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)
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 3
[ Page 11443 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: From my riding today are visitors Lawrence Greef, Susan Palmer, Caroline Hilland Wallace and Murray Helmer. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: It is a great pleasure today to introduce His Excellency Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, the Ambassador of Brazil to Canada, and his wife, Mrs. Maria de Lourdes Duarte, accompanied by Mr. Lucio Pires de Amorim. These people were here in Victoria today visiting a number of ministers and the Lieutenant-Governor. I certainly would ask you all to give them a very warm welcome to the legislative chamber.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to introduce two visitors from Halifax who are with us here today: Elsie Riley and Marie Riley. Marie lived in Burnaby for a few years, but I think their visit to the coast will hold special memories. Marie received her doctorate degree at Simon Fraser University. I'd ask the House to welcome them both and to wish Mrs. Riley a very happy birthday.
B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, I am honoured today to introduce three people from the great riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale: Councillor Barbara Sharp, firefighter Brian Pollitt and exchange student Katell LeJouan. Would the House join me in welcoming these individuals.
J. Weisgerber: It's my pleasure today to welcome nine teachers from the great Peace River region to the Legislative Assembly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you can probably gather they haven't travelled that far to congratulate the government on the legislation it's bringing in today, but I am sure that they would like me to welcome them here today. Please join me in welcoming Brian White, Margaret Little, Matt Treit, Stu Sevard, Linda Burkholder, Jim Oliver, George Knight, Yvette Taylor and Ken Tontsch.
Hon. E. Cull: I too would like to extend a welcome to some teachers in the galleries today. The president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Ray Worley, and the incoming president, Alice McQuaid, are here along with other members of their executive. I've just had a brief meeting with them, and I know they're here to hear the debate on Bill 52.
V. Anderson: It seems important today that we recognize an event that happened 150 years ago, when George Williams and 11 other young men started the YMCA, which is now in 100 countries around the world and in many of our communities. That is something we should recognize and remember today.
Hon. D. Miller: I wish to introduce some members of the teaching profession who have travelled from various parts of my constituency, from the Bella Coola Valley and Hagensborg, Charles Endicott and Susan Osmers. I just noticed -- I think my eyes are still good enough to see that far -- Pat Fraser and Les Pritchard from Prince Rupert. I ask the House to welcome them.
E. Conroy: I rise today to welcome to the House an old school chum of mine, Bill Gorkoff, and Mike Rogers, Frank Santesso and Anne Davies from Trail in the heart of the Kootenays. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Reid: I ask the House to please make welcome the president of the Richmond Teachers' Association, Mr. Barry Morley.
PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to introduce Bill 53, which will amend each of the statutory public sector pension plans. The affected acts are the Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Public Service) Act and Pension (Teachers) Act. This bill is the culmination of 18 months of dialogue between the government and plan member representatives, in which many pension issues were discussed.
The bill forms the basis for the new partnerships established to manage the diverse range of public sector pension plan issues. First, the bill establishes a governance model in which both government and plan members are actively and jointly involved in the management of each of the public sector pension plans through the establishment of pension boards. Second, the bill establishes a funding policy for each of the public sector pension plans that will ensure that pension plans have a sound financial base, thus providing benefit security for participating plan members. Third, benefit changes are being made to each plan. These changes will enhance the internal equity of the plan benefit rules as they apply to the various plan member groups, particularly women and those with short service.
The changes are being financed within the constraints imposed by this government. There is no increase in the employer contribution requirements or the unfunded liabilities of the plans, because the changes are being financed by reallocating a portion of the contributions and assets that are currently earmarked for the provision of future indexing to pay for the benefit changes.
I believe that these changes are very progressive and are advances in the way that we manage a very valuable asset on behalf of plan members. With that, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 53 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.
FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY
Hon. E. Cull: Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day, the day the Allies landed on the beaches at Normandy with the goal of liberating Europe. As a consequence of D-Day and the ensuing battles, Canadians from all walks of life have been able to enjoy a heritage of freedom. If we are to continue to be worthy of this heritage, it is our duty to remember those who gave their lives. It is important to remember their courage, their dedication and
[ Page 11444 ]
their devotion to freedom. We too must embrace these same qualities to ensure that their battles were not fought in vain. We must remember this day not only as an expression of thanks to those who made sacrifices but to ensure that history does not repeat itself. War is not an event to be glorified. There should be no pride taken in the loss of life. But we must remember the past in order to protect the future. We are eternally grateful to those who died in order to show us that we must strive to find other ways to resolve conflict.
[2:15]
It is of great importance that all British Columbians, and indeed all Canadians, remember this occasion and be thankful for the legacy of those who made sacrifices both here and overseas. As a tribute to them, after the opposition parties have had their opportunity to reply, I would ask all to rise for a minute of silence.
G. Campbell: It's indeed an important and historic day for all of us to remember. It is important for us to remember the D-Day events because it was a time when an entire generation sacrificed themselves and put their principles to the test so they could free a continent -- the continent of Europe. They liberated them so they could pursue their lives and their own choices as they saw fit, without being under the yoke of a dictatorship and governments that hold individual citizens down.
I believe that we all live better lives because of the sacrifice of those men and women during the assault on D-Day. I believe that we should all celebrate the sacrifice they made, and we should learn the lesson of D-Day. The lesson of D-Day is that one generation always has a legacy that they can leave to the next. All of the D-Day veterans today would tell us that they look for the same kind of leadership from this generation, so that we can provide succeeding generations with the kind of world that has freedom and that allows individuals to pursue their own goals and dreams.
On behalf of the official opposition, I join with the Deputy Premier in calling for a minute of silence to commemorate the incredible deeds of those individuals who gave us the world that we live in and the freedoms that we enjoy.
J. Weisgerber: As we rise and recognize the tremendous contribution and sacrifice -- the sacrifice of life and of youth -- that was made on D-Day, I think it's an appropriate time for us to recognize the contribution by all Canadians not only on D-Day but in various conflicts around this world, that have made Canada a better place to live and have given us the freedom and the opportunity to be here today in what is, I believe, the best province and the best country in the world. It is the sacrifices of Canadians that have, at least in part, made this possible for us. Those at D-Day faced a particularly trying time, but the entire conflict was a difficult one for Canadians, and indeed other conflicts were also ones where Canadians sacrificed themselves.
I'm delighted to join with all members of the House in paying tribute to the people who were there on D-Day and to all British Columbians and Canadians who have served their country with such dedication and such sacrifice.
The Speaker: Would all members please rise.
Please be seated.
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS
G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last week the Minister of Energy justified her decision to overturn the Motor Carrier Commission's decision on Kimber Cabs, saying: "The facts I saw were supportive of the decision I made." My question to the minister is: what were the specific facts that you saw in one and a half hours behind closed doors that were not seen by the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public hearings?
Hon. E. Cull: I think that we should deal with the fundamental hypocrisy of the questions that have been coming from the opposition. Last week this opposition said that the Motor Carrier Commission was more fit to decide, that appeals were an interference and that Motor Carrier Commission decisions -- and I assume that means all of them -- must stand. But that is absolute hypocrisy when you look at the letter written by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Delta South, who was an interim leader. He said that even if it is true that there are far too many taxis in the lower mainland, this decision should be overturned. This opposition wanted to avail itself of the...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: ...ability to appeal a decision by the Motor Carrier Commission when it suited them. Last week they were saying that shouldn't be the case anymore. Which way is it? You can't have it both ways.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I can only assume from that answer that the Minister of Energy didn't gain any facts at the meeting behind closed doors.
The letter that has been referred to has been put in my hands. I think it's important to note that what this letter says, in fact, is that an MLA was advocating that a constituency appeal be given consideration. That is hardly the same thing as overturning an appeal on behalf of some fundraisers who are close inside friends.
My question to the Minister of Energy is: what were the specific facts that you learned in one and a half hours of closed-door meetings that were not learned by the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public open meetings?
Hon. E. Cull: Let's set the record right. This letter is signed by the member for Delta South in his former capacity as the Leader of the Official Opposition. What that member cites in the letter are over 400 letters of support for this innovative company. What he's talking about in this letter is community support for a different kind of service. That's exactly what the minister who heard the appeal earlier this year said when she responded. There were community letters, there were...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
[ Page 11445 ]
Hon. E. Cull: ...letters from the City of Richmond. There was community support for this. The situation was one of making a decision in the best interests of the disabled community in that part of Vancouver.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I'm amazed by this performance of the government. We had the Premier telling us last week that cabinet had nothing to do with these decisions -- nothing to do with it. The minister responsible, over there, refuses to stand up and tell us what facts she dealt with before she made the decision. The fact of the matter is that behind closed doors, in one and a half hours, there were no facts...
The Speaker: The question.
G. Campbell: ...except that there may have been an NDP friend and fundraiser, who is the appellant. What were the facts? We would like to know, from the minister responsible for overturning that Motor Carrier Commission appeal, what the facts were that you dealt with, in one and a half hours and behind closed doors, that were not available to the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of public meetings.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. E. Cull: Last week in this House the minister who heard the appeal gave a complete ministerial statement outlining all of the facts of the case, all of the things she heard. She made a decision based on the interests of expanded community services over the interests of a monopoly cab company. The minister made a fair decision, one that was in the guidelines that govern these appeals, and we stand behind that decision.
D. Symons: My question is to the minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission. So far we have not heard whether there was any involvement of the minister's office in this cab-caper affair. Can the minister tell us when she became aware that her Premier was attempting to overturn the decision of his Energy minister?
Hon. J. Pement: I'll let the member know, quite upfront, that as minister responsible for MCC, the Motor Carrier Commission, I do not become involved in the application or appeal processes.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: But that wasn't my question. My question, really, was what her knowledge was of the Premier's involvement in this situation. This situation would never have come up if the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act had been fully enacted from the start. The Premier said that the Motor Carrier Commission provisions were delayed because the Minister of Transportation wanted to revamp the whole process. Can the minister explain to us what her proposed changes to the act were?
Hon. J. Pement: As the member is well aware, I cannot speak of potential legislation.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
D. Symons: I assume that she hasn't yet been told what these proposed changes were. Has the minister had contact at any time with Paul Gill or other Kimber Cabs representatives? Did she make the Premier and the cabinet aware of this ticking time bomb?
Hon. J. Pement: Just for the member's information, I do not deal with Motor Carrier Commission applications or appeals.
PACE OF CLOSER TO HOME INITIATIVE
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Health. Last week the UBCM expressed concerns about the government's New Directions strategy. Indeed, our party passed a resolution two weekends ago, voicing our concern at the pace at which the New Directions strategy is proceeding. Will this government now admit that its Closer to Home initiative is moving too quickly for the good of British Columbians? If so, what steps has the minister taken to slow it down?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased that the UBCM has been a party to the design and implementation of New Directions, and the regionalization initiative that is part of that, from the beginning. I expect that they will continue to advise us as we move forward to empower the communities and regions of this province to make decisions about the design of their own health care system and about administrative responsibilities for delivering health care to their citizens.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: It's obvious that the minister hasn't yet read the May 30 letter from the UBCM, in which it points out very correctly that in fact the Closer to Home initiative, as it's presently being implemented, is a failure. Will the minister not recognize that there is a need to properly plan and develop regional boards in order to meet its objectives? Why doesn't he slow down the process and implement pilot projects so that we can develop a model which will work and is acceptable?
Hon. P. Ramsey: When the previous minister announced the New Directions initiative back in February 1993, communities around this province began the task of forming groups to plan for their own community health councils and regional health boards. That process is now well over a year old. We have set a firm deadline, saying that we expect regional boards to be in place on an interim basis by October of this year, and authority for administering health facilities will be phased in as those regional boards are ready to assume that responsibility. Designation of community health councils and their operation will be completed by April 1995. That, hon. member, is nearly four years...
The Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. P. Ramsey: ...after the royal commission recommended establishing these councils and boards and nearly two years after they were announced.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
Final supplemental, hon. member.
[ Page 11446 ]
L. Fox: The minister is determined to bull ahead, knowing that the regional health boards will take the fall for his health cuts next year. He doesn't want to do the dirty work of slashing the hospital budgets, so he's telling hospitals to run deficits that will mean huge cuts next year in rural hospitals.
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
L. Fox: If the minister doesn't want to cut rural hospital services....
The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.
L. Fox: Why doesn't he at least have the courage to do it himself?
[2:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed that this member from a rural community does not see the opportunity to empower community people to design and deliver health services in their own communities and their own regions. For my part, hon. Speaker, I see the fragmented system that we have now as a disaster for health delivery in the remote and rural regions of this province, and New Directions will help change that.
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS
M. de Jong: Last week we heard the Premier explain that the legal investigation he ordered into this MCC matter was justified because he was "curious" about the role of cabinet in the decision-making process. We've already heard from the Employment minister that these decisions are routinely overturned. My question to the Minister of Energy, quite frankly, is: when did she become aware that the decision she had rendered on appeal was being reviewed by outside legal counsel?
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: I've answered the question a number of times. I...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: ...probably became aware weeks ago, certainly not at the time.... The opinion had been given to the Premier, and the Premier had had it. I learned later.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: To the Minister of Energy. At the same time she was advised a decision had been taken to review her decision on appeal, I presume that she was advised why outside counsel had been hired to review her decision. Can she indicate to this House when and why she was told her decision was being reviewed?
Hon. A. Edwards: There was no review of my decision. There has been no review of my decision, and I still know of none. There was an opinion about process, but there was no review of my decision.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: Now that the hon. minister is up and feeling more comfortable in discussing the issue, maybe she can answer the original question. What facts were before her in one and a half hours of submissions that weren't before the Motor Carrier Commission in three days of hearings? On what basis was her decision to overrule that MCC decision taken?
Hon. A. Edwards: They were basically the same, hon. Speaker.
PROVINCEWIDE BARGAINING FOR TEACHERS
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for provincewide bargaining for teachers. Can the minister tell us if she has been following the three-week strike in Newfoundland to see what a disaster provincewide bargaining has been with respect to teacher bargaining in that province?
The Speaker: Is that a bill before the House, hon. member? Do you have a different way of phrasing your question to have it in order?
G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the bill that is before the House, my question has to do with the government's commitment to fair collective bargaining. Can the minister tell us whether, under PSEC, this government is still committed to fair collective bargaining at a local level?
Hon. E. Cull: That's exactly what this bill is all about: protecting the rights to fair collective bargaining for all teachers. With respect to the question that you raise about Newfoundland, you should have a look at exactly what's going on in that province. They are looking at 5 percent cuts -- rollbacks in pay. That's what that's all about there; it's not about free collective bargaining. It's about legislation that imposes a contract on them -- not what we're looking at here, which is legislation that protects the right to free collective bargaining.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the minister. Could the minister tell us, then, why her government has gone back on its word, provided in the last election to the B.C. Teachers' Federation when they put this question: "Will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues?" The New Democratic Party official position was yes. Can the minister tell us why she has gone back on the word given in the last election?
Hon. E. Cull: We're going to have an awful lot of opportunity to talk about this when we get into second reading debate on this particular bill. But let me give the answer very simply and in very few words: it's because this government stands up for the rights of students, and that's the most important part of what this legislation's all about.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
SENIORS' WEEK
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to report that the week of June 6 through 12 has been
[ Page 11447 ]
proclaimed as Seniors' Week in British Columbia. I'd like to read the proclamation:
"WHEREAS seniors are a diverse group, with different lifestyles, talents, aspirations, needs, and resources, and
"WHEREAS every citizen of British Columbia, regardless of age, has a right to live with dignity, safety, and security, and
"WHEREAS the Government of British Columbia is committed to ensuring that seniors' voices are heard, that seniors' diversity is understood, and that seniors are full partners in shaping the future of this province, and
"WHEREAS Seniors' Week is dedicated to recognizing these principles of equity and diversity, and
"WHEREAS our Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, has been pleased to direct by Order in Council on that behalf that a Proclamation be issued designating June 6 to 12, inclusive as 'Seniors' Week' in British Columbia...."
As Minister Responsible for Seniors, I am committed to ensuring that British Columbia seniors have access to the best possible quality of life and that they are supported in their efforts to remain active and independent. It is government's responsibility to provide practical support to seniors in need, but it is perhaps even more important that government lead the way in helping to change attitudes about aging and the elderly.
Ageism -- discrimination based on age -- is a problem at the very heart of many seniors' issues. As a society, we have tended to ignore, categorize or marginalize our older people. Ageism is rooted in misconceptions and stereotyped perceptions of seniors. We must remember that seniors are a diverse group, as different from each other as they are from people of other ages. We must resist the tendency to define this heterogenous group according to any one characteristic, whether that be activity, illness or appearance. The only identifiable characteristic of the group we call seniors is its diversity. We must all learn more about what it means to grow old, we must deepen our understanding of that aging experience, and we must work together to correct our prejudices against and misconceptions about seniors.
This government is committed to seeking the advice of seniors, to helping to change attitudes about seniors by ensuring that their voices are heard and their diversity is understood, and to making seniors full partners in shaping British Columbia.
L. Reid: I will say that talk is cheap for this minister. Standing up and proclaiming Seniors' Week again is not addressing the issues that are pertinent to seniors today. This is the same minister who stood up and talked about Pharmacare changes that directly impact the health and economies of seniors. This is the same minister who is talking about New Directions making some kind of difference in care and levels of support. It's not appropriate -- a weak response from the government benches.
There is an issue today.... Seniors in this province fear for their health and for their safety in their communities. Proclaiming Seniors' Week will not help unless this minister is prepared to follow that paper up with some concrete action. We do not see that today, we have not seen that under New Directions, and we do not see that in terms of the comments he just made. There are some significant issues that need to be addressed, not the least of which is the cost to seniors for Pharmacare, and not the least of which is the volunteering time that they must feel is questionable now, based on New Directions.
Whether or not this government values seniors is the issue for today. I wait for this minister to indicate whether or not the talk is going to be followed up by concrete action that seniors can believe in.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
L. Fox: As tempting as it is to come out as the opposition critic did and suggest that talk is cheap, and so on, let me just say that I want to congratulate the minister on recognizing this as Seniors' Week. Our seniors had a vision, and if it hadn't been for the contribution, dedication and commitment of many of our seniors, British Columbia would not be where it is today. We have a lot to be thankful for with respect to the contribution of our senior citizens. It's only right that we should have a week set aside that helps us focus on the contribution they have made to society.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Unlike the Minister of Employment and Investment.... I'm not a senior citizen just because I don't have a lot of hair.
Once again we congratulate the government on setting aside this week as Seniors' Week, and we look forward to more positive action by this government regarding the needs of seniors in British Columbia.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food estimates. In the main House, I call second reading stage of Bill 52.
PUBLIC EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
Hon. E. Cull: I rise to speak to second reading of Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act. As the minister responsible for the Public Sector Employers' Council and the act, I will be giving the second reading speech on this.
On March 10, 1994, I announced our government's intention to legislate this restructuring of collective bargaining for school boards and teachers in the province, and Bill 52 is the expression of that intention. We decided to make the change because we believe it's in the public interest to do so. We came to the conclusion that the existing system of local-by-local teacher collective bargaining had failed. We sought to create a more balanced bargaining structure that will help alleviate the district-by-district disruptions to the classroom.
Bill 52 embodies a number of principles important to this government, and I want to take a few minutes to talk about each of them. First, it reflects the commitment to protect the public interest and, in this case particularly, the welfare of students. There have been three rounds of teacher collective bargaining since teachers were given the same rights as other employees in 1987. This bargaining on a school-district-by-school-district basis has resulted far too often in labour disputes, and in each round the intensity of these disputes has grown.
In addition, the very system of local-by-local bargaining has created a whipsawing between school boards and teachers. Under this system, demands achieved in one district are pressed upon employers in another district, and in some cases to the point of dispute. This factor has contributed to the number of disputes that have occurred under the current local bargaining system.
The system that was introduced by the former government did not have the balance of authority and power
[ Page 11448 ]
between the union side and the employer side that is necessary to ensure that any system of collective bargaining works. The frequency of the disputes has in many cases created an acrimonious relationship between the school boards and the teachers, particularly between trustees and the teachers who have been involved in bargaining, and I believe this has jeopardized the day-to-day working relationships that are necessary for successful school districts.
Under the new system there will be a greater balance between the employer side and the union side, and it's our belief that this will make collective bargaining more effective and that it will help to avoid the bitter relations at the local level that have become in many cases an obstacle to quality education in districts.
[2:45]
The second principle of the bill is a statement of commitment to free collective bargaining, and that's very important to this government. We believe that free collective bargaining is the best method in our system for determining workers' terms and conditions of employment. There have been many others who have called for some other kind of system that would remove these rights from teachers, and we reject those demands. This system imposes responsibility upon employers and employees to fashion their own result and then to live with those results. As I said earlier, this presumes a balanced bargaining system, capable of producing an appropriate and mutually acceptable compromise.
In the discussions we've had with various groups since the March 10 announcement, the employers have rejected third-party intervention as an alternative to the right to strike, a perspective that I would note they share with the teachers represented by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Bill 52 permits the use of strikes and lockouts in the bargaining process, but these disputes can only occur after a province-wide strike or lockout vote.
Bill 52 recognizes that there are local as well as provincial issues. This legislation allows the parties, through collective bargaining -- the schools boards represented through the employers' association, and teachers represented through their provincial organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation -- to sit down and negotiate what matters are provincial and what matters are local. In making the decisions, the parties must be guided by the principle contained in the bill that major cost items are provincial matters. But this system allows the boards and the teachers to make a rational allocation between the issues that are common to all boards and those that are unique to a particular community.
Bill 52 respects the decision-making of elected trustees. The employers' association established under the Public Sector Employers Act will be the accredited bargaining representative for the trustees under this act. The majority of members of the employers' association on the interim board that is in place right now, and on the permanent board that will soon be in place, are school trustees elected by local electors. In addition, the system of two-tiered bargaining ensures that trustees elected by the community will continue to make important decisions about education in their own communities. Trustees have consistently told government that they have spent so much time focusing on bargaining that they haven't been able to devote themselves to educational issues, which is the reason that most trustees run for elected office in the first place.
Bill 52 also recognizes the B.C. Teachers' Federation as the provincial union representing teachers. Most school districts have successfully bargained that all teachers have to be members of both the local teachers' association and the BCTF as a condition of employment, so the BCTF is initially recognized as the provincial union to represent teachers in collective bargaining.
We believe the legislation provides for greater cost-effectiveness, and we think this can be achieved in three ways. First, the new system will be a more cost-effective system of bargaining. The major economic issues of bargaining will now be at one table. Local bargaining continues, of course, but with a smaller agenda. Where local parties are unable to reach an appropriate agreement, the conclusion of local bargaining is then made at the provincial table. When Judi Korbin looked at the public sector, she estimated in her report that the cost of the existing system of bargaining is approximately $9 million for each round of bargaining. There will be cost savings associated with this new bargaining structure. Yes, there will also be costs, but we believe that the cost savings will exceed the cost of the new system.
Second, under the new system there will be a common language on major issues and improved coordination by employers on those common issues. This too will result in cost savings in the long run.
Third, the system will provide for a more uniform result and better fiscal management of provincial education expenditures. Over the last seven years labour costs as a percentage of total school district operating expenditures have risen faster than the increase in school district operating budgets. B.C. has seen one of the highest rates of increase in education funding of any province in Canada. This result is, in part, a reflection of the bargaining system. Under Bill 52, the parties at the provincial table -- teachers and school boards -- can be expected to understand the provincewide fiscal implications of their decisions for students in British Columbia.
Finally, the bill respects the negotiated agreements in the transition from the old system to the new system. With any major change -- and Bill 52 is certainly a major change in the education bargaining system -- there is the need for a transition. In accomplishing these changes, Bill 52 respects the agreements that parties have entered into. Changes to existing agreements will occur through freely negotiated provincial or local arrangements, not through legislative intervention. This means that both teachers and school boards are going to have live with the provisions that they have negotiated at the local level -- those they like, and those they don't like. The opportunity to make changes to them is through collective bargaining.
During the course of preparing this legislation, since the announcement on March 10, the PSEC secretariat has met formally and informally with many interested parties in the public education system, including the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the new B.C. Public Schools Employers' Association, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C. School Trustees' Association, the Council of B.C. School Districts, the B.C. School Superintendents' Association, the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers' Association and the B.C. Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association. As much as possible, we have tried to incorporate in the legislation the ideas and concerns brought forward by these bodies.
This legislation reflects not only the government's commitment to the public interest and to protect the rights of employees to free collective bargaining, but also a pragmatic balance of competing views and interests. Bill 52 strikes a fair balance between the interests of teachers and school boards, with a clear view to protecting the interests of students.
With that, I move second reading.
[ Page 11449 ]
A. Hagen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I would like the members to welcome grade 6 students from Bayview School in Burlington, Washington. They are visiting our session with their teacher, Mr. R.I. Adeline.
G. Farrell-Collins: I rise today to add the comments of the opposition. I know other members of the caucus intend to speak to Bill 52, which will extend bargaining rights at the provincial level; or rather, change the bargaining rights that have been in existence on some issues to a provincial style or a provincewide type of bargaining.
Before the minister rose to speak on this in response to a question in question period, and once her presentation began, we heard about how her government stands up for students in the province. About a year ago, this government was doing anything but standing up for students in British Columbia. In fact, they were sitting down and not moving, and being as intransigent as possible with respect to standing up for students in British Columbia. We had one of the worst labour disruptions in the history of the K-to-12 education system that this province has ever seen. Two million instruction hours were lost last year because of this government's inaction, and because of their lack of leadership and misguided leadership.
In the last election this government promised everything to everybody. The former Minister of Finance said that balancing the budget would be the easiest thing he could possibly imagine doing. And they promised all sorts of money for just about every school district that you can imagine. The first thing they did after becoming government was to settle the nurses' dispute for 7 percent. In many cases it was the teachers who helped elect this government, because of the promises they were given before the election -- promises that they hoped would improve the education system in the province; promises that would put an end to portables in British Columbia; and promises that would increase the salaries and benefits and reduce the class sizes for teachers in the province. When it came time for the teachers to turn to the government for the fulfilment of the promises that were made to them before the election, there was nothing there. Whether intentionally or not, the government had broken promises that they had made to the educators, parents and students of British Columbia. So how do you expect to make millions and millions of dollars' worth of promises and then expect to have no reaction when you don't follow through with them?
The real reason this bill is before us today and the real reason that we had Bill 31 last year, which legislated teachers back to work, is not what went on with the teachers but what went on with this government and the promises they made that they had no intention of fulfilling. When a minister stands up and says that her government speaks on behalf of the best interests of students in British Columbia, we know that to be false. We know that that's not what this government really stands for.
Rather than stand up for the students of British Columbia, this government has finally run straight into the brick wall of fiscal reality. It realizes that the public is demanding that they try to do something with their budget deficit, with their spending, and that they hold taxes to a line. Because of that reality, the government -- and, I imagine, all members of the NDP caucus -- now realize that those promises, each and every one of them, were beyond the ability of the government to fulfil. Now they have to answer for it.
Instead of standing up and apologizing, saying, "We blew it, we made a mistake; we shouldn't have promised all of the things we did before the last election," instead of being honest and upfront about it, we saw what happened last year. The government dragged its feet and tried to convince the opposition, as the labour disputes in the K-to-12 education system around this province continued day after day, week after week, month after month, that the collective bargaining system was working in education and that -- I can't remember the number -- 57 out of so many collective agreements had been reached without any disruption. They went on and on at great length in the House, in the media and in the corridors of this chamber, telling everybody what a wonderful collective agreement process they had put in place.
Today we have the Minister of Finance, acting on behalf of the Minister of Education -- whom I don't even see in the House today -- standing up and saying that that collective bargaining process wasn't working; it was a sham; it was unbalanced. Who are we to believe? Are we to believe the Minister of Labour last year, who said that it was a great system, or are we to believe the Minister of Finance now, who says that it's a terrible system? Which minister is the public supposed to believe? Which minister is telling the truth? I would say that this government has not stood up for the students but has finally come to the reality that they can't deliver on any more of the promises that they said they would, and they're having to deal with it.
We need to look at some things with this bill. Is this bill going to address the problems we saw last year? Is it going to go any distance at all along the way to ensuring that the type of disruption we had last year won't happen again? I hope it does. I hope some of the changes being made to the collective bargaining process are going to have some sort of impact. But I'm not convinced, because I think the government has done a halfway job on it.
We now have some items -- we're not sure which; those that sort of deal with finance, and those that sort of have cost implications -- that are going to be dealt with at the provincial level, and the ones that normally would have an impact at the local level are going to be done at the local level. Maybe that will work; maybe it won't. We'll give it a try and see what happens.
[3:00]
At the end of the day, when this bill becomes law -- either in its present state or with amendments -- I hope we're going to have a system that's a little better than the one we had last year. Are we going to be able to achieve some efficiencies and some stability by bringing in provincewide bargaining on some issues? Perhaps we will. Perhaps that will add some financial stability.
I really do believe that this is a trial, an attempt. I don't think the government really knows how this is going to work yet, because there are a whole list of things that are still to be debated and defined at the local level. Indeed, with this act, that process of determining what exists at the local level and what exists at the provincial level is going to take some time, and that in itself is going to take negotiation. We may well end up with a whole series of things being bumped up to the provincial level or bumped down to the local level. What we're going to be dealing with is still very, very loose and very, very undefined. We need to know, in more concrete terms, which items are going to be provincial issues and which items are going to be local issues. The trustees need to know that, the teachers' associations need to know that, the
[ Page 11450 ]
students need to know that and, indeed, the parents need to know that.
I think we're headed for a very risky period of time and for some very rough water as far as education negotiations in the province are concerned. We have this legislation sort of taking this bold step into a darkened room. They're hoping that they're going to find a door at the other end of it somewhere and that when they open that door there's going to be some sort of semblance of organization and coherence to what this process is going to bring to us.
Right now we have a lot of people concerned about how this is going to work. We have trustees who, one can only assume, were elected for the best of intentions. They want to participate in their community, they are concerned about the education of young people in the province and they want to contribute. We have teachers who got into the field for exactly the same reasons. They're concerned about the education of students, they enjoy being with young people and they enjoy imparting knowledge to them. Everybody's there for the right reasons. But it seems everybody has concerns.
Teachers and trustees over the last three years have negotiated -- sometimes very successfully and very smoothly, sometimes very poorly and very unsuccessfully -- a series of collective agreements that exist right around the province. Those contracts have changed every year we've gone through in that collective bargaining process. They've differed, split off and become unique to their own or another area. Now the result is that we have 75 collective agreements. Big chunks of them are still virtually the same, but huge sections -- a lot of very detailed issues -- have become different, specialized and unique to their own district.
Both trustees and teachers have concerns about how we're going to reconcile that. How are we going to go through this process with 75 districts and try and arrive at some sort of collective agreement that's going to be acceptable to all? In some districts, teachers may well have given up certain provisions as a trade-off for something else they felt was important for them in their district. In other districts, trustees may have acceded to certain demands in the hope of getting concessions in other areas.
Now we're going to mix all that up again and try and start over. I'm not saying that can't be done, but I am saying it's going to be difficult. I am saying we're going to have a very long and protracted series of debates and negotiations take place right around the province...
Hon. E. Cull: What's your position?
G. Farrell-Collins: ...in 75 districts and at one central negotiating table. It's going to be very difficult for them to do it. The Liberal opposition has said a number of times -- and that member who's speaking over there should be aware, because she was part of it at that time -- that for the education system in this province to operate properly, there needs to be some provincewide bargaining on at least some issues -- which is what the government has done, and I wish them luck. As I said earlier, I hope it works. But it's fraught with danger. It's going to be a very difficult transition period.
Once again we are going to see that those people who are really going to suffer, because of the government's half-measures and attempts at trying to do things, are the students. Once again....
F. Garden: What's your position on essential services?
B. Jones: How are you going to vote?
G. Farrell-Collins: If the member sitting over there wants to keep his mouth shut and wait for about two minutes, he'll hear my position and be able to see how we vote. If he wants to wait his time, we'll get to it.
We're going to see once again that the students in British Columbia -- who I really don't even see being mentioned anywhere in this bill -- are the ones who are going to suffer. Because of the rough water and the difficult transition that we're going to see with the implementation of Bill 52, it's the students who are going to suffer yet again.
We have called for and asked for education to be designated an essential service. That doesn't necessarily mean you remove everybody's right to strike; that's not what essential services means. As every member in this House who sat through the debate on Bill 84 knows -- as that member knows -- the implementation of an essential-services designation means much as it does in the health care system: you determine a level of essential services that will continue, for a number of reasons to be negotiated. That may well be a complete designation of all education as an essential service; that may be the final designation. I don't know that. That's one of the extreme options.
The other extreme option is that almost nothing is designated as an essential service. That member knows that. It's the same process that takes place in the health care system. I know we're going to be hearing from some of the independent members, who are going to argue against this -- that it's an infringement of rights. That's fine; they're entitled to make those kinds of statements. But they should realize that the public interest always must come first, as it does in the health care system and the welfare system, and -- I hope -- as it will some day in the education system. The interests of the students and parents must come first and be paramount over the interests of the trustees and teachers.
There is a way to balance that. There is a way to ensure that grade 11 and 12 students aren't losing their ability to compete and participate competitively in trying to achieve access to post-secondary institutions in this province, around the country and internationally. When they lose six weeks of their schooling in grade 12 or grade 11, that has a direct and measurable impact on their ability to get into post-secondary institutions right around the country and the world. It is a tough fight. Ever more and more, it's becoming harder and harder for students to get into those institutions. The GPA level is going up and up. All that the members in this House have to do is go and talk to those grade 11 and grade 12 students from last year who went through those disruptions. See what they feel. See if that had any effect on their ability to get into institutions and any effect on the grades they're going to live with for the rest of their education careers. At the very minimum, we have to look at providing some level of essential services for grade 11 and grade 12 students -- and for students in the lower grades.
Whether people want to say or admit it or not, the teachers are the primary caregivers when those students are at school. I'm not saying they should be babysitters. But people have to be aware of the safety of those students in the event of education disruptions -- as members in this House rose in debate and talked about during the debate on Bill 84, on the safety and security of young people in the province. I encourage members in this House to go back and look at the comments they and their colleagues made during the debate on Bill 84, as it relates to education as an essential service.
As they look at this piece of legislation, I encourage them to think of the students and the best interests of the future of this province, both economically and in the education sector, and realize that there are more people at stake here than
[ Page 11451 ]
teachers and trustees. The students, the young people and the future of this province at stake. It's incumbent upon not just the government but members of the opposition to do well by them, to speak for them because they can't be here. They can't vote yet, either. It's up to the members of this House to speak on behalf of the students and the parents, and indeed, on behalf of the teachers and trustees. But always keep in mind the public interest, which is what we were elected to do in this House.
B. Copping: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Copping: On behalf of my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville I'm very pleased to welcome into the House today several grade 6 students from Vanier Elementary School. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Leonard, and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to this legislation, and I rise to speak in support of the legislation insofar as it moves the province into provincewide bargaining.
I believe it's important for us to recognize that the current system of bargaining simply wasn't working. The process whereby school districts were played off against each other resulted in settlements that were uneven and unequal across the province. It saw school districts whipsawed against each other. School districts that had perhaps less resolve than some others were settled with first, and then those results were used to obtain higher and more expensive settlements in other districts.
Last year alone, we saw at least two school districts -- one of them in Vancouver, one in Campbell River -- with long, protracted strikes. We saw children in certain parts of the province disadvantaged against those in other parts of the province. That wasn't the first time. There was a strike in Fort St. John three or four years ago that seriously disrupted the education of young people there. So I believe the decision to move to provincewide bargaining was obviously the right solution, and I commend the government for having made that decision.
Now, I do believe that the government has only gone halfway. I believe that other problems will result from the legislation as it now exists. Instead of small groups of students having their education disrupted by strikes, I expect what's going to happen is that all of the kids in the province -- perhaps for not as long a period of time -- will be affected by strikes under this legislation. It seems to me that the prudent thing for the government to have done in bringing in this bill would have been to restore -- not to designate, but restore -- education as an essential service, as it was previously in British Columbia.
I don't have any trouble at all defining what essential service means. It means that school teachers would not be allowed to strike. It means that you would simply designate education as an essential service, as police are an essential service, as ambulance operators are an essential service, as I believe education is essential. Surely to goodness, I believe government is essential.
[3:15]
There is an opportunity here to bring in real changes. I think they are changes that are defensible and changes that parents would support. I expect they are changes that teachers, on an individual basis, would support. I don't think teachers want to be on strike. I think teachers, parents and students would all welcome some innovative ways of dealing with the differences that exist on issues around salaries, wages, class size and all of those things. Strikes aren't going to be the solution to this. There has to be a better way, and the government has to have -- and should have -- the courage to find a better way to resolve these problems.
I know that this enormous amount of turmoil exists within government ranks in relation to teachers. They remember 1974 and the fact that teachers were angry with them and, indeed, led to their defeat in 1975. But they made up, and the BCTF supported the government pretty aggressively and actively, particularly in 1983, 1986 and 1991. The BCTF was out in front as a champion for this government. Now the government, having at least in part repaid the BCTF -- none of us will forget the big retroactive pay increases that this government gave to teachers shortly after the election -- is finding that the BCTF is more interested in representing its members than in its political affiliations with government. Perhaps that's the way it should be.
F. Garden: That's baloney.
J. Weisgerber: The member for Cariboo North says this is baloney, which I guess would mean that their ideological connections to government overweigh their self-interest. The member may well have been privy to conversations that those of us on this side haven't. But I'm going to continue to believe that the BCTF thinks its first responsibility is to teachers -- its members -- and this government is finding that the BCTF is a tough negotiator when it comes down to matters of interest involving its members. I've got no criticism of the BCTF for that, but I do believe that as the BCTF understands its responsibilities, this government must recognize that its obligation is first of all to students, parents and to all British Columbians -- and not, particularly, to the BCTF, regardless of what favours may have been traded back and forth in those many long years that the NDP were in opposition.
The slate has to be cleaned. The government has to be there to represent British Columbians. If they were to do that, if the government were to fulfil that obligation properly, it would have brought in legislation that both introduced provincewide teacher bargaining and designated education as an essential service in British Columbia. We have a bill that's only halfway there. Only time will tell whether that half-measure improves the situation or causes a wider and larger problem to emerge.
I don't want to see us back here sometime next fall or next year debating another bill to order teachers back to work. The government, to its credit, did it once before. This government, which purports to believe in free collective bargaining, came back, brought in legislation that effectively took away the right of those teachers, at least, to strike. But it did it on a knee-jerk reactive basis. If they were to look at the situation that led them to that painful decision, they would recognize that the fair and appropriate way to do it is to declare education an essential service, take away the right to strike and introduce some appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms.
I think it's pretty clear that that is an option the B.C. Reform Party and caucus supports. I'm going to be very keenly interested in listening to members of the government, who have been rather keen to interject, to hear what they believe and how they feel about this legislation. I want to hear these members stand up and support the legislation they've brought in. I know that they're not really comfortable with this. We've got some members on the
[ Page 11452 ]
government side with some experience in these matters. They may well want to stand up and share with us the wisdom they have and tell us how vigorously they support this legislation. If we're going to learn something, it should be for all British Columbians and all members of the Legislature. I would encourage all government members not to hide behind party discipline but to stand up individually in this House and support this legislation verbally. If they do that, we will find out whether or not there is the consensus in the government caucus that many would have us believe does exist.
G. Wilson: What a sad day it is in British Columbia today! We see the introduction of a bill that does three things: it removes individual rights and freedoms of people who have negotiated and developed a sense of collective bargaining freedom in this province; it removes local autonomy from school boards and parents' involvement in the development of programs that are measured to meet the needs of students in those areas; and it provides a greater centralization of authority and power in the hands of this government to direct education in the province.
This is shameful legislation, and every single member of that government knows it. This was an issue in 1991 when the then minister, Mr. Hagen, stood up and said he was going to bring in provincewide bargaining. Let's see what this government had to say when they were opposition. The then Education critic from Burnaby North said: "This announcement today is a continuation of the thoughtless approach this government takes to education." That's what they thought about provincewide bargaining then. What did the minister who now sits as the Minister of Finance and who brings this legislation into the House say then? "This government is now taking a flip-flop approach to education that will only serve to erode local autonomy for school boards." It was a bad idea when that minister was sitting in opposition, but today that minister spearheads it in the name of students.
Let's see what kinds of promises were made to the people of British Columbia in the last election. A survey was done to put all of the political parties on record -- this government, that opposition and Social Credit, who are now with us in the guise of the Reform Party. The question was simple: will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues? The New Democratic Party position was one word: yes -- a sound, firm and solid commitment. Guess what. The Liberal Party position was yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: That was your position.
G. Wilson: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says that was my position. He forgets, but I was....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Indeed, he says I was the Liberal Party, and he should be thankful that I was, because if I wasn't he more than likely wouldn't be sitting in this House today. How fast they forget.
If you look at what the position is.... The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who sat on education and helped draft this material, might want to look at the Liberal Party position before the last election with respect to the mandate that we took before the electorate -- and which those members opposite took before the electorate on this question.
The mandate of this New Democratic Party, which now sits in government, was to maintain collective bargaining at the local level. They have abandoned that promise and that strategy. When they were in opposition, they said it was bad legislation; now they laud it as being the right thing to do. Goodness knows where the official opposition's got this essential-service legislation. That was never taken before the people of this province. Now that that position has been advanced here under new leadership, we can only say, and thankfully so, that that new leader has no provincewide mandate on that issue or any other issue that that opposition brings forward.
Let me say this. If we are going to have the electorate of this province trust in politicians, then politicians should take a thoughtful position when they stand before them in the election. When they are asked these questions, they should put forward a thoughtful response that they are committed to and prepared to support. We do not need the kind of finger-to-the-wind politics that says, because we had a difficult time in negotiations in some school districts last year, because we had some protracted strikes last year, therefore we need to abandon the very basic, fundamental principle that individuals have the right at a local level to collectively bargain and to provide at the local level for their individual rights. We don't need provincewide bargaining, because it is not good for education and it is a complete contravention of the promise that this member and every member over on that side of the House took before the people in the last election.
Let's look at this legislation in principle. What does it say? It says that the government has the right to determine the bargaining agent for a collective bargaining process. The right to determine a bargaining agent lies with the members who are bargaining, not with the government. This is a clear matter of labour; it's a labour bill that's got little or nothing to do with the soundness of education. The right of an individual member of a trade union to choose their bargaining agent is something that's pretty basic in British Columbia. It's removed here with a stroke of a pen, with virtually no negotiation and with very limited or no consultation. Powers are provided to this minister -- not even the Minister of Education but the Minister of Finance -- with respect to the derogation of duties and the provincial matters that are going to be negotiated by this agency determined by the government.
What else does it do? Let's see. It also suggests that this government is going to direct the collective bargaining with respect to the employer bargaining agent. When this was touted around in 1991, it's curious to see what the position of the BCSTA was. Back in 1991, when this was touted around by the former minister, the BCSTA suggested that province-wide bargaining erodes local autonomy and limits the opportunity for local school boards to determine, with their teachers and parents, the appropriate levels of education to be delivered within their communities.
F. Randall: What's the 1994 position?
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Burnaby-Edmonds ask: "What's the 1994 position?" The BCSTA is an organization that is losing its membership. Why is it losing its membership? Why is it now looking toward this centralized government?
[3:30]
We might look at Bill 14 and see one reason why: with the introduction of Bill 14 this government put arbitrary caps on administration and on special program funding, it removed autonomy from local school boards, it took a position
[ Page 11453 ]
contrary to the legal authority put forward by the BCSTA and it centralized power in the government in the same way that Bill 52 centralizes power into the hands of the government. It removes autonomy currently existing at the local level for parents, teachers and duly elected members. I might remind the member for Burnaby-Edmonds... And I've got many comments here about the need for locally elected school boards and the autonomy they should have with respect to the delivery of education.
What happened? We had a few difficult contracts last year, and instead of this government turning around and asking what is wrong and what is happening in the educational system that we've got this conflict, instead of saying that the real problem lies in the fact that we are trying to finance education through an antiquated, backward, formula funding system that doesn't work and doesn't meet the needs....
We need to introduce four-year-based funding so that there can be long-term financing, long-term planning,appropriate curriculum development and an ability for local school boards to have some vision down the road as to the dollars they'll have so they can adequately budget for delivery of the education the parents, the students and the teachers in a community feel they need. Instead of doing that, they decide they're going to remove individual rights of workers. This government, that's supposed to be a labour government, is removing the rights of workers to chose their own bargaining agent and is removing the right to freely negotiate contracts at the local level. We've heard a lot about this whipsawing. What utter nonsense! The whipsawing is because the school boards are kept in the dark; they don't have authority and they don't have ability and funding.
Look what's been going on with respect to it. One of the most sophisticated communication networks is set up between school boards and school districts in this province with respect to the provision of information on collective bargaining -- a 24-hour electronic service. It's not as if one school board doesn't know what the next is doing. It isn't as if there isn't some coordination. Of course there is, there always has been, and there's been coordination with respect to contract negotiation with the BCTF. I say that whipsawing notion is rubbish. That's not the reason. It's not to try and remove work stoppages with the removal of the right to strike, because it doesn't remove the right to strike.
If there is an intransigent position taken by one side or the other in this collective bargaining process, you won't just have Powell River or Fort St. John or even the city of Vancouver out; you'll have the whole province out on strike. That's good news? We won't just have one community that will have to be negotiated back to work in that shameful piece of negotiation that only I voted against, as the one member present in this chamber.... You don't bring down the heavy hand of government like that, with the removal of collective bargaining rights in a free society. Now we're going to have to negotiate provincewide, and when you have a provincewide strike you can just legislate them all back to work and yield to the position of this newly constituted Liberal opposition and say: "Well, why don't we just make them an essential service and remove their right to strike entirely?" If we believe the Reform.... Let's get rid of the teachers' right to strike -- and why not have the police, and the fire, the ferry and the health workers and...? Hell, while we're at it, why stop with public sector unions? Let's just remove the right to strike entirely. Let's just get rid of it.
We are witnessing a scary trend toward reactionary politics in this province, politics that bash the poor because they happen to be in need. We make all kinds of mileage from bashing the poor, and call them welfare cheats and all kinds of other things because they happen to be in need. Shameful!
We've witnessed now the movement toward this notion of the removal of individual rights of workers, because we have a difficult time with respect to financing and funding education -- instead of finding a solution to the financial problem, removing the financial burden currently put in place and finding a better, more streamlined and progressive way of financing education that it is affordable and accessible and provides flexibility for each community to meet its needs. Well, you're going to remove the right to strike, if you're in the Liberal opposition. Or, in this government, you're going to remove the right to bargain locally.
This legislation is flawed in many other ways. First of all, it says there's going to be a two-tiered bargaining process. That's nonsense as well -- clear nonsense. Why? There's no provision for them to strike locally. And there's no provision for them to settle locally on matters that they can't agree on, save and except to take it back to the provincial table. So how is it two-tiered? It isn't two-tiered. If a school board decides they're going to put their back up, or if this government decides that they're going to, or a future government.... Lord save us from the official opposition ever being government, with their attitude toward the working people of British Columbia. But if they should be, then they'll be able to negotiate with a heavy hand. They'll simply say: "If you can't discuss and agree locally, bring it to the table. We'll tell you what you've got to do." There's no two-tiered system. This removes local autonomy.
I don't stand here to defend just the right of teachers, although that's an important component. I stand here to defend the right of parents, school boards and local communities to determine the kind of education they need for the students who live in those communities. There is no homogeneous British Columbia with homogeneous students who happen to be the same in Vancouver as they are in Fort St. John, Nelson, Prince Rupert, Powell River or Port McNeill. The needs are different. The school districts need different solutions to those different problems. They need flexibility to make sure those solutions are arrived at, and arrived at adequately, in accordance with the way those communities wish to have their needs met. This takes that away -- forget it.
Parents of British Columbia, if you think this bill is going to do you any favours, think again. It isn't. If you think your new provision for an elected board is going to provide you anything other than a conduit through which this government, through a centralized bargaining process, is going to bargain for people, think again.
B. Jones: Gordo knows best.
G. Wilson: The member for Burnaby North says: "Gordo knows best." That's nonsense.
This government.... I challenge this minister: free your back bench. Free them up. Let's have a free vote in the government on this question. That's progressive; that's good legislation. Let each one of these members vote their conscience. Let them stand up one at a time, in a free vote, and vote in favour of the removal of collective bargaining at the local level and the removal of autonomy of locally elected school boards. Stand up and vote for it individually. Tell your Whip to stay home that day. Let's see where your opposition is. There are members in this government, surely to goodness, who have enough integrity to say: "We didn't
[ Page 11454 ]
run on this, campaign on this, believe in this or take this to the people." So how are we now going to put it into effect?
This is an abrogation of the rights of workers. It is also the removal of local autonomy of school boards. It is also the removal of flexibility of school boards to be able to provide services. For those who would say, "No, no; we're only talking about salaries here," I suggest that they read the bill. It doesn't just remove salaries; the cost provisions that this bill allows to be negotiated on a provincewide basis include salaries and benefits and workload. Anybody who knows anything about the provision of special education programs knows that workload is a key component. And then it says "without limitation."
Class-size restrictions. Anybody who knows about English-as-a-second-language programs or about the provision of special education services, particularly as we start to see a modification in the curriculum in areas outside the lower mainland, knows that class-size restrictions is a key component to making new curriculums work. That's going to be negotiated provincially.
Time worked and paid leave. Hon. Speaker, let me tell you something. Paid leave and the need to constantly upgrade our teachers is something that we need to look at here. That is all going to be negotiated provincially as well.
It is sad indeed, because some school boards have had a wonderful working relationship with their teachers. They've been able to negotiate effectively and put very good collective bargaining programs and packages in place that meet the needs of communities, students and parents, and teachers. Where is that going to leave us?
Let's also recognize that in order for this to even get off the ground, there has to be agreement on what is going to be included and what is not going to be included.
How on earth are the parties sitting at the table going to be able to trust this government in that negotiation process? Two things were asked for when it became evident.... This member and members of the Alliance party knew of this legislation back in January. It was being drafted in February and March. Two things were asked for, and they were to make sure that protection was provided for locally bargained contracts, and that those items that had already been bargained in good faith, that had already been agreed to and were in collective agreements that this government holds sacrosanct, would not be opened up and put on the table again. And this government wouldn't commit to it. Remember, this is the government that went back on their word to doctors. Even though when they were in opposition they said that retroactive legislation is abhorrent, that wasn't quite the case when they got into government.
What are we going to have now? We're going to have duly negotiated collective agreements opened up, and all clauses and all matters are going to be before this new provincewide bargaining agent -- all matters. There will be no protection for those that are duly negotiated.
It's interesting that members of this government can find time to smile about this, because I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, there isn't anything to smile about.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Employment and Investment said that he's smiling at me. I see the unity that comes from the members opposite.
Hon. Speaker, let me tell you, this is a serious matter, and I think the members opposite know that. They do know that, because I know some of them personally. I know some of them are people of integrity, who have a conscience and convictions. That's why....
L. Fox: Point to one.
G. Wilson: Many aren't here for this debate today, I'd say to the member for Prince George-Omineca.
That's why I'm challenging this government to free them up. Let's have a free vote, so we can see exactly where each one of these members stands. Not only was the protection of agreements that were already in place asked for, the second thing that was asked of this government was a recognition that there was a mechanism to solve issues at the local level; that wasn't given, either. That's why this notion that it's a two-tiered system is rubbish.
In this session this government introduced Bill 14, a centralized system of capping, of directing funds, with respect to administration of education regarding aboriginal and special education programs -- the heavy hand of this government taking control. With respect to Bills 22 and 23, we are again seeing a movement to centralized authority and centralized control by this government in order to put in place employment agencies with respect to the community college system, and the removal of academic freedoms at that level of education: centralized, big government, telling us how we're going to run what should be locally developed curriculum boards. This legislation basically removes any local autonomy or authority of local school boards, and they must now bargain provincially; it puts a centralized power base in the hands of this government. I say to the member for Burnaby North: it is not this member who thinks he knows best, but this government that clearly thinks it knows best for all school boards, teachers, parents and students, and will determine for all British Columbia how education should be delivered.
The members of the Alliance are not strong in numbers, but we will not provide this easy passage through this House. While we may not have large numbers in this House, we are committed to the protection and provision of some fundamental, basic rights of working people in British Columbia. We will reject the notion of big government determining the workers' bargaining agent, and removing local autonomy in their right to organize and their right to strike.
[3:45]
Let me close by saying two things. First of all, it's a pretty trendy thing right now. That's the reason, I would assume, that the Liberal opposition have abandoned their program and policies put before the electorate -- and their mandate put before the people. It was interesting to hear the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove telling everybody that they ought to read what was said. I would suggest that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove better go back and read the Liberal policy that was put before the people of British Columbia when I was leader of the Liberal Party and took that party to opposition. That's the mandate, notwithstanding what these members may think now. They didn't believe then....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano is laughing. Let them laugh.
With respect to imposing referendum systems on boards, it is clear that in the matter of providing local control over local school board budgets....
An Hon. Member: On bargaining.
[ Page 11455 ]
G. Wilson: And on bargaining.
...in all cases the Liberal Party was very clearly in favour.
When you have such a certain question put to you -- will your government retain locally based collective bargaining for teachers on all issues? -- and the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party say yes, that's a pretty firm commitment. It's in campaign literature, which I could show you. It's in campaign speeches, which we have researched and could show you. But my intention is not to further embarrass the individual members elected to this assembly, who are now going to change their opinion and change their minds.
Do you know why the public becomes cynical about politicians? It's because politicians put forward a position, campaign on it, and have the public vote for it. Then when they get into power, they change their mind, they change their opinion, they throw out whatever they said before, and they do whatever they choose based on political whim. In the case of this particular government, only it knows why it has abandoned its promise; only this government and every one of its members know why they are now working against the individual rights of workers in this province, and they'll have to account for that.
With respect to the official opposition, it's fairly clear that they have moved to a far more right-wing agenda. They're now further right than the members of the Reform Party, formerly members of the Social Credit Party, on issues like essential-service legislation. They don't understand that while access to sound and properly funded education is essential for all British Columbians, teachers -- unlike what the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove said -- are not primary caregivers. Have you ever heard so ludicrous a statement made by an official spokesperson for any party in this legislative chamber as that primary teachers are primary caregivers? No, teachers are dedicated professionals who need and should be treated with respect in order to do the job they are trained to do.
Members of this government should recognize that there is a fundamental right of all individuals in this province, at a local level, to control the educational developments, needs and desires of their people. This is going to cost the people more, not save them money. This is going to be a fundamental removal of individual rights. And it is the first step, in my judgment, toward the removal of school boards entirely. Centralized government with the power to remove the local community's right to control educational delivery in their community -- that's what the hallmark of this government is going to be.
This is shameful legislation. While there may be a popular right-wing sentiment out there saying that essential-service legislation for teachers and the abrogation of individual rights are trendy things to do, everyone in this province who is dedicated to the freedom of individuals and their fundamental right to self-determination should stand up and fight against it.
The movement toward this new right-wing concept of government is a scary proposition. It doesn't just begin and end with teachers, who have been the whipping post of politicians in this province for far too long. If we start with teachers, we might as well move to health care workers, and then we might as well move to any other public sector worker. And as I said before, if we're going to move there, why stop at the public sector? Let's move to the private sector as well. Let all of us throw our individual rights and freedoms in a can and simply look at what's good on the bottom line of a ledger. Let's rule our lives simply by the dollars; let's not concern ourselves with what is most appropriate for the people who live in our communities.
Hon. Speaker, we will not provide this easy passage through this House. I hope the people of British Columbia will have an opportunity to make sure that they have fully apprised themselves of the facts of this bill.
J. Dalton: I expected I might be following a government member on this bill, but perhaps their endorsement of this bill is not as dramatic as one might expect. It's perhaps the most important bill before the House this session, in a sense. If no one else, I'm hoping that at least we may hear from the Minister of Education later in this debate. But we will have to see. I might comment, as well, that I didn't feel any conviction or tone of commitment from the Minister of Finance when she got on her feet and introduced this bill in second reading. However, my comments will address not only the bill but the mood of the public with regard to public education.
I think I can speak firsthand on this topic. I hope I can, given that I have three children in the public system; given that for many years I have had a personal interest and, of course, now have a political interest in the delivery of public education; and given that as best I can, I have an ongoing dialogue with my own school district in North Vancouver on many educational issues.
Quite frankly, I think that what's built into Bill 52 is not just a knee-jerk reaction, as some might think, to labour relations, funding issues, local autonomy and other things that are, of course, a major concern to all of us as we consider the direction of public education. I think the public is now asking questions that have to be answered, and they don't just fall within this bill.
Although it does say in the bill that there's only one purpose, it lists three individual ones. I might note that perhaps the most significant one, which is really not directly tied to the two-tiered collective bargaining process that this bill introduces, and does not directly deal with the so-called improvement of collective bargaining -- we're hoping that that will prove to be true -- is the third of the listed purposes: "...to promote positive working relationships in the public school system." I'm on my feet to address that issue and come at it from two or three different angles.
The public mood, quite frankly, is not a very happy one these days. Whether it is justified or not, and whether members of other unrecognized parties believe it or not, there is a public mood out there. Just to demonstrate by using clippings from major newspapers of this province, a Vancouver Sun headline today says: "School Teachers, Bureaucrats Had Better Beware." The story talks about the Surrey School District and the reaction to a back-to-basics school. The lead editorial in the Vancouver Sun is headed: "A Lesson for Teachers" -- today's editorial, same topic. Here's an interesting item. It's a headline from today's Province: "Back-to-Basics Bid Hits Burnaby."
This thing is growing by itself. That doesn't necessarily mean that this government or any other has to accede to what is being asked for in individual school districts -- obviously not. This government is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that public education, in its best sense, is best delivered. I am going to make some comments near the end of my remarks about how I don't feel that this government has the management capabilities to carry out this bill. However, as I get into some detail in my discussion I will say that I personally support -- and the official opposition collectively supports -- the intent of this bill. At least there is one thing: we are prepared to get on our feet
[ Page 11456 ]
and say so. The government is not, and I think that's shameful. I challenge them. They bring forward a major bill in this session, and we're only going to hear from one government member on this bill, the Minister of Finance. It's also ironic that we're not likely to hear from the very minister who should be speaking on this bill, the Minister of Education.
However, let me get into my comments. First, there is a public mood, as I have already alluded to, which is reflected in a recent Angus Reid survey. This is a cross-Canada survey, not just of British Columbia, but certainly it applies to this province. Recent polling by Angus Reid showed that 46 percent of Canadians surveyed felt that today's public system provides a worse education than it did 25 years ago. That's a very disturbing survey.
That survey doesn't mean that the public has abandoned the system or is totally unsettled. It means that the public is saying they are thinking back and comparing the education and labour climate today and the almost endless local negotiations that go on. After all, if you have 75 school districts, a lot of time and money is going to be consumed in local bargaining. Korbin estimated that the cost of local bargaining is $9 million, give or take. I'm not going to argue whether that figure is totally accurate, but I think it's a fairly commonly held figure -- $9 million for 75 districts to bargain locally. If it's properly implemented -- and I would remind this House that I have no confidence that this government can carry it out in its true effect -- this bill will in part go to address that issue. But that's not the importance of this bill. The importance is reflected in the public mood.
I am going to read some comments into the record from someone who is far more knowledgable than I on this topic, and probably far more knowledgable than anyone in this province. This is an article written by Dr. Joe Freedman of Red Deer, Alberta. Dr. Joe Freedman -- God bless him -- is a parent who has taken upon himself an initiative of many years to raise $70,000 to produce an excellent 76-minute film, among other things. I have purchased it, and I'd be happy to lend it to any member in this House. I recommend it; it's excellent viewing. The film is entitled "Failing Grades." It's a sad commentary when it has to be titled accordingly. Through discussions and surveys, Dr. Freedman and other people interviewed in that film demonstrate -- and it is not just one person's opinion; it's many people's opinions -- and set out in great detail the public mood and the public concerns. Now, let's hear from Dr. Joe Freedman. Dr. Joe Freedman, by the way, was in Victoria recently. I'm sorry that I didn't know he was here just a week ago, towards the end of May.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Another member suggests it was a little earlier than that. Joe Freedman is becoming more and more in demand. He was also in Vancouver, I believe, towards the middle of March.
[4:00]
What does Joe Freedman say? This is an article entitled "The Sympathetic Critic," from the October-November 1993 issue of a publication called Teach. That publication is directed towards educators in Canada. Joe Freedman starts off by asking a question: "Who couldn't notice that Canadian education is under attack?" I have already cited three examples from today's newspapers that indicate that education is not necessarily under attack, but certainly under close scrutiny. Joe Freedman goes on to say: "I am one of those critics." I -- and I'm now referring to myself, not Joe Freedman -- am also a critic, but I am not the critic who wants to rip the system apart, although some will disagree with me, and that's fine; I don't mind having shots taken at me. I am the critic who is prepared to sit down with my school board and any other school district -- and I have visited many in my two and a half years as an MLA -- and talk about education issues objectively and pointedly, and I will always continue to do that as best I can.
Joe Freedman goes on, and I think this comment is worthy of reading into Hansard. He is referring to educators and trustees who would not sit down with him: "But they were curiously dismissive, as if there were no real grounds for my interest in the level of academic expectations and the standards of behaviour in our schools." Unfortunately, Joe Freedman is saying that in his town of Red Deer -- and I'm sure in other Alberta communities until recently, when the public mood or the government approach changed -- he met with resistance to simply wanting to sit down in a local community, as a parent and as a taxpayer, and talk about education initiatives. Those things are changing, but they're not changing easily.
I now refer to the current example of the debate raging in the Surrey School District. I'm sure every member in this House knows full well the issue I am addressing. It is referred to in various articles and editorials in our newspapers. Here's an item from the Vancouver Sun, dated May 9. When the Surrey School Board -- in principle, at that time, and now it is a proposal that will go forward -- was asked by local parents to initiate a so-called back-to-basics public school in that district, what do we see in the headline? "Teachers Aim to Block New School." It is a sad commentary -- and I'm not saying this critically, because this is true -- that the local teachers' union in Surrey is actually trying to block this initiative of parents and trustees. I say that it is shameful. That is shameful, not because the teachers....
Perhaps I should more correctly say it's the executive of the Surrey teachers' local, because I don't think the day-to-day, in-the-trenches teachers of Surrey are any different than the teachers in my own school district of North Vancouver. When I talk to them privately, they say that many of the things that are being talked about by Joe Freedman and others have full merit and should have full consideration. Unfortunately, it's the executive of locals like this that grab the headlines. Rightly or wrongly -- and I say wrongly -- they are trying to roadblock initiatives at the local level.
Let me just interject at this point. I feel -- other members have commented, and I am sure others will do likewise -- that the issue of local autonomy can actually be addressed through Bill 52 and not the reverse, as some members suggest: that local autonomy will be eroded by this bill. But it's not going to be an easy process. Local autonomy is under attack. It is probably under attack because of the funding problems. Of course, they were protracted. They have to be protracted. When you have 75 local bargaining sessions going on, it has to be a protracted exercise. I'm going to comment later about local autonomy. If this bill is properly managed, it can address that issue, directly or indirectly.
So what do we see? Coming back to this Surrey example, we see local executives of school unions roadblocking, through legal and other means, the attempt of the public, concerned parents, the Joe Freedmans of Surrey and North Vancouver and Powell River and Prince George.... We see local executives trying to roadblock that. Well, it won't work, hon. Speaker. I can tell you that it won't work, because of the public mood. Some 46 percent of the public are saying that they don't feel the education system of today is doing the job it did 25 years ago. That has to be listened to.
[ Page 11457 ]
What else do we see about this Surrey issue? A June 3 Province editorial is headed "Chill Out." Again, that's a commentary on the Surrey situation. A headline in the Sun of the same day, June 3, reads: "Teacher Union Challenges Trustees Over Plans for 'Traditional' School." The Times-Colonist of the same day reads: "Union Warns Teachers to Snub Traditionalist, Public-Funded School." I'm hearing some of the Surrey representatives saying that this is really a private school. Well, it isn't a private school; it is publicly funded. I guess this is what we would probably, in the best context -- and the thing that Joe Freedman fully advocates -- describe as a charter school.
At this point I should make at least one comment about my own school district of North Vancouver. I can tell you, as a fact, that that school district is nervous about discussing so-called private schools, which are charter schools. I've also referred to them on occasion as school-based management. I say that my school district is nervous about this, because they're on record as stating that they felt they did not wish to sit down and discuss that particular issue with me, as an MLA and a parent in that school district. Probably built into the North Vancouver trustee reaction is an element of change that people like Joe Freedman are introducing into our public education system, and it's a well-proven fact that people don't like change unless it's well documented and well set out as to what it's about.
My mission, as far as trying to discuss that charter-based or school-based management issue with my own district is concerned, is not to gut the system and invoke rapidly accelerating change. My mission is to sit down and discuss an issue which I feel can address the question of local autonomy and even some of the problems of local funding. Maybe later in the dialogue -- either in second reading or committee stage -- we'll have some discussion on that issue.
We see unfortunate examples even in our own school districts where, rightly or wrongly, trustees and teachers are somewhat reticent to sit down objectively and discuss the issues. Maybe it's fair for me to take a shot at myself; maybe some people feel that I'm not objective in my approach. That remains to be seen, but at least I'd like the opportunity to advance that cause.
Let me make some comments about provincewide bargaining, which of course is the essence of Bill 52. It is one of the three purposes set out in the bill -- to set up a provincial two-tiered system whereby, as we know, there will be the provincial tier dealing with economic issues, including class size, and then local issues which unfortunately are ill-defined, if they are defined at all. On that particular point, by the way, unless both sides are in rather refreshing common agreement on any local issue, it's quite unlikely that any local issue of any sense is going to get bargained, unfortunately. As we know, either party can send a local issue in dispute to the provincial table for resolution. I'm predicting that significant local issues, whatever they may be -- and we know they will not be cost provisions, because those are maintained at the provincial table -- are unfortunately going to be abandoned.
It comes back to my particular point about charter schools or school-based management in a district. Again, I feel that's an approach that can be taken -- and there are more and more examples where it's working. Probably the lead jurisdiction in North America on that topic is in Minnesota, where they now have many school districts that have set up charter-based and school-based systems. They're working. We know they're working in Edmonds, Washington, in Red Deer and Edmonton.
This fall we're going to see an example of that in Surrey, in spite of the resistance of some of the heads of that local union. Langley has, in essence, had a school-based system or charter school functioning for 15 years. No one seems to want to talk about it, but that is a fact -- and it is publicly funded. It is not a private school; it is not an elitist school. It's an opportunity for parents and students to say: "We would like to attend this school and have some local say in the management and functioning of this school." I see nothing wrong with that, and it does not compromise local autonomy; it enhances it. It doesn't compromise labour relations in a school district; it can improve it.
I'll tell you one thing: if we don't address the public mood -- and in its small part, Bill 52 helps -- it's going to get uglier. No matter what any member in the opposition or on the government side -- although we are not going to hear from them -- may say about party positions, promises and campaign statements, if the public mood identifies problems, the public mood has to be listened to; and problems may be funding-based, curriculum-based or labour-relations-based, I don't care. If the public is misinformed, then hopefully, in our capacity as elected representatives, we will try to clear the record. I do not believe the public is misinformed on some of these education issues.
Let's look at some of the background of provincewide bargaining. These are financial figures that come out of the Korbin report and the funding of education in this province. For example, these are 1993-94 Ministry of Education figures. There are 437 FTE employees in the Ministry of Education. The salaries for those employees total $22 million. Then you go down to the school districts: there are 1,500 administrators and 12,700 support staff. This is from volume 2 of Korbin, so members can look it up to refresh their memory. The total ministry budget for the 1,500 plus the 12,700 I referred to is 23 percent of the 1993 total budget of $3.66 billion, or $842 million. That is not small change.
There are many obvious cost factors in the delivery of quality education that we have to look at, and we cannot just sit back and say, "Well, let local bargaining play its course," because if there are problems built into it, and there clearly are.... In fact, in a moment I'll talk a little more about my own school district. I suppose the trustees and the administrators over there are starting to cringe. Well, too bad, because there are things that I have to read into the record that I have been long concerned about. If I am perceived as a naysayer or a basher of this or that, well that's tough. I was elected to take a stand on issues, and I am prepared to do so. Korbin documents in great detail some of the financial and other problems with the current administration of Education in this province, and we have to listen to that.
[4:15]
Let me share with this House some of the experience I had with my own school district with regard to a threatened strike in the spring and early summer of last year. I think this is worthy of examination, not just to take shots where shots are deserved, but more to describe at least in one district that I know very well -- and this is not an unusual or isolated example -- what happens when you have protracted bargaining and at the end of the day you have reached an impasse. We know that there were, as I recall, six school strikes last year. Fernie was the first. It was actually locked out in January of last year. Then we had a strike in Quesnel, which went on for several weeks. North Island was the longest. It was out for six weeks, I believe, before we ordered them back to work through the memorable Sunday members will remember last spring. Of course, Vancouver went down, and there were other districts. Some BCTF representatives
[ Page 11458 ]
will tell us that there were only so many student-hours lost, or this or that. But the fact is there were disruptions in the educational process last spring.
In my own school district of North Vancouver, teachers were in a strike position last June, and the then president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association wrote to the superintendent of schools on June 15 to say -- and this is a quote from her letter: "The members of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association are on strike. Since we are in a legal strike position, we are under no obligation to perform any duties" -- and "any" is underlined.
Now happily, from one point of view, the teachers actually never left the classrooms. But one of the difficulties that I.... And I was not alone, although perhaps I was the leading spokesperson on this issue. The difficulty that came out of this was that the teachers of North Vancouver refused to produce the final report cards for last year. There was a ban on administrative paperwork, which included report card production. That was fair enough, because we got through the year. But it surprised me that last September my son brought home his high school report card from June. What happened was that the high school teachers in North Vancouver -- and rightly so -- sat down at the end of September, prepared the end-of-June report cards and sent them home to the parents.
Naturally, as a parent of two elementary school children as well, I then asked at my elementary school when I might expect my report cards, and I didn't get them. I didn't get them because the teachers were "on strike" in June, although they were, of course, at work. It was part of the compromise agreement reached between the school district and the teachers of North Vancouver that they not complete June report cards. So what I actually had to do -- and I had my two daughters do the same -- was go to the school office and examine those school records -- which are there, quite correctly, and have to be there.
But I felt it was unfortunate, and this is where I took issue with both the school board and the teachers -- it wasn't a one-sided deal; I criticized both sides. I felt that it was improper and almost unprofessional that the teachers didn't at least make the effort to fill out a fairly simple list of letter grades. For example, my daughter is now in grade 7. Her letter grades are on file at that school -- I've seen them because I looked them up, and she's seen them because she looked them up -- but they were never sent home. So I took issue with that.
I refer to that example because I think it rightly demonstrates that sometimes local problems are not always satisfactorily resolved locally. I wish it had been handled differently. Rightly or wrongly, the now president of the North Vancouver Teachers' Association and I took issue over this subject. It really hasn't been until recently that we're perhaps starting to come back to where I believe we can sit down at the table and discuss educational issues of local concern in an objective manner. I'm hoping that is so, and I'll make the observation right now in Hansard that I'm prepared at any time to do that. The reason I'm prepared to do that is that I have perceived problems in the delivery of public education, and I'm certainly not alone. I've got dozens of things in my files that I couldn't bring in with me today because I've got only another minute or two before I have to wind up. But those are the issues.
So let me now get to the issue of.... I believe the hon. Speaker is suggesting that I might be designated the lead speaker for the opposition. Well, I'm sure it would probably drive everyone to distraction if they thought that I was going to carry on for two hours. In fact, I'd have to ask for a two-minute adjournment and go out and get my other files, which are yea thick, so I could carry on.
One other observation I would like to make -- and it does come back to what I suggested earlier -- is that I think the intent of the bill is valid. It's long overdue, not because -- as some members are going to take shots at us -- of a so-called change in our opinion, but because the public mood has changed. The public now well knows about the things I have commented on in my remarks. If things aren't working as well as they might, let's consider alternatives.
I am hoping that this government will have the courage to stand on its feet in second reading and committee stage -- and publicly. Get out of this House and make your comments, and support the initiative behind Bill 52. But I'm also fearful. I don't believe that the government has the management skills to carry this out in its best form. We're going to have to see how that works.
I see that I've exhausted my time. I will take my place and look forward to comments from other members.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act. In one sense, it seems to me that it's almost a contradiction in terms. It was brought home to me a couple of weeks ago when I was in Saskatchewan talking with teachers about comparisons between their eduction system and ours. I asked about their process of negotiation, which is, in effect, what we're calling a two-tiered system here. It has been in place for a number of years and seems to be working out very well, from everybody's perspective. I referred to them as a teachers' union, and the person I was talking to, who was a teacher herself, was very quick to correct me and say: "No, we're not a union; we're a teachers' association."
One of the shifts in this province in education and our attitude towards it came a number of years ago when Social Credit was the government. The Minister of Education at that time, Bill Vander Zalm, began to berate the education system and teachers. The negative attitude of government toward the education system seems to have been building up, from then until now. That's unfortunate.
Sure there are some problems in the education system. There are problems in any system; I don't care what it is. There's no perfect system anywhere that I'm aware of, under any government, particularly when we have a changing system. I'm always reminded that at one time it was portrayed that one of the best technical education systems in the world was in Germany, prior to the Second World War. Yet out of the perfection of that system came results that none of us want to see again. We live in times of rapid change. There will be change, and there must be change. Systems must change in order to respond to the circumstances around us.
As to the quality of the education of young people today, whom I have visited, by and large, it's good. By and large, they are as well qualified, or better qualified, than the people of my generation. Perhaps I'm a little older than some in this Legislature, but many in my generation went to one-room schools. They had students from grade 1 through to the end of high school in one room, and one teacher taught all of them. Some of them were able to work through correspondence, with supplemental help from the teacher. Many of those teachers were strictly out of high school. Perhaps some didn't even have a high school education, because the need was so great. They were working with temporary certificates. Many of them had very little teacher training, yet those students did very well.
[ Page 11459 ]
I think we need to first indicate that there are many positive things to be said about our present educational system, and that the vast majority of our students are doing very well within our system. Many of our students are having problems not because of the educational system, but because of the social environment in which they are forced to live. The educational system has been placed in a situation where it is expected to pick up the deficiencies of the community at large and solve them on its behalf.
Too much has been expected of our educational system, with too few resources. The process we're discussing today in Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act, is one step in an ongoing process of adjusting to the change that is taking place in the community all around us. Unfortunately, many of these changes are taken in isolation from each other, so there does not seem to be an overall, comprehensive view of the changes that are needed.
We're very much aware of the disruption which has come into our educational system with the introduction of thislabour-management system. The labour-management system was developed in an industrial age, where we were dealing with workers in factories, mines and forests. When that model was developed, we were not dealing with workers who work with children. We dealt with workers who were dealing with widgets and things, rather than persons, and the system was developed to deal with those. The labour-management relationship, which is a private relationship, for the most part, between management and a set of workers, is an entirely different model than what's appropriate in a community at large when we're dealing with the daily life of children and their families, and with what is necessary not only for their immediate well-being but also for their futurewell-being, and not only for their personal lives but also for our communities at large.
In this issue, we're dealing with how we deal with change, and how we take a model that was developed in another circumstance and try to continually remould it. It was mentioned earlier, in a negative way, that we will come back to this discussion again and again. Of course we will, because we're in a rapidly changing society. Even a decision that we make today will have to be reviewed next year, the year after and the year after that. We're in a reviewing process.
[4:30]
It has become very clear that at this point in time, the labour-management process in this province -- which is different from the teaching process -- has hampered the teaching and learning processes that go on between the teachers and their students. I want to be quite clear that for the most part, I'm very satisfied and pleased with the dedication of teachers who are at work in this province and with the interest of the students who are a part of that process. With computerization and the change in work needs that are coming upon us very rapidly -- and with the international context in which we now live, rather than a strictly local context -- we must make changes. This bill is attempting to make those changes, and in this I would commend the government for seeing the writing on the wall, if you want to put it that way, and attempting to respond to it. We won't know until down the road whether their response has been totally adequate or not. I daresay that I agree with other speakers that there will be problems, both provincially and locally, as the process goes into effect, but that's not to say that the process shouldn't be attempted, evaluated and changed as we go along.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
A broader context has been discussed and needs to be reviewed with some consideration. We currently have 75 school districts. Some of those school districts have fewer pupils in them than one school in the city, and whether or not that's an imbalance certainly has to be looked at. When we look at it from a provincial picture, how is it that one district is negotiating with a whole set of schools which are working together and others are only negotiating with a very small number? There's an imbalance there, and the province-wide picture is certainly going to take that imbalance into account.
I should say, before I go any further, that whether or not I'm in a conflict-of-interest situation may be up for discussion. My wife is a principal in the school system, my daughter teaches in the school system and my son-in-law teaches in the school system. I might say that the conflict of interest is within our family, because we certainly don't agree on many of the things that are happening or even on whether or not this bill should go forward. So I only need to go home and sit at my own dinner table to hear all sides of this issue and to know that there are many points of view.
So I'm not here to say that there is only one point of view, because that's not right, but I am here to say that when I talk to the students, the teachers and the parents within the community and try to represent the variety of views, it seems to me that we must experiment. The status quo is not good enough. Recognizing that the status quo hasn't been around that long -- this particular process hasn't been in place very long -- and the very fact that it was brought into being and has been found wanting, means that it now has to be revised and changed again. It's not a matter of what the government brought into being in the final analysis, but it was tried, it was found wanting, it hasn't solved the problem, and so we have to take another look at it.
So we look at other places around the community and across Canada, and we see that some have gone to complete provincewide bargaining for everything, and that has not proved to be satisfactory. Some have tried to maintain complete local district bargaining, and that has not proved to be satisfactory. So we're trying to bring in, in this bill, a mix of those two systems to see if there can be a balance between them that everybody can be satisfied with. There are issues that need to be dealt with locally, and those issues must be defined. That would be one of my difficulties with this bill: that those issues have not been clarified so that people could be clearer about the intent of that local-issue bargaining. Because the parents in rural and urban districts have certain needs and certain opportunities. There are certain circumstances that must be taken into account, but we must also realize that graduates are not likely to continue to live in the community in which they've grown up. They will travel to other communities; they will travel to other parts of Canada. So there needs to be unanimity throughout the whole educational system -- across Canada and in our provinces.
During our years of study it was our experience to go to schools in the American school system. Every local school was autonomous. When you moved from one school to another, even within an area, you moved from one curriculum to another and from one set of principles to another. So that takes it to the opposite extreme.
We need to work out a balance. We also need to realize that you can't simply set finances apart from the system or the organization by which a school operates. The funding and the philosophical principles of operation and the teaching principles all interact, and that's something we need to be aware of. One of the concerns that we have raised in
[ Page 11460 ]
other aspects of bills coming through this Legislature at present is the development of the Public Sector Employers' Council. Under the Public Sector Employers' Council there is the health sector employers' council, the education sector employers' council and the social services employers' council. So there is a centralization in that employers' council system that we need to be very aware of and very concerned about. The very process of decision-making within that system can, in effect, take away from the local community's involvement and freedom to make choices.
When we're talking about education, this is not simply a labour bill, as we discussed it in other circumstances in other places. We must understand that this has implications for education, so it's a management bill. It's an administrative bill about how teachers relate to each other, to their students and parents, and to other community agencies which are part of the community life. The present system has formalized those relationships. In many corporations and businesses, one of the realities of management today is to stress that products are produced when people work together effectively and cooperatively in the informal systems and relationships they have with each other, whether it's on the shop floor or in the classroom. As we have done with this labour-management model we have been working with, if we stress only the formal rules and regulations of how we live and work together, and cease to take into account the informal relationships which are so important, then we have destroyed the system and its essential self.
As I mentioned earlier, I am concerned that not only under the Social Credit system did we find that there was a downplaying and, as some called it, a bashing of the teachers in the educational system; we have also had it recently under the present government, when the Premier decried the Year 2000 program. We can do away with labels. If we use labels, we tend to ignore the people underneath those labels. The intent of the Year 2000 program was built by the experience of teachers, and it expressed much of what they were already doing within the school system. When it was demoted in the eyes of the Premier and of the province, what happened was another demotion of the educational system itself. It seems to me that what we're trying to do in this process is not to demote the education system or the quality of teachers and the work they're doing in the community, but rather to recognize the validities in the education system, to make them better and support them, to recognize the strength and validity of teachers and their dedication and devotion, and to give them the opportunity and freedom to do that with integrity and strength. Some particular questions in this bill will need to be answered in committee stage, because the intent is not clear in many areas. It could be very easily misinterpreted. Until we have that clarity from the presenters of the bill, there will be questions to be asked and questions to be clarified.
We must move ahead, because the present system is not working. We must experiment with this and be willing to review and change it again, as the case may be. But we cannot simply stay where we are, because it is not satisfactory. I encourage us to think -- not just to indicate who's doing right or wrong -- and work together to find a system, which will have to evolve over a period of time with the circumstances around us, and create a program and curriculum that helps give our students opportunities to learn -- an education system that prepares them not for yesterday and not even for today, but for tomorrow. That is our primary concern. The organization and management of that system must be for that end and for no other end.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise and speak on Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act.
There is a famous saying that two wrongs don't make one right. I recall very vividly the bill that was brought forward in 1987 -- Bill 20 at that time -- which gave certain provisions to teachers, including striking. I can understand members sitting opposite being very silent today, because I think there was some similarity in the House at that time as well. Members on the government side, particularly the backbenchers, were very reluctant to speak on that bill. Here we have another prime example where we don't hear the government at all, except the minister who introduced the bill today. I'm just wondering: is the government really serious about this bill?
It seems to me that this is another bill that is nothing but a centralization act, similar to what they've done with nurses and so on in the health area. It was centralization, nothing else. It's big government taking over local responsibility and privileges. Local responsibility and privileges are being taken away again and again by this government.
[4:45]
You talk about public support for this. Perhaps there is public support for the provincial bargaining proposal, because the other system hasn't worked. But that was not because the negotiations were done locally. It was because of the ability of teachers to go on strike and pick off one by one over another. It was the result of what used to be a very good organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, taking care of the needs of education and talking about the professional aspects of education. The schools are an extension of the home. I believe that over the last number of years we have lost a lot of that, simply because the B.C. Teachers' Federation, looking after the professional needs and aspirations of teachers, has not been effective. Many of the reasons.... And I'm not blaming the teachers specifically for this. I believe that, in many respects, the parents have not practised what they should be doing with the teachers -- that is, communicating about their children's problems or the trends in education, or about the lifestyle trends of certain families, or whatever the case may be. There's been a big change in family relations. How are the schools dealing with that? The fact that the B.C. Teachers' Federation has become a large union has taken away from the effectiveness of their dealing with the professional aspects of education.
I'm not so sure whether there is really teacher support throughout the province for this kind of proposal, even though they have consolidated their bargaining under the B.C. Teachers' Federation. If indeed they want to continue on that basis, then I suppose a person would say: "If they want to deal through one organization in terms of salaries, working conditions and everything else that goes along with negotiations, then perhaps yes, it makes sense that it should be done through one bargaining agent" -- that being the British Columbia government or whatever they may put in place to negotiate with them. I'm not so sure whether the teachers of this province aren't a bit reluctant. Perhaps that's too mild to say. I don't think the teachers are prepared to go towards this centralized bargaining.
That begs a second question: whether the teachers perhaps have concluded by this time that the B.C. Teachers' Federation has lost its focus in terms of dealing with the educational aspects of the school system. There used to be a pretty good situation, where there were two types: the B.C. Teachers' Federation was there to look after the educational processes, and they had the local organizations to deal with the bargaining.
The member who spoke prior to me said there is an ever-changing process, and perhaps next year we'll be back
[ Page 11461 ]
here again speaking about this. I would feel very uncomfortable if I were a teacher in this province and this bargaining process were deliberated again on the floor of this House -- again making changes to that. We know that, yes, changes are needed in the education process from time to time. Perhaps some changes are needed every year, depending on the communication and the direction that the school district and the teaching profession goes.
But on the bargaining issue, I don't think the teachers want changes each and every year as to how it's being done. There is nothing clear as to what is going to be bargained here and what is going to be bargained locally. There have been no specifics coming from the government at all.
We've heard about health and the nurses' association for the past 20 years. We've heard about teachers for the last 20 years too, often from a political point of view, which is a sad state of affairs, really. I believe that we see another trend developing here. Although it's not stated in the bill, it was never stated in any of the bills that had to do with hospital organizations when they went to provincewide bargaining. Over the past year the province has eliminated hospital boards, which is the elimination of local autonomy. They have put them under a committee appointed largely by the provincial government. That takes away direct autonomy and the working relationship between a hospital board and its staff. It's a shame that it happened, and I can see exactly the same thing happening here.
This is the first step toward the abolition of local school boards -- if this government stays in power long enough. It's another attempt at nothing more than big-government control. The government is creating another political body. That's what they're after. This is not to help teachers get through contract negotiations.
The people of the province are asking questions. Is this going to be good for bargaining? Is it going to be good for education? Is it going to be good for teachers? I haven't heard from the teachers that they're going to like it, nor have I heard very much from the parents or the school boards that they're going to like it. The big question is whether it's good for education. I don't think it is. I believe very strongly that teachers would love to go back to the days when they had the B.C. Teachers' Federation to deal with the professional aspects of education and didn't mix it in with the bargaining process.
Parents are not interested in strikes, and neither are teachers. Parents want continued education. Why doesn't this government ask the teachers if they want to go back to local association status, which allows for bargaining, mediation and arbitration? Association status does not allow for lockouts, nor does it allow for strikes. I believe that if that were the trend, and if the government were really serious about continuing a good education process with local and parental input, then that is the route to go, not this high-handed, centralized government that is proposed in Bill 52.
Teachers are eager to bring the best out of their students. I am positive that teachers would love to have the bargaining process separated from their professional organization so that the two would not harm each other at a time when children are in school. This has happened over the last couple of years, and I believe the previous administration and this administration are equally guilty of that.
J. Tyabji: I've read Bill 52 very carefully a number of times. To me it represents a complete breach of trust, not only with the teachers of this province but also with the parents, students and electorate at large. I don't say that lightly. I'm not an alarmist who stands up in question period and calls the cabinet names. I take this job very seriously. Reading this legislation, to assume that it represented provincewide bargaining is one thing; but there are definitions and clauses here that represent something very different from provincewide bargaining for teachers. And there is a much more substantial implementation of the Korbin commission recommendations than has been said publicly. What bothers me most is that if this government wants to do social engineering with our public education system, then it should come clean with the voters and tell them that is what it is doing. Don't put it in the guise of protecting students by bringing in a Public Education Labour Relations Act.
Let me give some examples of why, in principle, this bill is an abhorrent piece of legislation -- not just for people who are interested in the education system, but for anyone who's wondering what the government is planning to do with regard to the proliferation of public sector unions. When I read Bill 52, I found it odd that a teacher was described as "a person included in the bargaining unit." I thought that was a little bit odd. To me a teacher is someone who instructs students. Someone who provides education -- that's what a teacher is. So I went to the School Act. In the School Act a teacher "is a person holding a certificate of qualification who is employed by a board to provide an educational program to students in a school, but does not include...." Clearly, in the School Act, a teacher is defined as someone who has an educational role. Now, why would the government change the definition of "teacher" for Bill 52?
Then I read on and saw that the first part of the definition of a bargaining unit refers to the School Act, but the second part doesn't. The second part says that the Labour Relations Board has full discretion to include or exclude whomever. It doesn't have to be someone defined as a teacher, but just employees. It doesn't even say employees within the education system; it just says employees. I thought that was a little bit odd and that now we're getting into something very strange. Then we see that the employee bargaining agent is the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, until we get to subsection (2). Well what does subsection (2) say? It says: "Despite subsection (1)" -- which defines the bargaining agent as the B.C. Teachers' Federation -- "sections 18, 19 and 33 of the Labour Relations Code...apply...." What does that mean? Why, all of a sudden, are we talking about bargaining agent and...?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Burnaby-something-or-other says it could be a conspiracy. A healthy dose of suspicion about this government is a good idea when you're in opposition.
Unfortunately, some of the other opposition members didn't do their homework. When I went to the Labour Relations Code and looked up sections 18, 19 and 33, I found that members of the B.C. Government Employees' Union could become the bargaining unit. That could be the pool from which we draw our teachers.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister who they had to make up a portfolio for when they kicked him out of the other one because of his alleged conflict of interest is saying that it's a fantasy. I encourage him to read the bill, because this bill is
[ Page 11462 ]
not about schools, protecting students or getting a better education system.
Where's the Minister of Education in this debate? Where's the Minister of Labour? This is shameful. This bill is going to have a huge impact on the people of this province, and we have heard nothing from the Minister of Education. Considering that in the brave new world of this government, our advanced education institutions are all under the Minister of Labour, and that our teachers are now being defined under the Labour Relations Code as a bargaining unit like any other public sector employee, where's the Minister of Labour? Where's the new commandant for the teachers?
Why is this debate being treated so casually by the NDP? Why isn't the NDP standing up and defending it? When we look at Bill 14, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1994, we see that all of a sudden, the minister has direct power through an amendment to the School Act to start directing the board for spending, so we know that local autonomy is gone. That was problematic under Bill 14.
Under Bill 52, not only is local autonomy gone; not only are communities not able to direct education; and not only do we not allow parents to sit down with their local teachers' association to bargain collectively with the local representatives of the Ministry of Education and the school trustees, and have everyone in the community start to direct education for the individual needs of that community -- not only is that gone, wiped out and completely a breach of trust of the mandate of this government -- but we find that teachers will now be part of that generic and ever-growing government employees' union. They're just going to be lumped in there. If anyone doesn't believe me, read the act very carefully and see how "teacher" and "bargaining unit" are defined; be a bit curious when you get to the section about a teachers' union. What's a teachers union? This is when I really wonder what the government is up to. A teachers' union is a teachers' union as defined in the School Act, or a provincial union as defined in this act. A provincial union is what's defined under the section with regard to the bargaining unit being constituted at the discretion of the Labour Relations Board.
[5:00]
What really infuriates me is that not only are we losing the ability to have local autonomy in our education system, which is an enormous issue, but also that the government doesn't have the guts to stand up and say what it's really doing here. They don't have the guts to stand up and publicly say that not only are they completely abandoning their mandate but also they're going to bring about a social engineering of the public labour force by lumping the teachers in.
I find that totally reprehensible. If the Minister of Education believes our school system should have teachers lumped in with all the public sector employees, that they don't have to be independent and that we will be allowed to have a bargaining agent other than the B.C. Teachers' Federation, I urge him to stand up in this House and put his comments on record so that any teachers, parents, community representatives or school trustees will know exactly where the Minister of Education is coming from on this bill. And since we are going to have the Minister of Labour directing all the students through polytechnic institutes, as he said in debate on another bill, and since he would like to engineer the curriculums and name the degrees for secondary institutions, I would hope that we will also see him in here defending this bill. The Minister of Labour should be the person saying: "This is exactly what we want to do in this government, because I'm the Minister of Labour and that's my mandate."
We stood here in this House for a session that was entirely devoted to one piece of legislation for about six or seven weeks; we stood day in and day out on committee stage of the Labour Relations Code. I remember it very clearly, because I had a lot of input into that debate, and Hansard is quite clear with regard to some of the specific questions that were asked at that time of the Minister of Labour, who is now the Minister of Environment. We were assured that we shouldn't worry about the Labour Relations Code, because it was to be there as a safety net for public workers, and we knew we needed proper legislation so that workers weren't exploited.
But there was no mention that teachers were going to be included and that we were going to change the way our school system functions. How many parents and teachers know this is going on? How many have had a chance to read the bill? I find it alarming that as a legislator of this assembly, after cross-referencing this, I still don't know which union the government is planning to replace the B.C. Teachers' Federation with. Which one is it going to be? Obviously we can canvass that in committee stage.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I would challenge the member for Cariboo North to get up in debate and put his comments on the record, because proper debate is what we need in this House.
What angers me the most is, at a time when the education financing system could use some intelligent and constructive redesigning, so that we could get rid of the current funding system and put in place some longer-term financing -- as the Alliance leader said for years, when he was the leader of the Liberals, who have completely forgotten their mandate and changed their opinion from one day to the next.... With regard to the position of this party -- consistent with the leader -- there has to be a change in the funding system. We have to have a proper and secure funding system for teachers, so they can feel some comfort in delivering education and won't be constantly negotiating their position from one year to the next. That hasn't been done.
In the Maritimes, we see two examples where the important role of teachers, and their relationship not only to the public school system but to students, have become critical in the political process. Newfoundland had provincewide bargaining, and the whole province has been shut down. In Prince Edward Island, if we follow the provincial Liberals' recommendation that we move to essential-services legislation.... It's illegal for teachers to strike in Prince Edward Island; nevertheless, they recognize that in Canada we actually uphold individual rights, and they are probably going to go on strike regardless, because they feel the issues warrant it. That should serve as an indication to this government that it doesn't matter how you write the laws; when people stand up for what they believe in, it doesn't matter what the laws say. If this government is going to start legislating teachers to a position where they can't adequately care for the students, then I would imagine the teachers will probably resort to civil disobedience. That's something that is happening more and more.
The people of this province feel completely betrayed by members of the government, who said one thing during the election and changed their mind, their legislation and their decision-making once they were elected. People are starting to stand up and say that's not good enough. They're not going to stand for it, and they will therefore take some
[ Page 11463 ]
course of action, until the government recognizes that the people of this province must be empowered by having governments that hold to what they commit to in the last election. Not only is this government not doing that, I don't know where they think they got the mandate to change the bargaining unit or the bargaining agent for the teachers.
When you think of education and what it means to the people of B.C., every student represents the future of this province. As such, they become incredibly valuable. We must nurture the students; we must make sure that they are in a good and productive learning environment. How do we provide that environment for the students? How do we make sure that our children, who represent all of our future, are learning? One way we do that is to make sure that our educators are in a position where they can deliver good education to the students. They don't do that when they're worried about the future of their jobs, how their jobs are going to be constituted or whether their individual rights are going to be eroded by legislation.
The other way we make sure that there's good education in our school system is to allow for community input. We allow for community input because we recognize that in Fort St. John or Kelowna, as opposed to downtown Vancouver, there are very different regional needs. Those regional needs could be because of special needs, the aboriginal community, or French or Mandarin Chinese or Japanese as a second or primary language; or there could be a greater need for English-as-a-second-language courses. These are all local needs.
The teachers need the tools to teach if the students are going to have every opportunity to participate in the society that I hope we're trying to create -- not through social engineering, but by providing opportunities to students. That's what the education system is for. The education system is not for the proliferation of unions. It's for the students, and the students are to be provided every opportunity to learn according to their individual needs in as good a way as we can teach them. We recognize that there is limited funding, so how do we address the limited funding? Not through this. This is properly named, actually, because this isn't called the School Amendment Act. This isn't an amendment to the School Act that changes the way education is delivered; this is the Public Education Labour Relations Act. This is about labour relations. When we read the purpose of this act, do we find that it's to provide a constructive environment for teachers to operate in, a good environment so that students may learn without worrying? Is this government saying in the act, as it says publicly, that this is being done for the students' benefit? No. I don't think the word "student" is mentioned in the whole act. We see a lot of reference to the Labour Relations Code.
The first purpose of this act is to improve collective bargaining practices and procedures in the public school system. I'm not sure what the NDP members are hearing, but when I talk to my constituents about the most pressing matters in education, that one has yet to make the top ten. I hear about better education, a uniform curriculum and provincewide testing. I hear about capital funding, so that we can have schools. I hear getting the students out of the mobiles, which are proliferating in Kelowna. The standard now is to have schools with mobiles. It's almost like a contest to see who has the most.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The purpose of this act is not in keeping with the most pressing demands of the public. With all due respect to the teachers, a lot of members of the public are not saying that they would care much about bargaining practices and procedures, because they feel that's between the teachers and the government. A parent is going to say: "I just want to make sure that when I pay my taxes, my child is educated so that all the opportunities are afforded to my child." Most of the teachers will probably say: "I don't mind whatever practices and procedures are brought in, provided I can do my job without government stepping in and telling me how to do my job."
I tried to find out how much awareness there was among some of the teachers in the Okanagan. Over the weekend I met a few of them. I was speaking at a high school on Friday, and I asked them: "What do you think about provincewide bargaining?" There was still a fairly high level of trust among the public, believe it or not, and even among the teachers at that time. I don't know where we're at on Monday, but on Friday some of them were saying: "There are some advantages to provincewide bargaining. As long as we can do our jobs and not worry too much, and as long as we can have a cost-of-living allowance and the basic tools needed, then we don't mind." The number one concern was the tools needed to provide the education to the students. But some of them said: "We're a little concerned about who decides which tools are needed for the students."
Because I hadn't spent as much time with the Labour Relations Code as I have since, at that time I thought the biggest issue in this bill was who decides which tools are going to be afforded the teachers to provide the best education to the students? That was where I was at on Friday. Today I think the biggest issue is a breach of trust, because nobody is telling us how this is going to be implemented. What is the mechanism by which the bargaining will take place? Who will be representing the teachers, and why is it not restricted to educators? When you read the intent of the Labour Relations Code as it was passed in the fall of 1992, including the teachers in a larger bargaining unit, such as the B.C. Government Employees' Union, is consistent with the intent of the Labour Relations Code. You would have to be asleep at the switch to miss that one, unless, of course, you're concerned about education. If you're concerned about education, that's how you approach the bill. But as legislators, we have to look at the whole legislative package.
In committee stage we will be introducing a number of amendments in order to test what some on the NDP back bench have said: "You're jumping at fairy tales; it's a fantasy. There's no bigger agenda at work." Well, good. I'm happy to hear that, even though the whole bill is crafted that way. In committee stage we will be introducing amendments in order to get the minister's response. I hope that the Minister of Education is listening somewhere and that he will have some input. Maybe he can write a letter and tell us what he thinks about the bill. If he did that, I'm sure it would be most appreciated.
Maybe the Minister of Labour could tell us whether or not his education councils are going to have anything to do with the schools, and to what extent we're now going to have unions in the post-secondary institutions aligned with the teachers and the B.C. Government Employees' Union, until it's just one big union. Then they can all go on strike, and we'll see exactly what this government thinks they're doing with regard to the proliferation of one big union and what that does to education at the local level.
When we make those recommendations in committee stage, I look forward to the minister's comments on them. I look forward to asking her why the definition of teacher was
[ Page 11464 ]
changed, why the definition of bargaining unit was deliberately left open, and why the Labour Relations Code -- in terms of how to both certify a union and decertify a union, or revoke bargaining rights -- was included in here. Why is that included under the reference to the B.C. Teachers' Federation? Why do we then have a reference to section 33 of the Labour Relations Code, revoking bargaining rights?
[5:15]
It's very interesting, and unfortunately -- or I suppose I should say fortunately.... Fortunately for me, it's interesting in an academic sense today, and it will be in a more real sense when it starts to be implemented at the school level. Unfortunately for the teachers, this bill has much bigger implications than anyone has recognized to this point. This bill was just introduced a couple of days ago. I'm sure that parents, school trustees and teachers will want to examine it in great detail and understand how it will be implemented and what all these different sections mean.
Given that this is a complete breach of the mandate of this government; given that this is a reprehensible piece of legislation that removes local autonomy and local input into education, which is so critical to afford opportunities to students; and given that this bill needs greater consideration by the community as a whole before this government abandons it -- which they should do -- I would like to propose an amendment that: "Bill 52 be not now read a second time, because this government promised the electorate in the 1991 general election that decisions on education would remain at the local level."
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: This amendment that Bill 52 not be read a second time is an opportunity for the members opposite to do two things. One is to get on their feet and defend this piece of legislation. What an outrageous display by government! They bring in one of the most controversial pieces of legislation, which contravenes everything they have said and breaches every promise they've made, and not one of them has the fortitude to stand up and defend it, save the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Education hasn't even shown his face in the House. What kind of outrage is this, anyway?
I'll tell you why they can't come in here. They can't come in here....
Hon. P. Ramsey: Less volume and more sense.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Health says: "Less volume and more sense." Let me tell you that I'm prepared to provide less volume and to listen carefully when the Minister of Health gets up and defends this piece of legislation, which I expect him to do. I would expect that we'll see the Minister of Education get up and defend this piece of legislation. I'd expect that we're going to hear some of the backbenchers -- most of whom won't even come in and listen to debate on this piece of legislation because they're so ashamed of what their government is doing right now. They know full well, as the member for Okanagan East has just said, that this piece of legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the provision of better education for the students, parents and teachers in this province, but everything to do with centralizing control over the provincial bargaining rights of people who in the past have been granted -- strangely enough, by a Socred government -- the right to strike. Can you believe it? A Socred government. It makes me wonder whether, if the Socreds hadn't given the teachers the right to strike, this government would have done it. Probably not; probably you would find that this....
Well, let's see what this government said they were going to do. This government said: "A New Democrat government will, in its first term of office, work to achieve funding based on the actual cost of mandated programs" -- we haven't seen that. The list continues: "...stable education funding and taxation, which is not subject to political whim" -- we certainly haven't seen that. No way. If anything, they've centralized it so that the political whims of the day can control what we do even more. Another item: "...special efforts to solve problems in communities with special needs, including sparse population, rapid growth or historic funding deficits" -- we sure didn't see that; that hasn't come around.
What else did they say? It asks a question here, under "Local Control Over Local School Board Budgets." The question is: "Will your government respect the right of democratically elected school boards to determine the needs of pupils and to set local school district budgets accordingly?" What did the government say? It said yes, they would do that. That clearly is not what they've done with Bill 14 or what they're doing with Bill 52. It clearly is not what was demonstrated last year when we had deliberation over, voting on and passage of the removal of the right to strike for teachers in Vancouver. When we talk about breach of trust, we have to recognize that when politicians who stand for elected office go before the public and make a commitment to the public, they should live up to their commitment.
In response to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who said, "Times have changed; the public mood has changed," how can the opposition Liberals condemn the members opposite for breaking promises 1 through 69 that they put before the public? We hear the Liberals get up all the time, saying, "Another broken promise, another broken promise" -- condemn, condemn. But when there's a broken promise that happens to suit the opposition's philosophical direction of the day, that's okay. It's as if they say: "It's okay to break promises for the things we kind of like; it's all right to go back on your word when it suits our purpose."
But let me say that the people of the province don't forget. I remind the members opposite of 1972-75 and of what they did with educational funding, and I remind the members opposite of what happened in that next election. People don't forget. People especially don't forget when such a clearly articulated direction has been put down on paper, with some reasoned proposition behind it, that is then abandoned because of a new, centralized format for public sector bargaining that's set out in the Korbin commission, which throws the teachers into the hopper. This is just a travesty. What the people clearly won't forget is that if the two elected members of the Alliance here today, who seem to be the only two prepared to stand opposed to this -- I'm not certain where the Socred member who spoke was coming from.... Clearly if we are the only two prepared to vote against it, and if we're so dreadfully wrong and the members of this government are so clearly right, why don't they stand up and defend this bill? Why don't they tell not just the teachers but the parents?
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I see the member for Burnaby North would love to have the vote called, because then they could get it out of the way; this embarrassment wouldn't linger.
F. Garden: What are your constituents saying?
[ Page 11465 ]
G. Wilson: What are my constituents saying? There's a good question, hon. Speaker, because that's whom we are here to serve. That's an excellent question. Let me tell you that the teachers on the south end of the Sunshine Coast are solidly opposed to this piece of legislation, and the school trustees are most concerned with the removal of local autonomy over provision of educational services to the Sunshine Coast -- very concerned. They don't like it at all. The teachers in Powell River, which is the second half of it, have been negotiating and discussing it with members of the BCTF to try to get a handle on where this is going. They're very concerned. Why? They sat down to negotiate with PSEC on two very simple, little clauses. One was not to gut the existing collective agreements, the ones they'd bargained so hard for, gone out on strike for and held virtually every kind of session on to try to protect. Don't gut it. Don't rip out a collective agreement that's already negotiated. And they couldn't win that. Would you tell me what other union, anywhere in this province, would allow collective bargaining policy to be set forward so that everything they have worked for, negotiated and won is all of a sudden on the table again?
I hear the hon. Minister of Health sort of yawning. He might better watch it, because if they're doing this in education, health care is not far behind.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: The members from Prince George say that they've already done it. Let me tell you what's going to happen here with respect to this. This government better remember what policies they ran on, because the electorate isn't going to forget.
In response to a sensible and honest question from the member for Cariboo North, they don't like it. Powell River was hit with a very difficult strike. I fought hard every single day to get the Minister of Labour to try some kind of mediation process to get the two sides together and get it solved. Hon. Speaker, when they brought those groups together and resolved it, guess what happened. The public was so dissatisfied, rightly or wrongly, with the manner by which the local board handled the issue that they used their democratic right to vote them out and put a new board in. That board is now developing a new and better working relationship and some comradery with the teachers to overcome what had become a very divisive and difficult situation.
That's what a community is all about. You have democratically elected school boards at the community level so the community can have input, neighbour to neighbour. We know who all the teachers are in Powell River; it's not that big a community. We know who the teachers are on the Sunshine Coast. And if there are differences, the time to settle those differences is during a collective bargaining round, when we put the cards on the table.
But it isn't going to happen. If this government thinks we're going to be better off by having a centralized bargaining system, that's just nonsense. To begin with, they're talking about whipsawing; they're talking about school boards being whipsawed by local associations in rounds of negotiation. Look at the history of centralized, provincewide bargaining in any system. Review it right across the country. Look at Newfoundland today. It's interesting. Three weeks into one of the most difficult and hottest public sector strikes in Newfoundland history, that Liberal minister still won't legislate them back to work. Why? Because he understands that it is a fundamental human right to allow for the right to organize, the right to bargain and the right to strike -- or, on the part of the employer, the right to lock out.
This government has abrogated that on the local level, and they've done it in a manner that is going to make every single collective agreement already negotiated subject to full negotiation without any protections. That's just outrageous. Then it says that it's two-tiered. It isn't two-tiered, because if you can't agree at a local level.... What issues are they going to be negotiating at a local level that don't have a funding implication? Tell me, what is it you're going to do? Anybody who has spent any time in the education sector knows that funding drives the service. It has to, unless you're asking teachers to volunteer and work for nothing now.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Richmond Centre saying that that's what they want. That's not what they want at all. What teachers in this province want is to be treated in a manner that is fair. They want the individual right to set up an association at the local level to negotiate and bargain with a local, duly elected school board.
I believe that's what parents want. I do not believe parents in the province want this government centralizing bargaining into one huge pot, because those teachers who have given up wage increases and benefit packages to create greater flexibility and program delivery at the community level will have less flexibility to do so again. We are going to move to a common denominator, and that common denominator is going to be at the upper end of the scale, not the lower end, because that's the nature of collective bargaining.
I have been a chief negotiator in the collective bargaining process, I have been the president of a union and I understand what goes on when you get into negotiations. I speak from experience, and I know that you are going to negotiate on behalf of your members to get the very best deal you can, because that's your mandate; that's your job. If this government believes that pushing everybody into a huge provincial pot, with a government-appointed employers' association to negotiate on behalf of the government, is going to allow for the kind of flexibility that happens at a community level when members of the community negotiate with neighbours to provide for the welfare and education of their children collectively.... School board members have children, just as teachers have children, and they all go through the system. We sometimes forget that teachers have children in the system too. They want what's best for their own children. They get painted as though they are some kind of mercenary group of people who are out to rip off the taxpayer and get the very best they can for the least amount of time spent. That's the way that people paint teachers. And you know who paints them that way the worst? Politicians. Why? Because it feeds a small vocal group of right-wing fanatics in this province who are getting more and more control over the government agenda, because more and more people are listening to them. We need to recognize that it is time to move to the moderate centre in this province and listen to the rational thinking of people who understand that education must, above all, be protected at the community level.
[5:30]
This amendment gives this government a second chance. I said it gave them two chances: first, to get up and speak -- defend it. If this legislation is so good, then we should be hearing a whole bunch of government members telling us how good it is, and why they changed their minds. Why
[ Page 11466 ]
have they gone back on the word they gave, not just verbally but in writing? They should defend themselves; that's what debate is about. Second, this amendment gives them a chance to hoist this bill and to rethink their position. It isn't going to be just the question of the teachers and their dissatisfaction that's going to come home to roost. It's going to be the parents in a community like Prince George, who have had a very excellent working relationship -- board to teachers -- and have negotiated a good collective agreement. I think the member would agree. There was a very rational, sensible group of people sitting down. The Sunshine Coast, my own riding, hasn't had a strike. In Powell River they did. Why? The Sunshine Coast, as the member for Cariboo North probably doesn't know, has two school districts.
F. Garden: It goes right up to Powell River.
G. Wilson: Indeed it does. There are two different districts. In fact, it has more than two; it has three districts. But we won't get into that. It's a very long, narrow coastal riding. With the amount of time the member for Cariboo North spends in Powell River, which is where he used to be from, one wonders if he wants to run there again. It would make an interesting contest.
The fact of the matter is that many school districts in this province have successfully negotiated good collective agreements. The Queen Charlotte School District successfully negotiated a good collective agreement. They had an opportunity in the Kootenays and New Westminster. These are people who have hard-line bargaining.
We had strikes in a number of rural and northern communities that didn't receive a whole lot of attention, because for some reason this government didn't seem to think that the interests of students in northern communities were quite as important as the interests of students in Vancouver in the ridings that they primarily represent. When they went out on strike in Vancouver, a very strange thing happened. A metamorphosis took place over there. A chrysalis of right-wing conservatism grew around this government. When it broke open, out bloomed this new creature that decided that they were going to bring down provincewide bargaining, which is something they'd never negotiated, discussed or promised before. I don't know what happened with that metamorphosis.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The same sort of thing happened with the official opposition, only I don't know; they went so far to the right that they left room for Reform to come up the middle.
With this proposed amendment, the government has an opportunity to get up and defend itself. I hope they will defend it or release the vote. I say to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Finance, who is leading the charge.... In fact, she is the only one leading the charge, because there aren't a whole lot of troops behind this minister at the moment. I realize that she is quite able and competent to lead the charge by herself. I say to her that she should free her members to vote according to their conscience, because let it be very clear that each individual member will go on record with this vote. Let them stand and defeat this bad piece of legislation, and let's really get down to the heart and soul of what's wrong in education: formula funding, which does not work. I was saying that when the member for New Westminster was the Minister of Education. I said during the very first estimates that formula funding doesn't work. We need to go to four-year-based financing so we can provide a funding base over four years and give school boards an opportunity to have a projection on expenditure, to develop curriculum and to negotiate with the full knowledge that that money is available. That's a sensible thing to do. If additional moneys are then required for special needs programs and whatever, they can negotiate that in addition with the government. But in order to make that work and accomplish it effectively, it has to be done at the local level.
Not only have we clearly demonstrated how this government has broken its trust and how it is abrogating what we believe is a fundamental right of teachers to negotiate and collectively bargain at the local level, but we believe that we have also clearly demonstrated that this is not in the interests of parents or students, and that it is certainly not in the interests of local control of locally and democratically elected school boards in this province, which we have to protect and maintain. That's the public's only way of getting access to the decision-makers regarding their children's education.
Having recognized that, and also that this is going to cost the taxpayers more money, not save them money, I stand in support of this amendment and ask the government to support it and hoist this bill. Don't read it again; go back and take a sober second thought on this question, and ask the opposition members to support it. Above all, I challenge the minister to free her members. Let them vote according to their conscience, because I know there are people over there who are uncomfortable, and I hope all of them will support this amendment.
Hon. E. Cull: I rise to speak against the amendment. The member who has just been speaking makes it sound as if this was something quickly conceived and brought in with no discussion and no real apparent reason, so he continues to support the status quo -- the system in place right now, which simply isn't working.
We've been through a history of collective bargaining in this province, which unfortunately got off on the wrong foot with the way the former government established it under Bill 20, and over successive years each round of bargaining has become less and less effective. If you look at the number of school days -- the disruption caused in each case of bargaining.... Instead of the system maturing and getting better, and the problems being resolved, as one would expect in a new collective bargaining system, it has gotten worse. In the first round of bargaining in 1988-89, there were almost a million student-days lost due to strikes. With the number of students in the system, that might not seem like very much, but two rounds later, by the time we got to collective bargaining in 1992-93, it had doubled. In fact, it had more than doubled to 1.916 million days lost due to strikes. The evidence of what is happening in the collective bargaining system with respect to schools is that the system is not maturing, not getting better. At some point responsible people looking at the system -- parents, teachers, legislators, school trustees -- have got to say: "Look, there has to be something done to fix this. It's simply not working the way it is."
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the member for Okanagan East have tried to make this an issue of local autonomy. I was a school trustee for a couple of years, and I can tell you that, with one small exception with respect to principal bargaining, I didn't do collective bargaining in the school district. I have experience with collective bargaining in other parts of the public service, but I didn't do it in the school district. And I can tell you I had no shortage of things to do to keep me, as a school trustee, occupied for lengthy meetings late at night doing work, doing research, out in the schools, dealing with issues
[ Page 11467 ]
around facilities, around education policy, around personnel matters, around finance policy -- all of the dozens and dozens of decisions that add up to quality education. That's what motivates the vast majority of people who run to be school trustees.
I didn't run to be a school trustee -- and neither did the people who ran in the same years that I ran -- because they were dying to get in there and bargain collectively with teachers. They ran because they were concerned about education in the district. They were concerned about what was happening to their kids, or to the kids of their neighbours and friends, and they wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to bring their principles, values, ideas and energy to improve education in the school system. That energy is still needed at the local level. Nothing in Bill 52 or in Bill 14, which the member has dragged up, takes away from the fundamental responsibility of school trustees to establish educational policy and to do so in a way that reflects the needs of their district.
But one of the things that has been happening is, as the system isn't working.... I will agree in one place with this member with respect to the need for a different way of funding education than the one we have right now. The Minister of Education has been actively working on that. A technical group has brought out a report this year, which is having more work done on it. We started to look at the possibilities under the provincial budget this year, where we gave an indication of future spending patterns and how we can move to multi-year budgeting, which will not only help school districts but other parts of the public sector. That's one place where I do agree with him. Beyond that, I think all of this talk about local autonomy is simply a smokescreen to throw up in the face of a change in the bargaining structure from local to provincial. I don't hear the member standing up and demanding that hospitals -- or any other part of the public sector -- should negotiate on a hospital-by-hospital basis. They have had and continue to have provincial bargaining, and it works reasonably well.
I'm not sure whether it's deliberate or just the fact that members haven't had time to sufficiently do their homework, but there are a number of things that they keep bringing up in this debate which are misrepresenting what is in the bill. They talk about contract-stripping. The teachers came to us when we first started talking about this, and they said: "There are 17 contracts, two of which are not going to expire until December this year and another 15 won't expire until next June. Do not do as we initially intended to do -- if you go back to our March 10 announcement -- and roll all of those contracts into the provincial agreement. Let them run their course. Let them continue so that the parties that negotiated them in good faith can continue to live out the life of those contracts." Those contracts are continued under this legislation. They don't roll in until they expire. When they expire they become part of the provincial contract. Those contracts continue to exist.
When you get into bargaining, there is some assumption that everything is frozen and things can only get better with each successive round of bargaining, both for the employer and the union. We all know that when parties come to the table they put things on the table to add. They also put things on the table to subtract, and that is part of the collective bargaining process. This legislation facilitates the continuation of that. Instead of it being done at 75 bargaining tables around the province, it's done at one bargaining table.
[5:45]
I listened with a lot of interest to the members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Okanagan East, and couldn't quite understand whether they were arguing both sides of the issue about who was the bargaining agent. The vast majority of employees in this province have the right to decide if they are going to be in a union. If a majority of them agree that they are going to be in a union, they can be in a union. Having decided that they are going to be in a union, they can then decide which union will represent them. The Labour Relations Code provisions apply, so that if at some point in the future -- for whatever the reason -- teachers decide that they wish to have another union represent them at provincial bargaining, they can do so. Through their own representative assembly, the teachers made it very clear that the union they wanted to represent them was the B.C. Teachers' Federation. That is the reason that the B.C. Teacher's Federation is in the legislation. If we had made the B.C. Teacher's Federation the union for teachers forever and ever and it couldn't be changed -- according to the provisions that any worker has under the Labour Relations Code -- I'm sure these people over here would be standing up and screaming: "Undemocratic!"
An implication is also being left that this legislation should be suspect or scrutinized because it's being brought forward by the Minister of Finance. This matter is under the Public Sector Employers Act, which the Minister of Finance is responsible for. It's a matter that is dealt with as a result of the Korbin commission, which was brought forward by the former Minister of Finance and translated into legislation that has that minister as being responsible. That's why it's coming in under this minister. Every part of the public sector, and in fact most parts of the private sector, has some element of labour relations. We don't expect the Minister of Labour to speak on every aspect of that, and we don't expect the minister who's responsible for that area to speak on every aspect of that. There are shared responsibilities. Educational issues are dealt with by the Minister of Education. In this case, because they are public sector employers' issues, they're the responsibility of this minister.
I am a parent of a child in the school district, and I've been a trustee. Since March 10 and even prior to making the announcement, I have spent many hours talking to teachers -- both in my district and in other districts -- talking to parents, talking to trustees and talking to representatives of the B.C. School Trustees' Association about what is wrong with the bargaining system right now. I have to tell you that the vast majority of people who have spoken to me, who have written to me, who have phoned my office, and whom I've gone out to see and asked for their opinion on this, have said: "The system that we have right now isn't working. For goodness' sake, come in and do something to make the system work better on behalf of the children in our district."
We have to keep that at the top of our mind. Whenever we get into labour relations and negotiations, there are all kinds of interests that get on the table. The employer has an interest, and the employees have an interest. But at this point, we have to make sure that we have a system which balances employer and employee interests and, most importantly, works in favour of the kids in the classrooms.
I believe that this legislation will allow trustees to get on with what they ran for office for, and that's setting sound educational policy in their districts. It will allow teachers to get on with the job that they do so very well, and that is to teach in classrooms. And it will remove the adversarial and unfortunately acrimonious relationship that has built up around bargaining to a provincial table where it can be dealt with as a labour relations matter.
So for that reason I oppose this amendment.
[ Page 11468 ]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 3 | ||
|
Wilson |
Tyabji |
H. De Jong |
|
NAYS -- 40 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Pement |
|
Edwards |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
Garden |
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
|
Hammell |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Miller |
Cull |
Clark |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Blencoe |
|
Janssen |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Lord |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Sawicki |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Hartley |
Boone |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Stephens |
Farrell-Collins |
|
J. Dalton |
Jarvis |
M. de Jong |
| Fox | ||
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. G. Clark: Later today, hon. Speaker.
I move the House, at its rising, stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. this evening.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the main House, I call continued debate on second reading of Bill 52.
PUBLIC EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS ACT
(continued)
D. Jarvis: I rise with great trepidation on this bill. I have family and close friends who are teachers and trustees. In fact, I even have constituents who are trustees and students. My grandchildren will be students soon, and there are a lot of students in the 22 schools in my riding. As I say, I rise with great trepidation, because I see flip-flops all over the place. I see that the government has changed their opinion on it, my past leader has done a few flip-flops, the retread Socreds are doing a flip-flop and the Socreds are standing up and calling the NDP partners in big business. Everyone seems to be confused on this issue. I'm like all of you in this jurisdiction, in the sense that we are somewhat distressed about what is going on in the education system and about what we are going to do about the great concerns out there regarding the assets of this province, our children.
Bill 52, from what I understand, is introduced to correct some faults in our education system. In essence, hundreds of thousands of hours have been lost due to strikes in the province's teaching system. This government is now trying to pursue a new approach. We're going back to a provincial collective agreement for all teachers, to encompass all 75 school districts. Be that as it may, we can't afford to lose more hours in our system, for our students' sake if for no one else's. There seems to be a point missing in this bill, which I would like to see, and that is the essential service aspect. There has been quite a bit of discussion about essential service today. I don't believe it will take the right to strike away from the unions, but it will nevertheless establish something similar to what the Finance minister -- the former Health minister -- has done with the Health Act: discernment of what will be for the best interests of the students and parents.
Trustees and teachers are concerned. It appears that our path would only be the cause of great difficulties, in the sense that it's going to be a difficult job for the government to include all these 75 districts that have different situations and demands. I assume that Ms. Baker will be organizing the discussions. She'll have a great big job, along with Mr. Worley, who was the head of the B.C. Teachers' Federation and was in the audience a little while back. The two of them will probably have a difficult job trying to get all the districts together, unless an agreement has already been made beforehand. Who knows?
Hon. E. Cull: The trustees, not the....
D. Jarvis: I thought she was with PSEC.
Everyone appears relieved that something has happened -- well, nearly everyone; I've had a few calls of concern and a few people have said nay to a collective agreement for the whole province. People are starting to say that there are so many problems in our teaching profession that they need some stability.
Perhaps the financial stability that comes through this may start to get back to a situation where we do not have conflicts going on in our education system. There's no basis for our school trustees to negotiate teachers' contracts or their budgets, because they just don't have control of their finances. They're at the mercy of the government. So it actually comes down to the point that the government is at fault, whether it be this or the previous government.
The epitome of the situation would be that we could have the teachers negotiating on a sectoral basis but at the same time allow the trustees to perhaps raise their own funds and school taxes. Perhaps that would be the epitome of everything. I don't know; it's hard to say. What's been happening in the past certainly hasn't been working. The trustees have not had the tools to negotiate or create their budgets. And with not knowing how much money they have, they have no idea what their budget will be, where they will be going and how they can negotiate with school boards. So this bill is probably going to be the answer in that sense; it may bring some reality to this aspect. Who knows? Provided that a good, equitable solution is found and the government changes its funding system, perhaps stability in the financing can be reached.
[6:45]
I support this bill in principle, but I worry about the consequences, because I have yet to see where this government, the last government and the teachers -- not all of them -- are not looking after their own turf first. I've
[ Page 11469 ]
made that statement before, even in front of the school trustees, and it's raised a lot of ire. But for every forum, seminar or discussion about education you go to, the last thing that seems to be discussed is the students. The administration and teachers always seem to want to discuss their own problems first.
Some of the members have said they want to go back to the basics of education. Well, we've had back-to-the-basics statements made and Year 2000 statements. We want change on top of changes, and like everything else that's gone wrong, change is the buzzword. No consideration is actually given to what is perhaps the root of the problem: the parents, respect, and who is the client. In our education system, the clients, in my opinion, are the students; then the teachers, and then the administrations -- and in that order. We have failed to do so under this government and the previous government.
You wonder what's going on. When you look at my own school district, there's definitely a problem. The education system has gone astray. I think back. Since this government took over, my school district has had to cut community school staffing; North Vancouver was the first to start community schools in this province. The outdoor school program has been cancelled; the North Vancouver School District 44 was the first to start the outdoor school system. The elementary band and strings program was cancelled; the North Vancouver School District was the first to start the band and strings program. Consultant services were cut. French, from kindergarten to grade 5, has been cut from the education system in North Vancouver. Their dental service has been cut. The elementary education leadership program has been cut. The summer curriculum, in writing, etc., has been cut. The secondary school athletic coordination programs have all been cut. Outside contract service for repair and maintenance has been cut. The aspect of school districts contributing to the cost of continuing education has been cut. Improvements on the sites have all been cut. Grants to the Artists for Kids program have been cut. No new equipment has been bought over the last two years. Summer school has been cut from our program. Why? Because this government has failed -- although they say they haven't -- to supply sufficient moneys. As a result, the collective agreements have also impaired the budget of the North Vancouver School District.
This government has failed to give us the block funding. Under the technical distribution program that this government set up to investigate, it showed that the North Vancouver district was short $1.5 million. Yet this government failed to even consider that change in the block funding, so North Vancouver has suffered considerably.
I mentioned all those items that had been cancelled in their program in the last two years. Other significant things have happened. Special education services have been virtually cut in half. In the community schools they have had to cut five and a half of their staff. In special services we have lost 14 teachers. They have had to cut almost $1 million in new and replacement equipment. In library acquisitions, there are no new books. Class sizes are increasing. The administrative costs of the schools are increasing, because of the teachers' situation. There are all these problems, and then we have an Education minister who will not even speak to this bill. Obviously, if he's not speaking to the bill, he's not in favour of it. So we wonder what's going on.
In any event, we have a lot of problems on the North Shore and elsewhere in this province. What is going to be done about them. Perhaps this bill will relieve some situations. I don't profess to be an educator -- far from it. I'm just an ordinary, average businessman who ran for politics. I find myself in this building full of all these people, most of whom seem to be very academic -- all ex-teachers and college professors. You wonder what the problem is. There are very troubled parents out there, troubled teachers and troubled trustees. Perhaps this bill will be the start of a change, but the trouble seems to be originating from the government side. I can't see it's arising from the teachers' or the trustees' side.
Money is always the problem. Where are the trustees going to get sufficient moneys to run a proper school district? We have been penalized in my area; there's no question of that. The technical distribution survey proved that we had been shorted by $1.5 million. Still, this government has not seen fit to increase the budget. Our school district thought they were doing the right thing last year when they settled a collective agreement with the School District 44 teachers. They settled on zero in the first year and 2 percent in each of the next two years. Unfortunately, that was the wrong decision for them to make, in view of this government being unwilling to increase the budget in that area.
In any event, as I've said, I'm going to support this bill reluctantly, because I know teachers feel that it is not in order -- not all of them, but a good many of them do. I have great trepidation as to where we're going next. The collective agreement that is going to be struck will have a kicker in it, I know, because this government is going to face election within a short while. It could be three or four months from now, or 18 months from now. They couldn't go two years. The Finance minister said it would be two years, but we know they can't go for two years. No one would be foolish to go for two years. Only a Socred government would go to the full length.
I want to close by saying that it's with great trepidation, but I'm prepared to support this bill.
M. de Jong: I rise to speak to the bill both as the member for Matsqui, but also, with some pride, as a school trustee from School District 34 in Abbotsford. I will happily remain a trustee only for the next several months. I am pleased this matter has come before this House and that I have an opportunity to debate it and bring directly to this chamber some of the thoughts, concerns and opinions of my colleagues on the board of School District 34 in Abbotsford and Matsqui.
In the past when issues of this sort have arisen, and indeed on many occasions when I rise here, I have been met with a chorus of comments acknowledging my presence on the school board in Abbotsford. And it has occurred to me...
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Double-dipper.
M. de Jong: Thank you.
...that perhaps there is a reason the members of the government take such umbrage with that fact. I am compelled to conclude that they would rather not be confronted with the views of one who has to respond on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis to the difficulties created by this government's lack of leadership, particularly in the field of education and, more specifically, labour relations matters emerging in the education field. It's easier for this government to ignore those issues when the minister can hide in his office and deal with his correspondence through his deputy ministers and burgeoning group of bureaucrats.
But I want the government and the minister....
[ Page 11470 ]
I see the minister is awake. Isn't it wonderful that he would be here and responding now, because I want to relate to him the experience of a school board since he assumed his portfolio and his government assumed office. I can tell you it is a litany of grief and despair.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The minister laughs quite heartily, but of course, why wouldn't he? He's not confronted with making decisions involving young, special needs students who require assistance in the classroom and whose parents come to school boards like Abbotsford and other boards in the district, saying: "I want my child in a classroom; I want my child integrated. It can only happen if you, school board, devote resources for that purpose." And the school board, because they have no options, says: "We don't have those resources or those moneys."
The minister may find that quite humorous; he may take quite a degree of delight. But he's not the person who has to look those parents in the eye, those parents who want nothing more than the education that their child is due. He doesn't have to look those parents in the eye and say: "I'm sorry, we can't take your child in our school. We don't have the resources, because 90 to 95 percent of our budget is allocated to salaries. There hasn't been the requisite level of increase from the ministry for these other areas, so you're out of luck."
[7:00]
The minister hasn't been obliged to make the decisions relating to elementary band and music programs. He hasn't had to say to parents, whose children have benefited from those programs for five, six, seven, eight, nine years: "Look, we just don't have those resources anymore. We've been compelled to redirect our shrinking financial resources to settling salary disputes." The minister doesn't have to look in the eyes of those parents and those children, who can pack up their instruments and go elsewhere. Maybe he finds that humorous.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast went to some length earlier to comment on the outrage that he felt at the absence of government participation in this debate. Quite frankly, I feel absolutely compelled to agree, and I feel compelled to note the minister's non-participation in this debate. How can he sit there, knowing the difficulties faced by school boards, knowing the grief they have felt in trying to set priorities to meet the needs of their students and the expectations of their local populations while looking for leadership from the minister? He sits there feeling absolutely no obligation to provide some answers and some response to those people and those students.
The minister can perhaps ignore cuts to librarians, to school libraries, to book purchasing programs. He can perhaps ignore all of those issues; local school boards can't. Local school boards have to confront them on a day-to-day basis. So, as has happened in the past when school boards are confronted with arbitration settlements and directives from the ministry that settlements will be in the 5, 6, 7 or 8 percent range when funding is in the 3 percent range, they know where those moneys are going to come from. They know that resources will no longer be available to students but will be redirected into the part of the budget that deals with salaries. The minister may choose to ignore that.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: I note that members of the opposite benches are quite content to interject from their seats. I wonder if they have the courage to stand up and put their comments on the record. Apparently they don't. Quite frankly, as someone who sat as a school trustee for four years and had to deal with this issue on a day-to-day basis when, as one of the other members said, you'd rather be dealing with issues relating to curriculum and the delivery of services, but your energies are taken up with the negotiating process in dealing with teachers and their demands -- and they have legitimate demands, as well -- finally, when the government feels that it apparently has no other option but to respond, none of them have the courage to stand up and speak to the issue, I can tell you that it's a shameful day for education in this province. I hope this minister is ashamed.
There is a basic inconsistency in what we are dealing with here. We have placed responsibility heretofore on school boards to sign collective agreements and negotiate with their local teachers; yet over time we've removed responsibility and authority for raising revenues. Therein lies a basic inconsistency. I must say, with all candour, therein lies the inconsistency in the argument I will present to the House: How do you demand that a school board assume full responsibility for negotiating a settlement when the funds with which they will meet the obligations in that agreement come from another source? One would automatically assume that the source of that funding would feel compelled to have a say in the nature of the agreement signed. And why wouldn't the source of the funding demand that level of accountability? That's what has happened. The difficulty is that the government -- this minister -- has left local school boards abandoned and to their own devices. When all hell was breaking loose over the past couple of years, where was this government? Arguing to defend the existing system. That's what they were doing. That's what this minister was doing, and that's what the former minister was doing.
I've got a closetful of memos from the former minister, and this minister also, indicating that all is well and good with the negotiating process: "Just follow it through. It will work. Give it time. There's nothing wrong with this." They stood mute. And to suggest that this government suffers from a serious lack of credibility in adopting the course they have now chosen is indeed a grand understatement. That lack of credibility, in my view, is only compounded by their unwillingness to engage in the debate presently before this chamber.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The member for Mission-Kent, of course, is one of the those who....
D. Streifel: I got my name in Hansard, or at least my constituency. Thank you.
M. de Jong: The member rejoices that he got his name in Hansard. Of course, his constituents will be pleased about that, given the fact that he wasn't able to deliver on several promises he made, again in the education field. I'm sure the constituents of Mission-Kent wish they had the new school he promised them a little while ago, but I'm sure they'll get over that.
School boards have been painted into a corner and have no choice. They feel they have no choice, and that is the message I bring to the chamber from the school board in Abbotsford. They have spent tremendous amounts of time and resources over the past four years endeavouring to secure collective agreements. We charge senior bureaucrats within the local school board offices: superintendents,
[ Page 11471 ]
assistant superintendents, secretary treasurers -- people making $80,000 to $100,000 a year -- with the responsibility of administering to the needs of students. And what are they doing? They're locked up day in and day out in negotiating sessions, in arbitration sessions, trying to secure a collective agreement. When matters did go to arbitration, rulings were made almost without exception against the school board, again leading to increased salary costs and contract costs.
For one of the members to suggest that there should be or was some degree of coordination among school boards.... I'm sad to say that school boards, comprised entirely of part-time laypeople who have other jobs and work in other areas, simply don't have the resources that that member may wish or may feel they should have to achieve that level of coordination So there was, in fact, an inequity at the bargaining table.
Boards felt they had no way out, and they're desperate. They have said, almost without exception: "Do something, government." The thing they've seized upon is a desire to achieve some level of provincial bargaining.
That is the position of my board. One of the members asked my position. Well, with tremendous reluctance, I feel bound by the position adopted by my board and by my community to move toward a provincial bargaining frame-work. But it is a system and an approach that is fraught with difficulties, and I certainly have personal reservations. My board, the board that I remain a member of, feels compelled to move in that direction and urges this government to move in that direction.
D. Streifel: There are a lot of us, actually.
M. de Jong: Once again the member for Mission-Kent has no difficulty speaking from his chair, claiming credit. But does he have the courage to stand up? He doesn't have the courage to stand up. I hope the people are watching the smile on his face, because for each gruelling hour that local board members and teachers' organizations are locked away in rooms trying to hammer out agreements, local school boards are trying to find the resources to meet the demands of their local bargaining organizations. Each time a student is told that a service won't be available, each time a teacher is laid off -- as is certainly the case in the member's district -- I hope they remember that members of the government didn't have the courage to stand up and engage in the debate on the bill that is presently before this House.
There should be another solution, and that solution lies in dealing with the funding process. Here we are with a government that stands in this House and says that we're going to move toward provincial bargaining. School boards are exhausted from what has gone on in the four years prior to their saying that they will succumb to wrenching local autonomy away. For the Minister of Finance to suggest that this does not represent wrestling away local autonomy just isn't true, because that's precisely what it does. It is a further centralization of the decision-making process in the Education ministry.
The Minister of Finance commented earlier to the effect that someone was dredging up Bill 14. Surely the minister can put herself in the perspective of local school boards and look at what Bill 14 does: it places spending caps and restrictions on local discretionary authority. Surely she can examine the potential that legislation has for centralizing the budgeting process in every way imaginable from the perspective of local school boards.
On top of that, understand that the bill we're debating today, Bill 52, will lead to a provincewide bargaining system. Boards across the province are asking themselves: "Why are we here? We can't raise or spend money without ministerial approval, and now bargaining, by necessity, is going to take place on a provincewide basis. So why are we here?"
An Hon. Member: Good question.
M. de Jong: That's the question that parents, teachers, and school trustees are asking of this government. It appears that this member in particular, and the government in general, are content to let them continue guessing, because they don't want to tell them. There's nothing wrong with the government having the courage to say: "This is our position: we believe that 100 years of history in the education field, centred around local autonomy and local school districts, has changed."
I don't agree with that, but there's nothing wrong with the government standing in this place and saying: "That is our perspective. Technology has led to changes, and there is a demand, a need, for a greater degree of centralization. We're going to tamper with and change local education and the process of school administration in a very significant way." There's nothing wrong with the government doing that. We may have a debate about whether or not that's wise, but let's have a government with the courage to say it. Let's have a government with the courage to put their position on this matter before the people of British Columbia and not go about it on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis.
[7:15]
That's what this government is doing -- bit by bit, piece by piece -- wresting away local autonomy, to the extent where local boards throw up their hands and ask: "Why are we here? Why do we spend the days and nights trying to administer to the needs of our local students and parents when it appears to us that government ultimately intends to wrest this jurisdiction away from the local area.
An Hon. Member: Hogwash.
M. de Jong: The member doesn't have the courage to get up and say that.
I have a tremendous amount of regard for the teachers whom I have come to know, both in my capacity as a student and more recently in my capacity as a school trustee in the district where I went to school.
An Hon. Member: How are you voting?
M. de Jong: If he was listening earlier, he would know how I was voting. But, of course, like the minister, he's not particularly interested in paying attention to this debate. He'd rather it were over as quickly as possible, because this bill that has been introduced by the government represents such a dramatic and dishonourable flip-flop by this government. They'd rather that the whole debate just ended and everyone would go on their way. But we're not going to let them do that. In spite of the fact that school boards across the province are feeling besieged and are saying that they need assistance -- and the assistance they're seeking at this time is provincewide bargaining -- we're not going to let this government forget why they're calling for that. We're not going to let this government forget why school boards feel they have no alternative but to surrender and, indeed, abdicate. Because that's what's happening here -- this is an abdication by local school boards. I don't say that lightly, particularly given that I am a member of a local school board. It is an abdication of responsibility for local education by local school boards, and it is happening because those
[ Page 11472 ]
school boards feel abandoned, and they have no alternative but to give away to the central administration, the central government in Victoria, the responsibility for that very important task.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
I know that school boards, teachers and parents across the province will be listening with a keen interest to what this government has to say about its past actions and about how it has come to introduce this legislation. I know that local school boards, parents and teachers will be demanding answers, and we're demanding answers, and it appears that we're not going to get any. But we'll continue to demand those answers from this government, which in its own way has abdicated responsibility, and from this minister, who in his own way has abdicated responsibility for the ministry he runs. Those are my comments.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to stand in my place and talk on Bill 52. I've sat in the chamber virtually all afternoon and heard much discussion from many different perspectives with respect to this legislation. Earlier in the day, when the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast spoke, I was a bit concerned, because I was agreeing with much of what he was saying -- not all, but much. Perhaps my comments will be from a different perspective, because I had the privilege of sitting for five years on a school board, a school board that had great success within its constituency and was known for its initiatives, for its advancement in education and certainly for its political awareness.
I believe there's one thing we can all agree on. Many parents whom I've spoken to, along with teachers and trustees, agree on one thing: the present system isn't working. That's true not only for the purposes of bargaining; the whole education system is not working, and it needs change. I think that's one of the reasons we've seen the grassroots movement developing around the promotion of alternative schools within the public system. Parents are demanding change in the school system, and there are those who are prepared to fight for that change. I want to congratulate the Surrey School Board for recognizing the need to change and for standing up for that change. It takes some courage, and I want to congratulate them.
If I had my druthers and were able to fix the problem myself -- and there will be those who will scream from across the floor, "back to the future" -- I would go back prior to 1987, when Bills 19 and 20 came in. Along with that, I would classify education as an essential service, which would indeed protect the autonomy and local development of educational programs by trustees and school districts. However, that not being possible -- obviously, because this legislation is before us -- we must debate the issues contained within it.
The B.C. Teachers' Federation came out and spoke not from a union point of view but from an association point of view. The opening statement in their press release was: "The move to provincewide bargaining for teachers announced today by Finance minister Elizabeth Cull is six years overdue." I'm sure there is that split within the teachers not only in my community and in my district but right across the province. There are many schoolteachers who support provincial bargaining; there are many who are really concerned about it, who don't necessarily not support it but who are really concerned about what it's going to lead to.
To articulate that, I want to go back to 1981, when the restraint program was announced. I had the privilege at that time of being chairman of the Nechako School Board at that time. I recall very vividly the meetings that took place between the school board and the 212 teachers in the district of Nechako. I remember facing those teachers in one room and pleading with them to take fewer dollars so that we could maintain those 212 teachers and education would not suffer. We achieved that in Nechako. The teachers cooperated with the local board, recognizing the position that we were in. We were able to save jobs and work towards improving the educational system. That would not happen under provincial bargaining. We have to recognize that that kind of local decision would not be there in a provincial bargaining scheme. That's the kind of concern within my school district.
When there hasn't been an abundance of teachers, our district had the privilege and the ability to set a teaching salary that would encourage teachers to come to our district. If we put emphasis into particular learning -- whether that be English, sports, math or whatever -- and find the people to fit that goal and help us produce that product in our educational system, as a local board we had the opportunity to increase the teachers' salaries or to make special arrangements to bring in the kinds of individuals that we needed to fill that gap.
The other thing that many northern boards had was the opportunity to have more increments in their pay scale in order to encourage teachers to come to the rural school districts. I don't think, and I'm fairly....
An Hon. Member: You don't know.
L. Fox: That's true. As well, I don't know whether that flexibility is in this system, because the bill doesn't suggest that there is. I would be concerned whether we are going to be rounding up those increments or rounding them down in this legislation. Is it going to be costing the province more through that roundup process, or is it going to cost us less and save the taxpayer? I would suggest that it's going to cost us more.
The other major concern is whether districts such as Surrey.... Surrey's approach to the alternative school is not something new. In 1980, Nechako designated two elementary schools as value schools. It involved more parental involvement, and the teachers were totally supportive of that initiative. Under this legislation, one has to question whether a school board would eventually have the flexibility to take those initiatives. If the BCTF all of a sudden decided it was going to fight the alternative school model, it would take a very small amendment by this government to take that autonomy out of the school boards.
The Minister of Finance made the statement earlier -- in fact, on two occasions -- that this wasn't a local autonomy concern. She may not believe it is, hon. Speaker, but you will remember -- because I'm here to remind you -- that when we were in Prince George on January 30, the Minister of Transportation and Highways and member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, the Minister of Health and member for Prince George North, the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, and yourself, hon. Speaker, the member for Cariboo North, stood up before that northern branch of trustees. They made a commitment to those folks that they would stand up in support of and argue with all their force to protect local autonomy. But what do we have? None of those members have stood up yet and said: "Folks, I'm sorry I've let you down. I have not been able to convince this government that it's taking the wrong action." They should, hon. Speaker. They made a commitment to all those northern trustees that they would stand up for local autonomy and
[ Page 11473 ]
speak against this provincial bargaining scheme. That is on the minds of those trustees, and that indeed is.... While I can't quote those members, because it wasn't recorded, I can tell you that if you were to ask any of the trustees who were at that meeting, they would paraphrase it in exactly the same way that I have. I've got some real concerns, as do those trustees.
[7:30]
Let's look at the two boards in my riding. Both of these boards have been extremely forthright and inventive in terms of new programs. If you look at the Prince George School District, they have the best special education program, bar none, in the province. If you look at the Nechako School Board, they have taken some really good initiative with respect to pre-apprenticeship training programs. They are one of the leading school districts in British Columbia with respect to that. They have a Project Heavy Duty program which provides job training for their high school kids, where private industry supplies all the equipment and individuals to do the training. It's a great program and gives on-the-spot exposure to grade 11 and grade 12 students. It's a great initiative. The Nechako School Board and the Prince George School Board have had joint ventures with the native bands; they have programs for both adult and student education that reach out into the native bands.
How did this all happen? It's because there was enough demand. The school board was enough of an identity. We must remember that over 80 percent of school board budgets are salaries. How did it happen? It happened because we were able to attract a very high quality of individuals to run for trustees in those regions -- and, I'm sure, in all regions of the province. But take the bargaining away from them and take the flexibility out of the system, and what are you going to attract? My suggestion is that you won't attract nearly the calibre of individual, because the challenge will not be the same. That has to be a concern.
I am very fortunate in that I come from two school districts, one that has lost virtually three days' work -- the teachers have been on strike for a total of three days over as many years as I can recall. The other one was on strike for a day and a half in as many years as I can recall. We haven't had a problem in those districts, so it makes it very difficult for me to stand up and support provincewide bargaining. Be that as it may, I wanted to put those things on the record.
I recognize that there has been a fairly wide-reaching debate with respect to this bill all day long. I wanted to touch on one other issue that has probably been the single most talked about issue with respect to education. When I've spoken to teachers, trustees and parents, one thing that they want to see removed from the education system is politics. Their number one concern is that we've forgotten about the student. The number two concern is that the system is too political, thereby emphasizing the fact that we've forgotten about the student.
What we're doing here -- and we must be aware of it -- is adding more politics to our educational system. It will be even more politicized than it was before. Had the minister taken a second step and declared education an essential service, then he may have depoliticized the system. Without that I can see a situation such that when there are grievances or whatever and no action is taken, the whole province will be down because of those grievances. That's what we've seen happen in other situations in the past, and I'm sure we'll see it in the future.
In the end I'm probably going to vote for this legislation, because it's one step toward the right direction. But I have to say that I share the concerns of many people in the province, which I've tried to articulate in my presentation.
When I look at the BCSTA's concerns, and they're considerable, there are a couple of very key points. They say: "The legislation should mandate some of the major items to be on the provincial table, such as salaries and benefits -- or the envelope within which the costs of salaries and benefits must be contained -- and other major cost factors, such as class size or workload." They're suggesting that that should be contained right in the legislation. I'm not sure if that's practical, but I'm certainly hoping that it's contained in the regulations.
One other issue: "The legislation should provide that any issues not referred by agreement to the local table should be bargained provincially." I think that makes some sense. If it is possible to bargain at the local table, it should be bargained at the local table. The clause-by-clause examination of this is going to be interesting in terms of what the minister's vision of this two-tiered system is and how and what is going to be left up to the local school boards to bargain.
As I said before, I'm concerned. Actually, if I had my preference, it would be back to the future rather than ahead to the future. I say that in all sincerity.
I would like to tell you and the rest of the members that when I canvassed my two boards, they were as split as the rest of the province. In fact, the Nechako board had a 4 to 3 vote in favour, whereas only three months ago they were all opposed. While I'm saying that they are in favour, they are still, as I've tried to say, very concerned about what this all means in terms of their autonomy and decisions at the local level. Perhaps the member for Matsqui was right; perhaps they felt pressured into making that decision. I'm not in a position to judge that. I know that there is a very real split out there, but I think the split would have been a lot less had this government included essential service in this piece of legislation.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't know whether that was a sigh of relief from the Liberal benches that I've taken them off the hook a little bit from the dance they're doing -- because it is indeed a dance, and I'll get to that in a moment.
Since this session started I have noticed that the Liberals have a propensity for a lot of sound and fury, but never really stake out a position. They never take a position, unlike my friends in the Reform Party. I said this during debate last week: the Reform Party is generally pretty clear; they say where they're coming from, and they say what they would do. But we are never really sure about the Liberals. They like to give the appearance of opposing bills, but lo and behold, when the bells ring and the members file into this chamber and have to stand up and vote, they actually vote with the government. If you listen to their every word, you would get the distinct impression that they were adamantly opposed to what the government is doing. I predicted last week that they would never take a position, and I'm willing to stick with that. You'll have to drag this Liberal caucus, kicking and screaming, to a position. Do you know why? Because they've got the taste. They have actually convinced themselves they are going to be government next time, and if they actually took a position on something they might ruin their chances.
Now I've even got one up on a point of order.
Deputy Speaker: The member is rising on what matter?
D. Symons: I find the minister highly entertaining, but I do believe we are discussing Bill 52, not the Liberal opposition. I would be very interested in hearing the
[ Page 11474 ]
member's stand on Bill 52, not a stand on what he wants to think the opposition's stand is.
D. Streifel: To address the point of order, taking a position on the conclusion of a vote is very germane to the principle of the bill under discussion. The hon. minister's point is that the opposition can't take a position.
Deputy Speaker: The Chair doesn't recognize any of those points as points of order. The debate has been far-reaching. There have been statements by both sides about parties and their positions in this bill. I think we'll continue the debate as it has been allowed to go all day.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the ruling is entirely correct. It reconfirms the view that I have just stated: it's okay to take a wide-ranging position if you're over there and if you don't want to be pinned down. But as soon as somebody tries to pin you down, all of a sudden you're standing up on a point of order. As the saying goes: if the shoe fits, wear it.
An Hon. Member: I want to hear your stand.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm coming to my stand. I don't mind stating upfront and quite distinctly that I have no hesitation in supporting this bill. I want to deal with this on a couple of bases. One is to relate it to my constituency and the variety that exists in my constituency. The member for Prince George-Omineca dealt with that to some degree. In fact, I am quite impressed by some of the work that's being done in the Vanderhoof area through the local superintendent, and I understand the local Ministry of Forests office has been involved with respect to some of the forestry programs we're now seeing in the high schools. It's the way to go, in my view, and I see evidence of that....
Although I've been accused of being anti-academic by some members -- not from the PTA, but the PDA -- I reject that criticism as unfounded. I've never been convinced that focusing on technical-vocational issues automatically excludes any sense of academia, and I'm intrigued by those from the academic side who continue to put that hypothesis forward. It seems to me to be quite self-defeating. But what do I know? I'm not from academia, so I haven't had the benefit of the experience in those lofty halls that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has had.
But let me go back to the issue of the local districts. I think it's a legitimate issue. Let me start by saying that this bill really has nothing to do with ideology -- we're talking about a bargaining structure. Clearly the question is whether the current structure failed in some respects and if there is a need to develop a new structure. I think the answer is clearly yes. I see the heads are nodding on the Liberal benches, so they agree -- we've pinned them down, they actually agree there should be a change.
So the question is: is there is a need to look at it? Does it work? It seems to me that maybe there is a need to look from time to time at any particular relationship that exists in bargaining. At the end of the day, in my view, free collective bargaining will work. Presumably we all subscribe to that here, although the Reform Party clearly doesn't, because they're saying they would reject the notion of free collective bargaining and declare the labour in this case to be an essential service. I suspect that's really the Liberal position as well, and I've heard various Liberals actually say that, which has led to my original criticism: what is really their position? I think that's a legitimate question. It's a question that, quite frankly, has yet to be answered in any clear way.
But getting back to my point, have there been problems with the bargaining structure? Yes, I think there have. This is not to discredit those districts that, in my view, have done a fairly remarkable job and have a good relationship. I'd say that that's true. My constituency contains four school districts, and I think they have been remarkably successful. I would also argue that we need to maintain that relationship because of its uniqueness. Perhaps this is something that applies more to the rural districts; nonetheless it is quite legitimate.
[7:45]
I come from an area that has a very large aboriginal population, and the boards in my district, by and large.... In fact, the Nisga'a District, which I'm very proud to say was created by the last New Democratic Party government in this province, is clearly dominated by the Nisga'a people. But if we go to Haida Gwaii -- the Queen Charlotte Islands -- we see a very large aboriginal population. In the Prince Rupert School District, School District 52, the Tsimshian nation is the great nation that runs up the length of the coast. I'm proud to say that we have been fortunate to elect aboriginal representatives to the various school boards so that there is more than just a token involvement. In the case of Haida Gwaii and the Nisga'a, there has been a dominance, in fact, of aboriginal representatives on the board. The districts, with the teachers, have been successful in dealing with those local issues and negotiating around program areas -- not necessarily in terms of a bargaining relationship, but in dealing as people who have a stake in the system and addressing the needs of the citizens. We do not want that relationship broken up.
The challenge in designing legislation is to allow -- as Carole James, the chair of the school district here in Victoria, has said -- the trustees and teachers to deal with those real educational issues that are of importance in any particular district. I think it's important that school board chairpersons have said explicitly and publicly that they support this legislation because it will allow them to deal with those real educational issues. I think it's important that we've seen that kind of support.
This is not a bill that deals with ideology. In my capacity as Minister of Labour and from my history, I'm quite cognizant of the fact that sometimes it is difficult to have both parties to a collective agreement seriously get down and bargain. We're dealing with disputes in Campbell River that have been waged now for a year. Really, that's the failure of the system. It's not the bargaining structure in that case, because we're talking about local bargaining, and yet it's been a year.
L. Fox: What about Westmin Mines?
Hon. D. Miller: That's what I'm talking about, Westmin Mines.
I'm trying to point out that on a local basis, one can have a terrible bargaining relationship. So we look at the overall picture. But I'm also cognizant of the fact -- and without commenting on the issues in dispute at all -- that there is a bit of a struggle taking place now with respect to a change in the pulp sector, where in fact the reverse is happening. There has been a history of provincial bargaining, and in this instance the companies are saying that they do not want to maintain that; they want to go to local bargaining. Ironically, in some sense, the unions in this case are saying no, that they want to maintain provincial bargaining. So it's not a question of ideology but of looking at the structure.
I maintain that if the province, as the prime funder -- in fact, it's almost totally the funder of education in the K-to-12
[ Page 11475 ]
system.... We've got a bit of an untenable situation that has developed over the years, and there are games that people play. Currently the districts do the bargaining, of course. But if there's any problem with respect to funding, the finger is pointed at the province. If that's the case, why do people object in those areas for the principal funder -- the provincial government, through its agencies -- to do the bargaining? It seems to me to make eminent sense. I've not yet heard any argument about the kinds of anomalies that exist with respect to the current system.
The intention is to try to make collective bargaining work. There is no magic or secret to making collective bargaining work; there is no tried and true formula. But when the system breaks down, as it did last year, we get this knee-jerk reaction from the Liberal and Reform benches to make education an essential service -- in other words, deprive the parties of the right to bargain.
An Hon. Member: So legislate them back to work?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I would.... Let me deal with the issue of legislation in a moment, because I think it's important that there be a clear understanding of when the state, or the province in this case, would interfere. Members should try to understand a little bit of history with regard to that. Let me try to finish by....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm being heckled here. I'd be happy to take them one at a time, because I've never had any difficulty refuting anything that any one of those Liberal members has said. They adamantly refuse to take positions on anything. If you want to argue, one at a time or all together, in any place or any hall, pick the spot, and I would be happy to do it. I really wish they would take a position on this bill. They're going to support the bill. It sounds to me as if they're talking against it, but they're going to support it.
Let me get back to the issue of bargaining. Ultimately, bargaining only works if the parties want to make it work. In this case, when money is being sent out by the government on behalf of the taxpayers, it seems to me to make a tad of sense that we be in a position with respect to the bargaining relationship. The state properly has a role of intervention when things break down to the point that the public interest is impacted. I'd love to hear if there is some argument on the other side against.
This government and its predecessor government in 1975 took a very unpopular step. In the face of some fairly widespread disputes, it took an interventionist step and quite properly recalled the Legislature so every MLA would have an opportunity to speak to the issue. In that particular case in 1975 it did not order settlements, but ordered a 90-day cooling-off period. Later in that 90 days, as some members might recall, people were captured by the federal Liberal wage-and-price freeze, which was really a wage freeze. Do you recall that?
The Liberal gang over here says no intervention, but the federal Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau intervened in the most massive way in the economy of Canada by ordering what they termed a wage-and-price freeze. They presumably froze the price of goods, and they allowed 6 and 5 percent wage increases. It seems generous now in hindsight. People who were ordered back in that 90-day cooling-off period got captured by that. There is....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Why do we get these Liberals over here catcalling from their seats? When there's a grain dispute on the west coast and the ships can't load grain, tell me what the federal Liberal government does. It recalls Parliament, if Parliament isn't already sitting, and passes legislation ordering those workers back to work. That's a Liberal federal government, and the Tory government before them did it, because the public interest become paramount and those are the tests that need to be met.
There's nothing wrong with the system where legislators and governments determine that the public interest is at issue and needs to be dealt with by recalling Parliament. That is a separate issue from the bargaining structure we're talking about under this legislation, which is very, very simple. It is simply an attempt by this government to protect the interests of the taxpayers and the public. The responsibility rests here with government, and it's only fitting that bargaining and primary economic issues take place in a centralized way through the agencies we've set up. What's important is that the latitude and ability of trustees and teachers to serve the public interest at a local level be maintained. It will be maintained under the structure in this bill.
It's entertaining to listen to the Liberals, because they will dance around the issue. They will do the Liberal jig. Do you know what the Liberal jig is? Don't ever let your feet touch the floor, because if they do, you might actually have to take a position.
Here is the Liberal position, and I'll say it loud and clear. For those members of the public who don't understand what it is, the Liberal position is exactly the same as the Reform Party position, and if the Liberals were in power they would deny the right to free collective bargaining to teachers and trustees in this province. Teachers and trustees want to maintain the right of free collective bargaining, and I think the system that we're proposing under this bill will allow them to do that. If these guys over the way get in power, there will be no recalling of parliament, because they won't have the right to bargain. That's the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House. I appreciate -- and I'll close on this -- that both the Liberals and the Reform are going to vote for this legislation.
D. Symons: I enjoyed that performance by the minister from the North Coast very much. We just take stands. During the last provincial election, the NDP platform policy No. 41 said: "We will reduce the financial barriers to education at all levels. Funding will be geared to local needs rather than to artificial provincial averages." We find that the words of this minister seem to belie the fact that they made a promise of that sort only a short few years ago.
I come at this bill from a slightly different perspective than many other members in this legislative chamber because I have spent 30 years in the classroom as a teacher. I was involved with the writing of the first contract after Bill 20 was introduced for Vancouver secondary school teachers. I was involved in the process of vetting and working on that first contract, so I have had some experience with this. I'm not too sure whether.... The minister asks if I'd be voting on this and whether it might be a conflict, but I will indeed speak on it because I think the experience that I've gained over those years would be worthy for the members to listen to.
I have some concerns with the bill. To be honest, I find it rather ironic that we should have this Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act, brought in by a socialist NDP government in 1994. It will unilaterally change the
[ Page 11476 ]
collective bargaining process. To counterbalance this, we had the Social Credit Party introduce a bill in 1987 that basically legislated teachers into a union. We seem to have our politics somewhat reversed here; nevertheless, that's the case we face today. I have to ask the question of all government members over there -- many of them being very good union members -- as to whether the union that they represent and belong to would accept this sort of government interference in their collective bargaining rights. I rather doubt it.
As a matter of fact, I have been out to the rather large public demonstrations that were held when Bills 19 and 20 were being introduced and discussed in the Legislature in 1987. I know the sort of militant action that unions can take when they find that there's any threat to their bargaining rights. What really amazes me with this bill is that the whole union movement in this province hasn't risen up against it. I'm quite sure, if it were directed toward any group other than professional organizations such as teachers' or nurses' associations, that there would be a provincewide general strike.
[8:00]
What do we find now? These fine union members -- members of the NDP -- sit very quietly across there and say very little. Very few people have stood up and said how wonderful this union-busting action is that they're bringing in -- it's government interference in the free collective bargaining process -- and how wonderful it is that the government should be able to unilaterally change the bargaining process. These things are usually discussed with unions and management and reached through a collective agreement, not imposed on them by legislation. I'm concerned because what we seem to have here is a two-tiered system of bargaining. It's in the bill; it's exactly that. It divides the bargaining into provincial matters, which will be done through this provincial bargaining process, and local matters. We find local matters basically defined as those things that are non-cost items. I've spent 30 years in the classroom, and I find it very difficult to find very little that goes on in the school system that could be defined as a non-cost item. Almost everything we do there has a cost attached to it. So it's going to be most interesting to find out how the government, and indeed, school boards and local associations are going to discuss this and that and justify them as non-cost items. I think it will be quite interesting, during the committee stage of this bill, trying to pin the government down to exactly what items they feel would come under that category. Indeed, I think we'll find that most of those things will have to come under the category of provincial matters if local is going to mean non-cost items.
That brings me to my third point, which is of real concern to me and has been mentioned by quite a few other members this evening. It has to do with the boards that do have.... I come from Richmond, and Richmond has a very good relationship between the teachers' association and the school board. They've had this good relationship for years and work very cooperatively together on both salary and non-salary issues. I think this sort of cooperation is going to suffer under this bill because it's going to centralize the main bargaining things outside of the district. Where the district could work these issues out, come to a cooperative agreement and deal with it, that is now going to be taken away from them. We're not too sure, when we read this bill, whether the board will have the authority to introduce some particular programs that might be good for Richmond students -- local programs and that sort of thing -- or whether they will have to go cap in hand to some other person outside of there, to the bargaining association, to basically plead their case outside the district.
We have this problem, and I think there are some real problems there that the bill does not address. If I read closely between the lines, what I read is that this bill is not really based on the issue of the title -- Public Education Labour Relations Act -- but on centralized control. That is the issue before this House today. This government is simply tightening the control they have. They have a fair amount of control right now because they have control of the purse strings, but they're tightening it even more. This will not, in the long run, serve the teachers, the pupils and the parents of this province well.
I think the problem here is there are a lot of things within this bill that will have to be discussed very carefully in committee stage to make sure the concerns I'm addressing here aren't the intent of the bill -- and I'm not so sure that that's not the case. Nevertheless, I think it will be interesting to find out in committee stage exactly what the government has in mind and how they're going to explain how these various portions are going to work to the betterment of the students of this province.
I do have some concerns. I don't think that the government is really attacking the issue fully, if their main interest is to interfere -- and it seems to be that -- with the bargaining processes that are going on locally. It seems to be tinkering with it -- simply changing the bargaining unit from a local one to a provincewide one. That will not really address the issues of teacher bargaining. I have heard from three or four members in the House today, and I would concur with them, that the system we had before Bill Bennett tinkered with it and unionized the teachers of this province worked fairly well. I've been to quite a few of the BCTF conventions and have been involved in my local teachers' association for a good number of years, and I would say that we complained about it but that by and large it served the teachers well. And I think it served the province well when we had negotiation, conciliation and binding arbitration brought in. At least we didn't suffer the threat of the strikes we currently have; we didn't suffer the threat of a Bill 31, which basically legislated teachers back. Your government did that last year. So we find that when this government stands up and chastises the Reform Party or some other party for saying that they're going to bring in essential services, basically this government did precisely that a year ago in this House when we were called back on a Sunday to pass Bill 31, which made education an essential service. They just don't call it that, because their union friends wouldn't like to hear them say that.
Nevertheless, the situation we're faced with today is: what is the meaning of the bill? What are they really up to? That's the problem with many of the bills this government is bringing forth. They have an overall control mechanism in there; they can't allow people to work things out themselves. They have to have control of it, to run it to their agenda, because they're all-wise and all-thinking. Their concerns, or their ideas on things, are the only ones that are right for the people of British Columbia. I reject that policy, and we have problems with it.
With those few comments, I will be discussing much more when we get to committee stage on this. I have a lot of things that I would like to have cleared up. I hope that the concerns I have expressed are unfounded, but I have some fears.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think -- I hope -- that everybody in the chamber has the same objective, and that is the preservation of a publicly funded and publicly administered
[ Page 11477 ]
education system in British Columbia. That is the large challenge.
This government has said -- first in opposition, then in the campaign and once in government -- that our main priorities are health and education, and we have lived up to our commitments. We have increased education funding by some 17 percent over three budgets, and we have introduced new programs in education each year. In this past budget, there was a 4 percent increase, including $30 million for special needs children and those with severe behaviour problems and $3 million for teaching teachers and support staff with respect to instructing special needs children, and we more than doubled the inner-city fund. Those are our bona fides, and they show where our priorities are.
All we have to do is contrast that with what we see Liberal governments doing in other parts of Canada, and that is slashing, hacking and cutting. Picking on and bashing teachers is a specialty of Liberal governments right across the country. They like to do it whenever they have the opportunity. We also have Tory governments, of course -- and half the folks on the other side are closet Tories; they just don't want to admit it. What are they doing? Well, look at the headlong attack on education in Alberta. Look at a government that's willing to put an $800 fee in the way of a child trying to get into kindergarten.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The challenge in maintaining a publicly funded and publicly administered education system is fourfold. There's the matter of maintaining and improving quality and standards, and this government is acting in those areas. There is the challenge of meeting the relevance to the world of work and relevance to the real world that our young graduates will face when they come out, and our government is meeting that through Skills Now and several other initiatives. Accountability is another area, and we are taking action on a whole range of issues that will address accountability. The fourth issue is what we're partly speaking of here tonight, and that is containing costs. If we do not contain costs in the education system in the long run, we are faced with the possible loss of a public education system.
We have to contain administrative costs, and this government is doing that through reducing and capping the administrative portion of budgets. We have made a good start on that in this budget, and we will continue that process in the future. We did see an increase of some 47 percent in administration costs provincewide. In roughly the same period of time, there was a decrease in ministry costs of about 10 percent. Ministry budget costs went down 10 percent; admin costs across the province went up 47 percent. We're aware of the problem, and we're dealing with the problem.
Another area where we have had a problem is that four or five years ago, salaries and benefits at all levels, from support staff through to superintendents, was approximately 84 or 85 percent of budgets. That has now grown to 91 percent across the province on average, and in some districts it's as high as 93 percent. That is untenable, because it is squeezing out many other services to children.
In addition to seeing the costs of salaries and benefits squeezing out other services, we have had too many instruction days lost. We have had too much interference in the lives of young men and women and too much disruption in the lives of families and children. It is a situation that cannot be permitted to carry on.
G. Wilson: Would you say that to any other union worker?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It must be great to be in opposition, particularly to be a Liberal in opposition, because when you get to these matters, you can be all over the map. You can go all the way from so far right that you want to ban unions outright and simply get rid of them, through to essential services, through to do nothing but complain -- complain, complain, complain, but do nothing; the Liberals are good at doing that.
What are some of the other costs of local bargaining with the way it has been structured? In addition to the disruptions I've mentioned, bargaining has cost from $8 million to $9 million. There has been a tremendous amount of intellectual energy taken up at the bargaining table that could be better taken up in improving the quality of education.
M. de Jong: That's not what you said last year.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have in the House now, making noises from his seat, the member for Abbotsford.
An Hon. Member: The member for Matsqui.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Abbotsford, Matsqui.... I have to tell the member that I was in Abbotsford the other day to open the Clearbrook technology centre, right in the midst of the member's riding, I guess. Who wasn't there? The member wasn't there. The double-dipper who takes from the school board wasn't there representing the school board and who takes from the taxpayer wasn't there representing the taxpayer. In fact, when the Clearbrook technology centre project got into a bit of difficulty, where was that member? He certainly wasn't helping his constituency. The chair of the board there said that their member was quite good at criticizing, but he wasn't good for much else. He certainly didn't help out on the project. Instead, the member for Mission-Kent was called upon to come across the river and help the project. And the member for Mission-Kent did. In fact -- right from the Abbotsford News -- when the project appeared to be in some trouble earlier this year, John Smith said he approached Streifel for support. He has been unfailing with his support, even though he is the MLA from across the river. That is the kind of support for education that the member for Matsqui gives in his own riding -- the double-dipper, serving neither the schoolchildren of Abbotsford and Matsqui nor the taxpayers of the province. He ran and hid.
[8:15]
In fact, I've often wondered why, when the member opposite is seen in the hallways, he has a short rope attached to his ankle. But I understand it's so that when he gets too full of hot air they can tether him to his chair. It reminds me a little of the sperm whale who can arbitrarily increase or decrease buoyancy by changing the density of the spermaceti oil in the head. I wonder whether the member for Matsqui might not be able to do the same thing, thereby adjusting. He seems a bit of a lightweight, but from time to time we do have to tie him in place.
The response of this government to the challenges on the collective bargaining side is Bill 52, the Public Education Labour Relations Act. Who supports it? Trustees support it. The B.C. School Trustees' Association voted to support this initiative, and many have indicated their support in various respects. The parent advisory committees and the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils support this bill. Administrators at all levels support this bill, and probably
[ Page 11478 ]
after all is said and done and the mists clear away, the members opposite will also stand in their places and support this bill. They will do so because this bill will help bring some order to the education system. It will prevent some of the whipsawing that has occurred in settlements in the past. It will assure equity across the province, and in the long run it will preserve free collective bargaining. That may be the thing that sticks in the throat of many Liberals in this House, because they want to undermine and get rid of free collective bargaining in this sector. This side of the House will never agree to that. We will preserve it, and we will also raise the quality of education and ensure ongoing, undisrupted access to that education by the schoolchildren of British Columbia.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak in second reading of Bill 52, and I am pleased to see that the Minister of Education finally rose in his place to speak in support of this bill. I was getting concerned that the minister was having some difficulty with the bill, but it's obvious that he too supports provincewide bargaining. His remarks about the free collective bargaining process and the Liberal opposition doing away with it is totally inaccurate, and I'm sure the minister knows that.
When we talk about essential services, we're talking about making sure that the schools are open for students and teachers alike. I think it is clear that we need to restructure the public education system in British Columbia, and provincewide bargaining for teachers is only a start. The opposition has been calling for provincewide bargaining for over two years, and finally this government has acted. I think it's clear that we need a new system, a new organizational structure, because the one we have is dysfunctional. A number of members in the House made this statement as well in second reading debate. Much of the educational community believes some fundamental changes have to be made, and the Liberal opposition agrees.
The system has not made the necessary adjustments to adapt to our changing world. It's largely due to the imbalance of bargaining power in the present structure. Bargaining by teachers has been provincial and coordinated under the BCTF. The BCTF allocates about 20 staff and about 20 percent of its annual $18 million budget to its bargaining division; it's backed by a collective bargaining defence fund that is targeted to reach about $20 million. The BCTF sets provincial bargaining objectives, and trains and monitors local bargaining teams. All contract language must be BCTF-approved, and deviations are met with the why-not-here campaign to whipsaw boards into line. The BCSTA has consistently failed to effectively coordinate school board bargaining, and active BCTF members sit on many school boards.
This imbalance of power and resources in the present model has not been in the best interests of students or of the taxpayer. A new system must be established, and it must fit the students, not the adults in the system. Education must be designated an essential service, because the Liberals fundamentally believe that schools must remain open and that students must not be held hostage in disputes between employers and employees; students are neither. We must also have a simplified and equitable funding formula. We must have a curriculum that is relevant for today's new world, effective standards and measurements, and new teaching methods for teachers.
Virtually all sectors of our economy are restructuring, except in education, where only tinkering has happened. There has been nothing of any long-term value. Our current system has a 30 percent failure rate, and only 20 percent of graduating students go on to college or university. That leaves 50 percent of students going out into the job market. What skills do these students have? What have they learned in the K-to-12 system to prepare them to be productive citizens in today's new world? And it is a new world -- a very competitive, complex and rapidly changing world. Are we preparing our students for that world? I don't think so. Today's world needs people who have technical, reading and writing skills, maths and sciences, and computer literacy; they must be able to think and problem-solve. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that parents are demanding choices for their children and accountability from the schools. Schools today are disconnected from the world they are supposed to be preparing students for. That's what is happening today in education. Parents, students and the world of work are demanding change to the way we educate our young people. Indeed, the very definition of what is an educated person today needs to be addressed.
Change is coming to education, and it will not be stopped. The pressures are too great. Teachers must be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Provincewide bargaining for teachers is part of that fundamental change required to make our K-to-12 system relevant to the needs of students today. Eighty-five percent of entry-level jobs today require skills that are higher and different than those needed for university or college. Remember that 50 percent of our graduating students are going right out into those entry-level jobs. European and Asian students need the equivalent of four years of technical reading and writing to graduate from grade 12. It's clear that our curriculum, as well, needs to change if we are to maintain our standard of living and our ability to compete.
A new bargaining model must ensure that there is a direct link between accountability for contracts achieved and education spending. The cost of salaries and benefits in the school system has risen about 22 percent in the past four to five years. Since 1987, there have been 52 labour disruptions over three rounds of bargaining, $9 million spent on individual rounds of bargaining and thousands of hours of instruction time lost. Taxpayers have a right to expect that teacher contracts can be negotiated without the interruption of educational services to the students, and students facing an increasingly competitive future job market have a right to expect their schools to be open for the business of learning. I want to remind the government that the education of students must be our first priority.
The Liberal opposition will be watching very carefully the kind of master provincial contract that flows from this legislation. I support the principles and desirability of provincewide bargaining for teachers, as do most trustees and parents. My concern is that this government will negotiate another sweetheart deal with the teachers like the one they gave the health unions, the social contract that is tying the hands of hospital boards around this province. So I look forward to committee stage of this bill, when we will have some specific questions to ask the government regarding provincewide bargaining.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call upon the Minister of Finance, who will close debate.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to be very brief because I made a number of the remarks that I think needed to be made when we had the debate on the amendment.
But it's been very interesting listening to this debate tonight. Both the Liberals and the Reform members who have spoken.... The Liberals have danced around a lot and
[ Page 11479 ]
tried to take all sides of the issue. But when you pare it right down, what they've really done is called for an end to free collective bargaining for teachers. When they talk about essential services, when they talk about a third party, they're talking about binding arbitration. They're talking about taking the decision-making out of the hands of the trustees and the teachers.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: I now hear the member for Langley saying that that's right; that's what the Liberal Party stands for. As the Minister of Labour said a few minutes ago, if these folks were the government, we wouldn't be debating whether there should be legislation like this or not; there wouldn't be collective bargaining for teachers. That's the most important thing we've got to filter out of all of these statements made about local autonomy, who's going to be the bargaining agent, and all of the other smoke and mirrors that they've thrown up tonight.
When it comes to third-party arbitration, which the member is now making very clear is the position of the Liberal Party, I have to tell people that the trustees don't want it; the teachers don't want it; and we don't want it, because it turns it over to another party, it will be more expensive, and there will be no accountability to the parents and the taxpayers in this province. You're just backing out of it. If you ask the parents and the students in my school district whether they like that kind of approach, they will tell you absolutely not, because they see that as being at the root of the problems. Someone else has come in, someone who didn't understand the district, and has made decisions that they did not negotiate. Provincial bargaining, on the other hand, is not, as one of the members of the Liberal opposition suggested, the government and PSEC sitting down with the B.C. Teachers' Federation. It is the trustees, through the employers' association, sitting down with teachers representing districts from around the province that will make decisions on those issues that should be provincial in nature. Then, through the two-tiered bargaining system, teachers and trustees at the local level can make decisions about matters that are unique to their district.
The members for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and Okanagan East have taken a totally different tack on this one. They support the status quo. They say just leave things as they are right now. Anything else is unacceptable to them. But the status quo is unacceptable to the government, because it's unacceptable to parents and to students. So if the status quo isn't acceptable and third-party arbitration isn't acceptable, what is? Free collective bargaining between the two parties at the provincial level.
[8:30]
It will save us money. The Korbin commission estimated that at least 25 to 30 percent of the $9 million that's now being spent on collective bargaining can be saved. Those dollars can be redirected back to the classrooms to benefit students. It will provide greater stability for student, because we will not have 75 districts playing one another off against each other, trying to come up with some kind of agreement. Finally -- despite all the protestations of the opposition members -- it will protect local autonomy because trustees will bargain, local issues will be dealt with and the trustees can get on with dealing with the educational issues that are most important to the kids.
We've heard a lot tonight that reveals what the opposition stands for. They do not stand for free collective bargaining. They do not stand for a system that works for kids. That's got to change. So with that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 40 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Pement |
|
Edwards |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
Miller |
|
Cull |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Sawicki |
Jackson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Hartley |
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
|
Stephens |
Dalton |
Chisholm |
|
Jarvis |
Anderson |
M. de Jong |
| Fox | ||
|
NAYS -- 3 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
H. De Jong |
Bill 52, Public Education Labour Relations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section B, the Ministry of Environment estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 31: ministry operations, $212,675,479 (continued).
J. Tyabji: There's nothing you'd like to do better on a Monday evening than canvass the Environment estimates.
Last year when we were doing the Environment estimates there was talk of an extensive water study. Could the minister give us an update about the current status of the water study that was initiated last year?
Do I need to start from the beginning? Okay.
I see the minister has a new suit. Perhaps that's why he wanted to do his estimates.
Under the previous Minister of Environment, a water study was initiated last year which included groundwater, and there were some preliminary tests in the Gulf Islands. Could the minister tell us the status of that? Where is it at, what kinds of results have come out and where is he going with it?
Hon. M. Sihota: Actually it's not a new suit. But I did get it dry-cleaned, so maybe that's the explanation.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's right, it used to be brown.
[ Page 11480 ]
Since I went to the wedding I didn't think I was going to get any tough questions, but now I'll have to answer them all.
We had extensive consultation throughout the communities as a result of the water stewardship report we released. Since that report, a report has been made to myself as the minister, and there are considerations with regard to the next step to take. Those considerations are now before cabinet, hence I am not in a position to comment any further. I have received a report from staff on the basis of community consultation. We have to make some determinations with respect to groundwater and other water-related issues. As I said earlier, those matters are now before cabinet.
J. Tyabji: The minister says that the matters are before cabinet. Is he talking about the Water Act that is supposed to come out this session? The minister says that is correct.
I am asking about the preliminary groundwater testing in the Gulf Islands. It was the first time that the provincial government had taken the initiative with regard to aquifers, and there was a lot of talk last year about inventories of groundwater aquifers and potential water quality testing. Could the minister give me an update about whether or not any data has been collected from this, and if so, what is it?
Hon. M. Sihota: Those studies the hon. member refers to are still underway.
J. Tyabji: Last year in the estimates they were only planned, and at that time there had been no terms of reference as to whether or not there would be water quality, as well as quantity, testing. Could the minister outline what the terms of reference are? Are they looking at depletion rates? Where are the tests being conducted right now, and what is the objective?
Hon. M. Sihota: The tests are on Hornby and Pender Islands, and we're looking at Galiano as a third option.
[8:45]
J. Tyabji: Is there any intention or plan to do an inventory of aquifers or groundwater in the province as potential sources, for example, for domestic or industrial use? Is that underway?
Hon. M. Sihota: No.
J. Tyabji: What is the status of the moratorium on bulk water export licences?
Hon. M. Sihota: There is a moratorium on the granting of bulk water export licences. That moratorium comes off on July 1, 1994.
J. Tyabji: That leads me to the next question. What is the minister's intention when the moratorium is lifted? His predecessor had intended to have the Water Act passed before that. In fact, the consultation process on the Water Act has gone on for over a year -- not that I'm going to complain about an adequate consultation process. I don't hear people talking about it much in my community, so I'm just not sure how high-profile this consultation process has been. We'll have to see when the Water Act comes out how much it's in line with what the public wants.
But if the moratorium is being lifted July 1, I have several questions. First of all, were the bulk water export licences that were in existence prior to the moratorium still active, or were they issued but people couldn't use them? If it was the case that they couldn't use them, will they be immediately effective July 1? Will the minister be accepting further applications for licences when the moratorium lifts, or will he extend the moratorium?
Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of comments. You're correct that six were operable prior to the moratorium, and they remain in that status. Any new applications would, of course, have to be dealt with in the context of the moratorium, and that moratorium comes off on July 1.
Unlike the Liberal Party, which I'm sure would support -- or I understand would support -- the export of water, this party does not. Our government does not. It is our policy that there be no export of bulk water from British Columbia. Between now and July 1, we will have to deal with the matter of the moratorium, but I can assure the hon. member that we will. I'm sure that she can anticipate some action on the part of the government between now and July 1.
J. Tyabji: I would expect some action by the government on July 1, because that's Canada Day. But whether or not there will be action with regard to an extension of the moratorium remains to be seen.
Could the minister tell me if, with the existing six licences that were around prior to the moratorium, there was any change in the volume of water export permitted under those licences?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not aware that there are any changes.
J. Tyabji: So from the time of the moratorium being imposed, there was no increase in the volumes allowed by those existing licences. Is the minister saying that's correct?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's my understanding.
J. Tyabji: Does the minister have any concerns with regard to the implementation of NAFTA as it affects B.C.'s water resources? If so, what would they be? Does the minister agree with the definition of water that's provided in NAFTA?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I do have concerns with regard to the provisions of NAFTA. No, I don't agree with the definition of water under the North American Free Trade Agreement. More importantly, since last year there have been some significant developments, in particular an agreement.... Let me go back.
First of all, the most significant development is a letter by Mr. Kantor, the senior trade representative for the United States, that was made public, and I can't remember if it was to the Canadian government or not. In his correspondence, Mr. Kantor indicated that any trade in the commodity of water would be covered by NAFTA, given the NAFTA definition of water. That was a definition that was different than the previous government led us to believe, and hence there was a broader application under Mr. Kantor's interpretation with regard to the export of bulk water.
That's troublesome to me. Accordingly, in November 1993, I and the Minister of Employment and Investment raised this issue with the Minister of Environment and the minister responsible for trade at the federal level shortly after the last federal election campaign. In December 1993, the Premier reiterated his concerns with regard to Mr. Kantor's letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada, in response to that pressure, executed an
[ Page 11481 ]
agreement by way of a letter that confirmed certain understandings between the federal government of Canada and the federal government of the United States. That letter is a side deal to NAFTA, and in our view it has no application with regard to NAFTA. It's scandalous that the Liberal government would allow all water to be covered as a commodity under the provisions of the free trade agreement.
Regrettably, the provincial Liberal Party took no action with regard to that determination. We did. We wrote to the Prime Minister, expressed our deep concern about what transpired and indicated that we would take appropriate action to protect the sovereignty of British Columbia water. We don't think water should be exported, unlike the rather right-wing opposition that we have in British Columbia. Hence we don't think there should be trade in water. We've indicated that as a matter of public policy. We intend to make that clear through other actions and instruments, which I'm sure will be forthcoming prior to July 1.
J. Tyabji: The minister has certainly put his position on record, but what I'm not sure about is to what extent.... He said that this government plans to exercise our sovereignty over water. I'm sure he means jurisdiction rather than sovereignty with regard to water resources. I don't know what the minister or this government can do. If the minister has any advice on that, that would be very interesting.
The next question is with regard to water diversion. Has this minister taken a position with respect to water diversions, and if so, what is it?
Hon. M. Sihota: As you know there are some proposals with regard to the diversion of water, particularly in the Okanagan and Thompson areas. I believe the proposal by Mr. Clancey is for a diversion of portions of the North Thompson River to allow a diversion of water for export purposes. I want all hon. members to know that the position of the government is that that's not on; it ought not to occur. We would exercise our jurisdictional control over water. It is absolutely unacceptable that water from British Columbia would be exported.
It is absolutely unacceptable that the federal Liberal government would sell out the resources of Canada to quench the thirst of the United States. I can assure the hon. member that I am most concerned about what is proposed under the free trade agreement with regard to the export of water, whether it's to export by way of a diversion or through other mechanisms. I do not believe that a diversion for export is in the interests of British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: The minister didn't elaborate, in his earlier comments with regard to NAFTA, as to what this government's role could be in maintaining jurisdiction over water resources, given that water is defined as a commodity. If he has some further comments later, when he responds to this question, those would be welcome.
The minister has said that the North Thompson diversion will not proceed, and that's appreciated. His predecessor would not give a position on that. Has there been a formal rejection of that proposal, which was with this ministry last year at this time?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's impossible to reject the application when no application has been made. No, it hasn't been made by Mr. Clancey. So you have that.
Secondly, with regard to NAFTA, I have secured legal opinions that provide government with a set of options. Those options are under consideration by government at this time.
J. Tyabji: At any point when those opinions become something that can be in the public domain, they'd be most appreciated. That's obviously something of concern to all British Columbians.
As I understand it, the North Thompson diversion proposal was before the Ministry of Economic Development, under the previous minister, with this government. The minister might want to check on that. As I understood it, it had gone through a preliminary acceptance in that ministry. It may not have come to the Minister of Environment, but it certainly was canvassed extensively last year and the year before in the estimates.
Is this ministry involved to any extent in the Columbia River Treaty negotiations?
Hon. M. Sihota: We do have some staff involvement. But I think in the context that I would assume your question is in, the answer would be no. The technical answer is yes, but a substantive answer, in terms of the actual negotiations -- if that's what you're getting at -- would be no.
J. Tyabji: With reference to the minister's previous comments about jurisdiction and sovereignty, about the environment being paramount and about wanting to oversee the movement of water, I would imagine that any negotiations that would be taking place on the Columbia River Treaty would take into account this ministry's environmental standards. To what extent are the staff involved going to be overseeing the outcome of the negotiations and making sure that they fall within the guidelines of the Ministry of Environment?
Hon. M. Sihota: As you know, there are a whole series of environmental concerns, and I think it's appropriate, in that context, for you to raise the issue. There are requirements for water in the United States, for sturgeon. There are impacts on us, for example, with regard to the Duncan Dam and the release of water out of that storage site; the interlinkages between the Columbia River system and the Kootenay system; and facilities such as the reservoirs that we have in that region -- Keenleyside and so on. There are concerns with regard to environmental matters. Under the involvement of our MLAs from the Kootenays, we have been engaged in a series of forums in communities of the Kootenays to look at all the implications of the downstream arrangement and the benefits to flow back to British Columbia.
You have to understand that there are environmental considerations on both sides of the border, and of course, fish are immune to those border considerations. These are issues that we have to deal with in the negotiations. We have people involved at the technical level, but I know that myself and my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment are keenly interested in those negotiations. I can only assure you that I'm mindful of the environmental impacts.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if that answered the question, which was: would the final outcome of the negotiations be run before the Minister of Environment? Perhaps the minister would like to respond to that.
With regard to the Nechako River diversion, Kemano 2.... I don't want to canvass that extensively because obviously it's late at night, but public hearings have been
[ Page 11482 ]
ongoing. I guess the last question is: to what extent will the Environmental Assessment Act, which is going to be passed this session, and the Water Act, which I suppose we would expect next session, have any bearing on the Nechako River diversion? Maybe the member for Cariboo North would like to get in on the debate, because water is a big issue in the Cariboo.
Hon. M. Sihota: Water is a big issue in the Cariboo, and I can assure you that no other member in this House is as vociferous in articulating the concerns of his constituency as the member for Cariboo North, who is constantly in my office expressing the views of the residents of Quesnel and other parts of his constituency. I can assure you that the member is deeply concerned about environmental impacts in his constituency, be it on the matter of CORE or that of water. Quite frankly, hon. member, I cannot think of any other member in this House who has done as admirable a job in raising environmental issues as has my colleague from Cariboo North, whom I would gladly nominate to take my position, should it ever become vacant.
With that said, I would like to answer your question. The environmental assessment legislation has, of course, not had the blessing of this House. It would be highly speculative for me to comment on its application to any project in British Columbia. Secondly, the B.C. Utilities Commission, as you are aware, is dealing with the Nechako issue, and I have stated my concerns, views and opinions with regard to that process on the record in Hansard.
V. Anderson: I'd like to ask some questions in the area of multiculturalism, if that's permissible. What new thrusts in multiculturalism has the minister brought in?
[9:00]
The Chair: Unless there was some kind of arrangement or understanding between members that we were going to canvass the lands branch for a certain period of time before we went to the other -- in which case I'd suggest we hold this question over.... The minister, of course, is perfectly entitled to answer.
Hon. M. Sihota: I obviously am guided by your advice, but I note that in the time we've spent on the environment there has been very little comment -- certainly nothing substantive -- from the Liberal side of the House. So I think they'd rather we move on matters relating to multiculturalism.
With regard to multiculturalism, a number of initiatives.... I had the privilege of being asked by the Premier to take over these responsibilities in September. We have been involved in a range of issues. But the bulk of the concerns from my desk have been around organizational issues in terms of delivery within the ministry. Of course that is not to say that issues such as ESL, immigrant settlement matters, the relations between some of the Legions and the issue of turbans, and the matter of heritage language and heritage language instruction have not been matters of consideration -- they clearly have been. As well, we've dealt with a range of issues with regard to human rights and policies on multiculturalism and newcomers. So we have been dealing with a range of issues. But I have to tell you that I've been really looking at the administrative components of the ministry to assess whether or not the delivery is consistent with the government's objectives.
The Chair: I have a point of order from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, in deference to the staff who are here this late at night, I think there is probably 15 minutes left for lands questions prior to moving into multiculturalism. I think that was the agreement before we commenced.
The Chair: I don't think that's a point of order, but I'm certainly prepared to facilitate the proceedings of this chamber to accommodate the needs of staff as well as members.
Minister, it's your call and your staff, so I will defer to you at this point.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're always well prepared to deal with issues related to lands, so why don't we spend 15 minutes and do that first, which I'm sure the hon. member will agree to, and then we'll proceed to multiculturalism.
G. Wilson: I thank all members. It may be less than 15 minutes. I have some very specific questions about municipal watersheds and watershed protection, and in particular with respect to the guidelines for watershed management on Crown lands that have been put forward. I talk specifically about the Gray Creek-Chapman Creek watershed designation in the Sechelt area, which your staff is well aware of. It has been the subject of some litigation between the regional district or local government and the Ministry of Environment. Can the minister tell us whether or not the guidelines, which I understand were in preparation, have been completed with respect to that? Is the ministry now prepared to move toward a proposition for local control of that watershed and removal of that land from the Crown forest?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for the question, hon. member. We're still working with the Ministry of Forests with regard to that, and we're not prepared at this point to make that commitment.
G. Wilson: I have two short questions, then, on that matter. With respect to the local resource-planning committee that was struck in that area, I think there are fairly specific guidelines that have come forward, one of which is for a provision of some local control or autonomy over that region. I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not he's prepared to undertake an interim step with respect to the protection or maintenance of that area, given that the cut plans that are in place are imminent, and that the Edwards Lake region might undergo those cut plans within this year.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand it, although the committee is co-chaired by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, the decision will be made by the Ministry of Forests.
Hon. Chair, I'm wondering if I could have leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to notice that sitting in the gallery tonight is Mr. Stu Sevard. Mr. Sevard is a teacher in Fort Nelson, in northern British Columbia, and he is here visiting Victoria. He has a distinguished background; he was a member of the British Columbia Students' Federation during the seventies and he had a reputation for being a minor activist in that regard and occasionally expressing an opinion with regard to issues affecting
[ Page 11483 ]
students. Of course, he now finds himself on the other side of the table as an educator, and now he occasionally expresses views with regard to teachers. He's here, I think, to lend support to the government's initiatives with regard to legislation governing teachers, but I could be corrected on that matter. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Mr. Sevard.
G. Wilson: Back to the issue of community watersheds and away from the removal of local autonomy on bargaining....
J. Tyabji: It's shameful.
G. Wilson: Yes, it's a shameful piece of legislation.
For some time the members of the regional district have been trying to get a meeting with the minister or the minister's staff with respect to this, and they are having a great deal of difficulty securing a time. There is a real desire to avoid litigation because of the costs that are incurred. Logging activity deemed to have happened in the past has affected turbidity and water quality and has created a real problem and an increased need for chlorination in order to meet provincial standards. Is he prepared to take an interim step? If an interim step is not forthcoming, I wonder if the minister might commit -- seeing as he's so casual with his meetings with the member for Cariboo North -- to get that meeting together so we can avoid litigation?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that question. It's my understanding that staff in my office are already working with the organization to arrange for meetings.
The Chair: The member for Okanagan East on the same area.
J. Tyabji: Actually, hon. Chair, I wanted to raise something.... It was my understanding that we wanted to wrap up the Environment estimates tonight before we went to Multiculturalism. I've just sent a note with regard to water; I hadn't finished questioning on that.
The Chair: Please proceed, then. I look somewhat perplexed simply because approximately seven minutes ago we agreed that we were going to devote about 15 minutes to this, with the permission of the member for Vancouver-Langara. I simply don't want to do anything that will somehow leave him left out of the shuffle. Perhaps you could proceed, and we will see how our time goes.
J. Tyabji: Well, I'm quite happy to move to Multiculturalism, except I haven't finished with Environment, and I wasn't here when that agreement had been made.
With regard to water, we were speaking about water diversion and about the Environmental Assessment Act and the Water Act. The minister said that issues with regard to the Water Act and the discussion paper were before cabinet. Could the minister tell us when we can expect some legislation on the Water Act, what the terms of reference for that will be and how it will coincide with the Environmental Assessment Act?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. I'm sure that because of the size of your caucus, it is difficult to know what arrangements have been made between one party and another.
With regard to legislation, it is a matter of future policy, and I'm not in a position to articulate one way or the other about the government's determinations on legislation or whether that would be the next step in the government's response to the water export issue. As the hon. member knows, it's usually not my practice to use the rules as a reason to avoid answering questions, but this really is a matter of future policy, and a range of options are under consideration by government right now.
J. Tyabji: It doesn't matter to me -- if it's going to be future policy, that's fine. The only reason I asked is that when the Environmental Assessment Act comes out, it is to be a comprehensive act governing all aspects of the environment. When we start to talk about water, the fact is that the government hasn't done an inventory of groundwater, yet that's a major source of domestic water supply in many communities. I thought that was why the Water Act was going to be cross-referenced with the Environmental Assessment Act. But we can always deal with that later; it doesn't matter.
What kind of water quality testing is going to be done around the province? Are there going to be any plans for water quality testing of the Fraser to see if there are any changes when the flow of the Fraser is being regulated in the northern communities?
Hon. M. Sihota: We do have some agreements with the federal government with regard to water quality and the Fraser River. We hope to be able to have a state-of-the-Fraser report to you by the end of the fiscal year.
J. Tyabji: So that we don't take up too much time in debate on the corporate inventory initiative that we started to talk about the other day, I have yet to see anything concrete about the first two years of study, other than a few references in debate. It would be most useful if there were something in writing about what has been accomplished so far and what the budget is for the coming year; I believe we are over $11 million now. Even if there is just a preliminary budget breakdown, it would be very useful.
Hon. M. Sihota: We could do something in writing, but that sometimes takes time. You are more than welcome to meet with staff and see what we are doing there. It's far more informative to do it on that basis. You are there and can meet with staff, discuss the accomplishments and where we're going, and see the system as it's set up. I wish more hon. members would do that. So much time is spent here in the House that we don't get a chance to meet with staff. Sometimes people in opposition aren't comfortable with that, but I would encourage you to do that, and I would be happy to make those arrangements for you. I think that would be far more informative.
J. Tyabji: We will definitely take you up on that.
The last question with regard to water is: are there any interministerial protocols -- for example, with the Minister of Agriculture -- to monitor some of the things that we're putting into the water and some of the resulting water quality? The minister said that there were some agreements with the federal government with regard to the Fraser River. Is anything being done between the ministries to monitor the impact on the water systems of agriculture or municipal outletting? Are any discussions going on, or are there any plans to change some of the existing systems where treated
[ Page 11484 ]
sewage is going into some of the same bodies of water that we are extracting our domestic water supply from?
Hon. M. Sihota: Agricultural waste regulations are developed, and we do the monitoring through the Ministry of Environment.
[9:15]
J. Tyabji: That's not really what I asked, but that's fine. We will leave it for now. It's getting too late.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: This is the third year in a row that we've been in these estimates, so I sort of feel like saying: "Just read last year's Hansard, and get back to me with your set of answers." In the previous two years it was my practice to spend about two weeks on Environment and canvass everything, as I'm sure your staff will tell you. They'd probably say ad nauseam, but I like to say very thoroughly.
With regard to water, there are a lot of areas where there is not really adequate monitoring. I'm not talking about regulation in terms of enforcement but of monitoring something a little differently. You're trying to get small samples of what's going into the water and respond to it not by enforcement of regulation but by trying to change the way we do things so we don't have some of the existing problems -- whether it's pesticides or treated sewage getting into the water or storm drains outletting in the water, which we have in a number of communities. In a nutshell, I would basically like to find out if any committees of cabinet members, for example, are trying to discuss some kind of proactive solutions to the current infrastructure problems.
Hon. M. Sihota: My staff have indicated great regret that we're not spending two weeks on estimates this year. They told me that it was a great event for them, and they enjoyed it.
We do the monitoring. We spend about $1 million a year, and we produce reports as a result of that work. Again, I would be happy to make staff available to the hon. member to go through it, so you're not simply hearing replies from me here or material in writing but can actually canvass staff on where we are going. After you've done that, I would be interested in hearing any comments you may have in terms of the development of public policy where you think we are deficient -- subject always, of course, to some sensitivity about fiscal restraints on the part of the ministry.
J. Tyabji: I'd be happy to make recommendations -- not that the minister would necessarily follow them. It would be more with respect to something that the ministries can do together.
I know there's been a concern in my own riding that we have untreated material from storm drains outletting into the lake, which is the major source of domestic water for the people who live near it. Of course, there's tertiary-treated sewage going in as well. With regard to air quality, this year is the first year when we actually have some movement on that front. That will be primarily in the lower mainland, as I understand it. Could the minister, without breaking the orders of the House, let us know what the strategy is with regard to air quality -- independent of the bill, which we will be debating?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I don't know exactly where the boundaries are. But you may be aware that either in your constituency or just adjacent to it, earlier this year -- I believe it was in March; I could be wrong -- I announced the establishment of an air quality monitoring station in Kelowna. It's too bad that you weren't able to make it. But I'll make sure that the next time I go to Kelowna, I extend an invitation to you. But I was afraid that you might take too much credit for the announcement I was making, and I couldn't have that happen.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: In any event, the hon. member from Vanderhoof is upset. I can assure him that I haven't been to Vanderhoof for a while, but I'll let him know when I go out there to check out white metal. And by the way, I've asked staff to see if I can get an answer to you on that question before I'm finished.
In terms of the strategy of the government on air quality, you're right that there is legislation before the House. That legislation reflects in part our commitment to deal in a significant and proactive way with air quality issues. Of course, smog is a significant problem in the lower mainland and Victoria, and a growing problem in your region of the province, in Kelowna. Hence we have to deal with the emissions from automobiles. As we breathe in those particulates, the emissions from automobiles have significant impacts on health.
We've looked at other jurisdictions to see what they've done. California has the toughest automobile emission standards in North America. We felt that as a government, our standard is to be the most progressive government in Canada around environmental matters and to have the toughest standards that we possibly, rationally and logically can bring forward. We've looked at California. We've introduced legislation that enables us to introduce regulations which are tailor-made to British Columbia but which do, to some degree, mirror what's occurring in California. We're committed to reducing tailpipe emissions from automobiles.
The reason that we're prepared and wanting to do that is the health impacts. A recent GVRD study, which was released, I believe, on May 2, 1994, indicated that if we move in the direction that we are by taking these types of initiatives, over time we will reduce by 33,000 the number of people who visit our emergency health clinics in the lower mainland because of respiratory problems, prevent 2,800 premature deaths in British Columbia and prevent $74 million worth of crop damage in B.C. All too often we take the automobile for granted and don't realize the detrimental effects of the stuff that comes out of the tailpipe.
There is therefore a range of actions that the government is considering. AirCare, of course, is a component of that. The information we have indicates that those kinds of programs play a significant role in reducing the amount of material that's released into the air. In 1992 there were about 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide released into the air here in Victoria. That gives you an indication of the amount of stuff, if I can put it that way, that is out there that we're inhaling.
There are other initiatives on the part of government that we can do over and above an AirCare program. The cleanliness of fuels that we place into automobiles has a significant impact on what comes out. We've said that we're intrigued by California's regulations for zero-emission vehicles by the year 1998. Another initiative that we're prepared to take as a government is to support technologies that take us to zero emissions. Most recently, the Minister of Employment and Investment and I announced a grant to
[ Page 11485 ]
Ballard Power Systems to develop a hydrogen fuel cell. That will allow us to achieve those technologies and, more importantly, to get the spinoff from developing that kind of technology here in British Columbia and marketing it in California. That's a tangible step that we have taken over and above the legislation that we have brought forward. Natural gas buses and reducing the sulphur content in fuels are other options that are available to government.
I must tell you, hon. member, that one of the lessons we've learned since our time in government is that you make firm decisions. You tell industry that these are the determinations of government, and you don't wobble. Unlike the previous government, which wobbled on pulp mill effluent discharge regulations, we said to the pulp mill industry that they had to comply with our regulations. All of a sudden, the arguments with regard to the impossibility from a scientific point of view or the cost from an economic point of view went by the side, because the determination of government was clear and convincing.
We intend to take the same approach with regard to automobiles. I made it very clear to both the petroleum industry and the automobile industry that we intend to make sure that we don't find ourselves in the kind of situation Los Angeles is in right now, with its smog problems, or Mexico City, where the problem with carbon monoxide is so bad that birds fall out of the air. We have a wonderful environment here in British Columbia, and we're going to protect it.
L. Fox: I see that the discussion has gone right into the bill rather than the ministry. I think the statement has everything to do with politics and not a lot to do with reality, but we'll leave that discussion for the bill.
I have a particular concern around air quality that I wanted to address. I have a letter that came to me today from the village of Fort St. James. Last year, in discussions of the burning policy, I had some differences with your predecessor with respect to those regulations. Subsequently, the concerns are coming to roost. We have enforced this policy. We brought the policy down before there were any alternatives for what we can do with wood waste. The case in point here, in the village of Fort St. James, is that ordinary, average people are trying to clear their lots to build their new homes, and they haven't got a spot they can haul the stumps to. They're not allowed to burn them within a residential area. They can't take them to the dump site, where they were previously burned, because now they can't comply with the policy of this ministry. They were told by the Ministry of Environment in Prince George that there is an alternative: they could truck them to the cogeneration plant in Williams Lake. The minister knows that's some 200 miles away from Fort St. James. With ten loads of wood waste, it would be an extremely costly development in that small community. I guess I'm looking to the minister and the ministry here for some guidance for these residents. How can these individuals live up to the legislation and the regulation of this government and still build their homes?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, hon. member, if I offended you by discussing politics in this House; I didn't realize that was against the rules. But I'm sure the hon. member will take heed of his own advice and in the future will not discuss any matters of politics in this chamber. With that said, let me say that one can make an application for a permit to burn. If they meet the conditions, they can burn; if they can't, they can't.
L. Fox: Obviously the minister is a little feisty this evening, to say the least. In my opening comments, I said that it's right in the middle of a residential area, which happens to have some trees on it. You can't get a burning permit, and you can't haul it to the landfill. What are you supposed to do with it? That's the problem we have when we have regulations brought down to cover the province as a whole but don't necessarily apply any common sense when it comes to putting them in place in rural parts of the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I can assure you that I'm not trying to be feisty with you whatsoever. I have no difficulty with the hon. member; I've always enjoyed engaging in debate with him. I know that he has become a member of a new party, and perhaps that's where some of the concerns may arise on the part of the Liberal Party, because I see from the recent polls that they are plunging, and his party is gaining in support. I think that if there's any frustration, it's from your colleagues on the other side of you who are trying to out-right you guys on the Reform side. No, there's no problem with me. I have no problem with you two right-wing parties fighting it out. In fact, more power to you in that regard.
But with regard to your question, it strikes me that there is a reasonableness to the point you're raising. It seems to me that if there are particular problems in your community within a residential area, it might be appropriate for you and my staff to meet and see if we can iron out the wrinkles. My staff have indicated a willingness to do that, and that may be the most effective way to resolve it. So I want to thank you for raising it. There might be some solution here that we can work out, and we'll endeavour to do that -- on a non-political basis, of course.
J. Tyabji: I'm still quaking from the minister's speech about "we won't back off." It was like The Terminator or something -- once he had held up a gun, that was it.
There has been a lot of talk about air quality and this minister's commitment to air quality. What will this minister do about slash burning?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, hon. member, that it took so long to deal with that question, but I was quaking in my seat.
In any event, I have to tell you that we are working with the Ministry of Forests to develop ways in which we can make better use of ventilation and be more appropriate in terms of slash burning, and we are also taking steps to reduce the occasions on which that occurs.
If I may be permitted, I'd like to sit back down in my seat now.
J. Tyabji: It's so refreshing to have non-political comments from this minister. Especially from this minister.
[9:30]
So slash burning is under discussion with the Minister of Forests, which we know is committed to slash burning. Does this minister have a position on slash burning. What is he discussing, and what is the objective of those discussions?
Hon. M. Sihota: The objective of the discussions we're having is to reduce the level of burning by about 50 percent. In addition to that, we're working with Environment Canada to get better readings with regard to weather and other atmospheric conditions in order to do it in a fashion that is far more sensitive. But the objective is reduce to the quantum of burning which occurs in British Columbia by 50 percent.
[ Page 11486 ]
J. Tyabji: We're on the home stretch, hon. Chair.
I'm sure the minister, being so new to the portfolio, will appreciate that some of us in the opposition have been giving him some time. Since his staff, as he pointed out, are usually delighted with my questions during the estimates, I'd like to put him on notice that this time next year we can have a lot more time for these issues, because, of course, he's now talking about how he is discussing these things and how he's going to do all these wonderful things.
The last question is a question I've brought up in the previous two years as well. It's with regard to whether or not this minister has any intention of working with the Minister of Education on an issue that I think is of great importance to young children, and that is educating them about proper head and eye gear because of the potential for damage due to increased ultraviolet light. This is something that we've canvassed in previous estimates, and I've brought research on it in previous years. This minister has small children, and I'm sure he can appreciate that there are days when there is a problem. In many other countries they have adopted some policies with regard to this. The education system is one in which there is fairly easy access to children to have them be well-versed in this. Is this minister on this issue? Have staff been following up on previous years? Some work was being done in previous years, but I don't know if it had gotten to the formal education stage, other than a pet dinosaur for Environment Week, or something like that.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Yes, the Ecosaurus, or something.
The previous Minister of Environment had said they would try to address it that way. Is there anything the minister can add?
Hon. M. Sihota: In the last eight or nine months we've developed some materials with the Ministry of Health that are circulated to young people. You're right; we have a very successful program. You'll notice the Green Team, with Eco the Ecosaurus being our mascot. The ministry certainly has all the affection from my daughter that one Ecosaurus could possibly want.
I've got to tell you that that's a very valid point. It seems to me -- and I'll certainly take this back to staff -- that we would have some opportunities to do some integration of the work that we do with the Green Team in the schools. I have no difficulty encouraging that to transpire. Since we're in schools with Eco and the Green Team in any event, I'm sure there are opportunities to deal with ozone-related issues. That's a valid point, and I thank the member for that point.
J. Tyabji: I would just like to advise the minister that we will be taking him up on his offer of getting further information from the staff and canvassing many of the issues that have been raised this year in next year's Environment estimates -- and also through correspondence. I'm really very pleased to hear the minister recognize that safe-guarding children's eyes from increased ultraviolet radiation is a very serious point, because it is a point that some people don't realize. People know about sunblock, but they don't know about the potential damage to the cornea, and that's encouraging. That's it; I'm done.
D. Jarvis: In view of the potential loss of contracts, I'd like to ask the minister if he could tell us if he's had any discussions with coal producers in the northeast section of B.C. with regard to possibly using coal for energy production in the future.
Hon. M. Sihota: We have concrete evidence that the Liberal Party, as usual, stands up for the interests of the rich and powerful and seldom makes arguments in this House in terms of environmental protection. The hon. member has insisted in this House that we mine in parks like the Tatshenshini and has encouraged us not to engage in the prosecution of companies that violate the environment, because he says that they will be embarrassed by that prosecution and that it's a disincentive to business. He now stands up and makes another of his rich-and-powerful and on-the-side-of-corporations arguments. No, I haven't had those discussions.
D. Jarvis: Did the minister say that he wasn't going to answer my question? I didn't hear.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, I didn't say that I wasn't going to answer the question. I just said that, of course, politics is all about whose side you're on, what values you represent and what you bring to public office. I note that time and time again we hear nothing from the Liberal opposition about the environment, but we hear everything about environmental regulation being an impediment to economic development. We hear the Leader of the Opposition say publicly that his first environmental priority would be to get rid of environmental regulations. I keep asking myself: which regulations is he talking about? Is it the tough new auto emission standards we brought in? Is it the tough standards we have with regard to the discharge of effluent from pulp mills? Is it the tough standards we have with regard to CFCs, which are the toughest in North America? Would he support mining in parks? Is that the regulation he wants to get rid of? It would be business as usual -- back to the old Socred days, when it was the smell of money when stuff came spewing out of smokestacks. That's where the Liberal opposition wants to stand.
It's not that I'm not answering your question, hon. member. I'm just telling you very clearly whose side you're on, just in case you're confused. Let me answer very explicitly: you're on the side of the rich and the powerful. Once again, when doing these Environment estimates, you're standing up here representing your Howe Street agenda.
D. Jarvis: I just want to talk to the Minister of Environment again. No wonder that in previous years the Environment questions went on for a good length of time. At that time the Minister of Environment knew what he was talking about and knew his ministry, whereas this one doesn't. He fails to accept the information or advice given by his staff.
What I was talking about was not with regard to the rich and powerful. If anyone is aware of the northeast coal situation, they know that the owners are not rich and powerful, as those mines are in deep trouble. I was talking about the fact that literally tens of thousands of people in the northeast section rely on the coalmines for a living. Towns like Chetwynd are there ostensibly because the coalmines are there. The rail lines across the top of northern B.C. are there because the coalmines are there. The coal port in Prince Rupert is there because of the coalmines. So when the contracts come up in '96 and '98, possibly there will be no coal mined out of the northeast section.
I was trying to see if the minister could understand or appreciate the fact that there may be another way to supply
[ Page 11487 ]
work for the normal workingman in the north, but it's obvious that the minister has no concern about the small people in the northeastern part of British Columbia or across the top of the province, or else he would stop postulating. The fact that he doth protest too much.... He's afraid of the Liberals. We are quite pleased to have him get up there and let go with all these stupid statements that do nothing but create more votes for the Liberal Party across the north of British Columbia.
I wonder if the minister would consider, then, that if the north was to develop they would need more power. Would it be better for them to perhaps build another hydroelectric dam in the area?
Hon. M. Sihota: Here goes the member again: the member for the rich and powerful is advocating Kemano 3, Kemano 4 or Kemano 5 -- I don't know. I can tell you, hon. member, that right now British Columbia leads the way in terms of economic development in this country; we're number one in Canada in terms of job creation. More jobs have been created in British Columbia than in any other province. One-third of all the new jobs created in the last quarter in this year were created right here in Victoria. The economy of British Columbia is booming, be it in the interior....
You, hon. member, should spend a weekend up in Prince George. I know that the economy in Prince George is booming because of some of the initiatives undertaken by this administration that are causing unprecedented construction and economic growth. I'll tell you why: there's an NDP mayor from that community who stands up and speaks passionately for its interests. There is an NDP member of this House -- the former Minister of Government Services -- who stands up in this House, speaks passionately and demands on behalf of her constituents that things like the courthouse in Prince George be built. There are strong advocates for the north in this House.
The only dark spot on the horizon for British Columbia would be the election of a Liberal government. Capital would flee; there would be no investment in British Columbia if we were to engage in the kind of backward and draconian economic policies proposed by the hon. member. British Columbia would lose its stature as one of the most environmentally progressive provinces in Canada should there be a change in administration. That's why British Columbians are determined that this administration receives another mandate to make sure that the regressive and negative policies proposed by the hon. member and his party -- representing the interests of the rich and powerful -- never see the light of day in British Columbia. With that said, I call the vote.
The Chair: I could ask the question quite rhetorically: shall the vote pass? Instead, I shall recognize the member for North Vancouver-Seymour.
D. Jarvis: Would it be improper to use the words "blowhard" or "stupid"? If so, I won't use them about the minister. Obviously the minister thinks he's going to win the next election.
J. Tyabji: So do you.
D. Jarvis: Well, that's why he's worried about it. He's worried that we're probably going to win the next election. Some of the statements he just made were unbelievably.... I don't even know if I can say that word in the House.
Nevertheless, now that we're talking about parks and things like that, would the minister please come back, because he never did answer my question about whether he was prepared to solve the problem in Mount Washington with regard to acid drainage.
Hon. M. Sihota: The question has been answered on the record. I believe the hon. member -- who I know is capable of understanding most issues -- will recognize that the question has been answered.
D. Jarvis: That was basically the same non-answer I got a couple of weeks ago. The minister seems to be afraid to answer the question. It is going to cost the government money to do it, and the government and his department are afraid to do so.
I was wondering if the minister could tell me if his department has looked into the practical way of using microwave radiation to zap sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides in coal.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure which comic strip you were reading before you got here, hon. member.
D. Symons: I just have a few questions for the minister, and we'll see if we can get some answers to them. The first question deals with the Tatshenshini. A few years ago the government was asking UNESCO to declare that a world heritage site, and I don't know if I've heard the results. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me the status of that particular designation.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can tell you that most British Columbians are appalled that the Liberal Party of British Columbia believes there should be mining in the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park. I find it incredible that one member of the Liberal Party would stand up and advocate mining in the Tatshenshini, and the other one would encourage us to proceed with UNESCO designation of the Tatshenshini. It just shows, hon. member, how confused, out of touch, irrational and ineffective the opposition is. But the answer to the question is that we have made an application to the United Nations.
[9:45]
D. Symons: I find this almost unbelievable. I simply asked a question as to the status of that particular thing the government announced it was going to do, and we get a tirade on all sorts of other things unrelated entirely to the question I asked. It's ridiculous that you're wasting the time of the people of this province when we ask a very simple question that takes a very simple answer. What do we get? That slush that comes out of his mouth. The moment we ask anything, he wants to go forth and talk about....
Interjection.
D. Symons: Yes, it's hardly.... For the Minister of Environment, the garbage he's giving us would create quite a few landfills. I'm just absolutely amazed at the sort of thing we get from him. Nevertheless, we'll press on and try again.
In this province we collect a bounty, I'll call it, on each tire that's sold, and that's supposed to go back into the recycling of tires. There is a firm that now tries to make these into paving blocks, and I'm wondering what financial support the government is giving to those projects. Maybe you could give me a figure for the differential between the amount
[ Page 11488 ]
collected each year on the tire bounty and the money spent on recycling tires.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know the hon. member has grave concerns about wasting the taxpayers' time in dealing with issues in this House, so I'll just let him know that the question has already been answered, and the answer is recorded in Hansard.
D. Symons: I will make a point of looking back in Hansard, and I thank the minister for a direct answer that time.
Interjection.
D. Symons: Well, it's a direct evasion, so that's a faster answer than the previous one.
The federal government in the United States has now mandated that a certain percentage of rubber be added to the mix in pavement. It's 5 percent now and is going to be increased as time goes on. Is your ministry working on doing that in British Columbia, where currently there is no requirement for rubber to be added to pavement mix?
Hon. M. Sihota: The Minister of Employment and Investment and I have received some submissions in that regard, and they're under consideration.
D. Symons: I attended one of the AVIM meetings a couple of years ago and they were discussing the problem of recycled material on the Island. One material that they were collecting a great deal of and had no market whatsoever for was glass. At that time, the ministry was talking about getting a provincewide program so that they would be able to deal with the various recycling programs, because they would have a larger group for marketing it. I've never heard anything about that, and I still don't know what the Vancouver Island municipalities do with their glass.
Hon. M. Sihota: I just can't get over this. It's always interesting in these estimates to listen to the members from the Reform Party and the PDA who research and ask questions that seem to have some substance. We provide more money to the Liberal Party for caucus research than any other party in the House, and I don't know what they're doing over there. The hon. member came in here and said that he didn't want to waste any taxpayers' time with unnecessary questions; but if he took the time he would discover, if he read Hansard, that that issue was already canvassed.
D. Symons: I confess to the minister that I don't always read Hansard, because I do have other things that keep my day going. I'm sure all hon. members in this House have a rather full plate. Nevertheless, I will heed your advice and look for that in Hansard. I have found in the past, when the minister has told me that I will find it in Hansard, that the question was related to the topic but the answer that I was seeking was not there. I will look with great interest to see if I can find these items in Hansard.
We have some problems in our waters with waste that generally comes from the logging industry. We have a lot of wood waste that comes down Howe Sound and down the Fraser River. They have a lot of problems disposing of that. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what steps his ministry is taking to take care of the wood waste that ends up in our waterways.
Hon. M. Sihota: The member, being from Richmond, should know that we have a Fraser River estuary program, and that issue is being dealt with through that agency. I don't know if it's exactly in your constituency, but it is in your municipality. If you'd be interested, we'll get you in touch with the appropriate staff at that agency.
D. Symons: There are more places than just the Fraser River that this is coming from. I mentioned Howe Sound and some other areas out in the gulf as well. Those areas, I believe, are under your responsibility. I was just wondering if you could tell me if your ministry is partaking in any of these programs, and what new and innovative ideas this great NDP government has introduced to take care of the wood waste that ends up in our waterways. If I could have the minister's attention....
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have an answer to that question at this point, hon. member, but I'm sure if you correspond with me, I'll give you an answer.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
D. Symons: I have one question that doesn't relate to the environment, but it relates to the lands that the minister is responsible for. I asked this question of the Minister of Highways because I was interested in the fact that the Highways ministry often expropriates property when it is constructing highways, and sometimes they end up with more property than is needed for the highway project. I was basically asking the minister what they have sold of these extra lands that have been expropriated, and she referred me to your ministry. I'm wondering if the minister could give me -- maybe not today, because I'm sure you won't have it at hand, but I'll ask so it will be recorded in Hansard -- a listing of those properties that have been excess to the Highways ministry in the last few years that have been sold through your ministry. I'm trying to get a handle on how much property is expropriated through that process and then not used for the purpose for which it was expropriated.
Interjection.
D. Symons: I was simply hoping that the minister would give me some commitment that he would be willing to answer that and take it on notice. But I have a habit.... You see, I have written to the minister before, and I have waited over 100 days for a response. I just thought that it might be an idea to ask him here and maybe get a verbal commitment. I'm not going to get it, obviously.
D. Jarvis: I was wondering whether the minister could advise me if he has received federal government approval for a heritage study of the Tatshenshini by the United Nations.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't inform you of whether we have or we haven't, but I can assure you that we won't allow mining in the Tat.
D. Jarvis: That just goes to show you that the minister has no idea what he is talking about, and he's just blowing in the wind again, as usual, because he requires federal approval and he hasn't received federal approval. So when he says he's made application for the Tatshenshini to get heritage status with the United Nations, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
[ Page 11489 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I know that all of us in this House stand to benefit from the hon. member's gift of wit and intelligence.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for.... Oh, the former member continues.
D. Jarvis: I'm not a former member, sir; you may wish I was a former member. All the members of the NDP will probably be former members before long.
The Chair: I beg your pardon, member. Continue.
D. Jarvis: I just want to thank the minister for his typically rude, crude, unsociable attitude toward estimates questions.
The Chair: I didn't hear a question on that last....
D. Symons: I didn't, either.
Again, I'm wondering if I might ask the minister about funding for the milfoil program. I gather that the Okanagan district has had its share cut to $100,000 from $300,000 from the year previous, and they're trying to get $200,000 for controlling that lake pest this year. I'm wondering whether the minister can give us a figure on what they are now funding for milfoil in the Okanagan.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's so frustrating to deal with the Liberal Party in this House. Look, I know it's five minutes before ten, and I take it the hon. members opposite are just trying to fill time in this House, because I can't think of any other reason that they keep on asking questions we've already answered.
Hon. member, if you or your research staff took the time to read Hansard, you would see, first of all, that the question has been asked, and secondly, that we have concluded an agreement. And if you don't read Hansard, you may have read press releases that we issued.
An Hon. Member: There are so many.
Hon. M. Sihota: You're right; there are a lot out there. There is so much good news emanating from this administration that it only stands to reason that there would be a lot of press releases.
Hon. Chair, I see that the Liberals are simply trying to take up the time of the House. I know the hon. member is most concerned about wasting taxpayers' dollars. Accordingly, I move that the committee rise, report substantial progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:50 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 11: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
R. Chisholm: We left off last time on the dairy industry. There are a couple more questions I'd like to ask before going to the organic area, the tree fruit growers and the commodity groups with some pertinent questions. That'll be the general aim of these discussions.
The first question I have is with regard to the cruise ships and dairy. The cruise ships that come to Vancouver and to Victoria bring most of their products embargoed, but fruits and vegetables are procured in Canada. With dairy, for instance, since we're not competitive with American prices, they're embargoing them on bringing it in. I wonder if the minister has spoken to the dairy marketing board with regard to being more competitive with the Americans in this area, because this is loaded onto a ship and goes offshore; it is not in direct competition with the market in British Columbia. This would enhance their industry and allow them more production and more profits. The pun aside, I think we're missing the boat on this one. Rather than have Americans import and embargo it, procuring it here could mean multimillions of dollars to the industry in this province.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'd be happy to follow that up with some of the industry membership, as was done through a seminar last year. The problem really is, are they prepared to sell at below market price here? There are implications for the industry, because I can see a comeback if you're prepared to sell in one market at one price but not here. That raises that question. It also raises the other question that would have to be discussed within the whole issue of cross-subsidy between one market and the other. But I think it could be followed up.
R. Chisholm: The next question is on the single quota: what are the minister's thoughts on that? When this subject was brought up, there was strong opposition in British Columbia and other areas of Canada, but a lot of Canadian jurisdictions did like the idea of a single quota. I'm wondering in which direction this ministry is leaning -- towards a single quota with the new marketing board strategy we'll end up with this committee out there, or towards what we've had in the past.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're always discussing these matters with industry. Right now the discussion is focused on what's happening with the Task Force on Orderly Marketing. It will address ways to maintain orderly supply management in this country. We are part of the process and are being consulted by the federal government's task force. The
[ Page 11490 ]
national groups are also being consulted. There is also discussion within the industry. It's premature to take a position other than to say that we offer the strongest possible support for our industry in British Columbia, whatever the outcome of the orderly marketing review. It should be that we have a strong industry here in British Columbia. I'm aware of the industry's position, and I've taken it into account in those discussions.
R. Chisholm: My next question is with reference to the Agassiz situation. A lot of dairy research was done in this research station. I'm wondering if this government has thoughts on the Agassiz research station and the UBC research farm at Oyster River, and whether you are in favour of Agassiz keeping the dairy herd there, and the dairy herd from UBC, or if you are in favour of their ending up at Oyster River?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just checking to see if there have been any recent developments. I have written to my federal counterpart on this issue and the need for appropriate management of the dairy herds in British Columbia. With respect to Agassiz, I think our intervention and that of others have sort of put it under review. There is a university-industry-government review taking place right now, and it's our position that we want to see a strong research herd in the right location; we're inclined to think that Agassiz has been a good place. I won't judge what the outcome of that review process will be; I expect we'll see some options. But we have inserted ourselves in the review process.
R. Chisholm: That's what I was hoping to hear. Hopefully they'll come through with the right answers on June 15.
My next question is in reference to organic production and organic standards. Various farmers -- such as a fellow by the name of Barry Coates; you might have heard of or spoken to him at one time or another -- have been in touch with the dairy marketing board. I wonder what the minister is doing to find a niche market for these farmers, and if you see a position within the marketing boards for organic products, whether they be dairy or vegetable products or whatever. I'm looking for clarification on how these people get assistance from this ministry. Who do they see and just what is the policy of this department with reference to organic farming.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've been leaders and, in fact, were the first to come up with a certified program for organic products. We're ahead in terms of having some kind of quality assurance in place.
With respect to that particular case, they should see the food industry branch, if they haven't already. They have been in touch with my office, and we referred them to the marketing board as well. I understand that the matter is under consideration by the Marketing Board -- the superboard.
R. Chisholm: This particular matter regarding the dairy has been ongoing for a number of years. I realize that things are fairly well along with respect to the rest of organic production, but there seems to be some objection in this particular case. I wonder if the ministry or the minister has talked to the super board -- the Marketing Board -- in reference to this problem, whether they are receptive to this product and whether you see a solution to this case in the near future.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple matter here is that it's at mediation right now between the B.C. Marketing Board and the Coates organization. So that's the way to resolve it. We try mediation at that level to find some resolution. But as a matter of principle, if there are markets out there that are being unfulfilled by industry groups, it's incumbent upon them to find room in those markets, especially if it means a net increase. If it means one part of the industry is advantaged at the expense of the others, then that's for the marketing boards to sort out, because that's their purpose.
[3:00]
R. Chisholm: That pretty well ends it with the dairy portion of this. Now I'd like to talk about the tree fruit growers. This problem crosses all boundaries, and it goes to all products. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the frozen food industry or the tree fruit industry. We're having an awful lot of problems with dumping and anti-dumping issues. I sent off numerous letters to various ministers -- whether it be Paul Martin, Ralph Goodale or whoever -- and we don't seem to be finding a solution. There seems to be a grey area until free trade, NAFTA and all the rest kick in, and the Americans seem to be taking advantage of this.
A lot of our producers are smaller, and it is very easy for these people to undercut them. Whether we talk about FraserVale or tree fruit growers, we're finding that the American producers are undercutting. I'm wondering if the minister has done anything to address this problem and if he is addressing it with the federal government to bring in temporary tariffication or whatever method has to be used to protect our industry before we lose our production of the frozen food industry from organizations such as Bellingham Frozen Foods. I'm wondering whether the tree fruit growers in the United States can be put into a position so that they can't take advantage of the position our tree fruit growers are in at the present time.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Of course, I'm concerned where purported dumping actions might have a negative effect on our industry. With respect to the apple, in particular, we are involved as a ministry, and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is involved in a working group at the national level, looking at the future of the apple industry. We are participating in discussions about the determination of dumping. It's my understanding that the case has been made by the group, and we are prepared to assist wherever we can. That's the situation concerning the tree fruits. We're concerned, and as soon as it happens, I let my federal counterpart know of our concerns. I have expressed that publicly. We of course have no jurisdiction to take action directly, but we can urge the federal government to do so.
With respect to food processing, I met with them a couple of weeks ago, and I am anticipating letting my federal counterpart know about the alleged dumping that is taking place with respect to food products coming in from across the line. Our role is to meet with the industry groups, understand them and help them to express their own concern and to pass that on to the federal government.
R. Chisholm: These cases before the tribunal can take a rather long time, and they are expensive. Given the financial state of some of these organizations, they can ill afford to have these problems placed on their shoulders when they are barely profitable. Is there any help from this provincial government for addressing these legal issues? The legal fees, meantime, can get up to $100,000, and that type of thing. Is there any way we can speed up this process? I realize it's
[ Page 11491 ]
federal jurisdiction, but is there any way we can bring pressure to bear on the federal government to quicken their pace in finding a solution to these people's problems?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We contribute considerably in kind with respect to the staff time that's involved in helping industry to analyze it, but because it's a national issue and there are in total five other provinces involved, it's something more appropriately dealt with by the national government. We help where we can. It's something we contribute to in kind.
R. Chisholm: Another area with the tree fruit growers is damaged crops. Does this ministry have any support programs to encourage the processing and harvesting of damaged crops?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, the industry have their own marketing mechanisms, co-ops and companies that find the appropriate methods of processing fruits that aren't suitable for sale as fresh fruit.
Our role really is significant with respect to compensating for the loss in value, and that takes place when we pay crop insurance. There are considerable pay-outs with respect to that. This year I think $10 million to $11 million was paid out for damaged crops; it's a significant contribution. A simple answer to whether or not we help them to get into some kind of processing of that fruit is that we don't directly, although we're prepared to assist if they can't find markets.
R. Chisholm: I realize that we pay out for damaged crops that are generally not used but left to rot in the field or whatever. I just wonder if there are incentives in the system to persuade them to utilize the damaged crops in whatever way is available. If there are, could they be advertised to the particular tree fruit growers, because nobody seems to answer this question for them?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, a company like Sun-Rype exists for that purpose, and it would be duplicating effort if the ministry were also involved in the direct marketing of products that are damaged by weather. So the answer is no, we're not doing it directly, but we will assist them if there's information or resources we have that can assist them in finding markets.
R. Chisholm: I'm under the impression that the NISA contributions by the province will be raised by 4 percent. I'm not too sure if there's any truth to that statement. This would still not match the former FII. Growers are concerned about the ability to pay premiums in excess of benefits of the program. They are concerned about the cost and whether they will be able to afford it. A lot of growers have not opted to get into the program due to costs. I'm just wondering if there is any truth to the 4 percent. Can you foresee any way of making this program more attractive to the growers so they can afford to get involved with the program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have some details I could share with you. The NISA program has contributions as follows: 2 percent from the federal government, 4 percent from the provincial government and 4 percent from producers and growers. So it is a 4 percent contribution, and this is what we call enhanced NISA. For most crops it's 1 percent from the federal government, 1 percent from the province and 2 percent from the growers. So we have contributed to this program four times the formula we have for most other crops.
Seventy percent of the growers enrolled in NISA for 1992. That is a large number of people. Those that feel they can't afford it should discuss it with bankers. We understand that the banks are prepared to loan against a NISA program.
But it comes right back down to viability, and this is one of the issues around farm income insurance that you have to deal with. First of all, you have to deal with an industry that has a market and that can be viable and can substantially stand on its own with some help from government. The NISA program gives them a substantial return; they get a 10 percent return for a 4 percent investment. That's probably one of the best programs around. While it may fall somewhat short of some of the assistance that was given before, based on cost of production, we think it's substantial, and an industry that adjusts itself and revitalizes itself should do well by that.
It's clear that we will be taking chances with the future of the industry if we don't acknowledge that we have to move toward whole farm stabilization, where all crops on farms are given the same programs and where we can then help insure our programs against countervail actions by competing countries.
R. Chisholm: I realize what you're talking about with NISA, the banks and the rest of it, but it is the premiums the farmers are paying that they're finding a bit heavy. They can ill afford them. What I'm hearing from them is that some of the orchardists can afford these, and others can't. Meanwhile, we have part of the industry being protected to some degree, and half the industry having no protection at all because they can't afford the premiums. I'm wondering if the ministry can look into this situation and possibly address it by reorganizing the program itself.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's too early to conclude what's happening. In 1992, 67.5 percent of production was represented in the program, and because of the favourable approach the banks have been taking toward us with respect to lending based on NISA, we expect the enrolment to be up considerably. When we report on the 1993 information, I think we'll see it up. That's the trend as we are experiencing it.
More and more people are getting help this way. We have to encourage them to get into orchard revitalization so that the banks can see that the probability of them getting a return for their product is enhanced. Some of the old products just aren't going to bring in the returns and will constitute a continued drain on the public treasury, if there were a formula based on cost of production.
R. Chisholm: I'm pleased to see that the corporate capital tax has been taken from farms, but now I'm wondering what the minister is negotiating with the Finance ministry or other ministries to help enhance the farm industry. You have to consider things such as the difference between Alberta and British Columbia being as high as 16 percent, depending on the commodities you're talking about.
Are other areas such as fuel taxes, for instance, being discussed at this time by your ministry and other ministries to help make our agriculture industry more competitive and more of an option for young people to get into? One of the problems we have as an industry in this province is making ourselves competitive and making ourselves attractive to younger generations so they'll get involved. At this point neither is available to the people we're trying to attract. The
[ Page 11492 ]
costs are far too high, and we are not competitive, so we're not going to attract new people into the industry to keep it viable and help us maintain it for the future. That in turn helps maintain such programs as the ALR and what have you. This is one area we really have to start looking at, because if we don't make this industry attractive, we won't have an industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not at all pessimistic about the future of the industry. When farmers sit down and talk, they will always tell you the bad news, but they seldom tell you the good news. I would like to be the bearer of good news, and I'll be attempting to do this as we go through a review of the agrifood policy.
We have to look at the cumulative effects of government actions and at what other provinces are doing. If you examine that, you'll find there has been a significant reduction in subsidies in Alberta. If we're going on last year's information, it tells one story; if you look at this year's information, you'll see that other provinces are moving closer to British Columbia's level.
[3:15]
All provinces are under terrific pressure because of finances to reduce subsidies in agriculture. With respect to whether or not our costs are comparative, we have lower costs than Alberta, Washington and Oregon in some cases. By doing competitiveness assessments, we intend to add up the various costs on various commodities. In some commodities, we're very competitive; in others, we have problems. We may not be able to change a particular government program such as fuel or property taxes to benefit a particular commodity, but, on average, we will be attempting to ensure that our industry is competitive. I must say that employment in agriculture is up by 2,000 last year. The farm cash receipts are up significantly, and net incomes are up by 30 percent. We have the lowest per capita debt equity ratio in the country, and some of those things really speak to a positive future.
Like you, I am concerned that more young people don't see farming as an honourable vocation. I'm not sure we'll ever have the returns that people have in high-tech industries or some of the more exploitative primary industries. I think agriculture has a modest return built on long-term sustainability. The future is fairly bright for young people, although their expectations will have to be in line with what the land can produce in today's market.
R. Chisholm: Are you in discussions right now with other ministries to reduce costs? You mentioned fuel taxes. Are you in consultation right now with the Finance minister on any of these programs to try to bring down costs on the input side of the equation? I'm talking right across the spectrum; I'm just wondering if there are any land taxes or whatever.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's no secret that there's ongoing consultation through the year on our findings with respect to particular costs. As I said, I'm putting it under the umbrella of assessing the competitiveness. We do that by taking information that we have out to producer groups and comparing notes with them, and inviting any producer group to indicate where they're at some cost disadvantage, but they have to look at all the costs. That's what we intend to do through the agrifood review. The substantive discussions will take place as we conduct this review. There have been and are ongoing discussions on a number of things. I'm not really at liberty to divulge anything that relates to next year's budget.
R. Chisholm: I wasn't really looking for information on next year's budget. Mind you, if you want to give it to me, hon. minister, I'd be more than willing to accept it.
Let's take a look at the Thompson commission. For instance, have you had discussions with the Minister of Labour over exactly what that would cost the industry? After all, if a lot of those regulations were implemented, the costs would be tremendous to any farmer who had to enforce them. The costs would drive up the price of being in the farm business in this province. I'm just wondering if such items have been discussed and to what length. Are you willing to say that you are discussing it with the Minister of Labour at this point?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I certainly have no problem saying that I've had many discussions with the minister on that. As you know, decisions haven't been taken with respect to the Thompson commission.
I have facilitated a number of meetings and made sure that the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is available for personal contact with respect to the positions that industry groups are taking. Where any information of a financial nature that is specific enough to get a reaction has been provided, we have also passed that on.
To this point in time, most of the debate really centres around the principle of some of the subject matter. With respect to that, the debate is about whether or not farmworkers deserve adequate protection under employment standards. I think you would have to agree that farmworkers should not be singled out as not being worthy of the same kind of protection as other working people have.
This ministry is very forceful about presenting issues that have been brought to us. We have encouraged them to provide us with copies of their brief. We go through that with ministry staff so there's full information available and an assessment of the impacts to the extent that we know what those impacts will be. We do put forth the positions of industry with our comments on them and in that way try to help the Minister of Skills.
R. Chisholm: The focus of the concerns of producers at the last BCFA annual meeting and the B.C. tree fruit growers' meeting was the increasing cost and impact on their businesses of government regulations, such as WCB, environment, municipal and regional government bylaw restrictions.
What steps are being taken within this ministry and in cooperation with others to reduce regulations? The problem seems to be that we're so overregulated that people can't do their jobs because of the problems caused in abiding by all the regulations of various levels of government. I've heard this complaint not just from the tree fruit growers, but from all commodity groups and from the cattlemen; you heard it last Saturday when they talked about overregulation.
Is there an ongoing program to look at these regulations in order to ensure that we don't have a lot of overlap, and that by making this job a little easier we will make it more attractive to the young person starting up? I hear the same complaint from every commodity group; they're snowed under by book after book of regulations. In general, agriculture is saying the same thing, so I realize there is something to it.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The world is becoming more complex; more issues have to be dealt with. Some of the regulations are there to ensure that industry is protected. By following them they aren't going to get in trouble for contributing to
[ Page 11493 ]
air pollution. There's a perfect example, where our ministry worked closely and will continue to work closely with other ministries and producer groups to ensure that the regulations aren't too onerous. With respect to burning regulations, if good burning practices are followed, permits aren't required.
In the case of land and water, for example, by taking the lead with the land commission and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, we are trying to find ways to simplify the regulations where they impinge on farming operations, or to put in place some protection for farmers. On one hand, farmers are calling for protection, which means stronger regulations of some kind -- usually on somebody else -- so it cuts both ways. You have to debate the purpose of the regulation. If there is some onerous administration, then we should try to simplify that regulation or the way in which the regulation is applied.
There has been considerable success in ensuring, where a need for regulation has been determined, that it be as simple as possible. I think there's going to be an industry group that complains about some kind of regulation. The question is: is it fair that they have to live by some other rules? We have to be aware of the fact that they too want regulations, say, of local government, which would keep local government off their backs. There are areas in which we can work with them to provide protection. Under the Forest Practices Code, for example, some regulations will assist in providing more certainty to producers.
R. Chisholm: With regard to the last part of that question, is there an ongoing program, or are we looking at regulations to ensure they don't overlap? We see farmers getting into trouble over a given situation involving three or four various ministries.
For example, this is about half of one file on the Currie situation in Cultus Lake; you might have heard of it. This person is farming completely legally, but he's had every ministry known to man visit and try to shut him down. I wonder if we aren't into overkill when we involve the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and so on. Meanwhile, this person is trying to make a living. He's abided by every law that has come from your letters and letters from every ministry. Yet there's still this ongoing issue, which is antagonizing local residents, and the battle goes on. Meanwhile, this person is legitimately farming, and he's done everything he's supposed to do. Yet he's still harassed by whatever ministry these interest groups can drum up business with. I wonder if we can't see some of this overregulation addressed, because being harassed to that extent is a detraction for anybody going into farming.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For every thick file you have, I think we can produce one that's a success story in terms of us trying to get coordination where there was no coordination. This is the age-old problem of government. You have special purpose bodies to regulate and to ensure that certain things are done. For example, if somebody feels that their water is being contaminated or their right to enjoy their property is being infringed on by a neighbouring farmer, then somebody has to investigate that. And if something isn't quite acceptable in terms of the way in which a farmer is conducting his operation, then somebody is going to ask that they come into line. You say these people are doing everything according to the regulations; then I would have to admit that they shouldn't be continually harassed. I don't recall all the specifics of the case, but if there are some ongoing overlaps, we would deal with them.
But a lot of cases are success stories. With respect to an ongoing program, that's part of the work the ministry does; it's part of the ministry's function to assist people to become productive and deal with the rules. We have a staff person working on the green-zone efforts with respect tomunicipalities. We have people working on land use, looking at how the complex of land use regulations affect individual commodity groups. Further, we participated in a consultation with various ministries and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which looked at increasing awareness among other ministries of the impact their codes and regulations might have on agriculture. So the answer is yes, we have an ongoing program doing that.
R. Chisholm: You might want to look into that particular case, the Currie case. That last letter on top is from you, but there have been a lot more issues and letters in the meantime.
The next question is about NISA. What consideration is the minister prepared to give to installing companion programs, which will be required until NISA becomes effective?
[3:30]
And what steps has the minister taken to assist the tree fruit industry in its request to the federal government for interim protection as a result of the loss of protection against Red and Golden Delicious apples?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to NISA, together with other provinces and the federal government we are looking at all farm and companion programs that assist in transition.
With respect to tree fruit, you mentioned interim protective measures. A case for protection has just been formally filed with the Minister of National Revenue. We participate in the special measures committee, so we're lending the industry our support to get the federal government to take some kind of mitigating measure. There's nothing we can put on, but the federal government can act. If you're saying we should pick up the tab, we can't do that every time the federal government fails to protect our industry from dumping.
R. Chisholm: I'm not asking for the provincial government to pick up the tab, nor, I think, is the industry. But they are wondering what kind of pressure you are bringing to bear on the federal government to rectify the situation and how your ministry can facilitate a solution to these problems. I think what they're looking for is more than a government handout which they would not expect. I don't think they would even condone it, knowing who has been responsible.
The next question I'd like to get into is on technology transfer and that type of thing. I'm wondering how much this ministry is spending on R and D. Part of the industry's future lies in R and D. We've made a fair amount of money through transferring enhanced technology. I'm wondering if the ministry is going to continue to put money into this so we can get the technology here and transfer it to pay for programs with the results of this R and D.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Here are some specifics. Every year the Tree Fruit Authority puts $200,000 into industry research. A lot of the agriculture division's efforts -- and we spend about $18 million on it -- are in technology transfer. Our extension work with farmers deals directly with that. This year we have increased the Demonstration of Agricultural
[ Page 11494 ]
Technology and Economics program, and we've also increased the amount going directly into research. Those are significant; they point out that we're funding more programs that are green under international trade rules, and we think anything that helps the industry to adjust and develop is a good investment.
R. Chisholm: From your answer I gather we can expect to see more money put into R and D -- the way you're talking about it. Of course, I wasn't just referring to the tree fruit industry; I was talking about agriculture as a whole.
I was wondering what you know about field days. There have been great paybacks from these and they're very much a success story. Do you foresee more of them in the future?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I agree that field days are important. We are often involved in establishing them. Sometimes industry takes them over, but usually they work with the ministry in a ongoing partnership. They're very effective. We will continue to be strongly supportive of them.
R. Chisholm: The next area I'd like to talk about is policy development. There has been some policy development from the grass-roots level going up, but there seems to be more of it coming from the top down. That's another area in which I find a lot of comments from the industry that there's an awful lot of policy development from the top down. They find this rather scary, and I can understand their point of view. One question they were discussing with me was whether this government would be open to a more grass-roots level of developmental policy rather than approaching it from the top down.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In terms of policy development, our ministry is available on a consultative basis for any grass-roots group that wants to develop policy ideas. We watch carefully what industry groups are saying. Wherever I can, I get hold of their resolutions and read them. I'm not sure which top-down policies are in this ministry and this sector in particular, but if you're talking about policies that might come from other ministries, then we facilitate the input. We have in fact shared widely the information about water policy as it affects the agriculture industry. We have made that information available, and we're doing the same with respect to a number of land use initiatives, so we do participate at that level to better inform the debate.
With respect to the future of supply management and orderly marketing in Canada, we are working with those grass-roots groups and are not taking policy positions until we hear from them.
R. Chisholm: With that last answer, I would like to have the minister clarify the role of the B.C. Marketing Board. It seems to be developing policy, and I wouldn't think this is its mandate, considering that it is an appeal board and an advisory board. With them developing policy, there seems to be a conflict of interest.
What has to be clarified is exactly what marketing boards are for, whether it be advisory or appeal and that type of thing or to develop policy. I think that would be a ministry responsibility more so than the marketing boards, and I also think there needs to be two separate and definite responsibilities. There may be an overlap here, and it is creating some confusion within the industries.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to answer the question in part, and there may be other things that develop from this. There are two kinds of policy. There is the policy of direction, which the ministry usually sets, and it has laws and regulations, but administrative policy is something the boards themselves have to develop under the supervision of the marketing board.
There are three roles to the B.C. Marketing Board. One is the supervision of the commodity boards, the second one is appeal of decisions from the commodity boards and the third one is as a signatory to a number of national plans and programs.
R. Chisholm: I think what the industry is seeing is the boards getting into the development of policy, and the farmers themselves feel that's the ministry's responsibility. I understand what the signatory powers are there for and all the rest, but there seems to be a conflict. There seems to be an overlapping where the boards are into policy. This being the case, if the agriculture industry and the particular farmers or groups are right, then there's a definite conflict of interest here. I wonder if the minister seeks clarification being sent to the different marketing boards for them to do their appropriate jobs and the ministry to do its appropriate job.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the absence of specifics, I can only say that in order to clarify roles, there exists a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the B.C. Marketing Board, and we follow that memorandum. I would have to look at the specifics.
You can make the assertion that they're making policy, and if somebody wants to present me with some information on where that board is in some kind of conflict of interest, then I'd be happy to investigate it. But what they have to do is prepare for and find administrative rules and administrative policies that help conduct orderly marketing in the province.
R. Chisholm: One area where there would seem to be some is with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, and I will give you that information later, hon. minister. There's no sense getting into the details here; it would go on forever. Maybe you can address that in due course.
My next question to the minister is: what is this ministry doing, other than the $30,000 you spent on the education program in elementary schools, to actually attract people into the industry? I'll start with attracting young farmers, then I'll get into the education side and through to the elementary schools. Right now I'm talking about people who would be of age to actually get into farming. What are we doing that will assist a new person to get into farming, whether he is from downtown Vancouver or from the rural areas?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some of the things we're doing -- and most significantly, I think -- is working with 4-H. We've got six staff working full-time with young people in trying to get their skill level up and make it fun and enjoyable to work in agriculture-related activities. We spend approximately half a million dollars with the 4-H program; that's significant.
The $30,000 you referred to for awareness of agriculture in the classroom is levered by producers' groups. The best messenger for the future of agriculture is the industry itself, and that's why farmers have to be careful, especially when they're in good times, to spread the good word. As you know, bad news always spreads faster.
The extension work we do with young farmers is across the counter. If somebody interested in farming comes in,
[ Page 11495 ]
they will be counselled with respect to cost of production, crops, markets and so on. We work very closely with the federal government on the farm management program, trying to ensure that people have their eyes open going in, but look realistically at the future of agriculture. As I say, we talk about the growth in agriculture, the importance to rural communities and to the provincial economy and, in fact, its relative health in Canada. Most of our commodity groups have low debt in comparison with other provinces. So those are a number of initiatives.
[3:45]
Clearly, with respect to levering dollars, it's important that industry use money wisely, as it is made available from the provincial government, and go out and do some extension. They are their best messengers, and I think that's becoming more and more clear.
R. Chisholm: I have a tendency to agree with you that the industry itself must get more involved in this issue too, but I believe the ministry must show leadership in addressing this problem and in giving incentives for the industries to get involved. After all, this is fundamental to the Buy B.C. program and to agriculture in this province. I think we as a province must spend a little more money on telling people why agriculture exists and why we should be involved in it in a more generic area and at the same time give incentives to these industries to advertise and to get involved. The ministry itself, I believe, has to spend a little more money and resources to educate the population of British Columbia.
The second part of that question was: what are we doing to attract young, new farmers? When I see the amount of money we spend on educating British Columbians as to why agriculture exists and why it should have any emphasis at all, I see very little effort. It's no wonder that young people aren't too enthusiastic about getting involved in it, when they see the lack of support from the people of British Columbia or from the ministry. How is a young person going to get involved in a very expensive industry in this province, with the high input costs of procuring the land, the buildings, the necessary equipment, the stock and whatever we want to talk about?
I'm not seeing very much in the way of incentives for the young farmer. It's very nice for a young farmer in a rural area right now to look toward Vancouver and see the glitter, the glass, the bright lights and all the rest of it, where they're able to make $40,000 or $50,000 a year. Why would a person stay on the farm when generally speaking -- and I will quote some statistics to you later -- most of the people who work on a farm have two jobs or their wives work on the farm to support that farm, and the farm is not giving them a return they can live on? I'm just wondering where the ministry is going to give incentives or help people get involved. I'm talking about the credit area and about education.
I take a look at provinces like New Brunswick and Ontario, which have agriculture colleges. Then I look at British Columbia, and we're lucky if we have three or four courses spread out between two or three community colleges, UBC and what have you. We do not have a formal educational system or a formal way of attracting new blood into the agriculture industry. I think this is the basis of agriculture in the future, and if we don't straighten this one up, we are going to have a lot of problems. Spending $30,000-odd on bush beans is not exactly the answer. We have to have a much bigger policy and a more overall view of the situation. I'd like to hear some of the minister's comments on the directions he sees the province going in to assist agriculture in this manner.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You talk broadly about incentives, and you need to be more specific. You talk about financial incentives; they could be subsidies or they could be information. The ministry deals largely in information so that farmers don't get seduced into a production regime that leaves them destitute. I think people have to realize that farming is a tough business. There's no question about that. It's at the whim of international markets, the weather and a number of other things.
You talk about people working off-farm. Well, that's one way to accumulate capital. Instead of getting in debt up to their eyeballs, they can accumulate and spend and invest capital. A lot of people on farms work off the farm for lifestyle-related things. Farmers want some of the same things that other people have, and the farm may not produce those. As I said, it may never produce the same lifestyle that high-tech or some professional activities produce. The fact remains that the agriculture industry in British Columbia is in good shape. If people examine it they will understand it's because they have relatively low debt compared to the amount of equity they have. So there have been wise investments, and those investments are held in equity.
We are looking at a number of things in regard to agriculture in the classroom: a resource handbook, a map, a poster and farm tours, and agricultural issues are addressed at teachers' conferences and on professional development days. There is the Seeds for Schools program. There are videos that the Green Plan fund has developed. There's a resource package being developed called the Rainbow of B.C. Foods, working with dieticians and other groups in food production. There is information on soil secrets, food safety information for the public and a list of speakers for schools. We are working to raise awareness. So to say that the ministry is not doing an adequate job of supporting agriculture is wrong. Everybody who works for the ministry is out there promoting agriculture as a viable industry.
With respect to other items, the federal-provincial Green Plan is helping to deal with agricultural awareness, and there are a number of things with respect to soil, water and air. If you go back to my press release of June 6, which is today.... There's a five-year $12 million program that started last year. They are dealing with a whole range of things that show that agriculture is trying to be friendly to its surroundings and to do a good job of stewarding the resources and keeping them in productive shape for the future. We're adapting our food-producing practices; I could list any number. There are 15 projects that deal with such things as sterile insect release, which we hope will be one of the most successful programs in the province, showing that there's an environmental consciousness with respect to pest management. We're concerned about the residues of chemicals that would get into the food we eat. So we're doing a lot of things, including producer awareness workshops where they can look at technology transfers, and these things are really helpful.
A young person who is interested in farming will find a lot of help. We're not conducting an interview with every young person in British Columbia saying: "Here's your menu of options for your career." But we'll certainly help them if they identify this as an option, and our people go into the schools to assist people. I agree that we can always do more, but I think it's an insult to say that we aren't doing enough.
R. Chisholm: I don't think anybody was insulted in actual fact, but I will ask the same question again: what are we doing to attract new farmers? We are spending some money on some minor programs at the elementary and the
[ Page 11496 ]
high school levels, and we have guest speakers going around the province and speaking in classrooms. But what are we doing about a college for agriculture? Are we even addressing the situation? After all, I've asked that question twice before. We need a college here so that people can get the education they require to get into agriculture. What are we doing to make it attractive? How can a person get into agriculture at this point in time? You're talking about a couple of million dollars for land, then the costs of all the outbuildings, the equipment and the stock.
When you start talking about $3 million, $4 million or $5 million to get into agriculture, it is not attractive to young people. It's like going to a church where you see all old people. Eventually that church will die unless you get young people in. If we do not start getting young people into this industry in much greater numbers than we have, the industry is going to die. We will not be self-sufficient; we will be relying on somebody else. I wonder if we are doing enough and whether we should be looking at developing an agriculture college. After all, we have specific programs in Chilliwack, for instance. You see specific programs in Abbotsford at the University College of the Fraser Valley and certain programs at UBC, but you don't see a concerted effort or an overall view or plan as to where we're going with education and with assisting farmers to get in. That's where I'm heading with this. It's a much bigger picture. This specific program out of Kelowna is directed toward farmers already in the industry; it is specific to a problem. I'm talking about attracting new people into the overall industry and about developing the industry so it's self-sufficient and we are self-sufficient as a nation in developing our own food.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You couch your comments and questions in general terms, but the whole ministry exists to keep people in business, to help them to adjust and to assist new entrants. If you're saying there should be a particular financing program, then I think one of my earlier comments applies. We should not attract people in and give incentives that will set them up for failure. The $3 million or $4 million or $5 million is an unusual amount required to establish a farm, and a lot of farming operations don't require anywhere near that amount of capital.
Okanagan University College, Kwantlen College, Cariboo College, BCIT, UBC and Fraser Valley College all have programs of an agricultural nature. I'm told that just recently there was a program at Kwantlen College that had educators and Ministry of Education sitting down to develop a vision for the direction of agricultural education.
R. Chisholm: If you think that cost is a little exorbitant, hon. minister, go to the Fraser Valley and price a farm, You'll come away with shock on your face, because that's what it will cost you to get into farming in the Fraser Valley or to get into any major farming. I'm just quoting numbers to you and saying that it's going to cost you $1 million, $2 million or $3 million -- whatever it may be, it's exorbitant. It is not attractive for a young person to get in, and that is the problem.
You just proved a point that I just made. We have a course here at University College of the Fraser Valley, we have a course up in the Okanagan and we have a course at UBC, but we do not have a concerted effort. We haven't combined these to form some sort of agricultural college which would assist young farmers to get educated, so they can have the proper tools when they decide to go into industry and they don't have to go outside the province to get a degree -- that type of thing.
[4:00]
What I'm trying to get at here is that we must look at the bigger picture. We must look at educating the public and our students so that the next generation will understand agriculture. We must look, right now, at educating farmers and having the technology and resources available here in British Columbia. At this point in time we do not have that. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of things that detract from farming. We have exorbitant costs, and we do not have the educational facilities here in this province. If you want to get into any major learning centre, you have to go outside the province. I'm looking at the long term, the much bigger picture, and at having an overall education so that this person will be well equipped to get out into the agriculture industry, which would be of benefit to him and to the industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'm having difficulty understanding where the member is coming from. He asked for a comprehensive view of the big picture and a comprehensive program. You can get degrees; you can get college graduation in agriculture; you can get most of these things. We have an awareness program for young people, and we have an extension program which puts out the best available information. If you want other, bigger-picture stuff, I don't know what you're talking about.
To suggest that there should be one agricultural college would be wrong; I thought I heard the hon. member say that one college would be wrong. Colleges exist, and their programs are regionally sensitive and regionally relevant. We're always going to have programs that respond locally. If you're saying that the colleges don't respond with local programs, then we should encourage them to do that. I gave you an example where various parties got together at the college to look at the future of agriculture in that region.
But you're up against a bit of a problem in British Columbia with respect to the fact that agriculture isn't large relative to the size of our economy. Other provinces may have more schools, but agriculture is a much higher percentage of their economies, and I am speaking about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. So you can expect that they would have larger, more developed systems. But to say that simply educating people about the future of agriculture will attract more young people, I'm not sure there's cause and effect there. We certainly want to remove any barriers to young people getting in, but the fundamental economics are very difficult to alter. If you're asking us to do that, I say that's a long, involved process.
I indicated earlier that we are looking at the competitiveness of agriculture, and we will inform people about that. We may not be competitive in all commodities. But to say that we should be self-sufficient in all commodities may be saying that some ought to be subsidized, and I think you suggested that most groups are not asking for that.
R. Chisholm: I don't think I'll bother with this subject for a little while. Somehow or other, hon. minister, we've gone in different directions with this one. I'm talking strictly about higher education to equip our farmers to get into agriculture.
I'd like to go on to another area. We talk about the viability of agriculture. I'll quote what I said last year to the previous minister. He was talking about bankruptcies in agriculture. Here's exactly what I said:
"Today, more than ever, farmers and their spouses are obliged to find off-farm employment. This may partly cause the fact that you have such a low bankruptcy rate, hon. minister. Roughly 14 percent of all farmers have full-time jobs off the farm. Forty-nine percent of the women on small farms, 37 percent on mid-sized farms and 54 percent on large farms
[ Page 11497 ]
have off-farm jobs. Although most urban families also have two wage-earners, for farm families the pursuit of non-farm income has become an essential form of income support. The average farm family income in 1990" -- and these are all Canada stats, hon. minister -- "was $37,000, roughly the same as the average Canadian family income of approximately $42,000. However, about 58 percent, or $21,251 of farm family income is earned off the farm, and this subsidizes the farm.
"It seems to be a great imbalance when one Canadian farmer feeds approximately 120 people but has to work off the farm. I don't know of any other business where one has to go into another business to support the initial business."
My question to the minister then was: what do you intend to do about this situation or to help rectify it? I have the same question for you this year, because I haven't seen any change since last year.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What are we doing to help? I'd say the whole essence of the ministry is to assist farmers in whatever way it can. It's not the ministry's responsibility to ensure that no farmer has to work off the farm.
I'll give you some information. The number of family farms has increased in the last 20 years in B.C., which may be the only province in which this has happened. The number of farms grossing $100,000 or higher has increased even more than that increase, so farmers are doing relatively better. There are no bankruptcies this year; there were five last year, so that is a significant improvement. The 1994 total net -- not gross -- income is 40 percent greater than it was in 1992. So there is some improvement. It would appear that, as a result, farming is relatively healthier here than in most other provinces.
R. Chisholm: I agree farming is a little healthier than it was in 1992, but it's still not healthy enough. People still have to work off the farm to subsidize it -- not subsidize their own living, but the farm. You are an example of that; you're working off the farm. I don't know if you are subsidizing it, but the fact is that you have a second job. Is it supporting the farm?
I think this goes back to the question of support and education, and to the overall view that we've got to make this industry attractive and viable, and equip all farmers with the tools they need to operate competitively within this industry, whether that means addressing taxation or interprovincial barriers or whatever. And this is just part of the problem. In 1994 net incomes were 40 percent higher than in 1992; that would still put them well below average. We've got a long way to go, and I think we have to address that.
My next question is in reference to the national farm business management program. In 1992 you received $1.5 million over the next three years. What is the money for this third year of the program going to be used for?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The program the member referred to is managed by a producer and a federal and provincial government oversight committee. This year we anticipate spending $540,000. We intend to fund programs such as Leading Your Farm Organization, which deals with developing farm leadership, farm labour videos, direct marketing, farm computer workshops, and family farm team building. We're helping farmers deal with various challenges including management of the family farm business, because we think that families working together on the farm, and even some of them working off the farm, help to build equity.
To answer your previous question, it may be that people work off the farm to build equity. We see the healthy equity position farmers have, and if they use off-farm income to get it, I see nothing wrong with that. The fact is that with mechanization in the household and on the farm, farm family members aren't necessarily needed as farm labourers; they're free to work off the farm for many reasons, not just for capital accumulation or lifestyle improvement. People may work off the farm for personal satisfaction. If you're a farmer and your spouse is a professional, you may want to work off just to make some contribution to the community. So I think to suggest that off-farm working by family members is an indication that farming isn't healthy is wrong, because I've shown that the economic health of farms has increased.
R. Chisholm: ARDSA was a three-way cost-sharing program among the federal, provincial and municipal governments, at 37.5 percent, 37.5 percent and 25 percent respectively. This program provided drainage of the irrigation water in the Surrey area of the delta. The projects under the ARDSA program were done on a cost-benefit analysis. There was no consideration of the impact of upland drainage from development. These projects have made agricultural land more productive and have opened other agricultural land to a wider variety of crops. As you know, a reduction in any input cost directly related to the government and taxation could help.
What they're talking about is that the cancellation of these programs isn't helping them to be profitable, which in turn pays taxes and helps pay for the programs available to them. The healthier the industry, the more revenue the industry returns. These programs are no longer in effect, and they're wondering why. Considering the program itself ensured that there were more profits to the individual farmer and more taxation paid to the government, there should have been some results for them. The program should have been reinstated or other programs put in place, but nothing has happened. We have in fact seen a decrease in the Agriculture ministry's budgets over the last number of years. These people were asking why there was a cancellation of programs when they would generate more revenues and in turn help fund the ministry, which in turn would help fund their industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You can always make an argument that there needs to be more government investment and infrastructure. Right now I think we have a significant infrastructure and resource base. What's necessary is that we help people in business become more productive. To do that, we're helping on the marketing side.
With Buy B.C., we've put forward a program called Partners in Progress that will address some infrastructure needs. This is a provincial program that will partner with groups of commodity entrepreneurs who have something they need and where we can work together. It's a flexible program in the sense that it's looking more broadly at things that are necessary to support production. It is used where there's a group similar to those working in the way ARDSA worked. We've looked at funding the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, for example, which assists in the restructuring of the industry. We have done a lot of things that directly assist farmers to become more productive. A lot of the land improvements can be financed through the bank, and if it will show it enhances the income, they can be funded through the private sector. All the programs still exist, meantime, to assist people at preferential interest rates.
[ Page 11498 ]
R. Chisholm: Will we see the reinstatement of an ARDSA program with improved minimum standards, or won't we see this program ever again?
[4:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The program has expired. It was a federal-provincial agreement, as you know, and right now there are no discussions or indications that the federal government is interested in starting this program again. We are shifting our emphasis to dealing with some of the programs I mentioned to you that we think will pick up some of the slack. I don't think we're going to see a return to the heyday of major federal-provincial regional economic development funding programs. I think that's partly because of the fiscal realities of today.
However, as I said, we'll remain ready to assist groups of farmers that feel they are prepared to invest in infrastructure, and we are prepared to consider financing that. It's not a large program; the Partners program is $2.45 million this year. We have in its place the Buy B.C. program, which will fund $2.5 million. That didn't exist several years ago. So some of the infrastructure-related programs are being offset by other development programs
R. Chisholm: The next area I'd like to turn to is CORE and some of the problems that seem to be wrapped around that particular situation. Right now I'd like to read a document that was given to me by Jake Janzen, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. He had some misgivings about CORE and where CORE was going and how agriculture was or was not addressed. His statement is:
"It is very disturbing to agriculture, however, that the government is prepared to still the storms over the Commission on Resources and the Environment, otherwise known as CORE, by spending money on the negative impacts its implementation will have on the forestry sector. This is without even acknowledging that agriculture could patently be impacted upon severely by the implementation of the CORE recommendations."
I gather by that statement that he doesn't feel that CORE addressed agriculture, and I'd like hear your opinion and views on his statement. He is very uncomfortable with agriculture in general not being consulted enough. I'm wondering if the minister has any input into the CORE process.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure what the member is referring to in particular. I know there were signals put out. Anybody who participates in a program where they're working together with other stakeholders may have some misgivings, but the whole challenge of CORE was to find a win-win for the different groups and to find a method of accommodation for the different interests.
I think the only CORE report that's out, at least on a regional basis, is the Vancouver Island report, and it is very positive about the future. It recognizes the existence of the agricultural land reserve, and it looks at areas where agriculture can develop. I'm not aware of specifically where there's a negative impact of a recommendation by CORE.
If there is some negative impact, it's not across the Island. That's what mitigation is about. They should be looking at ways to mitigate those negative effects. One CORE table, a local table in the Chilcotin-Anahim Lake area, provided for agriculture. There's not a peep from the agricultural community there about being negatively affected. In fact, in protected areas they recommended that agriculture continue and that those activities be protected. I know there has been representation by Brian Currie on the Vancouver Island CORE table. He was there fully representing that industry.
I have to remind you that the CORE tables had agriculture sector representatives there. There has never been regional empowerment of the sort that we've seen where people had an equal voice, regardless of the size of their industry, at the table. So agriculture stakeholders across the province, where there are CORE tables, are there. I just returned from the Kootenays where the agricultural people were vocal and were making major contribution to land use discussions. I think they've come up with win-wins for places where agriculture is in conflict with other industries or other interests. I think we've found an accommodation of interests through the CORE process, which wasn't there before. I know that Jake Janzen makes a contribution to the CORE provincial advisory committee and will continue to. If that letter is of recent origin, then I'd sure like to know some of the specifics, and we will follow up on those. In my view, agriculture is and will be well represented at the CORE tables.
R. Chisholm: This letter is dated March 15, 1994, and you should have a copy of it, as a matter of fact. I'll just quote two other paragraphs from it:
"The BCFA is very opposed to the generalities of the CORE report being implemented anywhere until a provincial master plan of land use strategy implementation is developed.
"Environmental interests and, indeed, CORE can now interpret and implement these on a regional basis. Regional implementation without a provincial master plan is very obviously a divide-and-conquer strategy. Obviously the agricultural industry has to be very concerned that sustainable agriculture is going to whatever is left over."
Hon. minister, I think you received a copy of this, but if not, I will ensure that you get a copy. Obviously they have a problem with the CORE process.
When you start talking about the past, you and I were up in Merritt with the cattlemen on the Saturday previous to last. The cattlemen have a very strong opinion, too, on the protective area strategy, and they are very concerned. So obviously it's not just BCFA that has this concern; it is the cattlemen, the BCCA and the rest. I'm just wondering if these opinions are being voiced to the Minister of Environment and other people who have interests in this particular subject. I guess the question here is: is anybody going to talk to BCFA and BCCA and try to remedy what they perceive as faults?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, our staff work very closely with both the organizations you've mentioned. If some of these organizations occasionally decide they want to take political shots, because their comfort level isn't exactly where they think it should be, they do that.
With respect to the future of the cattle industry in the protected areas part of the land use planning, all the evidence isn't in yet. The cattlemen have argued that they want to see grazing in all protected areas. Well, there may be types of protected areas where grazing isn't appropriate. There are discussions going on, and we're assisting in refining the arguments and looking at what impacts there might be. I think considerable progress has been made in that. So I think I answered your question positively.
Similarly, if the Federation of Agriculture wants to be specific, then we will respond. But to say that you can't have the resolution of regional land use conflicts until you have an overall provincial master plan is wrongheaded. It's good to look at some overall direction, and we are doing that. We do
[ Page 11499 ]
have some direction. We have the agricultural land reserve, which designates land in a very strong zone for agriculture, and having that land available and having some protection via zoning really helps the agricultural industry. So with respect to this sector, there is some strategy, and that is to designate some land. But at the provincial level we can't come up with a master blueprint for agriculture for the whole province without involving the stakeholders at the regional local level. In fact, the regional tables are saying they can't do their work until they have local direction. It's back and forth, so you've got an interplay between a provincial strategy, a regional strategy and a local strategy, and at all levels the agriculture industry is invited to be there.
I sympathize with those people in the industry who say their time is taxed and they need more help and more time to be involved. It's time to meet a lot of these questions head-on. The ministry assists agriculture stakeholders in developing knowledge and information that's necessary for them to participate in the processes, and we'll continue to do that. I think we'd have to address the specifics of that particular letter. Sure, there's a need for an overall provincial strategy, and CORE is working on that. But it isn't going to happen overnight, and we can't wait to resolve serious regional land use problems until we have a resolution of some kind of overall vision and strategy for the province.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to return to the issue of education. The question I have to the minister is regarding the fact that in 1951, 10 percent of the population were farmers, and in 1991 the figure was 2 percent. As you have realized, it is important to educate our younger generation about the value and purpose of agriculture to them and to their future. You've gone around the province stating that there are approximately 211,000 agricultural employees and that it's an industry worth $13 billion and increasing by $1.3 billion every year. On we go with the statistics. This is the third-largest industry in the province and one of the most essential industries. Nobody understands it completely, including the government. The population doesn't realize how important agriculture is. We have a tendency to play up forestry and other industries, but agriculture sits back and doesn't say very much. We don't see an emphasis on the Ministry of Agriculture. Yet there is a huge turnover in money and resources, and I'm referring to the budget again. Every time we turned around in the last ten years we've seen a decrease in the budget; yet we know that agriculture is one of the cornerstones of the province. I refer again to educating the public, the $30,000 and the lack of money put into education. I believe this issue is critical.
We should be looking at harvest tours as a way of educating the public. What is this ministry doing to enhance these harvest tours by helping agricultural groups promote and provide resources for these things? Is the government getting involved? How much are we spending on agricultural fairs and are we going to continue? As budgets decrease, things like agricultural fairs and harvest tours will be emphasized less. The public is going to know less about agriculture, which I think is a shame. That will be the downfall of this industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We talk about awareness. We think the Buy B.C. program is one way. Look at the umbrella advertising campaign we launched. It shows us real farmers out there, who are producing important products for us. I think you will recognize that that $9.5 million that industry and government will spend over five years is a good investment. We work with the Ministry of Tourism in developing wine tours, which is a regionally specific harvest tour; that's important. We have maintained funding for agricultural fairs at the same level as last year. Since 1991, the amount to fairs has actually increased. This year we estimate not only a maintenance of funding, but approximately $34,000 more put into agricultural fairs. I believe that fairs are very important. However, the issue is not only government funding; we have to work with producers to keep raising the awareness of the importance of food land resources and food producers. I don't think there's any disagreement. For example, you may know that the Agricultural Land Commission sponsors barn tours at the PNE. The ministry has a display there; there's also support from the ministry for 4-H activities at the PNE.
[4:30]
R. Chisholm: I realize we have winery tours and that we do promote them, but I'm referring to farm tours -- regardless of the commodity -- in the different regions. Is the ministry doing anything to further enhance these tours? This is a very valid and appropriate tool to teach our city counterparts exactly why agriculture and farming exist. I know last year's tour in Chilliwack was very, very successful. Thousands of people went to it. I wonder if the ministry is helping the different agricultural groups, not just those that are commodity-specific, to promote tours in the various regions.
You brought up the PNE. As we both know, the PNE has had problems with what its future is going to be. Is agriculture still going to be represented, or will it be moving to some other location? Is this ministry looking at other areas -- for instance, Chilliwack or Kelowna? If the PNE does not survive, are we looking for another home?
When we come down to what I said about agriculture -- I don't think government understands the value of agriculture -- and you quote the Buy B.C. program, I recall that in 1991, this same government was trying to cancel this program. This is exactly what I am referring to. We have to be more proactive in promoting the health of agriculture.
The Buy B.C. program is a very good one, but this same government tried to cancel it. The PNE is looking like it may shut down in the future. Do we have another plan in case this should happen? Will there be a major agricultural fair somewhere else in the province? Are farm tours going to be promoted? Is this ministry providing any financial help, or guidance, or any leadership in areas other than winery?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the future of farming as a centrepiece of the PNE is secure. There are attempts to redefine the PNE a little, particularly with respect to the adequacy of buildings, but in my view that sort of thing is well in hand. As a strong supporter, I think we'll see agriculture at the centre of that fair for the foreseeable future.
The ministry is not funding farm tours per se. I think it's important that farmers themselves put on these programs. I know they work with chambers of commerce, and so on. The answer lies in government giving support to industry in developing tour programs. There are tours In quite a number of regions of the province. The most critical ones probably are those closest to the larger urban areas. We should promote farm tours by putting in increased resources. There's only so much we can do; the answer is not always to spend more government money but to work smarter with the money that's there. When there is a request from an industry group for assistance from the ministry with respect to ideas and support for a farm tour, I'm sure it's met.
[ Page 11500 ]
R. Chisholm: I'm not looking for the ministry to spend more money but to show leadership in assisting agricultural groups or organizations in promoting tours that could be beneficial to agriculture in their area. We have people from the ministry in the field at this present time who could be promoting this idea. There is paraphernalia in the system right now which could be used to assist with organization. I think that would be an area where it could be beneficial to agriculture.
I'd like to talk about the skills that are needed in agriculture at this point in time, and I'm wondering if the ministry, along with the industry, is trying to.... We could increase competitiveness and improve profitability in light of the free trade and other international agreements. We must improve our skills in a lot of areas, and this must be done by forming partnerships between governments and industries. I'm wondering if the industry and the ministry have gotten together to look at this situation to see if we can further enhance our competitiveness through this area.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to mention a few of the activities. Our feeling is that one of the greatest strengths of the ministry is working in partnership with industry, because the skills have to be relevant. Where we see industry doesn't have the skills, we're prepared to work with them when they're ready to work with the skill development problem.
The farm business management program involves exactly that: working with industry. They're there, they advise on it and they participate in it. The partnership program, Partners in Progress, is clearly one of those where we anticipate working with them very closely. The beef industry development fund, again, is going to be managed for the benefit of the industry, and they can work on skill development if they choose. My guess is they will. It might be marketing skills, production skills or technology transfer. We also work closely with industry and the federal government on the workforce policy board.
Finally, there's the Peace River strategy that's being developed. They have roughly $500,000 to work on partnerships with government and anybody else to develop their own skills, and they do that. In some cases, they get very basic information by taking people on tours to look at technology and production methods. So we're very actively working there. We understand that in agriculture, like other areas, skills will become more and more a measure or a major part of a competitive advantage.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to change the subject a bit to the genetic engineering area. It seems to be the way industry is going, whether we talk about agriculture or fisheries. I'm just wondering what protection we are ensuring happens while we play with genetics. The genetic engineers can now make cows produce 10 to 25 percent more milk, and large chemical companies are anxious to start selling the milk-boosting potion to Canadian farmers as a portion of the market, as I'm sure you well realize. They have genetically engineered potatoes with less starch, canola with healthier oil, rice...and the story goes on. Is this ministry watching this situation? What are we doing to ensure that we are not going too far?
What we're doing must be ethically correct, otherwise we are going to end up with something that we do not want. Is this ministry maintaining a very close watch on industry while it tries to produce more of everything by changing genetics? In some cases, I sometimes wonder whether industry actually knows what it is playing with. I'm just wondering exactly where the checks and balances are that this ministry has put into place to ensure that we do not go too far in any given case and that what we do is ethically correct and for the benefit of society as a whole. I guess my first question is: what is the ministry doing to ensure that it controls this and knows what industry is doing in the genetic field?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The area that you've highlighted is research, and it is substantially a federal responsibility. There are some guidelines, and we follow those with respect to any area where the province exercises any jurisdiction. We are members of the Canadian Agricultural Research Council and we participate through that mechanism and the subcommittee that deals with the ethics of biotechnology.
I think you're right to put out cautions; I am very cautious about letting technology and technological innovations dictate production methods. I think we should be very conscious that we are looking at the public good and that we not trying to push plants and animals to the point of ridiculousness in terms of what they produce. There is a common good, and protecting consumer health is important, but looking at what's healthy for animals is also important.
With respect to a lot of the plant issues, you're right: there are lobbies. People see this whole area of intellectual property as big business. They're really speculating on future production and future plant life and animal life. I think it's an area that we have to approach very cautiously. I do that, and the ministry is consistently monitoring it through our efforts with the federal government.
R. Chisholm: As you well know, the province has programs in the area of sterile insects and that type of thing. For instance, at the University of B.C. they're equipping potatoes, strawberries and raspberries with new genes to fend off marauding bugs and microbes and to boost pesticide tolerance. So we are playing in this area as a province, and some areas are in federal jurisdiction.
Supporters can't say enough about biotechnology, and non-supporters, of course, have their own problems. I'm just wondering about this, and I'll quote from this article. It says: "...it may generate superweeds which are impossible to stop and it could breed problems for vegetarians who may not want to eat pork and proteins and that type of thing." We control product labelling. When we're using genetics and when we start playing this field, will this be covered by labelling? Is this now being looked at?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know if you want to get into the details of labelling, but a lot of labelling and controlling product quality through labelling are federal responsibilities.
We want to know that we can buy products throughout the country that are safe and that have been raised in a safe way. It is really finding the appropriate balance between farmers having access to technologies that are healthy, productive and sustainable, and protecting against some the inherent dangers or risks of a new product coming onto the market which will have an impact on the environment or some other part of the food system. When the government or ministry approaches these issues, we try to find that balance.
[4:45]
R. Chisholm: I agree with you. That's exactly what I wanted to hear -- that somebody is watching to make sure that this balance is obtained. After all, there are big dollars involved here. It would be very attractive to jump into something like this for the financial benefits, but there are
[ Page 11501 ]
liabilities too. Somewhere along the line we have to ensure that the liabilities are taken care of, because there will eventually be a screwup. When it happens, it's going to be big. Somebody's going to have to pay for it, and it should not necessarily be the taxpayers of the province. I want to ensure that the ministry is looking into this situation in the meantime and is on top of it at its beginning stages. It may be a little more difficult later on, especially once the big dollars are involved.
The next area I'd like to talk about is the B.C. Raspberry Growers' Association. They got hold of me about two months ago with their concerns about the Thompson commission. They were very concerned about it being implemented this year, and wanted the minister to talk to the appropriate ministry to ensure that their point of view on piecework was heard. I realize that this is not law or anything like that, but they asked me to make sure you heard their concerns, so I'm going to ensure it has happened. They wanted a guarantee that this would not happen and wanted you to speak to them directly about this Thompson commission, if you could. They were afraid of what it would do to their industry. I've passed that message on to you and, in due course, you can take care of speaking to this group.
The one question they had was this:
"How can we, as Canadian farmers who are reliant on export markets, remain competitive in a global marketplace when our B.C. government increases the number of rules and regulations that we must conform to, which in turn directly increases our costs of production, which are already well beyond our competitors?
"In general, the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act of B.C. is causing our industry association major administrative and financial problems. Why are B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and B.C. Raspberry Industry Development Council officials dragging their feet by not sending out an industry plebiscite as decided at a recent joint meeting with the B.C. Raspberry Growers' Association and the council? The plebiscite refers to the future organizational structure of our industry -- i.e., a voluntary or mandatory levy system."
This is a quote directly from the Raspberry Growers' Association, hon. minister, and I gather they would like to hear your opinion on this.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have heard their concerns about the competitiveness of labour. This government will not stand for the exploitation of labour or for making farm labour work in dangerous circumstances. With respect to that issue, we must ensure that farm labour is safe, that people get paid and that there is some kind of protection there for them.
With respect to whether or not piecework needs to continue to exist, I think the case has been made. I have taken the concerns of all the groups that have come to me and passed them on to the minister. I have discussed them with him and encouraged him to meet with the groups. If they have any additional information on the impact of some of Thompson's recommendations, they can still in fact make that known to the minister.
With respect to the plebiscite, I understand that it will shortly be underway. There were some internal problems between the raspberry council and the industry development group, where it was a question of mandate. We had some difficulties getting an agreed-upon membership list so we could do the proper informing. There were some internal problems within the industry that needed to be sorted out. We assisted them in sorting that out, and I think things are going along quite well now. We anticipate a plebiscite. Thank you for raising it again.
R. Chisholm: These next few questions are directly from the industry, worded in their wording, the way they wanted them asked. I said I'd ask these for them. This is from a fairly small industry, the reindeer association. I'll quote from them:
"We are presently paying $100 a year for a game farm licence for each species of game animal we have on one farm. We would like to know if BCMAFF will be issuing a $100 multi-species licence covering a five-year period, so that each farm only needs one licence regardless of the number of species on the farm."
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Right now we don't have an answer. I can't say that there will be only one licence; we are currently discussing that with members of the industry. They raised it with us, and that may come about, I can't say. But suffice to say, we are having discussions with them on that very matter and other matters.
R. Chisholm: As I said, about three associations asked me to ask these questions. I'll also quote the second question from this association:
"The reindeer association needs market information on reindeer antler and by-products. Would the government be able to assist us in procuring these markets or in finding potential customers?"
Their problem is that due to their small size, they don't have enough money to access the Buy B.C. program. Is there any way they can access government programs to assist them in developing their products and their markets?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're always willing to assist any developing group to come up with marketing strategies. If they haven't already asked somebody directly on the food industry marketing development side, then all they need to do is raise that with us, and we will give them some assistance.
There are other ways that small regional projects can get funding, which they may not be aware of. For offshore markets -- and I suspect a lot of markets for antler products would be offshore -- B.C. Trade will help them. I don't know if they have approached B.C. Trade, but we can certainly put them in touch. Since you've raised the question, we'll get back to the organization and see what help can be given, if it hasn't already been given.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for your observations, because that's exactly why these questions are being raised in this manner. Because of where these industries are situated, the lack of government facilities there, their lack of knowledge of government and their small size, it is a little more difficult for them.
The next question concerns Hydro. I realize this is not part of your ministry, but it affects your ministry. B.C. Hydro's increases have caused great problems for the greenhouse industry. For instance, the 3.9 percent rate increase increased the charges to one particular operation -- for which Mr. L.M. Story received the bills -- a whopping 25 percent. Their consumption in 1993 cost more than $94,000, which when multiplied by 25 percent is an increase of $23,500.
I wonder if the other ministry is not talking to you about Hydro and the effects on the greenhouse industry. I wonder if the lines of communication are not open, or if they do not realize that a 3.9 percent increase can put an industry like that into the red. These are input costs that we do have some control over, hon. minister. We have a great amount of power in this province, and here is where one ministry is
[ Page 11502 ]
hampering another ministry in doing its job and is hampering private enterprise, such as greenhouse organizations, in being able to operate and be competitive. I'm wondering if we could have open lines of communications, which would decrease these kinds of hindrances to the industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can push the panic button on any particular increase. We'd be happy to look into this particular case. I'm not aware that it has been brought to our attention before. I can't see how a 3.9 percent increase would translate into 25 percent, but perhaps it does. Maybe they're moving up into a different category or something, but we'd have to look at it. We have excellent communications with the greenhouse industry, and they know they can raise these issues with us if they want some help in articulating that.
I have to say that our hydro rates are very competitive with other jurisdictions. We will, to the extent possible, use hydro as one of the things for which we have relative advantage. The greenhouse industry is very viable, and it's expanding. If we have the same problem a year from now, I guess we'll have to check into it.
As for the general question of whether Hydro checks with every industry group it will have an effect on, I'm sure they're in dialogue with various groups all the time. As a ministry, we watch, and if we see that it significantly or in any way disadvantages a particular industry in the agriculture field, we will let Hydro know.
R. Chisholm: That particular company is Van Den Bosch greenhouses in Chilliwack. If you get in contact with them, they can give you all the facts and figures of how they came up with this.
How can the retailers possibly encourage the public to buy local with these outrageous increases and having to compete with import flowers and vegetables being dumped on the local market? You can well understand where this individual is coming from, if he has the bills to prove what has happened to his hydro costs. In the meantime we have a Buy B.C. program, which is trying to enhance our local industries, and we're putting the industry out of business by an increase from another ministry. I'm just wondering if the right hand and the left hand know exactly what is going on, especially in this particular case. I can give you this document if you wish to have it, and then you can follow through on that one, too.
The next question I have is: how much money are we spending right now in this budget to ensure food production capability for the future? Are we putting money not only into research and development but also into areas to ensure that we have food production? We put money into the ALR to ensure that we have the land in the future, hopefully. We put money into R and D to develop new products. What moneys overall are we putting into ensuring that we remain in food production in the future? It goes back to the education bit again, to some degree -- not the $18 million or $5 million or $30,000 into whatever program. But are we putting any into any future developments or into trying to enhance other products? What are we doing to attract other products? For instance, if we are not competitive in Delicious apples, let's say, what other products are we pushing orchardists to get into for the future? What is our long-range process here? Do we have a process?
[5:00]
For instance, all the new trends in agriculture and in the food industry seem to come from California. Are we watching California early on to see what trends are coming out of there? If we take note of those trends, we may be on the sharp end and actually enhance this industry. By watching the trends, we could be very competitive in the world market. Are we doing anything along those lines? What new products are we promoting?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me give two examples. This year, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is spending $2 million on replanting Galas, which is a very favourable product. The Tree Fruit Authority ensures that we watch what's happening in competing jurisdictions -- the United States and Europe in particular. So we're watching the tree fruit aspect of agriculture very carefully.
In the greenhouse industry we have among the best technology in the world. We're watching very closely what happens in Holland; I could list product after product. People are always looking for new products. One of the ways that any farm can increase its viability is to farm a product there's a better market for. We may sometimes adapt that product from another jurisdiction. Our people watch the literature. We encourage farm organizations to participate in seminars on new products. If something looks like it could help us, we attempt to get that knowledge to producers and find out about it ourselves.
Ginseng is another example. There seems to be a huge market for this product, and we have a person devoted full-time to it. The industry would like more, but it has relied heavily on our ministry to help develop a knowledge base. We're assembling that information on the product, and it's expanding tremendously.
R. Chisholm: I appreciate what you say about ginseng; it's a secondary industry. What are we doing to enhance or to bring in new products? For instance, the federal environmental Green Plan promotes ethanol. We have grain growers who have problems producing a wage, but we could sell ethanol right here.
Some ethanol decreases tailpipe emissions by 40 percent. The Ministry of Environment is following California standards, which have been both proven and disproved. Why aren't we, in the interim, promoting the use of grain or hog fuels for producing ethanol? Here is a good agricultural product which would put most of our grain growers back to work and clean up our environment at the same time.
Another example is the use of soybeans to produce ink. We can grow the produce that will make far better ink than we use right now; that has been proven over again. We have not promoted these items.
In 1991 we procured grass seed from the state of Oregon and continue to do so in 1994, but half the grass seed produced in the state of Oregon doesn't grow in British Columbia. Why are we not buying our own produce? Why are we not producing these new products and putting some of our people back to work?
After all, there are benefits from products such as ethanol. The cattle industry is enhanced with cattle feedlots. I wonder if there aren't more products that we could be taking advantage of and enhancing the agricultural industry. Leadership and direction from your ministry does not necessarily take a lot of money. I'm referring to leadership and guidance again. Guidance, knowledge and assistance is necessary to tap into an industry. We don't necessarily have to get into replant programs. Many industries will utilize what we produce to make their products, but they need to see the green light, the incentive that they are going to be viable. Again, this doesn't cost the ministry a heck of a lot of dollars, but it will take a bit of leadership from the ministry. When it comes down to government services procuring
[ Page 11503 ]
items for this province, it seems a little ridiculous, to say the least, for the Highways ministry or whoever to go down to the state of Oregon and buy grass seed.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You talked about a wide range of products. This government has worked very closely with people in the Peace River on ethanol production both through this ministry and the former Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The long and the short of it is that you can't make the economics work unless you're prepared to subsidize this particular energy form. You talk about viability, but anything can be viable if you end up with a large subsidy. What you're talking about is a trade-off, for air quality. We've set the standards. If the standards of the industry are such that they require the use of ethanol, then the economics of ethanol will change, but you can't just throw out something that needs to be subsidized and say: "We should do that." In my view, that isn't leadership.
What you described is really the Demonstration of Agricultural Technology and Economics program or DATE. That's there for small amounts of money where industry identifies some product or technique they want to get involved in. I can list a number of them -- for example, ozone technology and seafood processing, and early detection of pneumonia in B.C. swine herds. These are all things people can do under the DATE program. If they find a new product, they can do it. I would be surprised if a new product hasn't been examined if it has any kind of significance anywhere else. If there's somebody who is seriously interested in promoting it, then the ministry will assist.
With respect to grass seeds or seeds that are being purchased out of province, we are making strides in turning around the buying habits of the agencies that are in a position to buy directly. Where the product exists locally, we are now writing qualifications on bids so that they will favour local seed. We haven't been able to do that overnight, but there has been significant progress made on that. When you inherit a system that doesn't buy local products and you try to turn it around, it takes some time. Some of the same governments that discourage buying locally also put in place trade regimes between provinces and between countries that make it virtually impossible in some cases to buy seed locally.
R. Chisholm: I'm glad to hear the system is being turned around, because it's been three years since I first brought that particular question forward and I haven't seen a resolution of it yet.
When you say there is a cost to ethanol, the cost is very little. I'm not going to go into a great debate on it with you, hon. minister, but there are companies in Canada right now which are being very competitive with ethanol, whether it be right here in the west or in Ontario with Sunoco or whatever the company is. They are viable, and they are making money. There might be an environmental cost, but it is very little in comparison to what we are now experiencing, for instance, in the Fraser Valley with the pollution.
My point is to try to rectify the pollution problem, and here is a viable enterprise for the grain-growing areas of this province. If you take a look at the United States, there are something like 65 ethanol plants. They've driven trillions of miles on ethanol in the United States; in Brazil, the story is exactly the same, except it's made from sugar cane. If we can put an industry back to work and clean up the environment at the same time -- even if you have to subsidize it to the tune of a penny, maybe it's worth it and should be looked into. If Mohawk, Sunoco or any of the co-ops that are doing it now are making money -- without subsidy in a lot of cases -- then maybe we should be having a long, hard look at it here in British Columbia, especially when we look at the environmental end of it, where we don't see too many solutions in the next couple of decades.
My next question for you is in reference to the western diversification fund. I'm wondering how much money we get from this fund and what programs the money goes to. Are we receiving funds from this at present, and to what avail? Maybe you can answer another question for me, too -- whether the western diversification fund can be used for developing new markets abroad and whether other ministries in this government are utilizing that to develop some of these markets.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The government of B.C. doesn't get funding directly from the Department of Western Economic Diversification, but we encourage companies and individuals to apply to that source of funding. The salmon farming marketing, for example, has received funding. I believe there has been funding to the sterile insect release program, which was funded in part by the federal government as well. Those are two examples. We could try to get you a little more extensive list if you like.
It's expected that the tree fruit industry's plant introduction company will be funded by Western Economic Diversification. I understand they have an application. There is any number of them; I don't have a complete list because it's not our program. But we'd be happy to try to provide more information to you.
R. Chisholm: The next area I want to touch on is the nursery area. We spend multimillions of dollars a year as a society to procure shrubs and trees and what have you. A vast amount of this is imported. I'm wondering if this ministry is helping this industry to take over part of this market, because most of it is imported from other jurisdictions. It seems to me that there is an opportunity here that we are missing. We really should take advantage of it and try to further enhance the industry to take over its own industry within this province. We are missing an opportunity to put an awful lot of people to work. We control a very small percentage of the market. I see this minister and this ministry as being the facilitator to orchestrate the industry in this province toward becoming a very viable entity. I'm just wondering if the ministry is working in this area at this time.
[5:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I recall....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister. I need to introduce you first.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like every word recorded. Thank you. I'll try to wait.
One of the first things I did was a very pleasurable visit to the nursery trade show, which showcased the things they're doing. I came away with a very strong feeling that this is a success story we would like to see repeated in other commodity groups. I think they are taking more and more control of the market share, and this association works very closely with us. I've met with the executive only recently, and we're involved in developing new products. I have been involved in celebrating some of those success stories. I think this is an industry that is going to continue. Some of them have indicated to me that as far as the provincial government
[ Page 11504 ]
is concerned, they don't have any major complaints. Sometimes there are problems with local government in zoning, but as a whole the industry is upbeat and is looking to the future. We think we'll succeed, particularly in the new trade environment.
R. Chisholm: I realize they are very upbeat; this is an industry that is doing very well for itself. But we're importing far more than we are doing locally. I wonder if there's a way we could further enhance more local control of this industry in providing a higher percentage share of the marketplace. This would help agriculture and this industry in the province. Is there anything you could do to provide further enhancement?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to say that we're funding, through Buy B.C., a joint effort by the United Flower Growers' and the Nursery Trades Association. I think the program will be $198,000, which should result in an increased market share. We are working with them, as we would with any group, to develop ways in which they can get a bigger market share.
R. Chisholm: Another question came from the blueberry industry; I'll ask it the way it was phrased, so that you can respond and they can see what you have to say.
"The blueberry industry benefits from the Buy B.C. program. Our problem is that the program is very bureaucratic and underfunded. We see this as an important self-help program, yet at a time when we are experiencing historically low returns, the total provincial funding was $32,000 for the blueberry industry.
"Over one year ago, the blueberry industry negotiated an agreement with the BCMAFF to set up a development fund in exchange for the termination of the farm income insurance program. The blueberry industry was to use the interest from the fund and some of the capital. As of today, the provincial government has still not set up the fund."
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Their involvement with the government and the Buy B.C. program is one of the success stories we celebrate. They did well by the program, and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that it's bureaucratic. Sure it's bureaucratic, because it's there to ensure that the regulations are there and are fair, and that each program is assessed according to a set of criteria. I'm satisfied that this small unit in the ministry acts quickly, and it's the first time I've heard a complaint about this new, small, efficient part of the ministry being considered bureaucratic. If they can supply me with something other than the fact that they have to fill out a form to back up their concerns, I'll look into it. I'd be really happy to do that.
With respect to issues on the development fund, we're in the final stages of developing that fund with them. The legal work is taking place, and I think it's a matter of weeks, certainly not many months, before this fund will be established.
R. Chisholm: I'll give you a copy of this one about foods, which was sent by Jack Wessel and Lulabelle Foods, and then you can talk to them directly, to add to what you have committed to Hansard.
The next area I'd like to talk about is the provincial government planning to delete land-clearing from the ALDA program. In the northern areas of this province, this program is still very viable, and the question that needs to be asked concerns the fact that you're cancelling the program while it's still required in some areas of the province and is very much requested by the industry. Why would you cancel that program when certain areas of this province still need it? Is there going to be something they can do in lieu of the ALDA program where they have to develop a farm area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple answer is that the priority was to shift funding to projects that dealt with environmental problems of the industry. It's in the industry's own interest to fund programs that mitigate the environmental problems that it creates. It's important for marketing, and it's important for their ability to live with their neighbours, that they don't have a negative impact on some other resource. So it was a question of priorities. The program remains. It's the same size this year as it was last year. Priorities do change from time to time, and I'm always prepared to examine them. If they think land clearing is a higher priority than something else, that's fine. But then people will come back and say, for example, that the bank won't lend for environmental mitigation projects. So we use government funding to target areas where private sector financing doesn't readily serve industry needs. Banks understand that land-clearing is a fundamental way of enhancing land productivity. If you could demonstrate that clearing land will increase cash flow, I'm sure the banks will lend operating dollars for that. Farm improvement loans are there at very favourable interest rates. There's probably a 1 or 2 percent difference between the interest rate on ALDA and farm improvement loans, which isn't a significant difference. In fact, for a substantial part of the last year and a half, I dare say that those were between 1 percent and 1 1/2 percent apart. When interest rates are as low as they are, I don't think there is anybody who can't find financing to clear land if they really need to. It's a matter of priorities -- whether there are other things that need to be financed for which private sector financing isn't readily available.
R. Chisholm: I gather from your answer that ALDA is not being cancelled completely. It is correct that there may be 1 or 2 percent between ALDA and the banks, but when your industry is barely viable in some cases or you are just starting out, 1 or 2 percent can be a big thing. I just want verification that ALDA is not being cancelled.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can confirm that ALDA is not being cancelled. As I said, I have thrown a challenge to groups to come up with regional funding priorities. It's now one provincial program, but if there are regional variations, I'm open to considering those. But the program isn't cancelled; it remains the same size this year as it was last year.
H. De Jong: I think this is a very important subject, regarding all the financing that is available. The minister made reference to the fact that they had changed the policy toward proposals of an environmental nature, or those that had some environmental value to them. Could the minister answer the question: did the Federation of Agriculture request this?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not in my term of office.
H. De Jong: If the Federation of Agriculture did not request that, why would the ministry take the course of action of eliminating a very appropriate program? It's not a simple thing to rip out the stumps and so on. There's a lot of hard work connected with land-clearing. A lot of people need to be hired to pick rocks, pick roots and so on.
[ Page 11505 ]
In many instances the return on the cost of land-clearing as such is very low in the first few years. If land-clearing is abolished from ALDA, which is usually a pretty good program in terms of interest costs borne by the farmer, I simply can't see.... Unless there was a specific request from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture giving some indication as to what other programs might be more appropriate or should have priority.... Perhaps the minister would talk about that a bit more.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there was consultation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, and they agreed with the priorities. The priorities became dealing with the best waste management plans, helping develop those plans and putting into effect ways of dealing with farm waste. Why bring more land into production and increase byproducts that you aren't dealing with? At a certain point in the life of an industry, it's important to deal with the attendant problems. There was an evaluation of what was eligible for the program; the federation was consulted and agreed with the new priorities.
H. De Jong: I have another question. Did the B.C. Federation simply have input prior to the ministry making this change? Or, told of the change afterwards, did the ministry say: "Yes, I suppose we could go along with that for a year or two."
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To say that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture sets the priority for the ministry is wrong. There is government consultation before, now and in the future. I assure the member that it will continue.
H. De Jong: I have a further question. In the lower mainland, some people have been going around from farm to farm. Is the Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Environment doing a review of how farms are dealing with the waste situation? I understand that the ministry is now saying that if a farmer has a manure disposal system, which most farmers have, they can only spread this two times during the year, in the fall and the spring. Is that an environmentally conscious change that the ministry is proposing? Do we have policemen going around the valley and looking at what the farmers are doing?
[5:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member would like to provide specific information, particulary about people who are hopping around the valley, I would be very interested. I assure him they aren't from the Ministry of Agriculture. The member should know that the Agricultural Environmental Protection Council has been developed in consultation with the industry. The industry have peer advisers who try to resolve conflicts between the Ministry of Environment and the producer. I don't know what the specifics are, but if somebody's practices aren't environmentally sound, it has to be dealt with. It's in the industry's own interests to do so -- to protect the marketing of the product and, in the case of water, downstream users of resources.
As for the application of manure twice a year, maybe we're advising that that's the best time for the incorporation of nutrients, but I don't know of any other regulatory involvement by the Ministry of Agriculture. I can pretty well assure you that the Ministry of Agriculture is not involved in that, but I don't know for sure. Did the member question the Minister of Environment during his estimates?
H. De Jong: It's comforting to know that these people are not from the Ministry of Agriculture. I know they're hopping around the lower mainland; presumably they are from the Ministry of Environment.
I believe it's customary to adjourn at this point in time. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
The committee met at 6:47 p.m.
[U. Dosanjh in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 11: minister's office, $291,891 (continued).
R. Chisholm: I have a question about the combined news release on the Green Plan. The release refers to $412,000 being allotted to new projects and to $304,000 of industry money. What portion of the $412,000 is being contributed by the province? Or does that figure represent the federal contribution?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The cash part of these programs is provided by the federal government. The federal and provincial governments share costs equally. The provincial contribution is made in kind, so it's something the province has budgeted for in its base budget.
R. Chisholm: I notice that a lot of the programs mentioned in the release are very similar to what we were talking about this afternoon, so obviously some things are happening in some areas. That's good to see.
I'm sure the minister remembers the defeat of the national apple marketing agency vote and the loss of the farm income insurance program. Growers suffered a couple of severe setbacks in 1993. In 1994 there is dumping on the American side, while the FII and the apple marketing agency are no longer in the picture. The B.C. Fruit Growers' Association must develop a different strategy and will have to turn its thoughts to what policies, of both itself and government, will give growers the best chance of survival. At the industry level, they will have to examine their farms and infrastructure to save costs and improve incomes. They will look to both levels of government to help create an environment in which growers will be able to survive and be competitive. This may not necessarily involve financial support programs.
Government policies must remain consistent with the goal of preserving agricultural land; some policies currently conflict with that goal. The lack of means to control wildlife is one, for instance, because of Environment ministry and WCB regulations.
The strengthening of provincial right-to-farm legislation should be a priority. Does the minister see right-to-farm legislation coming in this or the following session, and how does he see it coming? What does he see in the right-to-farm legislation that would protect farmers from exactly the thing we were talking about earlier with regard to the Currie situation and ongoing pressures on farmland in this province?
[ Page 11506 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I meet with agricultural groups, I'm very clear that farming ought to be the primary activity within the agricultural land reserve and that the zone has been designated to protect foodland resource and production on that foodland resource. I recognize that it would be nice to strengthen right-to-farm legislation, but I don't think it can be done in the absence of trying to negotiate an accommodation between the agricultural community and off-farm interests that are impinging on agriculture.
I would like to personally participate in a lot of discussions between commodity groups, the ministry and various agencies such as the Tree Fruit Authority and the land commission to try to find exactly what areas we should concentrate on. I see this as a function of the food policy review. Once we've looked at all the things needed to strengthen farming within the agricultural land reserve and know what they are sector by sector, we can find the common ground. For example, I am going up later this week to sit down with the Council of Councils in the Okanagan and discuss their growth management strategies and how they fit with the need to protect agriculture.
R. Chisholm: Do you see a time line, or the possibility of a time line, for when we'll see some sort of protection for this industry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Right-to-farm legislation itself is only one part of what's needed in only one part of what needs to be reviewed, so I can't commit to a time line at this point. Obviously if there's a crying need, we'll try to address it as soon as we can, but I can't commit to a time line at this point.
R. Chisholm: I understand your point that you can't or don't want to commit to a time line. But with the ongoing pressures on the ALR and on industries to opt out of the ALR, as we see with the tree fruit growers and with the BCFA then turning around and voting against the ALR, we are going to see more and more pressure.
If we don't see something in place to protect them or to do something for them in this industry, I'm afraid we're going to see a domino effect, where other commodity groups will turn around and say they don't want anything to do with ALR because they're not being supported by this government or whichever one is in power at the time. The ALR has been doing an adequate job for 20 years, and though we've had to evolve, of course, it has been in place to protect things. Without protection for the farmer, my fear is that we're going to see things like the ALR go down, which I think we can ill afford. I want your comments on that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I meet farming groups face to face to deal with some of the things that are frustrating them, I find them still strong supporters of the agricultural land reserve. Their resolutions notwithstanding, they tend to favour supporting what they are coming to know as something that gives them a competitive advantage. It is something competing jurisdictions don't have. That is very strong protection of the food land resource so that they're competing only within that for what are, substantially, farming uses. I think we have to address the concerns and frustrations that farmers are expressing with the results of changes in the market and in the way financial programs are structured.
It's a very complicated set of issues, and that's why I've chosen to give it some kind of umbrella treatment by addressing the agrifood issue holistically. Once we've reviewed that, then we'll look at the various pieces in terms of regulations to protect farming, as well as the support programs already there. As you know, we're moving toward more and more green programs that cannot be countervailed under the trade agreements, and it's therein I think we will now see the new battles. I hope we don't get a battle of the treasuries in Europe, America and other countries battling to see who can spend more money on green programs. However, we have to spend amounts sufficient to protect the land reserve; I'm committed to that. We are expanding the green programs.
R. Chisholm: With the ALR and the lack of protection of the farmer and the costs of provincial barriers, are you in negotiations with the Ministry of Finance to adjust the tax assessment for ALR lands? If the farmer is there to protect a piece of land as a green space, he should be given some benefits for doing that. Society should realize there is cost to this. In the 1970s when this program first came into being, the farmers opted to put their land in the ALR under the guidance of the former NDP government. At the time they stated that they were going to support the farmer.
NAFTA and GATT are in place. All programs not GATT-friendly or NAFTA-friendly are going by the wayside. In the meantime, there is nothing to protect or assist the farmer. Neither is there compensation for the maintenance and upkeep of this green space, which society has decreed it wishes. Are there any discussions between your ministry and others to assist the farmer in this area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a substantial benefit conferred upon farmers in having a zone that is by and large protected. It keeps the land for agriculture and prevents competing uses. You make the assertion that there is a lack of protection for farmers. There is no absolute protection. They have to continue to produce, but they can't farm oblivious to what goes on around them. There are downstream effects of some agricultural activities, so there has to be protection of the public from negative effects.
[7:00]
There are ongoing discussions with the Federation of Agriculture with respect to those tax items that affect them. We're always making amendments to the social service tax, for example, on what items are exempted for farm purposes, and we did exempt farms and cooperatives from the corporation capital tax. So the discussions are ongoing. My ministry is always looking at the economics of farming and the cumulative effect of various taxation measures. We are attempting to show our competitive stance vis-a-vis other commodity groups in neighbouring jurisdictions in order to make the point that we have to consider competitiveness when we look at taxation changes.
R. Chisholm: In these answers we are having a lot of ongoing discussions, but we don't seem to be coming up with any concrete or permanent answers to some of these problems. Unfortunately, farmers can't take these perceptions, put them on the dinner table and eat them. Somehow or other they have to make ends meet out of this business, and they're not going to do it without government assistance. That means we have to address their problems, not just have ongoing discussions.
The seed situation I addressed back in 1991 has yet to be solved in 1994. Unfortunately, the farmer is having the same problems that he had back in 1970. I urge you to come to some sort of conclusions with whatever ministries you're talking to over these situations to take the aggressiveness and antagonism out of the system. It's very understandable why the tree fruit growers are opting out of the ALR with the
[ Page 11507 ]
problems they're having. Other agriculture areas are bound to follow suit. I hope you will take a look at these situations and diffuse them very soon. I would not want to see them continue and the ALR destroyed in the end over a lack of support to the agriculture industry.
My next question is in reference to the deer and elk damage to farmland. Again, there doesn't seem to be any satisfaction in the policies of either this ministry or the Ministry of Environment as to who is going to be responsible for the damage that is created by these wild animals. As you well realize, the wild populations are decimating the crops, and for a number of years this has been an ongoing problem for the tree fruit growers and with other areas of agriculture where the wild population is destroying their product. In the meantime, they've been going back and forth between ministries and getting no answers. I guess they question who is going to accept responsibility and who will assist in controlling the problem by fencing or by reimbursing them for money lost, or by using airguns to scare away birds or whatever the situation may be.
Nobody seems to want to address these situations, whether we talk about blueberry growers, tree fruit growers or grain growers. I guess people in agriculture are looking for somebody to give them the final answer, and not just be brushed off and be told to go to the Minister of Environment, only to have him in turn refer them to the Minister of Agriculture. In the meantime, the problems have not gone away; they're not going to go away. It's about time we settled them.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I recognize the problem exists, so I won't minimize it. But I'm not sure it's accurate to say that people are being bounced back and forth. If you don't get satisfaction, you go elsewhere. If there is a problem with increasing wildlife numbers because of weather and changes in land use, that may create an impact. If forest harvesting creates a habitat problem for some animals and they're coming down onto domestic crops, maybe that's something we can address through Forest Renewal.
We have the Provincial Problem Wildlife Management Advisory Committee, which has had some successes -- for example, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the ministry are working together on the implementation of perimeter and community fence projects in Oliver and Summerland. You can divert the wildlife, but the problems are still there. If you're saying that abundance of wildlife is a problem, then the Ministry of Environment should address that and consider setting some kind of objective for management. The neverending question is: who's going to pay for the management?
I don't know that it's ever been any different. From time to time you get a problem with wildlife becoming pests, and you just try to deal with it, and at other times it goes away. People will tell us that moose are a problem in numbers, and then that disappears. In the case of elk, a lot of good work is being done in the Kootenays to find ways of planning mitigation on private land as well as with mitigation crops that try to steer the animals off the cropland.
There are a lot of successes out there; there is progress being made. And if it's a matter of getting another ministry to work harder on a problem, we're one of the first to ask the ministry to do that.
R. Chisholm: There is some success out there, but there is a lot more problem than there is success. As for running between ministries, I've done the same kind of running as the farmers have in trying to get answers, so I realize their frustration. I have been in this room and asked the Environment minister what the answer was; I've been here and asked the Minister of Agriculture; and I've been here and asked the Ministry of Forests and got the same runaround: go see this other ministry. What the farmers are telling me is very true, because it's happening to me right here in estimates. I can understand their frustration; I can sympathize with them. I realize they're losing a lot of their crops.
I ask the minister to talk to these other ministries and ministers and to finally solve this problem. After all, it's been here for a hundred years; it's not going away. It's not a problem of there being too many deer; it's a problem of controlling the deer. Whether it be fencing or some other environmentally friendly solution, it has to be addressed, and that's what all these ministries don't seem to want to do. So I ask you to talk to the other ministers and see if we can finally decide who is responsible for the situation and possibly clear it up, and maybe a hundred years down the road we won't still be asking the same stupid questions.
My next question concerns another area of contention: WCB regulations. As you can well understand, they have placed undue hardship on a lot of smaller operations almost to the point where the individual farmer has to either have a fully equipped ambulance sitting there to transport people to hospitals or have a hospital on his corner lot. There's not much common sense used many of these situations. If the Minister of Agriculture could talk to the appropriate minister about this, it might alleviate many problems. For instance, if a farmer is 20 minutes from a hospital, he or she might not need all the equipment that WCB has forced him or her to have on site. As a second example, when farmworkers on individual farms exceed 15 people, it's usually limited to harvest time; this is a short period, during which farmers must have this equipment in place. It's often very expensive. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could the discuss this question with the appropriate minister, because such regulations are very much a hindrance to small farmers. I'd like to hear your comments on possible solutions.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member talks about farmers who have employees for a short time. It doesn't matter whether they're employed for a short time or a long time, they ought to have access to adequate first aid. If this is an onerous matter for most farmers, then perhaps there's a way -- through the ambulance service, possibly -- to provide coverage. I would suggest that the first place for that would be through the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency, which is chaired by Mark Thompson and includes three farmers and three workers. There's a wonderful opportunity for advice to be given. I can raise this with the minister as an ongoing irritant, but I would like to know specifically what is irritating people so we can deal with it. If any of those farmers want to write, we'll be happy to follow up on it.
R. Chisholm: The specifics are that if you have ten employees or more, then you have to have a medical attendant. If you're within ten or 15 minutes of the hospital, this doesn't make much sense. I will get a few of these farmers to contact you about this. It was brought up by the BCFA at their AGM. As a matter of fact, they addressed it in one of their resolutions. I'm sure you've got copies. It was voted on by the membership of BCFA, and it covers everybody but BCCA. I would surmise that the majority within that organization are not exactly overjoyed about their relationship with the WCB.
[ Page 11508 ]
I also want to ask what the ministry is doing to ensure that directions for application are properly marked on pesticides and herbicides. This is especially important, because many farmworkers cannot read English. I realize we're covering two ministries again, Environment and Agriculture. The workers again -- and if you want to get back into it, we can get right back into WCB. If you want to get back into it, we can get right back into the WCB; it covers three ministries. We have all these pesticides out there, and people are not aware of how to use them properly or appropriately. I'm wondering if the ministry has ongoing support programs to ensure that labels and regulations are adhered to and appropriate chemicals are used. I appreciate that there has been cooperation with other ministries. Maybe you can update me on this and on exactly what the ministry is doing.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As for pesticides and herbicides, to start, we have manuals that are written in both Chinese and Punjabi to assist in teaching farmworkers who are more familiar with those languages. Because of our particular knowledge, we participate in Ministry of Environment courses in order to assist and educate people.
[7:15]
R. Chisholm: Another area I'd like to talk about is the negative impact of using pesticides and herbicides. You have a sterile insect program and ongoing programs of that type. As the minister is well aware, an Environmental Appeal Board decision on April 13 gave Agriculture Canada the green light to spray here, and we have the perception that these sprays will hurt people and the environment. There is one thing we do not know, and it is whether the chemicals they're using to spray the moths around here or those being used on individual or corporate farms are helping or hindering our environment.
In the Fraser Valley, for instance, there is excessive use of chemicals and herbicides. I'm quite sure that up in your area of the Cariboo there is quite a bit of unnecessary use, too. I'm wondering if there are any ongoing studies of what we should or should not use. The Americans, for instance, have studied some of these chemicals, and some are good and can be utilized without redoing the studies. Are we cutting back on the use of some of these chemicals? We talk about nitrates from the manure of the dairy herds in the valley. The chemicals that we're putting onto the ground are just as bad, and they are going into the soil, and the water table, too. My question is: are there ongoing studies of the chemicals that we are using, and which ones are suspect and which ones have been cancelled or have we stopped using in the last couple of years? The second part is: are you, in conjunction with Agriculture Canada, doing ongoing studies in this area, and is that cooperation going to straighten out the problem of chemical use in this province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have to recognize that British Columbia is a leader in Canada in integrated pest management. The greenhouse industry, for example, is 95 percent pesticide-free. We budgeted $100,000 last year for integrated pest management projects, and a lot of them had very favourable results. With respect to pesticides that have been taken off the approved list, I don't have that list with me. In any event, the federal government has primary responsibility for regulating pesticides in Canada, but we're conscious of it. Our people in the field are always watching for negative impacts, and where research needs to be done, they'll bring it to the attention of the federal government.
R. Chisholm: I realize that we have the greenhouse and the pest program, but that is an enclosed little world and not the one we're living in. I'm talking about the farmer's field. I'll quote to you what I quoted to the previous minister. This is from Globe '92; it's about the use of fertilizers. It says: "Since 1960 farmers' use of fertilizer has increased 900 percent. Their use of pesticides has soared 3,200 percentage points. Loblaws' vice president of environmental affairs Patrick Carson said: 'It's not the kids that are on drugs, it's agriculture'."
Hon. minister, this has been going on for a long time; since I quoted it to the previous minister, the same problems persist. There is an increasing concern regarding the widespread use of chemicals and fertilizers in agriculture in British Columbia, especially in areas such as the Fraser Valley. This is another enclosed world; it retains all these chemicals. The federal government has control over some of these chemicals, and so does the provincial government. What is the ministry doing to curtail the use of these chemicals? What is the ministry doing to educate the agriculturalist -- the farmer -- to use less of these chemicals? Is there ongoing R and D into less potent substances? How much money are we spending in that area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Their codes of practice require commodity groups to use pesticides and herbicides responsibly. If a practice is seen as environmentally detrimental, then that should be discussed with the industry; the ministry will participate in those discussions. I can give you the example of 52 bioagents that have been released against 20 specifically targeted weeds in B.C. If a biological alternative is practicable, it is introduced in weed management. In the case of knapweed, I understand that it may be a number of years -- maybe as many as ten -- before we have adequate biological control. The only way to control these weeds is through further regulations.
In the first part of our discussions here, we were talking about the fact that farmers are concerned about more and more regulations. This is clearly an area where there will be more regulation if the effect of pesticides and fertilizers is detrimental to neighbours or to the environment. We have to be careful that we aren't asking, on the one hand, to get rid of regulations and, on the other hand, to put in place more regulations. A balance is needed between what is necessary for people to remain productive and to not be disadvantaged in competing jurisdictions, and on the other hand to not be overzealous in the application. If there's an environmental problem with one of these products, the Ministry of Environment should identify that.
R. Chisholm: We do not necessarily need more regulations. All we have to do is outlaw them from store shelves. It's a matter of stating that these are also harmful and of ensuring that they do not reach the consumer -- the Canadian Tire customer who is putting fertilizer on his roses or the farmer who is buying tonnes of the stuff to throw on his fields in the Fraser Valley. We aren't looking for a lot of regulations; there are some chemicals that can be taken off the shelf with little objection. Sooner or later we will have to do this. I wonder what will we put in place. How much money are we spending on research and development to offset this? I realize there is an overlap between the federal government and the provincial government. There is that grey area between agriculture and environment. However, the problem has to be addressed; it is an agricultural problem whether we like it or not. Could the hon. minister
[ Page 11509 ]
tell me what we're spending on R and D, and how he foresees us getting rid of some of these chemicals we're using?
At the end of this question, I'm going to turn the floor over to other hon. members to ask a few of their questions.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said earlier, we are spending $100,000 on integrated pest management. We have to remember that, as a country, we have the highest standards of food quality and safety, and that's because we have real concern about the impact, overuse and residual effect of these chemicals. That's why Canada has a regime in place that allows us to produce food that is as clean as any in the world and perhaps superior to virtually every other country.
In the applied research partnerships to universities, we are spending $200,000 this year, and some of that is directed to these problems. That's up a third over last year. We spent $150,000 last year, so that's a substantial increase.
H. De Jong: I get a bit of a kick out of this debate, because I have difficulty understanding where the member of the official opposition is coming from. He's talking about a concern about the widespread use of fertilizer and herbicides, and for the life of me, I can't understand how the farming community would bring that subject up, because both of them are very expensive commodities. Fertilizer is very expensive, and so are the herbicides and pesticides, and pesticides are used very little. The only one I know of that could be a bit controversial from time to time is diazinon, used to control caterpillar infestation in orchards. Other than that, what is used on fruit trees in particular is all herbicides.
I'm not sure where the complaint comes from. Perhaps it comes from Greenpeace or some organization of that nature. We have a great diversity of commodities, and I suggest we have a diversity of opinion on the matter of herbicides to be used. In defence of the ministry, I can say only that from what I gather, the farming community is relatively happy with the assistance it gets from the ministry in many of these cases. When a certain disease does pop up, whether it's in the small fruit or tree fruit industry, the ministry is certainly doing everything it can to help the farmers through the process of deciding the best use of pesticides to combat it. I have difficulty understanding where the member of the official opposition comes from on that subject. He might want to elaborate on that later.
I have a few other questions. One of them is a follow-up of the question I asked the minister last week in the House regarding the salmon situation with the Americans. The minister alluded to a few issues the federal minister had spoken about but not necessarily confirmed. Another week has passed by, and we all know there have been many promises made to the Bosnians, too. I'm wondering whether the federal authorities have perhaps made similar promises or given some intentions of what they may or may not do. I would like to have the minister elaborate on whether anything more concrete in terms of salmon fishing for this year has come from the federal authorities.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for his support of the good work the ministry does, in terms of providing what I think is balanced advice with respect to the judicious use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. The member is right; they are expensive. Nobody just spreads them freely and wants to overuse things so they are counterproductive.
Back to the fish issue, I can report to you that I was briefed this morning by federal officials on the progress of consultations with the stakeholders. As we've said, we want a national fishing plan to be developed; there's no binational plan because the treaty talks failed. Over the rest of this week and early next week, refinements will be made to a fishing plan that respects the conservation needs of the Pacific Northwest. Therefore there won't be war on fish stocks that are endangered.
We will be making every effort we can within the jurisdiction. I say "we"; the government of Canada has virtually all the regulatory responsibilities and powers to be able to bring pressure upon the U.S. fishing industry, where they are fishing and traversing Canadian waters. We will have a very finely tuned fishing plan for Canadians that will maximize the commercial advantage -- that is, take of the catch that which is Canada's due. We'll do that with regard to the stability of the coastal communities, with regard to the specific groups in the fishing industry and with regard to guaranteed catches by first nations people -- the section 35 catches are important constitutional rights that we can't arrogate. At best, you'll see a series of controlled administrative and fishing skirmishes that are set to maximize Canada's self-interest and at the same time create some commercial pressure on the United States.
[7:30]
You notice, in my laying out of the way it goes, that I don't mention we're going to target species that are endangered. That would be folly. We will go to great lengths to ensure there is escapement for conservation stocks in both countries.
H. De Jong: Seeing that the minister made reference to the fact that the federal government has all the regulatory process in hand and all the mechanics, you might say, to implement those, is the minister at this point confident that this will be sufficient? If not, does this ministry or the government of British Columbia have a backup plan in place, should the feds fail on what they are supposed to come through with?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To say that a small presence in the fisheries field -- that is, the provincial government -- could on its own have a backup plan, I say no. We found through this that the federal government has been very forthcoming with respect to what they're planning to do and have consulted with us virtually daily and worked very closely with us. If the national fishing plan that evolves in its final form between now and towards the middle of next week is not sufficient, then I don't know where we go from there. But we are putting in input all the time.
Our backup really is that if we see something wrong, I'll make it known to Minister Tobin. I will be very close to the final consultation with the stakeholders, and if some stakeholder raises a concern we think is legitimate, then we'll go to bat for them to make sure they're not affected injuriously. Things are proceeding well. We'll have a better idea next week, when the final consultations are finished. I'm quite confident at this point that we're working as closely as we can with the federal government to ensure that British Columbia's interests are met. If I get any inkling that B.C.'s interests are not being met, I'll be the first to protest directly to Mr. Tobin. I think we're seeing uncharacteristic cooperation here between the federal and provincial government on what we're coming to understand is a shared responsibility.
H. De Jong: I suppose I can take a little comfort in the minister's forthrightness and sincere desire to have this resolved. I would just hope that the intentions or the promises of the federal government are not like those that
[ Page 11510 ]
were made to Bosnia so that we can have some faith in the future for the salmon industry in British Columbia.
On another subject, I spoke on the earthworm industry in British Columbia in a private member's statement the other day. Going back to our earlier discussion this afternoon when we talked about the environmental aspect of farming, there's been a lot of push -- for good reason, I suppose -- to go more towards the natural way of doing things. These little wrigglers, of course, provide a good army for cultivating the ground and so on. In many instances, particularly in the horticultural industry, they use a lot of composted soils, and that's certainly a very strong trend.
In my riding there is one farmer who, for health reasons, had to change the type of farming. He rented out his 40 acres of land to an adjacent dairy farmer and started an earthworm business to continue to make a living. To his surprise, he's been notified that the buildings he's now using for the production of earthworms will be taxed commercial, because earthworm farming is not considered a farming activity under the statutes of British Columbia.
This should be considered a farming activity, given the importance of this type of farming, the very environmentally conscious society and the fact that these worms are used for a multitude of uses within the agriculture and fishing industries. A comparison can be made between farmers who raise hatching eggs to be used for pullets or broilers or whatever they end up as, and the earthworm industry. The process seems to be similar, because you produce, reproduce and get millions of these little critters coming out at last and being of good use in the industry. Having said that, I would like the minister to respond and say whether it should be considered a farming or a commercial enterprise. Perhaps it is not under this ministry's jurisdiction; I suppose it belongs to the Minister of Finance, because it relates to taxation. But I would like to know whether the minister agrees with me that it should be considered a farming enterprise.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish it were within my power to make these kinds of judgments on the spot. I have raised similar cases with the Assessment Authority. One relates to using horses for dude ranching, as opposed to raising cattle or some food crop on that particular forage base. There are other cases where people who compost animal manure see this as a farm product. I think you've raised yet another example of a type of farming that needs to be considered by the Assessment Authority.
If you could supply me with names or other details, I could do a follow-up and get some details of their production methods. I'd be more than happy to raise this with the Assessment Authority, along with a bundle of crops that are not recognized right now as farming products.
H. De Jong: I suppose it's a little different from a dude ranch, because this is producing critters that are helpful in the industry. A dude ranch may be considered to be something different, but I'm sure there are similar situations. Surely worm operations aren't big moneymakers.
I would also suggest that under Agricultural Land Commission regulations a fruit or vegetable farmer can have a stand on his farm and while the fruit stand may be labelled commercial, in terms of taxation, the entire farm where the fruits are grown does not become commercial as such. If the worm farmer had a little sales shop, I'm sure there would be no opposition to have that portion considered commercial. The point is that his entire barns are now, because they do not have farming status under these regulations, going to be considered commercial.
I believe it is very important to draw appropriate comparisons, as well as to determine differences, in what is allowed under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. If we want farmers to succeed under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, I believe we must also allow them to operate as freely as possible without government or taxation overtones. So much for that.
I have another question for the minister, dealing with the dike plan. The minister may have read where some organization did another study on the Fraser River basin and the Fraser River flood control program, which was a federal-provincial program started in the early seventies; it's been extended a few times. This program was financed fifty-fifty by the federal and provincial governments. The municipalities were responsible for maintaining, not improving, the dikes. Nor were the municipalities responsible for protecting the rockwork along the banks. The report appears to refer to a user-pay concept. In many of the rivers -- the Fraser River, the Columbia River and the Chilliwack River -- the water flows from many parts of British Columbia from the higher elevations. It all has to flow through those rivers and along the floodplains in the lower mainland. The report indicates that hundreds of thousands of people in the lower mainland would see their taxes rise considerably for the maintenance of those dikes.
Furthermore, the report appears to suggest that there is a lot of development in the floodplains; however, there isn't. In some places there is no alternative. In the Chilliwack municipality, for example, it's difficult to avoid the floodplain in expanding the town. There are other areas where all the floodplain lands are in the agricultural land reserve. No development other than farming is happening there.
The report also talks about municipal charges on development costs. I suggest that there is very little to charge on development costs because farmers are not allowed to subdivide within the agricultural land reserve. I don't think they want to subdivide because farmland on the floodplains is good. They may want to cut into smaller pieces sometimes to accommodate a more intense type of farming, but that does not necessarily mean the type of subdivision that has happened around the town centres.
[7:45]
I wonder what the minister's response is to this report. It certainly scares the farming community about taxes they may be facing, should the government implement the recommendations in that report.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some of us here aren't familiar with the report. I understand that it's a report by the Fraser basin management group. I'll be happy to obtain a copy of the report and give you a reaction. On the surface, it seems unreasonable to suggest that development charges apply to a particular piece of land which can't be subdivided. That doesn't seem to make sense.
I can't speak to a possible implication of cross-subsidy in which the benefits derived from development charges for development lands in one location would flow back into flood control on a specific site along the river on land that won't be developed. It sounds like somebody is grasping for a funding base for ongoing maintenance. Those benefiting from a particular program ought to pay if the whole municipality benefits from prevention of flooding; somehow, those benefits ought to be spread. I can't comment further until I see the specifics, but I'd be happy to do that try at the next sitting if we are not finished.
[ Page 11511 ]
H. De Jong: While the minister is looking for that report, I would like to emphasize again the farmers' fear about this. Whatever charges are usually levelled as taxes on farms in the floodplain areas are on the basis of acreage as well as partially on assessed value of improvements. Because a farmer needs acreage to operate, it will have a very detrimental effect on farmers within floodplain areas. I don't think they can stand another heavy tax load besides what they're already carrying for drainage, municipal taxes, school taxes and the like.
L. Hanson: I have a couple of questions along the same line but not having to do with the Fraser Valley. I guess it's an unfortunate fact that most of the streams that start up in the mountains end up down in the bottomland where all the good agricultural land is. The Ministry of Environment has a program in place to help people bordering those streams put in rocks or whatever is needed to stop erosion of the banks. Most of the circumstances I'm talking about have happened in the North Okanagan, and I've had a number of farm people after me looking for assistance from the provincial government. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Environment hasn't put any money into that program, which I believe is supposed to pay 25 percent of the cost of remedying bank erosion and so on.
One particular farmer I know of lost about an acre of exceptionally good farmland because of stream erosion. He went to the ministry and couldn't get, first of all, permission to do anything and, second, any assistance if he had been given permission. It seems to me that the Ministry of Agriculture, while it may not have direct responsibility for that control, should consider, if nothing else -- because it is very supportive of the Agricultural Land Commission in preserving farmland -- acting as an advocate for people facing that difficulty to ensure that they get reasonable attention from the other authorities. The federal and provincial fisheries people are involved, as well as the Ministry of Environment. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion of the Ministry of Agriculture's role in those circumstances.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you've put your finger on a problem that's been with us for a long time. If we didn't have erosion, we wouldn't have the floodplains and the agricultural lands. I guess the Environment ministry's argument is that this is the way things have developed, but I think we are entering an era where we're recognizing that we are not creating more agricultural land and what we have therefore really ought to be preserved. I would have to agree that it is the ministry's role to assist farmers to prepare applications or whatever with two other ministries.
With respect to the role of the Agricultural Land Commission, it is trying to move into land use areas that are related to the preservation of farmland. We are going through the process of looking at land and water management, particularly in the Okanagan. There will be a major symposium this fall dealing with that. We have the draft papers out; you may have seen some of them. If they don't address that, and I don't recall if they do, then perhaps we can incorporate that, because every acre of farmland is important to this ministry and the people of the province.
With respect to salmon-bearing streams, the CSERF program is available and has been used in many cases to restore stream banks and prevent erosion. There's quite a bit of experimentation going on with planting riparian-type shrubs or restoring willows, etc.; I know of some very successful work done on the Bonaparte River. So if there's a group of farmers, I would encourage them to apply to the CSERF program. If there are fish in there, and you can stabilize the habitat.... I know this is going at it backwards, in a way, but if there's erosion of farmers' land, clearly you're going to erode or destroy the spawning channels. The idea of restoration is very much part and parcel of the CSERF program, which was very successful last year and has been announced again for this year.
But that usually involves groups; there needs to be a sponsoring agency, which could be the local farmers' organization or in some cases a first nations band, or municipalities could be involved in a partnership. That's one source of funding; it's not meant to entirely replace the program the Ministry of Environment had. But I acknowledge the need, and as in a lot of areas, we could do a lot more. I also have to say that as the Green Plan evolves, we need to consider making the restoration of stream banks a higher priority than it is now, because there's no point in preserving habitat upstream only to see it washed out down below.
L. Hanson: I imagine the program the minister is talking about is administered by the federal Ministry of Fisheries?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, what I'm talking about is entirely a provincial program; it's administered by the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment. The letters stand for community salmonid enhancement and restoration fund. It's targeted to salmonids and has to do with that.
If there are other gaps, I guess we just keep working at trying to fill them.
L. Hanson: The program that I was initially talking about is a program under the Ministry of the Environment. But for the last two years, even though the program has been there supposedly on a 25-75 split, there hasn't been 25 cents in the program, so it's pretty hard to get that split and any benefit to the farming community.
As a matter of fact, the experience of one young farmer in my constituency was to repair the damage and be charged under the federal Fisheries Act for damaging the spawning grounds. He ended up in a court case, which he eventually won, as well as the appeal. So the program the minister suggested is very difficult to access.
But I'm not here today expecting from the minister an answer that would in fact solve the problem; I'm simply suggesting that the Ministry of Agriculture probably has a responsibility in that area. Because of the protectiveness of the ALR, you would think that it was almost as important to provide protection from stream erosion that loses farmland in the same way. I don't know that the ALC has been taking any initiative for stream erosion. If they are thinking about it, maybe the minister could enlighten us about that, because I haven't heard that they were interested in it; I was simply referring to it as a protection for farmland, retaining it for agricultural production in British Columbia. The loss to erosion would seem to fit the same category, and the ministry should be just as interested in that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, clearly I am interested in that. I just checked in the paper on land and water use in the Okanagan, jointly sponsored by the Land Commission and the Tree Fruit Authority; it is silent on that matter. As I say, there's a major symposium coming up in the fall to address some of those ideas. I encourage producer groups that have concerns to identify them there.
[ Page 11512 ]
I have to say that I don't think it's a major problem. It seems to me there are some problems, but I'm told it's not a major problem in the region. We get much more erosion problems further north -- for example, in the northwest.
But I take your point. The direction of the land commission is clearly to try to assist farmers in anything that will enhance and protect farming. This particular item, as you recognize, traditionally has been the Ministry of Environment's responsibility. We can thank you for raising it. I recognize it; I've worked on some of these problems myself. As an MLA, I know that the ministry has worked very successfully to get assistance and approvals in time.
[8:00]
You're right, federal fisheries do come down pretty hard on some people and are oblivious to the needs of farmers. As the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, we can raise that with federal Fisheries and put that on our agenda of items to deal with. So at least the nuisance factor of somebody being prosecuted for something they ultimately win on appeal should be reduced. It's a problem, and I don't think we've got all the solutions yet. I was suggesting partial solutions within our mandate of fisheries that we have put forth under the CSERF program.
L. Hanson: I have just one other issue, and I'm sure the minister has heard it a number of times. I believe there are programs in place now to assist orchardists in the replanting of their orchards. It seems to me that the ministry could or should consider.... I would like to know the minister's attitude towards the difficulties that some of the farmers in my area are experiencing with the wildlife. I know the minister has heard of the deer problem and so on -- and these nice tender young trees are pretty attractive. Even though we help them do the planting, we don't spend a whole bunch of time, money or interest in trying to keep them growing -- if the minister can appreciate that happening.
Recently I had a phone call from another gentleman raising sheep in the agricultural industry. He had some forty-odd of his lambs killed by a cougar, which he eventually dispatched. After some hassle with the conservation officers and others, it finally was accepted that it was a necessity.
It seems to me that if we as a society and the minister as the government -- not necessarily representing his direct ministry -- put in place rules, regulations and different things to protect our wildlife, which is fair and reasonable, then we should also recognize that those rules we put in place sometimes cause harm to another industry. I was wondering if the minister had given any thought to any kinds of programs to assist people with the loss they might suffer as a result of that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've been putting most of our efforts as a ministry on the prevention side, looking at ways to fence and to keep dogs in orchards to maybe scare off some of the bigger predators. But that may divert the problem. I agree that more work needs to be done on it, which we got into a little earlier. On the issue of compensation, you probably know it only too well. I'm sure you probably sat in on many discussions in years gone by as to why we don't create compensation funds. I recognize there is a fairness argument here: if there is an imbalance between protecting the predator on the one hand and not protecting the farmer on the other, then we should redress that imbalance. One problem we have is a relatively small economy, in the sense that it's a simple economy. It is elaborating, but historically our problem has been not devoting enough of our provincial product into specialized mitigative measures such as this. I think this is an area where we have to look to the Ministry of the Environment to establish some guidelines on what they are protecting so that we prevent damage.
I don't know if it has ever been any different, in the sense that I've had neighbours who have lost many yearlings and calves to eagles, wolves, etc. Some of us have been very fortunate to have had no losses. I think it's something that tends to come in waves. If we've identified something in land use in the Okanagan, such as smaller trees, and they are the way of the future, then we're going to have to put resources into protection there. We created the program called Partners in Progress, and we fully expect that it will be possible to address these kinds of things in a program cost-shared between producers and government.
There are two fencing projects, one in Summerland and one in Oliver, that are trying to deal with this. Other than that, there is finding a dog that's ferocious enough to keep marauding cougars out of the orchard -- and they travel huge areas. Anyway, I recognize the problem. I don't have any more solutions than you're probably able to generate with your years in government, but we're always open to new ideas.
Some progress has been made on a number of these fronts, but we should leave on the table this notion that maybe we can provide some insurance for those who do get nailed. The question is: who's going to fund it -- the producers, or maybe a great fee on cougars for some great hunter from Europe? That may provide us with funding for mitigation. I'm open for ideas on that which I could pass on to the Minister of Environment.
[S. Hammell in the chair.]
R. Chisholm: I have to agree with the hon. member from Vernon. I know of many cases where we've had the same problem with stream degradation due to the problems of farmers and farmland. For instance, I can quote the case of Joel Allen, who tried to go through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to curb the problems he was having with the stream running through his property. He ended up in Supreme Court with seven charges against him. He beat all seven charges. The DFO appealed; finally the DFO dropped the appeal. There could be better communications in this area between the DFO and the ministry you're working with right now on the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It seems the DFO's automatic solution is: "Let's go to court." Unfortunately, this creates a lot of antagonism between these groups, and it's the same taxpayer that we're talking about.
Maybe the minister could help in this situation to facilitate negotiations so that DFO allows BCFA, let's say, to self-police before DFO goes in there and automatically takes the farmer to court. It accomplishes absolutely nothing except to create antagonism and waste tax dollars in the long run. After all, the agriculturalists or farmers are environmentalists as much as the people in DFO who are trying to maintain the stream. Possibly you could facilitate this by discussing it with Herb Dhaliwal or Brian Tobin and maybe coming to a consensus. I have been discussing this with Jake Janzen in BCFA, and there have been some negotiations between the two. But you could possibly help with your good offices to straighten out a problem before laws end up getting struck down in the courts, which really won't help anyone. Possibly the same policing situation with WCB could help.
My next little point is for the member for Abbotsford, who was asking about chemicals. Possibly he wasn't here for
[ Page 11513 ]
the first quotation from the vice-president of Loblaws, who said fertilizers were up 900 percent and herbicides were up 3,200 percent. That's from Globe '92. An article in B.C. Agriculture magazine of March '93 says: "Twenty-nine percent" -- we're talking about farmers -- "reduced use of crop chemicals in the past year. Thirty-nine percent still say they haven't taken any steps to improve environmental sustainability." So there is a problem throughout the province of how many and what chemicals we are using, and it should be addressed.
I could go on for a long time on my next subject for discussion, the Thompson report, but I don't think I will. I will try to discuss it to some degree, and then I will give the minister the letters from the British Columbia Broiler Growers' Association, the Fraser Valley Strawberry Growers' Association, Money's Mushrooms Ltd. and their association. I've also got them from individuals and a few other organizations. They're all basically saying the same thing: you have to have another look at this particular report. This report will be far too damaging for agriculture to survive if it goes through in its present form. This is what every one of them is saying.
Rather than me stand here and talk for three or four hours on this, I will just discuss one letter and then give you the half-dozen to a dozen letters I've got here from different associations. For instance, Money's Mushrooms are stating that most mushroom producers are in Alberta, Washington and Oregon, and that if we change the way we do business here, it will become very viable for them to start exporting mushrooms which they will be dumping on this particular business and so Money's will go out of business.
Some of these other groups are stating that they're paying $12 an hour for a picker. The way it is right now, if you pay these wages to each and every person who is there, that will eventually put them out of business. There's an incentive for people to pick at whatever pace they can go at, but if the price of these particular communities go up, they no longer become viable in the industrial world. That's when our competition in Washington and Alberta will take over.
That's about all I'm going to say about the whole situation. For instance, in this one letter, there are about 15 responses. I think it would be far better for you to read and mull them over yourself. Perhaps then you can talk to the appropriate minister, and maybe he would be receptive to discussing it with you. I intend to discuss it with him myself and give him exactly the same documentation I'm giving you. Hopefully we can come to a consensus that would be equitable to the industry, this ministry and the Ministry of Labour.
My next question is on the Okanagan Direct Farm Marketing Association. I believe the minister has heard of this organization. I'm wondering who is funding this particular organization. Is there any ministry funding in this? Do you have any input into this organization? This organization consists of people like Bob Davison, Bruce Harker and individuals from the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. Does it complement Buy B.C., and does Buy B.C. have any links to it? I realize that it was formed in recent months, but maybe the minister can enlighten me as to how it fits into the bigger picture.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To answer your last question first, some of the direct farm marketing organizations have taken advantage of the Buy B.C. program. In theory, an organization like this can avail itself of Buy B.C., if the money goes around. We provide support to the umbrella organizations -- B.C. direct farm marketing organizations -- and have conducted seminars throughout the province. This particular one is a growers' organization which, as far as we know, has not had any ministry financing. It started up on its own, although I'm sure the staff at the ministry have assisted it.
R. Chisholm: British Columbia offers the lowest level of financial support to farmers. The diagrams of the report to which I shall now refer show that we offer 16 percent, while Alberta offers 52 percent, Quebec offers 67 percent and Nova Scotia offers 62 percent. This definitely tells us about the amount of support British Columbian farmers get from their government and financial institutions. This article states that of all the provinces in Canada, British Columbia provides the least credit to its farmers. According to research by the federal farm finance task force, even the eternally impoverished governments of the Maritimes offer more agriculture credit to their agrifood producers.
[8:15]
Ken Corraini, the credit manager of the financial development programs branch within the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, reports that Nova Scotia provides 60 percent of farmers' borrowed credit capital. Quebec's financial development programs department provides 3 percent less than British Columbia. Regardless, British Columbian farmers are at a competitive disadvantage when compared to farmers in other provinces.
Without discussing future policy, can the minister tell me what is going to be done to solve this problem?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member might be one of the first to criticize if we went in and occupied an area that is best suited to the private sector. On the whole, there is no indication that the lack of provincial financial development programs is a major impediment to the development of agriculture. One can always make the point that less expensive credit would result in further development, but the fact remains that B.C. leads Canada in terms of debt-equity ratios -- to the advantage of B.C. farmers. The banking establishments are offering good rates through the federal farm improvement loan legislation. There is more financing than people are availing themselves of, so there is no indication of the need for farm financial credit. The upside of B.C. funding of agricultural programs and agriculture is that the farmers here are less dependent and therefore better able to cope with the freer trade environment. All the statistics that we see on the state of agriculture in the province support that.
R. Chisholm: Everything seems rosy, but I'm afraid it's not. You were at the Cattlemen's AGM a week ago. You heard about problems getting financing. They were very blunt and forward about it. Whatever you want to say about it, it was right there in front of you. They can't get financing because they're not secure.
We were talking about education and getting young farmers into this business. How can they get into the business if there's no credit available to them? How can they stay in the business if they don't have tenure and licences? They will not get funds from banks due to that. Whether it is a forestry issue or an agriculture issue, it still involves cattlemen and farmers. If the young farmer can't get credit due to lack of support by this government, while in other jurisdictions he can, obviously a young person is deterred from getting into farming. These are a few of the issues that spiral off from this discussion.
[ Page 11514 ]
The quote that I just read to you is from the federal side and from one of your own people in the ministry. We are not giving the support required for young people to get into agriculture. We are not giving the security of licences or what have you. Banks, credit unions and all the rest will not lend them money to get into that business because they are young and they don't have security. This is one area where we could help young people and make it viable for them to start a business. They could make a great contribution to the prosperity of British Columbia. You were at the AGM, and you heard the same things I heard. I'd like to hear your observations on that meeting and on giving credit to these farmers and cattlemen.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's very easy for somebody to stand up for political purposes and say they're insecure and therefore their bank won't give them money. The other member can join in if he wants. I was at that meeting. I also asked the people in the crowd how many of them had problems with permits or whatever from the government; four or five put up their hands. When asked, the rest of them put up their hands saying they'd had no problem. There appears to be a minority of people in any given industry who feel that they have some insecurity that's government-induced.
You have to examine it case by case and find out what the problem is. Having met with the bankers, I know that on the whole they don't think there is any problem with the future of most sectors in agriculture in British Columbia. They say they're prepared to lend more. So if you're saying we should subsidize credit for young people, that's one thing, but to say that, for its health, the industry as a whole needs access to government capital, then I say we haven't exhausted the sources of private sector capital.
R. Chisholm: I'm not going to sit here and debate with you over the point. You were at the same meeting I was; you had to face those farmers, and they weren't exactly happy. I recall one person monopolizing that microphone for quite some time, and I recall them cheering when he was through speaking. I'm not going to go any further with that. I hope you will listen to what is being said and talk to the Minister of Forests and see if you can secure their rights to grazing. Possibly you can review how we look at credit for young farmers and enhance their opportunities for getting into business.
The next area I want to ask questions about is building wastes and storage facilities. I wonder how much has been allotted this year for storage facilities -- in, for instance, the poultry and dairy sectors -- and whether there are moneys available this year for them to enhance their facilities as required by the rules of the Environment ministry, as well as by some of the rules put in place by your ministry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sixty-five percent of the funds, which are the same amounts as last year, are available for the best waste management plans of facilities that are necessary to deal with waste management issues. The amount is the same as last year. If you want the figure, I'll get it for you.
R. Chisholm: For poultry and dairy?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, for all of them. It's first-come, first-served; we don't have a hard-and-fast budget, sector by sector.
J. Weisgerber: When the estimates started on April 19, we were talking about diversification, particularly agricultural diversification in the Peace. The minister may recall we spent some time talking about the forage seed initiative. I'd like to ask a few questions along the same vein but related to bison ranching, which seems to me to be an opportunity in the Peace for real diversification from the standard grain farming and cattle ranching activities.
Last year I raised with the Minister of Agriculture issues that were inhibiting growth in the bison ranching sector, relating particularly to the need for what was viewed by many as excessive recordkeeping on herds. The fencing issue, which has been around for some time, was also raised. The ministry now has the responsibility to regulate fencing for game farms. It has been a longstanding concern of the game ranching industry that there is only one set of rules and that there don't appear to be rules developed for different species and for different types of game animals. Rather than going through a series of questions, could the minister bring me up to date on changes that have been introduced in the ministry for bison ranching as they relate to recordkeeping and fencing requirements?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank the member for his question, which will give me a chance to get updated as well.
There are three items of annoyance. Firstly, four reports were necessary for recordkeeping. Only an annual report is now required, so that figure has been reduced to one. Secondly, there was a requirement for a provincial ear tag along with the Canadian ear tag. I don't know which is in the left ear and which is in the right, but that has been reduced to one tag. On fencing, it's still under review, but in all probability the requirements will head toward putting the onus on the farmer to keep the animals in and to allow him to do it if he wants to with one or another type of fence. We can't say that's happened for sure, but it's the direction in which we're headed.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could give me some sense of time with regard to a decision on fencing. There are very big bison ranches in the Peace, and there are enormous opportunities. I really believe that as breeding stock becomes more available and more reasonably priced, there will be growth in this whole industry, whether in British Columbia, the Alberta side of the Peace or in other parts of the Prairies. If we were to deal with these two questions of fencing and recordkeeping in a timely way, there is an opportunity for us to be leaders on that issue. We already have the largest bison ranch in Canada, and one of the largest in North America, just outside Dawson Creek. Fencing is a major expense.
I don't think anybody wants to do less than adequate fencing. In any competitive business, it's difficult if you're forced to fence to a higher standard than you believe is necessary and perhaps, more importantly, in a more costly way than your competitors as few as ten miles away are required to do. Could the minister just give me an idea, not for my sake but for the sake of my constituents and the people who are perhaps postponing decisions, of when there might be some clarification on this?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While I can't give you a precise date, it will be in the near future. There have been discussions and drafts, and we're refining the regulation.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps I can put it in terms that the minister, being an old rancher, can relate to. If Peace River farmers were going to fence this year, would they be safe in deferring the decision and getting their posts in under the new regulation before the frost went in the ground, or would
[ Page 11515 ]
they in fact have to use the current set of regulations to meet that task?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member would tell me when they get the first frost. I'm not that familiar with the Peace River. I'm told by my officials, some of whom come from the Prairies, where they also get early frost, that you could take some comfort in that. In the meantime, they shouldn't hold their breath, but perhaps they could cope with other fencing arrangements while they wait for the new regulation. I'll make sure that I don't have to come up there on a frosty day in July to say that we're really slow.
[8:30]
J. Weisgerber: We'll probably get back to the Julian calendar, which I think will probably work more efficiently.
Indeed, I think it is important. Quite honestly, with all due respect to the minister, I haven't the faintest idea now whether or not one could expect a decision before October, so maybe I could ask it this way: does the minister anticipate a decision on the fencing issues before October?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Quite by October; we're hoping by midsummer.
J. Weisgerber: Now we know the route to take.
I suppose it's definitely an improvement if the number of reports submitted have been reduced from four reports a year to one. I compliment the minister and the ministry on moving forward. From the point of view of the buffalo, I'm not sure whether one ear tag or two makes an awful lot of difference, quite honestly. The problem with bison is that they are not a domestic animal. There is an enormous amount of stress every time you pen them, every time you put them in a squeeze, every time you either inoculate them, put ear tags in, or whatever. There are very good studies that show the animals react with a far greater degree of stress than domestic livestock do. What the bison breeders are looking for, I think, is a way of meeting the requirements of the ministry and reducing to an absolute minimum the amount of close-quarters handling that has to happen with bison. Having recognized that some progress has been made, does the minister see the possibility of this being further streamlined perhaps to remove the need for identification of animals?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think we've reduced the need for handling for this purpose -- at least cut it in half, in a sense. But Agriculture Canada requires the ear tag that is there now, and it's for health purposes. I don't know how far you can go in getting rid of identification and still have any kind of meaningful health record. I think the question of disease control with respect to domestic livestock is at issue here.
I recognize the need to reduce the stress, and I think it ought to be paramount that if the animals can have their health maintained and protect the health of other adjoining animals, domestic species -- cattle in particular. Then I think we should move in that direction as we come to know more and more about managing that species.
The Chair: Hon. members, that is a division call.
The committee recessed at 8:34 p.m.
The committee resumed at 8:43 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
The Chair: Is everyone ready? I'll be happy to recognize the hon. member for Chilliwack. I'm infinitely adaptable.
R. Chisholm: We appreciate that, hon. Chair.
I have one question to the minister while we're talking fencing and the ALDA program. We notice that in the program there is fencing for exotic animals such as bison, ostrich and what have you, but there is none for cattle. Do you see that cattle will be included under this program in the foreseeable future, and how long do you expect it to be before we would see that for cattle? Considering that these other industries have not been around as long as the cattle industry, I would think that they would deserve a bit of attention.
[8:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can tell the member that the reason that funding was available for exotic animals is that it tended to be high cost. The industries were in the development phase, and there weren't established lending patterns by private sector funding.
With respect to fencing for cattle ranching, we don't foresee it. As I said, if that was seen as a major limiting factor and the only credit available was through government financed credit, then I guess we could consider it. But my information is that money for fencing can be obtained from banking. In short, the answer is that I don't see it in the foreseeable future.
Having said that, I think there's nothing wrong with the industries on a regional basis trying to look at priorities for their industries that would use up a rough quota for that region in the ALDA program. I am open to some sense of priorities that might vary through the regions, but the same argument can be made for an awful lot of things that you can spend money on.
Right now there's a limit. We're holding the line on the amount of money in the ALDA program and maintaining spending there. There is only so much to go around, so the more things you add, the more things there are.
R. Chisholm: How much?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: How much in the ALDA program? I'll get that figure for you. The amount is up to $5 million in lending this year.
L. Fox: First let me say that I had the pleasure Saturday to be in the Chief Lake region of Prince George. I understand that the minister was there the night before, and I want to congratulate him for making an attempt to get into the very remote regions of the province and to make himself available to the farming community. It was certainly appreciated by those who were there, as I'm sure he heard firsthand. But I told them that I would pass the message on to you that your attendance was certainly appreciated. While they didn't get everything that they were perhaps looking for in terms of initiatives or whatever, they certainly appreciated you being there.
By the way, I did explain, I hope with total accuracy, the water well issue and made sure that we put that to bed.
I wanted to ask a few questions about the Agricultural Land Commission. In November last year the commission put forward a policy paper dealing with some issues that were very dear to the hearts of many people in my constituency, and subsequent to that I wrote, as did one of my colleagues, a weekly article in the newspaper, expressing some of the concerns. I must say that I get quick action out of Mr. Kerr -- I think it is -- in the Agricultural Land
[ Page 11516 ]
Commission, who responded to those concerns by way of a letter to the editor, pointing out the error of my ways.
I have a couple of questions, given that there seems to be a new emphasis with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission controlling particularly home-use occupancies in the agricultural land reserve. Who prompted that concern? My first question would be: who brought that concern forward?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to correct any misconception that might be out there, this was an attempt to deregulate -- in a sense, to make simpler. There always has been a requirement for the approval of home occupations within the ALR, so what we're attempting to do is establish a threshold below which no approval is necessary. An example would be that with a bed-and-breakfast, I think three rooms are acceptable. With anything more than that, you're starting to get into a major establishment that could grow into substantial non-farm use. So the request really came from local government.
L. Fox: My concern, having been mayor of a community, a good part of which was within the agricultural land reserve, is that in the past the precedent had always been that if the municipality approved that home-use occupation, nothing further was said. In fact I don't recall once, in my years as mayor, ever having to refer a zoning request to the Agricultural Land Commission. Now all of a sudden, we're seeing this initiative.
When we look at the cost, and particularly, it seems to me, at one of the regulations -- unless I've misread this -- if you use more than 100 square feet of your home, you would have to look at applying through the agricultural land reserve for permission to do that, and thereby there would be a cost of $400 to $500 for that application. It seems to me that it would drive more business to take place without identifying itself, driving more economy underground and therefore not being of service to the community.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two aspects here. One, first of all, is an attempt to establish a provincewide threshold so that a local government can regulate up to the threshold or, second, if a local government wants to tailor an ordinance to its particular locale, then there will be consideration given to that. The objective behind this would be to establish some preclearance of a set of approvals that the local government can make consistent with activities in the ALR. There is an opportunity and a willingness there for the commission to establish regionally significant or municipality-specific ordinances so that it takes away the need. The general rule is established, and the municipality can then administer it up to the threshold of use, beyond which it would require some ALC approval.
L. Fox: Have those thresholds been set at this stage?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The paper went out in November, and responses have been received back. The commission will consider them at the end of the month. The plan is that at the end of this month, they'll consider all the responses and try to establish some final policy that they will then communicate to local government.
L. Fox: By way of explanation, perhaps I could ask the minister to explain how that's going to take place. Will it take place between the ALC and the municipality directly, or through the UBCM? How is that dialogue going to take place?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to add that the information I have is that the responses we have back on the discussion paper have been encouraging. What will happen is that when the commission makes its determination of policy, it will communicate directly with the municipalities. As they did in the discussion paper, they will also be inviting municipalities to establish their own set of thresholds, and this could be accommodated by a general ordinance. While there will be a provincial policy established, the door will be open for specific rules for particular municipalities, should they wish them.
L. Fox: I take it from that comment that there would be specific areas where there would be some flexibility. Are we talking about general flexibility throughout all the categories listed in the discussion paper?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me give you an example. There may be specific areas in the ALR where the 100 square feet is not acceptable. A common home-based business, for example, might be parking and maintaining and running an operation for your logging truck. You'd need a larger area. That's the kind of thing that would be considered. It could be reasonably specific. That example could pertain to the north or central interior, so it could be municipal-specific or regional district.
L. Fox: Would that then suggest that you would look for a change in the zoning bylaws of the respective municipality to reflect those sizes and specifics, which would then come under their jurisdiction? I'm trying to figure out what program is going to be available in terms of making the public know what is and is not acceptable. Are we looking at a change to the local zoning bylaw, which requires three readings, to identify what that municipality sees as its criteria for the Agricultural Land Commission?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In answer to your question, some may choose to take the Land Commission's standard and not change their bylaws, some may choose to change their bylaws, or they could ask the commission to give a general order that would create a special set of uses that don't require going through the hoops of changing their bylaws. They could ask the Land Commission to be the zoning authority for that use in that area.
L. Fox: The latter surprises me somewhat. I'm not sure how that would work. If this was tested in court, would the Agricultural Land Commission have to accept the liability behind that order? If the third option mentioned by the minister was available to the municipalities, and through that there was some acceptance of liability by the land commission, it would seem to me that that might be the preferred option by the municipalities. Along with that third option, would there be a liability assumed by the commission?
[9:00]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to clarify things; I may have misled you a little. If the local government chooses to follow the regulations set out by the Land Commission, it would therefore allow the Land Commission to be the agency accepting the liability. If, however, the regional district or municipality pass a bylaw and retain responsibility for
[ Page 11517 ]
setting the standards and asks the commission to adopt it, they're still accepting the liability at the local level.
L. Fox: Then I gather that if that option was taken, it would be a prerequisite that the municipalities would pass a zoning bylaw that would reinforce that initiative.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Okay. In terms of fees, is there any variance in terms of what the cost is to the applicant? Obviously you can't discuss the municipality or regional district fee, because that would be determined by them if it were under their area or their jurisdiction. With anything provided by this other option, would it mean a $400 to $500 fee as we now see in the Agricultural Land Commission request?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand it, there will be no fee if they're exempt by policy or general order. They don't need to apply.
L. Fox: Okay. I should have twigged to that myself.
Let me ask you one or two more specifics. You may not be able to answer these because it may be ongoing discussion in policy development. I have in my hand a letter from the chief licensing officer of community care facilities to Mr. Barry Smith of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. He points out that the current terminology used within the policy paper would limit family day cares and child care facilities and require them to go through a licensing procedure that would cost $400 to $500, and they have suggested a higher ceiling. In terms of family day cares, their offer was a ceiling of seven children. The minister's policy would read for eight or more children. In terms of licensed group homes, they are requesting a ceiling of not more than six, and that six and less would be under the local jurisdiction. Can the minister tell me if that has been given some consideration?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was just getting the information on where that stands. That's one of the issues the commission will be deciding upon. They have to look for a balance. For example, would you define something as a group activity if you had certain numbers, thereby requiring, say, that a neighbouring farmer would not be able to spray because there is a group activity next door? We're trying to balance agricultural use and protect it against incursions of other uses that, by definition, will limit the farm use. In this case, the size of the group is important because there's another ministry that will regulate some of the farming activities and consider it a negative impact. You had no problem until you had a group activity in the area. I'm told that this particular item will be one of those on which a judgment has to be exercised by the commission.
L. Fox: Right at the beginning of our discussion, the minister suggested that there was going to be some flexibility municipality to municipality or region to region. I hear your concerns with respect to the Fraser Valley, or perhaps even the Peace River, but in my constituency, we have a lot of land within the ALR that isn't farmable. We have a good percentage of property that happens to be part of a farm, but it's not farmable. I think it's quite a lot different, and I hope we will look at this particular policy differently with respect to those regions.
I have another letter in my hand from a group called Pacific Challenge, who are training day care individuals so they can license themselves to deliver that program. Many of these people happen to be wives of farmers, part-time farmers or part-time loggers, because in our country you can't afford to be just a farmer unless you're really big. You have to work to support your farm. If you have these kinds of limitations, the concern of this group and of Pacific Challenge is that you're going to drive this whole day care industry underground. They won't be licensed nor will they be approved. As I'm sure you can appreciate, in our region of the province it isn't very possible to enforce. I hope the minister will look at those regional values when the commission finalizes these recommendations.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In this case, if the regional district would like the Land Commission to consider a specific exemption or a specific threshold level because of the particular nature of farming in that area, then it's possible to accommodate that. The commission will consider that.
L. Fox: I'm pleased that the minister put that on the record. I'll advise this group of the avenue to approach their regional district and municipality and request that those recommendations be made.
H. De Jong: The minister made a rather interesting comment in the previous discussion. He said that we're not creating more agricultural land. Going back to the discussion we had this afternoon about the ALDA situation and those loans not being available for land-clearing purposes, could the minister perhaps further elaborate on the statement that there is no more agricultural land being created in British Columbia?
I believe that over a number of years, due to land-clearing and so on, there was considerably more land added to the agricultural land reserve, particularly in the northern regions of the province. Was it not beneficial to the industry to have more land added? Why would the minister make the comment that we're not creating more agricultural land? I'm puzzled by that statement.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wouldn't be too puzzled. There's nothing more than meets the eye. If you take soil of a certain class, whether it's got trees on it or whatever.... We aren't creating acreages and areas that have certain high-quality soils on them. There are exceptions where people are terracing and moving soil, but as a rule, I'll stand by my statement that we aren't creating more agricultural land.
I don't consider clearing land to be making more agricultural land; I see that as changing the crop. It was agricultural land. If it will grow trees, it will grow some other crop. The basic soil capability is there, and we're not changing the basic soil capability.
I made the comment with reference to the erosion of agricultural lands by runoff. I'm asking, "Why see the destruction or erosion of agricultural land?" We aren't creating more, so I say we should protect what we have. There's nothing more to the comment than that.
H. De Jong: The point still remains, though, that the agricultural land reserve was established for the purpose of growing food. If there is an opportunity to expand the agricultural land reserve by clearing some of the land that may be covered by trees now and making it into usable farmland, then surely that must be taken into consideration. Taking seriously the importance of the provision of food, why not have the alder program extended to that as well?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There was a two-year phasing out of loans to agricultural land clearing. In fact, there was an allocation for land-clearing, and the applications didn't take
[ Page 11518 ]
up the amount available. So there was a general reduction in people applying to it.
It's a question of what the priorities are and what you can get funding for. I maintain that commercial loans are available for land-clearing. And I say a farmer should be very careful when deciding to take trees off the land. If they're not a commercial species, take them off, but a farmer can get into diversification by keeping the trees growing and by farming them. Other priorities were discussed with the Federation of Agriculture, and while some people want to see all the funding go into land clearing, it's not putting a serious limitation on the development of agriculture in the province.
H. De Jong: The minister isn't quite getting what I'm after, but if there is legitimate land-clearing, whether it's up in the Peace River or in the Fraser Valley or in any other valley, and many young farmers would undertake to clear the land, I would think they're in the process of expanding their operations. Surely the expansion of farming, particularly involving young farmers who may not have a line of credit available at financial institutions, should be available through a program such as ALDA, even though the priority may be toward environmental aspects.
[9:15]
Concerning another subject, could the minister perhaps explain -- and I'm not asking for his personal opinion -- how the ministry views the implications of the Thompson report on the agricultural industry? If the ministry has concerns, what are they prepared to do in order to offset some of the demands in the Thompson report that will, in my opinion, severely affect the agricultural industry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said earlier, the ministry receives reports. It tries to assess issues that have been raised in briefs from industry organizations and pass those assessments to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. Implementation is a government decision: I'll be part of the discussion and decisions. The minister has already met with a number of groups to discuss their concerns; more than that I can't say. I'm not going to say that the ministry has one position and labour has another. There will be one government position in the end. There will be and has been discussion. If the views of farmers are supported by evidence -- rather than just comments made out of a fear of the unknown -- that aspects of the recommendations may have negative effects, then we will help to assess those.
H. De Jong: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I think the ministry and the government should realize that the farming industry is very competitive. With negotiations that have taken place in Geneva and other places, and with the subsidies that are provided in other provinces, we must be very careful not to put more demands on the farmer in British Columbia than are necessary. A free market economy is one thing, but to be driven by government policies that are contrary to competition can be very harmful. I cannot see the need for many of the recommendations of the Thompson report. I don't think it's going to do anything for the industry. It's not going to do anything for the province and certainly will lead to greater pressures to get agricultural land out of the ALR, and there would be a further march on the government to abolish the ALR in totality. I'm very supportive of the ALR from a general point of view. The agriculture community can at least operate within those areas and not be the subject of developers trying to buy up this land for speculation purposes, because that hasn't done any good to the industry in past years either. At the same time, I think the government has to be very careful if the agriculture industry is to survive within British Columbia, particularly when it applies to those recommendations in the Thompson report.
On another subject, we in the Abbotsford constituency lost an abattoir in the last six months due to a number of reasons. The meat inspection had an effect on that abattoir that doesn't happen in the non-government inspected areas within British Columbia. Could the minister perhaps expand on what is being done in order to make the playing field in British Columbia a little more level in terms of the inspections currently placed on those abattoirs that are inspected versus those that are not?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would need more details from the member. My understanding is that by and large the vast majority of meat sold in the province comes from inspected plants. The provincial Ministry of Health inspects some of these facilities. The federally inspected ones are done by Ag Canada, as you know. With respect to this particular case of whether or not it was competition from custom-killing operations, where people are supposed to be killing only those things that are consigned to them on a custom basis.... If that's the thing that has affected this particular abattoir, then I'd have to know the details.
H. De Jong: Well, it would be totally unfair to lay all the blame for closure of that abattoir on the Ministry of Agriculture. I recognize that it would be totally unfair to lay it all on the area of meat inspection, government inspection and so on. There was the problem with the New Zealand beef imports and a number of related issues, but they all add to a problem. Finally the people said, "This is enough," and they simply closed the doors. That has created and will create problems in the lower mainland. If the other one closes up as well, then there will be no place in the lower mainland for the killing of animals and, in particular, those of the dairy industry that are not prime meats but are still good for use in many products. So I think we have to be very conscientious of that fact.
On another subject, with the completion now of the negotiations in Geneva, it is my understanding that the Canadian supply management systems have really been abandoned, if I got that correct. There are a number of commodities, of course, that are under a Canadian supply management system -- not necessarily marketing boards. Perhaps that's where they should have been, but it was supply management. The farming industry has felt some level of comfort with that during the last 20 years. My question really is: how does the minister foresee supply management in British Columbia continuing in relation to the federal program? And if it is true that the national system has been thrown out the window, you might say, by the negotiations and those who were deciding on that, is it fair for this Canadian system to continue to lay penalties against overproduction in relation to this national system? For many years, particularly in the dairy industry, it's well known that we have never had a fair share in the national system to begin with, in terms of industrialized milk products. It would appear to me that the Canadian system still wants to penalize British Columbia if they indeed trespass that allowed amount on a farm-to-farm basis and still have the Milk Board collect the penalties for this Canadian system. As the Milk Board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture to some degree, I would like to have comments from the minister on that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it would be premature to say that the supply management system is gone. Certainly article
[ Page 11519 ]
11 under the GATT hasn't been strengthened and clarified in a way which would secure the future of supply management, so I think there is a threat. But I think the province of British Columbia conducted one of the strongest fights in favour of maintaining article 11. Our position didn't carry the day; nevertheless, tariffs are high. The tariffs that have been set will protect through tariffs rather than through quantitative import restrictions. That will give some comfort, I think.
What happens within the national supply management system is another matter. The task force on orderly marketing that is reviewing it right now will report to the Ministry of Agriculture in July, and hopefully by that time there will be some consensus in the industry on the future of supply management. That task force has been meeting very extensively. Based on the kinds of things I'm not hearing, they must be reasonably satisfied that they're getting engaged by the federal-provincial-industry process that's trying to sort out the future of orderly marketing and supply management.
When I talk to people like bankers and ask them if they are lending based on quota, there appears to be a fair degree of comfort that there is value to quota there and that the supply management system is reasonably secure. I realize we're going to go through a period of time here where we're not going to feel too certain about that.
My view is that we work with industry on trying to establish what life in our post-GATT agreement era is going to be, what the new trade rules mean and how we can maintain supply management. We think supply management is important not only to the self-sufficiency of the province but to regional development and the development of the agricultural industry. We feel there's a direct relationship between that system and the health of the industry.
We want to see B.C. get its fair and appropriate share of all national quotas, and industrial milk is only one of those. We continue to fight -- be it for eggs, chicken, milk or whatever -- for a system that would be adjustable, so that any province can maintain a very large degree of self-sufficiency in the products they produce for their own consumption.
R. Chisholm: I have to reiterate some comments made by the member for Abbotsford referring to the abattoir. In this province we've seen and talked about this overregulation and the problems we have. This is one ideal area you can look at. We have federal jurisdiction on export, we have provincial jurisdiction, we have municipal jurisdiction and we have regional district jurisdiction in some municipalities.
When we take a look at the bigger picture, meat that has not been inspected at all is slipping through the cracks. At the other end of the spectrum, we have overregulation to the degree that the industry is closing up, packing their bags and going elsewhere, because they're so overregulated they cannot carry on in their business.
[9:30]
If we just look at the provincial responsibilities in agriculture, the British Columbia Agriculture ministry has jurisdiction and the Health ministry has certain jurisdictions. Where does it all end? When you have a small business or an industry that is trying to survive in this very competitive market with this amount of regulation and inspection, the end result is that the abattoir isn't fully inspected in a lot of cases. Where does the industry go? What happens? Finally they get fed up and they leave. On top of that, I don't think the consumer has been done justice, because a certain percentage of the meat that arrives in the store, wherever that store may be, may not even have been inspected. I'm not saying this of the main chains but of some of the smaller outlets. There's no doubt about it. Take a look at what's being inspected up in Salmon Arm. Take a look at what's being inspected in different areas of this province. Hon. minister, this is one area that you could look at and possibly help rectify. The province has to take a leadership role here and needs to inspect all abattoirs, including those that come under municipalities and regional districts. It might help in this scenario. It might help with the issue of abattoirs closing up in Abbotsford or wherever. A little bit of leadership on the ministry's part could help this industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd just like to remind the member that my information is that 98 percent of all meat sold through retail outlets in B.C. is inspected; I don't know what accounts for the other 2 percent, whether it slips through or whatever. Anyway, Agriculture Canada has conducted a study on the overlap in the meat inspection system. I understand they're bringing forth some recommendations to try to consolidate any overlaps that might exist. You'd have to point to some specifics. I mean, just to assert that there are four jurisdictions involved.... They're all there for a reason. If they're all reasonably efficient, you don't always create an efficiency by having a larger organization. The idea that all meat inspection in British Columbia would be handled by one agency would presume that any meat that's exported could be inspected through a provincially regulated agency. I see problems with transferring all the authority to do that because the financial wherewithal may not necessarily be transferred with it. If that were to happen, perhaps you could come up with a better meat inspection system. However bad you might say it is, we still have one of the highest standards in the world and that gives us a marketing advantage. If our regulatory environment has brought that about, so be it. However, if things are slipping through the cracks, then we should deal with it. We can't protest more regulation because we've tightened it up so things don't slip through the cracks.
We have to zero in on what is unreasonable overlap of regulation, and then we can deal with it. Certainly this ministry could take more leadership on thousands of things. If someone were prepared to point out to me the problems associated with lack of coordination in meat inspection, then I'd be happy to try to show some leadership. We don't think it's a significant problem. There are some health problems, but I'm not sure that we're going to capture those in any one inspection system. Different agencies inspect for different things. I'm open to demonstration that there's a contradiction and unnecessary overlap. I would be happy to work with my federal or municipal colleagues to rationalize that whole meat inspection system.
R. Chisholm: I want to make one final comment. Is it 2 percent, 5 percent or 10 percent of meat that slips through the cracks? All it takes is one case of E. coli poisoning and it will be irrelevant how much slipped through the cracks. I'm suggesting to you that maybe the inspections are not being done adequately because of overlap and jurisdictional problems about authority and responsibility. Obviously, the industry is hurting because they're closing up and leaving town.
Taking note of the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:35 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]