in this incentive program for 12 months. The allowances are up to $50 a month for a single recipient and $100 for a recipient with dependents. We also provide a clothes allowance during this period of participation. That's our general participation. Then we have a major participation in referring clients to programs. Our rehabilitation officers, who eventually will become part of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, make sure that clients get referred to and participate in these programs. We also have a one-time transportation allowance for people to carry out a local job search or to attend job interviews. Then there may be a monthly work transportation allowance to assist people after they get employment. That is for the first 12 months of transition to the job.
V. Anderson: Relating these two programs, the auto service training project with the one you're talking about here, does the auto service training project have the same incentive allowances for participants? I understand it's a six-month program. There will be ten people in it at a time, and it has a qualified advisory council of trained commercial people who will help with the program and with job entry from the program.
Hon. J. MacPhail: If Skills, Training and Labour funds the program -- and believe you me, I'm as an enthusiastic a supporter of it as you are, especially since it's the same father who gave birth to the Picasso Cafe -- then we would support our clients who participate in the program in whatever way would make for the most success. That could include -- not necessarily, but could -- the incentive programs I have outlined.
V. Anderson: So there isn't a specific amount that the Ministry of Social Services.... Going back to the press release where it talks about the $200 million, is Social Services contributing a specific amount to that $200 million?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I appreciate these discussions, but a lot of it has to do with Skills, Training and Labour, so it's very difficult for me to answer. But let me reassure you that of the $200 million that the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour has targeted for the Skills Now initiative, $78
[ Page 11219 ]
million over two years is specifically for people who are currently on income assistance. After clients are approved for participation in the Skills Now initiative, we will then look within our own resources to see how we can ensure our clients' success in the transition with the incentive programs I have outlined for you.
V. Anderson: I would move to another area. Last year in the Social Services estimates, one of the discussions we had was over the number of employees and the number of clients that each financial aid worker or social worker had in the field; the average was fairly high at that particular point. Can you tell me what the average is at this particular time?
While you're looking that up, I'll add a couple of questions. First, what consequences has the transfer of people into the fraud investigation units of the ministry had for front-line workers? Second, there was, as I recall, a promise during last year's estimates that up to 200 new workers would be going on to the front line. I'm wondering how many new persons have gone there to ease the load. Even at that time, we weren't contemplating the increase in front-line demand which has taken place over the year.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We actually have that caseload information readily available, but it's not on our books, so we may have to take it on notice for later today.
Let me describe to you the investment we made in the area of enforcement and compliance, and what effect that is having on the front line. During the '93-94 fiscal year, we conducted round tables with our staff. Over 1,000 staff were approached for their input on the best way to deliver our services effectively within the constraints available. Many of the suggestions on combatting fraud abuse came from the front-line staff. Eight or nine of their top ten concerns appeared on our list of initiatives. When we took action on these and implemented many of the staff suggestions, there was very positive feedback from the front line because of what it means in terms of their voices being heard, having input in the system and being able to do their jobs in the most effective way possible.
[10:30]
The information through our internal communications system called Office Vision is anecdotal, but it is substantial. As I alluded to earlier, we have had reports back from the front-line staff that many of the initiatives are having a deterrent effect on potential abusers. Financial assistance workers are therefore not being met with the same kind of pressure on security deposits, for instance, and guidelines are much clearer on what they do under lost and stolen cheque procedures. The news from the front line is actually very positive. With our increased resources in the area of enforcement and compliance, which is our fraud investigation, the financial assistance workers have greater numbers of people to refer their suspicions to or to merely seek advice from.
We have the special investigations unit and an increased number of assistants to the fraud investigators. You'll note that we have put ministry investigative assistants in place; those are financial assistance workers who have a great deal of experience on the front line, understand the sensitivities of different client needs and have a record of understanding where fraud may lie. They have now been promoted to the level of investigator assistants, and they assist the investigators with what it is really like on the front lines in the dilemma.
Let me tell you what the staff increases have been in 1993-94: 135 more financial assistance workers who are actually FTEs working on the line, 97 more administrative support workers and 16 more rehabilitation officers who deal with the clients' transition to the workforce. On the family and child services side, there are 35 more social workers; and in services to the mentally handicapped, there are 11 more social workers.
V. Anderson: It's helpful not only to get a picture of the increase in the number of workers, but also a sense of where those workers are situated.
Moving to a letter which has to do with the appeal process, because that's a general concern, the minister has indicated that the appeal process is under review. In my own experience it is very fair, just and highly respected by the people of the community. I have a copy of the letter the minister received from Active Support Against Poverty in Prince George. They express very strongly that the appeal process is very well respected at the present time, that it works, that it is fair and just, and that it is low cost because of the involvement of so many volunteers in undertaking the appeal process.
I want to express my concern as well as that voiced in the Active Support Against Poverty letter that the review of the appeal process should maintain all the good qualities of the present process. The only complaint against the appeal process is that often the people who are in need of it haven't heard about it; the communication hasn't got to them. Once they are in the appeal process, sometimes it takes longer than it should according to its regulations. When it's operating properly, the process has a very positive record, and trust in that process is very high. When there isn't much trust in anything else in the system, it seems to me that there is so much trust speaks very well for it on behalf of the people who have made use of it generally under very trying and difficult circumstances. I'm wondering if you might comment about the appeal process.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I've indicated, we are reviewing the appeal process to identify concerns with the current system. We'll do that by analyzing feedback from clients, advocacy groups, tribunal members, ministry staff, my own minister's advisory council and the ombudsman's office. We'll compare the current appeal system with that in other provinces and jurisdictions. That review will make recommendations to the ministry's executive and to me regarding possible improvements to the appeal process.
We're aiming to improve the appeal process. I understand that everyone has rather strongly held views about the appeal system. There are weaknesses, though, in the inconsistency of the appeal process across the province. If a client lives in a particular area and has less access to advocacy resources or to tribunal volunteer members who are able to hear the appeal, that client is worse off than, for instance, someone who resides in the lower mainland.
We are absolutely committed to having community representation in the process. We are committed to continuing and enhancing our communications to clients about the appeal process. We know it's not a matter of throwing out the baby with the bath water, but if we change some aspects of the process, I don't think there would be any disagreement from all users of the system. Of course, the Canada Assistance Plan requires an appeal process, and we live very rigorously by the rules set out by CAP. At the end of the day, the system has to be fair and effective for everyone, and that includes clients, ministry staff, advocates and taxpayers.
[ Page 11220 ]
V. Anderson: I think it's unfortunate that the appeal process review came up in almost the same context as the question of fraud and also of a couple of decisions that got fairly high publicity, because a connotation of the appeal process was that it existed to protect the ministry and the government, rather than to protect clients. That's the context in which some concern is being expressed at the moment.
I'm interested in having advocates, because some of the letters we've received are from people in smaller areas in the province who stress the validity of the appeal process, not just for the lower mainland but other areas of the province. In getting community input into the appeal process, I would recommend to the minister that the need for volunteers and others be made known to the community at large. From my own personal experience, I know there are many people in religious communities and in communities with developmental concerns -- for example, in the area of education -- who would be happy to be involved in this process if they were aware of it and who could provide very useful input.
In looking at how the appeal process is made known, I encourage the minister to make more effort in getting the message out to the community that in helping others, volunteers themselves gain a great deal of education and understanding of what's being done.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there's no question that there is a dearth of volunteers. Recruiting them is difficult, so the hon. member's point is well taken.
V. Anderson: I found interesting, on going through the phone book recently, the different listings for community support services, multiculturalism and health. One very important area in education not represented is the need for a department to look after the whole education of children from the point of view of Social Services, since so much of what this ministry deals with is the education of children at different stages in their lives. One area that deals with health concerns does its own planning within the ministry and cooperates with Health. Another area deals with multiculturalism, and there is a committee in your ministry that deals with multiculturalism. I wonder about a similar area dealing with education that would do planning and coordination with your ministry. Your ministry deals with people at all stages of life. Education is fundamental in growth, job training, independence, even the health of seniors, and touches all the ministries. The educational function seems to be important in relating to health, multiculturalism and the other areas.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The reason why we have a health division is because our clients require direct health services. Earlier in these estimates I reviewed with the hon. member our involvement in a child's life throughout the education system. We can certainly refer to the Hansard record on that.
V. Anderson: We also touched briefly on the involvement of the ministry with community social planning groups. I wonder if we might revisit that for a moment. It seems to me that communities are beginning to focus on social planning, and the government is encouraging that in a variety of capacities. I wonder what measures the ministry is taking to work with municipal councils on community planning, physical planning and social planning. What is the ministry's participation with municipalities and the provincial municipal associations in that process?
Hon. J. MacPhail: As I said earlier about this issue, because our ministry is so decentralized, it naturally participates in community planning. We sometimes do it directly with municipal councils. Where social planning doesn't exist at the municipal level, it is spearheaded by us. A good example of that is Kelowna, where we now have a community advisory committee on the issues of social planning; that was spearheaded by us. I was in New Westminster yesterday. A community economic development council there works closely with our ministry, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour to promote community economic development.
[10:45]
V. Anderson: I'd like to move back to the blue book to follow through on the area of program management for families and children's services. I notice a fairly sizable increase in financial involvement. I wonder if the minister might comment on what new thrusts have been developed in the area of program management, families and children's services. Have some areas now been down played or dropped from the focus of the ministry?
Hon. J. MacPhail: You're dealing with the program management services for family and children, where the restated estimates were $99.48 million, and they've been increased to $104.87 million -- just so we're on the same line, literally, okay?
This is the second year we've actually broken out the salary administrators, who are sort of the people administration for program delivery. It used to be that it was all lumped together, but we wanted to be fair and show you the costs for the human element as opposed to the service delivery element. The substantial portion of the increases arises from the negotiated salary increase for our unionized employees and from substantial changes to systems and telecommunications. The latter were done to shore up our ability to communicate between offices in regard to files and cases.
V. Anderson: Yes, there's just over a $5 million increase in that particular line, and if you look at family support services, there was a $6 million-plus increase in the second line.
When we talk about the increase in funds to Social Services, one question that comes up is whether the increase in management, administration and staffing is of direct service to the people themselves. I'm wondering about the distinction between the building-up, if you like, of the bureaucracy, even though the changes make the bureaucracy more efficient, as opposed to the actual production of services. Between the two, there is almost $12 million involved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll take the question in two parts. First, are we just hiring more bureaucrats to sit in Victoria? Definitely, the answer is no. Let me reassure you that some of it appears as an adjustment because we adjusted the way we actually broke out, or identified, salary costs. But again, those adjustments are not an increase in the hiring of staff. In fact, you'll see that we have 83 fewer FTEs than last year. There are negotiated benefit pressures on the people who work directly for us, so that's the increase to program management.
Second, the increase to family support services, which again is $6.39 million, is good news because it's all contracted services. We don't get the ability to say who hires whom. These are community agencies that deliver services directly
[ Page 11221 ]
to clients. One example of new, extra programming in this area is the family preservation program. We have five programs operating across the province. Social workers work directly with a family in the home -- living, breathing, day and night, in order to assist the family in crisis prevention and perhaps also prevent the children being removed from the home. It's very successful. The other areas of family support services that have had an increase in funding are the areas of respite care, homemaker services, services to teens and a parent-training program -- but again, they're contracted agencies. Those are just some of the examples. There's a much greater range, though.
V. Anderson: The minister might perhaps comment on that area and on youth services, which are in the area as well. That seems to be a major concern for youths who are leaving home. These are the young people we hear about who are on the streets; they have education and training and aren't able to get jobs. There's a whole area of youth between family support and adulthood where they're self-supporting, an area totally in-between where the ministry is involved with people. You might make some comment about whether there are new directions about this kind of concern.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is an excellent area to explore. We have increased our funding by about 7 percent in the area of services to youth. Let me give you an example of some of the services we provide.
There's the Reconnect program in Vancouver. I'm sure you're well aware of it; it is excellent. It's designed to assist kids who are on the street now in reconnecting with their families and, if they don't necessarily reconnect with their families, then it leads them off the streets into healthier lifestyles.
The rehabilitation resources program provides behavioral management and counselling for students and their families to assist them in re-entering the education system. The mediation services program is a pilot project providing mediation services to youth who are in conflict with their families. It has only newly become a topic of interest, but it's been around a long time as parent-teen conflict emerges as the baby-boom generation's children become teenagers.
Services to former permanent youth in care is a program in which we provide financial assistance to people who are between the ages of 19 and 21 and who were children in care. We were their as guardians, and that program is to assist them in their transition to independent living. There are also the youth-in-care organizations and the support groups we fund, such as the B.C. Youth In Care Network, which we have talked about before.
We also do some consultation with youths who are currently in care and those who were formerly in care with us, and we pay them to participate in that consultation.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the new programs in new areas that are in the process of developing. Is there an interministerial committee on youth between the different ministries of government? Are there conversations with youth groups, such as the Youth Parliament? It is unfortunate that the B.C. Youth Council was cancelled a year ago. Is there a process whereby the youth of the province are involved with the government in interministerial areas? Your ministry touches so many of these youth that youth working with youth could do far more than just us working with them on their behalf. Is there a program that interconnects interministerially and between government and community youth for building networks of support?
Hon. J. MacPhail: There are two interministerial committees that will be of interest. One is the Interministery Committee on Youth Services to coordinate programs and proposals pertaining to youth. Before our participation in that committee, we consult youth. I can't speak for other ministries, but youth certainly have a direct line of communication in there.
We talked earlier about the child and youth secretariat, which is an interministerial group drawn from Attorney General, Health, Education and Social Services. That is proving to be an ever-increasingly effective interministerial committee that makes sure our programs are being delivered in a cohesive fashion and in a way that changes the lives of children and youth. It had a slow start in the late eighties and early nineties, but it is becoming very effective.
V. Anderson: Is there a list available of interministerial committees that one can secure to be aware of the kinds of things that are happening between committees? Are the reports from these committees available to ourselves or to the public so we could become aware of what's happening here and the public could interact with and feed into them?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We can try and get you a list; it's actually a good idea. Also, making reports depends on the committee. If the issue is about you having a chance to have input into it, we can certainly arrange for that. I'd be more than happy to assist in that on any interministerial committees.
V. Anderson: It was partly an issue of our being aware and being able to impact with them. Also, community youth groups, which I participate with from time to time, want to be aware of these youth planning parts of government so they can interact with them and say: "We would like to cooperate" or "We have a project. Can we...?" What's important is how the youth groups themselves around the province interact with, say, the youth councils and the Youth Parliament when they meet here at Christmastime. I think they would like to know how they could be part of that. Interaction would be helpful, enabling them perhaps to contribute and to get resources but mainly to cooperate in ongoing undertakings. It's that kind of credibility that is needed, because there are a lot of youth involved in overseas developmental programs at the moment who, I'm sure, would be equally involved in local program development, given the opportunity.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I take the point from the hon. member. There was a youth newsletter; I remember reading it as an MLA. We do try to communicate with other youth groups, but the point is well taken that you can never talk to them too much or never give them enough information.
Let me just give the hon. member the caseload ratio for financial assistance workers. By December '93, with the addition of the 135 FAWs that I talked about, the average number of cases per FAW was 260. A year earlier, in December '92, the average had been 277 cases per worker. At the same time as the caseload was increasing 11 percent, individual FAW cases dropped by 17 cases per month, so that's good news for the staff and clients.
V. Anderson: It's good news in one way, but I know the former minister had hoped to get it down somewhere around 240, at least as a starting point.
[ Page 11222 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, you're right. We're at least going in the right direction.
V. Anderson: You're going in the right direction, but you've got a ways to go yet.
On support services for families, have there been any new initiatives in supporting families and developing their own mutual, self-help groups? What kind of support is being given in the focus on families to enable them to develop their own kind of mutual, self-help programs?
[11:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We talked last week about the UVic project, which is very much supporting parents in their homes. It's very client-driven and client-centred.
Let me give you another couple of examples, because I agree that the best way to assist families is to give them the strength to assist themselves. Some programs we assist in are the parent mutual aid organizations; the family resource centres, which have arisen out of the UVic project; and other self-help groups under the social support enhancement services, which deal with organizations or individuals whose goal is to develop social support networks for families who are socially isolated. We've increased our funding to meet the needs of these ever-expanding self-help organizations.
When I met with the Parents for the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children group out in the tri-cities area, they were very interested in some successes we had had through funding parent-aid organizations on the North Shore. Our ministry managed to put those two groups together to see how much self-help could be developed between them.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I could ask the minister about two sets of groups: the two-parent family, which has double support in the family and therefore a little more flexibility to be involved in community groups and family agencies, as opposed to the single-parent family, which has much more limited time to be involved because of work and other factors. These are two groups. In your family services programs, what is being given to support the two-parent family and what, on the other hand, to support the one-parent family?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, if a single parent shows up for one of our programs set up for two-parent families -- for instance, Parent-Teen -- we're okay with that as well. Our programs tend to be designated for single-parent families, but if two-parent families want to join in on those services, that's absolutely fine.
Let me give you some examples of parenting services we fund. I mentioned before the Nobody's Perfect program, which is delivered through our community centres and is a joint project of our ministry and the Ministry of Health. It's for parents newly arrived to or emerging into the mainstream culture of Canada and is about how to proactively parent in the new circumstances. We also have Project Parent programs for either single-parent or two-parent families, which is very much a life-skills training matter for parents.
As I mentioned last week, we have a whole range of services to assist single parents in tough times, such as respite care, in which someone else looks after the kids for awhile; and homemaker services, whereby someone can go in and assist a single parent in managing the household. The single parent who needs a lot of support is the teen mom, and we talked about support directly to teen moms. We also give direct financial assistance to single parents to make sure that the parent who is not with the children supports them through the family maintenance program.
We also give support to parents who are making the transition from welfare to employment in terms of extra assistance for transportation and child care.
V. Anderson: One area that I find has become more prevalent -- it's always been there, but because of economic circumstances the process has become different -- are couples or single parents who are caring for their parents. Instead of caring for children, it's the other way around, with a family's adults caring for their parents and trying to keep them and to look after them in their homes. So they have become a dependent part of the household. Is there a program which recognizes this shift to parents caring for grandparents, if you like?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, there is. Adult day care programs come under the authority of the Ministry of Health. We'll have an opportunity to discuss that with the Minister of Health.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we could move into child-in-care services. I'm interested that this has increased about half as much as family support. Maybe that's relevant when you take into account the number of people, because family support also cares for children. You might indicate to us the change in focus in child-in-care services, which is just about a $3 million difference. I'm interested in the finances and the shift from older programs.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The main increase provides an additional 20 beds of staffed, highly specialized residential resources for violent youth -- young sexual offenders and youth with psychotic problems whose needs can't be met by parents or through other community resources like the foster parents system. Fewer kids are coming into care, but they are kids with much tougher problems, and they require much more highly specialized care. So while there's not necessarily an increased number of kids, which is good news, we need extra resources for the severely damaged kids who do come into the system.
V. Anderson: Perhaps there's interministry cooperation in this area. The other day I was asked about a youngster aged 11 whom the family was not able to control and who was continually abusing himself and the correctional system. In this regard there seems to be more youngsters being brought to the fore, yet there is no place for them to get protective or in-custody care, depending on what word you want to use, where there is also concern for their development. They must not just be protected from society, but they must have an opportunity to grow and to have resources which their parents would not normally have.
Would the minister indicate how many beds we currently have? Talking about an extra 20 beds, is that up to 20 from the previous ten? Is this in cooperation, particularly with Corrections?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Our ministry doesn't provide a lockup or a secure containment facility for children who are out of control, but we do provide 24-hour child care for difficult children. The 20 new beds will be in addition to current services for children.
V. Anderson: The other day I noticed in a press release that the ministry is taking over the care of students who live
[ Page 11223 ]
in and go to the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on the reasons for this takeover by Social Services and how it will relate to the educational program for those children.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was a very tragic situation that deaf children had abusive situations foisted upon them at Jericho Hill School for the Deaf. To ensure that these problems do not occur again and that past wrongs were rectified, our government had to ensure that kids from all over the province could leave their homes for five days a week and reside safely away from their parents.
What's the best model for ensuring the safety and well-being of children? Everyone came to the conclusion that our ministry has the greatest area of expertise in ensuring the safety and comfort of children away from their parents. In many circumstances that's because the parents can't parent, but these circumstances are no different; they're away from their parents. We have taken on the responsibility. This fall, in keeping with the ombudsman's recommendation in 1992, the responsibility for deaf students in residence has been transferred from the Ministry of Education to our ministry.
We are now working with parents, staff and the deaf community to decide what kind of residence should be available to the children. We're looking at getting them as close as possible to their elementary and secondary schools in Burnaby. We think we'll be able to have the children reside very close to the schools. Since they still live in residences at Jericho Hill, the children right now are on buses for up to an hour each way. This is unacceptable for little tykes of six and seven, and this will be the last school year that this happens. This is good news; it's kind of exciting.
I met with the deaf women's community organization. A great deal of interest has been taken by these women in ensuring that residences for the deaf are proper and that they maintain the deaf culture. There is a lot of interest from the community itself in how the residences get up and running.
V. Anderson: I have a particular interest there, because I have a daughter who is a teaching associate in the Jericho School in Vancouver and is now in the Burnaby school. She's on parental leave at the moment, which is also very enjoyable. She works with the younger children there, so I'm particularly interested. Could the residence be moved to the Burnaby area? l couldn't help commenting, coming from the Prairies where most of the kids who go to school travel by bus all the time. Many of the kids here choose to travel by bus because they want to get to school. So the experience of travelling by bus isn't totally negative. It's a lifestyle of its own if properly done and you have some unique bus drivers who can provide a supportive culture for children.
When prairie kids had to travel, some of the parents were very concerned about them having to be on a bus for three-quarters of an hour or an hour. One of the older grandfathers who happened to be at the meeting said very bluntly: "I would prefer to have my kids on the bus for an hour rather than on the sleigh all by themselves when it's 20 below and the wind is blowing at 40 miles an hour." So it's all relative to what you're thinking about at the particular time.
[11:15]
Perhaps its time to ask what is happening in the area of foster care at this point. Is it still difficult to find foster parents? Is there a shortage of foster parents? I know there's ongoing discussion about the organization of care and the regulation of the foster parents involved. There has also been some discussion between foster parents and the ministry about this whole process. There needs to be recognition of some foster parents who have been very able over a number of years but have been disqualified by the regulations that have been introduced. So there is concern about foster care. The history that many students have had in foster care has not been positive in their whole development.
Hon. J. MacPhail: As the hon. member is probably aware, about two years ago, in 1990, we reorganized the level of foster care homes to have three levels and restricted family care homes as well. We anticipate a consistent demand for foster care services. There were approximately 3,300 beds last year, and the same number is anticipated this year. However, funding is increased in that area. Recruiting foster parents is an ongoing concern; any assistance that can be offered to rectify this problem will be welcomed. Perhaps we should -- I haven't talked to my staff about this -- look at the system and talk about our recruiting problems.
I had an interesting discussion in my own riding where an inner-city community centre is starting a foster parenting program supported by our ministry to recruit what wouldn't be the average -- in the old days -- middle-class family to offer foster care. It's very exciting. It's Ray-Cam community centre, which is on the leading edge of a lot of issues. They're working with our ministry staff to recruit more foster parents in the community; it's working and proving very meaningful for kids. If they have to leave their parents for a period of time, it doesn't mean that they have to leave for their entire lives. We're also looking at outreach to the multicultural community for foster parenting homes in various ethnic homes, as well.
V. Anderson: Just a comment. I appreciate what's gone on in Ray-Cam. I've had some involvement with that myself, and my wife was a principal at the school right across the tracks from there. In fact, when the Premier was at her school recently with the smoking prevention awards, I was reminded of the time he was in the inner-city service project that I was involved with. At that time, he encouraged the parents to sit on the tracks and prevent the train from going through Ray-Cam in order that they could get the overpass. They achieved their goal. I'd like to remind the Premier that he encouraged people to sit on the tracks and that it's a good precedent for us to follow.
I appreciate that there are new programs. I'll stop here for a moment, though, because I think my colleague has a question he wants to raise.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister about the welfare fraud investigation process. Could you tell us how many people you've got involved in it currently and what hours they work?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I know that you called me on the weekend to find out particular information, and I'm sorry I didn't get the call until Sunday. I apologize for not being able to return your call on a Saturday. I assumed that the matter wasn't of such an urgent nature that it couldn't be dealt with on Monday.
As I've gone over before in our estimates, there are 88.5 FTEs currently involved in prevention, compliance and enforcement, which is the area that deals with fraud and abuse of the system. We have 34 investigators, nine in administrative support, five in our special investigations unit, 18 assistant ministry investigators, nine regional supervisors, nine eligibility officers and one program director. Our after-hours lines are open 24 hours, and the investigators work after-hours as needed.
[ Page 11224 ]
K. Jones: You say you've got after-hours phone lines. What method...? Are we talking about the abuse lines, or are these specifically described and listed as fraud investigation lines?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Our 24-hour help line is for any service the ministry offers and all our program services. We also have an answering machine at our special investigations unit. We can get that number for you. I hope that does it, in terms of offering the services available to you. It's 24-hour access.
K. Jones: On Saturday morning I got a recording on my constituency office phone from a Superintendent Wilkins, who's in charge of the Canada Customs operation in Aldergrove. The previous day, just after 5 p.m. -- I infer this because he had contacted my office at 5:18 p.m. -- he had tried to contact the welfare fraud investigation team. He had a couple in custody because there was an indication -- arrived at through their investigation -- that they and some of their relatives could be involved in welfare fraud. He wanted to take some action. As he was not able to contact anybody in welfare fraud investigation nor able to find any other number to contact, he ended up contacting my office in an attempt to contact somebody in the Social Services area. I talked to him on Saturday, and the end result was that they had to release these people. They sent them back to the United States. They do have some information on them. They had the opportunity at that time to take action if there was somebody who could directly assist them. That's the reason I attempted to contact the minister. I even went to Enquiry B.C. and found out that they shut down at 5 o'clock on Friday; there was really no one for anybody to talk to. Apparently, even the senior people in Customs along the border are not aware of anyone to contact under emergency circumstances or in off-hours to get information that could facilitate an apprehension. As my last resort, finding no other source, I attempted to pass the message to the minister. I had reached the limit of my capability; going through the government directory, I couldn't find anybody who would answer the phone. I couldn't even get recordings; all I got was no answers. I would not have bothered the minister otherwise. Is there a measure the minister can take to correct this situation and make it possible for people to contact somebody who will take action?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I certainly have no criticism of the hon. member for calling me. I'm sorry that I couldn't get back to you in time. I laud you for the due diligence with which you perform your duties. However, let me reassure you that the law enforcement agencies in this province work together around the issues of fraud. We deal with Customs and Immigration all the time. We have a person on staff who is responsible for liaison in this area. Our police forces work with our ministry investigators like this. So we will be more than happy to investigate this particular situation and why Superintendent Wilkins felt it was so urgent so that we can determine how to improve our communications with the officer in charge.
However, in my limited experience, cases aren't that wide-ranging. It would be very unlikely that our ministry could assist in any way that would be stronger than the outstanding warrants for these individuals. I want to go through the specifics of the case to give you reassurance and to make improvements in contacts in any way we can, but there are very strong liaisons between our system and the law enforcement systems.
K. Jones: The minister mentions warrants involved with these people. The minister has obviously done further investigation and has identified that there are outstanding warrants against some of these people. Has she contacted the Customs people?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
K. Jones: I didn't mention anything about any warrants.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What I'm referring to is some of the other avenues Customs and Immigration have available to them, as well as contacting us. There are other legal resources available to law enforcement agencies that the agencies can initiate on their own. That was my indication. I have no specifics of the case and look forward to discussing that with you.
K. Jones: The reason I was curious was that there was an indication that there were outstanding warrants in relation to the associated members of this family, which had caused them to be suspicious. There were other elements I think the ministry should be very much involved in following through on. From the short conversation I had with Customs, there may possibly be four or more persons involved in welfare fraud in this case.
V. Anderson: I should ask what time we are planning to rise.
The Chair: Our usual time is 11:30.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Chair, just before I conclude, I hope I will be able to work with the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale on the case he just brought forward. I hope we can work together on reviewing this and use this as an example of any improvements that may result, because we are making improvements every day in our relationship with the police on enforcement issues.
I also want to make it clear that I wasn't commenting on the specifics of any case -- nor was the hon. member, I'm sure -- that would violate rules of confidentiality.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:30 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]