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)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 13
[ Page 11935 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
L. Reid: With my colleague the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, I would like the House to join me in welcoming 70 grade 7 students from John T. Errington Elementary in Richmond. They are accompanied by Mr. Ross Lumb and Mr. Paul Petersen. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
D. Lovick: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, Mr. Flaherty, along with the director of the office of information and privacy, Ms. Lorrainne Dixon. I understand they are accompanied by some other people from the office, among whom is Ms. Cori Ross, who used to be a legislative intern with our caucus some years ago and has now gone on to bigger and better things in that very office. I hope my colleagues will join me in making them welcome.
E. Conroy: In the House today we have a representative of the city of Rossland and probably the best-kept secret in North America -- that being the ski resort of Red Mountain in the constituency of Rossland-Trail. Would the House please make Mr. Eric Skat-Petersen welcome to Victoria.
K. Jones: Visiting in the precincts today is a group of about 48 grade 3 and 4 students from Coyote Creek Elementary School in my riding. Their teachers Mr. Marcus Berndt and Mr. Alan Jones are accompanying them, along with 14 parents. Would the House make them truly welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Visiting with us in the gallery today is my constituency assistant from Kamloops, Laureen Youds. I would like the House to help me make her welcome.
JUNE 14 RIOT IN VANCOUVER
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Before I do I want to express my regret to members of the opposition for being unable to share this with them in advance, as is my normal custom, given the quickly developing events.
Hon. Speaker, the statement concerns the rioting in Vancouver last night. I'm rising today to advise the hon. members of the actions that I've taken following the tragic events that occurred last night in Vancouver. I'm sure that all members join with me in condemning the actions of those individuals who took part in the rioting and looting so graphically displayed on the television screens. We know that these disturbing events and scenes are unacceptable to British Columbians. The people of British Columbia need to learn how such events could unfold, where some individuals behaved with such disrespect and disregard for the laws and the law enforcement officials of this province and, indeed, for common decency. To ensure a swift and thorough examination of the matter, I have directed the B.C. Police Commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding last night's events, which will include the response of the police, and to report to me and the people of British Columbia as soon as possible.
J. Dalton: I, like many others, had the unfortunate experience of witnessing the events on television firsthand. I'm sure that many of us were witnesses to those events after the hockey game. I certainly agree with the Attorney General that it's a very regrettable experience. In fact, the hon. Speaker will recall that in the hallway this morning, he and I and my colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour were discussing similar events from the Grey Cup days of the fifties and sixties. It seems that we've learned very little from those experiences.
The official opposition welcomes the Attorney General's call for the Police Commission to investigate this most regrettable experience. I just hope that what comes out of the commission's investigation will cause us all to reflect upon the.... I was going to say demonstration, but clearly it was something far more than that. Hopefully, all of us will learn from our experiences.
We should also comment that the police did a commendable job in a very unfortunate circumstance. When we hear through the press or other sources that perhaps the Vancouver police should be criticized, I can assure you that we do not feel that way. No one wanted to be there, I'm sure, other than the ugly few who precipitated this. Again, it's unfortunate. We welcome the call for the commission to investigate it, and we look forward to the outcome.
J. Weisgerber: I too would like to join in recognizing, first of all, that the hooliganism we saw last night involved the actions of a very small group among the people who were out there. We're talking about the actions of a small group of people, who really spoiled what could have been a tremendously uplifting evening. Our B.C. Canucks played a marvellous series and a marvellous game, and it should have been finished on a very positive note. It's a tragedy, really, that a few people could spoil what could have been -- and what was -- a great evening for many, many people. I don't think we should accept the fact that it has been tarnished.
The police were in a very difficult position and, from what I've seen, acted in a very reasonable and responsible manner. The Reform caucus would like to extend our support to the police officers during what must be a very difficult time for them.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a matter?
D. Mitchell: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement as well.
Leave not granted.
F. Randall: By leave, I move that a bill entitled TD Trust Company Act, 1994, be introduced and now read a first time.
The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.
Some Hon. Members: Shame!
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, there seems to be some confusion on the question. This is fairly routine, but I will ask it again. The hon. member seeks leave to introduce a private member's bill. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
[ Page 11936 ]
TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1994
F. Randall presented a bill intituled TD Trust Company Act, 1994.
F. Randall: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of the trusteeship and agency business of Central Guaranty Trust Co. to TD Trust Co. On December 31, 1992, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries acquired substantially all the assets of Central Guaranty Trust Co. TD Trust Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of the bank, acquired Central Guaranty Trust's fiduciary business, subject to the condition that TD Trust be appointed as successor trustee to Central Guaranty Trust.
[2:15]
Without this act it would be necessary for each trust and estate previously administered by Central Guaranty Trust to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order appointing TD Trust as the successor trustee. This cost would be borne by the various trusts, the beneficiaries of which are mostly in British Columbia. Due to the number of trusts and estates involved, it would require an impractical and expensive series of court applications that could take up much court time. This type of act has been passed in similar situations in the past. It saves not only court time but also the resources of other government agencies such as the office of the public trustee and the various land offices. The bill removes Central Guaranty Trust and appoints TD Trust Co. as successor trustee for every trust, will, letters probate and similar instrument that is governed by British Columbia law, and it sets forth how various court proceedings and public records such as those in the land office are affected.
I would just say, hon. Speaker, that this is a private bill, and it would be reviewed by an all-party committee before it could be considered for second reading.
Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Jacques Carpentier, the man who blew the whistle on the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society affair, is alleging today that a massive cover-up is underway. The public of the province is calling this the greatest NDP scam ever invented. That alone should call for a full public inquiry to be launched by this government. Will the Premier, having had a week to ponder this sad and sorry affair in Nanaimo, finally do the right thing today and launch a full public inquiry in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The members opposite have made a number of allegations over the last few months. It turns out that the Attorney General was cleared by the special prosecutor, the Minister of Agriculture was cleared by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, and the freedom-of-information commissioner found that two other ministers did not participate in the breach of somebody's privacy. Hon. member, it's easy to make these allegations under the privilege of this House.
I have said that this matter, which is before the courts, will be heard at the end of this month. There will be a sentencing. There will be presentations on that sentencing of the society, and there will be an appeal period after that. That should be allowed to take its course. I've also asked that there be a full audit by an independent auditing firm to see if there was any connection between that society and the B.C. New Democrats. I think we should let those two processes proceed.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
W. Hurd: These are more than allegations. In the financial statements and tax returns filed by NCHS charities in 1987, they claim that over $600,000 was received in revenue and less than $20,000 went to charity purposes. The rest went into the black hole of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society debenture repayment, which has been listed on the balance sheets of the Nanaimo NDP. Mr. Speaker, a paper trail is clearly in place. In light of these and other backroom kickback deals launched by this discredited society in Nanaimo, surely the Premier cannot fail to call a full public inquiry. Why does he refuse to do so?
The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental.
W. Hurd: This scandal has now gone beyond the borders of the province of British Columbia. I have in my hands a copy of today's Edmonton Journal, which lambastes the NDP. Here's what they have to....
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
W. Hurd: The editorial says: "Under the 'I,' Idiots."
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question.
W. Hurd: It is getting to the point where people across this country are laughing at the province of British Columbia and this Premier.
The Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member....
W. Hurd: Will the Premier call a full public inquiry into this affair, which really is a black eye to the integrity of his government beyond the borders of the province of British Columbia?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.
Some Hon. Members: Nay, nay.
The Speaker: Hon. member, you've been recognized.
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS ON FISHING RESORTS
C. Tanner: Maybe I can ask those naysayers over there a question of their Premier. Many fishing resort owners who lease Crown land in B.C. may be driven out of business as a result of astronomical increases in their 1994 property tax assessments, some ranging as high as 500 percent. The Star Lake fishing resort, for example, has watched in horror as its leased-land assessments have risen from $14,700 last year to $53,600 this year. Why is the Premier bent on ensuring that B.C. fishing resort owners are driven out of business when hard-working British Columbians gainfully employed in the industry want to continue to fish for trout, not jobs?
[ Page 11937 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: While the hon. member was flipping his way through the sports pages reading stories about the Vancouver Canucks, I guess he stumbled across a story in theTimes-Colonist, ran off to his caucus and thought he had a question to ask this House. My advice to him is that he should have stayed with the story about the Vancouver Canucks and not focused on any other matters. In any event, I'm pleased to advise the hon. member that I have had occasion to meet with Mr. McMaster, who represents this organization -- as has the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the hon. member had taken a moment to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs or myself privately, he could have avoided the embarrassment which will now flow to him. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that in light of ourrepresentations, the B.C. Assessment Authority is now reviewing this matter so as to consider a reassessment of the lodges in question.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?
C. Tanner: My question is to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. If instead of giving facetious answers he would read Hansard, he would see that in my estimates I asked the minister, and she had no answer. In addition to increased assessments, the B.C. fishing resort industry has been slapped with much higher fees. Heffley Lake Resort, for example, watched its lease fees skyrocket from $1,700 last year to $6,200 this year. To add insult to injury, the B.C. fishing resort industry has also been informed that it is this government's intention to charge an annual fee of $500 to anybody who has a dock on leased Crown land.
The Speaker: Does the member have a question?
C. Tanner: How can the minister explain these increases when his government has promised that taxes will be frozen and no more taxes introduced? If these assessments and fees do not represent higher taxes, what do they represent?
Hon. M. Sihota: Did the hon. member refer to his estimates? I don't know what he's talking about as an opposition member. It's not surprising that the hon. member, who is consistently confused, would be confused today. In any event, the letter....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that there's a good reason why we have two ears and one mouth. If he'd just chill out for a moment, I'd be....
The Speaker: Will the hon. minister please answer the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: On May 13, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, wrote as follows:
"B.C. Assessment has commenced its review of fishing resort properties and advised BCFROA" -- if the hon. member doesn't know, that's the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters' Association -- "that it will take some time to complete the review of valuations and to determine whether the restrictions..."
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Chill out for a moment.
"...in lease documents have been properly taken into account in the values on the 1994 assessment roll. If there are any changes in value as a result of the review, these changes will be placed on a special supplementary assessment roll for 1994."
HOSPITAL FUNDING AND PACE OF NEW DIRECTIONS IMPLEMENTATION
L. Fox: My question today is for the Minister of Health. The Prince George hospital board has said that under-funding by the province is now at a crisis level. Does the minister agree with the board that the current funding levels pose a serious danger to health care services in the Prince George region?
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: So far, the New Directions strategy has only succeeded in driving up health care and wage costs, and in forcing health care services further from home. The so-called strategy is really a non-strategy that is literally moving too fast for our own health. Will the government now listen to the hospital boards and local communities and the people throughout British Columbia and put a freeze on the New Directions strategy?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Steering groups in communities around this province are working on the establishment of community health councils. That's true in Prince George, as it is in other communities. Municipal councillors, school board trustees and health professionals are working on those steering committees. I'm pleased to tell the House that to date some seven CHCs have been designated in the province, and I expect within the next couple of weeks we'll have another seven.
The Speaker: The member has another supplemental.
L. Fox: Severe financial constraint on that hospital in Prince George has caused the hospital to make a presentation to the municipality to look for financial help, because they can't count on this minister to come in and deal with the problems in the health service. Why doesn't this minister simply admit that he's moving too fast too soon? Why doesn't he halt the process until he can see that it will work in a pilot project?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The budget for Prince George Regional Hospital has increased a little over 1 percent this year. That's comparable to other hospitals in the province. We've asked hospitals very clearly to work with community groups to use the new $42 million Closer to Home fund, to make sure that hospital services are established and maintained and that, where possible, services are delivered on a clinic basis or in people's homes rather than requiring people to go to a hospital.
APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS
D. Symons: My question is to the Premier. We understand that since April 1, 1992, the cabinet has heard 138 appeals from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission. However, the Premier decided to seek outside legal counsel to determine the legality of the cabinet appeal process only after the 135th appeal, the Kimber Cabs application. My question is: will the Premier inform this House what motivated him to seek outside counsel after 134 other
[ Page 11938 ]
appeals? What facts about the Kimber Cabs affair gave this Premier heartburn?
[2:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again the opposition have made up a story. The story they've made up is that the Premier sought an outside legal opinion. The Premier did not seek a legal opinion.
The deputy minister to cabinet sought an opinion on the role of a minister in the appeal process, which this government wants to abolish along with all the other appeal processes to cabinet we have abolished. The deputy minister to the Premier, without talking with me, sought an opinion on the role of an individual cabinet minister who hears those appeals under the old process -- until we bring in the new one -- and whether the cabinet has any role in reviewing or in any way changing that minister's decision. Very clearly, the opinion came back that no, cabinet did not have any role whatsoever after that minister had heard that appeal. The appeal is to the Supreme Court, if the party feels wronged.
D. Symons: It seems that over the last week the story has changed as to who ordered this transcript. It seems that the Premier, or someone in his office or someone in the cabinet, was curious about the cabinet appeal process. Unfortunately, curiosity didn't kill Kimber Cabs. The Premier -- or somebody, since he's claiming he didn't -- ordered the transcript, read it and sought outside legal counsel as to whether the cabinet could overrule the Minister of Energy's decision. Could the Premier inform the House what specific concerns he or this other nebulous person had about Kimber Cabs' appeal to warrant all this attention? Why this one?
The Speaker: The member has a final supplemental?
D. Symons: Of the previous 134 appeals that came before cabinet prior to the Kimber Cabs appeal, I'm wondering how many times they asked for transcripts.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have never requested transcripts for any of the appeals to cabinet. I have been busy trying to bring in a law that would get rid of appeals. That new law -- a better way of dealing with those appeals -- was brought before this House during this session. I will explain once again what I explained last week: it was the deputy minister to cabinet who asked for a legal opinion, as I have just explained.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
I would like to clarify one matter for the members, regarding a parliamentary secretary attempting to be recognized to put a question. I would advise all hon. members that under our current practices, parliamentary secretaries do not have that privilege.
UTILITIES COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM B.C. HYDRO
Hon. G. Clark: Yesterday the member for Surrey-White Rock asked me a question about B.C. Hydro's contract to buy power from Alcan. I'd like to answer the question now.
It's a matter of public record that Alcan has demanded some $350 million from B.C. taxpayers to enrich a power supply contract signed with B.C. Hydro five years ago. It's also a matter of public record that if taxpayers do not pay another $350 million, the company is threatening to fulfil its contract delivery date in 1995 not by completing the KCP but by laying off hundreds of workers at the Kitimat smelter -- in effect, using workers' livelihoods in an attempt to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers. The member for Surrey-White Rock suggested that this government should act to provide a commercial advantage to a company that, for 40 years, has enjoyed the benefits of one of the most accommodating government deals in this province's history. For our part, this government will stand with the interests of taxpayers. The Liberals may well wish to stand -- as it appears they are -- with Alcan.
Hon. A. Edwards: Yesterday afternoon the member for Surrey-White Rock asked why an information request by the B.C. Utilities Commission had been declined by B.C. Hydro. In fact, the BCUC asked B.C. Hydro to update information that B.C. Hydro had previously provided on a long-term power contract between B.C. Hydro and Alcan. B.C. Hydro had some questions about that update and about how the information could be provided. They discussed these issues with the Utilities Commission. The BCUC panel that was hearing the issue yesterday morning in Prince George, before the question was asked in question period, said that this issue was resolved. The commission and B.C. Hydro have agreed to B.C. Hydro's provision of the requested information to the hearings. I'm pleased to have extracts of the transcript, which I will make available to the member for his information.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yesterday the member for Surrey-White Rock asked a question about information and about this government's public hearing on the Kemano completion project. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources indicated, B.C. Hydro has released that information to BCUC, and copies of yesterday's transcript are going to be given to the member.
The only information really missing at the hearings into the Kemano completion project is the position of the official opposition. Since the hearings began in November 1993, they have not made any presentations at any of the community or technical hearings, even though they've been held in several communities, including Vancouver, which is at least accessible to the member for Surrey-White Rock. In fact, the opposition doesn't seem interested in participating in these hearings at all, but instead is worried about the needs of Alcan.
On April 27, the member asked when the government would "bite the bullet and compensate Alcan." That portrays a very interesting perspective on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I'm sure the people of my region would be curious about the Liberal Party's interest in the needs of Alcan. To assist the member, I'm going to be tabling the tentative schedule of hearings set for Prince George and Kitimat, and we'll be keeping the member informed of the socioeconomic phase of these hearings.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the hon. members please come to order.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The leader of the Liberal Party has said: "You have to lay out very clearly a concrete program that the people can peruse." I hope this member will soon make his party's position very clear to the people of British Columbia.
Hon. P. Ramsey tabled documents referred to earlier.
[ Page 11939 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the annual report of the Agricultural Land Commission.
D. Mitchell: I rise under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite public importance.
The Speaker: Would the member please state the matter.
D. Mitchell: The matter is the riot which occurred in downtown Vancouver last night following the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs. I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has made a ministerial statement on this matter. I appreciate even more the paranoia of the official opposition in not allowing me to respond to that statement. Having said that, this standing order 35 application deals with the immediate consequences of last night's unfortunate incident in Vancouver, not with the substance of the Attorney General's announced review today.
British Columbians are very deeply frustrated by the events which occurred in downtown Vancouver last night. The behaviour of those hooligans responsible for the riot and damages to property and persons is completely unacceptable. Law-abiding citizens of our province want our justice system to apply the full force of the law to those who participated in last night's riot. Crown counsel and the Crown prosecutors operating within the Attorney General's ministry will be dealing with the numerous individuals who have been charged by the Vancouver city police as a result of last night's arrests. They must understand that the public and their elected representatives in this House have had enough of this kind of violent behaviour, and it will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form.
To conclude my statement, this is a very serious matter and can only be addressed by an immediate debate in this House. There is a definite need for our assembly to deal with this now as a matter of urgent public importance.
Hon. G. Clark: While I think all members of the House appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the member's concern in raising it, clearly the matter.... Prior to question period the Attorney General did make a ministerial statement, at which time he referred the matter to the appropriate statutory authority for a full and thorough review of the questions surrounding the unfortunate events of last evening. That appears to me and to the government to be the appropriate forum for the discussion of that question in a rational and dispassionate way, rather than taking advantage of standing order 35 for a political debate on the events of last evening.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: Joining us today -- I'm certain they are in wonder and amazement at how democracy works -- are 30 grade 7 students from Hudson Road Elementary School in Kelowna. They're accompanied by parents and by their teacher Mr. J. Holowchak. Would the House please make these people welcome.
The Speaker tabled the annual report of the office of the information and privacy commissioner, 1993-94.
Hon. G. Clark: To begin this afternoon, I'd like to call the summary of the Committee A deliberations on the Ministry of Education estimates, and thereafter the Ministry of Agriculture estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
L. Stephens: We need to make some changes to the education system in British Columbia today. I think we need to look at an additional three R's: reform, reality and results. We need to reform the system, and we need to....
Interjection.
L. Stephens: Yes, the third party should have come and spoken to this.
We need to look at the governance of education; we need to recognize the reality of a changing technological world with fiscal accountability; and we need to boost the results to graduate 100 percent of our students. We need to do this economically, efficiently and effectively. In British Columbia and Canada we are poised to take a piece of the action in the $600 billion environmental support industry. Our nation's research and development industry needs the inquiring minds that our schools can produce when people point education ministries in the right directions.
Parents want to co-educate their children and have the schools depend on them for direct support, not just for help on hot dog-days. We need a place of our own in the schools where parents can congregate and give each other support, advocate, be present on the playground and in the halls and help teachers in a positive way. Many British Columbia parents have given up on the public education system. Parents can't quantify the value of their children's reading, writing and problem-solving abilities; but they want to provide that child with the opportunities to get them -- often at the cost of extra fees, tutor wages, travelling and boarding.
Milestones along the way include directions to schools which emphasize the fine arts, those which incorporate multisensory methods of teaching, Montessori schools and schools that challenge the gifted, promote champion sports, team playing and sportsmanship and that mainstream the handicapped -- alternative schools that allow choice for students, parents and teachers.
We are fortunate to have had forward thinking in Langley a dozen years ago. Our schools today are decentralized and attempt to offer more choices to students and parents. For each parent who despairs about their own educational experience or that of their child, countless others cherish the thought of that particular teacher who was a mentor -- who turned around a life and sparked the earliest interest in eventual career goals.
A renowned American educator, Dr. George McKenna, during a visit to Langley in March, said: "Teachers should be improved or removed. Teachers with great skills are celebrated." As the principal of George Washington Preparatory High School in South Central Los Angeles, he developed and implemented a program stressing academic excellence at all levels. In four years, he successfully changed the inner city high school that had been torn by violence, low achievement and lack of community confidence into a school which now has an attendance waiting list and where nearly 80 percent of the graduates enrol in college.
[2:45]
[ Page 11940 ]
Charter schools are an innovative approach to restructuring education that has a potential to resolve many problems confronting education today, such as bureaucracies, high costs, low accountability and a sameness that satisfies few. According to Stephen Laughton from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the basic notion of charter schools is that government, through negotiated contracts, can grant the right to organize and manage schools to groups formed for that purpose. The contracts take the form of charters that specify the nature, operation and governance of the school. The core curriculum would include language, numeracy, national history and governance, with each province including its history.
In Manitoba, competency-based education is catching on, as traditional teaching methods give way to the concept that learning, not time, is the key variable. In New Brunswick the government has launched new pilot projects to explore the potential of competency-based education. The federal government sponsors some of the students, while industry sponsors others. The school calendar-year is far more flexible than in the regular schools, with the school operating six days a week year-round and with students entering and exiting programs on a monthly basis. The same programs are offered during the daytime and in the evenings.
It's clear that our system in British Columbia is dysfunctional. It doesn't work for students, teachers or parents. We must make the changes necessary to provide the most relevant education possible for our young people, to challenge and give a sense of accomplishment for our teachers, and to provide accountability for service and spending to our taxpayers. Some of the ways this government could make those changes happen are to exempt school facilities contracts from the fixed-wage policy and to cancel a $53 million shell company in the Kootenays. It all comes down to making the right choices and doing the right things right.
The Speaker: It's not exactly in order, but the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca for the third party.
L. Fox: I apologize for not being prepared to stand up and take the first spot in replying to the estimates.
I found the estimates were rather a new and unique process this year compared to the previous two years -- at least the estimates I took part in -- in that in the previous two years it appeared that we spent a lot of time talking about Year 2000 initiatives and how the educational process was changing. It was with some comfort that this time around in the estimates I found that we were talking about back-to-the-basics initiatives.
The new initiatives to the alternative school -- new at least in terms of public awareness but obviously not new to many school districts around the province that had taken some initiatives over the course of the last 15 years to identify similar schools in other school districts.... I found it refreshing that the minister, during the course of the debates on the alternative school, indeed was supportive of that possibility and that opportunity for school districts around British Columbia. That is very heartwarming and welcome, coming from the minister.
The issue around capital projects is something near and dear to my heart and to the hearts of northerners, because the perception out there is that northern school districts are not achieving the same kind of priority in new school buildings that is being achieved in the southern part of the province -- recognizing, of course, that there is overall negative student growth in the northern part of the province. Obviously there is very high growth in the student population in the southern part of the province. We can understand, to a degree at least, the philosophy of approval today for new schools that is based on new seats required rather than replacement seats as a number one priority. In fairness, it wouldn't matter what party was in power -- that kind of policy would have to be fairly consistent.
All in all, I found the exercise to be a rather warm and comforting one -- not that we agreed on all issues, but we did identify some common concerns within the education system and had some common thoughts on how we might improve the education system to meet the needs of the students today.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the objective of all of us in this House -- certainly all who participated in the estimates process -- was clear: to maintain a publicly funded, publicly administered education system. To do that, we have four challenges to meet, and various aspects of those challenges were canvassed by all during the estimates. Those challenges are quality, relevance and accountability in our education system and, finally, cost control. With respect to all of those issues, I am pleased to say that this government is taking action, and much discussion during the estimates related to those actions.
With respect to quality, in the paper issued in November on improving education in British Columbia, the issues of emphasizing the basics and the new basics were covered, some additional structure was introduced, and some raising of standards was introduced in an evolutionary way.
With respect to relevance, the entire Skills Now program has been widely received and widely praised across the province for turning the system a little more toward the applied side from the theoretical. That is not to say a lesser side versus a higher side in terms of learning; it is a different learning, with equally high, or higher, rigour required. The introduction of current technology into our schools is essential. That relates, as well, to relevance. If we address the relevance issue it will address the needs of many of our young men and women who currently find our system less than fully relevant to their world and to their job needs, as they see them.
On accountability, we have increased accountability to parents through reforming and modifying the reporting system to parents: plain language; the reintroduction of letter grades or the maintenance of letter grades in the intermediate levels; and increasing the process of accreditation, extending it to all of our schools -- primary schools included -- which is accountability to our communities. I have also increased accountability with respect to special needs and aboriginal children by targeting certain funds in the block this year. Also with respect to aboriginal students, I was pleased to visit a number of aboriginal schools around the province: public schools, independent schools operated by aboriginal people, and band schools. The framework agreement signed between the government and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs points in a good direction for development of a cooperative approach in signing local education agreements. Many of those agreements are in place already. That is an issue of accountability to our aboriginal people.
With respect to costs, through the introduction of targeting a cap on administrative costs in the fiscal frame-work, this government has sent a strong signal to the system that we are serious about reducing administrative costs. Yet we realize that administration and management play a valuable and necessary function in education. So without wanting to at all jeopardize the quality of administration, we
[ Page 11941 ]
have to look at different models to deliver that at a lesser cost.
With respect to other costs in the system, we have introduced provincewide bargaining. Negotiations will now proceed at a different table, with the employers' association on one hand and the union on the other, and with the long-term view that the containment of costs is an objective.
On the capital side, these are very fiscally trying times, yet over the past three years this government has lived up to its commitment to education and health care. We have committed approximately $1.3 billion in cash out the door on high school and primary-elementary school projects.
This year an envelope of about $340 million has been announced, with a heavy emphasis on meeting requirements where there is exceptional enrolment pressure. I'm sure the opposition members will know that we have been under extreme pressure, both from the opposition and from the media, to contain the total borrowings of government. We're aware of that; we have a duty to cost-control. At the same time, we have 12,000 to 14,000 additional students turning up at the doors of our schools every year, and we must meet the needs of those students; there must be a place for them. The $340 million that we are committing to in the capital envelope this year will provide some 12,000 to 13,000 additional spaces a year or two down the line.
Since assuming responsibility for this portfolio, I have made it a practice to get out into the field as much as possible. I'd like to report that I have been in perhaps 30 or 35 districts, and I have toured 120 or 130 schools. I have met with parent advisory councils and boards in virtually every district and with representatives of unions in each district. But most importantly, I have gone into three, four, sometimes half a dozen classrooms in each of the schools that I have visited. I told the students that I was there primarily to listen and have them tell me what they have learned about the system and how it might be changed. At the grade 8 level and up, and particularly at the senior secondary level, I asked for their advice based on their many years of experience in the system. As they approach the point in their lives where they have to make some serious decisions about entering either the world of work or of post-secondary education, I asked them to tell me what parts of the system might be improved. I have heard many intelligent and well-educated young men and women on that subject.
We have a good education system that can be made better and more relevant. The quality can be improved. But we should not leave this debate without recognizing that we have tens of thousands of dedicated support staff, teachers, administrators at all levels and members of the community who have willingly come forward to serve as trustees on behalf of the province. I want to commend them on that activity. Through the media we hear about the negative aspects of our schools; there are also tens of thousands of success stories to be told every year.
In closing, I would like to thank the members for Langley and Prince George-Omineca, the Education critics for the opposition party and the third party respectively, for the comments that they made and for keeping the debate orderly and positive.
The Speaker: Just before recognizing the Government House Leader, I'd like to say to the House that the Chair neglected to bring back a ruling with respect to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi's resolution. I will do so.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to introduce to the House some constituents of mine from that great constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway: 22 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Perreault. I would ask all members to make them welcome today.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
L. Hanson: The Agriculture estimates went as we had expected them to go. I don't think there was any question of the sincerity of the minister in the answers he gave to the questions posed by various members. There is no question that there is a huge dedication -- almost fanatical -- by this government to the Agricultural Land Commission, and that the biggest difficulty with the Land Commission and the freezing of land is that with the restrictions on the ability of what they can do with their land, the farming industry has great difficulty making their operations profitable.
[3:00]
The estimates showed that the priorities of the government are in other areas, and that the dedication to assistance to the farming community is not as important to government as some other priorities. But I think the minister is sincere. Unfortunately, the funding doesn't allow him to assist the farming community as it should be assisted. If the minister doubts those words, he has but to listen to various organizations in the farming community -- particularly those in the Okanagan fruit industry -- about their difficulties.
The estimates went well. I appreciate the appropriate answers the minister provided to questions we had, even though we don't necessarily support many of the withdrawals and the programs that have been discontinued. I would like to thank the minister for his participation. Other than those concerns, the estimates went well.
R. Chisholm: The estimates did go well. I have to second what the Reform member said. There was a good exchange of views on products and on markets such as the cruise ships and new marketing techniques for salmon. But I have to wonder what priority agriculture, fisheries and food have with this government, considering this is a $13 billion retail sales industry. It has approximately 211,000 employees, a $12.5 billion infrastructure without any retail outlets such as stores, and $2.5 billion in sales annually; yet this particular ministry was not even mentioned in the throne speech or the budget speech. This ministry has seen decreasing amounts of money directed its way to assist it to develop and employ more people, every year; not only with this government but with former governments as well.
One thing about this industry is that it is going to survive no matter what this or any other government does, because of the nature of the farmer himself. The farmers have problems such as CORE and aboriginal land claims, and these were brought up in estimates. There is very little participation or communication. What is happening to the farmer, the farms and the land base is almost secretive.
We are having problems with international trade negotiations, such as with Pacific salmon and GATT. Some of these are in federal jurisdictions, but of course there is overlapping responsibility with the province, and the
[ Page 11942 ]
province has a responsibility to direct their comments towards the federal members so that they take care of the problem.
We have anti-dumping problems with the tree fruit growers and with value-added industries, such as the frozen-food industry. There are other areas we have problems with, and some of them are produced by this government itself. For instance, there's a definite lack of consultation with the cattlemen about the protected areas strategy. The cattlemen have a big industry -- $700 million -- yet they are not even consulted about what's happening with their grazing lands. They turn in reports, and nobody responds to them. The government has got to straighten up its act on that one.
The member of the Reform Party mentioned the ALR. It is a problem, because the ALR was brought in with the assumption that the farmers would opt to get into the ALR and the government would help support the farmers and ensure that farming was viable in this province. These are very good principles. I definitely have to agree with the ALR itself, but there is a lack of support for the farmer. Support programs such as FII and SIMA have been cancelled. Now the farmers feel like they are not being supported by the government.
We have had problems between ministries. I think this is the biggest problem that agriculture has. For instance, wherever you turn, the Ministry of Environment is affecting fisheries and agriculture, yet there's no consultation between ministries. The Ministry of Health has a certain jurisdiction, but again there's no consultation between the two and there seems to be a lot of antagonism. This is one area that government can help by having consultation and making sure that everybody knows what the responsibilities are and whom they are toward.
I would say that we have a definite problem in research and development. This comes down to the amount of money that is directed toward agriculture. Research and development is a big criterion for agriculture; it will produce new products, whether in the marketing end or in the primary sector. I think this is one area where this government can really do a lot of good.
We have to make agriculture very acceptable and attractive to young people of this province so that they get into agriculture. Right now, the cost of getting into agriculture is astronomical. Young people cannot afford to get in.
Another area I'd like to see this government get involved in is education in agriculture. We are into education in agriculture in a minor way, but I think we need to get into it in a major way in this province, such as by having an agricultural college. Agriculture is a very technologically advanced industry; people no longer go along and throw some seed into the ground. We have to have the capability to teach our young people. This is an area where I think this government could help out. They would be very remiss if they did not.
The Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted for his report has concluded.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like to thank members of the opposition, the critics in particular, for being steadfast in bringing every single problem they could think of to my attention and asking for a response. It gave me cause for concern on some items.
I think it comes down to the fact that we have an irony in British Columbia: the industry is in good shape relative to other provinces and other countries, yet we have trouble getting the confidence of our young people. It probably speaks to what happens periodically in primary resource industries, where the industry is going through dramatic changes.
I'm pleased to say that I'm convinced that the $80 million this ministry spends is well spent. It's spent in the interests of the farmers, the farming community in the province and the people of British Columbia to ensure food security, both in terms of having enough food for our needs and having good-quality food. We produce food here that is second to none, thanks in part to some of our health regulations -- regulations that are not a product of my ministry.
I'd like to thank the constructive approach that was taken by the opposition parties. I don't think there were any surprises in the arguments around the agricultural land reserve. But when the charge comes that there's a lack of consultation, I'd like to say that since I've been in this ministry, I have insisted on consultations between my ministry and the client groups. Other ministries sometimes do a job imperfectly, and there's no perfection in the consultation process. But I have to say that in any of those areas where a weakness has been identified, I and my executive have taken special pains to get involved. I can point to a number of what I think are clear victories in terms of getting better interdepartmental cooperation and consultation.
I mentioned the cattle drive regulations that are there to protect the people who are driving on the roads and the people driving the cattle. Smoke regulations are much improved from the original draft. With respect to the complaints about involvement around the protected areas strategy, we have never before seen the involvement of the stakeholders in as meaningful a way as it has been around the CORE processes, where that sector had a strong voice and direct input into land use planning.
There may be fears, but I suggest that they're overreacting and that this minister and this ministry have taken pains to ensure the information is available to government on those concerns. Wherever there is a table that our people in the field have entered, I can say that agriculture interests have been built into the zoning and the land uses that have been recommended. That's happened wherever parks have been recommended and in fact created. So all the evidence isn't in yet, but I think it's fair to say that when the fight is over and the dust has settled, the farmers will be able to relax in this province. They won't get exactly everything they want everywhere, but I think they'll find that they have been heard.
I would like to remind this House that the financial position of the industry has improved over the last years. Farm cash receipts have gone up, reaching a record level of $1.5 billion in '93, and the estimated net income in 1993 was over $425 million, up 40 percent from 1992. Overall debt levels have declined dramatically in the last decade, and bankruptcies are at a record low. The average equity levels are very respectable at 87 percent. I don't know whether industries.... Certainly no other provinces can boast that equity level in the agriculture sector, which means low debt, of course. Net farm income as a proportion of cash receipts is approaching 30 percent, again the highest in the country.
Our seafood industry, too, is substantial. Most people don't realize that, but the harvest has averaged more than half a billion dollars over the past five years. In 1993 the wholesale value of B.C. seafood products was well over $1 billion -- the highest in history, and an increase of $100 million over 1992. We have some 25,000 jobs in the commercial seafood industry. Seafood represents British
[ Page 11943 ]
Columbia's number one food export, worth $702 million per year. The food processing industry employs over 19,000 people and generates gross sales of $4.5 billion, making it the third-largest goods-producing industry in the province.
There are opportunities for growth in agriculture, in fisheries and in the food industries. It is our estimate that the industry is efficient, it's innovative and it has a tremendous base of talent that can now be turned to tapping world markets. However, we also agree that the industry is facing some real challenges. Some of those are outside our control: changing trade rules, changing consumer tastes, and innovations introduced by our competitors. In the estimates, we talked about the shift to whole-farm safety net programs, which is a matter that needs to be resolved between the provinces and the federal government.
At the same time as facing these new economic challenges, the industry is facing new public demands with respect to waste management, food production practices and rural-urban conflicts. The changes faced by industry in recent years have been tremendous, and continued industry success is a real accomplishment. Now industry is better equipped to deal with future change as a result of these experiences. Ultimately, perhaps the most important need we have is to work with the industry to ensure the economic stability of rural families in those communities that depend on them.
We must preserve agricultural land for future generations. I don't think there's any disagreement on that in this House. The government is committed, as has been said, to the land reserve. We've added resources to the commission this year, which will cut the turnaround time for applicants so that people know where they stand with respect to wanting to subdivide within the ALR or to take land out of it. We must continue to educate future generations of farmers and to provide today's farmers with opportunities for the ongoing upgrading of their knowledge and skills. We want to make sure that agriculture is understood within government and our broader society. I continue to work hard on these issues, and so does my ministry.
[3:15]
I'd like to mention the Buy B.C. program, because that is a clear case where we're working very closely with industry to ensure that there's an increase in the awareness of B.C. food and beverage products and an increase in the loyalty for them. I noted in my presentation that the program has been an unqualified success. It has received an unprecedented level of retailer support, with food retailers distributing 2.5 million Buy B.C. brochures. Retailers have cooperated by putting strips on the shelves, so that people who want to buy B.C. products know how to do that. They've also included the program logo in much of their flyer advertising, and 80 companies are now using the Buy B.C. logo to promote their own products. Under the partnership part of the program, commodity groups have approved projects, and there are pending projects as well. Taken together, they will account for products that represent 70 percent of all farm and fish cash receipts in British Columbia.
The Speaker: I must advise the hon. minister that the time allotted for reports has expired.
Hon. D. Miller: In Committee of Supply, Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the main House, I call second reading of Bill 43.
FISHING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
Hon. D. Miller: As I stated in my introductory remarks, Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, in its simplest form, provides access to the Labour Code for individuals in the fishing industry who currently have agreements. There is a long history in British Columbia of bargaining between, essentially, two groups. There are more than two, but let me use two for illustrative purposes: between the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and the processing companies, and between the Native Brotherhood of B.C. and the processing companies. Other bargaining has taken place. For example, it has taken place at the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association, with the union that represented the fishers in that particular operation, but that had a slight twist from the others. Nonetheless, for illustrative purposes.... People familiar with the issue know that there is a long history of bargaining agreements in British Columbia between the employers and employees.
This bill flowed from a recommendation from the so-called three wise men -- Vince Ready, John Baigent and Tom Roper -- who conducted the hearings on the....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I think they actually were quite wise, given the end product, which was debated fully in this House. It has certainly proven to be a good labour code, and it appears to be doing the job.
Nonetheless, one of the recommendations they made is that fishers be brought into, or be provided access to, the Labour Code. In recognizing the complexities of the fishing industry, in that it has some uniqueness about it, the decision was that that would not be embodied in the Labour Code. It would be accomplished, first of all, through some consultation -- and in that respect we employed Stephen Kelleher, a respected mediator in this province, to consult with the industry -- and secondly it would be housed in its own act. Therefore the notion of access is fundamental to the bill, because on the one side we've got the body of labour law -- the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia -- and beside it another bill that allows fishers, or those in that position, to access provisions of the code. No doubt, we'll get into some more detailed debate with respect to that in committee.
I also mention -- and I think it's worth repeating -- that this is an issue that has been discussed for many years in Canada, at various times ending up in the courts with various decisions. What ultimately determined the issue was a court case in Ontario that said the jurisdiction to deal with these issues of access to the code rests at the provincial level. For years there has been a back-and-forth debate -- it's federal; it's provincial -- and no one would make a decision. Finally, a court made the decision for us. Given those events, and given the report of the three wise men, this is the logical conclusion that would allow fishers access to the code.
Just briefly, these are some salient issues with respect to the bill. The definition of employer has been expanded to include a person who purchases fish, since this is one of the key factors for employers in the fishing industry. The definition of lockout under the Labour Code has also been expanded in this legislation to include a refusal to purchase fish if that refusal is directed towards enforcing demands on a trade union during collective bargaining. The definition of a strike is also expanded to include a refusal to fish or sell fish only when this action is directed towards a collective bargaining purpose.
[ Page 11944 ]
Our intent is that almost all aspects and provisions of the Labour Relations Code would apply to the commercial fishing industry, unless they are inconsistent with the provisions of this act. As I indicated, there is a long history of negotiation in this industry in British Columbia. The act would recognize those contracts that have been entered into on a voluntary basis. In other words, with the passage of this bill, provisions of those contracts, or disputes that might arise about provisions in those current contracts or collective agreements, can be referred to the dispute settlement mechanisms available through the Labour Relations Board.
Nothing in the act compels the parties to change current practice. I should also say that we have not, in any sense of the word, forced unionization on those who do not want to be unionized in the fishing industry. There are obviously issues about what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit. Those issues are determined by the board. As the act indicates, they will be determined, bearing in mind the kind of bargaining practices that have been historic in this province.
I really don't wish to belabour it. With respect to the individual sections, we can get into a more detailed debate in committee. I did have some meetings subsequent to the initial tabling of the bill, and my staff have had some meetings with some of the interested parties. In fact, there's one taking place today, or it may have concluded by now. Concern has been expressed from various quarters in the industry. Members may know that quite a number of associations represent different gear types in British Columbia. The legislation was not well understood. As I indicated previously, I think there was a fear that this bill would force unionization. It will not. It is not a bill that should cause any disruption in current relationships that exist in the fishing industry. It is simply providing those working men and women in the fishing industry, who in some cases are represented by a trade union.... For the first time in the history of this province, it is saying that we recognize their position to be legitimate and, like all other workers who have organized and negotiated collective agreements, that those workers will have the right of access to the provisions of the code that may apply and, presumably in most instances, to dispute settlement.
In that respect, there are no new principles here. We're simply extending the principles contained in the Labour Relations Code, and indeed, the principles that were contained in the previous government's labour legislation -- that we, as a society, recognize people's fundamental right to come together to organize. We have not, in this bill, provided automatic certification. Certification will only come through the normal procedures that exist for any other group of workers. A majority of people have to sign up. The appropriate bargaining unit has to be determined. There's nothing new in that respect; it is simply providing that access.
Nor should it disrupt some of the other very fine processes that are taking place in this province. I've previously praised the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for that ministry's renewed interest in the commercial fishery. It is a significant industry in this province. It does generate about $1 billion in gross domestic product. It employs thousands of men and women, many of those being people in my constituency who otherwise would not be able to find employment. It is a very important industry, and the minister has assembled a task force with key stakeholders representing a cross-section of the people involved in the industry. When I talk to them on an individual or collective basis, they all tell me that the task force, in their view, is making significant progress in terms of how -- as with other resources in this province -- we can obtain more value.
We've lost some of our traditional fresh-fish markets because of the increased worldwide availability of farmed fish. It's important that we do all that we can collectively -- as with the model we've used in forestry and other sectors -- to enhance the values we obtain from the resource and to enhance the opportunities for employment and further development of the economy of this province. That process is ongoing, and I've assured those members of the task force whom I've talked to that this bill should not in any way disrupt that process. The members of the various sectors, as those of us on the coast know, can quite often end up fighting each other more than they agree. But I'm very pleased that they have really come together around some common issues.
With those words, I will take my place and listen with interest to my critic's comments. I would move that Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, be read for a second time.
G. Farrell-Collins: Before starting an in-depth comment on Bill 43 and the attached bill, the infamous Bill 84, I'd first like to thank those members of the fishing community on both sides of the issue -- if I can put it that way -- who took the time to meet with me and answer my questions. I also appreciate the couple of times when the minister made accommodation for those meetings to take place before calling this bill for second reading. It certainly leads to a better, more informed debate on both sides of the House, and allows us to bring some of the concerns we hear once individuals and organizations have had a chance to actually look at the legislation as it lands on their desk.
I found that a good number, indeed on both sides of the issue -- what will end up being the employer side and the employee side -- had not seen or read the bill yet and did not really know what the implications of it were going to be. So I expect we will spend some time in committee stage looking through this bill in some detail, trying to ferret out exactly what the intention of the government and the minister is in the various provisions in this piece of legislation.
Having read Mr. Kelleher's report several times and compared it to this legislation, I must say that in many ways this bill does reflect Mr. Kelleher's recommendations. But from day one -- going all the way back to 1991, if I may, into the spring of 1992 and the subsequent debate on Bill 84 -- this government has taken an approach to labour relations that's not necessarily in the best interests of economic development or, indeed, to the long-term benefit of workers in the province, particularly as we end up in this case with Bill 43.
The three wise men, as the minister called them, are well respected for their work in the labour relations field. But as we all find out, sometimes things in the ideal stage don't transform into the practical stage of the application of a piece of legislation as well as we would like them to. Certainly I think that's been the case with Bill 84. There have been, I think, some major glitches and numerous minor ones with the legislation.
The labour disruptions in the education system we saw last spring were a profound disappointment to all British Columbians. The need, and indeed the demands, for education to be made an essential service were widely heard throughout the province at that time. But it seems they fell on deaf ears with the former Minister of Labour, particularly with regard to the numerous rulings he went through from the Labour Relations Board. He was told time and time again that education could and probably should be made an
[ Page 11945 ]
essential service. Yet he refused to act on those findings of his own appointed Labour Relations Board and managed to skate -- rather artfully, I would say -- around the issue for a period of time, until he ran into the brick wall and had to call this House and do something that I think all governments of all political stripes find distasteful, and that's order people back to work. But it needed to be done.
That was a fundamental failure of the Labour Relations Code, of perhaps the consultative process that went on in developing it, and indeed of the drafting of the legislation and of the way that legislation was brought before this House. Time has proven that changes to and problems with the code -- among others perhaps not as large but certainly at least as significant -- have made the wisdom of those three wise men, in the process brought forward by the minister, less and less unanimous around the province.
[3:30]
What we've seen with the development of Bill 43.... It's worth taking a minute to go back and look at how we arrived here. The three wise men who dealt with the Labour Relations Code made a recommendation that fishermen in British Columbia be guaranteed the right to bargain collectively. That's really a right that all workers should have, perhaps in different forms and with different bargaining structures, but it's certainly a right that I think we in this House -- members of all political stripes -- believe in and want to see continue. That's a fine direction, but it's a very general direction.
Indeed, they suggested that the government look at that issue in some greater detail. My understanding is that the government did that by appointing Stephen Kelleher to head an inquiry under the Labour Relations Code to look into the fishing industry and make recommendations on how those bargaining rights would accrue to the fishers of British Columbia. That took place. The hearing process was fairly narrow and constrictive, but the report itself was a long time in coming. It finally did come earlier this year, and those changes were brought out and transformed into Bill 43.
In looking at Bill 43, what we've seen in the series of recommendations that were made, first of all, by the three wise men, is that fishers be allowed collective bargaining rights -- a very general, open recommendation. This was then transformed into the recommendations of Mr. Kelleher, who looked at it and said: "Okay, I've got to give collective bargaining rights. How do I do it?" From reading the introduction to his report, I think it became quite clear to him, in talking to people who testified before him and offered advice, that his job was to give collective bargaining rights as prescribed by the Labour Relations Code -- to put that model onto the fishery industry in British Columbia and do whatever rejigging or tuning needed to be done in order to have that much larger code and historical structure imposed on the fishing industry. His job was to try and fit those two units together, if you like -- almost like fitting a starter from a Nissan into a Chevy truck. It's not any easy thing to do; you have to drill a lot of extra holes, put some wire on, and patch it together to try and make them fit. I think that's what he's done. The transformation of his report into legislation was fairly accurate in that the recommendations he made transposed themselves into the legislation fairly closely.
In looking at the bill and in talking to people on both the labour and the employer side, it became quite clear that there was a lack of clarity in the way the government was trying to move here, through no fault of their own. They were unclear as to what extent Bill 84 was going to apply to the code. In talking to the people in the industry -- the fishers, the employers and their associations, and a number of labour lawyers -- it was unclear to me to what extent Bill 84 was going to apply to the fishing industry. The minister cleared that up for us in his opening statements when he said that almost all aspects of Bill 84 would now apply to the fishing industry and would only be changed where the two were in conflict, which is outlined by this act. Compared to Bill 84, it is a relatively small act in terms of numbers of sections and extent of coverage.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I will be discussing it again when we reach committee stage, but in section 3 -- after the definitions section and the application section -- it talks about the application of the Labour Relations Code. To introduce my comments on that, I would like to read that section. Mind you, we will be looking at it in greater detail later. It says: "The Code and the regulations under it" -- that's the Labour Relations Code -- "apply in respect of the matters to which this Act applies" -- the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act -- "but if there is a conflict or inconsistency between this Act and the Code, this Act applies." The first part of that section is what's important. It says: "The Code and the regulations under it apply in respect of the matters to which this Act applies...."
The question to the minister -- which we will come back later to, but I'd like to issue a warning now that there may be some concern there -- is whether that clause is a restrictive clause or an expansive clause. Does that mean that all of Bill 84 applies to the fishing industry with the exception of where this code differs from the Labour Relations Code, or does that mean that the Labour Relations Code only applies with those handpicked sections that would correspond to those sections which exist in Bill 43? I see the minister thinking about that, and I assume he could clarify that a little bit when he sums up the debate. I know we will get into it more in committee stage.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's the grinding noises and the smoke coming out of your ears, hon. minister, that lead me to that conclusion. I know that happens to many of us.
I want to explore that more in committee stage, and I know the minister will respond when he wraps up debate on second reading.
The question is: is it a restrictive or very narrow interpretation, or is it an expansive or very broadinterpretation? If it's expansive, the minister and I are going to have major disagreements over what he's trying to do, because I think he is going to be making a very large mistake. I don't think the people in the fishing industry -- either the associations or the individuals on what we would call the employer side, or those people on the employee side or the union side -- were looking for that. I don't think they are looking for successorship rights, because it doesn't really fit with a very complex system of the sale of boats back and forth and the fact that the crew tends to move with the skipper in many cases.
When you move into the aboriginal fishery, it's very common for families to move -- not just the aboriginal fishery, but certainly I would say more so -- with each vessel as the business expands and becomes more and more successful, which is always the trend we hope for. The skipper may purchase a new boat, a better boat, a larger boat, different equipment or better equipment, and some of that equipment is very expensive. What happens is that the crew goes along with it. But now, when that skipper has to turn
[ Page 11946 ]
around and sell that boat, under the successorship provisions of Bill 84, the certification not only attaches itself to the skipper -- or to the owner or to the business, if you want to put it that way -- but it also attaches itself to the physical plant of that boat. So now the skipper may find it more difficult to sell the boat and may find that the value of his boat is less on the open market than an identical boat with exactly the same equipment, the same year, the same quality and the same condition, because his comes along with a certification ticket and the other one doesn't.
I don't think that's what the minister intended. I hope that's not what the minister intended, because this would cause great disruption in the fishing industry over the long term as they try to deal with it. In my meetings with representatives of both the employers' and employees' associations, neither side saw that as something they were trying to do. They saw that as disruptive. If that's not the intent of the minister, then we need to make it clear, either with the minister's explanations, amendments to the code or some explanation with regard to the restrictiveness or the expansiveness of section 3, which relates to the overall nature of Bill 84 and how it ties in with the fishing industry.
There are a few other things that would cause major problems in the fishing industry if they were transposed or brought into the industry from Bill 84. They include secondary boycotts. What you're going to find is that if you have a large packing plant that's certified under one union or another, as part of their bargaining process those employees could easily throw on the table that they only want fish bought from union boats. That's certainly within the parameters of what we know as a secondary boycott and what's included in Bill 84. That could become part of their bargaining position. Given the right economic conditions, the owner of that packing plant may be willing, because of the economic pressure and leverage that takes place in collective bargaining, to accede to that demand and include it in the collective agreement. That's certainly happened in other jurisdictions.
I know members of the New Democratic caucus feel that it's an appropriate thing for an employer and group of employees to freely decide among themselves. If you look at it in that narrow frame, I don't think anybody would disagree with it. The problem is that it forces the employer to only purchase fish from union boats, which means that employees of those boats are now encouraged -- encouraged is perhaps mild; forced is stronger; maybe not strong enough, maybe too strong, I don't know -- if not forced to join a trade union, any trade union or perhaps the same trade union as the processors, depending on the clause in the master agreement, whether it's of their free will or not. There's economic pressure being put on individuals who now are no longer able to freely decide -- and freely is the key word -- (a) whether or not they wish to be represented by a trade union, or (b) which trade union they wish to be represented by.
I think that's unfortunate. One of the key points the minister made -- and he paused for a second to add emphasis to his comment -- was that this bill is not designed to force unionization upon workers. I take the minister at his word on that. If that's the case, it's important and incumbent upon the minister to make it clear that the secondary boycott provisions are not something that can easily be transposed onto the fishing industry. We should try to recognize that. I don't believe that's something either side in the industry -- the owners' associations or the owners in whatever form and the employees in whatever form, whether union or not -- is looking for. I don't know if the minister asked that question of them. The people I talked to didn't even seem to be aware of that provision or that it was something they should be looking at.
One other area that I think we need to look at is that of replacement workers. The minister and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of whether or not replacement workers should be allowed in this province. We've gone through that argument as it relates to Bill 84. The government knows where I stand, and I know where it stands, so I don't want to revisit that whole debate. Of course, I think I'm right, but I'm sure they think they're right. That's just the way it goes.
[3:45]
That provision holds a lot of unknowns for the fishing industry. Any time you have a ban on replacement workers, you have a total shutdown of the industry when there's a strike. That's the way it goes. Some jurisdictions have chosen to go that way, and others haven't. In the fishing industry, you can end up with a very small opening for some fish. Sometimes it's a five-minute opening for herring, for example; it lasts all of five minutes. You can't have a strike for half of that opening and not for the other half. If you're struck, you're struck, and you're going to lose that window of opportunity for that year. That is very expensive and may mean the loss of boats. It will certainly mean the loss of jobs and incomes for fishers, as well as the loss of homes, automobiles and, in many cases, the breakup of families. That's what happens when that type of severe financial impact is felt by communities, industries and individuals.
That puts economic pressure on both sides -- the union and the employer -- to settle. I don't know who's going to have the bigger club when it comes time to do that. All sorts of little games will be played. I hope that in the end we will never have a strike in the middle of a season, but it has certainly happened before. I think in 1990 or '91 -- I can't recall -- there was a strike, and one of the fisheries was shut down. Despite the fact that the union recommended settlement, the employees decided they were not going back. They continued with the strike, and they lost the whole season.
It's interesting to note one of the peculiarities of the fishing industry in British Columbia, and that is that there are a whole series of fisheries: salmon, halibut, gill-netters, herring. There are a whole bunch of season openings all along. They're essentially divided into four groups. In talking to some people.... There are some other sections in here where that continues, and I will be bringing it up more in committee stage.
You end up with fights being fought in one fishery, and they are poised to put economic pressure on other fisheries. While the intent is to try to divide those and avoid disputes spilling over, you're likely to end up with economic pressure being applied in a fishery where the economic levers are more favourable to one side or the other in an effort to cause settlements or concessions or increased benefits or wages. What we're going to find is that one side that can better take a strike or a lockout will find it advantageous to call a lockout in the hope of getting a better settlement in one of the other areas. I know the legislation is designed to try and avoid that, but I don't think it can be done. Those economic levers are there, and power goes to one side or the other with the variability and price of the product.
There are a number of things that we're going to be looking at as this bill progresses. Certainly I hope to have a lot of the questions that I've raised answered in committee stage. I hope the minister will take a look at them. I came back from my consultations with the very strong feeling that this bill is not well understood by the people it's going to affect or by the people who are going to be representing
[ Page 11947 ]
those people -- i.e., the lawyers. Indeed, I'm sure it's not well understood by the Labour Relations Board. The last time I looked, I didn't see a lot of fisheries expertise on the Labour Relations Board. I assume that, if this bill goes through, the minister will move to correct that. I had hoped that there could have been more communication with the various parties, and I'm glad to hear that the minister is still meeting with people up to and including today. I and my colleague, the critic for Fisheries, have been working on this together, have scheduled a number of meetings in the past and will have some in the future, right up to today and beyond. I imagine that, if this bill goes through as it is, we'll be meeting with them for years to come, because I think there are going to be some real problems with this bill if some of the things I have raised aren't addressed in a meaningful and rational way as they apply to the fishing industry.
I do have a couple of questions which, again, I will bring up in committee stage, but I'll just advise the minister. I was a little surprised -- perhaps it was just a poor choice of words -- when he said that the definitions of strike and lockout have been expanded to include what's in this bill. My understanding is that the definitions have been changed to the way they're written in this bill as it applies to the fishing industry. The difference is significant, because, if one expands, then one is also including what's in Bill 84, and I don't think that's the intent. I think the intent is to change the definitions of strike and lockout to be as stated in this bill. It's a small item, but I think it's something worth commenting on by the minister.
The last comment I wish to make -- at this stage of the bill, anyway -- is about the transition. Given the comments I have heard from both sides as to their unawareness of what this bill contains and, in many cases, their complete lack of understanding of what is included in Bill 84, and that very long, protracted, complex, complicated and controversial process of development of a labour code over the last century.... It is something they haven't brought themselves up to speed on at all. It is a big undertaking to reach some level of competency. I know, because I went through it myself. It took a long time, a lot of talking to people and a lot of taking advice from all quarters in order to get an understanding, however limited, of how that works.
I find that this bill leaves an awful lot up to the Labour Relations Board to decide: the appropriateness of bargaining units, the appropriateness of employers' associations or the employer.... There is a lot of stuff that's sort of.... Mr. Kelleher has said: "Okay, I've dealt with the theory. Now I'm going to throw this over to the Labour Relations Board and let them deal with it." Indeed, there are references in his report to the fact that the Labour Relations Board has some experience dealing with odd and awkward bargaining relationships, much like those in the construction industry, but in this province there is really no history of the Labour Relations Board dealing with the fishing industry, because up until recently it has always been federal.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: They haven't had access to it, but fisheries have been regulated federally. And there were certainly arguments back and forth, which were finally settled in Ontario. But the fact is that there's not a long history of dealing with the fishing industry in this province, and there's not a wealth of knowledge -- certainly from my exploration of collective bargaining and fisheries in British Columbia. Perhaps there are a lot of great people out there who have yet to come forward, but I know that the Labour Relations Board doesn't have that wealth of experience, and I think they're in for a rough ride. I think that a lot of questions are going to be raised with this bill and that there will be a lot of long-term impact and a lot of turmoil imposed on an already tumultuous industry. I think the Labour Relations Board is going to have their hands full trying to deal with that. I hope that, if this bill goes through, the minister will move quickly to put some people on that board who have some experience, who can offer advice to the Labour Relations Board. I don't know that those people are out there. I assume there are some people with good backgrounds. I hope it's not done as a political move, but rather as one that will lead to more expedient decisions being made to the benefit of the fishing industry -- both the employers and employees -- in this province.
So I have concern that the minister hasn't really given much clear direction with this bill in some areas. Appropriateness of the bargaining unit is just one. There are many, many others in the other sections which we'll be looking at: first collective agreements, changes in certification -- all those little intricacies you get into when you start appearing with sharp, top-notch lawyers before the Labour Relations Board. These people will.... The minister shakes his head about the lawyers, but it's true that they'll be there, and their job is going to be to test the resolve of the Labour Relations Board, to test the limits of this bill. I know that's the normal procedure, but it would be nice to see a bit more instruction and direction from the minister -- perhaps picking up the industry, setting it a little further down the road and giving them some advantage by telling them what is allowed and what isn't. We hope to contribute to that a bit in committee stage, through questioning the minister.
I think we're headed for a very volatile period in an already volatile and difficult industry that, in many cases, is experiencing crises because of local and international problems -- through international competitive pressure, international treaties and the fish wars, which we know the member for Chilliwack is going to address at some length because of his experience in dealing with that when working very hard and supportively with both the provincial and federal Ministers of Fisheries. I know that he has attained a wealth of knowledge far beyond my own and that he intends to speak on what the impact is going to be on the industry from an economic point of view, and to give a better idea of what the state of the industry is presently.
There are many concerns that exist regarding Bill 84 and how it's going to be transposed into the fishing industry. I've only touched on them in second reading. I certainly don't feel that Bill 84 has been nearly as successful as the minister thinks. In fact, I think it has had many unintended results. Small and medium-sized businesses have been shaken by the impact of this code, despite the assurances given by the former Minister of Labour that the code wasn't really meant to apply to them in an expansive way; it was more a code for the industrial level. That certainly hasn't proved to be the case, with the dramatic increase in the numbers of certifications in small and medium-sized businesses. I'm not saying that's bad, nor am I saying it's good. I'm saying that it has caused shock in small and medium-sized businesses, and it has been very difficult for them to deal with that.
There has been very little information coming forth from the ministry and very little support in helping employers and employees know what their rights are under the Labour Relations Code, without having to go to the lawyers the minister was shaking his head about earlier. I know that as the Labour critic, it has increased my workload in my constituency office tenfold. I can't count the number of
[ Page 11948 ]
photocopies of Bill 84 that I've given out in the last two years -- it's in the hundreds -- to both employees and employers, I might add.
Employers are worried that they're going to get involved in an unfair labour practice action, and they don't know what their rights are or what they can say to people who have worked with them for a long time. Employees who, in some cases, are suddenly enthusiastic about becoming part of a trade union want to know what their rights are with respect to the union. In some cases, they're not so enthusiastic about the process and about the opportunity, if you can call it that, to join a trade union. They have nowhere to turn for advice, aside from the union. They certainly can't go to their employer, because their employer is terrified of telling them anything.
We'll certainly be dealing with this in the estimates process, but I think the government should take a more proactive role in advising both employees and employers about what their rights are and what the process is, so they're more informed. The government should spend some time and effort in ensuring that the fishing industry really understands what this bill is all about before they actually bring it into force, when and if it passes, in its present state.
With that, I think I've covered my concerns, in a general sense. Given the expansive nature of the minister's interpretation of section 3, we will be voting against this bill because of the implications, not because we think employees should be denied bargaining rights. The way this bill is doing it leaves us no opportunity to vote in favour of it. We will be voting against it in second reading. We intend to deal with it extensively in committee stage to try to answer some of the questions I've raised and to thrash out where the minister is heading with this. Perhaps we can provide some guidance to the industry employees and employers and the Labour Relations Board as to how the minister intends, in a political and policy sense, to set the industry on the road to completion.
L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the minister's opening remarks, particularly about the three wise men. I remember that not too long ago we were called back to Victoria, on an emergency basis, to deal with a crisis in education. We learned during the process at that time that some members of the executive council found that they at least had a concern that they might be in a position of bias because of past relationships and so on, and they absented themselves from making decisions or taking part in the discussions.
The minister referred to the three wise men and suggested that they were the source of this wonderful piece of legislation during their studies of labour in British Columbia. A more cynical person than myself might suggest that there was a bias there, because if you look at the background of the three individuals, you see that they are totally dependent on the organized sector and the disputes that arise as a result of the concerns. You might suspect that there might be a bias there, too. Not being a cynical person, and recognizing that those gentlemen have good reputations in the industry, I guess we have to accept the recommendation that they came forward with.
The minister also mentioned in his opening remarks that the new Labour Relations Code, Bill 84 -- although I'm not sure he referred to it by number -- has done its job. I guess where the discussion and maybe the disagreement comes in is over what the job is. It's obvious that this minister's and this government's idea of the job is to organize every person in British Columbia. Certainly that is not a situation that is necessarily bad. What is bad about it is that the process for that certification totally takes away the democracy we expect as part of our rights as citizens of British Columbia in dealing with that sort of issue.
[4:00]
We're talking about a labour bill dealing with the fisheries. The fishing sector of our economy has been facing some very great difficulties, particularly in the last while. I believe something like 200,000 salmon went missing in the Fraser River for whatever reason. As government and as citizens, we are very concerned with the difficulties of reaching an agreement with our neighbours -- in this case to the south and to the north -- regarding the salmon stock and the fishing of that stock. We would have thought that the government and this minister might be more concerned with resolving those difficulties of the industry, as opposed to putting forward a piece of legislation that is going to cause nothing but more turmoil within an industry that is already having a very difficult time.
We have talked to a number of fishermen. They're concerned about jobs; they're concerned about the fish stocks; they're concerned about overfishing; and they're concerned about ways to become more efficient and competitive. But I haven't heard one say they were concerned about unionization. I don't think they're particularly interested in paying union dues. I suspect that I know where the pressure comes from. Because if my understanding of the industry is correct, the majority of people working in the processing part are already part of organized labour, and those unions need this further benefit -- or at least are lobbying for that benefit -- from a government that they know is very much on their side. But personal interest in unionization does not make good public policy. Collective bargaining is not appropriate in some areas of the economy, and I don't believe that this particular section is appropriate in the fishing industry.
There's no imbalance in the relationship that we have seen between the fishers and those people who act on the fishing boats. The relationship between the fishermen -- the owners of the boats -- and the people who work, usually on the basis of a share of the catch, is generally very good, as they depend very much on each other for not only the catch but for safety in the operation of the boat. I suspect that under some circumstances, if this bill goes through -- which, of course, is just a matter of time, due to the government's majority -- that the safety aspect will be a bit compromised by some of the requirements for length of service, and that the employer's ability to deal with people who may not necessarily be suited for that particular lifestyle will be very restricted.
Hon. D. Miller: Terrible.
L. Hanson: I hear the minister saying "terrible." He will have his turn in a minute, I know.
In principle, this bill will threaten the viability of the fishery by introducing new opportunities for work stoppages and other actions that will hurt the cooperation that already exists between the employers and the sharers of the catch, and exacerbate divisions in an industry that is already in serious difficulty.
I know that there are a couple of other people who want to speak on the bill. We will be voting against the bill, and I look forward with great interest to the minister's remarks when he has his turn.
R. Chisholm: I have to rise today and, unfortunately, vote against this bill.
[ Page 11949 ]
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: It is most unfortunate. Hon. Speaker, do you want to know why? Because this government, in one of its promises, said it would consult. But we've yet to see consultation. As a matter of fact, I've got statements here by various members of the industry or associations which state that when Vince Ready did his little study, he didn't consult with anybody. When Stephen Kelleher implemented his plan, what did he study? Absolutely nothing. He was told; he was given a mandate to put it in place. There was no consultation.
We want to talk about consultation. The day before they tabled this bill, this government was speaking to the fishermen. They didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to tell them they were going to table it the very next day. The minister wouldn't even meet with them; the assistant deputy minister did instead. We're now debating second reading a week later. The same people who were coming down to see the minister are here to discuss this bill tonight at 6 o'clock with Norm Macphee, Patrick Stanton and Stephen Kelleher. We're debating second reading at 3 o'clock. Is that consultation? If it is, the hon. minister had better take out Webster's dictionary and have a good look at what consultation means, because he obviously doesn't understand it. It's about time he did; after all, he's the minister for this particular ministry.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: I should hope so.
You have to wonder about the competence of this government, and you really struggle to find out just where these people are coming from. We're right in the middle of a Pacific Salmon Treaty collapse, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is down in Washington, D.C., trying to get the Americans to come back to the table. And what does the Minister of Labour do? He introduces Bill 43 and destabilizes the industry even more. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, does it? Every once in a while we have to be a little blunt, so that maybe some of these people on the other side will understand what is being said to them.
Where is the logic? The Pacific Salmon Treaty is collapsing, and the minister is bringing forward labour legislation that he knows is going to destabilize the industry. After all, this industry has been operating under its own steam for over 100 years. They've developed and evolved their own system. It's not broken, so why are we going about fixing it? Is this government paying off or trying to get more union members? Is it trying to drum up more assistance and support? Is that what is behind Bill 43?
All the organizations that we've talked to -- the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C., the trawlers, the seiners, the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners, the Native Brotherhood of B.C. and the Native Fishing Association -- say the same thing: nobody talked to them about this. Then this government wonders why there is confusion in the ranks of the industry. The industry doesn't even understand Bill 84. As a matter of fact, I don't understand Bill 84 -- and I debated it for two months. How the heck are they going to understand it?
An Hon. Member: That's a good admission.
R. Chisholm: It is a good admission, because there are points in Bill 84 which I don't understand; I don't understand where the logic came from. Now we have this appendage to Bill 84. How is Bill 84 going to affect Bill 43, and how is Bill 43 going to affect Bill 84? That has yet to be explained. I hope it will be explained in committee stage, because there are problems in some areas. For instance, there are problems around conflict of interest; successorship, which the Labour critic talked about; replacement workers; dismissal, and unjust and reasonable cause; and exclusive representation. All of these things have to be explained, because if you read the bill, it is very unclear. It's going to create havoc and problems within the industry. It needs to be clarified and cleared up. I think if there had been a bit more consultation, if the ministry staff had sat down with the industry prior to this, a lot of this might not have been a problem. As a matter of fact, a lot of it might even have been amended.
There are a few other areas that we're going to have a few problems with. The minister says the Ontario government solved the problem of jurisdiction. But the courts solved the problem of the inland waters. What about the coastal waters? Are we now going to have two systems -- one for the inland waters on the east side of the Island, and another for the west side? If you think we have confusion now, wait until we have that. Who has jurisdiction rights over the aboriginal fishing strategy? All of this comes into play.
Who has the problem here? The hon. minister doesn't seem to understand; maybe he doesn't have the rights. Maybe his Labour Relations Board won't have the right to make judgments and decisions. Maybe that will become a problem. It's not that much of a problem for the minister, but it's certainly going to be a problem for those associations.
You have to question the timing of this bill. Why now? All the fishing fleets are going to sea, and guess what we bring in. This bill. They're not here to represent themselves or to fight this bill. The timing for this thing is almost deceitful; the lack of consultation and how the bill was tabled is almost deceitful. Why couldn't the ministry staff turn around and say that they were tabling that bill the next day? Why couldn't the ministry staff tell the associations we were having second reading today? According to the people I have spoken to -- and I've spoken to Jim White, Phil Eby and a few others -- they didn't realize.... This is a slap in the face of their industry. A little bit more tact could have been used. It's obviously not a very good start to debating the bill, because everybody is starting on the wrong foot. Meanwhile, the fishermen are going out to sea because those windows that the Labour critic was talking about are opening.
What happens when they go on strike and there's a 15-minute opening on herring? The boat owner has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he loses all of his money for the year on the herring. As the Labour critic mentioned, that can have drastic results. Unfortunately, I don't think the minister and his staff care a whit about it. I think they just want to fill the union ranks, and they're going to go about it one way or the other. They did it to agriculture, and they are now going to do it to the fisheries.
[4:15]
Bill 84 was designed for the MacMillan Bloedels, Ford Canadas and Chryslers of the world. It definitely wasn't designed for a fishing industry that operates in this manner. The point is that it wasn't designed for the industrial base. The fishing industry is different than what you see in downtown Vancouver; it's different than what you see with these corporate giants. Fishing operates in its own way. What happens to the family boats when they go on strike? What happens with the families of the aboriginal fisheries when they have problems with Bill 43? Are they all going to go on welfare when it collapses? If this government's plan is to enhance the aboriginal economy, why would they go ahead
[ Page 11950 ]
with a bill like this that detracts from the manner in which they are operating right now?
I'm going to have a lot more to say in committee stage, but these are a few questions that the minister should muse about. Maybe he should think about giving a little extra time to the associations so that they can understand the bill and understand where they're coming from.
During question period I asked questions of the Deputy Premier about this bill because the minister wasn't there. They were all taken on notice, and nobody came back with answers. That's exactly the way these fishermen feel. Nobody is giving them the answers. And then we wonder why there's confusion.
I come from an occupation where you had to rely on your crew. At times it can be a life-and-death relationship when you're relying on your crew. How is that going to equate in this industry? How is Bill 43 going to equate when a person might be going on strike the next day and may not be there? When you have a crew they work very closely together; they become as family. Right now, this minister has driven a wedge between the owners of the boats and the crews. He is upset at the balance that has worked for a hundred years. Why?
Hon. D. Miller: Nonsense.
R. Chisholm: If it's nonsense, hon. minister, then why are all the associations stating very similar things that I am stating? Why have they been willing to put pen to paper? If it's all nonsense, hon. minister, you had better start reading your mail, because your constituents don't think it's nonsense. They are rather worried about the whole situation your ministry has created.
I'll have more to say in committee stage as we go clause by clause through this bill. I hope that the minister is listening, and I hope that the minister will listen to the industry, because if he doesn't, he's playing with a $700 million industry that I'm afraid could collapse around his ears. It may be even more than that. Does this bill cover aquaculture? Does it cover all of the species that we harvest from the seas? These are questions that need to be answered.
S. Hammell: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Hammell: In the gallery are some 30 grade 10 students from Johnston Heights Secondary School, one of the new high schools built in Surrey in the past few years. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Derbyshire and Mr. Sharpe. Would the House please make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: I believe the minister is also rising to ask leave for an introduction.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Miller: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House, in the galleries behind me, 22 visitors from Shanghai, China. They're on an executive exchange program sponsored by the University of British Columbia, hosted there by Peter Lusztig and hosted in Victoria, I'm pleased to say, by my former Deputy Minister of Forests, Mr. Philip Halkett. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.
L. Fox: It's indeed a pleasure to stand in my place and speak to the principles of Bill 43. Let me set the stage by openly admitting that I know very little about the fishing industry. But being a longtime business person, I understand when I see a bill that is not promoting the best interests of an industry but the best interests of big labour and this government.
When I reflect on the discussions concerning Bill 84 last year, I vividly recall the Minister of Labour of the day promising this House and the people of British Columbia that unionizing small businesses with less than ten employees was not the intention. But if we look at the results, over the course of the last year we see that a major percentage of the certifications that have taken place have been in businesses with less than ten employees. That's extremely unfortunate. I would suggest that in time it's going to lessen opportunities for those small businesses.
I have several concerns with respect to this legislation. The first one has to be with the consultative process. Over the course of the last three years, minister after minister has stood up in this House, saying, "We believe in the consultative process," and minister after minister has not spoken the total truth. They have not consulted all affected parties; they have consulted the people they wanted to consult. When they broadened that, they consulted them in such a way that they endorsed the position that they wanted to take on the issue in the first place. This particular consultation process is no different than what we've seen from other ministers. In fact, none of the boat owners or their employees were consulted. Who wants this unionization? I suggest, as I suggested during discussions on Bill 84, that union leaders and supporters of this government are pushing this, not the industry and not those who will be affected by it. That's unfortunate.
When we look at what could happen in the fishing industry because of Bill 84, when we look at the succession rights that flow out of Bill 84.... If you happen to have more than one boat and one of them unionizes, that's forced on the rest of your fleet, because according to Bill 84 you can't have two separate businesses, one unionized and one non-unionized. What we're seeing is an initiative where one employee on one boat could force a fleet of those boats -- if there are such, and I presume there are -- to come under this union structure.
This new union will have the opportunity to negotiate the price of the fisherman's catch, and the non-union boats will have to comply with that pricing. As I understand this legislation, they will no longer have the opportunity to sell their fish to the highest bidder. According to my reading, this particular control could force people to sell their fish at the negotiated price. The minister is shaking his head. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps he could straighten it out, and obviously he will.
The minister and I won't agree on many issues within this bill, anyway, because of the different philosophical back-grounds we come from and the different values we have in terms of the rights of employers versus the rights of employees. There is obviously quite a difference, and I'm pleased with that. Differences of opinion are what make the world go around...
Interjection.
L. Fox: ...and around and around -- that's right.
This is not an initiative to protect the fishing industry. This is an initiative to provide more union memberships in the province of B.C., which were shrinking prior to
[ Page 11951 ]
December 1991, and have increased substantially since that point in time, because of Bill 84. That's the one motivation behind this legislation and the minister's bringing it forth at this time. For those reasons, I'll be voting against it.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to say a few words on Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act. Why didn't the minister title the bill a little more creatively or perhaps more accurately? After having read the bill and listening to some of the good debate that has taken place in this assembly this afternoon, I think the bill could easily have been titled You're Going To Need A Collective Agreement If You Want To Go Fishing Act. That's effectively what this bill does. In his opening remarks on second reading the minister said very clearly that this is not an attempt at forced unionization, which leads this hon. member to believe that this may be an attempt at forced unionization.
Bill 43 has a very clear motive. When the minister spoke to the principles of the bill he wanted to avoid that. I don't know why the minister would perhaps want to mislead the House -- and I won't say that he did deliberately. But the minister is the member for Prince Rupert, one of the major fishing centres in the province. I don't believe for a moment that the minister is ignorant of the fishing industry, which is an important industry in our province and one that has gone through dramatic changes in the last while. The minister is not dumb, or he's dumb like a fox, perhaps, because he knows what this bill is going to do.
This bill is intended to bolster declining union membership in an industry that needs and is striving to become much more competitive. The minister is more aware of that than most members in this House because he hails from Prince Rupert. He's sensitive to that issue and he knows that the dominant trend in this industry is increased corporate concentration. Those engaged in the fishing industry -- in harvesting, in canneries and other industries related to fishing -- have increasingly been subject to the forces of corporate concentration. He also knows that we've seen some declining membership in the trade union movement in this area and in other resource sectors in the province as well. I know the minister and the government, which he's a member of, would like to try to bolster union membership wherever possible in the resource sector, including the fishing industry. The minister should just come right out and admit that. It doesn't need to be an ulterior motive. I think he should be upfront about that.
What is the purpose of this bill? What is this bill really seeking to fix? Surely the government doesn't bring bills to the Legislature simply because they like to pass new laws. No, the bill must have a purpose. What remedy is to be obtained with this bill? Are we trying to fix a problem in a way that's going to make the fishing industry more competitive in today's very tough, internationally competitive environment.
The minister says there have been some concerns expressed about the bill, and indeed there have. A number of constituents of mine involved in the fishing industry are very worried. Individuals and families who own fishing boats are now wondering what is going to happen if all of a sudden they're forced to have a collective agreement -- they're not currently unionized -- in order to participate in the industry. Maybe that's an irrational fear and the minister will want to try to address that, but that's one of the concerns.
If they're forced to have a collective agreement on their fishing boat, what happens if they seek to leave the industry at some point? What kind of successor rights are being contemplated under the bill that this is stemming from, which is the Labour Relations Code that the government brought in a couple a years ago? If we're doing that, we're certainly not making the industry more competitive. We're not giving small entrepreneurs in the fishing industry, who are having a tough time right now, any comfort that it's going to be easier for them to operate, that their business is going to be more competitive or that they're going to be increasing the value of the assets they invested in the industry, simply because it may not be possible for them to easily exit the business.
What might happen with successor rights -- if that is what is being contemplated, and it certainly seems to be the case here -- is that if they seek to sell a fishing boat, for instance, the collective agreement, the union and unionized employees will go with it. It's one of these perverse situations where people follow property as a result of this kind of ill-thought-out legislation. We don't know if that's what's being contemplated. It certainly seems to be the case that this bill is trying to plug any possible loopholes as a result of the passage of the labour relations act of this government, to make sure there is no possible way that any employees working in the fishing industry in British Columbia can do so under non-union terms of employment. That's why this bill should be called You're Going to Need a Collective Agreement if You Want to go Fishing in British Columbia Act, 1994. That's why this bill really can't be supported.
[4:30]
The minister says it's not forced unionization. He says that the bill doesn't mean automatic certification. Well, it doesn't have to. Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code, brought in by this government, already takes care of that, and by applying that legislation to the fishing industry, that's almost taken care of; it's virtually a certainty. How is the bill going to make the industry more competitive? The minister hasn't addressed that. I hope he will try to when he closes debate. With that, I think you can take it that I'm not a supporter of this legislation.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I wish to introduce Phil Eby and members of the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia to the Legislature. We also have the Aboriginal Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia here, and would you make them most welcome.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call upon the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, whose remarks will close debate on second reading.
Hon. D. Miller: I've sat with some impatience and listened to some of the worst gibberish I've ever heard about the fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia. I would only say to the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who posed a question about who made.... I don't know. I think that member usually tries to recognize that you have a greater obligation than to simply stand and say whatever irrational thought comes into your head when you're debating. If you have a bit of a duty to inform yourself, you would actually read the bill.
Interjection.
[ Page 11952 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Maybe you haven't any research staff, because clearly, the last point you made is covered in the bill. It's very clear in this bill that we are not providing access to the automatic certification procedures in Bill 84. It's right there in black and white -- read it.
Yet he stands and makes a claim that there's forced unionization. What a bunch of nonsense!
All I can say about the member for Prince George-Omineca is that I'm quite prepared to accept the member's word that he knows nothing about the fishing industry. And for those who have any doubts, I refer them to Hansard. The member for Chilliwack.... I wasn't quite certain, but I became a bit agitated....
Somebody talked about corporate concentration. It seems to me that if you look at what's happening in the fishing industry, quite the opposite is happening. In a moment I'm going to deal with some of the history on this coast and some of the reasons why associations were formed.
If you are so opposed to people combining, are you opposed to these people up here who belong to associations? Why do they belong to associations? What's the principle behind coming together in an association, whether it's the Native Brotherhood or any other of the fishing associations? It's to represent the collective interests of the membership. What's a trade union? It's the same thing. It seems to me that great liberal for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is espousing that it's okay if you happen to be an owner, but it's not okay if you happen to be workers. The most commonsense criticism of the bill was made by the hon. Liberal critic, and I look forward to committee stage debate with that member.
I get quite offended at an argument from the member for Chilliwack that seems to suggest that if some of the crew on a boat are actually unionized we have compromised safety.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, he came awful damned close. I have worked tugboats, I have been represented by trade unions, and just because there's a trade union in place doesn't mean people can't work together and don't have the view that they are responsible for each other. So it's a view I reject. It's absolute nonsense.
The last thing I read about one of the fishing companies in B.C. was in a magazine called Vanity Fair. Ever heard of Vanity Fair? Does the name Weston ring a bell? Galen Weston? Garfield Weston? He plays polo with Prince Philip. He's just one of the....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I bought the magazine because I have a weakness. I like to know some of the people I may have to deal with, and this was an article about the owner of a major fishing company in British Columbia. I thought it would be interesting to know what this guy is like. He lives in a castle somewhere, and he plays polo with Prince Philip. I sent it to some of my fishing friends in Prince Rupert for their light entertainment.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: To play polo? No.
The former Minister of Labour talked at length about his dislike of Bill 84. That may be the case, but it has no bearing on this piece of legislation.
I am the MLA for the North Coast, which is more than just Prince Rupert. It represents Bella Coola and Bella Bella, where I was delighted to be on Monday to announce a new ferry terminal for the B.C. Ferry Corporation so that the people of Bella Bella can now drive their cars onto the ferry and bring goods back and forth. The Heiltsuk people have started a fish plant in Bella Bella, and they will now be able to ship their product on B.C. Ferries. Is that not dealing with some of the economic needs of people in the fishing industry?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: It's not my job to say that plants should be unionized or not; the Labour Code determines that. That's the point we've been trying to make.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll get to that, hon. Speaker, if they'll stop heckling me. When I was agitated, I remained quietly in my chair.
I wonder at the comments of the former Minister of Labour, who somehow sees a bill that simply says that where there is a union in place, and where that union has negotiated an agreement allowing the people -- on both sides, actually; both employers and employees in that situation -- access to the Labour Code for dispute settlement.... Somehow that's conferring some benefit. I guess he prefers to have those issues fought out in the courts. I said at the outset that even the former labour legislation, as bad as it was, nonetheless contained the principle that it's necessary to have a labour code and a mechanism to allow the parties to work out their disputes. Surely that member has not abandoned even that simple notion that it is a specialized field. Would he prefer the issues to be dealt with by the courts? In the event of a labour dispute, should it be left to the parties to go to the courts to determine how they might resolve it? Is that what the former Minister of Labour is talking about? That's absolute nonsense.
Finally, I want to go very quickly through the points that were raised by the Liberal critic, and we will get into a more detailed debate. I want to repeat the statement that I made at the outset: this bill is not designed in any way to disrupt the relationships that exist -- and by the way, they're not always peaceful. I've been involved in the last two years, and due to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we managed to get an agreement on the Skeena; but I can tell you that things were very tense and explosive on the Skeena in terms of sports fishermen and commercial fishermen. I understand the nature of the industry and the changes that it's going through.
The Liberal member said they were going to vote against the bill because of section 3, yet he clearly asked some questions about section 3. In fact, he may vote against it, but he should at least wait for the explanations. It was clear from the questions he asked that he didn't have the answers. And if he's going to base his voting position on a section that he's asked me questions about, wait until I give the answers. He may not like the answers, but at least wait until I give them.
In fact, in section 3 it's very clear that this act takes precedence over the Labour Code. This act applies. I'll just cite three areas that I think are of concern. I've already said that in the Labour Code currently there is a provision for the imposition of a first collective agreement, under certain circumstances. Those certain circumstances were more broadly defined not that long ago by a decision of the labour board to guide future decision-making, and they're fairly tough. This bill restricts the use of that section, because there
[ Page 11953 ]
has been a history of labour relations and negotiations. The parties in the fishing industry cannot avail themselves of the imposition of the first collective agreement. They're denied access to that provision.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: No, it's very clear; it's in the bill.
Another section of the act recognizes the unique nature of the fishing industry, as I said. Right now, under the Labour Code you can't alter the terms and conditions of a contract during negotiation of a collective agreement. We've exempted that under this bill. You can do it. You can alter fish prices; essentially, we're dealing with fish prices. Where an application for certification has been made, in the period immediately following certification and at the end of the term of a collective agreement.... You can't do that in a normal collective agreement, but in this bill you can, because it recognizes the nature of the fishing industry.
As well, the payment of bonuses is normal practice in the fishing industry. That's prohibited in some collective agreements, and it's prohibited by the code. Here you can. So we've clearly recognized the uniqueness of the industry. We've said that there are sections of the Labour Code, Bill 84, that should not apply, and this bill makes it clear that they do not apply to the fishing industry.
We'll get into some more debate. I agreed that it was tumultuous.... When I was in opposition, I spent some time being severely critical of former Premier Vander Zalm because five provinces got an exemption in one round of talks on part of the free trade agreement and could continue to restrict the export of unprocessed fish. The Atlantic provinces and Quebec got an exemption. The former government was asleep at the switch. British Columbia lost that as the result of an application by the U.S., first of all, and ultimately as a result of a GATT ruling. I'm well aware that it's easy to stand up and preach and spout rhetoric about how you support business, but as an MLA I've also been aware that the action behind the rhetoric has quite frankly not been there.
I say again that we've finally got a Minister of Fisheries in this province who is paying attention. He has a task force that is going to produce some benefits for this industry and for the people who work in it.
[4:45]
I'm struck again by a contradiction. Lots of members got up and talked about chaos. Of course, they use hyperbole. Fair enough; it's a rhetorical device that you can use to strengthen your argument. It's the Chicken Little argument: the sky is falling! You've got to be careful when and where you use it. If you use it too much and the sky doesn't fall, where does that leave you? Use the rhetoric and the hyperbole, but the world is not going to end tomorrow. To listen to some of the members opposite, this bill means the destruction of the fishing industry. That was the thread through about four of the speeches I heard today.
They referred to labour disputes, but they also referred to the fact that we have had labour disputes. We had one back in '90. We had one without the benefit of this bill. This bill is not going to change that in any way.
An Hon. Member: It will broaden it.
Hon. D. Miller: It will not broaden it. In fact, the fishing industry has changed. If you want my prediction, you won't see a dispute over prices unless the majority of a particular gear type, regardless of whether they're union or what they are.... I could be wrong, but my personal view is that you won't see that.
Last year there was an abundance of fish in the province. We had the greatest return on the Fraser since 1910. What happened on the Fraser? At a certain point the companies, the big guys, said: "We ain't taking your fish anymore." They weren't arguing about prices. They said: "We don't care if you've got a boatload of the stuff; we're not taking it." Guess what. It didn't matter if they were union or brotherhood or what they were. What did they do? They came to this government and said: "Would you intervene and force those companies to be reasonable and take this fish?" I wasn't involved in that, but my colleague the now Minister of Small Business was involved, and somehow that issue was solved. That wasn't a union issue; it was a common issue.
I'm advised that the industry is changing even more now. More and more we're starting to see the growth of independents, and some of them are pretty small operations. For the first time, maybe, people are saying that they're not as concerned about bargaining about prices, because the marketplace is a little more balanced than it used to be. We're moving away from corporate concentration.
Years and years ago, if you study the history, the most successful co-op on the coast was in Prince Rupert, the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-op. Now that's coming to an end, and something is in the works with respect to another company. But why was that organization started? It was because the fishermen -- not that they were unionized -- knew they were slaves to the large companies. They didn't have the bargaining power, so they started their own operation and had years and years of a very successful operation that gave them an opportunity for the first time. As I say, things have changed over the last few years, and they've had some ups and downs. But in its heyday the fishermen didn't bargain fish prices, because they were owners. They got a certain price during the season, and when the pack was sold, they got whatever was coming to them. But that was an ownership; that was a co-op.
I suppose it's fair enough to exaggerate, but at the end of the day you've got to get down to what a particular clause of a bill means. I mentioned that there is some concern; I don't understate that at all. There is legitimate concern, and I think that part of my job in this debate -- to the extent that I can -- is to allay some of those concerns. I'm sure that I won't be able to do that completely, but I certainly will repeat -- and I will, no doubt, repeat further in committee stage debate -- that this is not an attempt to disrupt. This will not result in forced unionization; this does not provide automatic certification.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The member can sit there and mutter, and say that's what they said -- but it isn't.
The provisions are clear: in order to gain certification, the rules that apply in those circumstances under the Labour Code will apply. The question that needs to be determined -- and the bill speaks to the issue -- is what the historical pattern of relationships has been. That will guide the LRB with respect to those questions.
I look forward to the more detailed...not debate so much as the kind of question-and-answer that ensues in committee stage. I indicated previously that it was important that we move to this debate in principle. I was optimistic that it might have been a little better debate, instead of the kind of knee-jerk reaction we've seen. But fair enough; that's part of
[ Page 11954 ]
the process. Having said that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Deputy Speaker: Before I put the question on second reading, with the House's indulgence, I'm going to acknowledge two members who have asked leave to make an introduction, if I may.
Leave granted.
T. Perry: I am going to take the liberty of asking members of the House to recognize visitors who I think are from Roberts Creek Elementary School somewhere on the Sechelt Peninsula -- Roberts Creek, I guess -- led by their teacher, Ms. M. McBeath. The member who ordinarily would introduce them is absent from the House today. Will members please join me in welcoming them.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to welcome the same class on behalf of my seatmate, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who is not here this afternoon. It's one of those rare moments when he's not here. I'm sure he would have some points of view on this legislation that the Minister of Labour is defending today, on some changes to the collective agreement bargaining rights for the fishing industry. On behalf of my seatmate, I'd like to welcome the 22 students from Roberts Creek Elementary School who are here today. I hope they're finding their day in Victoria interesting.
Deputy Speaker: The motion before us is second reading of Bill 43, the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act.
[5:00]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 31 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Pement |
|
Priddy |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Lord |
|
Streifel |
Simpson |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Schreck |
Lali |
| Hartley | ||
|
NAYS -- 18 | ||
|
Mitchell |
Serwa |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Stephens |
Gingell |
|
Hurd |
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
|
Chisholm |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Warnke |
K. Jones |
M. de Jong |
|
Symons |
Fox |
Neufeld |
Bill 43, Fishing Collective Bargaining 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. D. Miller: I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $372,200 (continued).
L. Reid: When we concluded debate yesterday on the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, we were discussing accountability and how we could focus on the student. I will pose a number of questions to the minister this afternoon about what currently happens at universities in this province. The focus tends to be on research and the publication of a variety of papers. How does the minister intend to put the focus back on the student, and how can the student appreciate that they will be receiving the finest instruction? How can we put the emphasis in those institutions on teaching as opposed to solely research and publication, which it appears to be on today?
Hon. D. Miller: I must say that I disagree entirely. Our universities are multifaceted. Specialty areas exist, but I don't think the statement you just made is applicable in any sense to, say, the faculty of medicine or some of the other outstanding faculties we have at our universities. We should not forget.... I think it would be foolish to suggest that we do not do the kind of pure research that has led to many of the significant changes that have taken place in our society, as I pointed out when we last had this estimates debate.
Indeed, the member herself -- I think in a criticism of my comments on the need to expand the apprenticeship system, which she may ultimately retract -- talked about the need to put more resources into the field of medical technology. Why is that so? Where have the significant advances come from with respect to the field of medicine? They've come from some absolutely pure research.
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!
Hon. D. Miller: I see we have a supporter in the House.
The member's question is timely, though, with respect to the broader system, let's say. The challenge is that we want to make the education relevant. We talked about that at length. I won't get into a long dissertation or repeat what I said earlier. I was struck.... I talked about the skills package we had introduced: the $200 million package over two years; a broad range of programs; straight from the high schools to apprenticeship; individuals on social assistance; 8,000 new spaces in colleges and universities; skills centres; etc.
I can't say I've got a subscription -- it's BC Business -- but I read these periodicals.
An Hon. Member: You should have no props.
Hon. D. Miller: It's not a prop; I hope it's not a prop, anyway. I want to read just a couple of excerpts, because they go to the heart of the member's question. This is a survey of B.C. businesses, and it wanted to find out what the business attitude was towards our education system. There are some good statistics in here that really bear out, back up and reinforce what I've been saying -- the Skills Now program is timely.
Really, the business community has a surprising lack of confidence in our K-to-12 system. In this survey some 74 percent said high school graduates are not equipped with the necessary literacy, numeracy, work self-discipline, communication or work ethic skills to enter the workforce. We've been saying in a variety of ways -- not quite in the
[ Page 11955 ]
same language -- that we think there are some deficiencies, and we're moving to correct them.
Post-secondary got slightly higher marks, but even here respondents suggested that considerable improvement is indicated. For example, the report says universities don't teach useful business skills. We've recognized some areas -- I cited an example of people going through some of the faculties and was advised pharmacy is one -- where most people who graduate end up actually running a small business; yet there's no training in business along the way. It seemed to me we could do some of those kinds of fits.
Here are the real numbers that I think are.... It goes back to the issue of technical-vocational. It notes that enrolment in vocational and technical has declined, yet that's where the demand is. These statistics are quite interesting. I don't know how current they are, but I'll cite them anyway. Between 1981 and 1992, academic enrolment grew by 66 percent, and vocational enrolment declined by 59 percent -- completely counter to the real trend in the economy. It's amazing. We're now starting to head it back in the other direction. Universities increased arts seats by 36 percent, but applied programs -- where the jobs are -- by only 6 percent. The share of employment for those with post-secondary certifications and diplomas from career technical-vocational institutions more than doubled to 25 percent from 11 percent of the workforce. Clearly that statistic bears out the fact that the employment trends, the jobs that are being made available in our society, are in the technical-vocational area.
Finally.... I guess this is called back-patting; nonetheless, I'm going to read it, because I think it's important. It's called "Recommended Action." These are the B.C. Chamber of Commerce's recommendations. I would ask members to compare what I'm about to read with the Skills Now announcement and all of the details that are contained in that announcement, because they are one and the same.
Here they are: "Effect a shift in government perception towards the concept of education as a component of the economic agenda, not the social agenda." I'm not saying that I agree with that completely, but by refocusing and making education more relevant, we're moving in that direction.
"Redirect B.C. education to equip students with employable skills; that is, communication, problem-solving, numeracy, computer literacy, teamwork, goal-setting and responsibility."
We're moving in that direction.
"Expand workplace training, preferably in cooperation with programs offered by other educational stakeholders. Community skill centres" -- such as the one I announced in Kitimat not that long ago, and the ones that exist in Prince George and Burnaby.... The 20 community skill centres that we're going to develop around this province will allow this little thing on the wish list of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce to be fulfilled.
"Launch an active campaign to promote a positive image for a practical career." That's exactly what we're going to do. And I don't want to hear any criticism from members opposite when we have to run a few ads to get that message across -- none at all. In fact, I was asked this morning.... I had a joint meeting with the provincial apprenticeship board and the trade advisory committees, which are a microcosm of our province. These are people on the employer's side, the labour side, neutral or whatever. They said to me: "You've got to do something. You've got to do more." I said: "You've got to do more as well." They said: "You've got to advertise. You've got to start getting the message out in a positive way that a career in a vocational-technical field is desirable." I said: "We're going to do something." So I don't want any criticism.
The last bullet: "Expand school-business partnerships through such activities as career days, scholarships, joint course planning and co-op education programs." My critic and I talked the other day about doing just that, and we had a slight disagreement -- very minor. But what are we doing, my colleague the Minister of Education and I? We're increasing work opportunity in the high schools from its current 30 percent up to 50 percent, looking specifically at allowing students in our high schools to gain the knowledge that will allow them to move into apprenticeships and technical training -- more work experience; more practical, hands-on learning. All of the things that are in the BC Business wish list with respect to change in education, this government is doing.
[5:15]
I will make a final prediction before I sit down. The next Fraser Institute report card will ignore all of that reality and give us an F in education. But what can you expect from a tax-subsidized outfit like the Fraser Institute?
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's attempt to create a commercial for Skills Now, but the question truly was about universities, not about what kind of parallel program you're going to operate. How are you going to ensure that universities are more responsive? In your quote from BC Business, you said universities don't teach useful skills. If you truly believe that, other than just creating a parallel program to run side by side, how are you going to demand from universities in this province -- four of them, come September -- that they must teach useful skills?
Hon. D. Miller: We are working in a partnership. We are not in any way attempting to force educational institutions to simply do our bidding.
Let me deal with the responses separately. The response from the universities -- and I'll deal with the three, because one is really a fledgling university that is growing -- has been very good. I have had meetings with all three universities, with the presidents and all of the boards. I'm quite heartened by our ability to discuss the issues. I'm very pleased with the universities' attention to issues of the economy and the fact that we don't have an unlimited supply of money. The universities didn't get that much of an increase this year, yet they took up the challenge and said that they're prepared to meet the challenge.
We've also provided innovative money in our budget that, again, the universities can tap into. And we've provided an increase of $6 million in matching funds for capital equipment purchases. Yesterday I talked about BCIT and the other community colleges. It's equally true of universities that there are deficiencies in some of the equipment being used to train people. They now have an opportunity to go to the private sector with matching funds. Every indication is that the private sector will be there. We will probably very quickly have about $12 million worth of expenditures to provide equipment for our universities and colleges.
They've heard the message of relevancy and refocusing, where we are also in the forefront. The other day we discussed the issue of accountability. British Columbia has certainly been a leader on that issue, and it's an issue right across Canada. The work that B.C. is doing in conjunction with the other provinces has put us in a leadership position in terms of ensuring that our educational institutions are accountable. After all, they're financed out of the public purse.
L. Reid: Moving to a consideration of the salaries and benefits under the ministry, it appears that there's a 20
[ Page 11956 ]
percent increase in the salaries and benefits currently being paid out. Would the minister comment on that?
Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct; however, I haven't done a percentage on it. Clearly there is an increase, but the answer is that I thought it should have been more. My finance people beat me up when I say that.
It's a very busy ministry. We continue to go through a process of bringing two ministries together, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. The workload in my office is, quite frankly, staggering. I'm not complaining, because I relish these kinds of things. I can tell you -- and anybody who has been in my office can tell you -- that the staff I have there are dedicated, efficient and very cheerful. Any member who has had contact with my office will support that. They do an amazing amount of work on issues such as student financial assistance queries and WCB queries. We're dealing with a ministry that covers a broad spectrum from post-secondary institutes to the labour issues of the day and to pension issues. I don't think the budget is really large enough. I would have preferred to have an even greater increase, and I'll work on that and make my pitch this coming year. I don't know whether the member quarrels with that number or not, but I hope she appreciates my explanation.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
L. Reid: Our records show that the full-time-equivalents in the ministry have gone from 856 to 951, an increase of 11 percent. Was the minister suggesting that that is the result of the amalgamation of ministries? I would appreciate his comment on that. Could he also indicate what new bodies have been brought to the exercise?
Interjection.
L. Reid: I will just summarize for the minister. There has been an increase from 856 full-time-equivalents to 951. From your earlier comment I am hearing that perhaps it's a result of combining two ministries. Perhaps you could comment on that aspect and provide whether or not that looks at people newly hired into the ministry.
Hon. D. Miller: There were some savings as a result of combining the two ministries, but it's the new programming that has really led to the increase. The breakdown is another 95 approved FTEs. That's not to say they are all hired at this point, but that was approved in the budget. They are spread across the administration and support and post-secondary side. The bulk of them are on the skills development programs. We are not fully staffed in all of those at this point. The member may be aware that there is frequently a lag time between budget approval and the ability to recruit and hire staff to get your programs moving. But that's the explanation for the additional 95.
L. Reid: For clarification, when you say "skills development program," are those 95 bodies for the Skills Now initiative?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes, but you can appreciate that with the linkages within the ministry in terms of program delivery, it's often difficult to narrowly isolate staff that are added because of the skills initiative. We are dealing with the public institutions we fund, whether that be the colleges, the institutes or the universities. But we are taking on additional staff in key areas.
One of my strong feelings is in the area of apprenticeship. I mentioned that I spoke this morning at the first meeting in four years, I believe, of the trade advisory committees and the Apprenticeship Board. I thought it important that I talk to them. We have a need to add some staff there. If we are going to be successful in expanding apprenticeships in this province, we need some more support. I hope the member appreciates that there is a kind of overlap in linkages, but the total number is 95, as I indicated.
L. Reid: Because I understood you to say originally that the increase in numbers was a result of bringing two ministries together, I am seeking clarification as to whether the amalgamation resulted in any of these new bodies. Could you perhaps comment?
Hon. D. Miller: Just to be clear, I don't think I said that. I think I said -- I'm sure, as a matter of fact; I not only think it, I know it -- that there were really some savings, some efficiencies, gained in bringing the ministries together. It's fairly complicated. Under the old Ministry of Labour they had the consumer services branch, which was hived off over to another ministry. We have assumed the authority for training of persons on social assistance that was housed with the Ministry of Social Services. I explained the other day that that process has not been completely delinked; we're still in that disengagement. So it's a bit more complicated than that. There were actually some efficiencies, in my view. Those things were covered in our base. I think it's safe to say that the additions, the new FTEs, are there because of the skills initiative.
J. Pullinger: I rise to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: With us today in the Legislature are two young men -- Matt Hiltl of Shawnigan Lake and Brent Sheppard of Maple Bay, and their instructor, Tom Gavaghan. The two young men, Matt and Brent, have won the BCIT-CAA-Ford-British Columbia Automobile Association high school troubleshooting competition on May 6 in Vancouver. Their instructor, Tom Gavaghan, was selected Industrial Education Teacher of the Year. This team of three is going to be the only team from Canada competing in Washington, D.C., next week. They're leaving on Friday. I would ask all of my colleagues in the House to help me make them welcome and to wish them good luck.
L. Reid: When we look at total expenditure under the minister's office and under ministry operations, it looks to be approximately a 12 percent increase. I understand the comment in terms of the salary and benefit increase. If we look at ministry operations, perhaps the minister could comment on that increase.
Hon. D. Miller: I got quite confused by that question. I thought the member was asking about the minister's office, and then she switched to ministry operations. Was the question about my office expenditures? Gee, I'm usually pretty quick on the uptake here, but the member has got.... I could provide the budget, as the member knows. I can name the staff. We've got a minister in the office, two ministerial assistants, an administrative assistant, an executive assistant and two clerks. As I say, they all do an outstanding job. What kind of increase? Salary and benefits.
[ Page 11957 ]
The total increase is 5.4 percent overall, and given the fact that it's the only ministry of government, I think, with this kind of diverse mandate and two deputies, and that it's very complicated, I don't think I've got a large office staff to deal with the workload. In fact, I think it should be larger, quite frankly.
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister about one particular aspect of his ministry. The minister has stated to the committee that his responsibilities and the range of responsibility of this new ministry are staggering for his office, and I can appreciate that. There's no question that it's one of the more important ministries in government. It's a product, perhaps, not just of the cabinet shuffle that occurred last year but also of the Premier's Summit on Skills Development and Training which occurred last summer, I guess it was. I know the minister attended that. I had the privilege to attend as well. I think this ministry comes from some of the initiatives that were discussed there.
The Skills Now initiative the minister referred to is one that I applaud, quite frankly. I think it's a tremendous initiative of this government. I might argue that it doesn't go far enough in some areas, but we're living in a difficult time of fiscal restraint. I'd like to say to the minister, though, that because the range of his responsibilities is very broad, the hope is that no balls will be dropped and that issues will not fall through the cracks in the important area of advanced education and in our post-secondary training system, if I can call it a system. I'm not sure if the minister sees it as an integrated system of learning or rather as a series of institutions that are trying to work together, but are not quite there yet. I'd like to ask the minister if he could describe where the Open Learning Agency and the Knowledge Network fit into the integrated system of advanced education that we have.
[5:30]
The concern I would like to express in the committee today is that perhaps, with the minister's very busy schedule as Minister of Labour and Minister of Advanced Education, insufficient attention has been paid in recent years, either by himself or by his predecessors, to the crucial role that the Open Learning Agency and in particular the Knowledge Network could be playing. Is there a reason for that? Is there a deterioration in that particular institution, or does he personally see it as a priority?
Hon. D. Miller: Despite the vast array of issues and the complexity of those issues in the previous debate, I was delighted to note some deficiencies. Although members may have had ample opportunity to investigate the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, they nonetheless chose to stand up, make some pretty irrational statements and display that they don't understand it all.
In the short time I've been here, I've managed to absorb the details, hon. member, and the answer is: absolutely not. The Open Learning Agency, like other institutions in this province, has not been downgraded in the least; it continues to play a vital role.
I talked about the community skills centres. They have played and will continue to play a very important role. They've been working in partnerships with organizations like the building trades to develop skill plans. They are looking at ways that they can provide practical training.
The open university allows people to receive degrees. There was a good story in the Globe and Mail on May 24 that talked about an individual. The headline read "Beating New Paths to a Degree," and talked about the flexibility that's required if you live in the rural parts of this province. Those who don't live in West Vancouver may have to travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to avail themselves of a post-secondary education. People from the North Peace, through a combination of the community college and the Open Learning Agency, can essentially get a degree. So they're going to continue to play a very important role in this province -- more important when we look at the broader issue of the information highway.
The member for Peace River North no doubt was copied with correspondence that came from all of the town councils right across the north. It is quite illustrative, because members in the south sometimes take for granted that they have the telecommunications infrastructure in place, and it's not that difficult. You read about new condos being built in Vancouver, for example, that are completely wired with fibre optics, and through satellite linkups the building can receive all the television you could find from that source. Some of the small communities up north don't have the basic capacity in their telephone or transmission lines to be linked into the distance education that will provide more and more opportunities and flexibility in the delivery of education, not just for people who are removed from centralized locations. We are clearly on the track of innovation and capacity, and that's one of the areas where we're going to see some ability to increase our capacity.
There is a need to work with the private sector to look at how we can provide that basic infrastructure. That task was given to my colleague the Minister of Employment and Investment, and he will no doubt be working very closely not only with the companies in the field but with the Open Learning Agency. Interestingly enough, they continue to be a very large distributor of programming through the classic method: mail delivery or video packages that they send out to institutions. Over time, with the technology improving, we will see them play an even greater role.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's response to this question. I have just a couple of other questions, not about the Open Learning Agency in particular but about the Knowledge Network as an educational provider or deliverer of educational programs. I appreciate what the minister is saying about the Skills Now program. The Skills Now program has been a tremendous benefit to the constituency I represent. The minister recently announced a permanent campus for Capilano College in Squamish, for instance. That is much appreciated in an area outside of the urban core of the lower mainland. In a community like Squamish, that campus will serve a whole region. So I appreciate that the ministry has already done some great work in this under the Skills Now program. I look at that program as largely a repackaging of services, expenditures and commitments that, in many respects, were already included in the budget before the Skills Now program. Nevertheless, the minister should be applauded for putting an emphasis on skills and training. I think that needs to be the case.
He has talked about delivering educational programs and advanced education through the new technologies available to us. Even in Squamish, the area I just referred to, we recently had the initiation of the Sea-to-Sky Freenet. The Sea to Sky corridor is now on the information highway. Some of the MLAs' offices here in the parliament buildings, including my own, are now on Internet. We can go onto Internet, as my office did last night, and get directly into the White House in Washington, D.C., to find out what President Clinton is proposing regarding training and education for economic growth in the United States, and we can see where their emphasis is. That's a tremendous research tool.
[ Page 11958 ]
A decade and a half or so ago, the province of British Columbia developed the Knowledge Network. At that time, television was regarded as an important component of training for the future. Today we would maybe regard computers to be the future -- in particular, the information highway that the minister refers to. When the Knowledge Network was first conceived -- and the initiator was a previous minister by the name of Dr. Patrick McGeer -- there was a vision for how that would provide the highest-quality educational programming right here in British Columbia. There's a strong sense now -- and I share it -- that the Knowledge Network is perhaps not being used for the original purposes for which it was intended when it came into conception about a decade and a half ago. I appreciate what the minister has said about his commitment to the Open Learning Agency. Where, specifically, does the Knowledge Network fit in? In particular, how does the minister contemplate using the Knowledge Network to deliver on the Skills Now program, for instance, which he has talked about and which I support very strongly?
Hon. D. Miller: First of all, just for the member's information, I want to give some basic statistics on the funding and FTE allocations for the Open Learning Agency. We've seen a 6.5 percent increase in growth on the FTE side and a 3.06 percent increase -- almost getting up to the $20 million range -- in terms of their budget. So we have increased the budget, and clearly that's a commitment.
I want to go back and use the article I referred to in the Globe and Mail of May 24. Leaving politics aside, I've always found it kind of nice to read stories about things that are happening in British Columbia that indicate we're doing things right. I don't want to play politics necessarily. I didn't invent the Open Learning Agency; it's been around for a long time. I've only been the minister for eight months, but I take some pride in the fact that we do things well.
Throughout this article -- and I strongly recommend it to members -- are descriptions of our system that indicate we are doing things very well. In fact, the quote that struck me says: "Other provinces, especially Ontario, are notable for the artificial barriers between colleges and universities. But now they are beginning to follow B.C.'s lead." As I said, the story is about a woman who ultimately earned a degree from the University of British Columbia -- without ever going to the University of British Columbia. Through a combination of programs delivered by the local community college and the open university, and another arrangement through Capilano College and the open university, she obtained this degree.
The Knowledge Network will continue to fulfil the mandate that they have. It delivers a range of programming, including the for-credit programming that I watch occasionally. Perhaps other members might do the same. Again, for the information of the member, in excess of 13,000 students enrolled in university and college courses through the Open Learning Agency in 1992-93. That's a 40 percent increase in a decade. It seems to me it's heading in the right direction. There's growth in the financial contribution from government, there's growth in the FTE complement, and clearly, according to an objective source like the Globe and Mail, we're on the right track and doing a good job in B.C.
D. Mitchell: I'm not going to dispute what the minister has just read into the record. He has given us an interesting array of reading material today. It shows one thing -- that he's spending a lot of time in his new portfolio reading. He has quoted Vanity Fair magazine, BC Business Magazine and now the Globe and Mail. That's hardly typical reading for a socialist; nevertheless, I'm impressed.
I want to get back to the Knowledge Network. I want to ask a very specific question about the Knowledge Network, not about the Open Learning Agency per se....
An Hon. Member: Mostly he reads the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Post.
D. Mitchell: His reading is very broad; there's no question.
The Knowledge Network was designed for a very specific purpose, and the originator of the Knowledge Network was a previous minister who sat in this House for many years, a distinguished parliamentarian by the name of Dr. Patrick McGeer. I've recently had some discussions with Dr. McGeer, who is very disappointed about the direction the Knowledge Network, in particular, has gone. I'd like to quote from a letter he wrote me just yesterday, and I'll send a copy of this letter over to the minister. I think he'd be interested in this. I think you can definitely regard this as constructive criticism. It's something that one of this minister's predecessors feels very strongly about, and he's writing this to me because he has some concerns, even dismay, about the direction it's headed in, contrary to its original intention.
He refers to the period of time when he as minister and his deputy minister of the day, Dr. Walter Hardwick -- who the minister will remember -- travelled and thought broadly about how to set up a technological device to deliver the highest-quality educational programming right here in British Columbia. That was the goal. They visited the British Open University and looked at that as perhaps one model. They wanted the people of our province to have the benefit of the very best distance education materials in the world.
In his letter, Dr. McGeer writes:
"We therefore took advantage of the richness of material that is available in such fascinating fields of human endeavour as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, engineering, geology, history of the world, medicine, oceanography, physiology and physics. Very little of this now appears on the Knowledge Network. British Columbians are being denied access to such material, although the network was established to make it available to them. Instead there's an abundance of trivia, most of it of embarrassingly low educational quality."
This is the minister who brought forward the Knowledge Network. There was great promise when that was brought forward, and this is his criticism today. He's been spending some time watching the Knowledge Network recently, and this is what he says. He goes on in his letter to say:
"At the time I set up the Knowledge Network, it never occurred to me that it would be necessary to build in protections for its educational heritage. Those initially responsible for establishing the programming of the Knowledge Network did an outstanding job. I took it for granted that such standards would prevail, and did not realize that good fortune was playing a major part in the initial result.
"The weaknesses of those assumptions are now apparent. Consequently, I think the appropriate course of action is for the Legislature to restore educational values to the Knowledge Network. If the Knowledge Network is then to be maintained as a genuine educational channel, a more sophisticated system of governance than is now in place may be required."
I would like to ask the minister if he agrees that it might be worth considering something along the lines that Dr. McGeer is now recommending.
He goes on to say:
[ Page 11959 ]
"There should be established an advisory committee of international experts to choose the material that is to be presented. If the decisions fall to people who have never seen how other educational television networks operate, who have no familiarity with the materials available, and who lack the ability to judge what is meritorious, what is mediocre and what is merely banal entertainment, then we may again reach the sad state of affairs which characterizes the Knowledge Network today."
The letter concludes:
"Educational materials in important fields have broad appeal to lay audiences. Such materials are of sufficient sophistication, moreover, to permit educational courses to be built around them. I had hoped British Columbians would be able to follow the example of the British Open University in this regard. That has not happened, but in the meantime ordinary citizens should not be prevented from auditing the very best in educational material.
"There is no delivery system that comes even close to television for providing knowledge at low cost."
[5:45]
I think the minister has said basically that in his comments about the Open Learning Agency. There is just no comparison. It's cost-effective and it has tremendous potential for delivering education throughout the province -- in the north and elsewhere, not just in the population centres of the south.
Dr. McGeer concludes by saying:
"In consequence, genuine educational television can provide British Columbians in the most remote parts of our province with access to the frontiers of knowledge in a wide spectrum of fields. I hope the Legislature will be able to give appropriate consideration to this issue. "Yours sincerely, Patrick McGeer, MD, PhD"
I bring this to the attention of the minister today, and I will send him a copy of this letter. I would like to know if the minister agrees that there is a need to reinvigorate the Knowledge Network and bring it back to the purposes for which it was originally intended: to bring forth the highest-quality educational programming in the world right here in British Columbia as part of the Open Learning Agency's mandate, which the minister is justifiably proud of.
Hon. D. Miller: One hesitates to form policy based on one opinion, and I certainly don't suggest any disrespect to the former minister. There are other former ministers. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if you could engage in a fairly lively debate among the other former ministers. There may be people who don't share Dr. McGeer's opinion. I want to say very clearly that I mean no disrespect to opinions held by anyone; we should always treat opinions with respect, even when we may differ.
But I repeat what I said earlier, without trying to prolong this or get into an extensive, almost philosophical debate about one person's opinion, which may not have too much of a place here in these estimates debates. I talked about the fact that the financial contribution of government to the Open Learning Agency has increased. My understanding is that the number of people who watch the Knowledge Network has increased, and I would expect there to be a variety of opinions as to the quality of that programming. That debate is healthy and useful, no doubt, and it will and should continue for many years to come.
Indeed, it may be that one of these years some member may rise in this chamber and read a letter from the ex-minister -- myself, though I hope I don't do this -- offering some other point of view. Indeed, I think we should all read; it's important to read. I learned to read when I was quite young, and I have found that careful reading sometimes keeps me out of trouble. For example, when I'm debating a bill I generally read the bill before I debate it -- unlike that member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who debated the Fishing Collective Bargaining Act without even reading it. He got up and made an erroneous conclusion because he hadn't read the bill. But I appreciate that he's delivering a message from the former minister, and I certainly would be pleased to get a copy of the letter.
T. Perry: I can't resist entering very briefly into this discussion, because it's an unusually interesting one, I find, compared to most of the debate. I thought it was very interesting to hear Dr. McGeer's observations and those of the current minister. The current minister was prescient -- another former minister does want to participate briefly with observations.
I guess part of the problem with Dr. McGeer's observations is the one the current minister just alluded to. Who would make such decisions? For example, I might think that one could easily substitute something a lot more interesting for the question period we broadcast on the Knowledge Network at 11:30 p.m. Judging by the last few question periods, I think we could do better, and Dr. McGeer has some good ideas. I wouldn't want to let it pass, though, that the Knowledge Network is so boring. I've really just discovered it in the last few years, in part because of my kids. When I've had time to watch it, I've found wonderful programming of a very high educational standard, plus some very good cultural programming....
Interjection.
T. Perry: It may not be consistent, and I'm not consistent in my watching of it. For example, in case there's anyone out there watching now who doesn't know about this, there's a great international film series on Saturday nights. I'm usually too tired by then to stay up and watch them. They start at 10 p.m. and you can watch, for example, the best of the Vancouver International Film Festival all year long, with some very interesting commentaries. Some people would call it education, others would call it culture, but it's very high quality. It's good value to people in B.C. and it's free, or you've already paid for it and you may as well get your money's worth out of your taxes. Some of the scientific or educational programming covers anthropology, science, biology and so on.
I think the member, in reading Dr. McGeer's letter, was alluding to a hope that Dr. McGeer, Dr. Hardwick and others had when they founded the Knowledge Network, based on the experience of the Open University in England and elsewhere, that the institution could do even more than it does. In that sense I think it's very interesting to hear the constructive criticism from Dr. McGeer. But as I listened to it, I found myself thinking about some of the barriers to getting consistently high-quality educational programming. One of the obvious ones that I remember is that it costs money. There are copyright issues for programs produced in other jurisdictions. Those who put up the bucks to produce a good program end up wanting to get their money back or even make a profit. It's not always that easy to buy it. I found myself wondering what a possible answer to Dr. McGeer's question might be.
I can think of one that I suspect Dr. McGeer, as a former minister and now a compulsorily retired UBC professor, would agree with entirely. Our mainstream universities and colleges ought to be contributing much more free
[ Page 11960 ]
programming to the Knowledge Network. Where they've got a brilliant teacher or professor -- be it Prof. Michael Smith, or someone like the late Malcolm McGregor, the classics professor at UBC who was a famous teacher, or David Suzuki, who, when he was a teacher at UBC, was renowned for his gripping lecturing manner -- those people ought to be offering courses to Knowledge Network.
But what stops it now? Well, the universities want to get as much money as they can, so they probably wouldn't provide it free to Knowledge Network. They'd try to sell it to the Open Learning Agency. In effect, the taxpayers are being asked to pay the baseline salaries of professors, and then they or their university want to get something back rather than provide as much service as they can to the people of B.C. Out of that comes the germ of a suggestion to the minister and a challenge to the universities. I think Dr. McGeer does have a constructive point. We should be challenging other universities to be providing as much good stuff as they can to the Knowledge Network, and they shouldn't have the nerve to try to charge for it. They should dump it over to the Knowledge Network any time they've got something good, and I'd be surprised if the Knowledge Network didn't welcome it.
D. Mitchell: Just one last question on this. I appreciate the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain's interjection on this. I value the opinion of another former minister. The minister currently responsible for the Knowledge Network has indicated an interest in this. His response indicated that moneys are being spent on the Knowledge Network. Increasing expenditures of tax dollars are going into it. It's not so much a question of quantity, though. I think the central issue of Dr. McGeer's letter is really one of quality. It's a question of the quality of the programming. Would the minister not agree that it's seriously worth looking into the Knowledge Network, its mandate and the quality -- not so much the quantity of money spent as the quality of programming that's made available?
Dr. McGeer used the example of the British Open University in his letter. That's one model. I don't know if the minister is familiar with it. Maybe during the course of his tenure as minister he'll have an opportunity to familiarize himself with that particular model. Would the minister not agree that the quality of programming on the Knowledge Network is worth taking a serious look at, especially if we're going to revitalize it in the context of the role of the Open Learning Agency and the Skills Now program? Would he not agree that's an undertaking worth examining?
Hon. D. Miller: As with all things educational, I would say that we never shut out ideas, and we should examine all of them.
K. Jones: I'd like to follow up on an area that I think the minister is also very happy to talk about, and that's the polytechnical area. I think he recognizes the real need in our community for further polytechnical facilities, and he has already made the announcements of degree-granting to BCIT. Could the minister tell us what discussions he has had with Kwantlen College with regard to the opening of the technical facility in Cloverdale?
Hon. D. Miller: We have had ongoing discussions with Kwantlen and the other university colleges in the field. Clearly, we recognize the need to expand educational opportunities in areas of the Fraser Valley that have a very fast-growing population. I have consulted with representatives of the region. I hope we may be in a position in the reasonably near future to make some announcements with respect to future direction.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if there's any discussion going on with regard to including a more advanced step than the original plan of having a vocational replacement for the Newton vocational centre on that site? Is any discussion going on with regard to a polytechnical BCIT degree-granting capability also on that site, to better serve the Fraser Valley area? Because of the heavy demand on BCIT, which is serving the whole province, a large segment is not able to participate in these job-oriented training programs at the present time.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there have been. I clearly understand the desire to expand the opportunities for training. I think BCIT, for all of us and for many years, has been the model of a technical institute. There clearly is a desire and a legitimate demand to have those opportunities in other parts of the province besides the Burnaby location. There have been discussions, and they've had some influence on our thinking.
K. Jones: I have one further quick one. Could the minister give us some indication about the direction his ministry is going with regard to the greatly desired full university status for the Fraser Valley, under the current name of University College of the Fraser Valley, as supported by the Fraser Valley University Society? Could the minister give us and those people who have worked so hard over the many years to try to support that concept of having facilities closer to the high-growth area, also recognizing that their access to the other institutions is limited.... The people in our lower Fraser Valley area have great needs to get additional education, both in the polytechnical area and also in the more advanced research and degree-granting university area.
[A. Warnke in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's comments as a representative. I said this when I was at the recent graduation ceremony with the member at Kwantlen College. It was my treat, actually, to be out there and see those proud graduates. I said that we recognize the need for increased capacity, we recognize the legitimate desire to have more opportunities on the technical-vocational side, and it should be very clear by now that this government's initiative has a primary thrust in terms of the applied fields.
[6:00]
In that respect, I cited the BC Business Magazine article and that it appears there's some similar thinking there -- that we need to provide opportunities where there's a demand in our economy, both for the individuals and the employers. Clearly that's going to shape our thinking with respect to what we may do in the future in that particular region. Maybe I'm being a touch vague, but the member will appreciate why.
In view of the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report 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.
[ Page 11961 ]
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:40 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In Committee of Supply, Section A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the main House, I call committee on Bill 30.
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 30; D. Lovick in the chair.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 9.
The Chair: I know, members, that we began rather quickly. This is a detailed section. Section 9 contains within it section 20.1 and a number of others.
R. Chisholm: I would like the minister to explain the limitations the municipality will have on it in this section. How far they can go? For what purposes can they use this land which the ALC has deemed they can use under the regulations? I just wonder what uses will be allowed, what uses will not be allowed, and how the checks and balances will be put into place.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The checks and balances in this system happen at the point where an agreement is made between the commission and the local government. They then put in the agreement those things that will and will not be allowed. The act doesn't delimit that in great detail. Let me give you an example of the list of uses that might be considered for delegation for decision-making in local government. There could be agri-farm or commercial uses such as fertilizer sales, hay sales, farm implement sales and repair. By way of example, the Langley rural plan sets out a proposal for an agri-service centre designation where operations directly related to agricultural activities such as feed supply, farm equipment, sales and service, seed packaging and veterinarian services will be considered, as well asagri-industrial uses such as food processing, sorting and packaging.
[6:45]
An example might be the city of Richmond along River Road, where, in conjunction with the municipality, the commission has reviewed an area of land that is somewhat parcelized and is marginal by virtue of having had a lot of fill deposited on the property. The commission has been encouraging the city to consider using this area as an agri-industrial centre to concentrate development, rather than seeing those activities spread out throughout the better agricultural lands. It would also include second dwellings not necessarily for farm use -- for example, farm markets and roadside stands other than those permitted by the current regulations; portable sawmills; utilities such as water, sewer and telephone; and recreational open space uses such as low-intensity campgrounds, fishing camps and hunting camps.
R. Chisholm: Will these uses be allowed to have permanent establishments, or will there only be temporary establishments on this land?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That would be determined by the agreement. Some could be permanent and some could be temporary, depending on what the municipality wants and what the Land Commission will accept. So it is possible.
R. Chisholm: Previously, they'd have to go through a review with the ALC in this type of land usage, and now they're going to have a block authority, I gather, to speed up the process. What checks and balances would be put in place so that the ALC would at times take stock of what the municipalities are doing? After all, we have 125 different regions, and there are 125 different ideas as to what they can and can't do, so it takes a lot of policing of these jurisdictions. I'm wondering how you would facilitate that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The checks and balances are in section 20.1(2)(b), where the municipality has to advise the commission in a manner that is prescribed for each application. The checks and balances occur at that point, so there's advice to the commission that it's happening.
But we don't expect this to become the new order of the day everywhere all at once. We'll have to experiment with it. There have been some municipalities that have been requesting this, and we expect to proceed in those areas. But it isn't going to be a blank cheque for municipalities; each one of these has to be negotiated. It's a new way of doing business for the Land Commission, and we expect initially there will be a few of these that happen.
R. Chisholm: I appreciate what you're saying about the municipality stating to the ALC what they're going to do with this particular piece of property. But I suppose there are some unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of systems. Is there any way that that can be checked on, or are you just relying on what the municipality puts in there? I know there have been problems before with municipalities and the ALC, and the tensions have been quite high in some areas. I wonder if there is any other way that you can put a check in here.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The agreement can stipulate, if there's some concern that the municipality may have trouble with the integrity of the administration of this. First of all, the commission would consider that in making an approval. But the terms of the agreement can include a review after a specific period of time, whereby they will review what has happened to date. If the municipality isn't living up to the terms of the agreement, then the agreement would be null and void.
L. Hanson: What is this driven by? Have the UBCM and the various municipalities requested this accommodation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Over the years a number of municipalities have asked for an opportunity to have some powers delegated to them. The UBCM itself has not requested it, but individual municipalities have.
L. Hanson: From that, I would take it that the UBCM has not been consulted as such -- maybe indirectly.
[ Page 11962 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have very thoroughly briefed the UBCM. The staff knows about it, and they've been asked to bring it to the attention of their executive, if necessary. I'm sure they have. I find that there is a wide degree of knowledge about this, as I travel around and meet with municipalities. They know it's there, and they're very enthusiastic. I haven't heard any negative response. In fact, it went out in the UBCM newsletter dated May 27 under the headline "New Relationships Between Local Government and the Agricultural Land Commission." So it has been positively received. We have been listening to find out where there is concern. I haven't received a single letter or phone call on it that I'm aware of.
L. Hanson: I might suggest to the minister that the arrangement is probably not in opposition to the views of whoever wrote the newsletter. Since May 30 -- if that's the date of it -- I'm not sure whether there has really been an extensive opportunity for municipalities to react to it. Be that as it may, we're here today, 16 days later, passing the legislation. From the minister's observations, it would seem that there is an ability for the commission to reach agreements under different circumstances with different municipalities. Does the minister not see any danger of an inconsistency with the authorities given to municipalities in different parts of the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission itself, as you know, now deals with differences region by region. If there's a principle to an application for a land use that has some general applicability, and where you can find some consistency across the province, then they are charged with being consistent. Where they have to have regional variations because things are truly different in that region, then they can do that as well.
With respect to the consultations with the UBCM, the principles contained in this act were discussed with them as far back as a year and a half ago. So there was a wide degree of knowledge that this was coming. Similarly, the Federation of Agriculture knew it was coming. As soon as we could share details of the legislation, it was shared with them. They were offered and took a briefing. If there were any concerns, I'm sure we would have heard from them by now. There's really no difference from individual applications, but here is an opportunity to decide what would limit development in the ALR and allow the municipality to make some decisions within that without every one of them having to go to the Land Commission for formal approval.
L. Hanson: With the length of time it takes to get an answer from the Land Commission now, I hope this is of some assistance. You could almost expire from old age before you get an answer from the commission at this time.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: And at my age that's getting closer and closer.
It seems to me that the minister's observation that applications have been treated differently in different parts of the province is true, and certainly it is an appropriate way of dealing with things. I guess the only observation that I might have on that is that they're all being dealt with by the same commission. We're not going to have that situation now; we're going to have them dealt with by various municipal or regional councils. While I can see that in the act, it leaves the arrangement with the municipality or regional district open to negotiations between them and the commission for the assumption of those authorities. Does the minister anticipate that there will be a requirement for public hearings and various things when that authority is provided to the municipality?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission will look for some sense that the municipality will approach this from the point of view of putting assurances in the agreement that guarantee that consistency. But the decision is made when you decide what uses are acceptable under this section. As far as the effect on the ALR is concerned, the decision on consistency will be taken when the commission enters into the agreement. I can't see where room for inconsistency would come up. The municipalities themselves will either zone the area or go through a rezoning, and they will be bound to go through a public hearing process by the Municipal Act. We can deal with provisions of notice to affected parties in later sections in the legislation, but the municipalities will have to go through some kind of open zoning process themselves.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
L. Hanson: That's interesting, because it's not in all cases of applications that public hearings are necessary if you apply to the commission.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said we'll deal with the requirements for public hearings generally. What applies generally to ALR hearings will apply to this section. There's going to be a public hearing by the municipality if they're coming up with some zoning. So there will be a public hearing under the Municipal Act. No requirements are relaxed as of this section.
L. Hanson: Just one final question. The point I was trying to make is that in the case of a number of applications that go directly to the Land Commission before there is a delegation of authority, public hearings are not necessarily required. You're suggesting now that if it goes to the municipality, a public hearing will be required. I know it's required in the rezoning process.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The agreement itself will not have to go to a public hearing, but applications that require some kind of rezoning by the municipalities would. If there's a requirement under the Agricultural Land Commission Act for public notice or whatever, then that will have to be given.
[7:00]
L. Hanson: There's no question that if a rezoning takes place there is a requirement to have a public hearing. If I understand this section of the act correctly, the municipality will be delegated the authority to make a decision as to whether land should stay in the agricultural land freeze or be removed.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Land will have to stay in ALR. It doesn't pertain to exclusions at all. This is strictly for subdivision and changes of use within the ALR.
J. Tyabji: Further to the questions, I'm having a hard time understanding where the act as amended specifies that it will be staying in the agricultural land reserve. As we're under 20.1, it says quite clearly that the commission may enter an agreement, as we've discussed, that wouldn't have any public component to it -- this would be something at the discretion of the Land Commission -- and that that
[ Page 11963 ]
agreement could be to delegate all the commission's powers under section 20. The amendments to section 20 are fairly clear, and when we look at section 20 of the original act, we see that it's all the sections of the act that have to do with the categories of land. Where does it say...? Maybe the minister could help out. How does it read that it would not be exempted from the land reserve, through this section, if they delegated the commission's power to decide applications?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's a difference between farm use and exclusion from the ALR. Basically this section applies to lands that stay in the ALR; they're not coming out of the ALR. But there can be subdivision in use -- non-farm uses and subdivision uses -- within the ALR, and it would apply to those.
J. Tyabji: I still don't see that, the way it's written. But the minister says that, by the way it's written, land can stay in the ALR; however, it can be subdivided and used for non-farm use. Why would it stay in the ALR if it's going to be for non-farm use? Obviously we would then have the municipality being the body that determines.... The applications that would have gone to the commission would then be decided by the municipality. Then we could have the land, which may still be in the ALR, being used for non-farm use. It's a municipal body that would be deciding subdivision, and zoning. As we heard earlier, at the point where it goes for zoning or subdivision there would be a public hearing. But at that point there could have already been a designation for non-farm use. Could the minister explain that to us?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you maybe missed.... Perhaps you weren't here. I talked about the list of uses that might be considered for delegation, and they all relate to farm use in some way or another: agri-farm commercial uses; fertilizer sales; hay sales; agri-industrial uses such as food processing, sorting or packaging; maybe second dwellings not necessarily for farm use but to do with farm markets, roadside stands and that sort of thing. So they are related to agricultural use.
J. Tyabji: What the minister is talking about when he says non-farm use is agriculture-related commercial or business enterprises, and the land stays in the land reserve. If there is rezoning or subdivision, the whole parcel of land would still stay in the land reserve. But you could have a dozen different properties where there's agricultural-commercial use -- something that's not farming but is related to agriculture. The minister is saying that that's true. Could the minister then tell me how...?
Of course, coming from Kelowna, I know that we have incredible pressure on the agricultural land reserve there. The municipality has been known to be on the development side of most arguments. Once it gets past the Agricultural Land Commission, the rezoning and subdividing parts are fairly easy. In this case, what would be the purpose of the Agricultural Land Commission delegating its powers to the municipality?
The other part of that is: how will there be consistency around the province if some municipalities will have the powers delegated and some won't? Will we end up with each municipality evolving differently in terms of their agricultural sector? Some will have municipalities that are anti-development and some will be pro-development. Depending on which side they're on, that's how the municipality will evolve. Or will that be one of the factors that the Land Commission determines in deciding whether or not to delegate their powers? If that is one of the factors, where do we see that in the bill?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Before the commission will agree to anything, we will expect a plan and some guarantee in the agreement that.... There won't be an agreement between the Land Commission and the municipality unless the Land Commission is satisfied that there's a plan for the respective uses that is compatible with the land reserve. I'll give you an example. You might have a series of agri-industrial uses, and you might say, "There are five lots here, and they can be up to so many acres" -- dealing with feed and supplies and equipment dealerships and so on. The reason for that might be to concentrate agri-industrial development, which might be absolutely essential to the farmers in a particular area.
I dealt with the consistency argument a bit earlier -- just before you came in. Consistency is no different than what we have now, where we have different parcel sizes and different farming characteristics that require somewhat different treatment region by region. Whenever there's a principle or some way to have consistency across the province, then that's for the Land Commission to decide. They shouldn't be inconsistent in approving agreements from one municipality to the other.
J. Tyabji: I think it could be argued that there have been problems with consistency by region in the past, but I'll leave that aside for now.
Would this be the section wherein the Agricultural Land Commission might move toward a community-based model for smaller-sized farms as well? When they talk about entering into an agreement, to what extent will the Land Commission be setting the terms of that agreement? Will that be the basis for consistency? Or is it going to be a case where the agreement is just in terms of the delegation of powers, without any guidelines to the municipality for that delegation of powers? What I think would be a concern is that.... The minister said that some of these agreements will be temporary and some will be long-term. I would assume that each agreement will specify that. What is the process by which the Agricultural Land Commission will decide that, and to what extent will we in the community feel that the needs of the agricultural community will be served when those powers have been delegated?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm trying to get a full answer for you. Basically, after a lot of hard work between the commission and the municipalities, some municipalities -- Langley and Delta are two examples -- are developing rural agricultural policies that will inform the zoning decisions they make. The consistency and compatibility arguments are all dealt with in the planning process. That's the reason. To have an agreement in place means that advanced planning has taken place, and it's that planning and the restrictions on development in those plans that will give consistency.
What you need will vary with soil types, for example. In the example you raised, it is conceivable that if an area has seen commercial farms of a certain parcel size, there would be no reason that a municipality couldn't agree with the Land Commission that an area be established for small acres or intensive agricultural operations.
J. Tyabji: I think this is my last question under this section, but it might require one or two answers.
[ Page 11964 ]
In Kelowna there's been a problem, as the minister is aware, with a family called the Newtons. The problem is that they have tried to have a small business in addition to their farm. In this case it's not orcharding, which is prevalent in the Okanagan; they have sheep, cows and chickens. What happened was that eight hours a week they were selling some crafts -- in their case, crafts meant the upgrading of some antiques -- to supplement their income. They'd purchased a derelict farm and fixed it up with the infusion of some capital, and this eight hours a week of craft sales was giving them that needed capital infusion. Then the city of Kelowna said that they needed a business licence, and there were some complaints about this being unfair competition.
After a long process, where it went from the municipality to the Agricultural Land Commission, the ALC -- in policy -- backed up the Newtons, saying that not only was what they were doing consistent with the ALC, but it was along the lines of what the ALC was trying to encourage, so that farmers would have ways of diversifying and therefore strengthening their financial base. Since then, it's gone back to the municipality. The municipality doesn't seem prepared to budge, and the Newtons haven't gotten anywhere. Actually, I met with Mr. Newton a little while ago. This became such a high-profile issue in the valley that there's been widespread public support for what they're trying to do, which is basically diversification of their financial base to supplement their farm income so that they can continue to operate their farm. They're in very serious financial difficulty right now, and it looks like the municipality is not going to budge.
In this section, I see possible agreements for the delegation of Agricultural Land Commission powers. The minister just referred to policies, and obviously regulations as well, that the ALC develops. I'm wondering: to what extent is the municipality bound or guided by the policy directives of the Land Commission on agricultural land?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section and this legislation do not take away from the legitimate role of local government in land use planning. There's a balance here between jurisdictional interests, and we would argue that the local government has a responsibility to say something about non-farm uses if they don't think they're compatible. This section would do nothing for the case you're using -- except and unless the city of Kelowna agreed to set aside an area in which they would allow certain uses as adjuncts to farm uses. So you could have a pre-cleared area or policies established by way of agreement whereby this could be allowed, but the municipality has to be a willing partner.
J. Tyabji: That goes back to the question of consistency, and that's where we can see we have a problem. Depending on the municipality that a farmer lives in and that municipality's perspective on what is and isn't agricultural land or accepted activity on agricultural land, the municipality can completely change the bounds within which the farmers are operating. So when the minister talks about the Langley area and the Fraser Valley, where they've had a longstanding planning process and an agreement through the Agricultural Land Commission, and then we look at Kelowna, where we've got a municipality going against a ruling of the Land Commission and there's no action taken by the ALC, that's where we've got a serious problem with consistency. The minister stands up and says that it's jurisdiction. It may be jurisdiction, but we have a piece of legislation that talks about the delegation of power. We know that if they don't delegate the power, it's still the Land Commission that has the power to determine what's acceptable and what's not acceptable.
[7:15]
It sounds like the minister is saying that at the point where a municipality differs with the Agricultural Land Commission, the ALC is not going to take action. That bothers me. That doesn't leave me any comfort that once an agreement has been made with a municipality under this section, the Land Commission will ever step in and say: "We've made this agreement, but this was the intent of the agreement. This is our direction, and you're not consistent with our direction." It doesn't sound as if the minister is willing to step in if the municipality goes beyond the bounds of the agreement or acts in a manner contrary to the Agricultural Land Commission's policy.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If they go beyond the terms of the agreement, the agreement would be null and void for that particular decision. The Newtons would be no worse off. If you are saying that you think this act should protect the Newtons, I'm saying that it isn't going to, because we are respecting the rights of local municipalities to bring in land use requirements of their own. Hence you could have inconsistent local bylaws; there's no question about that. But what you're talking about -- furniture -- isn't a farm use.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Crafts is not a farm use.
You are trying to expect something from this that can't be there. If you want consistency, that is in the home-based business policy of the land reserve. They are not imposing that policy on local governments -- and they won't. And we don't want them to impose it on local governments. There has to be some ability to have a local role in land use decision-making.
G. Wilson: The minister will know that we took strong exception to this in second reading. And we will take strong exception to it in committee stage, particularly in light of the fact that -- as we said in second reading -- this provides for a derogation of responsibility from the Agricultural Land Commission to local governments.
It's unfortunate that sections 1 through 8 sped by so quickly without the benefit of some questions. Section 8 of this act -- which will form section 20 -- talks about the hearing of applications and the decisions on applications for local zoned or permitted agriculture use by bylaw. It talks about the process with respect to community plans, official development plans and so on. The reason that the consistency argument is such an important one.... The member from Vernon hit the nail right on the head, because the Okanagan Valley is an area where this could have a profound effect. Not only are there a lot of municipalities and regional districts that neighbour each other, each having the authority to put in place versions of community plans or local development plans, but each of them could put in place local zoning bylaws that could be quite different and could have quite a different permitted use of land. It could also permit different densities on zoned land. It could permit different subdivision rights to land, notwithstanding the Ministry of Highway's role with respect to subdivisions. But all of those could be quite different.
It will be a selective process, and the problem is that if you selectively decide that some municipalities can enter into an agreement, by virtue of whatever processes by which
[ Page 11965 ]
that's going to be made -- and by the language of this bill, I would argue that it's an arbitrary process at best -- some municipalities will have the right to have all of the powers of the commission, some will have some of the powers of the commission and some will have none of the powers of the commission.
The demand for a change in rural land status, whether it remains in the agricultural land reserve or not, becomes a moot point -- although I'll get to that in a few minutes in this section. The fact is that you can dramatically alter a person's ability to live on land by putting in place zoning and regulatory bylaws on density, land use and subdivision potential. That's something that municipalities can do and have done. The concern is that if there isn't a consistently applied policy -- and by virtue of this language the minister has agreed that there can't and won't be -- it's going to put an enormous development pressure on some areas that will not be felt in others. That's a two-edged sword, because some municipalities may encourage that kind of development.
Some people living on agricultural land, which they believe they can't make a living from because they don't believe the land can support them, may want to have that kind of zoning regulation change. Economic development officers in some municipalities may be champing at the bit to have an opportunity to have the powers of the commission with respect to changing land use. I'm not talking about changing land status at this time; I'm just talking about changing land use. Yet other municipalities, especially regional districts in which voting weight is already subjugated to larger municipalities by virtue of the population demands in the voting structure under the Municipal Act and regional districts, can't look after their lands. They may, in fact, be very fearful of what it is that you're about to enter into.
So I have three questions for the minister. I'll give them all at once, and either the minister can answer them all at once or we can take them one at a time. Coming back to the question that was first put by the member for Okanagan-Vernon, did this land use bylaw change come from a bylaw passed at the UBCM convention directing the government? Has this in fact been fully canvassed, put to the floor by way of resolution at the UBCM and passed by the UBCM? That's the first question.
Second, what are the criteria by which the government will decide which municipalities or regional districts get some of the power, which get all of the power and which get none of the power of the commission? What are the written criteria that can be applied in a uniform way?
The third question has to do with the rights of a municipality, after they have already secured the powers to act as the commission, to move into a new community plan or revise an existing community plan overriding the basic understanding of the agricultural land reserve in terms of permitted uses on agricultural land. In other words, once they get those powers, are they then empowered to move to an amendment of the community plan? This may have to go to public hearing, but that is by no means a plebiscite or referendum. A lot of municipalities, and in particular some in the interior, get as little as 28 to 30 percent turnout at election time. This is not what you would call a real bastion of democracy, in most instances. If they have those powers, can they move to an amendment of a community plan that would negate the uses of agricultural land?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your last question is no, because the agreement specifies and deals with the issue of the compatibility of land use. If the municipality comes in with a plan that changes the nature of what could be done under the agreement, then it's null and void as per the agreement. They can't do anything that is inconsistent with the agreement. The agreement will determine whether there's compatibility or not.
Now, as to which municipalities will be allowed to have some of the powers, all of the powers or none of the powers -- I forget exactly how you phrased it -- it has to do with those municipalities that have a good farm policy. In other words, if they've come up with....
Don't look so baffled by this. It's a logical explanation. The whole idea of the Land Commission is to determine what uses are compatible. So when they come forward with a proposal, it will be determined the same way as any individual application that comes forward. Is it good farm policy to allow this change in use to exist? If the answer is yes, then they will be allowed to do it. And if a good farm policy says that they should have some powers under certain conditions, then that will be written into the agreement.
In answer to your question on whether this came from the UBCM: no, they didn't initiate it. This came from the Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture as a result of experiences with some municipalities that have asked for more powers of this sort. It was the experiences over the years that led us to bring this in as an amendment. In no cases will all the powers of the commission be granted to a municipality.
But I want to explain that the commission has the responsibility to ensure the regional consistency of land use policy and provincial consistency on ALR principles. There may be limits on the powers delegated to local government by regulation; for example, to prevent local governments from hearing their own applications, to determine the terms of the agreement, to require reporting on all applications and by setting other procedural requirements.
G. Wilson: The first constructive comment on this would be that since this has not come from the UBCM and is going to have a profound effect on regional districts and local government, surely the minister would accept -- as we're moving toward a UBCM convention in September -- that it would be sensible to hoist this bill at this time and send it to the UBCM. That would allow the UBCM to have an opportunity to read it, digest it, send it to their internal committee process and come forward by resolution and approve it. They'll get no objection from these members if, in fact, it receives a thorough vetting at the community level as well as through the elected members. Surely the most sensible thing to do is to take it for that kind of vetting through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Wouldn't the minister agree?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I don't agree. This has to do with commission powers, not powers of local government. They could avail themselves of a delegated power from the commission, and what one municipality does is their business.
This isn't a super-planning agency that's here to do all land use planning. It really is to allow the planning for agricultural uses to be done in a way that is more expeditious. I don't think any decision will be made under one of these applications where there's an agreement with the municipality that wouldn't take place by the commission doing it on a one-off basis. It just allows for some sharing of responsibility that, in the end, rests with the commission. The commission's responsibility is to ensure that good land
[ Page 11966 ]
use planning takes place on the land reserved for agriculture.
G. Wilson: I wonder if I could have the minister read with me from this section of the bill. I heard the minister say no municipality will be granted all of the commission's powers with respect to section 20. I'm sure I heard him say that just a few minutes ago. Section 20.1(1) says: "The commission may enter into an agreement with a municipality or regional district to enable the municipality or regional district to exercise some or all of the commission's power to decide applications under section 20 with respect to lands within the municipality or regional district." If the minister's intent is that no municipality be granted all of those powers, then why is that there?
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
In that case, I move an amendment to facilitate the minister's position on this, which would simply delete "or all of the commission's power...." I'm assuming this is entirely consistent with the intent of the bill, because we have just heard the minister say no municipality will receive all of the commission's power. So therefore....
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order. The member is putting words in my mouth, so perhaps I could explain myself. Well, we'll check Hansard. Under section 20, we will not delegate exclusion powers. No municipality will be delegated exclusion powers, just applications under section 20.
The Chair: That's not a point of order, but we will allow the minister to clarify.
[7:30]
G. Wilson: I think it's a point of explanation. But I disagree, because section 20.1(6) says: "If a municipality or regional district has the power to decide an application under an agreement entered into under subsection (1)...(c) sections 28.2 to 28.6 apply to the application as if the application were before the commission." We struggled to find out where 28.2 to 28.6 applies. It's not in the Agricultural Land Commission Act; it's in the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. That's what that section refers to. In that section, it talks about exclusion from a reserve under section 11.1.
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that the minister is looking to respond. I think that where there is some difficulty is: considering that all the powers of the commission would also include exclusion, that would negate much of the debate that we've been concerned with so far, because the minister has gone to great lengths to say that the municipality would not have the power of exclusion. If that's the case, then I would hope that since this is arbitrary and since it's going to be an agreement and we would want to limit the powers delegated by that agreement, the amendment would be in keeping with most of the debate we've had so far.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 20 does not include exclusion. So it's all the commission's powers under section 20 only, which is use and subdivision within the agricultural land reserve.
J. Tyabji: Although section 20 doesn't include exclusion, when we look at section 20.1(6), it refers to the agreement entered into under subsection (1), which is the agreement under section 20. Section 20.1(6) talks about sections 28.2 to 28.6 in the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. It is actually all tied together. Even though it's not under section 20, it comes under that agreement by the powers in section 20.1(6).
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By way of explanation, sections 28.2 to 28.6 are in the Agricultural Land Commission Act and deal with whatever application happens to be before the commission.
G. Wilson: The minister is saying sections 28.2 to 28.6 under the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I believe we have all the consolidated amendments to that act. There is a section 28(1) and a section 28(2), but there is no section 28.2, and so on, in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. I believe the act the minister is referring to is the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It might help to know that as of September 1, those sections of the Agricultural Land Commission Act that were amended by the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act became, in effect, changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The amendments you are referring to are now part of the act, as of September 1. I hope that clarifies it. Would you like me to get you a copy of that?
G. Wilson: No, thank you; I have all the material here. It's a question of when it was consolidated, or where it was consolidated. I gather that's done by regulation. It doesn't really matter, because whether or not it's under.... The point in dispute here is whether or not section 20.1(1) with respect to section 20 -- which talks about permitted use and doesn't talk about exclusion -- is in fact covered off under section 28.2 (1)(c) which refers to "where land is being considered by the commission on its own initiative for (i) approval and designation," exclusive of land under section 11(1).
The minister is telling us that the agreements, by regulation, are going to prohibit that interpretation from applying. In other words, if you're given all the powers which it says you can have, although the minister has said that nobody is going to get them -- that's what the amendment says; it removes all the powers.... We're not going to provide an opportunity for municipalities to exercise the powers the commission would have under section 28.2(1)(c)(ii), which would provide exclusionary powers and allow them to act in a unilateral way. That's what I think I'm hearing the minister say. Therefore, if the amendment were to stand and we were to simply take out "all of the commission's" as the amendment suggests and instead say "municipality or regional district to exercise some...power to decide applications under section 20," that would clearly indicate that some power doesn't mean all the power, and that our interpretation -- and that of others we have referred this to -- would not apply. I would speak strongly in favour of the amendment, and I hope the minister would see it as clearly directed to the intent of this bill.
J. Tyabji: I have one last kick before we get to the vote. There is one thing I'd like clarified by the minister before we vote on this. Subsection 20.1(1) talks about an agreement about applications made under section 20. Then subsection 20.1(6) says: "If a municipality or regional district has the
[ Page 11967 ]
power to decide an application under an agreement...(c) sections 28.2 to 28.6 apply to the application as if the application were before the commission." Then we look to see what those are, and we see they apply to exclusion from the land reserve. The power to exclude from the land reserve applies as if it were before the commission, provided there's an agreement under section 20. Can the minister tell me how the municipality would not have the power to exclude?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that if they don't get exclusionary power, which they won't, then they can't get it by way of these sections.
G. Wilson: If we clean up the language of this bill there will be absolutely no ambiguities to suggest they might, so maybe we should move forward and pass the amendment, which would be entirely consistent with what the minister is saying.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. We have discussed this at some length with legislative counsel, and they see no reason to amend this. It's clear by our interpretation, and therefore we can't accept the amendment.
Amendment negatived on division.
G. Wilson: If we move on, then, to talk about the question of permitted land uses under this section, I have to say that I'm really quite disturbed that the minister did not accept what I think would have been a sensible decision, because nothing earth-shattering is going to happen if this legislation doesn't pass until next spring. It would have had the benefit of thorough scrutiny by local government. It's ironic -- on the one hand, the minister is saying he wants to delegate powers to local government with respect to local land use and bylaw regulation on agricultural land, and on the other, he is saying he's not prepared to wait the time that's necessary to send this off to the UBCM, which is the appropriate and proper body to review this legislation thoroughly and properly.
Nevertheless, the other problem we have is with respect to subsection 20.1(5). I think it has been discussed in part with respect to the consistency question. Subsection 20.1(5) says: "If the commission's power to decide applications under section 20 is delegated to a municipality or regional district by an agreement entered into under this section, the decision of the municipality or regional district is a decision of the commission for the purposes of this Act." That causes us some real concern, because we're talking about the commission entering into a variety of different agreements. Not all the agreements are going to be the same; no boilerplate agreement is going to be taken out to the municipalities that says: "Here, this is what you have." We're talking about the opportunity that the municipalities will have through local land use bylaws, community plan designation and community development plan designation to change the nature of land use. This is really important. Never mind whether they can exempt land off the reserve. They could render that land completely unworkable as farmland, by virtue of land in the agricultural land reserve surrounding it being rezoned. Or they could, through permitted development plans put in place or community plan development, allow densities, permitted uses and subdivision potential to change. All of that can happen after the fact of an agreement. It has to happen that way. I see the minister shaking his head.
If you enter into an agreement with a municipality that gives them commission powers, they're going to act on those powers. What we've heard is that once you've given them those powers, if they act on them by amending bylaws or community plans and thereby make a decision on agricultural land, they are binding on the commission. That's because in subsection (5) it says "the decision of the municipality or regional district is a decision of the commission for the purposes of this Act."
It strikes me that that's a yielding of power in the absence of a provincial land use strategy. It is going to create enormous problems, whether it's competing uses for land between municipalities and regional districts, which may in their overall approach to land use not get along.... That's not uncommon; in fact that's quite common. People on one board will have a completely different point of view as to how to develop local land from people on a separate board, and yet those jurisdictions will overlap -- i.e., a municipality and their representation in a larger regional district. Surely the commission should be allowed the power to become the arbitrator with respect to those agreements, and if the agreement appears to be contradictory to trends that are changing in the province, the commission has to have the authority to simply say no.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: An explanation of subsection (5).... The powers are there because the registrar of land titles or the approving officer for subdivisions has to have the power to accept it. So yes, the authority is delegated from the commission and gives the force of law. It's so they can go about doing the approvals without going back to the commission to get the final sign-off. It is truly a delegation of the powers, but the decision is made on land use at the point where the municipality applies to have an agreement with the Land Commission to do this. As I said, it doesn't matter if one lot comes in and says: "We want this use on this lot," "We want to subdivide to do this," or "We want permission for this use." It doesn't matter if it's one or a block, the same decision would be made. The decision is made for all of those uses, and the restrictions would be put on at the time the agreement is signed. To say that a municipality can thereafter change the use of land is wrong. The land use decision is basically taken when there's an agreement between the Land Commission and the municipality.
G. Wilson: I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I don't know that the minister understands what I'm saying -- or perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
Land use bylaws are not static; they change. They change through a process of land use revisions that often go through public hearing, and they go through a process by which the bylaws will alter in terms of permitted uses. Community plans tend to be much more static.
But there are many municipalities, and probably even a greater number of regional districts, in the province that do not have an official community plan. They don't have one filed. There are even more that tend not to live by the letter of it. It's often the case that, by virtue of public hearing processes, communities will come forward and speak strongly in favour of sticking to a community plan. It isn't the landowner who's trying to alter the uses or seek greater restrictions or a greater permission for uses; often it's a well-financed lobby that gets to the municipality. This minister knows as well as everybody else how local politics and, unfortunately, provincial politics works as well. The well-financed lobbyists come in and start to advocate for changing land use. They start to promote their land use
[ Page 11968 ]
plans, and they promise that all kinds of wonderful things will happen in the community if the local politicians simply play along -- plus the fact that re-election will be a whole lot easier next time out. Do you know what happens? They take it to a committee, often a planning committee. The planning committee looks at the community or municipal plan, and if it's even slightly inconsistent, they get their planners to review it. Their planners often say that a political interpretation is needed. That happens all the time.
[7:45]
The next thing you know, the municipality, which is now empowered with an agreement that is all ready there, is going to be able to come forward and exercise those powers to change permitted uses on agricultural land to the benefit of those people that they think should be benefited and to the detriment of those people that they don't want to see improved. People will say that's politics. Unfortunately, it is; that's what we're seeking to try to change in this province. When that happens in an inconsistent way....
There's no way the minister can argue for consistency under this section, because every agreement will have to be different by virtue of the fact that land use regulations and bylaws and community plans are different. They have to be. They're not static; they're not engraved in stone; they change. If the agreement is in force and changes happen after the agreement, there is absolutely nothing under subsection (5) that is going to give the commission the right to step in.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is.
G. Wilson: Why?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because if they're inconsistent with the agreement, then the agreement will be null and void, and the commission will see it as a non-conforming use.
I think you missed the point. The Land Commission has no interest in entering into wide-open agreements. The idea here is to have agreements that are consistent with the purpose of the Land Commission and the land reserve. There will undoubtedly be a requirement for some kind of official farm-use or community plan -- some kind of thought-out, well-designated set of uses by the municipality, an official community plan. In all likelihood, that is the form that that would take. They will have to go through a public hearing process before they submit their proposal for agreement or before there's a sign-off on the agreement on their part.
The Land Commission will not be consistent to the point that there's one bylaw, one zoning, one use that fits everyone in all circumstances. It's no different than it is now. Applications under these sections will be treated much as applications are now. The closest analogy would be block exclusions, where you make your decision that a set of uses in one area is compatible with what the commission and the local government want to see happen.
G. Wilson: Could the minister please point out where, specifically, in this act it says that there is going to have to be an official farm plan or some other official plan put in place prior to an agreement being set with the commission? Where does it spell out what the terms of that agreement are going to have to be in terms of what the municipality must do before the agreement is entered into? Where in this act does it say that there has to be a public hearing prior to that agreement being signed?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission is charged with the responsibility of preserving food lands. That's its purpose. If the commission derogates that responsibility, then we'd have to replace the commission. The commission is there to provide consistency and leadership in preserving farming and allowing compatible uses that enhance the viability of the land reserve. That's its whole purpose. What you're questioning is the integrity of the Land Commission.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, from my point of view, that's what's happening. If there's no integrity there, this won't work. The only way you could get it would be to leave it as it is, and as it is you've got to trust that the commission will carry out its mandate. If they make decisions that are incompatible with purposes as they evolve -- and you said yourself that local uses are dynamic -- the government would have a problem with the commission; it would probably replace it.
G. Wilson: No, I'm not attacking the commission at all -- quite the contrary. I'm saying that, under section 20.1(5), you should leave the commission some authority to come in and say no. That's what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing about the commission. I have the utmost respect for the individuals empowered within the commission. I'm attacking the veracity of this bill; that's what I'm attacking. I asked the minister, and maybe I'll ask it again: where in this act -- what language...? Show me the language that says that the municipality has to have some kind of approved community plan or farm plan prior to an agreement being made and that there has to be a public hearing prior to that agreement being made with the municipality. If you could just show me those two things.... The minister has alluded that that's there.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It doesn't say that. I was explaining how a commission with integrity would likely behave -- on the advice of the commission, upon questioning staff members of the commission. Subsection (4) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the terms of agreements entered into..." So if it were necessary for us to provide a framework for consistency, that could be done by way of regulation. These are only delegated powers and, as such, can be taken back from the municipality to which they're delegated if they're acting in a manner inconsistent with the original purpose, which is determined at the time an agreement is entered into.
G. Wilson: Now we're getting somewhere. You see, it does not say that; it clearly doesn't say that. Secondly, there's nothing in here that says that an agreement can be pulled back if terms and conditions are breached, because there are no terms and conditions spelled out in the act. So that isn't covered. Thirdly, the ability or competency of the commission isn't brought into question. Section 20.1(4) -- the minister just alluded to it, and, in fact, it takes me directly to my next question -- says it isn't the commission that's going to set the regulations and overall objectives of agreements; it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, this cabinet, that's going to be making those regulations. The next argument is: if we've got a Land Commission Act, and it clearly spells out the powers of an existing commission to regulate and monitor land, why is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council empowered with respect to the regulations specific to each agreement with the various municipalities?
[ Page 11969 ]
This comes back to the comment the member from Vernon was making earlier -- and that I alluded to in second reading as well -- on consistency. It allows the government the power to regulate each agreement by a municipality with the commission. That not only says it isn't going to be consistent, it says there's an opportunity for political interference with respect to the agreements that can be signed, with absolutely nothing in here that says there have to be public hearings. There's nothing whatsoever in here that says there has to be a pre-prepared agricultural land use plan prior to approval. And there's nothing in here that says that, if land use change occurs through community planning changes or community development planning changes, the municipality cannot enact a new land use regulation which will run counter to the traditional, accepted uses of agricultural land -- nothing whatsoever. This section is entirely unacceptable for all those reasons.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The explanation is simple. We may make regulations with respect to the consistencies and what would be involved in an agreement. Why wouldn't we want to be able to do that?
G. Wilson: This is my last comment, because I think we need to put this question to a vote to see where all the MLAs stand.
This is a profound change to the manner in which agricultural land is to be preserved. But the answer to that question -- why wouldn't you? -- is that for the last number of years since the former Social Credit government, we've been doing everything in our power to get politics out of the decision with respect to how agricultural land uses can be preserved and maintained, and to come up with a consistent land use strategy that not only preserves agricultural land but preserves the uses of the agricultural land to make farming an affordable proposition in this province.
This runs completely counter to everything that I've heard out of the mouths of this government's members when they were in opposition. I'm absolutely amazed that this opens the door to a widespread change in agricultural land use. It allows for the erosion of agricultural land at the local level, and it allows the government to participate in it for those member municipalities that they deem friendly to the purpose. I find this a completely offensive attack on what was an excellent idea -- the agricultural land reserve -- albeit that we've done nothing to promote or protect farming in that proposition.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think this government has removed the right of appeal to cabinet, but there are other sections in the Agricultural Land Commission Act that allow for the establishment of regulations. So it's not a new provision. For example, the regulations under section 37 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act allow the establishment of regulations concerning a number of subjects -- terms of agreements and so on. So it's already there, and there's no new principle here.
If the question comes back to the integrity of Land Commission decisions, I have to rest my case by saying that you have to look at the toughness of those decisions and at the new consistencies that have been made by the commission since we've become government. They can stand by their record.
G. Wilson: At the risk of getting into something that becomes argumentative, which isn't going to be productive for the evening, I can't let the point that there's no new principle go unchallenged, because I'm not sure that all members of the government opposite have had a chance to read this bill. I think that when they do, they're going to have to defend, as every opposition member is, where they stand on this question.
There is a very clear change in principle because, by regulation, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may enter into an agreement between the commission and a local municipality to empower a local municipality under sections 28.2 to 28.6 with respect to an application as if the application were before the commission. It confers section 20 commission powers on a municipality.
We argue that section 20 could even include exclusionary powers under section 11 of the act, but you argue it can't. Time will tell, and there will be a challenge to that as sure as we're in this House. What it does is allow for an inconsistent application of policy to be made on the basis of municipality-by-municipality agreements. So there is a fundamental change in principle. There are those who would argue for a comprehensive provincial land strategy for the protection and preservation of agricultural land. But this government is now saying: "Let each municipality deal for themselves." That's a fundamental change.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Those sections, 28.2 to 28.6, don't change with respect to this act. This act does not change those powers.
G. Wilson: No, but it gives them to the municipalities.
J. Tyabji: I'm being asked to tell you that those powers in 28.2 to 28.6 are given under this bill.
I want to put two things on the record, one being further to the discussion about the Newtons. The minister's last comment on that was that he wouldn't interfere in bylaws of the municipality. He should know that there was no bylaw infraction by the Newtons. It was an arbitrary decision of the municipality that contravened the policies of the Agricultural Land Commission. What the Newtons were really looking for was an advocate in the minister and in the Agricultural Land Commission, someone who believed that agricultural activity should be supported to the extent that they would be allowed to have a craft activity on their property. That did receive widespread public support, and to date, they haven't found an advocate on the government side to allow them to advance the policy of the Agricultural Land Commission over an arbitrary decision of the municipality. I want it on the record that it wasn't that they were in violation of a bylaw or even of the guidelines for home business; they were within the guidelines for home business.
[8:00]
The other thing I want to get on the record is that after having sat through this debate and asked the questions of the minister, it's my opinion that this government has basically given up on the agricultural land reserve, because this bill has no teeth left in it. The minister doesn't agree with that, but every answer he has given so far has shown that there's a lot of arbitrariness now, and those municipalities that find favour with cabinet can get directly involved in agreements between the Agricultural Land Commission and municipalities. That's unfortunate, but I don't think these changes are going to do anything for consistency.
We know that only 8 percent of the province's land is eligible for this, anyway. Without a proper strategy to protect farmers like the Newtons, who are trying to make a living on agricultural land by farming and trying to diversify through a home-based business, and with bringing in a bill like this, I think we've left the agricultural land much more vulnerable.
[ Page 11970 ]
Section 9 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 41 | ||
|
Petter |
Pement |
Priddy |
|
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
Dosanjh |
B. Jones |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
|
Ramsey |
Lovick |
Janssen |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
Hartley |
Boone |
|
Serwa |
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
|
Stephens |
Gingell |
Chisholm |
|
Tanner |
Warnke |
K. Jones |
|
Symons |
|
Neufeld |
|
NAYS -- 2 | ||
|
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
On section 10.
G. Wilson: Much of the objection under section 10 in terms of inspection.... I am assuming, hon. Chair, that in the passage of section 9 you have taken it in its totality, including sections 20.2, 20.3 and 20.4. The convention so far, however, is that we have been dealing with each section....
The Chair: That's the way the question was called. We are on section 10.
G. Wilson: We will be advised, then, that we're dealing with full sections and not each new section, which is what we had been doing. We will take care in the future. Fortunately, our principal objections were covered under section 20.1.
With respect to the inspections, we really have a couple of questions. They were largely covered in the previous debate. This section says: "For the purpose of deciding an application under this Act or ensuring compliance with this Act, the regulations or an order of the commission, a member of the commission, or a person appointed under section 5...." Section 22.1 deals with section 5 of the act. It essentially provides for appointment through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It then says that this appointee may "enter any land, other than a dwelling house" -- so they can have access to property -- "make any surveys, analyses, inspections, examinations or soil tests that are necessary to determine...." Much of this is not inconsistent with what already exists under the act.
Then it goes on to say -- and this is where I think we have some questions: "...remove soil samples for the purposes of conducting the analyses and tests referred to in paragraph (b)." It says: "A person who hinders, obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with a person exercising a power under subsection (1) commits an offence." We've got a couple of problems with this. We've just delegated authority to municipalities. The municipalities are now going to be able to make changes to land uses for agricultural land. For the purposes of this act, an inspection would provide for the commissioner "or a person appointed under section 5 and designated in writing by the commission for the purpose...." -- which could be a municipal officer, I am assuming, who would come forward to make these inspections with respect to municipal land.
If I'm wrong on this, then our objections are immediately withdrawn. But if I'm right, we're now setting up a parallel process by which there can be analyses with respect to the classifications of lands that would alter or change permitted uses. As we know, agricultural land is determined by various classifications. Could the minister tell us about that? Could he also tell us about this question of hindering, obstructing and impeding? While it is relatively consistent with the existing act, does that simply transfer powers to the municipality under the existing act?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section is here because there currently are no inspection powers under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
On the delegation idea, there won't be a delegation to a municipal employee; this can only be delegated to somebody appointed under the Public Service Act of the province. Section 5(1) says: "There may be appointed under the Public Service Act officers and other employees necessary for the purpose of this Act."
G. Wilson: Okay, fair enough. I was assuming, then, that as part of an agreement.... But then, I guess, it would contravene another act -- you can't make an agreement to subjugate that act.
Who pays? Is this paid for by the municipality? Is it paid through the commission? If all of this testing is done, who foots the bill?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Under this section the municipality could ask the commission to do the inspection. If that's the case, the inspection would be paid for by the Land Commission.
G. Wilson: Is there a circumstance under this section where the municipality would have to pick up the cost? I can't think of the commission necessarily asking the municipality, although I suppose there may be cases where that would occur. If the commission picks up the cost, then the municipality is free from any encumbrances it might have if it has to do some kind of soil testing or analysis. Can you think of a scenario in which the municipality would be further burdened by that cost?
[8:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I can't. I'm advised that they won't be burdened by this. In fact, what probably is true is the way it is now. A municipality can recommend an application under the Agricultural Land Commission Act and ask that a site inspection be done.
R. Chisholm: Section 22.1(2) states: "A person who hinders, obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with a person exercising a power under subsection (1) commits an offence." I'd like clarification of "commits an offence." What level of offence is committed, and who is going to press all these charges?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will be governed by the Offence Act. We're not creating an offence here that doesn't already have some parallels in other pieces of legislation. It will be parallel to powers that exist now.
R. Chisholm: Who would be the enforcement officer under this? We were talking about an official from the
[ Page 11971 ]
commission earlier. But who's going to enforce this, and who's going to apply...?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be the Crown, through the Crown prosecutors. The commission would have to go and swear out an information.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
J. Tyabji: Just a point of clarification from the minister. I've looked under the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act and the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which we have here, and I can't find a section 25.1(2). Where does that appear, and what does it say?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section was brought in before the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. If you look at the act....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Agricultural Land Commission Act, section 25.1(1), (2), (3), (4), etc.
G. Wilson: There may be other members who have questions on this section; I don't know. Maybe the minister could give us a copy of what he has. We have a copy of the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. I'll grant you that all of the statutes in this binder are not necessarily consolidated, but we do not have a section 25.1.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told it's in the consolidated act, so let me try to get a copy of it. I've got a reprint of it here. It was a 1992 amendment to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that brought this section into force.
G. Wilson: In order for us to move on, maybe the minister could just read out what the existing act says. Or if that's cumbersome and timely, we might just stand down this section until we get a copy of that act and then come back and pass it.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try reading it. It's under "Applications." Section 25.1(2) says: "A municipality or a regional district that makes an application to the commission under section 11 must pay the prescribed application fee."
G. Wilson: To expedite matters tonight, I think it would be better to stand that down. What the minister just read out makes no reference to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and this amendment is striking out those words and substituting "the commission." If we could just set this down for now, I'll get a copy of the act and we can come back to it.
The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee to stand down section 11?
Interjections.
The Chair: The nays have it.
J. Tyabji: It's unfortunate, because I think we're going to waste a lot of time talking about something that we can't read, while we wait to have the section that we can read. The reason that we're having a problem....
Hon. D. Miller: No more than we have already.
J. Tyabji: I'm surprised the Minister of Labour finds it a waste of time to debate the importance of the agricultural land reserve and the amendments.
What the minister read into the record with regard to section 25.1(2) he claims is a 1992 amendment to the act, which we can't find in the statutes in the House, in the act or in the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act. He read into the record something that doesn't have the term in it that is supposed to be amended by the section in front of us. That's where we have a problem; that's why we have to read it. The minister also made reference to four other subsections of that section which we haven't seen. Clearly, we can't even get the context of what it is that's being amended.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There may be another explanation, and I do owe an apology. I was reading from a draft consolidation, not the consolidation. I now have the consolidated act in front of me, and it reads: "A municipality or regional district that makes an application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 11 must pay the prescribed application fee." So the words "Lieutenant Governor in Council" do appear in here, and this section would strike out that phrase and substitute "the commission."
J. Tyabji: Okay. I'm assuming that that will also tie in to section 25.3, where we start to talk about applications as well. When we were asking about section 25.1(2), the minister made an allusion to at least three other subsections of that section, which we also don't have in front of us. What the minister is saying, then, is that the applicant will be making the application to the commission rather than to cabinet, and the fees will be paid accordingly. Is that what he's talking about -- removing the reference to cabinet so that the application is to the commission? In the absence of the piece of legislation he's referring to, I can only guess that that's what the amendment is about. It would obviously be an amendment that we would support.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The explanation is that this was an error. It should have happened last year when the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act was brought in. This was a consequential amendment. It should have been made at that time. It was an error. It's being made at this time.
J. Tyabji: Then the intent of this is to remove the reference to cabinet and put the commission in its place. Is that correct? All that this is doing is with regard to where the application goes.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, that's correct.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
J. Tyabji: When we're talking about applications, could the minister explain how section 12 relates to section 10 with regard to the delegations? What kind of public notice is involved in the application process?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think there is a relationship between section 10 and section 12 of the bill, so perhaps you can clarify that.
[ Page 11972 ]
J. Tyabji: I see that in section 12, under section 25.3(3), it talks about the agreements under section.... Well, let's call it section 20, which came up under section 10 -- however we want to refer to it. It's a bit confusing, because it might be section 10 of this bill and section 20 of the act. Section 25.3(3) says: "A municipality or regional district that has the power to decide an application through an agreement entered into under section 20.1...." Then it lists some of the things that the municipality has to make sure are part of that application. I'm wondering to what extent this becomes part of the agreement with the Agricultural Land Commission. Why would this be stipulated so specifically, when some of the things we were debating about earlier were left out of the agreement process completely?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's possible that the member is referring to section 9, not section 10. The purpose of this subsection (3) is to make sure that notice is properly given.
J. Tyabji: The other question I'd ask under this is: what is the public process? To what extent is there a public process for the applications that are coming forward?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That would be prescribed by regulations. Right now the commission is in the process of consulting with local governments to see what would be appropriate for notice.
J. Tyabji: Is the minister saying, then -- sometimes it's hard to hear what he's saying -- that the agreement the Agricultural Land Commission has with the municipality would stipulate how the public is informed about applications made under this section?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What will be required under here is that local governments will have to effect the same notice requirements consistently. It would be done by regulation.
J. Tyabji: So one of the conditions of getting into an agreement with the Agricultural Land Commission, for every municipality that gets into an agreement, would be a regulation whereby there would be a public notification process. If that's the case -- and the minister has said it would be consistent by regulation prior to the agreement -- what would that process be?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The notice will be consistent. It will be brought in by regulation. We are in the process of determining what will be appropriate. In the process of doing that, we are consulting with municipalities to get their view on what they think is appropriate.
J. Tyabji: I guess that begs the question, then: to what extent are you consulting with the agricultural industry and agricultural community about public notice? The reason I raise it is that although there is a lot of lobby pressure to have the Agricultural Land Commission disbanded, done away with and abolished, there is also a large segment of farmers who would like to see agricultural land protected. They would be very concerned that there wouldn't be proper public notification of applications for exclusion or change in land use. So to what extent are farmers being consulted on this?
[8:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As we have been consulting with the municipalities, so we will be consulting with the Federation of Agriculture will and take their advice. We've already had discussions on a preliminary basis with the president of the federation. They've been briefed extensively.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
J. Tyabji: Going back to continue to flog a dead horse to some extent with regard to the anecdotes, I suppose, in this case it being the Newton family.... There are many others, but that happens to be one I know the minister is familiar with. Under section 13, section 31(2), it says: "Every municipality and regional district must ensure that its bylaws are consistent with this Act, the regulations and the orders of the commission." That seems to be a contravention of the minister's earlier statement about jurisdiction where the minister would not be willing, for example, in a case where an Agricultural Land Commission ruling said that the operations on agricultural land were consistent with the regulations and orders of the Agricultural Land Commission Act....
As I said before, in this case they were not in contravention of the bylaws. However, bylaws are being drafted, as I understand it, where they may end up being in contravention of them. In that case, I would imagine, part of the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is to protect the interests of the farmers. And part of that protection of interests is to allow home-based businesses that allow farmers to continue to operate on that land so that they have some additional capital coming in, provided that the major activity is farming and they are full-time farmers, etc. How does subsection (2) deal with that? I'll give you that one anecdotal situation, but there are many others where there may be bylaws. We raised concerns of consistency earlier, and it would seem that this subsection should be ensuring consistency. Yet the minister had more or less spoken against this subsection in the earlier debate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess the point being debated is whether or not municipalities can have bylaws that regulate some aspects of land use that are not agricultural. The answer is yes, they can. There is a balance that we expect to strike here. With respect to the case you brought up, it's our understanding -- and I don't know if this is the place to debate the merits of that application -- that it would have required an amendment to the municipal bylaws. The advice we have from the Land Commission was that it was inconsistent with the municipal bylaw. While it looks like we have a difference of opinion, I'd be happy to see what evidence was presented.
G. Wilson: I have one question on this section. Who checks this question of the bylaw and inconsistency with respect to regulations? The reason I ask that is that at the moment the process is pretty clear. I know how it works because I've been in municipal government and was chairman of planning and so on. In this instance we now have this agreement entered into, and presumably the minister is telling us this in terms of reference by which this agreement has been signed. In the event that land use bylaws are entered into with the government on the development of land that is in the reserve, if the community appeals, who hears that appeal? Is the bylaw inconsistent? By virtue of the agreement, power has been given to the municipality on land use.
[ Page 11973 ]
I am not making myself very clear. Let me back up and start again. The way it works right now, the Land Commission and the interface of the Land Commission with member municipalities is fairly clear. We are changing that by virtue of delegating authority or power by agreement from the Land Commission to municipalities with respect to the setting-up of these bylaws. In the creation of bylaws or in the establishment of community plans, if members of the community wish to appeal the bylaw by arguing its inconsistency, to whom do they make that appeal if the municipality is under agreement? Will it be the Land Commission? How will that appeal be heard? Who is going to be the final arbitrator as to whether or not the agreement has been breached or the bylaw is inconsistent and therefore null and void?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If a party or community thinks the bylaw is inconsistent with the agreement, and therefore with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, they can make their case to the Land Commission. The Land Commission can then initiate court proceedings to strike down the bylaw.
G. Wilson: Okay, I like that answer. Maybe we could flesh out what the process is a bit, particularly in light of subsection (5), which suggests: "Without limiting subsection (4)...." We don't need to get into that. Under subsection (5)(b), this bylaw "contemplates a use of land that would impair or impede the intent of this Act, the regulations or an order of the commission, whether or not that use requires the adoption of any further bylaw, the giving of any consent or approval or making of any order."
What I'm reading there, and I think what is intended by that.... It's not necessarily a bad subsection. If members of the community see that there is a general movement toward land use regulation which they deem is not in the community interest with respect to the preservation of land, but they know that there is an agreement that the Land Commission has entered into with the municipality, what is the process by which they can stop that rezoning from occurring, especially in light of the fact that there's nothing in here that says a public hearing would have to be held? The normal route of appeal would be through the inspector of municipalities and the Municipal Act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try a way of responding here. This section doesn't deal with the agreements and the delegated powers; it is a general section that deals with inconsistencies between municipal bylaws and the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Anybody can go to the Land Commission and say: "This municipality has a bylaw which is inconsistent with your act." It's up to the commission to then decide if they wish to challenge that municipality. Or an individual could go to the courts and ask for a bylaw to be struck down if it's inconsistent with the act.
G. Wilson: I don't really want to prolong this. The reason I'm concerned comes back to what I was suggesting earlier on. My concern is that once these agreements are in effect, the nature of local government is going to be to enact bylaws that will favour whatever group or groups have influence on or over local government. That's the way it works. I believe that it's our responsibility, as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly, to empower municipalities to act on behalf of their citizens -- for sure -- but also to make sure that the government provides some opportunity for those who deem that their interests are not well served, so that the minority view is protected by the government as a whole.
If these bylaws can be made after agreements are entered into -- and I think the minister has agreed that they can be under this act -- is the appeal process that the minister sees...? My guess is that you can only go one of three ways. First, you can go to the Land Commission, in which case you can appeal the agreement if it's deemed that the bylaw is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of agreement. There is no process for that here. Second, you can go through the inspector of municipalities, which is the traditional route of appeal. Or, third, you can go to litigation in the court, which is very expensive and not really a successful way to go. Now which way does the minister deem would be the most appropriate under this section?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is our expectation that they would approach the commission and ask them to police it.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might want to outline the significance of the additions, because subsections (c) and (d), I think, are reasonable, but I'm not certain about subsection (e) in terms of the circumstances with respect to notice of application required under section 25.3. I'm not quite sure why subsections (e) and (f) on notice requirements are necessary.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple answer is that the regulation-making powers have to be consolidated, so these are consequential regulation powers to deal with matters defined in these amendments. For example, the rights of fair hearing and standards for the protection of farmland in the ALR will be consistently maintained through this.
G. Wilson: Okay, so what we're talking about is a consolidation of the regulatory authority of the Land Commission. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, this is a consolidation of the sections on the regulation-making power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
G. Wilson: I feel at a bit of a disadvantage, because I don't have the consolidated bill that the minister does. So then it would refer back to.... I'm sorry. I left the chamber to search for the section 25.1(2) amended by striking out the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and substituting the commission, which I still haven't been able to find in any printed act that's available to me. If the minister could send over a copy of that, that might solve the problems I have with section 15.
I think it would have been most helpful if we could have simply stood down that section until members of the opposition had a chance to actually look at the wording of the act we're amending.
So subsections (e) and (f), then, make no reference to the commission. What they're talking about is simply the appeals process to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- i.e., cabinet. Is that what they're dealing with?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me back up and explain. The existing act, under regulations, says in section 37: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations" -- it's without limiting subsection (1) to make regulations -- "(a) establishing different application fees for different types of applications and applications in different circumstances, and (b) exempting classes of persons from payment of a prescribed application fee." Then we add (c), (d), (e), (f) and
[ Page 11974 ]
then (b) again. So this is just a consolidation of existing regulatory powers.
G. Wilson: I really apologize for this. I cannot find a regulatory section under the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which I just pulled out of the library and is the most recently consolidated, that either deals with section 25, which was referred to earlier, or provides any copy of the regulatory powers provided under the section that is being now read out by the minister. If the minister could simply send me a copy of that act so I can read it, I'd be much more comfortable.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It sounds to me like the speed of government or something here.
I have in front of me the bills from March to July '92, and Bill 42 of 1992 is the one that has the subsections in it. I'll send this over for you to have a look at. This is the Clerk's copy.
[8:45]
L. Hanson: I notice that subsection (b) says: "A regulation made under subsection (2)(f) may prescribe different notice requirements for different types of applications or different areas of British Columbia." That sort of intrigues me. Can the minister give me some indication of what he is anticipating may be necessary with the provision of those different regulations for notice in different parts of the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In its most simple terms, there might be a different requirement in urban as opposed to rural areas. I'll give you an example. If you had some small regional monthly newspapers, for example, you might require that they advertise in the monthly newspaper in order to get out to the locales that might be involved, as opposed to a requirement in urban areas that might say you have to publish in the daily newspapers.
G. Wilson: As I am awaiting that information, I'll just ask a couple of quick questions with respect to that. My understanding is that the intent of what we're dealing with here -- notwithstanding that we would always respect that the government has the right to make regulations -- is that that regulatory authority will be (a) consolidated, and (b) applied in a consistent manner to the commission so that it can enter into an agreement with the various municipalities. But what I'm hearing the minister say is that there may be a separate regulation agreed to between the government, the commission and a municipality, to give effect to those agreements. Is that not correct? If not, where in the act does it say it isn't?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To make it clear, subsection (b) says: "A regulation made under subsection (2)(f) may prescribe different notice requirements for different types of applications or different areas of British Columbia." It would be one regulation, and it's possible, within that regulation, to have different notice requirements in the urban areas and the rural areas, to give one example.
G. Wilson: I'm going to have to look through this, and if the staff might just.... I'm looking at the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act in front of me here. Is that the act we're talking about? If so, could the minister show me where in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act this section applies? I thought the minister was telling me it was in the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That happened to be the title of the amending act, and it's section 10 under that act. That act amended the Agricultural Land Commission Act and other things.
G. Wilson: I'm not in any way trying to imply there's something untoward going on here, but it's extremely difficult for the opposition to effectively give analysis to this bill. If what we're dealing with now.... The minister has been saying all night that it's the Agricultural Land Commission Act, section 37, "Regulations," which I have a copy of that's as recent as the library's and which does not include these sections. Now I've been sent something that applies to section 10 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act as amended under the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act. That's not the empowerment of regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under section 37, which is what the minister just finished telling me it was. So I'm really confused now as to what the consolidation of this regulation is all about.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 10 of the bill we sent over there creates section 37, to which we are adding through this bill. This is precisely why we offered a briefing to you. You didn't take advantage of that briefing. All of these acts are available. I don't know about the library; I can't answer for the library. But we've got books here. The Clerk's copy is there. These are available to you. It requires a little bit of homework. We offered to make it easy for you, and now we're wasting time in this House when you should have been doing your homework. Members opposite are nodding.
G. Wilson: If that briefing is so clear that.... I see the members of the Liberal opposition nodding and saying: "Yes, yes, yes. Let's just pass it and get on." Maybe one of them could stand up and tell me how this is going to change the question of orders-in-council with respect to the regulations provided on this, because it clearly isn't clear to me.
The Chair: Order, member. This is not helping matters.
G. Wilson: Well, what isn't helping, hon. Chair, is the fact that when you're in a caucus of two who attempt to try to do justice to bills that come into this House -- and I think that Hansard will show that we do that on virtually every bill that comes in -- it is not always possible to make briefings that are set at a time when we are simply not available to be there. Our staff attempts to do so.
I won't prolong the discussion on this, although I clearly do want to serve notice to the minister that when I asked about section 37 and its amendment, I was referred to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It wasn't until staff members sent me the amending bill, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, that we understood that there is a much wider implication with respect to section 25 as it is amended through section 10 of the act. We will simply have to take the minister's word that it does what he says it's going to do. I don't anticipate that he's in any way misled us on this question. With that, I will sit down.
Sections 15 and 16 approved.
On section 17.
G. Wilson: Under section 17, I'm particularly interested in "land reserve plan." It sets out a schedule with respect to
[ Page 11975 ]
those regional districts that have put those reserve plans in place and the bylaw number under which they are governed. Is it intended, then, that in order to have a reserve plan qualify under this act, as those regional districts amend or provide additional statutes on those reserve plans, the government would require those plans to be forwarded either to the Minister of Municipal Affairs or to the Agricultural Land Commission? Or is it intended that by these new agreements, those plans can simply be amended without further reference?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, these are bylaws that were passed back in '74 to '76, as I look at the dates. It just says that bylaws that were made then which related to the establishment of the Agricultural Land Commission Act are validated; those boundaries in those bylaws are validated.
G. Wilson: As they may have been subsequently amended? Obviously a considerable amount of amendment has taken place.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: All that these bylaws did was pass on plans to the commission. They may have been amended as a result of application to the commission. From now on, any changes to the Agricultural Land Commission Act will be going through the normal process. It will be a decision by the Land Commission.
G. Wilson: So that's good news? I'm assuming, then, that this still provides us the opportunity to do some kind of central inventory or registry of those lands through the amending process.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's correct.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
Schedule approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 30, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:
[9:00]
|
YEAS -- 37 | ||
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Kasper |
Brewin |
|
Schreck |
Hartley |
Boone |
|
Stephens |
Gingell |
Chisholm |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Warnke |
| Tanner | ||
|
NAYS -- 4 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Serwa |
| Hanson | ||
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 49.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 49; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
C. Tanner: Section 1 repeals appendix C, schedule 1, of the Supreme Court rules. I've noticed that same expression throughout the bill on a number of occasions. Could the minister tell us why they have to repeal that particular section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The way a number of these statutes are constructed, the Supreme Court filing fee is included in the act. What we're doing is putting that into the regulations.
For example, in this case the fee was established in 1960. Clearly there has been a wee bit of inflation since then, but we've got the statutory....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is not a tax; this is fixing 32 years of neglect.
K. Jones: The point of the previous conversation has to be brought to the floor. This is an additional tax. There are many steps through this entire amendment act that relate to increasing the taxes on various services that are provided. This government is going after taxation by whatever means. They don't want to call them taxes, but it is another tax.
No matter what you do, if you want to file a lien now, you have to pay a much larger fee. Unfortunately, we don't even know what the fees are going to be, because the fees aren't included. The fees are going to be left up to the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Once again this government, through this type of legislation, is gaining the ability to raise taxes and raise taxes. No matter where you turn, there is going to be another bunch of taxes coming forward.
People have to be told forthrightly exactly what is going on. Bringing in a miscellaneous bill like this and making it look like there is no increase in costs and that it's just a minor change to the legislation is not really being honest or forthright. It's about time the government was forthright with their proposals and legislation. Tell the public what you're really doing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me be forthright and honest.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to challenge that.
The reality is that most court fees are established by regulation. Overwhelmingly, the fees an individual will pay -- a filing fee or whatever charges are incurred in going to court -- are established by regulation. There are a number of
[ Page 11976 ]
bills that have not had that change made to them over the decades, so we're making the changes now so that those fees can be dealt with by regulation.
In the case of the first one, which is the Builders Lien Act, we're talking about.... We haven't gone to Treasury Board on this yet, so Treasury Board may say "no fee increases," and that's that. I may not get what I think we should get. In some cases we're raising fees that 32 and 34 years ago were $20, for example, and which may now go to $140, and in some cases may go from $20 to $30. That may or may not happen.
It is important for members to understand that this isn't a tax. If it were a tax, it would be raising revenue for the Crown above and beyond the cost of providing the service. That's what a tax does. It provides additional revenue for the Crown to pay for other programs. A fee, properly set, will pay for the service that is being provided. These fees do not pay for the service. These fees are far less than the cost of providing the service. Even the proposed fee schedule I'll be going to Treasury Board with won't begin to pay the costs.
This is going to apply to half a dozen sections, so I'll just say it now. What we're suggesting is that we're beginning to try to attach some cost -- not the full cost, but some cost -- to going to court on these procedures. That's all that is happening. It's not a tax, because there is no revenue to the Crown; we're still subsidizing it. And we're dealing with getting it out of the statute and into the regulations where it properly belongs and where it usually is in most cases.
K. Jones: On a point of clarification, could the minister tell us...? The Builders Lien Act is normally a claim by a householder against the builder of their house.
An Hon. Member: The other way around.
K. Jones: I'm sorry, it's the other way around -- by a builder who is building a house and has not yet been paid for certain services rendered, or by somebody who is a subcontractor of the builder. If that person has to pay a fee of $100 or $150 for that service, that's an additional cost that they are putting into their building. There could be many of these involved with a particular building, and that will increase the cost of that building. Are you trying to tell us that that's not an increase in costs to the taxpayers?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether this will help the member or not, but if a tradesperson on a job hasn't been paid and wishes to file a lien, the first step is to file a lien -- this doesn't affect that. This is if they are going to commence a court action -- in other words, if they are going to cost the taxpayer some thousands of dollars in the court system as a result of utilizing that very expensive system we have. It only applies if they commence a court procedure, which may not need to happen, because in the first instance they can simply file their claim without cost.
K. Jones: If workers don't get paid and then find that they have to go to court, that means they are going to be faced with extra costs -- a substantial increase -- in trying to follow through and collect their money out of this. That's one more reason the employees may never get their money back, because it would be making it that much more costly for them to initiate. They have to put this money up front, which the minister is obviously aware of, and that becomes one more step in preventing the people from using the legal processes that would be available for them to make collection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Everybody who commences an action in the Supreme Court pays the fee, whether they are a worker commencing a builder's lien action or anybody else who is commencing an action. The worker the member is concerned about who files a fee and has to pay the $140 is no doubt going to be successful in their court action, and they will get their money back. Anybody who has a good claim, and as a result of commencing an action wins it because they've got a good claim, gets the filing fee back. So there's no cost at all to somebody who has been improperly dealt with by someone else.
K. Jones: Under the regulations that are proposed, could the minister tell us what the actual fee is? Are you saying that the fee would be $140?
[9:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are no regulations yet. Regulations don't get considered until the Legislature passes a bill and an act is established. In terms of dealing with court fees and other matters that have to do with fees, procedures and whatever, there is a consultation process with the judiciary, which we haven't embarked upon because the Legislature hasn't spoken yet on this provision. No decisions have yet been made. Discussions and consultation will take place, then there will be a process through Treasury Board and cabinet. I don't mind saying that what I hope will result from this in the final analysis is a fee that's about $140. But that may not happen; Treasury Board may say: "No more fees."
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
J. Tyabji: For clarification here, are any of the documents covered by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act also covered by this? I'm assuming the reason for changing from a $1 fee to that prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is possibly that the cost of providing those documents has changed, and so the fee would be a minimal adjustment. I'm just wondering to what extent this is going to cover any of the other public documents that people try to access.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no connection to or relationship with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This is simply a document that would be provided through the court system. It's the same argument we made in section 1.
J. Tyabji: I just want some sort of assurance from the Attorney General that the fees prescribed by regulation would be roughly at cost and that the change is only because the current fees aren't covering the cost.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll never get to full cost recovery on these kinds of fees, and I don't think there's any intent to get to full cost recovery. You've got an entire bureaucratic structure in place to provide services and support. To calculate the actual costs of each of the services that the courts offer citizens would probably take more time than it's worth. There is no intent to bring the cost up to the actual cost of delivering the service; it's to get rid of this system where costs get frozen in time because no government wants to bring these kinds of amendments into the House. Usually they don't do it.
[ Page 11977 ]
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment is not standing in my name in the order paper because we haven't had time for that to occur. I have circulated copies of the amendment, and I have given a signed one to the Clerk. We have additional copies for any members who would like to have the Sergeant-at-Arms distribute them.
[SECTION 7. (a) in the proposed subsection (3.1) by adding "fractional" after "undivided" wherever it appears, and (b) by deleting subsection (3.2) and substituting the following: (3.2) Subsection (3.1) does not apply to land if an indefeasible title to or a right to purchase an undivided fractional interest in (a) a fee simple estate upon condition subsequent in the land of the kind described in subsection (3.1), or (b) a determinable fee simple estate in the land of the kind described in subsection (3.1) was registered before May 30, 1994.]
Last night in second reading debate, members from all opposition groups made the point that section 7 changes to the Land Title Act would have an effect on parties that had already taken advantage of the fact that the prohibition proposed in these amendments was not in place and people -- these aren't the words used in the argument; this is my summary of it -- had acted legally. They had taken advantage of the fact that there was no prohibition against what they were doing in terms of undivided interest in a parcel. This proposal would affect those individuals. Both developers and parties that may have made an investment and whose investment may be at risk could potentially be dealt with unfairly by this change.
What the amendment that I've circulated accomplishes is, first of all, that in section (a), which is the proposed subsection (3.1), by adding "fractional" after "undivided...." That's simply to give more clarity to the issue so that there is no doubt at all about what kind of undivided interest we're talking about. In (b), by deleting the subsection that previously had been introduced and substituting the following subsection, we are grandparenting those people, both on the developers' side and the consumers' side, who have taken advantage of the scheme that had been developed in recent years to get around the Strata Titles Act or to get around either municipal or regional approving officer approvals.
I hope this means that we've met the concerns. I've talked to a number of members privately about individual concerns. Some of the affected interests in perhaps two or three cases are on reserve land, and this does not apply. Everyone knows that our land title structure does not apply on reserve land, so the effect of these amendments does not apply to those situations. But there are some -- I call them developers, but it may be the wrong word -- who have projects on both native and non-native land, some of which are in the land title system and some of which are not. The ones that are not are captured by this provision, but any proposal to create an undivided interest within the fee simple system in the land titles system we have in British Columbia will be caught by this. No one who has initiated an action prior to May 30 will be caught by the substantial changes we're making. So I hope that captures the concerns that were expressed by members. I also hope I've explained it in a relatively accurate way. It's a subject that I don't have a lot of familiarity with, and I hope I've come close to -- I'll be told in a moment if I haven't -- expressing the arguments clearly.
F. Gingell: Perhaps we could start the discussion of section 7 by the minister explaining to us exactly what the meaning and consequences of the section that is being amended are, and what section (3.2) said before you decided to repeal it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will do my best to clarify this. The original amendment contained in the bill, subsection (3.2), was included to provide legal certainty and to be absolutely certain of the consequences of the preceding subsection, (3.1).
On reflection -- and the reflection was caused by the debate yesterday -- it became clear that by adding the word "fractional" in (3.1), the certainty was there. There was no need to clutter the statute with the language in (3.2), which was originally designed to simply provide the legal certainty, which there was some question about.
F. Gingell: If a parcel of land is being subdivided on a piece of paper into 100 undivided fractional interests, and if 80 of these have been dealt with -- i.e., sold to a party -- and 20 more of them remain with the original title, it would seem as though your amendment would not allow those subsequent 20 to be dealt with. Can you show us that that is not the case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I need to assert that that's not the case. We're very conscious of that issue. The remaining 20 in the illustration the member provides would be able to be continued under the old "absence of a law." They would be grandparent to them, and that's clear.
If the members will permit this, I'm going to read the notes on that point:
"The grandparent clause specifically exempts land from the subsection (3.1) prohibition if an indefeasible title to an undivided interest in a determinable or conditional fee simple estate has been registered in the land title office before May 30, 1994. Because the exemption applies to the land, the developer and the owner purchasers can continue selling interests that would otherwise be prohibited by the legislation."
F. Gingell: I take it that this means that if one of the undivided fractional interests has been sold, then the whole of the land is grandfathered. But even if they have advertised and they're going to have a grand opening on June 1, 1994 -- "Come out and see this lakeshore property" -- but the first undivided fractional interest has not been sold, then they would not be grandfathered. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The determining issue is whether or not they were registered before May 30, not whether or not a fraction had been sold. The crucial issue is the registration prior to the introduction of this bill at first reading, May 30.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what "reverter" means?
With regard to "registered," I presume that you mean registered in the land titles office. I'd like to explain that I see a problem with this where approval has been given by a municipality for this to proceed, or where people have initiated some investment into this type of proposal and therefore have some material interest in it. I would like to see this set so that it covers all of those cases as well and so that
[ Page 11978 ]
the government doesn't end up getting sued by these people on the basis that they've had an expenditure of effort, time and money that is now being precluded by law.
[9:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the simple answer to that is that if the municipality had agreed to the subdivision proposal, then it would have been done in the normal and straightforward ways and not by this subterfuge, so it wouldn't apply. I think that answers the second part of the member's question.
I think he asked me what the word "reverter" means. I had to ask that question several times before I understood it. The best way that I can understand it is by way of analogy, because I don't think I can do it any other way. If I sell you a piece of land and the condition is that it be made a park and you decide to turn it into an amusement theatre, it then reverts back to me if the condition of sale was that it was going to be a park.
K. Jones: In that case, could the minister tell us how this amendment that calls for "fractional" to be inserted in subsection (3.1) covers this particular aspect of "reverter"? Could you also explain to us how subsection (3.2)(c) is also covered by "fractional" in your amendment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try to explain this. For those members who are interested in parliamentary reform, this is the best example of why the staff should be allowed to answer questions on occasion. An undivided interest is the whole piece -- the whole property. "Fractional" is a part. Right? If the member has ten suites in a building, an undivided interest includes the whole building and the land it sits on. An undivided fractional interest could be one-tenth. Including the word "fractional" makes that point clear about the nature of the undivided interest, and it avoids the need for the subsequent section, which was deleted as a result of that.
K. Jones: Unfortunately, the minister didn't get my meaning. I know what fractional means. I was asking whether under the amendment we are now discussing, subsections (3.2)(b) and (3.2)(c), which the minister's staff have put in there for a purpose, are eliminated. I don't believe they are accommodated by the use of "fractional" in subsection (3.1). I would like to know why they were put there originally, and why they would not be somehow included in this amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the simple answer to this is that if you look at subsection (3.1) in the original bill, the legal consequences that flow from subsection (3.1) are, in fact, those that are described in subsection (3.2), therefore you don't need to have them written out. In order to make absolutely sure that subsection (3.1) has a legal certainty, we've added the word "fractional," and that makes subsection (3.2) redundant.
J. Weisgerber: If I understand the effect of these amendments, projects that were registered prior to May 30 can proceed, and anything in the future would have to be done by another mechanism -- strata title or something of that nature.
First, I want to commend the minister for bringing in the amendments. I think it's one example of how this process can work and should work, and the minister has a particularly good track record for listening in second reading and coming back with amendments. I commend him for that.
The original intent of bringing this amendment forward was to discourage further developments of this type, but also to provide some greater certainty or protection for those people already involved in these kinds of undertakings. The minister has responded that he hasn't in any way diminished the value of these fractional undivided interests. Given that there was some risk to individual owners under this process, has this amendment, as amended, gone any length in providing greater certainty and protection for that fractional undivided interest that an individual might own? Or has the minister simply established a deadline after which these developments can't occur in the future?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I understood the member's question, I think it's fair to say that this provides no certainty and no benefit to those people who've been lured into these schemes, if I can put it that way.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That may be strong language, but that's no doubt that that has often occurred. What we will do is ensure that in the future these kinds of schemes, which on the surface seem quite attractive to people, will not be legal. In addition to that, we'll ensure that there needs to be an approval by the appropriate approving officer, whether it's the approving officer or the council, so that people can't escape the kinds of laws that are in place for strata title conversion or the like.
J. Weisgerber: The effect, then, is not to improve the situation on those developments. Indeed, the effect of the amendments to the amendments is not to damage those interests any further.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, the member and I agree.
K. Jones: I'd like to go back to the question of when this initiates. The minister has explained that this initiates on the registration process of the fee simple arrangement. Could the minister tell us exactly what is being registered at that point that would be classified as the registering of this process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the first occasion when there is a fee simple transfer of title is the date on which the first registration occurs.
I've suddenly realized that the member for Delta South asked me a question on the same line. We need to clarify that to make sure I gave the same answer to the two members. Right? It's a good thing to do in this place. I'm going to take a moment and absolutely clarify that.
The Chair: Can I advise the minister, at the request of his colleagues opposite, to carry a bigger stick and speak somewhat more loudly?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's the Opposition House Leader who needs to carry a big stick.
I hope I haven't confused members. I'm told that I have given the right answer on both occasions.
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's pretty amazing for me on this topic, I must say.
The first registration of a fractional interest that occurs establishes the registration of the project. Perhaps the
[ Page 11979 ]
member for Delta South and I didn't connect, or perhaps I didn't hear very effectively. But just to make sure that the answer is clear and understood by me, at least, the date on which the first fractional interest is registered in the Land Title Act is the operative date. If that occurred prior to May 30, then they're grandparented; if after, then they're not.
F. Gingell: I think if you go back to Hansard, you'll find that the focus of my question was whether they are okay by this grandfathering if they're all ready to go, they've advertised and everything has happened -- except that the grand opening was two weeks ago on June 1, and they haven't made the first sale yet. I understood your answer to be yes. I asked if you require the sale and registration of the first fractional interest to trigger the grandfathering. I assumed that your answer meant that some other registration took place, and I presumed that it was one of these offerings that you have to put through -- not the Financial Institutions Commission -- one of those types of filings that would have triggered the grandfathering. I would imagine that this kind of arrangement would require one of those filings with the FIC, so I presumed that it was some other form of registration.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, on the last point, any FIC filing or any other activity is not germane to this issue. I think the member understands that. There's a division of opinion as to whether I answered accurately or not, and I'll have to look at Hansard as well. The fact is -- whatever I may or may not have said in the first go-round -- that the registration date is the date when the first transaction occurs. If the project has, as the member described, a grand opening on June 1 with no sales, no transfers and no registrations having taken place, it is not covered by this amendment.
[9:45]
F. Gingell: I wonder if the minister would consider a friendly amendment to his amendment that would update this May 30 date to at least June 15. We don't know what is happening out there in this world, but it would seem reasonable to me.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not even going to take advice on this one. The answer is no, it's not friendly. The fact is we signalled our intention with respect to this by introducing the amendments at the time of first reading, and that's the date that's operative.
K. Jones: Could the minister clarify whether there is any requirement for this type of development to be registered in the land registry office. Because it is not a registered division of the property, it is a division of the property without registration. Are we really then talking about filing the prospectus indicating the proposal? That may be the appropriate point at which to bring this into effect.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In order to be effective, any interest in land has to be registered. Otherwise, it's not effective.
K. Jones: I understand that a press release put out by, I believe, the Minister of Consumer Services indicated that there was a concern about the conversion of apartments into condominiums under this type of structure. There was a problem with the fact that people didn't have a registered title, and that sort of thing. We understood that that was the reason this legislation was being brought in. Is there some other reason why it is being brought in? Under other examples of this type of practice, where land is being held by various parties -- such as waterfront property or single housing -- it doesn't seem to be quite as much of a problem. Maybe you could explain the real purpose of this legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the scenario the member described has no connection or relationship to this particular issue. I think there are some lease arrangements, which the member was referring to, that do not apply to this.
The member asked me to again explain why we are bringing this in; I guess we're not on the amendment when we do this. The reason we are bringing this in is to protect consumers from thinking they are acquiring property when, for very flimsy reasons, they don't have the property. It can be taken back by the original owner if a simple bylaw in the building is broken: "You made too much noise last night, therefore we're taking back your interest." You therefore lose everything you have invested in that portion of the overall property.
Secondly, this technique was being used to circumvent subdivision approvals by approving officers and/or councils. Somebody is always out there trying to find a way around the law, and the result is that ordinary, good citizens get bilked. We're trying to make sure that doesn't happen.
C. Serwa: I have just a few questions on this. I recall that when the Agricultural Land Commission brought in the agricultural land regulations, there was a different tack taken than the one the minister is taking. The assessment was not on the registration of the subdivision or development. Consideration was given to the amount of effort and capital that had been spent to bring it up to a certain point. In the case of this situation, there may be properties in the province that have been acquired, and a considerable amount of development work has gone on on those properties. Is there any provision or consideration on the part of the minister to approach it in a manner that is consistent with the manner in which the agricultural land freeze was brought into the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not have understood the member's question fully, but developers or individuals who wish to embark on subdivisions of varying kinds now have a wide variety of options within the law in British Columbia -- whether it's strata title or other options. Those are not affected in any way by this proposal.
C. Serwa: The minister has clarified it for me. They're not really restricted from developing. They have to develop in conformation with the existing rules and regulations -- and opportunities of the strata title process, for example. That's clear. It's not as if they've made a large capital investment and all of a sudden they're not able to get a return. There are the options. Thank you very much for clarifying that.
When we're grandfathering the undivided interest, I can only presume, then, that it's not only in the hands of the developer, who is selling that interest, but the subsequent purchaser of that can continue to transact that undivided interest. So it will continue in a grandfathering situation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes -- except it's "grandparenting."
J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. I guess that takes out the first line of my line of questioning.
I know we're on the amendment right now. The Attorney General, in answering the questions from one of the other members, said one of the reasons for bringing in the original
[ Page 11980 ]
amendments (3.1) and (3.2) was that there were people who were purchasing undivided interests, and if they contravened a bylaw, that investment was being taken from them by the grantor. I find it interesting that through the amendments introduced in this act, the Attorney General was doing exactly the same thing with every single person who'd made an investment in undivided interest -- prior to this amendment being before us. I'm not sure if that was the intent; that certainly was what was happening.
It makes it a bit hard to believe the original intent in bringing it in was to protect people who'd put their investment in, when with a stroke of the pen this whole section would have wiped out all investments, not just the investments of people who'd contravened a bylaw. I have a question on that, after I hear the answer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The original intent for bringing in the section 7 amendments was to prevent the scam from occurring in the province. When we drafted the legislation, frankly, we did it without paying proper heed to the question of people who had already embarked on the scheme. But the design of the legislation was to ensure that this kind of "scam" could not occur. What we're doing by way of this amendment is protecting those people who embarked upon that scheme or that kind of initiative at a time when it was legal. In my view, it shouldn't have been legal, but it was. Therefore why penalize people who were doing something that was legal when they did it? That's the purpose of this.
J. Tyabji: It kind of begs the question, then, why the Attorney General wouldn't have brought in legislation similar to the Residential Tenancy Act, for example, or even more particularly, the Manufactured Home Act, where protection is inherent in the act to prevent the person -- in this case it would be the grantor -- from removing someone's investment in that land. For example, if the Attorney General....
I know that the stated intention of some of the grantors in providing the sale of undivided interest is to allow for affordable recreational property. If that's the stated intent, and the Attorney General's concern about that is that this investment is going to be yanked without due cause, why wouldn't the Attorney General have brought in an amendment that would have prevented the yanking of the interest without due cause? For example, an amendment could have said, "No grantor can remove the capital investment of a grantee without due cause," with due cause defined as where there's a violation of the contract because they haven't made their payments or something like that. Why wouldn't the Attorney General have chosen that route? Or is the process in principle what the Attorney General is trying to prevent?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I understand the member's question correctly, she's proposing a course of action which is pretty complicated in respect of drafting laws that affect the relationship between parties in this way. This was a simple way of dealing with it.
If anything, this Legislature should always try to find the most simple and direct way of dealing with problems, rather than some convoluted scheme that may raise problems that we haven't yet anticipated.
J. Tyabji: I have to put on record that I disagree. It would be fairly easy to write in something to protect someone's capital investment. Coming from an area where undivided interest in recreational property plays a large role in the local economy, I'm sure the Attorney General can understand that the ability.... I know that the Gulf Islands is another area where someone may have a tract of land and they can sell an undivided interest. The Attorney General has stated that he wants to protect the consumers' rights in putting in an investment and having the investment -- and therefore their undivided interest -- taken away by the person who owns the land. That could be fairly easily addressed. Is the principle of the undivided interest the problem? The reason I ask that is that I am wondering what would be an affordable recreational property strategy in lieu of an undivided interest if we can't let people who own land sell an interest in that land.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am trying to decide how to answer the member's question, and I think I need to go back to the beginning. A simple problem emerged in recent years which was that some people had found a way to get around the approval process for subdivisions. They had also found a way to encourage people to buy an interest which could easily revert back to the seller of that original interest in a way that is patently unfair. I think everybody would agree. So a problem emerges which requires resolution. Our approach was to find the simplest way of dealing with the problem without enacting a huge series of laws which interfere in private commercial relationships, in private party matters or a law that tries to determine which capital investment should be attached to which party and under what circumstances. We simply said this scheme is not to be legal, and that is what we are doing here.
J. Tyabji: That does seem to support the idea that it's the principle of selling undivided interests and not really the protection of the consumer per se. The Attorney General is shaking his head, but let me give him an example.
We have correspondence from Parker Cove in Kelowna, who have made a very interesting case. They point to the Gulf Islands, where there are some homes and cottages placed on land where there is an undivided interest. In that case they are safe because they are registered. But those people have been able to afford to purchase that, and when the Attorney General says they have bypassed normal subdivision procedures, he's correct. One way they have done that is that they don't have to go through a lengthy process with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to put an easement on for a road, for example, that may never be needed on the island.
[10:00]
An excellent case in point for this is one that occurred in the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast's riding in Simoom Sound, which is on an island in the Broughton Archipelago. There are no roads, no way of getting around other than by boat, and you cannot possibly put a road on that piece of land. This situation occurred where there was an undivided interest and they wanted to move from the undivided interest to permanent residency, and for that purpose a subdivision and a fee simple purchase of land was required. It took more than two years. Until the intervention of the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, they were tied up with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, who wanted them, as a condition of subdivision, to put in a road on a cliff on an island where there were no cars. That tied them up for two years. What's happening in this instance is that prior to....
Interjection.
[ Page 11981 ]
J. Tyabji: The member for Mission-Kent is saying they are planning for the future -- and a major reconstruction of the island, too, I might add.
In the current situation, once someone wants to move from affordable recreational property to fee simple residence and they want to take title, they have to go through all the proper subdivisions and roads, and all the requisites necessary to have title to that land. The current situation in the Okanagan, in the Gulf Islands and in many of these other areas is completely different. These are recreational properties where people could probably not afford to have any kind of interest. If the purpose of the government is to protect the interests of those recreational holidayers, one would assume that they would give them the choice of entering into that agreement and, if they have the opportunity to enter that agreement, protect them. They want that protection; they want to be able to have the freedom....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: That's right. You could either strata-title it or have a situation where you protect them. The amendment would probably be smaller than what we've got here, but it would not preclude them from having affordable recreational land; that, I think, is the bottom line. If the government is against it in principle, it's unfortunate. Many people will not be able to purchase affordable recreational land and will probably be upset that it exists in other areas because we are grandparenting it.
The last thing I want to add is that with this amendment, in a way, the Attorney General is moving the existing undivided fractional interest into the realm of a commodity. If anyone wants affordable recreational property, they will only have a limited market, and that will affect the value -- probably in a positive way, but one which is unfortunate for the consumer.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I share one thing in this debate, and that is that we both like the idea of being able to have recreational property. The member wants the recreational property to be subdivided without any approvals.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's what the member is arguing. The member is saying that if they subdivide the property, they may have to get roads and that's too expensive. The point of this legislation is that you cannot circumvent the rules. The member wants to be able to allow individuals to enter into arrangements that mean they don't have to get approvals from the approving officer. On the islands that she suggests.... I've got those kind of islands too, where people say: "We don't want roads; we want to be able to have water access; we want to be able to have an access by way of a hiking trail to our property." Fine, go to the approving officer and get approval, but don't do something illegal.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member says you can't get approval. I know of cases in my riding where individuals have gotten approval from the approving officers, and in others....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. But the member is arguing to have a scheme constructed. Because they don't like the decision of the approving officer, or perhaps the decision of a municipal council, they want to establish a scheme that allows them to avoid getting approval. I would think that members in this House, above all, would want to argue in favour of the rule of law and the proper procedures and approvals for subdivisions. The member is making an argument that approving officers should not play a role when they may make a decision that the member doesn't like, so we should allow this little scam to continue. No way, hon. Chair.
I think we should move on.
The Chair: Before I recognize any other members, I want to suggest that we have canvassed this section and the amendment at great length. We are now at the point where we are no longer eliciting information; we're simply taking positions and restating positions. I think we're very close to the end, so I would acknowledge the member for Okanagan East again, but with that caveat and caution.
J. Tyabji: I don't wish to restate my position, other than to say that in no way, shape or form am I suggesting we circumvent the rules. All I'm saying is that we acknowledge the possibility of affordable recreation and that that can be done within the rules. We can make the rules better than the way that this amendment is coming out. I want that to be on the record. I am not saying to circumvent subdivision; I am not saying don't go through due process. I'm just saying to make sure that the category fits the use for the land and act accordingly. I don't support this section of the bill.
K. Jones: There is a real difficulty when you don't want to have to register a right-of-way across a series of properties in order to get access to them. We have the Zirnhelt case about access around a lake. You're suggesting that we have other cases on islands, where the people would just like to have trail access to their property. If this is subdivided instead of being in common, then the persons further along the trail could block access to the people in that area. But when it's....
The Chair: Member, I'm....
K. Jones: I'm speaking to it.
The Chair: No, excuse me, member. Just take your seat for a moment, if you will. What you're speaking to, as nearly as I can make out, bears no resemblance to the amendment. That's another entirely discrete and separate issue from what this amendment addresses. I'd ask the member to simply look again at the amendment, and I think you'll agree that that conclusion is absolutely correct. On the amendment, go ahead, member.
K. Jones: We are talking about the basis of the amendment, the fundamental basis of it. It's understanding what that basis is that we're having some difficulty with. It would appear that the minister is trying to bring through something to say that you have to follow certain regulations. But he's putting out of business a complete method of handling land that a lot of people have found satisfactory to use. This appears to be the government telling people that they can't operate with their land the way they choose to.
I think there are various types of land assembly or land ownership. For instance, I'd like to ask the minister to tell us
[ Page 11982 ]
the difference between a cooperatively held piece of land and an undivided fractional interest in a piece of land. I believe they must be fairly close to the same thing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In that case, the Cooperative Association Act applies. In this case, it doesn't.
K. Jones: I'm asking the minister to let the people have the method that they choose to use -- not to bypass the law but to give them an alternative, just as a cooperative is an alternative to the subdivision laws.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legislature over the years has provided a variety of ways of accomplishing that. But it's this government's view that the particular scheme we're talking about tonight should not be one of those options, because it does two things that we think society does not want to have happen: one, it allows for subdivisions that are unapproved; and two, it puts people at risk in terms of their investment.
Amendment approved.
Section 7 as amended approved on division.
On section 8.
G. Wilson: Because there are some sections of this bill we're so strongly opposed to and will be vocally opposed to, I think it's only right that we stand up and say there's a section that we actually support. We'd like to, just for the record, let people know that we support this section.
A. Warnke: I have just a very quick question. As section 8 reads, it permits a brew pub, winery, distillery or brewery to own and operate a licensed establishment. I'm just wondering if there are conditions in which a pub might in turn establish some sort of a brewery. Brew pubs already exist. Nonetheless, I'm wondering about beer and wine stores and that sort of thing which in turn could establish and brew their own. In that context, would this section apply to that particular example?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, it may be the acoustics in here or it may be my hearing, but I'm not sure I heard the member's question. If the question was whether a beer and wine store operator could establish their own brewery, an individual could establish a brewery and apply for various licences, but not as of right to have a beer and wine store.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if these provisions would allow for the setting-up of private liquor stores?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
A. Warnke: I have just a very quick question. I too should perhaps raise my voice. As everyone knows, there are wineries in California that allow sampling at a site. I'll go so far as to say they allow free sampling at the site of a winery. I'm wondering whether, by amending this particular section, it would allow for the kind of winery we see in California. I'm not an expert in this area. It could be applied in the Okanagan Valley, which is a wine area. Would it allow that kind of sampling?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Sampling is allowed now and will continue to be allowed. In addition, they'll be able to sell wine by the glass.
J. Tyabji: Being from the Okanagan, a lot of us are more familiar with the fact that every winery has sampling and has a retail outlet. In addition to that, the minister said that it would be sold by the glass, and that obviously is new. Does that mean that at the place of manufacture, the winery, where it's sold by the glass, it will be for the purpose of sitting-down consumption? If so, is there going to be the opportunity for some food or snacks to be served? Is that what that means?
[10:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The regulations will govern the specific arrangements, and we won't introduce those until following discussions with the industry to work out an appropriate way of doing it.
J. Tyabji: That's really encouraging, and it's something that a lot of people in the industry have been lobbying for for a long time. I would be interested if any draft work is going on as far as how that will be implemented. Depending on whether it's an estate winery, local brewery, cottage brewery or commercial winery, I imagine it would play out differently according to the regulations.
I'm sure the minister will take into account the fact that tasting has to be conducted in very strictly regulated areas in the Okanagan right now. If we're moving to sale-by-the-glass and sit-down consumption in a service establishment, where someone can sit down and have something to eat with a glass of wine at the site of manufacture, it would be very interesting to see the regulations. For example, in the south Okanagan there is a lot of picnicking and outside eating. We get into a whole different dimension. That's a very interesting development.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated a moment ago that the rules and regulations haven't yet been established. They're going to be done in conjunction with the industry. We are interested in promoting the tourism values that come from the kind of opportunities that the wineries will be afforded by way of this. If we can do in British Columbia what they do in the Napa Valley and in other parts of the world, then that will help British Columbia, and it will help those people who are involved in this industry. We want to try and provide that support.
C. Serwa: I would be remiss, too, if I didn't get up and congratulate the minister on this particular regulation, because it is very important, especially for the cottage wine and farm wine industries in the Okanagan. It will give them the opportunity to find another source of revenue for economic viability. It is certainly a mature approach and will serve them well in the shoulder season of the tourist season. I certainly compliment the minister for bringing this forward.
K. Jones: Unlike the previous member, who's congratulating the minister on opening up the opportunity for people to have more liquor, I have a great concern that this does not make any provision for an age limit on accessibility to this permit. The minister has not made any provision in
[ Page 11983 ]
here for age; therefore I presume that there is no age limit on opportunities for the promotion of liquor.
An Hon. Member: It's getting late.
K. Jones: Not really.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no provision in here that people have to walk for 40 miles to the site before they can have a drink, either. So I guess there are a number of things we haven't included in this section.
There are liquor laws in British Columbia that govern the age at which people can consume liquor. They apply everywhere.
K. Jones: It's unfortunate that other members of the House are making a joke of this. We're not talking about having the ability to buy liquor or receive liquor free; we're talking about the ability to promote liquor. The promotion of liquor should be directed so that if it's going to affect our young people, it shouldn't be allowed.
We have worked very hard to try and reduce the amount of liquor advertising and access, and we're trying to do something about reducing the amount of alcoholism that's occurring in our society. The minister has to take this a little more seriously and recognize that the way this legislation sits, it promotes the sale of liquor. The promotion of the sale of liquor has to have some limitations. I do not see those limitations in this legislation, hon. minister.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Limitations exist in the law. There are some blue books in the back that the member should look at. He'll find the law described very adequately, and it applies there.
But I must say I'm interested to finally find out what the Liberal Party's position is on the advertising of liquor. The member speaking for the Liberal Party.... The B.C. Association of Broadcasters will be very interested to learn that the Liberal Party is opposed to the advertising of liquor. So the ads for Molson's Canadian or Labatt's Blue during the hockey game are against Liberal Party policy. I will make sure that the advertisers, the broadcasters and the breweries in British Columbia know about the Liberal Party's position on this issue.
C. Tanner: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Saanich North and the Islands. What is your point?
C. Tanner: The point of order is that we've had some very reasonable answers from this minister right up until 10:20. There's no reason to change now.
J. Tyabji: I just wanted to add to this debate a small point about some of the cottage industries in the Okanagan Valley -- estate wineries, cottage breweries or some of the struggling industry that contributes to tourism -- and to put on the record that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale's concerns about the proliferation in the sale of alcohol would probably be allayed by knowing that those small, locally based, community-based industries are extremely responsible and are the first in, and at the forefront of, promoting responsible use of alcohol. Actually, by allowing them to be the front gate for retailing, we're protecting the interests of people. It's when we move to the larger, arm's-length groups that we could be more vulnerable to the things that member is talking about.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Can I just say in addition -- which hopefully will bring this clause to an end -- that the objectives here are not to provide alternative drinking centres; that is not what this about. The regulations will not enable that kind of result. What we're talking about here is the opportunity for producers of a product to encourage people to come and visit their winery, to soak up the ambiance more than to soak up the booze. This is simply an opportunity for tasting and for some selling of bottles and, on a limited basis, a glass of wine. That's what it's about; it is not an alternative drinking centre. The member for Okanagan East is absolutely right about that.
A. Warnke: I must admit I'm quite surprised that my initial question, which was intended to be quite modest and straightforward, and which the Attorney General answered so straightforwardly, would stimulate such a response.
Perhaps just to qualify this matter a bit, sections 8 and 9 do include brew pub, winery, distillery and brewery. I guess some of the concerns expressed are that when we deal with a winery, I think to a certain extent it has been well established, especially in the province of British Columbia, that what all of us are trying to do is ensure the security and development of our wine industry. But at the same time, taking a look at sections 8 and 9, we include distillery and brewery in addition to winery.
Breweries in many parts of North America, including upstate New York and Ontario, have such outlets, but a distillery is a bit different. I suppose when we talk about alcohol, sometimes we mentally include wine and sometimes we do not. When people talk about alcohol, they're sometimes talking about the hard liquors -- gin, rum and on it goes. In that kind of context, perhaps the Attorney General could make a slight distinction and maybe elaborate a little on the implications for the distilling industry and how the distilling industry is involved in this. Perhaps that would go a long way toward addressing some of the concerns of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Thank you for helping me understand the questions from the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
The proposal does not distinguish between varying kinds of producers, but the regulations may well do so. The intent here is to try to assist small producers, whether they're small brew pubs or wineries. I doubt very much whether the major distilleries -- it's probably singular now, the way the industry has gone in this province -- or breweries are going to be interested in this kind of scheme, because it's just not going to be suitable for those large-scale operations. However, the legislation does not distinguish. Where do you draw the lines on the various sizes? That can be accommodated by way of discussion with the industry and by way of the regulations. As I said before, in answer to the member for Okanagan East, we need to remember that this is not an attempt to establish more drinking establishments in this province; this is designed to help the small entrepreneur promote their own product.
Sections 9 and 10 approved.
On section 11.
C. Tanner: Could the minister explain to me why we appear to have either overkill or duplication in section 11(b),
[ Page 11984 ]
subsections (4.3)(a) and (b), and in subsection (4.4)? I don't understand why we need so many identifications of the certificate and the proof of certificate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a series of ways of doing it. In each case it is "or," not "and." It is one or another or another, rather than one and two and three.
G. Wilson: I just have a couple of very quick logistical questions. We're not necessarily in opposition to what has been proposed. Under section 11(b), subsection (4.2), with respect to service of a ticket under subsection (4.1), it would appear that the provisions of the Offence Act are going to have to apply within a municipality. I'm only going by my own community, which has a number of different municipal jurisdictions, regional districts, and so on, but there are people who are seasonal residents, transient residents, who may in fact be involved in bylaw infractions, and if the service of an enforcement office has to be done in person, it may be extremely difficult to undertake. I wonder what provision can be used, if in fact provisions can be used, to use private service -- or is there a provincial service that can be used? -- in the event that that has to occur, notwithstanding that there is a second subsection here, I think, that suggests that there can be a notice of provision provided.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unless I misunderstand the member, which is entirely possible, that is why subsection (4.2)(a) is there. It's there so that the service can be direct upon a person.
[10:30]
G. Wilson: No, I understand that, except that it may be that notice of a bylaw infraction can occur.... Logistically, getting a bylaw officer to put out notice and serve it immediately after the alleged contravention may simply not be possible. We live in an area where it takes three and a half hours to get a policeman to a site, for heaven's sakes. So it's a logistical question. Here's the real root of what I'm getting at: will this in any way impede a municipality or regional district from serving notice of offence if the person is a summer resident, say, or a weekender or whatever they may be, and that service can't transpire in person? Is there another way? Can the municipality use provincial services available for the service of that offence? That's what I'm getting at.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer is no, there must be personal service. So in the case of the weekender, they're going to have to wait until the following weekend, if they come back. There has to be personal service.
G. Wilson: Obviously I don't know every municipal bylaw with respect to various bylaw infractions, but I know that within a number of drafted bylaws, it's not unusual for there to be some kind of limit placed on a bylaw infraction in terms of the time between when it occurs, the time of notice that its occurrence has happened and the time that service has to be given. I assume that we're putting municipalities on notice, then, because there is a provision here under subsection (6) in terms of fines, notice given and so on. I assume we're going to have to put municipalities on notice that, given this, if personal service is to be affected, their bylaws should be amended to reflect latitude in the provision to do that. Obviously, the Statute of Limitations would not apply, generally speaking. It's governed by each individual bylaw, as I understand most municipal bylaws.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It may be that we're not communicating, or I'm not hearing. This legislation was developed in conjunction with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and not only are they happy about it, they want this. The Statute of Limitations would apply wherever it's appropriate, so I'm not sure I follow that particular point. If the member is making a point that I don't comprehend, I wish he'd help me with it.
G. Wilson: The hour gets late and we go on.
It's not a huge issue, except that given the response some people have to municipal bylaw infraction, which is that it's a subclass of law that they don't really have to deal with, avoidance is something that will be problematic. If notices have to be served personally, municipalities may in some instances incur significant costs if they can't directly serve it. All I'm asking is whether or not there is a provision here that I haven't seen -- and I confess that I have not gone back through the Municipal Act -- for some provincial service to be used for filing so that a person can't simply use avoidance as a means of escaping a bylaw infraction.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we're doing here is making it simpler for the municipality so that the bylaw officer can write a ticket. The member may say that the ticket gets thrown in the garbage or whatever, but that's another issue which isn't captured by these kinds of changes. So, we're making it simpler, and the process is one that the municipalities want. They want the ability to write a ticket as opposed to issuing summons. Ticketing may not work in every case, I think we've all seen examples of that, but that isn't part of this.
G. Wilson: Well, okay, I'm not going to belabour the point. The trouble is, it says you have to serve the ticket on the person. That's the difficulty. Often notice of a bylaw infraction will happen after the event. All I'm curious about is whether or not there is some provision under this statute where we could have access to a provincial service that would allow municipalities to engage.... There are document servers who can be brought into the employ to go chasing after people who don't live in the municipality but who may be frequent or even infrequent visitors to the municipality. That's all. It's not a huge issue. I just wondered if the minister had a comment to make.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We could get into a long discussion about the most efficient and effective way of dealing with these issues, and I don't think that we are going to be able to do that under this amendment.
This is what the municipalities wanted. Provincial service.... One can only imagine the cost of that kind of arrangement for municipal bylaws. We're making progress with this. I don't pretend to suggest that we've got the perfect answer, but this is something that the municipalities wanted us to do.
J. Tyabji: I just have a quick question under section 11(d), subsection (7.1). It says: "If notice of dispute is given in accordance with subsection (6), the council or regional board must refer the ticket to the Provincial Court for a hearing." What I find interesting about that.... When we talk about the cost and time issues, does that include small claims court, for example, or is that the Provincial Court? Perhaps the minister could let me know.
[ Page 11985 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the ticket is disputed, it goes to a Provincial Court judge, unless -- as does exist in some parts of the province -- there is a sitting justice of the peace with jurisdiction. But the citizen has the right to have their disputed ticket heard, and that's the principle here.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.
Section 14 approved on division.
On section 15.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to move the amendment that I've just handed to the Clerk. I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms staff to give a copy to any member who is interested.
[SECTION 15, in the proposed section 7.1 by adding the following subsection: (13) Where a resolution referred to in subsection (9) or a recommendation referred to in subsection (10) conflicts with a provision of this Act, the resolution or recommendation prevails over that provision to the extent of the conflict.]
If members have a look at it -- it's very simple -- what it does is make sure.... There is some doubt as to whether or not a resolution of this House amending a report would override the provisions that may exist in the Provincial Court Act. This is to make clear that if the House were to pass a motion in respect of remuneration that was in conflict with a provision in the existing Provincial Court Act, then the motion of the House would prevail. Also, if the report of the committee charged with making recommendations about remuneration were not challenged and overridden by the House -- and therefore became the new remuneration -- that report, where it may be in conflict with the existing Provincial Court Act, would override. The House would subsequently have to come back and deal with the changes to the court act.
Let me just go back and do this again in another way. The Provincial Court Act now provides various provisions that deal with some aspects of remuneration. It may be that this process will lead to a recommendation that the remuneration package be different and that it contain provisions which are contrary to provisions already in the statute. If that is to happen, then the recommendations of the committee over-ride, and this is to make sure that applies. In addition, if the House passes a motion which has the effect of amending the existing statutory arrangements, then the motion prevails as well. That is to ensure that the effect of the committee's or House's decision is in fact a decision that applies to the Provincial Court judges. I hope I've explained that in a way that is understandable.
G. Wilson: I think I understand it, and I don't necessarily oppose it. It clarifies an issue that we raised, among others.
Does that mean, then, that the provision.... If the agreement comes down, it comes before the House in whatever form this House can hear it -- that's a question we will get into a little later on -- and it is passed. Presumably what that does, then, is automatically override a statute, which would require immediate amendment, as I understand it. If it prevails over the provision to the extent of the conflict over the act, then presumably the act is going to necessarily be immediately the subject of an amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the act is overridden but is not amended by way of that motion. It would take a subsequent amending bill to amend the act to make it consistent with the decision of the committee and/or the Legislature's vote by way of motion. In other words, if the law says that you get pension X as a judge, and the committee or the House recommends you get X plus 1, you don't have to amend the Provincial Court Act in order to have the superannuation branch pay X plus 1. They will pay X plus 1, either because the committee has recommended it and it's not being challenged by the House, or because the House has passed a motion that allows for that to happen. In other words, then the provisions in the statute don't apply. They're null and void because of the decision by the committee or because of the House's motion.
G. Wilson: How would those recommendations be recorded? Obviously they come before the House through some vehicle. What vehicle would they come through, and how would they be recorded?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Attorney General of the day would file the report of the committee in the House, and it would then become a legal document, in effect. Then the House -- and we'll get to this, perhaps, when we get to the main motion -- has an opportunity within a certain period of days following the filing to debate and perhaps pass a motion to reject or amend the report of the committee if it chooses. If it doesn't do that, then the report of the committee is the remuneration package for the Provincial Court judges -- notwithstanding what might be said in the Provincial Court Act.
[10:45]
J. Tyabji: The term that comes to mind is ultra vires, and the only reason I say this is it seems kind of odd to pass a bill, which will become an act, that would say that something that doesn't have the weight of a statute overrides a statute. How is that possible?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's why we're having this debate in the Legislature now -- to provide that enabling authority to the committee, which is established by statute, to establish the remuneration -- or, in fact, to the House to subsequently vary that if it chooses. The other procedure is to take the report and then amend the act. We're not proposing that. The act will be amended later in due course, but those provisions that have been superseded by the report or the motion are null and void.
G. Wilson: There are many other questions that can be connected to this. I think I understand the amendment, but I'm not sure I can support it, because of the precedent I think that would set. It seems to me that it would be better to go back for an amending process of existing statutes. That would be a cleaner and better process. I just wonder if the Attorney General can tell us why he did not opt to simply go to.... This is happening over a fixed term, so it's not like we're going to go into this in every session of the Legislative Assembly. So I don't know why a simple amendment to an existing act would not have been a cleaner, better and legally more defensible position than to do what we're doing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is what I would describe as a saving provision. Many, if not most, of the provisions in the remuneration package are not going to be covered by the Provincial Court Act. This is to ensure that if there are conflicts between the Provincial Court Act and any recommendations for remuneration that have been either explicitly or implicitly accepted by the Legislature, that can occur despite what the act might say in the case of one, two or some provisions in the package.
[ Page 11986 ]
J. Tyabji: I have a real problem with this amendment. Obviously the first committee to deal with reports and recommendations will have a majority of government members. That's what happens when you have a majority government. When it comes before Members of the Legislative Assembly, obviously the majority are government members; that's the way it works. This amendment will say that in reports or resolutions of the committee and the House -- which automatically consist of a majority of government members -- if that non-statute document conflicts with a duly debated statute of the House, there's an automatic override provision without debate.
On principle I can't imagine supporting that, because the only opportunity an opposition member would have for putting opposition to a statute being overridden by a report or resolution on the record.... For example, let's say that notwithstanding the opposition members, the committee said that judges are going to be paid a million dollars a year, and it came before the Legislature. It wouldn't be debated at that point -- at least, I don't see that there would an allowance for debate there. The majority of the Legislature votes in favour of the resolution, so there again judges will be getting a million dollars a year, and there would normally be....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps that's not the best example. But the point is that if that were in conflict with the act, rather than there being an amendment that we could debate, at which point we could say we're opposed to this statute -- and again the government has the majority, so the amendment would pass -- there's an automatic override provision. That in principle is a very dangerous precedent to set, especially for the Attorney General, and especially for judges. I mean, we're talking about the justice system, and we're talking about a tiny override clause in the statutes. It seems like such a housekeeping thing, but to me the only voice we ever have is in debate. And if that's overridden by a package, where the government has a majority vote in committee and in the House, we're really not doing our job if we even come close to supporting this amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In designing this new procedure, we have tried to strike a balance between the right of parliament to control its budget and its legislative framework and, on the other hand, the independence of the judiciary. It's a difficult balance that various provinces have had problems with recently, as the member will know from seeing news reports out of both Saskatchewan and Alberta in recent months.
We have tried to strike a difficult balance. What we've done is essentially made sure that the Legislature has the final say. How did we come to this? How did we construct this delicate balance? We did it by listening to the report that Chuck Connaghan with his committee presented earlier this year, in which he gave us two alternatives as to how to do this. His first recommended alternative was that an independent process establish the remuneration and there be no recourse to the Legislature -- none.
This committee would simply establish the remuneration, notwithstanding the Provincial Court Act and notwithstanding the sentiments of members of the House. The only way of getting around that would be to do what Bob Mitchell did in Saskatchewan, which is to bring in a bill dissolving the commission that made those recommendations. That isn't something we had anticipated as being a problem, and we didn't want to do that here.
In striking this balance, we've taken Chuck Connaghan's second-choice recommendation, which in his report is commonly referred to as 10.B. It is an attempt to balance the interests between the independence of the judiciary and the rights of parliament. I appreciate the member's point, and I understand it. But what we've tried to do here is ensure that -- and this is the important point that I want the member to listen to -- the initiation for changes to the remuneration package for judges does not come from the executive council, which is where it would come from if it were an amendment to the Provincial Court Act. The initiative comes from the independent committee.
I remember second reading debate last night. Whatever members think of that, it is an independent process initiated by them -- independent of the executive council. The executive council can bring its influence to bear, within the time period prescribed, by having debated in the House a motion that has been introduced by a member of the House. So the executive council and the Legislature have that paramountcy.
It's a delicate balance; it's not perfect. It means that by a report filed in this House, a statute is amended. That's one consequence. Or secondly, by a motion in this House, a statute is amended, in effect, in terms of how judges are paid or compensated. I don't know of a better way to do it to keep this balance that I think is important to achieve. The two essential elements there are the independence of the judiciary and the paramountcy of parliament. We try to balance the two.
J. Tyabji: I do know of a better way, or at least I think I do. Once the resolution has passed through the committee -- whether it's drafted by the committee putting the recommendations together or whomever -- rather than having a motion or a report amend the statutes, the Attorney General shall introduce a legislative package concurrent with the report or the resolutions. At that point that amendment package isn't being drafted by the Members of the Legislative Assembly; it comes directly out of that committee. Not that I support the committee process, but if we are talking in principle about the statutes....
The problem I really have with this, notwithstanding the process, is that once we get to the floor of the House, I think the only thing that should amend a statute is an amendment to a statute. Setting a precedent for a motion or a report by another body coming before us and automatically overriding a statute is very dangerous. That's just for the record.
Amendment approved on division.
On section 15 as amended.
J. Tyabji: We're going to try to keep this debate fairly brief and just ask a lot of questions. Our opposition to this whole section has come out pretty strongly in second reading.
Under section 7.1(2), could the Attorney General tell us why the original act was changed to have the chief judge appointing two of the five people, and then have the two appointed by the Attorney General and the two appointed by the chief judge appoint the chair?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When you have interest arbitration, it's important that you have a balance so that both parties feel they're represented equally and fairly. So the judges and the government -- who in this case are the trade union and,
[ Page 11987 ]
indirectly, the employer -- pick two each. How do you pick a neutral fifth? Does one side of the equation or the other pick the neutral fifth person? No, the two parties together pick that fifth neutral person, and we delegate that choice to the four appointees.
J. Tyabji: We talked about there being, in the previous act, no allowance for barristers to be appointed. Yesterday the Attorney General was saying that the possibility that the barrister could be someone who was a partner to sitting judges, as we had commented, was common -- absolutely common. Obviously the sitting judges are people who have come out of law firms, and therefore they have many previous partners. Some of those are very large law firms, and there are over 100 lawyers per firm. So it's not a conspiracy theory; it's just that that's the way the system works, as the Attorney General would know. Why did the Attorney General choose to amend the act so that three of the five members of the committee could be barristers?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The practice in other jurisdictions in the country is to allow for the appointment of a lawyer to the compensation committee. We felt that that was an appropriate thing to do. It's lawyers who know better than anyone the nature of the workload, the nature of the obligations and what a provincial court judge does. In knowing what that job entails and requires, they can provide an informed opinion and informed advice to the process.
The member paints a picture where three out of five could be lawyers. Technically that's correct, but my guess is that there would be a pretty even balance at the end of the day. It means that a lawyer can be appointed; and yes, it means that more than one lawyer can be appointed. But it means that we've got a balance here. One of the realities of the old system is that there is nobody on the committee who has any experience with what judges do.
G. Wilson: Our opposition to this is so strong, but we're not going to simply try to filibuster the debate. We will get to a point where we will vote against it.
Can the minister tell us if lawyers who are appointed are then precluded from standing for appointment to the bench? Is there a provision saying that if you get on this remuneration committee you can't already be under review for appointment? Is there some lag time that says you can't set judges' salaries and then be appointed? Are there any qualifications that exempt lawyers? Is there anything in this statute that says if you're a lawyer to be appointed that you can't be a past partner to somebody who now sits on the bench?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no reference to any of those points in the bill, as the member knows. In respect of the appointment to the bench of an individual who is a member of a committee or has very recently been a member of the committee, that would be a question for the Judicial Council to consider when they're making their recommendations for appointment.
[11:00]
G. Wilson: The minister knows that I'm headed towards this whole question of conflict of interest. You're talking about judicial councils appointing lawyers to become judges.
As I pointed out in the second reading debate, and I don't want to go back through it, it's not as if we pluck judges out at birth and put them into some monastery where they're raised as these fair-minded people who are going to be making completely unbiased decisions and judgments. They don't; they're humans like the rest of us. Most of them are lawyers practising in the province in which they become judges. Most of them have very close -- some would argue too close associations with lawyers in firms, and they make subjective decisions. That's the nature of the business.
We so strongly oppose the notion of having lawyers sitting on a committee that is going to make these judgments, especially in light of the amendment which, in principle, we would oppose. Can the minister tell us what the safeguards to the conflict-of-interest charge are? I know that in the Connaghan report, one of the reasons they went to the first recommendation over the second was to mitigate against the potential conflict issue. The more independent the committee can be from government....
It was a problem of conflict with government. It was the issue of separation of the judiciary from the state. But I think the same thing could be argued in terms of people who are practising in the field. There must have been discussion. Could the minister apprise us of what that discussion is and why this minister feels comfortable that that won't happen?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, this minister feels comfortable with the process because of the rigorous way in which the Judicial Council screens applicants for the bench. Their high standards in respect of skills, abilities, experience and ethics will militate against any individual who is in there to feather their own nest for being recommended.
Let's say that the Judicial Council didn't catch that kind of situation. There is the subsequent process that leads to the recommendation to cabinet to make an appointment. The way the system works now is that the Judicial Council, which is chaired by the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, who has considerable honour to preserve and the system whose integrity is crucial, goes through this vetting process. They're not going to recommend that people who are behaving in the way the member describes be appointed.
Beyond that, the minister of the day has yet another vetting ability, before going to cabinet with recommendations as to who should be appointed from the recommended list.
Certainly in terms of my experience from a couple of years of doing this, I'm fully confident that the process will not in any way be contaminated by suggestions of conflict of interest because of the potential -- and I say "potential" -- appointment of a lawyer to the committee. In consideration of when the government or the Chief Judge are thinking about who should be appointed to the committee, I suspect that both sides are going to be very conscious of this point in any event. That's yet another safeguard in this process.
G. Wilson: Of course, the next obvious question is: what recourse do you have when you get them to the bench? That's why we have a private member's bill, which we hope could be debated, with respect to a proposition for recall of publicly appointed officials. Anyway, we made our point on the conflict question, and we believe that is enough in itself.
I want to ask, just on subsections (8) and (9).... I've just got two other questions, and then I think I will have said all that needs to be said from our point of view. It says in here: "The Attorney General shall lay the report and recommendations...before the Legislative Assembly...." -- if it's sitting within 14 days of that date. It's an assumption that "within 14 days" would generally apply because of the April 30 date. You're saying that mid-May is generally a time at which the session is in place. Is that the reason for that? I think it's a fairly safe assumption. If that's so, then I wonder whether, in the 21 days afterward, there's a provision for
[ Page 11988 ]
opposition members to initiate that review, whether the government can, in effect, allow the report to linger for the prerequisite resolution within 21 days and simply not get it there, whether it's to be referred to committee -- or however that would work. That would be a problem I think any opposition member would have with this plan.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This motion, like any other motion, could be called only by the government -- except by leave, obviously. The House has the ability to allow a member to ask for leave. I understand the point, and I spent some time thinking about this particular point, actually. The protection there is that if a government member decides not to grant leave, that's a foreshadowing of what the result of a vote would have been in any event. So what we're saying here is that any member can introduce the motion, but it has the same rules applied to it as any other motion.
G. Wilson: I have a last question on this. That doesn't give us much comfort, you have to understand; I think the minister would agree that that doesn't give us any comfort at all. Has the minister thought through what committee of the Legislature is going to be dealing with this in terms of remuneration, or how that's going to be dealt with? My understanding is that no mechanism currently exists to deal with this, and we'd like to know if this will be laid before the Legislature, and whether the intention is to debate it in Committee of the Whole, as you would legislation. Is it to go to a standing committee? What's the process?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The procedure would be the same as with any motion. It would be in the House, and it would be on the call of the government or, if there is unanimous consent, of any member. There may be a variety of motions filed, but the member can understand that the government.... For example, let's say that everybody in the House is dissatisfied with the committee's report. It may well be that a half a dozen motions are filed that take various positions on the issue. It would be up to the House to decide unanimously -- or to the government to decide -- which of those motions would be called. I can see a situation develop where there may be some informal discussion among parties about the issue, but the object here is to avoid the mess we had previously when a legislative committee actually went through it -- as some members of this House know, having gone through the experience; some of us several times, and many other members once. We do not want to have this kind of discussion take place in a committee. In many ways, the ideal world would have had the process for determining remuneration be independent so that it's not contaminated by political hands, in the same way that I think most of us wish that our own remuneration was determined. But the paramountcy of parliament is a principle that I wasn't prepared, and government isn't prepared, to subvert, and therefore there needs to be a recourse to the House. It would be my expectation that the motion would only be introduced and debated in rare circumstances, where a committee really got off base.
K. Jones: With regard to subsection (9), if the session lasts less than 21 days after the report of this committee, does this allow a resolution to be brought at the beginning of the next session, or the next parliament if there happens to be an election?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are 21 sitting days. If there are 15 sitting days in '94, then it would be before the sixth sitting day of '95, or whenever the House resumed.
K. Jones: That's what I read it to be, and I wanted to get verification of that. That also means that it could go beyond the existing parliament into the next parliament.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's question is: if the House was dissolved before the 21 days were up and the period therefore hadn't elapsed, would the new parliament, in whatever days remained of that 21 days, have the opportunity to have this continue? I can't give a definitive answer to that, but it is the intention of this legislation that that would be the case. There are several nods from people who know better than I the answer to this. It's a question that I haven't canvassed in detail before now, but that is the intention, and I believe that would be the effect.
K. Jones: I will accept the intention given by the Attorney General, and I presume we will get further clarification.
J. Tyabji: I would like to get something about this section on the record. I have been listening to the Attorney General.... In principle, we are obviously opposed to this section. The Attorney General has said in this amended section that judges -- who cannot be fired or removed and whose appointments are political -- will have their remuneration and benefits set by a group with two people appointed by the government and two people appointed by the Chief Judge. Out of that group, three of the five committee members -- including the chair, who is appointed by the other two -- can be cronies of the judges. They could be former partners, from the same law firm or in the Law Society: a closed system. They can recommend a package, we don't have to debate it, and it overrides the statutes of this province. I don't understand why this has come before us. I don't care how many reports recommended it. I would have hoped that this government would have seen that this is not only distasteful, but there is no accountability in it at all. It's a most unfortunate piece of legislation. The amendments to the existing act are regressive. At a time when people are questioning our justice system, I'm not sure that this is the kind of thing, if it saw the light of day, that would get any support from the public at all.
[11:15]
Section 15 as amended approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 36 | ||
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
B. Jones |
Doyle |
|
Conroy |
Farnworth |
Janssen |
|
Pullinger |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Gabelmann |
Smallwood |
Miller |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Kasper |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
Boone |
Serwa |
|
Stephens |
Reid |
Symons |
|
K. Jones |
Warnke |
Tanner |
|
NAYS -- 2 | ||
|
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
[ Page 11989 ]
On section 16.
A. Warnke: First of all, there is one technical question that we want clarified and stated for the record. The Sheriff Act as amended adds subsection 6.1(1). Subsection 6.1(1)(b) says: "...to exercise any of the powers or rights or to perform any of the duties described in section 2.1(1.1)(a) or (b)." Simply put, we need some clarification since it does not appear that subsections 2.1(1.1)(a) or 2.1(1.1)(b) appear in the act itself.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reference in 6.1(1)(b) is to a provision of the Sheriff Act amendments, which were passed by this House but have not yet been proclaimed. I don't know whether that answers the question. Section 19 of the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, is what is referred to, but that has yet to be proclaimed, because there are still some procedural questions. When that original '92 bill is proclaimed, then this could apply, if this is proclaimed.
K. Jones: On this same subject, could the minister tell us what powers are being given under that, in the absence of being able to find it in our statute books? It's a rather powerful statement this amendment is making, and it would be worth our while to know what we're actually authorizing in the way of powers under that 2.1(1.1) that has not been brought into force yet.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a fair question, because it may not be in the bound statutes; it would be in the 1992 summary of statutes passed in the House. I think what I'll do, then, is just convey to the House what those powers are, given that it's not in the statutes. It is in the 1992 book, which may not be there when I look.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Right, it's not there. So it's a fair question. I'm delighted to get a fair question from the member.
It includes the execution of writs, warrants, court orders and other processes issued or made in civil proceedings; levies, seizures or dispositions permitted under an enactment; maintaining records relative to judgments and executions; searching the records referred to in paragraph (c), which is maintaining records relative to judgments and executions; providing information from the records, extracts from the records, copies of the records and certificates in respect of the records; and also fees or other payments for services rendered. Just for the coup de grace, nothing in this section authorizes a court bailiff to execute court orders to arrest persons. I'm being a bit silly, but the issues listed were the ones that.... Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act, while I'm at it.... Section 16, section 6.1(2), simply requires the superintendent of motor vehicles to disclose to a sheriff all that information I just read out from the unproclaimed Sheriff Act provision, which was passed in 1992.
The improperly asked question was in reference to ownership of motor vehicles, and I believe the answer to that is yes.
K. Jones: Just as further clarification, does access to the information available from the superintendent of motor vehicles include access to all ICBC records?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no; it's access to vehicle registration.
Sections 16 to 22 inclusive approved.
On section 23.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the Commonwealth Games Society would require this change in legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's in order for the Commonwealth Games to enter into the same kinds of arrangements which were entered into during Expo 86 with beer or wine manufacturing companies for promotional purposes. I will try to be more specific. The Commonwealth Games has entered into arrangements with both Labatt's and Calona Wines to act as sponsors for various considerations, and needs this legislative authority to make it legal. That was the same kind of thing that occurred at Expo 86. A special legislative amendment was enacted then to accommodate the Expo 86 issue. A similar provision is now being enacted to allow for that promotion.
K. Jones: Could the minister clarify: does that mean the allowance of a beer garden at the velodrome and also the provision for beer gardens or other liquor-dispensing facilities in the downtown, waterfront or legislative areas?
[11:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I know the answer to that, but I'm going to give the question and the answer to see if I'm right. If I'm wrong, I will give you the new answer, and we'll try that one out.
The question, as I understand it, is: does this provision allow for special occasion licences, or a beer garden to take place at a particular event at the Commonwealth Games? It's my understanding that this provision wouldn't allow for that. What this provision allows for is the promotional agreement and....
No. I'm going to have to give you a new answer. I will be right back.
This will enable a special occasion licence to be issued in the normal course of events to the Commonwealth Games Society for the establishment of a beer garden or two in particular locations where the special occasion licence permit has actually been granted. If I understand it, the arrangements have already been reached. At the moment there are two beer gardens anticipated, one each at two different sites where the Commonwealth Games has activities taking place.
K. Jones: Does this particular legislation also provide for the holding of a wine and cheese party for prospective employers of Commonwealth Games employees, as has already been held, where liquor may have been provided?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, if the Commonwealth Games Society is the licensee, and if they get a special occasion licence.
K. Jones: One final question. Could you tell us why this special legislation is required rather than utilizing the special occasion licensing provisions already in the act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The head of the liquor licensing branch of the ministry is prohibited by statute from giving a special occasion licence to an applicant who has entered into
[ Page 11990 ]
a contract with a producer of beer or wine. In other words, if this amendment were not to pass, the liquor licensing branch would not be able to issue a special occasion licence to the Commonwealth Games Society.
Sections 23 to 25 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 49, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, hon. Speaker, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 49, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 51.
FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 51; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions on section 1, particularly subsection (c), which, according to the notes, "expands the definition of 'maintenance' to include costs awarded and fees and expenses required to be paid under the regulations." Could the minister clarify this section? The maintenance does not usually include costs and fees, and it's usually a benefit that accrues to a child. Costs and fees and expenses are administrative issues that are already covered by the tax dollars paid to the management corporation under its contract with the Ministry of the Attorney General. So could the Attorney General clarify this section? We don't have regulations, either. Could the minister tell us when the regulations are coming for this?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Our fervent hope and plan is to have the regulations in place and the bill proclaimed and effective by January 1, 1995 -- six months or so from now.
L. Stephens: Could the Attorney General then just explain a bit about costs and fees and expenses and what they would represent?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Both the member and I have to resolve to speak more clearly and more loudly so we can hear each other.
I think the member's question related to section 1(c)(g), the taxed costs. Those would be costs that might be awarded by the court in relation to a default hearing, for example.
L. Stephens: Would any other costs, expenses or fees be included in this other than a default hearing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that that's a question that is actually going to be addressed in getting the regulations in place, so I can't give an answer. That's not specific in the bill, but that issue will be dealt with by the regulations.
The member may have a purpose here that has eluded me so far. I want to say two things: firstly, I'd welcome her to say it now; and secondly, if she can give us any advice or assistance in drafting the regulations, we would very much encourage her to give us that help as we try to go through this task.
L. Stephens: My biggest concern with costs and fees and expenses being lumped into maintenance awards is that those awards will be diminished somewhat by the inclusion of these other costs. I'm concerned that judges making awards will try to somehow make allowances. With the federal decision on taxation and maintenance payments, there is a suggestion that perhaps that sort of thing will arise. I'm just concerned that that may be the case: what families should get would be compromised in some way by broadening the definition of maintenance instead of separating what is a cost and what isn't, and so on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One needs to look at this bill as simply the enforcement mechanism. This legislation isn't going to govern the judge in making an award or ordering a maintenance schedule; this is designed to ensure that if a taxed cost is awarded, the family maintenance enforcement program can actually include that as part of the money they try to extract and submit to the creditor.
L. Stephens: The second question is about section 1(e)(b): "...a man or woman who is living with a debtor in a marriage-like relationship...." I can see some real concerns or problems around how to define that and who will.... I'd like to know how the Attorney General's office is going to quantify, I guess, this marriage-like relationship. There are a number of roommate-type arrangements -- those kinds of things -- that are of both sexes. I can just see a problem. So I wonder if the ministry has considered that. What would be the minister's response to that kind of situation and how it could be proven?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If there's a dispute over the definition of a marriage-like relationship, then it will be for the court, following evidence presented to it, to make a determination as to whether or not it's caught by this.
L. Stephens: I would suggest there would still be some difficulties; but there would be evidence required to be put forward, and there would be a decision based on what that was.
Under section 2, "the director may delegate to any person, service or agency any power, duty or function...."
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. If you're willing to go to section 2, may I then pose the question: shall section 1 pass?
[ Page 11991 ]
Section 1 approved.
The Chair: But I appreciate your haste.
On section 2.
L. Stephens: I tell you, after the last bill....
Section 2 says: "Subject to subsection (3), the director may delegate to any person, service or agency any power, duty or function of the director under this Act or any other enactment." This seems to be giving to the director some quite broad powers. Could the minister tell us what kind of reporting or accountability this particular person, this director, may have, first of all, and what kind of powers the director may delegate?
[11:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I understand it, the current provision allows the director to delegate matters that are under his jurisdiction in this act, in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. But what the amendment does -- again, as I understand it -- is to allow the director to delegate matters that may be assigned to him under another act. The current legislation, pending the approval of this bill, does not allow the director to delegate matters which he.... Where he does have the authority to act under another statute, he can't delegate it. So this will give him the delegating powers not only under this act but anywhere else he has power to act.
L. Stephens: What kind of powers may those be under these other acts?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The act provides that the director has powers, but those powers are generally exercised by staff as a result of the director delegating that authority to his staff. That's the wide range of authorities that may be conveyed in this act. What we're doing now is to include in that any other act where the director has some power. In other words, the day-to-day business is obviously conducted by regular staff, not by the director all the time, but it's the director who has the powers in the statutory sense.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
L. Stephens: Section 2.1(1) refers to "a party to an application for a maintenance order." Does this mean that the debtor, upon application to vary a maintenance order, has the same right to indicate to the court that they do or do not wish to have the order filed with the director? If one party wants the order filed and the other does not, do the rights of one party take priority over the rights of the other?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The way it will work is that both parties can say what they want, but if one party wants to file then it will be filed.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
L. Stephens: This section "enables the Director of Maintenance Enforcement to authorize people to take enforcement action on their own without having to withdraw their maintenance orders from filing." I would assume that this is to assist those clients who have used the service and were previously not able to pursue payment on their own. Once they were enrolled in the program, they had to continue with it and didn't have the ability to pursue the recovery of maintenance payments on their own. Am I reading that correctly? Is that a clarification of the intent of section 5(2)?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is correct in what she says, but the section is also designed to.... Just give me a second, hon. member.
It appears as if there was a bureaucratic maze that people had to go through if they were having maintenance collected for them and then were in court on another matter. There's a question of having to refile. I don't pretend to understand all the details of it, but this is to make that process simpler and to enable the creditor to simply have that maintenance collected, even though there's another application going on. I'm not sure I've explained that particularly well, but on the other hand, you and I have to deal with the bigger issues here.
L. Stephens: I have one more question on section 5(1.1). It says: "Subject to section 19.2(2) of the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act...." Would the minister explain a little about this particular subsection and what that means?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope this is a private joke and that nobody's laughing at me, because they have good cause.
These technical sections of this bill are difficult to deal with. There are probably about 200 people in British Columbia who really know what this is about. The creditor in this case is the director of the GAIN Act, in effect, and that's what that reference is. I'm not sure that I've answered the question, but maybe the member could try again.
L. Stephens: Does this mean that if a debtor was receiving GAIN, the director will authorize the creditor to enforce the maintenance order? It says: "...while it is filed with the director and may include any conditions in the authorization." Does it mean that for a debtor who is on GAIN, the full weight of the bill applies to their ability to pay?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Would the member agree with me that we could have a chat privately -- I don't mean privately in that sense, but outside the context of this arena -- where the staff would be able to explain the intricacies of how subsection 19.2(2) of the GAIN Act applies, and the role of the director in respect of being a creditor or a debtor? Frankly -- and I don't mind admitting this -- it's beyond me, and I'm not sure that I can explain it very effectively in this forum, but I'm sure the member can get a full explanation from my staff, either on adjournment or on another occasion.
L. Stephens: Yes, I would like to have a thorough explanation of that particular section.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
L. Stephens: The explanatory note accompanying section 7 says that the section "allows the Director of Maintenance Enforcement to demand that persons or public bodies provide information they have in their records about the assets or income of someone required to pay maintenance under a maintenance order filed with the director." It sets a
[ Page 11992 ]
ten-day time limit for complying with the demand for information. Is there a penalty for non-compliance? If so, what would that be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The offence section is section 45, and in this case a judge could set a penalty, but there's no penalty prescribed in the legislation, nor is there one envisioned in the regulations. It would be something that the court would order.
L. Stephens: I know that another part of the legislation talks about being able to bring forward business relationships and personal relationships. Would that apply in this particular section as well? It just says: "...to demand that persons or public bodies provide information...." If the court believes there's a third-party relationship, is that involved here, or are we going to get to that further into the legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's another section.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
L. Stephens: Could the minister clarify this one a bit? It talks about enabling the court to make an order at the request of the director of maintenance enforcement, "requiring a person to disclose information that is needed for the purpose of enforcing a maintenance order and the information is in personal correspondence." I think this has caused a lot of difficulty for a number of people. They see it as being quite intrusive, when it talks about personal correspondence. I wonder if the minister could clarify what personal correspondence would entail.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, if this is read in the context of the act, section 9(1) -- which is being amended -- says: "Where, on application, the court is satisfied that (a) the director has been refused information...." It's a power that would generally be used to try to find out where somebody is.
L. Stephens: Just to make sure I understand that correctly, it would be to find out where a person is, not particularly where the assets are. Or is it both?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It could include the assets, if that is what the court allows.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment which I filed with the Clerk a few moments ago and which I have just circulated.
[SECTION 9, in the proposed section 10 by deleting subsections (1) to (3) and substituting the following: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the maintenance order, all payments required to be made by a debtor under a maintenance order that is filed with the director shall (a) be sent to the director and be payable (i) to the creditor, or (ii) if specified by the director, to the director or to a reciprocating state, or (b) with the written approval of the director, be made directly to the creditor. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the maintenance order is made under the Divorce Act (Canada) and requires the payments to be made to the court. (3) The court shall (a) forward to the party apparently entitled to receive them all payments received in accordance with a maintenance order made under the Divorce Act (Canada), and (b) if the maintenance order is filed with the director, notify the director of the payment.]
The speedreaders on the other side have now completed reading it. If you will just give me a moment, I will give a brief explanation why this is here.
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we would take note of the clock and not accept midnight amendments.
[12:00]
The Chair: I have no idea why that would be a point of order.
An Hon. Member: Why not?
The Chair: I'm intrigued at the prospect, however. It sounds to me like a marvellous precedent. I will take it in the spirit in which it is offered, and we will all enjoy perusing the amendment for a moment.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This will allow for an individual, if he fails to pay maintenance that has been ordered, which is being monitored by the program as opposed to simply being monitored by the court, to be eligible to serve some jail time for failure to pay. Before the amendment, the provision would only have been for those awards being monitored by the court; this now includes those awards being monitored by the program.
Amendment approved.
Section 9 as amended approved.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
L. Stephens: Section 11(2) states: "At the request of the creditor or the debtor, the director shall provide a statement of account showing all payments...." Is there a time limit for that? If so, what would it be? Is it ten days? Is there a time when the director has to provide that statement of account showing all the payments?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No time limit is prescribed, but the director and staff do that as quickly as they can, and it's usually done in quite a timely manner.
L. Stephens: Section 11.1(2) says: "The rate of interest payable...shall not be earlier than the date this section comes into force." Are there are other jurisdictions in Canada that charge interest on maintenance payments? If so, what are they?
[ Page 11993 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I believe the answer to that is no, there are none. We're the first.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
L. Stephens: Section 12 talks about substituting the words "has at any time defaulted in," which means that a debtor who has defaulted in a maintenance payment at any time in the past can be required to file a statement of finances. Could the minister clarify the words "has defaulted in a maintenance payment"? What kind of default and for what reasons? Are there going to be mitigating circumstances, where a person has been ill in hospital, lost a job or whatever it is? Are there going to be any kind of mitigating circumstances in that particular section that in some way would allow an appeal of any kind for someone who has defaulted?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether the member has the act in front of her, but I find that it's helpful to compare. This section simply enables a statement of finances to be provided to the director upon request. The earlier language said: "Where the debtor defaults in a payment...." That current tense.... I haven't had advice on this, but it seems to me that that means the statement of finances could be requested at the time when there is a default. This enables the statement of finances to be asked for if there has been a default at any time. That's what this is designed to do, I believe.
L. Stephens: Just so that I'm clear on that, it has nothing to do with why or if that person defaulted. It's just that if they have, for whatever reason, they must provide a statement of finances in order to proceed to the next step.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. The statement would be required, if requested, and the request would be for the purpose of determining the ability to make the payments.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
L. Stephens: Section 13 clarifies that the director may apply for an order requiring the debtor to pay up to $5,000 if the debtor does not supply a statement of finances or other documentation. That's section 13(a). Could the minister clarify that a bit? What would the procedures be for that $5,000 fine?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Previously, only the creditor could make an application to pay this amount. Now the director of the program also has the ability to order the payment of an amount not exceeding $5,000. Formerly it was only the creditor; now it's the creditor and the director.
L. Stephens: The words "statement of finances or other documents" are quite broad. Is this deliberately so -- the broad definition -- or will there be some criteria for what represents a statement of finances or other documents?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are already regulations in place which describe the kind of records we're talking about: income tax, bank statements or bank records -- that kind of record.
L. Stephens: Section 13(b) allows the court to order the immediate imprisonment of debtors who are capable of complying with orders requiring them to file financial information but who do not comply. Could the minister expand on this? Will there be sentencing guidelines? Will there be times that are suggested? Will there be some parameters around this particular provision?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This essentially eliminates yet another opportunity for the debtor to delay payment -- in this case, by another 30 days -- by taking out the words "if he does not comply with that order before the date specified in the order made under this subsection." By taking that out, apparently there's denial of an opportunity to further delay. The notes here say that it shortens the process for compelling compliance.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
L. Stephens: I have one question on section 14. Subsection (1) says: "...serve a notice of attachment in the prescribed form on a person who is indebted or likely to become indebted to the debtor." I presume we're talking here about a maintenance order that has been granted or is likely to become granted. Could the minister tell me why that particular language is in there?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is not in reference to the payer, the debtor; this is in reference to another party -- for example, an employer. The reference here is -- not necessarily always, but in most cases, I think -- to the debtor's employer. And if the member doesn't understand that, she should join the crowd, ask the next question and I'll try to give her a better answer.
L. Stephens: It's not clear. Subsection (1) says: "Where the debtor has at any time defaulted in a payment required under a maintenance order, the director may serve a notice of attachment in the prescribed form on a person who is indebted or likely to become indebted to the debtor." Do I read that to say that if someone owes the debtor money, an attachment can be made to whatever is owed to that person and, in effect, bypass the debtor in order to get the...?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I realize what it is. If I owe money and I'm not paying, then the government payroll department can have my paycheque attached, and it goes to the proper place instead of to me.
A. Warnke: I have a very quick question, but it's relevant to this section. I'm wondering if the Attorney General had considered.... It's not a hypothetical case, because I do know one case, which I have been approached about a number of times. That is the case of a quadriplegic -- and I don't know the detailed circumstances -- who apparently has to provide payments and obviously is in a very difficult situation. As a matter of fact, he's in debt. In considering this section, I'm wondering whether any consideration was given to an individual in circumstances where it's quite obvious that the payment cannot be made.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is really talking about an issue which would be decided by the court. One of the mistakes that I think a lot of people make about the family maintenance enforcement program -- and I noticed the
[ Page 11994 ]
member for Okanagan East made the mistake in second reading -- is to assume that this is a program that has something to do with setting or varying maintenance. This is simply the enforcement agency. So if someone is in the situation the member describes, an application should be made to the court to have the amount varied.
[12:15]
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
A. Warnke: Another quick question: what sort of reciprocal agreements did the ministry obtain with other provinces? Was there a good deal of work and consultation to make it consistent with the other provinces, or are there any anomalies?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure that the question is particularly relevant to this section, but I'll answer it in any event. We have reciprocal arrangements with all other provinces and territories, and there are three other jurisdictions that have a similar provision to this one.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
L. Stephens: Section 17(c) says: "...(d) that, notwithstanding section 72 of the Offence Act but subject to section 20.1 of this Act, the debtor be imprisoned for a period of up to 30 days each time the debtor fails to pay, by a date specified in an order under paragraph (c) or subsection (10)(a)...." I understand and accept that this section is to bring in the people who can pay and make it very difficult for them not to pay. Would 30 days be seen as excessive punishment, especially when viewed on a comparative basis with sentences for criminal violations of the law? It's a very big hammer, Mr. Attorney General, and I wonder if you could clarify why this 30 days was felt necessary for each time a debtor fails to pay.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will realize that it is "up to 30 days." The court may choose not to exercise its option for a maximum penalty. Obviously the provision for each time is to try to make clear that this is a debt and a serious obligation that fathers, in most cases, have to their children. If they're not going to support their children, then we're going to treat it seriously. The courts will make the determination as to the number of days, as with the Criminal Code provisions, where the courts don't always assess the full penalty that they could.
L. Stephens: I realize that it is going to be up to the courts to make the determination as to how long. But I'm hopeful that in the regulations there will be guidance of some kind along those lines, and that the ministry has considered that imprisonment and the possibility that someone may lose their job may make the situation worse than what it was originally. I am sure the Attorney General has thought of these kinds of things. There must be some kind of balance where you can get that message through and at the same time not make the situation worse than what it could be.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, there won't be any further reference to this in the regulations. The court is guided by the statute and takes its advice there, not from regulations. I should say that the sentencing choices available to the courts include electronic monitoring, intermittent sentences, weekends and a variety of options. It would be up to the courts to administer the appropriate sentence. The history of the courts on these kinds of issues is that that's what would happen. But should somebody be a really bad actor, there is the availability of sending them off to jail. I hope that never happens, because I think people should pay their way. But it can happen.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
On section 19.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I earlier circulated amendments including an amendment to section 19, which I now move. Just so that members understand, this is not significant. It's consequential to the earlier amendment we debated in section 9:
[SECTION 19(a), by deleting the proposed section 20.1(1) and substituting the following: (1) Where a debtor against whom an order is made under section 20(1)(d) fails to pay by a date specified in an order under section 20(1)(c) or (10)(a) the full amount required by the order under section 20(1)(d), the clerk of the court that made those orders shall, on application by (a) the director, if the maintenance order is filed with the director, or (b) the creditor, if the maintenance order is not filed with the director, issue a summons requiring the debtor to appear at a committal hearing before the court at a time and place indicated on the summons.]
On the amendment.
L. Stephens: Could the minister give a little more clarification on the need for this amendment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will remember that I had said earlier that only the creditor could make an application. The earlier amendment dealt with enabling the director of the program to also make an application for an order -- I think that's the way to put it. When you look at section 19, at the bottom of the page, this amendment includes the director if the maintenance order is filed with the director, or the creditor if the maintenance order is not filed with the director. That's simply to make consistent our earlier changes, which gave the director additional power.
Amendment approved.
Section 19 as amended approved.
On section 20.
L. Stephens: I will just read the last couple of lines of the new subsection 21(1): "...the court shall make an attachment order unless it would be unfair to the debtor to do so." This is a subjective standard. Could there be some definition here of what may be unfair?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The simple answer to this one is that that's what the courts are there for. The courts will recognize in the statute that we didn't want to have something done that would be unfair, so the court will be able to make a determination based on the evidence.
[ Page 11995 ]
Section 20 approved.
On section 21.
J. Weisgerber: This is the section of the act that I have the greatest amount of difficulty with. There have been a number of examples where a lien has been put against real property because the person required to make the payments is in default. The difficulty has been getting the lien released. As the act now stands, it requires both the director and the creditor to agree to release the lien. As it's being amended, the act now provides for the creditor or the director to release the lien, which is certainly a step in the right direction. But I don't think it goes far enough.
Furthermore, section 21 is inconsistent with section 23 as it applies to property other than real property. Section 23 says that if the debt is brought current, if there are no longer arrears, then the debtor can apply to have the lien released. That seems reasonable. If payments are brought current and the lien is against property other than real property, the debtor can have the lien removed. But section 21, dealing with real property, isn't consistent with that and still provides for only the creditor or the director to remove the lien. I think that should be corrected.
With that in mind, I would like to propose an amendment to section 21, which would provide for the debtor to also have an opportunity to apply to have the lien released when the payments are current. I have provided a couple of copies; perhaps someone would be good enough to give one to the Attorney General. I believe that in order to make section 21 consistent with section 23, there would need to be an amendment to subsection (1.3) under section 21(a), deleting the words "has at any time defaulted in a payment," substituting instead, "is in default of a payment or payments," and adding in subsection (4)(b) the words "unless there is no longer an outstanding debt, in which case the registrar of titles shall register the discharge or postponement on demand of the debtor." Again, this amendment seeks to make section 21, which deals with real property, consistent with section 23, which deals with other property and liens on other property. So I would move this amendment and hope that the Attorney General would deal with it in a positive manner. I had rather hoped that he might have brought this kind of amendment forward. Seeing that he hasn't, I think it's really critical that this amendment succeeds.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understood -- at least, I believe I understood in second reading debate -- what the member was driving at, and while I have some sympathy with some of the objectives he's trying to accomplish, I'm told that there are other implications that may flow from the adoption of this amendment. I would like to suggest to the member that we not.... I'm not going to suggest; I'm going to say that I'm not going to accept the amendment, simply because I just don't have time to give it proper consideration at this point. But I will undertake to include this issue and this notion in the areas to be considered for a future amendment as we continue to try to fine-tune the legislation. It won't be in this session, but perhaps it will be in the next session.
J. Weisgerber: I don't think this is as complex as to require a year or so to consider it. I appreciate that it's late at night, and that the Attorney General hasn't had a lot of opportunity to look at the amendment. I had hoped, and indeed I had some sense from our discussion during second reading, that this could well be one of the amendments that the Attorney General would bring forward.
Again, I must stress that all this does is bring the legislation regarding real property in line with what has now been introduced on other property. It simply says that if you, the debtor, have paid and brought your account current and there is a lien against your property, it can then be released at your demand because you have brought your debt current. I can understand that the creditor and/or the director may well like to keep a lien on the person's house. It now says that if you miss another payment, Bub, we've got a lien on you. But many people would like to have that kind of power over people who make regular payments to them. It isn't enough to simply say: "Gee, you missed a payment, then you brought it up to date. We've got you now -- we've got a lien on your property, and we're going to keep it there forever-more." That has been the circumstance.
I agree that until the introduction of these amendments, the director alone hasn't had the power to release the lien. But I'm very uncomfortable that the director might be unwilling to give up that hammer, because it is an enormous hammer to wield over someone who may have fallen into arrears -- for a very good reason, like a misunderstanding with a spouse -- and had a lien placed against their home. It causes people real difficulty.
[12:30]
I'm sure you would understand, as I would, that if someone had a lien against your house and you didn't owe any money and were making your payments regularly, then you'd have the right to say: "Take the lien off my property." It seems to me that in the interests of natural justice, your lien should be released when you have brought your account current. If the person falls into arrears again, I guess you have to go and put the lien back. But I believe the lack of justice that exists under other circumstances outweighs the convenience that having this hammer might give.
If the minister is unwilling to accept this, I don't know how he rationalizes the difference with other property. Section 23 says that if you pay your bill and bring your account current, the lien is released. It seems to me only logical, and perhaps even more important, that the lien should be released on a person's most important possession -- his home, or her home, as the case may be -- when the payment is brought current.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand what the member is saying. The argument has a ring of logic to it that gives me pause, and I want to consider it. What happens now, as I understand it, is that the Family Relations Act gives the woman, in most cases, the right to have the lien attached. What the amendments -- our amendments, not the member's -- are doing is to not only give the woman, in this case, the right to have the lien withdrawn but also the director. That's what we are trying to accomplish.
What the member is suggesting is that if an individual has discharged their obligations -- paid all their debts as of a certain date -- then they could make an application on that particular day and have the lien discharged, and then fail to make the next payments. The process of having a lien would have to be undergone again.
Having said all of that, I am going to repeat what I said earlier. There are more complex consequences here that I just do not want to try to deal with in the context of the last days of the session. I will take the member's comments and include those in our continuing review of this legislation for a future session.
[ Page 11996 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'll just make one last attempt here, and then I'll turn it over to others who I think are probably sympathetic to this argument.
If you look at section 23.1(6), under section 22 of this bill, it says the lien created under this section under other property "continues (a) for as long as the claim is registered, or (b) until the arrears are paid...." It's automatic on any property other than real that when the arrears are paid, the lien comes off. It seems to me it's a little like having a lien on your car which says: "We may or may not lift the lien when you have made the last payment." I think that to be able to maintain a lien over your property when there is no debt is just too heavy a hand for anyone to have. It flies in the face of everything. If I hadn't had the experience with some people who were very well-intentioned on this particular issue, I perhaps wouldn't be as adamant about it. I'm just concerned that if we don't deal with this now -- as well-intentioned as we both may be -- there won't be another set of amendments next year. A considerable period of time will pass and this issue may continue to cause a good deal of heartburn for people, and may never get dealt with. I would like the minister to take a couple of minutes and look at this, because I don't think it has ramifications beyond taking away too heavy a hand from the director. I commend the minister for at least taking away from the creditor the ability to block this, but I believe that a debt brought up to date should allow for a lien to be released.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Even if we were entirely accepting the member's argument -- which I still haven't sorted through completely in my own mind, so I'm not doing that at this point -- we would have to deal with the Family Relations Act and the fact that that legislation also requires an order before a lien is lifted from real property, if in fact a maintenance order is registered under section 22 of this act and the land is charged under section 61(3)(c) of the Family Relations Act. I only say that to illustrate the point that it's very difficult to stand in the House on complex legal questions and try and resolve issues.
Last night I picked up what the member had to say, and unlike earlier today on another issue where the member had made a very effective argument which I did accept, on this one we chose to take some more time to think it through -- and I'm just not going to accept it at this point.
L. Reid: I am standing in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Peace River South. In debate yesterday evening I attempted to bring forward the case of two individuals who have never been in arrears under the family maintenance enforcement program, and both have liens on their property. The issue today is that their spouses must give permission for those liens to be removed. That is not realistic, it's not proper and it's not fair to the individuals who have never been in default with the system. The dilemma that I have this evening is that there are individuals who are looking at the lien as some kind of insurance policy for future arrears. That's not appropriate.
If the minister is not interested in standing the section down, I would suggest that we pass this amendment or stand it down for future consideration. I think that the issue is solid. It makes sense to be supporting people we are pushing through the keyhole, I think, without any sense that they should not be treated this way by a program designed to assist children in this province, not pit one spouse against the other. The way it stands today, it is not helpful to the exercise, and it's not useful to children.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the member's argument, she would be well advised to vote in favour of the amendments that we are proposing, because those amendments allow the director to have the lien removed. The situation the member describes could happen under the existing law where there is a lien and the agreement of the spouse is required....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's something that happens under the existing law. We are going to add a provision which will allow the director to have that lien removed in the situation the member describes. It would be really good for the member to vote in favour of our amendments, because she will accomplish the goal she's seeking.
J. Tyabji: I rise in support of the amendment as well. Having said that, I have tried to stay out of this debate as much as possible. I don't think a bill like this should be debated after midnight. It deserves proper scrutiny.
I would like to point out to the Attorney General that the intent of the bill as it stands in this section is unfortunate in terms of holding people liable who may have lived up to the spirit of a maintenance order -- whether they're a day or two late, or however it works out. In addition, under section 14 of this bill --which has already been passed; and I don't know why it wasn't raised in debate already, because it's the same situation -- it talks about action that can be taken against someone because they have, as the wording goes, "at any time defaulted." As to who determines that and the action taken, you could end up with somebody having to fight for their rights, whether it's property, a lien, an attachment or however it works out. In some way, their property may be seized.
I know examples in my constituency where someone may be scrambling to try to meet the terms and conditions of a maintenance order -- they might be two or three days late because their paycheque doesn't come on the fifteenth, or however it works out. According to this bill, even if they're doing it to the best of their ability, if they're a few days late you end up removing someone's rights or really penalizing those people who are living up to a maintenance order. This occurs not only under this section as the amendment is now proposed, but also under section 15 of the act or section 14 of this bill -- it's the same wording.
I want to draw that to the Attorney General's attention in the event that this amendment doesn't pass -- which would be unfortunate. If it does go back for reconsideration, you might also want to look at section 15 of the act. They have the same language and would penalize the alleged debtor -- or the person who for the purposes of this bill is the debtor -- in the same way. That would be most unfortunate. I think we covered a lot of those points in second reading, but that would be something that could be rewritten.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to spend a great deal of time on this, but I'm a little dismayed and dissatisfied with the reasoning given for not pursuing this amendment. The reasons given were not that it's an unjust amendment or that the minister is necessarily opposed to the principle behind the amendment or the intent of the amendment, but rather that it would take time and it would require changes to other acts as consequential amendments. This is what I understood the minister to say.
To the best of my calculations, this House is going to be sitting for at least another two weeks. There is no pressing, urgent need for this bill to pass tonight -- it's obviously not
[ Page 11997 ]
going to -- nor is there an urgent, pressing need for this bill to pass in the next week or, indeed, the next ten days. I would suggest that the minister, in doing his best duty, and in the interests of the public, should be willing to stand this section down. If it's not the intent of the amendment that he has a problem with, but rather the timing of it and the implementation of it, he could come back with some further study at a later date before the House rises for the summer. I don't see any downside to doing that. I think it would be the only honourable and right thing to do in this case.
I think the member for Peace River South, as other members have said tonight, makes a good point. I think the minister is not fundamentally in opposition to that point, but merely is concerned with the timing and the consequential amendments that may arise. Due consideration should be given to taking the time that is available to look at that, and to coming back with at least a further explanation. I would suggest a more comprehensive explanation, if those changes can't be made.
[12:45]
I would again bring the caution of the member for Peace River South. Often we pass by these bills only once, and sometimes only once in a decade, sometimes only once in a year, sometimes only once every two years. I think it's incumbent upon us to do it right the first time, and not put it off and come back a year or two years from now.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try again. First of all, the debtor will have the opportunity, under our amendments, to ask the director to have the lien removed or in fact to make an application to the courts to have the lien removed. The amendment as it's written would enable the land titles office to make a decision about whether or not the obligations were met, and that's obviously not an appropriate way of doing it. The debtor will have the ability, by going to the director -- and he has had, and will continue to have, the ability to go to court -- to have the lien removed. That's sufficient.
By saying that, I'm also not closing the door on relooking at this whole issue at some time in the future. Before I would want to bring in amendments on this issue, I would want to consult with the various parties we've consulted with in the last year when putting this bill together. I'm just saying to members of the House that I'm not able to do this at this time, and it's not going to happen during this session. Members can make the argument, but I'm just not prepared to accept it at this point, in this session. We're not being heavy-handed here. In fact, the amendments we've introduced widen the ability of an individual to have the lien removed.
J. Weisgerber: Again, I acknowledge that the amendments introduced by the Attorney General improve the situation. The amendments introduced for the sections dealing with other than real property simply say that when the arrears are brought current, the lien is removed; it is satisfied.
I don't know what difference there is between the land titles branch and the registrar of motor vehicles, if that's what we're talking about. If one is dealing with a lien on an automobile, there's an onus on the owner of that asset to prove to the motor vehicle branch that the debt has been satisfied. I don't think it's a question of a debtor simply walking into the land titles office and saying that the lien should be removed. There has to be a process.
Again, this is a question of fundamental justice. I would urge the minister to let this section stand down. I expect that we could probably pass the rest of the sections of this bill. We wouldn't have conclusion in committee, but I expect there would be only one outstanding section, for which the minister may want to bring back an amendment. I would be happy to withdraw mine. But I think you have to make section 21 consistent with section 23. That seems pretty obvious and logical to me.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 10 | ||
|
Reid |
Farrell-Collins |
Stephens |
|
Weisgerber |
Wilson |
Tyabji |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
Warnke |
| Tanner | ||
|
NAYS -- 28 | ||
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
| Garden | Perry | Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hartley |
B. Jones |
|
Doyle |
Conroy |
Farnworth |
|
Janssen |
Pullinger |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Gabelmann |
Smallwood |
|
Miller |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Kasper |
Schreck |
| Lali | ||
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
D. Schreck: I rise at the earliest opportunity, to ask that my rights to move a motion under standing order 26 be preserved on matters that arose during what is now yesterday.
Deputy Speaker: I have duly noted the privilege motion.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:57 a.m.
[ Page 11998 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; J. Doyle in the chair.
The committee met at 3:24 p.m.
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).
A. Warnke: Just before we get into the first main question -- actually I have a number of questions -- I want to remind the hon. Chair that when we adjourned these estimates the other day, I believe we were discussing multiculturalism; we'll put that aside. In responding to that section of these estimates, the minister nonetheless provided an extensive criticism of how much more moral the government was compared to the opposition and the official opposition party. So as we pursue today's estimates, perhaps we want to essentially look at the administrative abilities of this minister and whether they match the level of moral and ethical standards so claimed by him.
It is in this context, too, that I would like to pursue an essential feature of the Ministry of Environment in the area of conservation. I think the member for Burnaby-Willingdon raised an important concern -- I commend her for that -- about conservation: there are not enough conservation officers to monitor and enforce regulations to control poaching, for example, by ensuring that fishing and hunting licences are being adhered to.
The member for Burnaby-Willingdon was quite properly concerned with the emphasis placed on conservation officers monitoring industrial and forest infractions and the fact that those two areas will take up all their time. Conservation officers may be falling behind with regard to controlling poaching, and she in fact expressed a possible changing role of conservation officers. In response, the minister gave those answers, which do not assure us that the role is not being somewhat changed and perhaps undermined. Similarly, the member for Prince George-Omineca wanted some assurance on wildlife management, and once again we did not really get around to that.
So I would like to pursue an area that I believe was neglected, and it is with regard to the discretion of conservation officers for whom the minister is responsible. It's another aspect which the member for Burnaby-Willingdon did not touch on. She had one specific concern, and I commend her for that. I'd like to pursue another aspect of that. I think it's most appropriate for discussion in the 1994-95 estimates, and I have this concern because I believe it might have tremendous implications for future generations. So I would like to focus on some questions with regard to conservation and to illustrate them, because the minister is responsible for this area.
I draw the attention of the minister to an elk-trapping program in the East Kootenays which involves the fish and wildlife branch. As I'm sure the minister is aware, there was a case of a helicopter carrying a team of hunters, hunting guides and a provincial wildlife biologist. Of the team of hunters, three are big-time guide-outfitters and one is a former guide. I believe the minister might be very familiar with this case, but for our purposes it involved this team of hunters and the provincial wildlife biologist swooping down in pretty rugged country near Columbia Lake between Fairmont Hot Springs and Canal Flats. The incident took place on March 11, 1994, around Spur Lake just west of Columbia Lake.
[3:30]
Essentially this team was pursuing trophy bull elk. They were to be trapped with a net gun and then fitted with radio collars so that these elk could be tracked electronically. It is interesting that the incident took place where the guides essentially have control of that territory; they have the rights to that territory. They were pursuing six-point elk, which is the highest category of trophy elk. The position was that these four hunters were helping the wildlife biologist, because they all had been guides in the area where the elk were being trapped. When the exercise was over, two of the seven elk were killed due to broken necks. As a matter of fact, one of the hunting guides was in charge of the shooting and from what I've been able to gather, the person was inexperienced in this area.
I also have to flesh out that Mr. Lloyd Harvey was one of the four individuals involved. Mr. Harvey has been known to the guiding community not just in this country but also in North America. Mr. Harvey has gone through the experience of having a number of charges brought against him for poaching in Alaska. As well, on April 19, 1993, or thereabouts, Mr. Harvey pleaded guilty in an American courtroom in Seattle to a charge relating to an illegal wolf kill.
Knowing that the wolf had been killed illegally and that Mr. Harvey was convicted and actually had to spend time in prison for it raises a number of questions. It raises the question, for example, of what Mr. Harvey was doing as part of a team that was supposedly doing research. I say supposedly, because there seems to be a conflict here between volunteering to help in collaring elk, which are trophies in the area, and merely helping out. It raises the question of why this particular person was involved in the team.
I'm sure the minister is aware that there were also questions as to what the provincial wildlife biologist was doing in this area. Why did she work with the four? Two elk were killed -- one is bad enough -- but right then and there the killing of one elk should have stimulated some examination as to why this happened and what problems occurred. But no, two elk were killed. What was Anna Fontana doing, in terms of representing the provincial wildlife biologist? As I suggested, I'm sure the minister is very familiar with this case.
I would like to lead off with a series of questions. What became of the dead elk, what was the need for the research in the area, and what is the relationship between wildlife branch officials and hunting guides? I'm sure the minister recognizes that there appears to be a conflict between volunteering to help and being involved in the trophy industry itself. These trophies have been well advertised; we're talking about big money. Trophies such as these are in the $10,000-per-kill range, so big money is involved.
First, I would like the minister to explain exactly what he has done in his ministry to deal with this particular set of circumstances.
Hon. M. Sihota: I remember the case; it was an unfortunate situation. From time to time we rely on those who are involved in guide-outfitting to assist us in some of
[ Page 11999 ]
the work we do in the field. First, this was one of those occasions.
Second, the purpose of this was to place collars on the animals for the reasons that the hon. member just outlined.
Third, when made aware of it, I received a report from staff and left it to the staff level, as opposed to ministerial level, to deal with the situation. From my desk, my recollection of it is that all I received was a briefing note, and I had a subsequent discussion with staff about it.
A. Warnke: I want to get the extent to which the minister knew about this incident very crystal-clear. I am obviously a bit surprised; I thought it might be in more detail. I want the extent to which the minister is aware of the incident clarified. Is it only in a briefing note? How much beyond that?
Hon. M. Sihota: My best recollection at this time is that there was a briefing note, there was a newspaper article on it, which I read, and I had a discussion with my ADM that dealt with the wildlife issue.
A. Warnke: In the discussion with the ADM, was the briefing note extensive? I'll define extensive as anything beyond ten pages. Was it just literally one of those very small briefing notes that more or less outlines the highlights of the event that occurred?
Hon. M. Sihota: To my knowledge, I have never had a briefing note that's gone on for ten pages -- ever. If that's your standard, it didn't meet that standard. As far as briefing notes go -- and I'm again functioning from memory here -- it was fairly extensive. I think it would have been about three pages.
A. Warnke: I want to pursue as well a complaint made by a person from Kimberley, B.C. This person, an ordinary citizen, got in touch with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is also the regional member for the East Kootenays, inquired about the dead elk and wanted to know what happened and all the rest of it. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is the MLA for Kootenay, wrote back to this individual, and I would like to read this into the record:
"Thank you for your letter of April 3, 1994, outlining your concerns with wildlife monitoring programs within our region. I have discussed your concerns with Ministry of Environment officials in Victoria and Cranbrook.
"The wildlife monitoring programs within the Kootenays provide invaluable data on the habitat and migrational patterns of some of the largest populations of ungulates in North America. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is constantly upgrading methods of learning -- the better the data, the better the management.
"The ministry has advised me that all salvageable meats were donated to people in need, and that the antlers were donated to the Windermere Rod and Gun Club who helped fund the collaring program. I have been assured by ministry officials that all participants within this program have had background checks to ensure the integrity of this operation. The charges" -- they involved the ones I alluded to concerning Mr. Harvey -- "which you mentioned in your letter were subsequently dropped."
There are a couple of questions. One, I want to know the extent to which the Minister of Environment discussed this particular matter with the Minister of Energy. Two, I want it on the record that Mr. Harvey had been convicted in a Seattle court despite the Minister of Energy saying: "The charges which you mentioned in your letter were subsequently dropped." Either intentionally or perhaps unwittingly, the minister did not know the details of the case. Nonetheless, she conveyed a very clear impression that Mr. Harvey was completely off the hook, when in fact he had been convicted in a Seattle court. I wonder if the minister would like to respond to those two questions.
Hon. M. Sihota: First, the letter refers to discussions with the Ministry of Environment officials; I don't think it refers to discussions with myself. I listened to what you had to say. I haven't seen the letter. Second, she refers, in her letter, to charges that were dropped. I haven't seen the letter which prompted her letter, so I'm not too sure what she was responding to when she said that. Third, I don't know whether the member for Kootenay would be aware of charges that are outside this jurisdiction.
A. Warnke: I'm always willing to help the minister in any way possible with regard to the context he spoke of and the charges he mentioned. This related to Mr. Harvey specifically; the citizen was trying to point out that one of the four individuals, who was part of the team of hunters, was charged on a number of counts and then eventually convicted in a Seattle courtroom in 1993. The dates are significant, hon. Chair. If someone is convicted in a courtroom, the logical question to deal with in this matter is why a person who has been convicted of poaching was allowed to become part of an elk-collaring program. It certainly set up the possibility of radio-monitoring where the elk are; I'll go beyond the possibilities in a few moments. It's most useful if you know the radio frequencies by which you can track the elk.
[3:45]
If the officials who are involved in the collaring program have nothing to do with hunting and the guide-outfitting community, that minimizes the problem. The Americans, for example, have looked at this in detail. They are extremely sensitive about radio frequencies and that sort of thing getting out to the public whereby a variety of animals can be tracked.
We have here an individual who has a record of poaching; he was convicted in 1993. In early 1994 he was part of a team that was collaring elk. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out that if someone has access to those radio frequencies, it is very easy for them to track the elk. Therefore that sets up a situation for a tremendous conflict. In that context, I wonder whether the minister will tell us whether he was briefed on this situation sufficiently by the ministry to do something very important in the area of conservation of big game.
This was public knowledge and in a newspaper article, which the minister said he had read. The article was in the Vancouver Sun on April 2, 1994; there are other newspaper stories as well. I could also ask if he's aware of the actions of Anna Fontana. I wonder, as a side question -- but it's still important within the ministry -- what the minister did with Anna Fontana.
Hon. M. Sihota: First, let me answer the question straight up. It's not for me to deal with personnel issues; I don't involve myself in those issues and determinations. Second, I don't know what the hon. member is suggesting. Is he suggesting that we not continue our decades-old policy of involving people as volunteers -- naturalists, hunters, guide-outfitters, people involved in trapping, community service clubs, local government and others -- to assist us in performing a host of tasks? We've been doing it for several decades, and there have been no conflicts that we're aware
[ Page 12000 ]
of. Is he suggesting that we ought not to utilize those resources? If that's the policy of his party, I don't have any difficulty with that being on the record.
He expresses a concern with regard to guide-outfitters taking advantage of radio frequencies in order to track these animals. It's my understanding that guides are not involved with tracking the radio-collared animals. Besides, if that were to occur in British Columbia, unlike elsewhere, guides would face the prospect of losing their licence. Cancellation of the licence is under section 26, I believe, of the Wildlife Act, and if it's not under that provision, it would be under other provisions. But it means that they would lose their licence.
A. Warnke: As to the first point, it's fine to say it's a decades-old policy and that somehow if it's an old policy it's got to be the right policy. Frankly, if there is something wrong with the system, it has to be changed. To say that this means that the Liberals think we should not utilize those resources....
Hon. Chair, if it means a situation where people have direct access as a result of being intimately involved in the program of collaring of big game, and if they are indeed involved in that program and also involved in guide-outfitting and in the hunt itself and have every possibility of easily tracking game -- and not only easily tracking game -- I would call that cheating, plain and simple. If that has to change, I believe it has to change.
To simply say that's a decades-old policy is ridiculous. The technology has changed. In terms of the collaring program and what not, we're not dealing with the kind of technology that was around in the 1940s and 1950s. I'm really surprised that the minister doesn't take the opportunity to examine in more detail just what he is responsible for and some of the problems that are involved here. As a matter of fact, hon. Chair, you don't have to go very far to see that some people have some real problems with this.
One of the leading experts in this area is from Alaska, Mr. Tim Eicher. When the incident was put to him where two elk were killed supposedly as a result of this program, he expressed some concerns. What the heck were the guide-outfitters or the hunters doing with the provincial biologist? That raised a lot of eyebrows not only in this country but in Alaska and throughout the United States.
When Mr. Eicher was told that they were working on big bull elk -- that is, the highest trophy, six-point elk, as opposed to some other elk -- he said this: "They were working on big bull elk? And it was in territory that the guides hunt? That kind of makes me pause a little." Mr. Eicher made it very clear that that would certainly not take place in Alaska. It's just not on. This kind of problem has been examined in detail in the lower 48 states, and the loosey-goosey system we have here is dismissed in the United States. It's laughable, but they said it's also very serious. It just would not be enforced in the United States. The way this minister has handled that particular problem is ridiculous. Having been exposed to that, I think that the ministry should work quickly and hard to fix it up. I don't mind at all putting on the record that the so-called decades-old policy, implying that it's somehow good, is a stupid system right now. If utilizing those resources set up a tremendous conflict, then it should be done away with.
But it doesn't end there, and it doesn't end in this ministry. The problem is that, in addition to the guides getting copies of the frequencies of the radio collars, there are also some officials within the ministry who work hand in hand with the Safari Club in the United States. The Safari Club has a notorious reputation for being one of the most ruthless in terms of hunting. If the minister doesn't know, he should become educated darned quick on the fact that the Safari Club has only one objective in mind.
Another club known through its advertising is the North Country Wilderness Elk Lodge in Montana, run by Mr. Dave Johnson. Mr. Johnson has stated the following:
"British Columbia is fast becoming the premier place to hunt elk. Why British Columbia? First, the population base of British Columbia is very small, making local hunting pressure nearly non-existent."
Tell that to the local hunters in the East Kootenays. I'd like to hear the minister say that to the hunting community there.
"Second, British Columbia has always had a guide law requirement. All non-residents of British Columbia must employ the services of a guide. The average cost of a guided elk hunt in British Columbia is in excess of $4,000 U.S. This has kept hunting pressure low and maintained good-quality elk-hunting."
I would also like to enter into the record the following, from the same advertisement, from Mr. David Johnson of this North Country Wilderness Elk Lodge, who is advertising elk-hunting in Canada:
"British Columbia was fortunate to have had one of North America's best game biologists managing the elk of southeast British Columbia. His name is Ray Demarchi. He has been a guest speaker at the national elk foundation convention and is very dedicated to managing British Columbia elk to produce a large ratio of mature bulls. I have spent many nights around a campfire in camp discussing his management philosophy on elk. I can assure you he has done a brilliant job."
I emphasize this last part, hon. Chair. The question is: who has he done a brilliant job for? Mr. Ray Demarchi has also been a regional wildlife head for the Kootenays, and he has been recently appointed to a position here in Victoria as chief of wildlife management for British Columbia. The question put to me by many residents of the Kootenays is for what reason a person with a bit of background like that -- and believe me, I'm quite prepared to elaborate in detail because I've done my research -- is getting a promotion within this ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you want to elaborate, feel free to do so. Mr. Demarchi received a promotion through a competition within the civil service. That's how he secured his position. If you want to spend time in these estimates taking issue with civil servants who aren't here to defend themselves, I don't think that is the kind of approach we take in this Legislature. Matters of policy are appropriate in this forum, but I find it surprising that the hon. member would want to get into issues of personnel. I caution the hon. member to reflect on that line of questioning. But he's free to raise issues; I just hope he raises them in the context of what is acceptable here.
A. Warnke: I would caution the minister, if anyone knows the rules of the Legislature, or how to conduct oneself during the estimates or pursue a matter of policy, I do, hon. Chair. I'm asking some very straightforward questions. How is his ministry being administered? This is extremely important. If a minister does not have a handle on the administration of his ministry, we've got some serious problems. That's what I'm pursuing. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at some of the minister's responses. He seems to be indicating to the Legislature he doesn't have the hold on his ministry that he should.
I raise these questions because sometimes persons who are part of the administrative process become involved in conflict-of-interest situations. I didn't even get into the fact
[ Page 12001 ]
that Anna Fontana's husband is a professional hunter, a guide-outfitter, or that Mr. Ray Demarchi, the former regional biologist, once received two horses from the guides of southeastern British Columbia, under cover of the party of appreciation for 25 years of service. After some time, I understand, one horse and one saddle were given back, but one of the horses came from Lloyd Harvey himself, who was convicted in a Seattle courtroom.
It's very interesting too that Mr. Demarchi was the one person in the ministry to reclassify southeastern British Columbia Canada moose to Wyoming shiras moose. I guess it's worthwhile elaborating that one particular individual, the president of the Safari Club, was very pleased to see this reclassification, since it meant the Safari Club could now pursue one of the top three trophy moose and elk in Canada.
[4:00]
If the minister wants to pursue a matter of policy, I think it should be the policy of this government, or of any government or minister, to get a reasonable hand on the administration of that ministry, especially when it has become a public issue, which this one has. It's been in the Kootenay newspapers and in the Vancouver Sun. Mark Hume of the Vancouver Sun wrote two excellent features on this. Therefore when this issue comes to public attention, I think it's extremely important for the minister to respond accordingly. Otherwise we take it that it is a policy of the governing party that it is okay to poach and okay to promote within the public service people who have illustrated past problems with how they conduct their own business. But especially when we take a look at future generations and the succeeding generation to our own, they can point the finger at this generation and at this minister and say: "Where were you when it came to serious conservation? Your generation knew about it and failed to do anything about it despite all the warning signals, whether they came from the lower 48 states, Alaska or a Seattle courtroom." This is despite the clear evidence of an incident involving seven elk that were trapped and collared under the most ridiculous of circumstances, and two of them were killed. There are even people who believe that these animals are beautiful animals, and those people are quite right. What we do not want to see is that, in the name of big-game hunting, it is somehow all right to run a loosey-goosey shop, especially one based on some sort of decades-old policy.
I may want to actually pursue this a little further, but I respect the fact that other members might want to pose other questions.
The Chair: Go ahead.
A. Warnke: Keep going?
The Chair: It's very interesting.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Chair.
This is also well known in the Kootenays. Mr. Ray Wilson, for example, a director and past president of the East Kootenay Hunters' Association, said that the situation that I have outlined worries him extremely. Let's put this on the record as well. If you know the radio frequency, it's not hard to find those elk. They are trophy elk, and it's only trophy elk they're collaring. Why is it that only trophy elk are being collared?
The worst part about it is that a person such as Mr. Ray Wilson would say: "I was upset about hearing the guides were all there and by the way trapping was conducted. I think the wildlife branch and the guides are hand in hand -- and this demonstrates that."
I would therefore like to ask a question on behalf of someone such as Mr. Ray Wilson. Exactly what steps is the minister taking -- because the minister has obviously known of this case -- to deal with this matter?
Hon. M. Sihota: Two points. First, those who are engaged in procuring or hunting wildlife have as much interest as anyone in terms of ensuring that there's conservation and reproduction of those species. That's why organizations such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Guide-Outfitters' Association of B.C. play a useful role in working with government to make sure that we conserve and increase the number of species that are available in British Columbia. I'm not sure if the hon. member realizes that in terms of the points he's making.
Second, on the comments he has made about actions that I'd be taking with regard to Ms. Fontana, Mr. Demarchi or anyone else, I do not involve myself in matters of staff discipline.
A. Warnke: I may have a few more questions, but I see that another member might also want to pose a few questions.
R. Neufeld: I just have a few questions. I asked a question of the minister in the House the other day, and he suggested that I ask that question here in estimates. It has to do with the policy for lands. When covenants are removed from land property, it's my understanding, by way of a letter from the ministry to a constituent of mine....
Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I have difficulty with the hon. member raising the matter. I think it would be a little easier.... I don't recall whether the hon. member gave me the letter in question....
R. Neufeld: I did.
Hon. M. Sihota: If you did, it's up in my office. If you have a copy, I think it would assist me if you could give me a copy now. I don't mean to interrupt you, but if we could get a copy made, I think we might be able to deal with the issue on a more expedited basis. Is that fair enough?
R. Neufeld: Yes.
Hon. M. Sihota: Do you need some time to make the copy or do you have one?
R. Neufeld: Yes, I do.
Hon. M. Sihota: Perhaps some other member can ask a question, and we can come back to this. Or else, if you have some other questions....
R. Neufeld: I guess the other question I have concerns dump sites along the Alaska Highway, and there are quite a number of them. Some of the rules that the ministry is bringing into place -- and I'm not saying that we don't have to look after our solid waste -- work well in the lower mainland where there are lots of people. But on a highway that travels through my constituency for some 500 miles with quite a number of places where people live -- maybe just two or three -- they'll have a small dump. With some of the regulations for solid waste that those people have to live with, it comes to the point where the ministry wants to close these dump sites. I don't know exactly what those residents
[ Page 12002 ]
are going to do in the area of Toad River, Muncho Lake or any of those places along the Alaska Highway.
The second part of that is the closure of sewage pits, which are presently used and monitored by the ministry. A tremendous number of American tourists travel in recreational vehicles of some kind, and they dump their sewage quite regularly at the different lodges. At the present time it's all collected and taken to a waste pit. Those waste pits will be closed. I don't know what is going to happen to the sewage, and I don't know who can afford to pay for the tourists. Are they going to pay enough to have that sewage moved all the way, 400 or 500 miles, to the next community, or even 250 miles to go into a sewage system? There are some real problems there, and I'm afraid we're going to see it dumped into gravel pits or alongside the road. The cost of dumping these tanks for the operator of the lodges will be so astronomical, they're just not going to pay it. I know it's under study right now, but before it gets too far along, I'd like to bring it to the minister's attention and see if he could intervene or look at it in a more responsive manner than what's been done so far.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's a fair request. Obviously you don't want to come up with a regulation or process or outcome that doesn't fit in with the regional realities in the area of the province that you have been fortunate enough to represent. That's a fair request. You're right, those issues are currently under study. I'll tell you what; I think it's sufficiently legitimate. I'm going to suggest that I will make arrangements with my staff to meet with you as the representative of that area to enable you to go through the options they are looking at and give them advice with regard to the studies they are carrying on right now. So you will have some comfort that the regulations have your input and that they're developed in an appropriate way. If they're developed inappropriately, then at least you know you've had your input. I think it's appropriate that you should have that opportunity to work through that with staff. I'd be happy to put you in touch with the appropriate people; we'll arrange for that. As soon as estimates are finished, you and I can get together, and we'll get you in touch with the right people. Okay?
R. Neufeld: Thank you. I look forward to doing that.
The other issue I have is the closure of parks or the intended closure of parks. I'm not sure, but you may have canvassed this earlier this year. In my constituency there were fears of a few parks being closed around Fort St. John and along the Alaska Highway. I wonder exactly what steps the ministry is taking to mitigate those closures. What are we doing to maintain those parks and keep them open? I agree with some of the ministry's stands. If the parks aren't used at all, I have no problem with them being closed. In the constituency that I represent, our usage is not consistent year-round. It is very heavy during the summer and lightens up in the fall and spring. Local people use those parks in the fall and spring more than in the summer. I wonder what steps the minister has taken to mitigate those closures. How are we going to look at it in the future?
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sorry, I had to make some arrangements with my children; that's why I was on the phone. It's nice we have that phone in such easy range here so we can do that kind of stuff. At least I know where my daughter is going to be at 6:15 today.
[4:15]
We make determinations with regard to parks. When there's insufficient use, we will make a determination to close a park. When we do that we endeavour to make the facility available; often it is then taken over by regional districts. There are often some cost-sharing arrangements developed between us and the regional district.
R. Neufeld: Are those the only options that the minister is looking at with the parks across the whole province?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, there are others. We would look, for example, at just reducing the amount of work we do in a park so as to realize some savings but still keep the park open. Or we may move toward a system that is relatively close to a sort of self-maintenance by the users.
R. Neufeld: I have one other question. The oil and gas industry in my area has heard that the ministry wants to change how pipelines are laid out across the terrain. Instead of being in a straight line, we understand that there are some moves within the ministry to change the direction of the lines periodically. At the present time there are angles where pipelines come off a road, so you can't see off a road down a pipeline for miles. I don't think industry has any problem with that, and I don't have any problem with it. Is the ministry looking further at making a jog in a pipeline every five or ten miles? Is that a serious consideration or is it just an unfounded rumour?
Hon. M. Sihota: That's the first time I've heard of it. I don't know if it's a rumour or whether it's founded or unfounded.
R. Neufeld: Is there someone in your ministry I could find out from whether it is in fact founded?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think that would be dealt with through our lands branch, so we'll endeavour to get you in touch with somebody from Lands in that regard.
R. Neufeld: I have one other question about -- and I dealt with it earlier in estimates -- the referral process in Fort St. John for well authority licences. One question that I neglected to ask was the fact that there seems to be a movement underway to have the Chetwynd Environmental Society be part of that referral process. The Chetwynd Environmental Society is not connected in any way with government other than being funded by government to sit on the protected areas strategy processes that are going on in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Chetwynd and Dawson Creek right now. Is the oil and gas industry going to have to face an outside environmental society in order to get authority to drill wells in the north and the northeast?
Hon. M. Sihota: No. We sometimes consult with outside authorities to seek their views with regard to issues, but there's no delegation of responsibility.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister if his ministry has any sort of records as to what type of disturbed land would result from mining. Do you keep records of what is being reclaimed and what hasn't been in regard to forestry and specifically mining?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would have that information.
[ Page 12003 ]
D. Jarvis: I'm flipping around a few subjects here. I'll get around to your favourite subject in a moment. I want to know if there are any plans for your ministry to extend a road down Highway 37 -- Telegraph Creek Road, I assume -- down through that park and back out onto 37. It was rumoured that you were contemplating putting a road through that park and back out onto the highway, ostensibly for tourist purposes.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can get you that information. I wouldn't know off the top of my head if we're planning to put a road through a park up in that part of the province. There are provisions that allow us to do that through parks, but there's some uncertainty with regard to those provisions right now, so I don't think we would be doing that until that uncertainty is resolved. We can get that information from staff.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask another question in regard to the minister's favourite subject, and that's not Koocanusa, it's the Tatshenshini-Windy Craggy situation. I want to know, first of all, whether your ministry -- and I can't remember if the minister was in Environment at the time, but the decision was ostensibly made by cabinet -- had any input into the final decision to make that into a wilderness area.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're the lead ministry, but other ministries are involved in discussions and determinations leading up to a decision of that nature. Any material that we would have taken to cabinet, of course, is confidential.
D. Jarvis: Well, it's now been 51 weeks since the announcement was made to turn the Tatshenshini into a park and stop all resource industries from doing anything in that area. At that time, the Premier announced that there would be a fair and quick settlement, and every time he's questioned on it he says there's going to be a fair and quick settlement. But to date not one discussion has taken place as to what's going to be a fair settlement. I've contacted Energy and Mines, and they say it's in Environment's hands or AG's hands. I've phoned the AG's department, and they say it's in Environment's hands. I just want to know: is it in your hands, or can you direct me to the person who is responsible? And is cabinet going to make any decision on it in the near future?
Hon. M. Sihota: The Ministry of Environment chairs an interministry agency at both the ministerial and staff levels with regard to the issue the hon. member raises. We have now started the process of discussion with the industry and recently corresponded with them to seek their opinions -- namely, the opinions of the claim-holders.
D. Jarvis: Can the minister give me a specific time element that may be included? And when was the last communication with Geddes Resources or Royal Oak? My information is that they haven't heard from the ministry for months and months.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know when the last time was. Perhaps to be a little more candid about it, I've discussed the issue with the other ministers involved, and we've had the opportunity to meet with the officials that have been assigned to this. Those meetings probably occurred -- I'm functioning from memory -- about four weeks ago, and if they haven't heard, I think they would be hearing fairly soon.
C. Tanner: Since the Yukon native land claim is being settled -- in fact, discussed in the court -- could the minister tell us whether or not to his knowledge the Aishihik band at Haines Junction has forsaken their claim to the Tatshenshini area?
Hon. M. Sihota: The Champagne-Aishihik people have resolved the claims with regard to the Yukon; they have not with regard to British Columbia and therefore have an interest in those lands.
C. Tanner: I understand that they've resolved their local claim, but that doesn't forestall them from continuing their claim in British Columbia. Could the minister tell us whether there's a local group of first peoples who are claiming the same area of British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: Not to my knowledge. I think the lands are being claimed by the Champagne-Ashihik. I don't think any native people in that portion of the province have filed a claim with the Treaty Commission.
[4:30]
A. Warnke: I would like to pursue one question. The agricultural wildlife trench committee, which is funded by the ministry, has apparently done a study and has collared and been monitoring 70 elk for a number of years in the East Kootenays. I gather that the final report was due earlier this year. I'm wondering whether the report is complete as the minister sees it. I'm also concerned that one rationale for the incident that I referred to earlier was that it was supposed to be a similar kind of project. Why was a new project undertaken to collar and monitor elk movement when the agricultural wildlife trench committee had established a similar project that was just coming to a conclusion?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know whether that study is complete, but I can tell you that my information is that a study has been ongoing for a number of years in the Columbia Lake-Windermere Lake area of the East Kootenays. The latest information that I have would not lead me to believe that that study I referred to is complete.
A. Warnke: The province has a system for setting up guide-outfitters. In general, there are, you might say, exclusive territories given to guides. It has been described that once those territories have been given to the guides, it's up to them -- and it appears so -- that they can essentially do whatever they can to develop it as they see fit, within the law, of course. I'm just wondering if the minister is embarking on any direction to change that system.
Hon. M. Sihota: The guide-outfitter system has existed in British Columbia for quite some time. There are other calls on the land. The commercial back-country recreation policy, which you referred to earlier when you talked about the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, is an issue which intersects with some of those demands on the land. There's also a significant controversy between packers and those who are engaged in guide-outfitting. I know it's been a fairly contentious issue with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. When I met with them in April, I told them that I would be interested in what they had to say about that issue before I make a determination, and they were happy to hear that.
[ Page 12004 ]
A. Warnke: I want to just return to the issue I pursued earlier, because I want to get it very clear what the policy of the government is on hunting and conservation of big game. From the remarks the minister made earlier, the policy seems to be that it's quite all right for guides and hunters to be involved in the trapping operation. As a matter of fact, the minister even implies that this is quite necessary. Yet, as I have tried to point out, there seems to be some extreme difficulty here. Doesn't the minister see that the guides are in a conflict when they try to help out the wildlife branch? Frankly, I'm not convinced that they are helping out the wildlife branch; nonetheless, they are regulated by the wildlife branch.
Indeed, in the case that I referred to earlier, one of the guides involved in the project, Mr. Barry Scott, reportedly works for Bighorn Helicopters, a helicopter company used in the project. Does the minister know what proportion of the total flying time moneys of the local wildlife branch are spent with this one company? I would be quite willing to receive an answer on that later.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, correspond with me and I will see if I can get that information for you. Obviously I don't have that kind of information on the tip of my tongue. As I said earlier, there's an argument to be made that those who are engaged in hunting activity have a more direct interest in conservation than others would have.
A. Warnke: Does the minister think it's appropriate for a guide to be involved in this project who was charged and convicted with poaching wildlife in Alaska? Incidentally, he was an outfitter for a director of the Safari Club at one time. Doesn't the minister see that this presents a potential problem? How does this incident and the conflict it has raised help the image of the wildlife branch?
Hon. M. Sihota: The image of the wildlife branch is built on many fronts involving many issues, not on one issue.
M. de Jong: I have a couple of questions for the minister. I think they are the sort that may require following up with correspondence, and that may be the most effective way of dealing with them. I want, though, to canvass him briefly here while I have the opportunity in estimates.
Earlier in the estimates debate we discussed the issue of chloramine, and the minister gave some indication of the involvement of his ministry in determining where that debate is going. There was an incident several weeks ago in Matsqui, which is hooked into a water system that does have chloramine, the Dewdney-Alouette watershed. There was a fire in Matsqui. Water and items used either to fight the fire or arising out of the destroyed premises made their way into a creek, and there was a fish kill. The reports that I have seen are unclear about whether the fish kill resulted from the water that was used to fight the fire. One allegation is that the water made its way into the creek, and the chloramine in the water led to the fish kill. The other allegation is that there were other chemicals present in this -- in this case, a Vanderpol's Eggs Ltd. plant -- that made their way into the creek as a result of the fire and resulted in the fish kill. Has the ministry been involved to any extent in conducting autopsies and toxicology studies on some of the fish to determine what, if any, impact the chloramine present in the water that was used to fight the fire may have had on this fish kill?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have an answer to that. It seems to be a very interesting issue, and we'll get an answer for you from staff on that. I think that can be worked out fairly quickly.
M. de Jong: I appreciate that and will follow up on it.
When these debates become dragged out as much as this one has, the difficulty is that the material continues to flow to opposition members, and life goes on. The other item relates to bear meat, an issue that was recently brought to my attention by some of the guide-outfitters. There was an incident in front of the ministerial offices here in Victoria. As I understand it, heretofore there has been a policy of voluntary removal of the bear meat following the kill. Can the minister indicate if that is still the policy? Has that been changed recently, or is it being changed now?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, first of all, there has been no change in policy, so the status quo remains; however, to be honest with you, I am looking at some changes. I've asked staff for some options. I expect those to be before me imminently. From that point on, I would have to make some determinations based first of all on what I think is the best public policy option to pursue. Secondly, I would be taking it to cabinet. Cabinet doesn't meet much in August. I guess it depends on how long we're here in July. I'm not sure if you will see a policy shift announced any earlier than September. I think the probabilities are that you will see some changes in policy, and the window for that would be August at the very earliest and October at the very latest. I think that's what you're looking at.
M. de Jong: I guess the broader principle that the ministry and the minister have to grapple with is the question of trophy-hunting, which is an issue. The minister has been candid about admitting that he is embarking upon a review of the policy. It's probably appropriate, therefore, for me to take a moment to indicate some of the information that has been brought to my attention. The minister, in all likelihood, has this information and will have to factor it into his decision-making process. Nonetheless, it bears emphasizing what has been said by some people in the field about legislating the removal of a product that, I am advised, has minimal value as an edible commodity, particularly since I am also advised that many of these species are taken during the salmon-run season. That apparently impacts the quality of the bears that are taken along rivers, and it links to the whole question of worms being present in the bear meat.
The argument the minister will hear from the outfitters is that they have this voluntary program, and they abide by it as well as they can. It's not always practical to remove the entire carcass from the bush, and in many instances, what the ministry would find is carcasses removed from the bush and ending up in landfill sites.
The other point that is made and has been brought to my attention is that on Vancouver Island upwards of 100 bears would be killed by ministry officials or the RCMP when those bears are encroaching on human habitat. What becomes of those carcasses? I'm advised that they remain in the bush, in many instances, and aren't removed. They are simply dealt with by eagles and bears themselves. I would urge the minister to take those considerations into account in attempting to reach a policy that addresses environmental concerns but doesn't unnecessarily stifle what is otherwise an industry that appears to be conducted in a responsible and regulated manner.
[ Page 12005 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll make a couple of points. As far as I'm concerned, there's a role and a place for the guide-outfitting industry here in British Columbia. I made that clear to them when I spoke at their convention. Let me also say that when you talk about how the meat would interact with our palettes, I'm told that the meat of grizzly bears is oily and not really something most humans would have an interest in consuming. As far as grizzly bears go, you're correct. I don't think there is any market opportunity, if I can put it that way, for humans to consume grizzly bear meat.
[4:45]
You are right that if we were to move to a policy where we were somehow placing a moratorium for a year, as we have done in one portion of the province, or if we were generally to ban the killing of grizzly bears, there would still be some grizzly bears who diet off the landfill sites, and we would have to be engaged in dealing with the bears at those sites. Even if one were to place a restriction on killing, it would mean that the ministry would still have to engage in some of the activities they do now.
The guide-outfitters have traditionally made the argument that the steps they take with regard to grizzlies are such that they encourage reproduction of the species sufficient to maintain population levels where they are now, and that has to be weighed in the considerations. There was recently an article in B.C. Outdoors, if I'm not mistaken, that disputed some of the science in that regard and challenged that understanding. That has to be weighed in to some degree, I guess, but what your own experts and biologists have to tell you is far more important.
In addition, there is the black bear population. There is obviously a need to allow for hunting of black bear. I'm told that that meat is far more edible than grizzly bear meat, and therefore one might want to look at a different set of regulations for black bear.
It's interesting that other jurisdictions take different approaches than we do with regard to black bear. For example, Pennsylvania, with its population somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 million, dedicates three days a year to the hunting of black bear. I'm told they have a level population of about 7,000 black bear, and 1,800 are shot over that three-day period. I'd hate to be in the bush when people are hunting to that magnitude. Anyway, I was surprised when I learned of that fact.
But the overriding point you're making, which is the one I started out with and am now returning to at the end, is that we have to recognize that there's not only an industry but a lifestyle involved in guide-outfitting, and it would be wrong to take steps that would shut down that industry overnight with a flick of a regulation. I don't think that's the approach we intend to take.
The other day I had occasion to present the Ministry of Environment awards to leading environmentalists in British Columbia. I talked to some people present who are involved in these issues, and they suggested that there are tremendous opportunities in British Columbia for guide-outfitters who could take people out into their territories to shoot with cameras instead of guns. I guess there's some economic potential in that regard, which has to be balanced against the fact that it's not always possible to guarantee that people are going to be able to take the photographs or indeed secure the animals for hunting purposes.
You can see just from that background that there's a lot percolating in my head about public policy options, and, as is always the case, there is no such thing as black and white in public policy determination, only shades of grey. So we're not in a position right now to make a conclusive determination about where we're going in this regard. But it is an issue of interest to me. I can certainly see the pressures on this from one part of society -- let's say in urban British Columbia -- that would frown on all sorts of hunting activity, yet a society elsewhere that recognizes the importance of this lifestyle. So I'm not about to rush into any determinations except to simply say that these are some of the considerations that are being weighed in my mind.
Before proceeding with any changes in policy, my inclination has been to meet with the B.C. Wildlife Federation and the representatives of the Guide-Outfitters' Association. I think I've got a pretty good relationship with them, because I met with them and spoke at their convention, and I think that was a good way to establish a relationship. Again, I want to put on the record that I think they should take some comfort from the fact that we won't take any steps that will materially impact on the industry without sitting down with at least those two organizations and their executives to discuss government options.
K. Jones: Noting what the minister is prepared to condone in the killing of various game, I don't think we should have any concerns with regard to the activities of the Cloverdale Rodeo. They seem to pale in comparison.
I'd like to just bring a topic that may be of interest also to the Chair, since he's representing this area. With regard to the Kitimat estuary, I'd like to ask the minister what monitoring and studies of escapement into the air, land and waters of the harbour area have been done by your ministry over the last ten years. What is proposed during the current fiscal year?
Hon. M. Sihota: For the member's information, the Chair represents the Kootenay, not the Kitimat region. There's a major geographical difference, hon. member.
There have been a lot of studies done in the Kitimat region because of the location of both Alcan and Eurocan in the area. I don't have them all; I can assure you there will be some more done this year. Regarding problems with obtaining oolichan in the area and the air emissions from Alcan, both Eurocan and Alcan have found their way onto the worst-polluters list. We have been working with them to look at solutions for the problems in that area. The industry itself -- Eurocan, for example -- has funded many studies with regard to the problems relating to those areas. Indeed, as a result of those studies, Eurocan and, I believe, Alcan have made major capital improvements to their sites.
K. Jones: My apologies. I really didn't confuse the member with the other member.
Could the minister make those details of those studies available to us?
Hon. M. Sihota: If you want to know what studies we've done in the Kitimat region, I have no difficulty making that available to you. To be honest with you, it's not going to be a priority item. I'm not saying that out of disrespect; I'm just being candid with you. I have staff that are very busy doing a lot of things. Unless you persuade me that there is a compelling public policy reason as to why I should do it, it won't be the first item that they attend to. I want you to know that.
Other issues have been raised here today about which I could see some sense of urgency. I can see some sense of urgency to the fish kill in Matsqui. I also made some commitments to the hon. member with regard to some studies that we're carrying out in Fort Nelson with regard to solid waste. In both cases I could see that there was a need
[ Page 12006 ]
for some action. I'm not sure why it is that you'd want those. Ten years is a lot of time in an area where there's been a lot of study. It would take some time for me to get staff to do that. If you could tell me why you want it, maybe I could understand the urgency.
The Chair: Hon. members, we will have to recess for a few minutes. There's been a division called in the other House.
K. Jones: I think I could wind it up if I could just have....
The Chair: The minister's answer took some time, and I think it would be advisable to get to the other House.
K. Jones: I'd just like it on the record that it will be wound up.
The Chair: One last question.
K. Jones: The compelling reasons are my two-year-old granddaughter, my soon to be born grandchild, the other members of my family and all the other people in Kitimat.
The committee recessed at 4:57 p.m.
The committee resumed at 5:05 p.m.
R. Neufeld: I realize we're just about done, so I'll be fairly quick, but I want to get on the record.
There's been a lot of discussion about guide-outfitting. Guide-outfitting is a tremendous part of the economy in the constituency I come from. In fact, people come from all over the world just to hunt out of Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, and it's very important to our communities. I find some comfort in the way the minister spoke about the guide-outfitting industry and its contribution to British Columbia. In case he doesn't know, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation -- there's been lots of discussion about elk -- had a function in Fort Nelson just a while ago. A community of 5,000 people, with about 200 in attendance, raised $50,000 for enhanced habitat of elk in the north. This is the kind of thing that happens within that industry; conservation is their main goal.
But we also have in the north -- and I'm sure in the southern part of the province -- parks, where we have remote hiking trails and access for people on foot, and they are used quite extensively. In order to police these areas, we have a few cabins on some of the trails, and people who do not work for Parks are allowed to use the accommodation. Everything is supplied to them by Parks, except the basic staples, such as food. These people perform the job of being an eye for Parks. This is a good program; people look after parks to make sure no damage is done, or to prevent something happening that shouldn't.
I'm very interested -- I know it happens in Tweedsmuir Park in Spatsizi -- in how those people are chosen. I know they're not park employees, but do they apply? Is there a program within Parks that people apply to so they can go in there? I think they go in for two-to three-week stints. It's a real holiday for them; they're the type of people who like to backpack and do a lot of hiking. I wonder about the process we use. Within Parks there must be a process so that we don't end up taking favourites, or something like that. I'd like to know exactly how that's done.
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if we're playing favourites, no one asked me to say who my favourites are. That, I guess, tells you we don't play favourites.
I don't know what the policy is in that regard. Mr. Masselink, our ADM of the parks department, is not here, so I don't know what the answer is. I know there are people who do that. I don't know what the process for selection is. But we don't check their party membership before we give them a job, if that's what you're trying to find out.
R. Neufeld: I wasn't trying to insinuate that that's what happens. I'm just wondering how the process goes and what process we use so that there are no complaints. There apparently are fairly long waiting lists to go into these areas. I'd appreciate it very much if the minister could get back to me on how that process is taken care of.
Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get back to you by way of correspondence.
Vote 31 approved.
Vote 32: corporate land use coordination and inventory, $13,188,597 -- approved.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to thank the hon. members for their input during these estimates. This will now allow the ministry to proceed with its operations and plans. On a number of issues we've said to hon. members that we will get back to them, and we will.
This will obviously be an exciting year for the ministry, my first year with the ministry, in a fiscal-year sense. I look forward to estimates next year, and I appreciate the contribution of hon. members in those areas where I can assure them their input will have an impact on public policy. There are other areas where their input will have an impact on our thinking with regard to options. Clearly, given some of the political theatre that goes on in this chamber from time to time, I'm sure we've enjoyed some of that as well.
With that said, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:12 p.m.
The committee met at 6:41 p.m.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
On vote 36: minister's office, $412,867.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me first introduce two officials who are here with me today: Gerry Armstrong, who is the Deputy Minister of Forests; and Thea Vakil, who is the ADM for management services.
I'm very pleased to present the Ministry of Forests budget estimates for the 1994-95 fiscal year. The recent Speech from the Throne identified the revitalization of British Columbia's forest sector as one of our government's top four priorities. In making this important issue a priority, the government is acknowledging the central role that the forest sector plays -- and we believe will continue to play -- in the economic health of this province.
[ Page 12007 ]
Forestry has long been the mainstay of British Columbia's economy. Our vast forests have provided a good living and a way of life for generations of British Columbians. For too many years, though, governments have taken the forests for granted. Too much has been taken out and too little has been put back. A result of that shortsighted approach has left us facing the prospect of a future with fewer trees and fewer jobs, a prospect that this government is committed to changing and ensuring that it does not become the future reality.
We believe we can reclaim the promise of forest wealth in this province. To do so, we must change the way we manage our forests, we must renew our forests and we must create more value and jobs from the trees that we harvest. Our overall goal is to ensure a sustainable future in both environmental and economic terms for B.C.'s forests, forest workers and communities.
On April 14 I was very pleased to join with Premier Harcourt and other members of the forest sector in announcing the first, genuinely long-term plan to sustain B.C.'s forests and forest economy not just for a few years but for future generations. I think it is well known among members of the Legislature that the forest renewal plan represents an unprecedented partnership between communities, business, environmentalists, first nations, workers and government. It's a partnership that will allow us to provide some $2 billion in new money over the first five years to secure a healthy forest environment, a strong forest industry and good forest jobs. We expect that investment to continue well beyond five years to ensure a strong and sustainable forest economy into the future.
Under the plan, we will put more British Columbians to work renewing our forests through improved reforestation and silviculture. This will also be achieved through concerted initiatives to clean up environmental damage and protect and restock fish and wildlife habitats. We will also put people to work creating more value from the trees we cut. We will provide assistance to value-added companies, increase training opportunities for forest workers, enhance first nations' participation in the forest economy and strengthen communities.
I don't intend to go into detail, because these issues have been well canvassed during this legislative session. Suffice it to say that this is a major investment program that will be managed through a partnership agency, Forest Renewal B.C. It represents what we believe is a better vision for the future of British Columbia. It is a vision that represents a more certain future with a healthy environment and prosperous economy.
[6:45]
The forest renewal plan is, therefore, a key part of this government's overall strategy to meet the various challenges we face in this province to achieve a stronger economy and, in particular, a stronger forest sector. However, it's clearly not the only component of this government's strategy. It is designed to work in conjunction with, and to complement, other ministry and government programs and initiatives, some of which have already been put in place to revitalize our forest sector.
The estimates that I'm presenting today show how my ministry intends to promote the revitalization of our forest sector in the coming year. First of all, we'll be working hard in 1994-95 to put British Columbia's forest and range resources on a sustainable path. The timber supply review, which, again, I think members of the House are familiar with, represents an important commitment on the part of this government to ensure sustainability in future harvest levels.
When our government assumed office, we could see that existing procedures were simply inadequate in terms of determining the timber supply and allowable annual cuts. Indeed, the information that was available was deemed to be unreliable by the ministry itself. There were indications that, based upon current management practices, annual allowable cuts were too high to be sustainable in some districts, but without a clear picture of timber supplies, it was impossible for the chief forester to accurately determine new AACs, and it was difficult to take the necessary steps to rectify a situation that may have been emerging in many districts. For that reason, the timber supply review was put in place to enable us to get a firm handle on the timber supply situation. To this end, the ministry has accelerated the review.
The review will enable the chief forester to ensure the long-term sustainability of the forest resource and, with it, the long-term sustainability of forest communities. Just as importantly, I think, it will provide the necessary database that will help us start to change some of our practices. The forest renewal plan and other initiatives will ensure that our timber supplies will increase. This in turn will ensure that those very gloomy projections, which suggest that the timber supply could decrease rather dramatically over the next number of decades if changes are not made, will not become a reality. By increasing the timber supply, we will increase the economic potential of our forests for forest-based communities, workers who depend upon the forests and the province as a whole.
Second, we will work to revitalize the forest sector by making fundamental changes, which are necessary to restore confidence in the way our forests are managed. For too long, unsustainable and unacceptable forest practices have harmed British Columbia's environment. They have also undermined public confidence and, therefore, made it more difficult for companies to gain access to cutting rights. They have made it more difficult for us to compete internationally, to counteract the misinformation that has been communicated internationally and to market our forest products abroad. As a government, we recognize that it's not enough to say that we are committed to environmentally responsible forest management. We must be able to act, and to show that we are acting, in order to regain public confidence and provide greater credibility to our forest industry.
Our government is acting. As hon. members know, we introduced the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act on May 16. It represents an important foundation for a new British Columbia forest practices code, a comprehensive code of conduct that will set down the basic ground rules of forest practices in this province. It will increase stability by giving greater certainty to the forest industry and by regaining much of the confidence the public has lost due to an inadequate system of regulation. This inadequate system has made it difficult to demonstrate which forest companies are living up to the standards that the public expects. In that way, the code will level the playing field and improve the situation for all.
More specifically, the Forest Practices Code will allow better protection of the full range of forest resources, including soil, water, fish, wildlife, cultural and heritage resources and biological diversity.
The Ministry of Forests has budgeted $13 million for the implementation of the code in 1994-95. This is a substantial financial commitment that backs up the seriousness with which we approach this task. An additional $7 million has been allocated to other ministries, particularly the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of
[ Page 12008 ]
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, to enable them to work with us in implementing the code.
As well, my ministry is undertaking a reorganization of ministry activities that will free up additional resources for implementation of the code. When I announced last fall, with the Premier, that we would be pursuing the code, I said that in order to make the code happen, we would have to become more efficient in the way we went about managing the forests on behalf of the public.
We have taken some tremendous strides in that direction. The reorganization, which is being implemented, will put more resources where they are most needed, namely in district offices throughout the province. Our goal is to finalize the code's standards, regulations and field guides and to have the code in place by the end of the year. We're determined that the resources be there to enable the Forests ministry staff to do the job that they wish to do and that is expected of them.
We believe the real change in the way that we manage the resource is the best counter to the criticism of our forest industry -- criticism that the forest industry has been facing at home and abroad. I'm happy to say that a growing segment of the industry agrees, and I believe our efforts are beginning to pay off. I'm confident the Forest Practices Code will go a long way toward restoring the reputation of government and industry as responsible stewards of our precious forest resource, and it will demonstrate that we can live up to the highest possible standards of forest stewardship and do so in a way that is economically sustainable. This will garner for us a reputation which will be of tremendous help economically, both at home and abroad.
A third way we are acting to revitalize the forest sector is by increasing our investment in ongoing programs and initiatives that are aimed at creating new jobs and opportunities in the forest industry. One way we're doing that -- a way that I think is particularly significant -- is through the support this budget provides for the small business forest enterprise program. In 1994, we will be increasing our support to small-scale forest operations, a vital part of the forest sector, through the small business forest enterprise program. Under the program, the government makes available to small businesses approximately 13 percent of the provincial annual allowable cut. Some major objectives of the program are to promote the production of specialty and high-value forest products and to generate employment.
In this year's budget, we are proposing to increase funding for this program to $140 million, and that is a significant increase and commitment, up $31 million over last year. We expect this additional funding will mean that up to 11.4 million cubic metres in timber sales will be made available -- that's a 26 percent increase over 1993-94. It will provide a tremendous impetus to the small business sector and the value-added sector, a very important, vital sector that this government supports as we move forward in ensuring that we get the maximum benefit and value from our forest resource.
I should also add that we are planning to expand the woodlot licence program, which allows individuals to become more involved in small-scale forest management. Through this program expansion, we believe that greater participation can be gained at the community level, which will also be an important contribution as we move forward with our forestry program.
I want to add a few comments about our relationship with first nations. One of the focuses of this year's budget proposals is to make sure that first nations people have a greater opportunity to participate in the forest economy of the province. Historically first nations have not had the same benefits as non-aboriginal citizens have had in participation in the forest economy and in gaining the economic benefits that resource can provide.
This government has pledged to forge a new, more honourable relationship with first nations generally, and the Ministry of Forests is certainly doing its bit to honour that commitment. We believe it's essential that first nations people of the province enjoy more of the economic benefits that our forests provide and are more fully involved in the management of our forest resources. If we are going to overcome the historical problems of economics and communication between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, and ensure that aboriginal citizens are able to participate as equals in our society, then we have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Many of our current programs and initiatives, including the forest renewal plan, have demonstrated our willingness to do that. Increased first nation participation is one of its goals.
We'll also be putting resources into a number of initiatives aimed specifically at enhancing the involvement of first nations people. They have not participated in this very important resource to the extent that their population numbers would suggest they ought. For example, we've budgeted an additional $1.5 million for aboriginal forestry advisers in 1994-95. The role of these advisers is to work in the field to facilitate communication among first nations, the Forest Service and the industry on first nations forest issues.
Very often, communications is the problem. It's the reason that first nations aren't aware of some opportunities that may be available to them or some hurdles that they have to meet in order to participate more fully, as other citizens are able to do, in matters relating to forestry. One of the important responsibilities of these forest advisors will be to implement interim measures agreements between first nations and government, such as the recent agreement reached in Clayoquot Sound. This agreement has gone a long way to demonstrate that this government is indeed serious about involving first nations. By doing so, it has demonstrated that first nations government and industry can work together to reach productive solutions that gain public confidence and strengthen our reputation internationally.
As well, we've budgeted an additional $1.64 million for more field and headquarters staff to support upcoming regional treaty negotiations with first nations. This staff will make sure that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs receives sound advice and support on policy and treaty mandate development with respect to forestry issues and that local issues that are important and indeed crucial in resolving treaty negotiations will be represented at least through the involvement of this ministry. I believe the new relationship we are building between first nations and government will mean benefits for all British Columbians. The Ministry of Forests will work in partnership with other ministries, particularly the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as well as first nations to further that relationship in the upcoming fiscal year.
If I may say in conclusion, through the forest renewal plan, the Forest Practices Code and the range of other initiatives that I have briefly outlined, our government is laying a foundation for a forest sector that is more sustainable in both the economic and the environmental senses of that word; a forest sector that will continue to provide long-term, stable employment for a substantial portion of the workforce and tremendous economic benefits for us all; a forest sector that will respect non-timber as well as timber values for those who look to the forests for
[ Page 12009 ]
recreation, tourism and other uses; a forest sector that is a major contributor to the self-sufficiency of aboriginal communities so that they can enjoy more equally the economic benefits that flow from our forests; and a forest sector that has public support at home and is competitive in the international marketplace.
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that if we are to become competitive, we cannot continue to place our heads in the sand and not respond to international concerns. The best way to do that is to show that we in British Columbia have our own agenda and that we are willing and able to face the issues that have built up over the years. That is how we can most powerfully say to those overseas that yes, we are getting our house in order, and we are going to set our own vision and not adopt someone else's vision, which might be far less sympathetic than one we develop for ourselves.
[7:00]
Our majestic and diverse forests have been a major source of wealth for British Columbia for a long time and a major source of wonder and delight for people from around the globe. They are part of our rich natural heritage and one of the features that defines our province and makes British Columbia such a special and desirable place to live. Indeed, I don't think there are very many British Columbians who don't have a very strong emotional attachment to the forests, which is represented in any number of different ways and has been communicated to me wherever I go in the province. It's not always the same emotional attachment, but it's strong, it's honest, and it's an attachment which we as a government want to make sure is here decades from now and will continue to be an attachment that supports the economic development of this province. We believe forests will remain very much at the economic heart of this province, at least if we take the steps necessary to ensure this happens. The key is to set a sustainable path, so that our priceless forest resources, our forest environment and our forest economy are there for generations to come, and that's certainly what we are striving to do.
With these introductory comments, I'd be happy to entertain any questions or thoughts that may arise during the course of debate.
W. Hurd: This is the third set of estimates I've participated in in Committee A. Traditionally I've kept my remarks shorter than usual. With the previous minister I got into the nuts and bolts of his ministry: where the dollars flowed and what the priorities were. I think this set of estimates and the debate in this chamber represent something of a watershed, a deep philosophical difference between the government and the opposition. I welcome this opportunity to expand somewhat on the remarks I normally deliver in this committee.
It's significant to note that when we started this session -- it seems like not that long ago, though it's been almost three months -- we were witness to one of the largest demonstrations, if not the largest, in the history of this assembly. Approximately 20,000 forest workers -- people who depend on this resource for their livelihoods -- representatives of town councils, and others met on the lawns of the Legislature to address their future to the current government. It's significant to reflect at this time on the impact of this resource on the provincial economy and on how important it is to have a sustainable forest future in this province.
British Columbia is about the third-largest province in Confederation. We have about 95 million hectares. Approximately 26 million hectares, or 27.5 percent of the land base, is classified as productive forest land. We harvest -- and these are figures from previous years, but I think they're relevant because we've reached a benchmark in terms of this industry -- about 8.2 billion cubic metres of mature timber. It is available from the forest land each year, and it has supported an annual allowable harvest ranging between 74 million and 76 million cubic metres over the last number of years.
The industry alone generates about $13 billion annually, and it provides about 85,000 direct jobs and another estimated 170,000 indirect jobs. Many of the people reflecting those positions were here on the lawn of the Legislative Assembly, and when I look at the figures and the sustainable harvest levels we've had in the past, it occurs to me that you have to reflect on how vital it is that these solutions are reached.
It seems to me that there are two basic things we have to define in this province to sustain communities. Those two things are the rate of sustainable harvest and, more important than that, the necessity for an established forest land base in British Columbia. Despite the glowing rhetoric and initiatives by government during this session of the B.C. Legislature, and while I've been here for the past three years, we have yet to define those two elusive questions. What kind of harvest can we sustain, and what kind of land base is going to be available for intensive forest management?
During the previous set of estimates, I debated these issues at length with the previous minister. I didn't always agree with him, but I certainly found him to be knowledgeable and objective, and I thought he had quite an impressive capacity to deal with the diversity of interests and opinions in this particular sector. I am disappointed that the government, in its wisdom, saw fit to replace that minister in the Ministry of Forests. I feel that the decision the government took to replace him was one that reflected a fundamental change in philosophy.
Since his appointment, the minister has talked at length about previous activities within the ministry. I think he called it "sympathetic administration," by which I assume he means it involves caving in to the interests of the industrial side of the forest industry. I've listened carefully, and I have never heard him differentiate between the previous minister of the Crown in his own government and those of previous Social Credit administrations. If we reflect on the manner in which the ministry changed hands, the statements that were made at the time and the fact that it was a huge cabinet shuffle, I'd like to go on record in this set of estimates as saying that I think the government made a sad mistake in replacing the minister. That is not necessarily a reflection on the current occupant of the office. However, in my travels around the province, I found that people didn't always agree with that minister, but I think his opinion was respected and his office was open to the stakeholders in terms of addressing their concerns. What I've heard in the interim leads me to believe that some of the doors that were open under that minister have, for whatever reason, been closed over the past six months. I hope that isn't the case, but I continue to hear that it is.
I'd like to go back to the people that I talked to on the lawns of the Legislative Assembly during that day shortly after the session opened. I'm looking at the overlapping initiatives the government has announced, and this is something I've debated with the minister in other forums on other occasions. We have the impending implementation of our Forest Practices Code. We have the ongoing work of the Commission on Resources and Environment. A protected areas strategy has been announced for the province, and, of course, that leads us into sort of the reciprocal: spotted owl
[ Page 12010 ]
recovery areas and wildlife study areas. We have the timber supply review, which is another initiative the government has talked about. You know, not once have I heard the government say, despite all these initiatives on the land base, that it wants a percentage of that land base to be devoted to what's known as the working forest to sustain the hundreds of thousands of jobs that I talked about at the opening of my remarks. How can you possibly sustain an industry if you don't know the area base that you're going to be operating on? It continually astonishes me. The people that were here at the opening of the Legislative Assembly made the point that they felt their industry and livelihood were last on the government's list of priorities, and that every other type of initiative on the land base occupied a higher priority with the government than their job, their community and their livelihood.
For once in a set of estimates or in debate with this government, I'd like to have a minister -- or anyone in the government, for that matter -- stand and ask: "What do we have to do on the land base, on the 27 million hectares that's available and classified as productive forest, to sustain a harvest level between 74 million and 76 million cubic metres?" The government has told us that the annual allowable harvest is coming down. I understand the Ministry of Finance has statistics that detail the losses in jobs, the economic impacts and the losses in revenues to the Crown due to those incremental, step-down reductions in the annual allowable harvest. The industry and others have released what they believe to be the effects of declining annual allowable harvest, but I've not seen any statistics from the government. Where are we headed in the annual allowable harvest in the province? Are we headed toward 65 million or 55 million? Those are questions people are asking, and I think they deserve an answer. So far, we just don't see those answers coming.
I wonder about ministry staff in the field. The minister talked about the resources that are available to ministry staff, but I wonder how they're coping with the demands that are being placed on them. I understand, and the minister has acknowledged, that for a number of years ministry staff have been forced to act as if the Forest Practices Code was already in place. Despite the fact that no regulations or standards were clearly codified, they were supposed to interpret a code of forest activities in the field. In some forest districts in the province, the cutblock planning, the normal part of forest harvesting, is in a state of near chaos. It's taking longer and longer for licensees, people whose livelihood depends on this resource, to file their plans with the ministry and have them approved in an orderly and timely fashion. I see a number of additional requirements for licensees. Let's not forget that when we talk about cutblock planners, the Ministry of Forests, as the minister well knows, is the largest planner of cutblocks in the province of British Columbia. Of the 76 million cubic metres that we harvest in this province annually, about 11 million in past years has been the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. They're supposed to file their preharvest silvicultural prescriptions, the roadbuilding plans, the harvesting plans, the wildlife impact studies, and the visualscaping. That's the range of activities being undertaken by the Ministry of Forests -- and through the small business forest enterprise program, which the minister has indicated is going to be expanded.
So the ministry is going to be doing more of this type of work. The audits have uncovered as many difficulties, challenges and problems within that ongoing work in the ministry as with some of the major licensees in the province. So the challenge is formidable in meeting all these new initiatives within the Forest Practices Code, not only for licensees but for the Ministry of Forests.
I wonder what the impact is on some of the regional staff within the ministry. I know that the ministry was at one time concerned about that very issue, because it conducted a survey of regional staff in the province to determine how they were coping and how they felt their roles and responsibilities were stacking up in conjunction with these new demands on their resources, time and efforts. I have a copy of that study, which the opposition released to the public. It has not, to my knowledge, been released by the minister.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
It's a disturbing summary of the difficulties that regional staff are facing at the present time. The previous minister, who obviously commissioned this study, was only too aware of the dynamic relationship in the regions between the staff, the licensees and those people who dealt with the regional office on a regular basis.
To kick off the questions, I think we have to start with the basic building blocks in this set of estimates. How are the regional staff coping with these challenges and overlapping initiatives? They have been forced to interpret the Forest Practices Code, for example, when none existed. They have been forced to deal with licensees who find their cutblock plans delayed 18 months to two years. There are regions in this province where it takes up to four years to have a harvesting plan approved. Often the ministry itself will be confused about the type of information it is seeking from the forest harvesters and cutblock planners. Licensees, as the minister well knows, are forced to go back and redo plans. In conjunction with the Forest Practices Code alone, licensees and the Ministry of Forests will be forced to cross-reference their existing plans with the new requirements. One would have to assume that they will have to do that before they can harvest a single tree -- without risking a million dollar fine, or whatever penalty the code calls for.
[7:15]
So when we kick things off, perhaps we can talk about the basic building blocks of the ministry -- namely, what is happening in the field. I would ask the minister again about this study based on interviews with 1,200 ministry staff. I wonder if he could, in a general way, advise the committee of what progress has been made in addressing what I consider to be a plea for help from the many competent and responsible ministry personnel in this province. I know how hard it must also be for them if the licensees are struggling to deal with the complexities. So with respect to the Ministry of Forests "Roles and Responsibilities Review" conducted by consultant Steve Spalding, can the minister tell us exactly what progress has been made with those recommendations?
Hon. A. Petter: Before I address this specific question at the end, I really feel I have to address some of the points made by the member, because his comments strike me as being based on a fundamental contradiction.
The member speaks as the voice from the past, largely against the changes being made, and he expresses concern about the number of those changes, but then he turns around and expresses concern about the state of the forests, which is a direct result of past practices. I know that the member lists on his CV that he used to be an industry rep for the Council of Forest Industries, but let me assure the member that the council is changing. He should throw away those old speeches he used to deliver on their behalf five, ten or however many years ago it was. He should get on board with
[ Page 12011 ]
some of the changes the industry and others in this province understand that we need to make if we are to address some of the problems he identifies. Those problems are a result of practices that need to be changed.
He refers to the rate of sustainable harvest, for example, yet when this government makes the most significant commitment historically of any government toward ensuring the sustainability of our resource and takes the steps necessary to build up our timber supply through the forest renewal plan -- an unprecedented $400-million-a-year commitment -- this member votes against it. He would prefer to stay with the old picture of declining harvest levels, which has been painted by the chief forester, based upon current management practices.
The member says that this government hasn't stated any vision with respect to what it intends to do about annual allowable harvest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let him read the documents we've put out with the forest renewal plan. What he'll see is a line that goes down, and that's the line of what happens if we do nothing. It's a line that leads from perhaps 70 million cubic metres a year to 50 million cubic metres a year over the next two decades. That's the line that past policy was taking us toward.
If he then looks up on that same chart, he'll see two other lines. Those two suggest that if we invest back into the forests, we can reverse what might otherwise be an inexorable downward trend. We can achieve a level of cut that is, at minimum, the 70 million cubic metres we now enjoy, or perhaps even greater. That's why we made the $400 million investment.
On one side of his mouth, he says he can't support the forest renewal plan, and on the other side he says we have to take steps to ensure a sustainable rate of harvest. The hon. member can't have it both ways. Even the industry, which is having to pay the dollars to support the plan through their stumpage payments, understands that, and that's why they're on board with this plan. I think it's regrettable. The people in the forest industry and in forest communities in this province can only shake their heads in dismay and disbelief that he and his party would vote against that plan. That plan was the test of who in this House is committed to increasing rates of harvest and of who here is committed to doing something about sustainable rates of harvest that will go up in the future rather than down.
He talks about the forest land base. It's fine to talk about it and say we want it, but the reality is that without any planning, conflicts have been building on the land base. I can't go to a part of this province -- and I'm assuming the member travels this province as well -- where there isn't some conflict at the community level over land use. There's conflict, whether it's about logging in watersheds or in particular areas, or with first nations or whatever.
We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we favour a stable land base, but we're just kidding ourselves. If we don't get out into the communities as we've done through CORE, and if we don't make a commitment to set aside some component of that land base for environmental and other values, then we can't credibly say that we're determined, as this government is, to set aside a significant component of that stable land base that can be relied upon in future by the industry to make the investments and get the return. If we really care about a working forest land base, then we have to get out there and work with people through CORE and other processes. All the purple prose in the world about us believing in one means nothing if we aren't prepared to go out and do something about it. That's the test, and on that test this hon. member and his party have failed yet again.
The member talks about sympathetic administration, and this isn't the first time he has talked about that. I guess I'm just going to have to start bringing with me some of the documents that went out in the early eighties, in which Ministry of Forests told companies to relax their utilization standards, to manage themselves, to go for the best wood and leave wood that was not of the highest value -- to cream the crop.
That's part of the reason we got into the difficulty that we did, and that's part of the reason that the former minister committed to a forest practices code, a timber supply review and a land use plan. I'm very proud to be able to continue and build on the work of the former minister in that regard, and I'm very pleased to associate myself with the initiatives that this government has pursued -- and not just since I took this ministry on, but over the last two and a half years.
He refers to a number of initiatives: the code, CORE, the protected areas strategy and the timber supply review. They are not a number of initiatives. They are a coherent set of complementary initiatives that work together: the code, which will ensure that forest practices are sustainable; CORE and the protected areas strategy, which will establish the land use plan so we can have a stable, working forest that communities can rely upon, and not just smoke and mirrors; the timber supply review, which will ensure that harvest rates are set at sustainable levels and that we have the data necessary for the improvement of future harvest rates; and the forest renewal plan, which backs that up with a real and major commitment to a completely new approach to forestry that will ensure that we can increase the economic value of the forest for the communities and workers of this province.
That's a real commitment. That's not hot air; that's not blowing from the past. That's looking to the future, and I suggest the members start looking to the future and stop blowing from the past. Those in industry are starting to do it, and we in government are working with them to ensure that it happens.
The member talks about ministry staff. I want to tell you that wherever I've travelled in this province, I have gone out of my way to meet with ministry staff. I don't do that for any other reason than that I believe they are the most dedicated, knowledgable and committed staff. They are more determined than anyone in this province to ensure that the government and the industry make the necessary changes so that we can have the healthy, vibrant forest economy we all want. It is their energy that is making these initiatives possible. That's why I meet with ministry staff -- so I can get their suggestions, work with them and learn from them.
They have been frustrated in the past, particularly under former governments, who told them not to do their job and to turn a blind eye. Under this government, we're telling them to do their jobs and be proud. We're telling them they have a role as stewards of the resource and as protectors of a public, economic and social interest. This role is to ensure that we have healthy and sustainable forests for future generations. I take tremendous pride in the staff of this ministry, and I think they are some of the most dedicated workers of this province. Under this government and these programs, their role will be better recognized, and they will have the tools to do the job.
The specific reference to the Spalding report is an indication that this government does consult with staff when it makes changes. The member draws strange conclusions. Yes, we went out and interviewed staff. Why did we do that? Because, unlike previous governments, we believe in talking
[ Page 12012 ]
to those people who are on the ground, who are in regional offices and who know what's going on.
R. Neufeld: Nobody ever did. I know. Not a soul did, you know.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll tell you, when I go out and talk with regional and district offices it is very disappointing to hear how the staff in those offices have felt demoralized in the past because they haven't had the political support to do the job they want to do in enforcing good forest practices.
Through the Spalding report, we identified many of their concerns, and, as a result, action is being taken to implement those recommendations. This will better organize the work at the regional level and remove some of the duplications and overload of bureaucratic work at that level and at headquarters. The capacity of district offices to do the job in the field will be strengthened.
That's what the Spalding report speaks to. We believe it's absolutely crucial. It's what the ministry is about: getting out in the field and into the woods, ensuring that those kinds of sustainable practices are practised, and working with local communities and industry to make sure that the job is done. We are working through the recommendations in the Spalding report to ensure that's the case. As a result, we will have a much better capacity at the district office level. We will have a staff who feel that their roles are much better defined and that the organizational framework provides them with better support in performing those new tasks.
R. Neufeld: I just want to start with some opening remarks, much the same as the minister and the critic of the official opposition have done. I haven't been the critic for Forests from day one. This is my second set of estimates; I started halfway through the last one.
I just want to touch lightly on a few things such as the comment the minister made in his opening remarks about the terrible practices of the past. I've said it many times before, and I'm going to say it again. We're over in Europe and all over the world trying to convince people that we're doing things right, and at home we have a minister, a Premier and members of the NDP talking about how terrible it has been, how we're going to open it up and how great it's going to be now that we're here.
I get a little tired of the rhetoric and all the things that these ministers talk about. Then they spend all kinds of money going around the world to say: "Yes, we are doing some things right." As I've said many times before, that doesn't mean I agree with all the things that have happened in the past with forestry or in some other parts of government. I'm going to tell the minister that if and when there is a change in government, the next minister will maybe also talk a bit about how they didn't think it was so great under your administration.
One thing that should be paramount on everyone's mind is trying to get our forestry back in line. It produces the most jobs in British Columbia and the money so that we can enjoy the things that we do. So I would think the last thing we should be doing is trying to kick the hell out of it -- pardon me -- instead of trying to build it. That's what we should be doing; we should be trying to build it.
I have to commend the minister and his government on the forest renewal plan that we voted in favour of. I think it's a good plan that is long overdue, and it's a plan that is going to improve our forests. I would like to see us go a bit further than the forest renewal plan and do an awful lot more silviculture so that we can get our annual allowable cut in the province back up to where it should be so that we can continue to provide the jobs.
A country like Finland -- and I'm just going by memory -- works from a forest base that is about one third of the size of British Columbia's, and they harvest more than we do at the present time. Those are the kinds of practices we should be striving to do, and those are the things we should be talking about in estimates and in the House when talking about forest renewal plans or investment in the province.
My colleague the member for Prince George-Omineca has talked about a land base for forestry ever since he first came to the House as an elected member. I agree with him, and I'm glad to see that the Liberal opposition is finally getting on board with a land base for the forest in British Columbia; it's something that is badly needed.
[7:30]
When the government first came into power, they told everyone in British Columbia: "We want to set aside 12 percent of the province for parks." Boom, just like that. "We're not worried about how much we're going to be able to use for forestry, agriculture, mineral development and oil and gas development. We just want 12 percent of the province for parks. After that, we'll see what's left." I think that's the wrong approach, although I do believe we have to have areas that are set aside and protected.
D. Schreck: How much?
R. Neufeld: The member asks how much. I don't believe in the 12 percent, I can tell you that. I don't think this government does either, because what we see happening -- for instance, in the CORE report on the Island -- is that we're up to 21 percent. That's not 12 percent. There's also the fear that you're going to take most of the percentage out of the north, and I think that's a real fear. You're going to set it aside simply because you're driven by southern policies.
It was interesting to note that the minister talked about the Forest Practices Code and how terrible past administrations were. The Forest Practices Code was initiated, I think, under Claude Richmond, a past Minister of Forests. The timber supply review was also started earlier. All these things have not just transpired in the last couple of years since this government took office, even though they like to say it has. It gets a little tiring to hear that all the time. I'm not supporting what happened in the past, but it gets a little tiring to hear that you've done all these things in the last two and a half years.
With respect to the small business program, the minister talks about investing another, I think, $31 million in it. That's just a funnel to take money back into general revenue. The small business program -- it's right there in the estimates -- returns $187 million to general revenue. So why would you even talk about expending more money on that? It's maybe taken out of other areas of the budget where it should be going instead.
Hon. A. Petter: You don't want to spend more on the small business program?
R. Neufeld: What I'm saying is just put a little less into general revenue to balance off your deficit.
Hon. A. Petter: Less on small businesses.
R. Neufeld: You know what I mean. Instead of transferring $187 million into general revenue to make your deficit look better, maybe you ought to transfer $150 million.
[ Page 12013 ]
That's how you do it. But obviously you have all kinds of bookkeeping ways of doing things.
The official opposition critic talked about the past minister, and I had quite a few dealings with that minister. I think, to be honest, that the minister we have now will perform just as good a job. I don't have any doubts that he's serious about what he's doing. I do have some fears because of his environmental tendencies, and I think the industry probably does also. That's being fairly straightforward with the minister. Other than that, having watched the minister in his last ministry, I think he is going to be very concerned about the ministry and will probably add quite a bit to it.
The minister also talked about how demoralized the staff in the Ministry of Forests were until they came along as knights in shining armour, and now everything's nice and rosy. Well, Mr. Minister, you ought to talk to the people -- and I know the people -- in the Ministry of Social Services. They don't have anything to do with you, but they're your colleagues, and if you want to talk about being demoralized, try talking to a few of them. You have a long way to go, but maybe everyone is feeling much better under your administration, I don't know. All I want to tell you is that it's not all perfect.
I have a question at the end of all this. The minister talked about working closer with first nations. I want to ask him how he's working closer with first nations in relation to cutting permits and cutblock sizes. Could he expand a little on how they work closer with the first nations and what processes are in place? Are there steps in place where the Ministry of Forests initiates a response from the first nations before something happens in an area that would be affected by a certain band?
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments. I won't go through all the points the member made, but I do want to comment on one point I didn't get a chance to refer to in responding to the previous member, who also raised this point. That has to do with the land base for forestry. I think it's absolutely crucial that we establish, as a result of our planning processes, a much greater degree of stability and security for the land base. There is concern in the forest industry and in forest communities that perhaps the forest land base is being viewed as some kind of residual. It's very important that this does not occur, and that we secure and stabilize the land base as an absolutely central objective of land use planning.
The point I want to make, and didn't make earlier, is that through the Forest Practices Code -- and we'll get a chance to debate this in the House when we get into committee stage on the code -- some of the planning components enable us, through order-in-council, to establish resource management zones. This will mean that for the first time we have a mechanism through which we can designate the land base set aside as working forest, in the same way that other components of the land base have been designated, such as parks. Through the resource management zone I believe we can provide a much higher measure of security and stability around the working forest, in particular the practices that are expected in that working forest, so that investments can be made, whether for intensive use in attempting the practices of other countries referred to by the member, where we get much higher rates of cut by commercial thinning or by integrated resource management, or whether there are some zones in which special forms of management have to be used because of competing values.
I think the Forest Practices Code is important for a number of its features. One element of the code not fully recognized is the extent to which it will contribute to identifying and stabilizing components of the land base as working forest through an official designation through order-in-council. I just want to note that because I think it's one of the undersold, or underrecognized, features of the code.
With respect to relations with first nations, I could speak about a number of different aspects. But I think the one most relevant to the member's question is that when cutting permits or plans are sought, the government is under obligation, as a result of court decisions, to identify aboriginal rights that might be adversely affected by approvals and to see that the aboriginal community is consulted with respect to those rights. That's an obligation the courts can force us to live up to. What happens now -- and there's still work to be done to improve the consultation process -- is that at the time the plans are proposed, first nations are advised, as are other members of the public. First nations in particular are invited to consider the plans in terms of their rights and to draw attention to areas that may have particular significance for them -- for example, burial grounds -- to ensure that in approving those plans we do so in a way that respects those core rights identified by the courts, which the courts have said we must respect in the decisions we make as government.
So yes, there are processes in place. I think they can be improved in terms of better involving first nations, but also in terms of getting an improved turnaround and more expeditious approvals in order to live up to the requirements placed upon us. I mentioned in my opening remarks the first nations forestry advisers who are there to help facilitate and improve that process.
R. Neufeld: Further on that question, if the Ministry of Forests contemplated increasing the annual allowable cut in a timber supply area, how would they go about having consultation with first nations? Is there a process? Do you, as minister, write them a letter long before those consultations take place? Is there a time frame within which certain things have to be set out? How is the process set out? I refer specifically to PA14. What process took place to deal with Treaty 8 and the Fort Nelson Indian band?
Hon. A. Petter: I can't give the member a detailed account of what actually happened with the band. I can give him a detailed account of the process, which I think is what he asked for. The way in which the annual allowable cut is determined is through the process set out in the timber supply review.
The timber supply review involves a number of elements. One is a timber supply analysis report. The second is a socioeconomic study which indicates the socioeconomic implications of increasing or decreasing the cut, as the case may be. The third is a discussion paper that tries to summarize the previous two and invite public participation. All three of those are public documents. They are made available for consultation with local communities; first nations are important communities that are invited to participate and to consult on that. In the case of the Fort Nelson timber supply area, despite the chortling from the member of the official opposition, the cut rate did increase through a partition cut and through new opportunities in respect to aspen, which the member opposite is well aware of. I don't know if the member is aware of that; he might make himself aware of that.
I should say this because I want to give a full answer to the member. I've been aware that some of the first nations in
[ Page 12014 ]
the area don't feel that was an adequate process. They feel that even though the documents were made available, it didn't provide them with a sufficient forum. I accept that as their point of view, but it was an open process. It is the same with respect to the timber supply analysis. Each step along the way invites public input and participation, particularly after the discussion paper. That input is then fed back to the chief forester, who makes a determination based on weighing and balancing the points made by the various communities, including first nations, as well as the long-term objective of sustainability and the policies of the government of the day. All of that is weighed in order to achieve a rate of cut that will lead to a long-term sustainable level in a way that best protects, as the chief forester sees it, the socioeconomic circumstances. That's what happened in the case of Fort Nelson, where there was an increased cut through the partitioning of and opportunities for aspen.
R. Neufeld: I know he won't have it at his fingertips. Could the minister provide this member with information that would tell me the first time that your ministry under your signature would have written to the Fort Nelson Indian band and to Treaty 8? From the way the minister explained the last question, I assume that the way that Treaty 8, or the Fort Nelson Indian band, found out about the PA was through the newspaper, the same as everybody else. Did I misunderstand the minister or is that what he is saying? I want to know when the Ministry of Forests actually contacted the chief of the Fort Nelson Indian band or the Treaty 8 chief to indicate by letter or in person that something was going to happen in that area. I hope that it was before the advertisement came out in the newspaper.
Hon. A. Petter: I will undertake to get that information and have it communicated by the staff in the chief forester's office or by the deputy minister's staff to the member.
I want to say one thing. It may not have been before the ad in the newspaper; the ad in the newspaper tells the public at large and provides for a period of time for consultation. It may well have been following an ad in the newspaper that there was direct contact. The ad in the newspaper is the first public release, and I'm not aware of a policy of pre-release to first nations. We'll find out for you how it occurred in the case of Treaty 8. During the release of all these documents there should have been ample opportunity for first nations to both be made aware and to respond. We'll get the specifics on how that happened in the case of the Fort Nelson area.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to get back into the debate. The minister obviously responded to my opening remarks in a wide-ranging commentary.
I want to refer specifically to the Spalding report about the difficulties being faced by ministry staff. One of the key findings of the report needs to be read into the record. I think it's really important to acknowledge the difficulty that some staff are finding. One of the most significant findings was that at the branch, regional and district office levels -- although they demonstrated a great deal of motivation and dedication, take the job of managing the forest and rangeland seriously and had a desire to be effective -- "they are very frustrated at what they feel to be fundamental impediments which prevent them from doing a better job in managing forest and range resources. The frustration level is usually the greatest among technical and professional staff who view themselves as having a field-oriented job." They feel they're tied to their desks and not able to spend enough time in the field. One would assume these were based on a number of interviews.
[7:45]
Looking at the current budget estimates, there's an additional $13 million budgeted for the code, and a further 11.4 million cubic metres are going to be allocated to the small business enterprise program for which the ministry has all the planning functions. Given that the major increase in the budget appears to be for planning and administration, how in the world do these estimates enable the ministry to meet the frustration level of the technical field staff, who will probably be required to spend more time tied to their desks as a result of these estimates? Could the minister tell us what specific action is being taken in these estimates to deal with the problem of the technical and professional staff, who have told the minister in a series of interviews that they're tied to their desks?
Hon. A. Petter: First, an additional 91 staff are being dedicated to the Forest Practices Code as a result of the additional budget allocation, and there are an additional 31 staff for the small business enterprise program. But as a result of steps being taken by the deputy minister and the executive in consultation and partnership with regional offices, what is happening as a result of the Spalding report is that an additional 200 staff -- 100 in the regional offices and 100 in headquarters -- are being reallocated to district offices to do the kind of field work that staff have been wanting to do and to which the member refers. It is not being done by spending more money. More money is being dedicated to the two initiatives I mentioned, but it's being done by redefining the roles, responsibilities and work within the ministry in a way that those staff, who felt they have not had the kinds of opportunities to do the work they need to do, will have those opportunities. If you want more detail, I'd be very happy to have my deputy minister outline the steps he has taken in conjunction with regional district offices. But this government is not dealing with this problem by spending more money but by being more effective with the money we have. That's why there's a major reorganization going on. This is addition to the influx of new funds to assist with managing the small business enterprise program expansion and the new commitments under the Forest Practices Code.
W. Hurd: This might be jumping ahead a bit, but I want to ask this, since the most significant increase in budget allocations is for the small business enterprise program. Can the minister provide the committee with some idea of what additional work by the ministry's planning staff will be required to deal with the complexities and demands of the Forest Practices Code? What the opposition has been hearing from licensees is that they are going to have to resubmit most of their management working plans so that their preharvest silvicultural prescriptions and a number of initiatives will perhaps have to be almost completely redrafted. One would assume that would be done by cross-referencing the data already on file within the ministry office, and that's an entirely different workload all by itself.
Can the minister give us an idea of the scope of the work that will be required within the small business enterprise program merely to cross-reference existing working plans with what will be required under the code? That invites a number of additional questions about how that information is going to be verified and audited. Could the minister perhaps describe for the committee the additional work in time and expense that will be required by his own ministry
[ Page 12015 ]
to meet the costs of administering and meeting the standards outlined in the Forest Practices Code?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm told the increased staff I referred to is more like 33 than 31 in the small business program. They will have as their principal preoccupation the management activities associated with getting out the increased volume of cut that we have indicated will come as a result of these initiatives -- a 26 percent increase in this coming year, which is about 11.4 million cubic metres. That presupposes that they will also be doing that within the requirements of the Forest Practices Code. There is staff in the small business program as well, but the more direct work on code enforcement will be done by the other staff I referred to: 200 additional staff who will be transferred over the next two years from regional offices and headquarters, and 91 new staff who are allocated this year for the code, plus whatever additional staff are allocated in next year's budget.
W. Hurd: I'm sure the minister must know where the question is leading. If, as the largest cutblock holder in the province, at 11 million cubic metres -- and that will increase, of course, under the current budget -- the ministry had an idea of the fixed costs of meeting the responsibilities for the code within the ministry, would those costs not in theory provide some kind of guidepost for the costs of overall implementation? Is the ministry going to devote resources within that specific program to identify the costs of meeting the code? Will those figures be tabulated, and will they be available for others in the public and in industry at large to view? As I have indicated, I think it would be beneficial for those figures to be available. Because the ministry has acknowledged the importance of this program and has devoted such a percentage of the budget increase to increasing the amount of cut available under this program, I hope that some of those fixed costs would be beneficial.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have those numbers at hand. We can certainly try to get them, but the ministry has been very open in releasing information. Contrary to what the member indicated in his opening report, the information in the Spalding report was made public by the ministry. The member may have received his copy from the ministry.
In any event, we have also released cost estimates on the code done by independent consultants. There are three different reports, one of which -- the one focusing exclusively on costs rather than benefits -- suggested overall costs in the range of $250 million to $300 million overall. It had breakdowns of those costs involving costs to government, costs to industry, etc. If the member wants me to provide him with a copy of the Spalding report, I'm happy to do so. Or if he wants me to try to get a more refined breakdown than I've already given him in these estimates of the small business and code implementation, I can do that as well. But it seems to me that we have shared information very broadly and publicly on these matters.
W. Hurd: That raises another interesting point with respect to the costs of the code. Clearly the minister is aware of the wide discrepancy in assessments of the cost of administration of the code, and the potential impacts on employment and on the annual allowable harvest. I realize that we've dealt with this somewhat in second reading of the bill that's before the House. But can the minister at least advise the committee of whether his ministry intends to devote any resources in the coming year specifically to identifying the costs within the small business program?
I think it's important that those costs be available, because the ministry is intent on increasing the amount of budgeted allocation. Will the ministry have any sort of precise figure during the current fiscal year, or is it intent on folding the small business program into the broader framework of the annual allowable harvest, when it talks about a figure of $250 million? The minister well knows that the figure has ranged as high as $650 million, perhaps even higher.
There appears to be no definitive idea at this point...or no wide discrepancy between the anticipated costs. If there was a more fixed cost available within the small business program, that would offer the possibility of extrapolation over the entire annual allowable harvest of the province of British Columbia. Does he see any wisdom in that approach within that particular program of the ministry, and can we anticipate by the year-end that the costs of meeting the code will be in some way broken out within the small business enterprise program?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure it was intended, but if the member is interested, we can certainly try to provide some kind of breakdown of those costs next year when we meet. Be careful, though. The member seems to be assuming that the cost to the small business program would somehow be a proxy for the cost to industry. That's not necessarily the case.
For example, the variability of performance within industry means that for some companies, the cost would be very small. Those who have made significant changes over the past number of years, as many companies have, will have relatively little in the way of costs. Part of what these independent estimates show is that much of the cost is simply that of living up to current standards. These standards aren't enforced because we don't have the mechanism, but we will, once we have the code. For those companies that have already acted under those standards and have made those changes, the further costs will be minimal. For companies that have not -- that have been free riders, if I can use that economic term, because these have been unenforceable standards, and that has in the process contributed to giving those who have made changes a bad image -- the cost will be much greater.
[8:00]
To extrapolate from the marginal cost to the small business program and say that's the same marginal cost that we would expect to see in the private sector doesn't strike me as an obvious and necessary conclusion. But if the member thinks there might be some lessons to learn, I'm prepared to look at the data and share it with him and see if we can learn some.
The Chair: We will have a recess, and then we will return here for whatever may transpire next.
The committee recessed at 8:01 p.m.
The committee resumed at 8:10 p.m.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:11 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]