1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 3
[ Page 15467 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned of the death of Bob Wenman, who was MLA for Delta in the late 1960s -- until 1972, I think. I was chairman of the school board and Bob Wenman was a teacher in Delta when he applied for a leave of absence to run provincially for the Social Credit Party. I didn't approve of his politics, but I did approve of his commitment to public duty. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you, on behalf of all members of this House, write a letter of condolence to his family on this sad event.
The Speaker: Is this the wish of the House?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Speaker: It shall be done.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have some special guests in the members' gallery. His Excellency Daniel Dayer is the newly appointed Ambassador of Switzerland to Canada, and he is visiting Victoria and Vancouver. The ambassador is accompanied by Robert Wenger, Switzerland's consul general based in Vancouver, Martha Dayer and Ursula Wenger. Please join me in welcoming them to the House.
L. Stephens: I, too, would like to note the passing of Bob Wenman, who was the Member of Parliament for the Conservative Party in Fraser Valley West for some 28 years. He was very helpful to me during and just after the '91 election, and I would like to express my condolences to his wife Donna and his family, as well.
Hon. J. Cashore: On behalf of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I would like to introduce the Rev. Tim Stevenson, a colleague of mine in the United Church ministry. He's the minister of St. Paul's United Church in Burnaby, and he was also one of Canada's international observers at South Africa's election last year. Would the House please join me in welcoming Tim Stevenson.
G. Farrell-Collins: On behalf of the constituents of Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I, too, would like to add my condolences to the family of Mr. Wenman. He served various parts of the Fraser Valley for well over two decades, and was re-elected time after time. While we don't always agree with each other across the way or from party to party, I think we all are mindful of the duties that we have to perform on behalf of constituents, and he did that very admirably. He was a help to me when I became a new MLA; his office was across the street and around the corner. We worked well together on behalf of the constituents of the area, regardless of party, and I think we've lost a good public servant.
I suppose many of us who have spent a long time here -- some of us over 20 years -- know what it's like and the load it is on the family. I can only imagine how much more difficult that is, almost exponentially, to be going back and forth to Ottawa. Mr. Wenman was recently retired, and it's unfortunate that his time with his family after that long period of service was as short as it was. I would ask the House to extend our condolences.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I was shocked when I first heard from the member for Delta South that Bob Wenman had passed away so suddenly. On behalf of the government, I want to make this a unanimous tribute to a very fine person, and to a man who had an internationalist view. He was a very broadly focused person who was involved in such interesting ideas as Cascadia in this exciting part of the continent, in British Columbia as well as in Washington and Oregon. He was interested in the Georgia Basin concept, and how we could deal with growth issues in the developing countries and in large urban centres. He was a man of very broad interests and was a very fine, decent human being.
So on behalf of the government, I would like to pay a unanimous tribute to Bob Wenman; and to his family, our deeply felt condolences. I would also like to add to the tribute that he was one of those British Columbians who have served us all very well.
J. Weisgerber: It's appropriate for me to join in, as well, in expressing my sincere condolences to Bob Wenman's family. He entered politics at a young age and served in Ottawa. He served British Columbians and Canadians well. I think he was enjoying a respite from political life, and it is truly a tragedy for someone as young as he to pass so suddenly. And certainly the condolences of all members have been well expressed.
K. Jones: I also wish to extend my condolences to the family of Bob Wenman. Bob probably should be noted for the fact that the preservation of the green spaces, waterfront and estuarial area of Mud Bay, the Serpentine and the Nicomekl was a basic foundation of the work he did and the result we have today of that land being preserved for the wildlife of the estuary of the Serpentine and Nicomekl. That should indeed be something that his family should consider a great honour, for him to have provided that leadership to this province.
I also rise to make an introduction. In the gallery today is Mr. Ted Hewlett, president of the British Columbia Teachers for Life and a resident of my constituency of Surrey-Cloverdale. I hope the House will make him welcome.
D. Lovick: I want to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in extending a very warm welcome to two distinguished guests who have travelled some distance to be here; I'm referring to Bratislava in Slovakia. We are visited today by a visiting professor of Canadian studies at Comenius University in Slovakia, whose family originally hails from my constituency of Nanaimo -- and indeed, has some three generations there. Accompanying our friend from Canada is Mr. Aloiz Keniz, who is the director of the Canadian studies program at Comenius University. This is his first visit to Canada and British Columbia, and also, I understand, his first visit to a parliament. I therefore ask all my colleagues to please join me in extending a very warm welcome.
F. Garden: I'd like members to join me in welcoming about 30 grade 7 students who've travelled, well, at least 500 miles to get here today to be with us. They're from Bouchie
[ Page 15468 ]
Lake Elementary School. They are accompanied by Mr. Winthrope and about seven adults. Now, Bouchie Lake school is located in a spectacular part of the Cariboo, a lake community. It's got about three miles of road that attaches it to Quesnel. We consider Bouchie Lake one of the more desirable spots. Please make them welcome here today.
[2:15]
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
Hon. E. Cull: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I wish to take this, the earliest available opportunity, to inform the House of the disposition of the Society Act investigation I initiated at the Premier's direction last October. Until yesterday, when I was first publicly questioned on this matter, I was under the advice of the RCMP and the Deputy Attorney General not to release Mr. Parks's work nor to discuss it publicly. As a member of the media indicated to me, she was aware of the existence of the report. The Deputy Attorney General has now advised that I am able to share the following information.
Mr. Parks has written an interim report on his investigation and forensic audit of the NCHS and related societies. That report is now in the hands of the RCMP and is the subject of a criminal investigation. The RCMP and the Deputy Attorney General continue to advise me that the interim report should not be released. Mr. Parks presented me with his interim report on June 5. At that time he sought assurances from me that the government planned to make it public. I gave him those assurances.
The next day Mr. Parks called and stated that, as a result of his discussions with his counsel, he believed the report should not be released until the necessary discussions had taken place on issues of potential criminality. We mutually agreed that the report should be provided to officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General. Mr. Parks was directed to the office of Mr. Hal Yacowar, acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General for criminal justice. In preparation for releasing the report, I relayed my conversations with Mr. Parks to a committee of cabinet.
On June 7 the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz, called me and informed me that he and the assistant deputy, Mr. Yacowar, had met with Mr. Parks. I fully apprised Mr. Quantz of my actions from the morning of June 5 forward. Mr. Quantz advised me that the report should not be released, that neither it nor its contents should be circulated publicly or in government and that the existence of the interim report should not be made public. Mr. Quantz offered further advice in respect of my actions and words in the event that I was publicly questioned on this issue, as I was yesterday by Ms. McLintock of the Province newspaper. I complied fully with that advice.
The activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and related societies have been the subject of two RCMP investigations, a criminal trial, inquiries by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, a forensic audit ordered by the Premier and now a third RCMP investigation. Mr. Parks has characterized his report to me as comprehensive in scope. I believe it is in the public interest that his work be released as soon as possible. I will release the report as soon as I am advised by the RCMP, in light of their ongoing criminal investigation, that it is in the public interest to do so.
I am also taking this opportunity to table some correspondence between myself and the Attorney General ministry.
J. Dalton: Firstly, I and the opposition are quite surprised that the Finance minister is making this statement. It reminds me of Monday night, when she was on her feet leading the charge. Has she taken over the Attorney General ministry? I think we might ask. Another point is that the Minister of Finance outlined the nonsense that has taken place over the last three years to subvert the course of justice on this matter. Two RCMP investigations, one trial, a forensic audit -- which she had since June 5 -- and now a third RCMP investigation. It might remind some of the O.J. trial. Is that when we're going to see the results in this matter? I have a feeling that it will be.
As all members know, and as all the public of British Columbia knows, the B.C. caucus of the Liberals has spent three years examining this issue and pressing for a full investigation and some answers. We have had no answers so far -- none. All we get from the Premier is: "Don't worry, be happy." It's sort of like Alfred E. Neumann -- "What, me worry?" -- type of stuff.
Well, we're worried, the people in Nanaimo are worried and the people of this province are very worried. We've asked for the NDP's self-conducted internal audit. That went to Ron Parks. We asked for the gaming files for the NDP, and were informed at the last possible minute that they would end up with Mr. Parks. Every time we ask for something -- and we're asking on behalf of the public of British Columbia -- we are told that there's nothing there. Yet the NDP continually stonewalls and hides the requests. This is a travesty -- a complete travesty. It's a denial of justice. This government should be ashamed. This is a cover-up, another cover-up of this sordid mess. Obviously this government wants to hide this whole thing until the election. Well, call the election now. Let's get this out in the open.
Since 1992, British Columbians have been subjected to cover-up after cover-up, and this is just another one. For this Finance minister, who is taking the role of the Attorney General -- who was the chief law enforcement officer of this province until Monday night and has obviously quit -- to get up and make these statements, conveniently saying she can't release the report because it is now back in the hands of the RCMP for third time.... What nonsense is this?
In 1993 -- let me remind the House -- the first special prosecutor was brought in to determine whether charges should arise out of the investigation. The affiliated charities of the NDP in Nanaimo decided that it was in the best interests of the NDP and themselves to plead guilty, and we know the results of that. Since then, of course, further questions have arisen. Ron Parks has now filed his report that this minister has conveniently stonewalled. It is now very conveniently in the hands of the RCMP for a third time. That's an outrage. The people of Nanaimo obviously should be outraged. The people of this province clearly are outraged. The only people who don't care are the members opposite, and we know why they don't care. Where's the justice for the people of Nanaimo? Where is the accountability that they placed in the trust of David Stupich and the NDP? Well, all of that is out the window.
[ Page 15469 ]
Just to conclude, we know that the people of Nanaimo have a civil process and civil remedies. But quite frankly, they need the findings of this forensic audit so that they can determine exactly what they should be seeking in redress and so that the people of this province can have some satisfaction and confidence that this government is representing their interests. Clearly, it is not; it is a self-serving government, and this just shows it.
J. Weisgerber: I think the statement by the Minister of Finance again underlines and demonstrates the need for a full public inquiry into this scandalous business with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. There is no way -- particularly because we haven't been given any advance notice -- we can judge the information that was given to government by the RCMP and the special prosecutor for the forensic audit.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we should have heard from the Attorney General in this House that he would pursue criminal charges with vigour when that opportunity arose -- and perhaps it has already arisen. Instead, we heard absolutely nothing from the Attorney General. It's an incredible fact that the Attorney General would say nothing on this issue. We should have heard today from the Premier of British Columbia to tell us that he had finally screwed up enough courage to call a full public inquiry so that British Columbians can find out the sorry details of this sordid mess and put it behind them once and for all. Instead, we had a demonstration, once again, of damage control and evasion of the issue by the government of the day. It's another sorry day for British Columbia as it relates to the scandalous behaviour of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society.
The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a matter.
D. Mitchell: I ask for leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.
Leave not granted.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I hope the hon. member realizes that only the recognized parties normally respond to ministerial statements.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a matter.
G. Wilson: In the interests of open and free democracy, I rise to seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
The Speaker: I hear a nay, hon. member.
Leave not granted.
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
M. de Jong: The Minister of Finance got the Parks report on June 5. She hasn't released it; she hadn't even seen fit until this day to acknowledge its presence in this House. She is a party to the sleaziest, most shameful cover-up in the history of this province.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Order, hon. member. Hon. member, please take your seat. Hon. members, it is clearly unparliamentary to refer to any individual, any member of the House, in a manner such as the member has just....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. members.
I would ask the hon. member, when he refers to an hon. member in the House as sleazy.... This is unparliamentary.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I've not completed....
I would like to ask the hon. member if he could not find a better way to characterize his concerns so that we may proceed. Would the member withdraw the remark.
An Hon. Member: A point of order.
The Speaker: You will be recognized in just a moment.
I would ask the hon. member: is it his intent to impute an improper motive to any hon. member in the House?
M. de Jong: I did not refer, hon. Speaker, to the hon. member as being sleazy.
The Speaker: Hon. member, it was the Chair's understanding that you referred to the hon. minister.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is saying that it was not his intention to impugn....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, it may take a little time, but I'm sure that if we look at the Blues, we will find that the member was referring to the hon. Minister of Finance. Interjections.
The Speaker: No, it was not the issue, hon. members. I think that this is a matter of the member's intentions, and I'm asking him to clarify, for the benefit of the Chair, what his intentions were.
[ Page 15470 ]
M. de Jong: I want to be very clear that I alleged that the minister is a party to one of the sleaziest episodes in British Columbia history. I do not withdraw that remark.
The Speaker: The member is saying that he did not impute an improper motive to the minister? That's what the member is saying?
M. de Jong: Yes, that's correct.
The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.
M. de Jong: I want to ask the Minister of Finance to explain not to me but to the victims in Nanaimo -- the people who were ripped off by the NDP, the people who need the information in the Parks report to pursue justice -- why they should wait while she orchestrates a cover-up of this sordid scandal within her ministry and now, apparently, the Attorney General's ministry. Why should they wait? Why doesn't she tell the people in Nanaimo?
[2:30]
Hon. E. Cull: That member is accusing the RCMP, and the advice that the RCMP has been giving me, of being involved in some kind of sleazy activity. I know from having listened to questions from those members that if they were the government -- God forbid -- they would try to direct the Attorney General, they would try to direct the RCMP. We are not going to do that in this case. We will act on the advice of the officials in the Attorney General's ministry and particularly on the advice of the RCMP, so that this investigation can be conducted properly. There is nothing that I would do or should do that will get in the way of this RCMP investigation. I am absolutely clear on that matter, and I will not act in that respect.
M. de Jong: It's the first time that I'm aware of in parliamentary history that the financial arm of the governing party has been convicted of stealing from poor people, and that is the definition of sleaze that the people of British Columbia will never forget.
The minister says that she has referred the matter to the Attorney General. Well, we know there is no special prosecutor in place; he's been elevated to the bench. So who is investigating? We know it's a special-prosecutor matter. Who in the Attorney General's ministry is making the decisions? Why hasn't a special prosecutor been appointed? If he has been appointed, when was he appointed? And -- to the Attorney General -- who is directing the RCMP to issue press releases on matters that the Attorney General said last week he wouldn't be interfering in?
It's not a government; they're mafiosos over there. They're out of control. Let them answer that.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member treats this forum as if it were a stage. It is not.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The matter is being investigated, and has been for some days....
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am prepared to give a full and complete answer to a number of questions raised by the member, but I'm not prepared to do it if they won't listen.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The report was referred to the RCMP last week by members of the criminal justice branch, because in their opinion the RCMP should determine whether or not a police investigation should follow as a result of the contents. The RCMP advised that there were matters in the report that required a police investigation -- which they were beginning at that point -- and that it would not be in the public interest or in the interests of a successful police investigation if the report were to be made public. Therefore the police requested that the report not be made public.
The member asks as well about an RCMP press release. The RCMP are in complete and full control of decisions about whether or not they make comments to the press; they are not directed to do so by the Attorney General's ministry.
F. Gingell: This is indeed a sad day. The Minister of Finance has broken a sacred trust with all British Columbians by withholding the knowledge that she received on June 5: the forensic audit of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. She should be ashamed of her contempt of this Legislature and of the victims of the NDP in Nanaimo. How can she possibly continue to be minister responsible for societies when she can't even issue a simple press release to inform the public that she had received the forensic audit?
Hon. E. Cull: The members over there either don't understand or don't want to understand that the RCMP has advised me not to release this report, not to discuss this report, not even to talk about the fact that the report had been received by me, in order that they could carry out their criminal investigation properly.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: Had I ignored the advice of the Attorney General's ministry and the RCMP and done what these members are suggesting, I would probably be subject to charges for having impeded a police investigation. My intent is to assist this investigation....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Order, hon. members.
[ Page 15471 ]
Hon. E. Cull: My intent and the intent of our government is to assist this investigation, to assist the RCMP to do their job properly and to make a full public reporting on this matter when the RCMP advises we can do so.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: This government is well aware that the last police investigation took two years. Add two years onto June 14, 1995, and you know that you're past the next election. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's exactly the issue we discussed in the estimates debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at this minister's conduct, and I suggest that she and her colleagues have conspired to deliberately deceive and mislead this House and all British Columbians. I believe....
The Speaker: Hon. member, order! The hon. member is again imputing an improper motive toward a member when he refers to the minister.... I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the reference to "deliberately mislead."
Hon. members, we have standing orders that all members should be familiar with, and it is unparliamentary and improper to refer to a member as deliberately deceiving the House. I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, the only withdrawal that should take place is that minister from that cabinet. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order! Order! Would the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member is disregarding the request of the Chair to ask him to abide by standing orders, and I'll ask the hon. member one more time if he will withdraw. If the member refuses to withdraw, I will have to ask him to leave the chamber for the remainder of the day. Will the member please indicate his intentions?
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of the remarks of the Attorney General. Some people have concern....
[The Speaker rose.]
The Speaker: Does the member withdraw?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Hon. member, I'll have to ask you.... Please take your seat, hon. member. Hon. member, I will have to ask you to please leave the chamber for the remainder of the day.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I....
The Speaker: No further comment, hon. member, is required.
F. Gingell left the chamber.
[The Speaker resumed his seat.]
The Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party.
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier, because he's the individual who has to take the ultimate responsibility for this sordid mess. The Nanaimo Commonwealth ripoff is a festering boil that's not going to go away until there's a full public inquiry. It's not just the criminal activity involved here; it's the integrity of his government and the government of British Columbia, which has been sadly lacking. Will the Premier call for a full public inquiry, or will he continue to hide behind one criminal investigation after another until the next government is forced to call a full public inquiry? And I assure you, Mr. Premier, that will happen.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Parks has conducted, in his opinion, a full and complete investigation. He has placed the material -- as the minister has said, by mutual agreement between himself and the minister -- with the proper police and Attorney General authorities to see if there is evidence upon which the police can pursue an investigation. I think that some of the members are suggesting that that report should have been released as soon as it was received, even though it may have prejudiced and harmed the police investigation. I can assure you that a minister in my government would never ever do anything that would prejudice the law of our land and the independence of the RCMP or the independence of the criminal justice branch of the Attorney General's ministry.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: We are not, as a government, prepared to harm the police in their investigations or the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. On the mutual agreement of the minister and Mr. Parks, that material is now being sifted through by the RCMP, who are the experts in this area, and by the criminal justice branch of the Attorney General's ministry.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, and I might say....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, it's very obvious that there is a great deal of emotion in this particular debate, but I must comment that your efforts are certainly not enhanced by the disregard for standing orders, which are there at your own discretion and are to be enforced by the Chair. The Chair, unfortunately, has no other authority except that which you have given the Chair. It will not bode well for us in proceedings if members continue to disregard absolutely the rules that you have given the Chair, and that's all I ask you to do: to respect them. Today has regrettably not been a day for any of us to be pleased about.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A point of order. A matter arose during question period, and I chose to wait until after question period so as not to take away from the time of question period. The member for Matsqui, in one of his questions to the
[ Page 15472 ]
Minister of Finance, alleged that the Minister of Finance together, in effect, with the RCMP and the criminal justice branch were engaged in a cover-up. Neither the RCMP nor the criminal justice branch are able to be here in this House to defend themselves, as the Minister of Finance can do. I would ask the member to withdraw the suggestion that the RCMP and the criminal justice branch are involved in a cover-up.
The Speaker: Would the hon. member for Matsqui, having heard the comments of the Attorney General, withdraw any imputation of intended improprieties on the part of the RCMP?
M. de Jong: I certainly withdraw any remarks that would have impugned the RCMP.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Good enough, and I expect him to add the criminal justice branch to that comment.
The Speaker: The hon. member would include all the parties that he might have impugned?
M. de Jong: My allegations with respect to the two ministries stand.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. members. Would hon. members take their seats for a moment, please.
[2:45]
Hon. members, these are trying times, as I'm sure we all can appreciate. In the interest of common courtesy and fairness to all parties, we need to think through the delicate guidelines that we have in order to conduct our business in the Legislature. While from time to time there will be cause to express outrage because of comments made by members, the guidelines that we are committed to are strictly for those of us within the precinct. In other words, the hon. members here are making rules and standing orders to conduct their own business. I respect the request of the Attorney General to extend it perhaps to persons who are not hon. members of the Legislature, but we are restricted as to what we can demand. So I would ask the member if he has imputed any improper motives to hon. members of the Legislature. He has been requested to withdraw. Outside the Legislature, we have no purview with respect to protecting those individuals.
M. de Jong: With respect, my comments were directed specifically to the minister during the course of debate. It was not my intention to impugn anyone internal to the criminal justice branch. If that impression has been left, I do apologize.
The Speaker: It's my understanding that the member has withdrawn any imputation of improper motives to an individual of the House. I believe that's the hon. member's intention, as I understood him before, and that's acceptable to the Chair.
J. Weisgerber: I too am concerned about question period and about the events that have unfolded today. The activities of the official opposition and the admonishments from the Chair, and the excessively long answers -- indeed, filibustering by the ministers responsible -- limited the whole exercise here to five questions. It has denied the third party and other members of this Legislature an appropriate opportunity to ask legitimate and genuine questions of the government of the day. I feel that my rights as a member have been prejudiced today, and I'm concerned about that.
The Speaker: I concur with your concerns and they are concerns shared by the Chair. I would say, hon. members, that it is nigh impossible for the Chair to impose good behaviour on the members, and the Chair relies heavily on the cooperation of members on both sides of the House. Unfortunately, I feel that today was an unusual day. It certainly isn't characteristic, in my opinion, of how question period has gone in the past, and I hope that we can get back to a relatively normal level in the future.
K. Jones: I ask leave to present a petition.
The Speaker: Hon. member, leave is not really required. Please proceed.
K. Jones: My petition is to the honourable, the Legislative Assembly in the the province of British Columbia in the Legislature assembled. I present a petition by the undersigned signatories as presented by the British Columbia Teachers for Life. Your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House accept their request.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
L. Fox: In the few moments that I have in order to wrap up 30 hours of debate, let me say, first, that I want to recognize the efforts of both the minister and the Liberal Health critic IN accommodating those of us in my caucus and individual members in those debates.
I think we had a pretty rational series of debates, as I said earlier -- over some 30 hours. There were obviously some differences of opinion expressed, specifically around two-tier health care, which kept coming across the floor from the minister. There were some concerns by all members of the opposition around the state of regionalization of health care. There were concerns expressed by all members over whether we have universal health care in the province at this time and whether we have ever had universal health care in British Columbia -- whether or not we've had equal accessibility in terms of the geographical concerns that are out there.
I look forward to next year and some changes coming out of the debate. Perhaps the minister will take some of the advice that he was given on specific issues within his ministry and react to those in the best interests of British Columbians.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East is responding on behalf of the official opposition.
[ Page 15473 ]
L. Reid: I too am pleased to join in the summary debates for the estimates of the Ministry of Health. I too would thank my hon. colleagues for their expertise and their wisdom in terms of the debate.
I believe the attempt was there, on behalf of the official opposition, to focus on the patient during the course of these estimates. I've always taken the position that the official opposition -- the Liberals in this land -- will be there for the enhancement and the recognition of the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act. We talked in detail about accessibility, portability and universality, and we touched on comprehensiveness -- what a comprehensive health care program will look like. What will be defined through this government's role when we talk about core services in health care? That's an issue that has not been expanded upon and certainly needs to be.
The other issue that I want to ensure unfolds during the course of ongoing discussion with this minister and this ministry is the notion of a publicly administered health care system. Certainly the official opposition supports the notion of a single payer. We believe very much that this should be about cost-effectiveness, about returning a reasonable product to the taxpayer and communicating effectively to the taxpayer what they paid for that level of health care service. We believe fundamentally that when you have the luxury of spending someone else's money, you must evaluate and report out appropriately.
I've made the point many times in this chamber that no one comes to public life to tear something down. This is about enhancing the basic tenets of the Canada Health Act. Frankly, that's why I have enormous concerns about how this government will mete out treatment to what I perceive to be some of the finest provincial programs in the country. I talk specifically of the B.C. Cancer Agency. There are a number of programs of that calibre that need to be recognized for their excellence in the field, and we're not seeing this government do that. We're seeing this government diminish their role, dilute their effectiveness and, I think, compromise patients in this province.
There is a lot of information available which supports our contention which this government and this minister have ignored. There is the best advice available in the field; it needs to be heeded by this Minister of Health.
Frankly, you will not see this opposition support this minister as he continues to diminish the role of provincial programs in this province. I have asked repeatedly for this government to come to the table with some kind of cost-benefit analysis. What is it that this government is spending, and what is the outcome? I'm very much in favour of evaluation of health care, evaluation around value-for-money audits, because I believe that we owe it to the patient in this province, to the taxpayer in this province, to arrive at best practice. I believe that fundamentally.
Around this government's direction in health care, I believe it has been poorly implemented and ill-thought-out. That's not to take away from the volunteers in the system, who have given countless thousands of hours trying to make a bad implementation plan better. They were given an impossible task, and they received little if any support from this government. The challenge was enormous and the support lacking. I think we ought to applaud those individuals, but we ought to recognize that the process needs to be better understood: where we are today, where it is we intend to get to.
I will always go back to the words of the previous Minister of Health, which have often been reiterated by this Minister of Health when he talks about the Seaton royal commission. The wisdom they extracted from that was less expensive health care delivered in a more humane fashion. Based on what? Right now a significant evaluation isn't in place; there is no significant analysis of how this government is spending tax dollars. Best practice is the goal of the official opposition. It has to be best practice in health care and best practice in education. The direction that this government has taken does not streamline the process, and it does not put the focus on the patient. It's incredibly costly. Reporting out on the actual costs is something that this government has never offered to do, which I believe is unfortunate and compromises the taxpayer again. This process is unwieldy. An actual health target for this province is lacking. I've asked many, many times for this government to come to the table and provide a set of health targets for British Columbia.
We stand strongly in support of health care in the province, and we will do all in our power to enhance health care delivery. We will not stand by and see this minister diminish outstanding provincial programs and create a massive social experiment that only compromises the taxpayer and the patient.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm pleased to conclude budget estimates for the Ministry of Health for 1995-96. As the member for Prince George-Omineca said, our debate lasted some 30 hours, and I think it included some very reasonable and productive discussions of the issues before us, before our government and before the people of British Columbia.
Our government has accomplished a great deal in our continued pursuit of the highest-quality, most accessible and most sustainable health system for all British Columbians. The 1995-96 budget that we debated continues that trend. It is a good budget. It builds on a record that the government and the people of B.C. can be proud of. Though finances are tight, we have maintained the core of our health system with nearly $1.3 billion in new health funding since our election in 1991. That clearly contrasts with experiences in other provinces, none of which can match British Columbia's strong and consistent commitment to health service; and it surely contrasts with the actions of our federal government, which is putting health care at risk.
This government has provided a solid base of support for our health system. We've acted to fill gaps when they have appeared. An example is the more than $90 million that we provided over the last three years to reduce waiting lists, including the announcement in March of $18.5 million in new funding to reduce waiting lists. That money will directly benefit thousands of British Columbians who will receive magnetic resonance imaging or cancer treatment or joint replacement surgery or heart surgery. These issues were much debated during our time in committee.
We've also provided new facilities to better meet the needs of British Columbians, especially those who live in underserved areas of the province. An example is the new $26 million Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. I'm a bit puzzled to hear the critic for the Liberal Party say that we seek to diminish the excellent network of cancer treatment services provided through the cancer agency. We're are doing precisely the reverse.
[ Page 15474 ]
We're making the investments that we need to make in health services for British Columbians. We're doing it in the context of overall debt management. At the same time, we are moving forward in making health service delivery and decision-making more accountable to the people of individual communities and regions.
[3:00]
All 20 of our province's regional health boards are now in place, and most community health councils are also established. The process moves forward. The members opposite for the Liberal Party may seek to turn the tide, but they will not tell which of those 20 boards they wish to disband. All British Columbians will receive the benefits of a more responsive, more accessible and, above all, more efficient health care system.
Another accomplishment which we debated was the many new projects supported by the ministry's Closer to Home fund that have enhanced community health services in communities across British Columbia. These projects provide community-based hospital replacement services, such as out-patient clinics, home IV programs, home-based palliative care and support programs that allow people to recover from surgery or illness in their own homes. Those projects, supported by the ministry, are investments in exactly what the Liberal member is talking about: improved, cost-effective health alternatives.
These accomplishments are having a positive impact. We maintain our commitment in the coming year. The budget calls for an overall increase in health expenditures of about 4 percent -- about $250 million -- and community-based services will continue to be among the highest priorities. Mental health and continuing care are receiving increases of about 4.5 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Over the last three years, we have increased funding for those community-based services by nearly $350 million. In the coming year our hospital sector, the core of our health system, will receive a 3 percent funding increase.
As a result of the regionalization initiative, my ministry will decrease in size during the coming year. About 1,400 ministry employees who directly provide health services will leave over the next year and become employees of regional health boards, and over the next three years a total of 3,200 staff are expected to leave the ministry.
Much of the debate during estimates focused on efficiency. The ministry is working to spend every health dollar as smartly as possible: through initiatives such as regionalization, replacing those 700 service-providing agencies with 100 community health councils and regional health boards; through the PharmaNet computer network, which will reduce administrative costs for the program and save tax dollars by preventing drug fraud and abuse; through the proposed photo identification to replace the CareCard and reduce the risk of fraudulent use of the health system; through the efforts of B.C.'s hospitals and their successes in finding administrative efficiencies to better plan and deliver health services; and finally, through public education programs sponsored jointly by my ministry, the B.C. Medical Association and the Medical Services Commission to encourage responsible use of medical services and reduce projected costs by up to $60 million over the next three years.
So we are making progress, but our health system faces two major threats. The first threat is the loss of federal support for health, and, cut it as she will, the Liberal critic cannot duck the issue that the federal Health minister and the Prime Minister are making comments that have further raised concern across this country. Simply put, they suggest that medicare should only cover the treatment of catastrophic conditions, they have suggested that a national medicare system might not be part of our country's long-term future, and they have made it clear that we are facing radically reduced health funding in the future. The point they are missing is that we don't need to abandon our health system; we simply need to make it better, and that's our goal here in British Columbia.
The second serious threat we face is that of a two-tier health system, and this, again, was part of serious debate in estimates. It is a threat to the survival of medicare and to the principles of equal access that British Columbians value so highly. Contrary to what the proponents of two-tier medicine say, a new, second tier would create longer waiting lists in the public system and provide a reduced level of service for British Columbians. It means a rich system and a poor system, and promoting it has nothing to do with the quality of care for most of us, and everything to do with profits for a few.
Our vision of health care is, I think, one we share with most British Columbians. It's a single, universal, publicly run health system, adequately funded and focused on getting the greatest possible health benefit from every dollar we spend. The budget for 1995-96 is another step towards fulfilling that vision. It provides adequate funding to maintain the system, it continues the transfer of health service delivery to British Columbia's regions and communities, it devotes resources to prevention and community-based services, and it positions us well to defend medicare and fight the proponents of two-tier health. In short, it's a good budget, and I have enjoyed the vigorous debate with all members of the House on the services that we deliver through the Ministry of Health.
The Speaker: The second wind-up ministry will be Skills, Training and Labour.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
L. Hanson: We canvassed the estimates of the ministry to some degree. We spent a fair amount of time discussing a subject that has come to the front lately -- the performance of the WCB -- and we got some insight into the report that the minister had commissioned and in what direction he is seeing it take him in changes at the WCB. My colleague from Prince George-Omineca spent some time canvassing the issue of student loans, and I would remind the minister that there is some information he has promised that I'm sure he will bring forward. We spent some time talking about the skills and training program and getting a better understanding of it. All in all, I think we did a fairly thorough job of canvassing all the estimates of the ministry.
I have to say to the minister that the answers he gave as a result of the questions we asked were candid, although we did have some difficulty in keeping his attention on the subject. He seemed to stray off once in a while into that awful subject of politics and how it is treated in this House. But in all sincerity, we canvassed the estimates quite well, and both the minister and the members present have a better knowledge of what went on.
[ Page 15475 ]
L. Reid: My comments and my compliments to the other colleagues on the floor of this chamber who participated in the debate, because it was a very useful opportunity for British Columbians to attempt to get a handle on the Skills Now program. I don't believe it's a reality. Many months have elapsed, and what it is lacking today is some kind of ongoing evaluation. They may realize results, and the minister will certainly tell this chamber strongly that these programs will produce results, but what I am standing for today and what is required is an ongoing commitment on behalf of this ministry and this government to evaluation.
An accountability framework needs to be in place around post-secondary opportunities. We need some key performance measures; we need to understand completion rates in these programs, and then determine whether they result in employment. This Skills Now program is about creating meaningful employment. It is about giving people skills to enter the workforce, whether we're talking about the retraining program, the welfare-to-workplace, site-based training, or business -- you know, sectoral training partnerships. It is about providing meaningful skills, and the only way we will know that is if those areas are measured.
The minister and I shared much common ground around business-government partnerships. I can tell you I was elated when this minister stood up and referenced a company in my riding, Avcorp Industries, which firmly believes that it can provide some advanced training opportunities for members of its workforce so that it can retain employment and maintain employment over a long period of time. Everyone who participates in this enterprise is a partner, and I believe that everyone has an opportunity to participate in evaluation of their particular aspect of delivery.
I would also commit to the record that this minister would do well to discontinue grandstanding around the federal government. Frankly, I'd like to see this minister stand up and thank the federal government for $20 million of funding for Royal Roads. There are some good partnerships in place, and that is certainly what the Liberal opposition stands for: making the best use of the taxpayer's dollar.
I spent many hours in debate attempting to have a discussion with this minister around a seamless post-secondary system. For the record, a seamless system means that you simply create opportunities along some type of continuum so that you no longer have a system fragmented in a number of different areas and a number of different places. You bring those skill sets together.
When we talk about moving from institutions to the individual, we talk about recognizing that currently only 20 percent of the students in our society have opportunities for post-secondary education. We need to stop and ask about the other 80 percent. We need to ensure that there are some opportunities in place for them. Certainly this is about ensuring that we have resilient learners in the system, and that they come to the table with some kind of initiative and be prepared to take some responsibility for their own learning.
I've touched on greater business investment and partnerships and alliances, which I believe will form the future of post-secondary education. I will conclude to allow my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove to comment on the labour aspects.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to say very brief words, because I see the light has changed. I don't have much time, but I do want to thank the minister, for the most part, for his candid comments. He agreed to secure a wealth of information for me over the next number of months. I look forward to receiving it so that I can have some time to go through it in detail and look at what's taking place in the ministry and some of the measurement processes that they're putting in place to gauge the success of the programs.
More importantly, though, I think we had a good debate about the Workers' Compensation Board and some of the things that the minister says they're trying to do there. He and I perhaps disagree a bit on some of the past actions -- not to as great an extent as I had expected, though. To a certain extent the minister was very forthcoming about some of the changes that need to be made there. I am proceeding momentarily into a briefing with some senior people from the Workers' Compensation Board, which I hope will be enlightening. I do want to say that I'm looking for improvements at the Workers' Compensation Board. I believe that for the first time in a number of years the Minister of Labour is looking for some of those improvements, too, and I hope that we will progress through that process and have a Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia that better serves the people it's meant to serve, better serves the people who are paying for it and is run in a more efficient manner. I look forward to that taking place as soon as possible.
Hon. D. Miller: With the very kind words of the opposition, I think I'll have to be nice.
I was somewhat flabbergasted that the Liberal critic suggested we should thank the federal government for their generosity, when, in fact, this year they have withdrawn $30 million of training support for British Columbians around the province. When they're withdrawing the two-week support that we give to apprentices in school, I have to say categorically that I have no intention of being nice to the federal government. I have no intention of thanking them for withdrawing support for training in British Columbia. If the members opposite want to take that as their political position, then I'll meet them on the hustings.
During the estimates debate I attempted to outline the vision we have on this side of the House not only for the Labour ministry but for the post-secondary system in British Columbia -- a vision that will carry us into the future.
I had an opportunity last night to speak in Vancouver at an international symposium on technology training -- there were representatives from around the world -- and laid that vision out. In talking to many of the people from other countries, particularly our competitors, they advised me that that's the direction they're taking. So I was quite satisfied.
[3:15]
We first of all need to get our fiscal house in order. I was very delighted to read Monday's Financial Post and the words of the Dominion Bond Rating Service as they applied to British Columbia. This has a direct bearing on our ability to finance post-secondary education. The Dominion Bond Rating Service kept B.C.'s long-term credit rating at AA, saying it reflects the province's relatively light debt burden, with tax-supported debt equal to about 23 percent of the GDP -- the lowest of all provinces -- and saying that B.C. has one of the strongest provincial economies in the country. The agency also confirmed the province's short-term rating at R-1. Unlike Quebec, the rating agency said, B.C. has limited exposure to
[ Page 15476 ]
foreign exchange and interest rate risks, and has a manageable debt maturity structure that will see an average of about $1.2 billion rolling over each year for the next ten years. The agency said that B.C. garnered praise for its dramatic slowdown in the rate of program expenditure growth over the past several years.
We've gotten our fiscal house in order. We then determined, if we look at the population projections in British Columbia....
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, please protect me from that vicious heckling by members opposite. They're eating into my time, and I do have a message to get out.
Having achieved that fiscal balance, we made a determination that we needed to make major investments in British Columbia, certainly in post-secondary education, in new campus buildings, in new facilities, so that we could indeed offer training to our young people. I was somewhat disturbed, because the opposition has ranted and raved about spending, that there was not one, single question from any member of the opposition on my capital budget, which is about $200 million -- and they had ample opportunity. I was really puzzled by that.
We have made a major investment in post-secondary education -- a $200 million program. Skills Now is put together in partnership with business, with labour, with educators. It is the right thing for our time.
Our current labour force is about 1.7 million people; if we project that over the next 25 years, it will grow to 2.5 million people looking for work in this economy. Those people will require, more and more, a higher degree of skill to build on the kinds of industries that are growing in this province. If we don't invest now in delivering and being able to deliver that post-secondary education and training, young people born today will grow up and be seeking jobs in an economy that will not produce them. They will be seeking opportunities for training, and the system won't be there to support them.
In one year under Skills Now we have created 9,000 new full-time spaces in our colleges and universities; we have developed and granted degree-granting authority to five of our community colleges and two of our institutes; we've developed six new applied technology programs; we are revitalizing apprenticeship training; we have bursaries now for students who graduate from high school in apprenticeship training.
We've established 14 community skills centres around the province, linked electronically with the Open Learning Agency and other agencies, so we can deliver education closer to home in many of our small communities. As I said, we have developed new applied programs -- what we call real skills for the real world of work. Employers are expanding into the high-tech field, and we have one of the best clusters of high-technology knowledge-based companies right here in British Columbia -- arguably better than any province in Canada.
It is the industry of the future, it is the jobs of the future, and we have an obligation now to make these critical investments so that we indeed have the kind of economy that perhaps some of the members my age have had the opportunity to grow up with. What we've had for ourselves, we want to see for our sons and daughters and, as I'm a grandparent now, for their sons and daughters -- the opportunity to participate in one of the most robust economies in one of the best parts of Canada.
We have laid out a very clear vision, one that British Columbians support, and we've outlined in very clear detail our investment policy. We have consciously expanded our debt in order to make these investments -- because they are affordable. And with the approach that we're taking, we will see this economy in British Columbia continue to grow and prosper. We will continue to see opportunities for our young people. We are absolutely on the right track with respect to the Skills Now approach, and that's been confirmed by our business partners, by our education partners and by our labour partners. I must confess that the only critics I can find in British Columbia are sitting in these chairs across the way. I would suggest that they're just a touch out of touch with reality.
So I appreciate that the members said that I was candid and straightforward, and I would heartily recommend that as a policy for the members opposite. British Columbians want to know what your policies are. They are less interested in rhetoric than they are in what your real policies are. My challenge as I take my seat -- we have laid out our direction for all to see -- is for the members opposite, the opposition parties who want to replace us, to be candid. They said that I'm candid. You be candid with voters of this province. Tell them what you're really going to do in these critical areas, and perhaps we can enjoy a good debate. I appreciate, as always -- whether it's flattery or criticism -- the debate and the opportunity to debate with members opposite.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call summaries for the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
L. Fox: Right after the sitting of this Legislature, all parties agreed that we would have debates in Committee A as well as in Committee B. Until last evening, parties cooperated in accommodating one another's schedules. A very unfortunate thing happened last night in that the official critic of Municipal Affairs from the Liberal Party, in his arrogance and his lack of understanding of municipal affairs, allowed the estimates debate to only go 40 minutes. It's very, very unfortunate, given that the leader of that party came out of municipal politics. We know he has an understanding, or should have an understanding, of all the issues surrounding municipalities today.
Because of that irresponsible action by that member, whose only contribution in this Legislature is official naysayer, we have not been able to address key issues such as building inspection, liability and Assessment Authority policy. Now they're setting their priorities on basing property values on planning rather than zoning. We haven't been able to cover the issues around a protocol agreement needed between the Ministry of Highways and this municipality, the hundreds of issues in the Islands Trust, and regional district concerns from all over the province, including funding of health care capital.
It's very unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity, because we were in debate within this Legislature over
[ Page 15477 ]
an important piece of legislation. The Opposition House Leader, who probably orchestrated this on behalf of the Liberal Party, says that I wasn't here....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I have allowed some latitude on this course of debate, but hon. members will recall that the matter was canvassed last evening and that the Chair undertook to review the Blues and to come back with an interpretation of the standing orders with respect to that incident. I will ask the hon. member to await the Chair's report, which should be coming later today.
Please proceed.
L. Fox: Given that I was denied the opportunity to be a part of the estimates, my only opportunity is to utilize this three minutes to point out that the process broke down and that the Liberal Party and the critic of that party did not even correspond with other individual members within this Legislature, or even indicate to them that they were not capable of carrying on the estimates of Municipal Affairs.
C. Tanner: I am sure the House will look forward to....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We have someone on the floor, hon. members. Please proceed.
C. Tanner: I listened to what the member had to say; he might listen to what I have to say.
Mr. Speaker, last night you said you were going to bring a ruling forward -- I assume sometime today -- and I look forward to that ruling just as every other member does. I thank the minister for the time we had together yesterday. I specifically want to reiterate that the minister gave me an obligation that she would answer those eight questions on all 35 of the programs in her ministry, and I look forward to that information coming. After I had put my questions I sat down, and the procedure that took place in the House was the decision of the House, not mine. I thank the minister for her time yesterday, and I look forward to her remarks today.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?
G. Wilson: I note that time is still available, and I rise to make comment with respect to these estimates.
The Speaker: Hon. member, under standing orders it is not permitted. The Chair would consider it if leave were granted; otherwise, not.
G. Wilson: I am asking leave, then, to make response.
Leave not granted.
D. Mitchell: I seek to raise a point of order with respect to a resolution passed by this assembly on April 5, 1995 -- at the start of the session -- dealing with the procedures by which Committees A and B should sit. This deals specifically not with the matter raised....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I appreciate your desire to address this issue, but I must rule your point of order to be, at this time, out of order. The Chair has undertaken to bring back a report on that issue, and I would not at this time be prepared to entertain it.
The hon. minister concludes the wrap-up remarks on the ministry.
Hon. D. Marzari: Estimates of the Municipal Affairs ministry obviously enjoyed quality time this year, although there wasn't a great deal of quantity. I look forward, too, hon. Speaker, to your comments later this afternoon about some of the concerns that have been raised on the floor of this House. But in keeping with the time-honoured tradition of completing the estimates, I believe I will do my wrap-up statement appropriately at this juncture.
At the same time I will offer my colleagues in the House across the floor -- the third party and the fourth party and the independents -- an opportunity to meet with me if that would be to their liking, or to submit to me written questions. I will meet with them at our mutual convenience to ensure that no question they have will remain unanswered. I believe that is a fair and appropriate response at this juncture, despite what the Speaker may say later on in the day about the appropriateness of the protocols. I believe that we did conduct our estimates within the rules of the House, and to that end I will now close them.
The Municipal Affairs ministry was pleased to present.... The ministry staff did an excellent job of pulling together and collating materials around ministry programs this year. During the course of our quality time together we canvassed Bill 11, the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, which consumed a great deal of time over the last year and a half. This has to do, of course, with the fact that many regions of our province are growing at a rate that is very often faster than taxpayers' ability to pay for growth. This is certainly true, obviously, in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, all the way up to Hope. This is certainly true on the east coast of Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan. Bill 11, which received royal assent last week, basically starts the wheels in gear to ensure that the provincial government can now begin its coordination between ministries and with Crown agencies to guarantee that we will be able to meet the requirements of the growth strategy plans that will be developed by each growth region in this province.
[3:30]
This is a major initiative taken by the ministry itself, and an initiative which basically turns the ministry from a grant distribution agency, which is what it has been basically to this point, into a proactive agency, working closely with communities throughout the province and working closely as a coordinator of other ministries and with Crown corporations to ensure that the province is taking a proactive look at growth issues in our province in an effort to defray the taxpayers' expenses in what growth is costing us socially, physically and economically in our communities.
Another area which we canvassed in the questioning had to do with the Assessment Authority and its entrepreneurial activities, in terms of its ability to become more and more specific and accurate in its assessment processes, in terms of the pride that the Assessment Authority takes in being one of the best authorities in the world, using basic systems market evaluations in its annual assessment processes.
We also discussed the provincial government's relationship to the Islands Trust, a body of government in this
[ Page 15478 ]
province established 20 years ago to basically protect and preserve the fragile network of islands that lie in the south and north gulf. There was some discussion about how we can strengthen the Islands Trust as an entity. I spoke to the possibility of looking towards the incorporation of certain of the islands that are asking for such procedures, so they might be able to actually elect their own city councils and mayors in years to come. We obviously have to look very closely at how the incorporation of the islands might have an impact on the Islands Trust mandate to protect and conserve the natural environment that exists and is threatened on many of those islands.
There were a number of issues canvassed, but most important was the commitment by this minister to the critic from the opposition that 35 programs identified by the member of the opposition will be analyzed by ministry staff over the next few months. A written report will be submitted to the member of the opposition -- an innovative way of doing estimates, I must admit, and one which I don't think this House is used to. I have committed, as minister, to prepare a report on programs that the ministry presently delivers. I will assure the other members of this House that they will also receive copies of that report when it becomes available, before the end of September of this year.
With those comments, I'd like to thank my ministry staff for the work they did in preparing a magnificent set of briefings for the estimates debate, although it was a brief one. I'd also like to assure the House that there is no desire on the part of this minister or ministry to shy away from accountability to the House and the taxpayers of this province. The communities and the locally and regionally elected governments of this province deserve the best in accountability, because they in turn are accountable to their constituents. I will assure this House that, with the rules of this House and my goodwill in this House, accountability is there. Your questions shall be answered.
The Speaker: Briefly, members, before proceeding to the next order of business, I just want to reflect on the request made by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to utilize the remaining time from the member of the official opposition, Saanich North and the Islands, who had an allocation of five minutes to comment on the wrap-up of the ministry. For all members' edification, there are a total of 16 minutes allowed -- three minutes for the third party. However, that three minutes for the third party may be shared by all other members -- not the five minutes allowed to the official opposition, or any leftover time allowed to the government. That's the way it could have worked. In other words, had there been time available from the third party, that could have been used by any other member.
D. Lovick: I'm wondering if I might have leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Lovick: There are actually two introductions, if I might, one of which is embarrassing. About an hour and a half ago I had the pleasure of introducing two guests from Bratislava, Slovakia, and I think I was feeling so proud about being able to pronounce that name that I neglected to mention the name of one of our guests. The adjunct professor in Canadian studies at Comenius University in Slovakia is Mr. Steven Nelson Lee. I'm going to send him a note of the introduction, and I thought he might appreciate actually seeing his name there, so I thank my colleagues for allowing me to do that.
The second introduction, Mr. Speaker, is on your behalf. A group of students are visiting here from Bothell, Washington, with their teacher Ms. M. Teague. They're from Fernwood Elementary school, and I hope my colleagues will join me in making them very welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the House, I call committee on Bill 34.
OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 34; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Symons: Section 1 of this bill is, I guess, a companion piece to Bill 25, which we passed yesterday. Bill 25 brought in photo radar cameras, and this is a follow-up in the sense that there seems to be a history in this province of a large number of people -- I was surprised at how large it is -- who do not pay their traffic fines on time, and indeed let it drag along for quite a period of time until their driver's licence comes due and they're required to pay the fines as a condition of renewal. In that sense, this is a lever, I suppose, to help them do it a little faster, in that it will add interest on those outstanding fines. If they don't pay within a specified period of time -- I believe it's within 30 days of receiving the ticket -- they would then have interest added at that time to the outstanding balance of the fines unpaid.
I have some problems, I guess, and I'll discuss them in a moment. If the intent of this is to use this again -- as was expressed in Bill 25 -- with photo radar cameras, as an incentive for people to improve their driving habits and as a method to improve safety on our roads, then I say great, let's go for it. We find, anyway, that when drivers ignore paying their fines it creates a disrespect for the traffic rules. It makes a mockery of our law enforcement officers giving tickets out if they basically know that the person isn't going to bother paying the ticket. So in that sense this will have some effect on making people pay their fines faster, and making them realize that if they are going to break the law, particularly those who speed or do other things of that sort wilfully.... Then this would be a good move.
However, I'm not as confident as the minister is that charging interest on outstanding balances is going to produce significant results and that people will rush now to pay their traffic fines. In spite of saying that, if it does work -- and I hope it will, in a sense -- I would be all for this bill. So I really don't have a great deal of problems with section 1. I will have a little question later on. Well, I guess it's in section 1, anyway; it's all part of it.
I'm interested in section 1(6.2)(a), where it talks about "with respect to a fine payable in accordance with an order made under subsection (2), more than ten years after the day on which the order is made...." I believe this will basically
[ Page 15479 ]
wipe out a fine that's ten years old. I'm wondering what the current procedure is with outstanding fines. Is there a period when you say: "Well, we'll give up on this one, because we haven't got anywhere with it"? Could the minister respond to that particular section?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Pement: Again, with this particular section we are looking at outstanding amounts owed to government. It is a safety issue with regard to people understanding that there are consequences to certain behaviours on the road and that there are responsibilities on the road. That's the direction we're going in with regard to this issue.
As to subsection (6.2), the current situation is that there is no definition; therefore we have put in this section in order to clarify when to file a certificate.
D. Symons: I just want clarification that I am understanding this correctly. If after ten years you haven't been able to collect on the fine, then basically you are saying that we're going to give up on that one. Is that the case?
There is another comment that I would like make in here, and you may care to respond to it. I gather that recently you introduced the idea of using a collection agency for collecting outstanding fines, and it's currently in practice. I would hope that adding interest charges creates the momentum to pay off fines. If you are hoping that this will do that, maybe we won't have to use a collection agency. I believe that we will lose money on that, in that we're having to pay somebody else to collect our money rather than collecting it ourselves. I do have some problems with the collection agency. We could find more innovative ways of making people realize their responsibility to pay their fines rather than using collection agencies. In fact, there are possibly even more innovative ways than adding interest to the outstanding balance.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the ten-year process, basically what happens is that we have the ability to use that ten-year period to file a certificate, after which we can do the enforcement. Therefore it's on an ongoing basis; it's not a case of throwing the fine out.
As to collection agencies, for the member's information, we are collecting overdue fines. We have collected much more over and above the prior year. We are looking to collect those outstanding fines. That's the issue. The fact that we will now add interest says to the driver that it is better to drive properly than to get into these circumstances.
R. Neufeld: I've got a couple of other questions that relate to the response she just gave concerning the ten years. Apparently, there was no time frame before, as I understand the minister. Can the minister can explain why we have to have a ten-year term in the bill and then go on for another ten years? Is it something to do with the Statute of Limitations or something? What would it be?
Hon. J. Pement: Prior to this there was uncertainty as to the length of time. What we've done with this particular section is add that certainty.
J. Dalton: Do the fines that are...? I know that this bill is a companion bill to the one that we discussed last night. Does this bill apply only to motor vehicle fines? Would it apply to fines under the environmental act and the Forest Act and those type of acts when it comes to interest payable?
Hon. J. Pement: It does apply to all provincial statutes.
J. Dalton: I just have one point I want to get clarification on. Given that under subsection (6.1) this will be considered a debt in the Supreme Court and enforceable as such.... Do I understand that the effect of subsection (6.2) is that the government could wait for up to ten years before filing a certificate and there would be another six years beyond that -- which is the normal statue of limitation -- in which they could enforce judgment on a debt? It seems to me an inordinate length of time.
Hon. J. Pement: It does not mean that you wait ten years to file. You have a period of time in which to file. It may be a situation where someone has a large amount to pay off and, in the process of paying it, may stop. Then you still have the ability to file a certificate.
D. Symons: Just one more question. In response to your answer to the member for Peace River North indicating that it's not strictly traffic fines.... I realize that traffic offences are the main source of fines in the province, but I'm curious: is the Offence Act part of the Highways ministry? I would have thought that fines, since they're paid into general revenue, would be part of the Ministry of Finance rather than the Ministry of Highways. I'm just wondering why this ministry has taken ownership of this particular bill.
Hon. J. Pement: Of the outstanding fines, 98 percent are motor-vehicle-related. It is through the motor vehicle branch of my ministry that the collection of these fines happens. Therefore we have the mandate to collect those fines.
J. Tyabji: I note in the unamended Offence Act that in section 72(2) we talk about how a justice imposes a fine. There's also a reference to a person who is deemed to have pleaded guilty. In section 72(3) it says: "A justice shall not make an order under subsection (2)(a) unless (a) the justice is satisfied that the person against whom the fine is imposed has sufficient means and ability to enable him to pay the fine at once." That's in the original act unamended.
Bringing in this section, it would appear that we now have the ability to have this fine registered in a court of law. I would assume, then, that there could be garnishee action taken against the individual who has incurred the fine. Could the minister, first of all, confirm or refute that there could be garnishee action taken? Secondly, with respect to a person deemed to have pleaded guilty, is that just if the person has not responded within the deadline set out on the back of a ticket -- which is in fairly small print -- or if the person actually has a hearing and in that hearing will plead guilty?
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of fines and interest paid, once a person is convicted, they then need to pay their fine. If they don't, they will pay interest on those fines. Actually, they're deemed guilty or convicted if after 30 days they don't dispute the ticket. So in that situation as well, or if they plead guilty
[ Page 15480 ]
and they're convicted, then they will be fined according to the ticket. Interest will apply, and also the fact that the court has the ability to enforce the mechanisms that could include garnishee of wages.
J. Tyabji: Given that we passed a bill yesterday that allows a ticket to go with a vehicle, the person who receives that ticket may not actually understand. Let's say the person is travelling, goes away for a holiday or something, and is not aware that there's a 30-day time limit to make an application to dispute the ticket that runs with the vehicle. That, then, may be registered in court. Once it's registered in court, there can be garnishee provisions taken against that individual to collect the fine. That is all, the way I understand the minister is laying it out. Clearly, that is far removed from the system of natural justice that has evolved, which allows a provision for a hearing in a court of law or in some court that would give them an opportunity to defend themselves.
The minister seems to be setting up -- and if she's not, please tell me she's not -- a situation where a person may not be present at the time the violation occurs and may not be aware of his or her rights on receipt of a ticket, because they may not be physically served with the ticket. Once the ticket has been administered to the person, who wasn't present when the violation occurred, that ticket may be filed in court within a 30-day time period. And that individual may have his or her cheques garnisheed. That's as I understand this model that's being set up. Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. J. Pement: The member is discussing Bill 25, which does have a particular dispute mechanism in it. We debated that yesterday.
J. Tyabji: Actually, I'm discussing the fact that there's a provision in here for someone to have a violation or fine filed in court. The minister has already acknowledged that it may then lead to garnisheeing that person's wages. We know from yesterday's debate -- to that extent, I'm referring to yesterday's -- that the person may not be the person present at the time the violation occurred.
[4:00]
Now, if it turns out that the dispute mechanism is not used under the provisions of the other act, there's no subsection in section 1 that insists on service of the individual. For example, the person against whom action is being taken, to have this fine registered against him or her as a legally binding debt, doesn't have to be served. Under this provision, all it says is that if a person fails to pay a fine in accordance with an order made under subsection (2) -- which is of the act -- or a fine payable as a result of them being deemed to have pleaded guilty -- which means a time limit has expired.... They could be unaware of that. Many people are unaware of these things. The mail may have arrived and a teenager has picked it up, or it's gone somewhere, or something's happened, or the mail's gone to the wrong place. There are many ways in which someone who has something mailed to them may not receive it. That's why we have provisions for service of legal documents. That's why we have under all the other acts the protection that the individual who will be in debt actually has to be physically served with notice of that. There's no provision for this in here.
It says that once the certificate is filed, listing the date of conviction, the amount, the name of the person required to pay, the date on which the fine was payable, etc., "a certificate filed with the Supreme Court under subsection (6) has the same effect, and proceedings may be taken by a person or a class of persons designated by the Attorney General, as if it were a judgment of the Supreme Court for the recovery of a debt...." Well, if that's the case, why did the minister not put in here some method for having that individual personally contacted -- a protection for that person in the Offence Act -- so that it's not just a simple matter of paperwork, where a computer has generated all of this, and it's spat out through a courtroom, and it's being done with the unlimited funds and resources available to government at the expense of the individuals whose rights should be protected under this act?
Hon. J. Pement: This bill that we're talking about today, Bill 34, only deals with the enforcement. The dispute process, to which the member is referring, we dealt with in Bill 25. We're not debating that today.
J. Tyabji: The question that I asked when I ended my statement was: why did the minister not allow for a provision to serve the individual who is affected by this section of the act, given that the minister has acknowledged that that person may have their paycheques garnisheed without notice? There are no provisions for notice or service.
S. O'Neill: Hon. Chair, I request permission to make an introduction.
The Chair: Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
S. O'Neill: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House not one but three schools. On behalf of my colleague from Nelson-Creston, I would like to welcome and introduce 32 students from the Arrow Lakes School District. They are grades 5, 6, and 7 from Edgewood Elementary, Fauquier Elementary and Burton Elementary. They are visiting Victoria today with their teacher, Ms. Ewings, and some parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, this bill gives us the ability to enforce the situation, and the notice of how to do that will be within the court order.
G. Wilson: Let me try and take another run at this. As we understand it -- and I think it's unfortunate that we've got two bills we have to consider together, in terms of the bill debated yesterday; and I don't want to get back into that -- what the minister is saying here is that if there is a fine levied against an individual, that fine, in fact, can be.... The individual may be deemed guilty by virtue of the fact that they have not contested it, and that fine will now stand against the individual. It is then possible for that file to be registered or certified with the Supreme Court, having the effect that the persons who have that fine designated against them will be summarily subjected to debt recovery just as though they had a Supreme Court judgment against them.
[ Page 15481 ]
The difference is that in the preceding way -- the manner in which an individual would be fined and debt recovered -- there would have to be a process of notification. People would have to be notified, but that notification process would have to provide them a reasonable opportunity to stand for defence. The difficulty is that this government is intent on fining automobiles and not drivers, which in itself is going to be subject to a court challenge, I think. My guess is not constitutional, but that's another matter.
This bill would provide for a fine to be assigned against an individual. The court can then rule that collection on the fine may take place by way of garnishee, so that an individual at no time receives adequate notice of that fine or an opportunity to defend themselves. The minister is shaking her head. If it doesn't, then can the minister show us where in this legislation there is a provision requirement for notice to be provided to the individual prior to any garnishee being taken?
Hon. J. Pement: Bill 25 outlines this process. It's actually section 25 in Bill 25. We debated this before.
J. Tyabji: We already know from the previous debate this afternoon that the Offence Act, once amended, applies to every single fine in the province. Bill 25 is specific to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and it is only for motor vehicle fines. Since we are amending the Offence Act, we believe very strongly that if an individual is going to have a debt registered against him or her in court, the individual has a right to be notified prior to that debt being registered, because we know that the government has unlimited resources for litigation, and it has a staff of lawyers. The government can then go out and churn through whatever garnishees or collection procedures it wants to.
In principle, we support the government's right to do that. The government should have the right to collect the fines owing to it, but there will be those people who fall in the cracks -- people who through no fault of their own have not received notice and who do not realize that they're liable to the government for this debt. Before they receive paycheques with a couple of thousand dollars garnisheed for whatever debt is deemed to have been incurred by them, they should be notified.
With that in mind, I would move an amendment. The amendment is to subsection (6)(g), to add: "and such certificate shall be served to the individual who is liable not less than 14 days prior to its registration in court." I would file this amendment to put on record how strongly we feel about this. We don't want to get phone calls from constituents who say: "I had no idea, and now my paycheque has been garnisheed."
The minister is saying no. The minister is not acknowledging that this amendment to the Offence Act affects every single outstanding fine, and she is saying that a court order will have provisions for notice. Not necessarily. The way the act is written here, this can be filed in court -- period. It can be registered in court. Right now, we have enough problems with the justice system; we don't have to add another problem where the government is seen to be churning through a lot of small debts and not notifying people ahead of time.
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: While the minister has a chance to review and read the amendment, perhaps I might speak to it. It's interesting that the minister says not to worry about it because it's all dealt with in Bill 25. A careful review of Bill 25 suggests that in fact it is not. If the minister might want to direct where I could be wrong and give me the specific section of Bill 25 that deals with the Offence Act and the degree to which fines outside the purview of the motor vehicle branch are covered in Bill 25, I would be happy to review that, but I certainly don't see it.
This is a question that is pretty fundamental to the laws of natural justice. You don't empower an agency of the government, and you certainly don't empower an unelected civil servant who may be acting on behalf of the government, to effect power to the extent that, by virtue of a fine assessed against a vehicle -- not even against an individual -- they can have that registered in court and allow the court to act on it without there being due diligence provided by the government, or by its agent, to make sure that those people who are subjected to those fines are notified. It's a pretty basic, fundamental requirement.
What the amendment says is that with respect to the Offence Act amendment, we in this province are not going to have empowerment for action to be taken prior to there being sufficient notice provided to the individual who may be affected. That's what the amendment says, and it says that there has to be a 14-day requirement. From our point of view, that's not a particularly unreasonable thing for the government to do. What failing to put that in there says is that you can effectively take action on collection, and you can garnishee a person's salary without notice -- with no notice provisions at all.
Hon. J. Pement: I am speaking against this amendment. With Bill 25, this situation is related to the motor vehicle mail situation. You can mail to the person, with the option for a dispute mechanism if the person desires to do so. In all other cases, such as environmental fines, etc., it is personal service and is therefore not covered in Bill 25, because Bill 25 is dedicated to motor vehicles.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might give me some specific legislation. Identify for me, please: what clause in what bill? Where does it talk about registration of fines and notice of that registration in this act or any other act?
Hon. J. Pement: I'd refer the members to subsections 14.1(4) and 14.1(5) and section 14.2 of the Offence Act. The processes are pretty well defined.
D. Symons: I believe the member for Okanagan East has raised an interesting point, and I tend to support the amendment. I'm wondering if I might draw a couple of illustrations as to what I think could happen, and where this could lead to problems. Maybe the minister could set me straight if I'm incorrect on these.
Let's suppose I'm about to take a holiday, my brother-in-law drives me to the airport and on the way back he picks up a speeding ticket. As things stand currently, he would be handed the ticket by the officer who has clocked him, and we know that at that point there's a fine and a ticket involved. If through Bill 25 we have photo radar coming in along with this act, he will not know at that time that he has passed through a speed-monitoring device called a photo radar camera. That information will come possibly two weeks later to my address, if he's driving my car to take me to the airport. I'm
[ Page 15482 ]
out of town for a month. Within 30 days of the date of that ticket being mailed to my address I will be deemed to have pleaded guilty in the sense that I have not challenged the ticket. I could tell my brother-in-law, and he would readily admit: "I was taking the car home at that particular time, and I guess I was going faster than I should have been." It could be settled, but that will be deemed my responsibility. I won't be there to know this.
I think what might be a more common occurrence than that -- because I'm stretching it a little bit in that example -- is this example. If you go to the West End of Vancouver at the end of any month you see the moving trucks; hundreds of people are moving. And I would rather suspect one of their low-priority items in the process of moving from one place to another would be to notify the motor vehicle branch of a change of address. In fact, I think the average person would probably forget that at the time they're moving. I know it's an offence not to notify the motor vehicle branch of your change of address within, I believe, 30 days. But suppose they don't do it. Suppose they don't recognize that they should have done this and are at the point where they're using their driver's licence as identification at the bank or somewhere, and the person asks: "Is that your current address?" And they say: "Oh my gosh, I moved two months ago, and I haven't told the motor vehicle branch." Well, in the meantime, they've picked up a traffic ticket, which they might indeed want to challenge, or somebody else using their car might have picked up a traffic ticket, and they want to challenge it. With the photo radar, they will not have known that has happened until after the period of 30 days has passed -- when they're deemed to have pleaded guilty.
I think that's the issue that this particular amendment is addressing. There has to be some way -- instead of simply mailing it off and hoping that maybe the appropriate person will receive it -- to notify people that they will receive the ticket and this is the notification of it. Mailing simply does not guarantee, in today's mobile society, that that notification will take place.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I have to point out to the member that he is discussing Bill 25, which we debated prior to this. Within that bill there is the opportunity to challenge the fact that you did not receive the ticket for a particular reason, as in the example that the member pointed out. We are on Bill 34, and I would suggest the member stay on that bill.
J. Tyabji: I'm speaking in favour of the amendment, just in case anyone was unclear on that.
I would like to say to the minister.... The minister said that the provisions for dispute mechanisms or for notice, which were asked for by the leader of the Alliance Party, are contained in section 14.1 of the Offence Act. We've looked at the Offence Act -- and not just at section 14.1, but at the other ones -- and basically this is exactly what we and the member for Richmond Centre were talking about. Right now we know that if we receive a ticket.... Actually, it says that a person on whom a violation ticket has been served may, within 30 days of being served, dispute the allegation." That's the reverse of what we're talking about. That means that if you happen to know your rights, about having 30 days, and if you happen to be organized enough to set a date and have a hearing, then you can dispute your ticket -- if you're aware of that. If you're not aware of those rights, you're out of luck. But in addition, once this time limit under section 14.2 and 14.1(9)...what it basically says is that if they don't hear from you, you've pleaded guilty. That's what we were talking about when we were talking about the Offence Act: if the Provincial Court doesn't hear from you, you've pleaded guilty. Under section 14.2, you then have a violation that is on your record, on your file -- however it works.
What this section 1 of the Offence Amendment Act, in effect, is saying is that once that has happened, the government now has an unrestricted right to go ahead and register it, because if you were going to say something against it you would have done so within that 30-day period. And the reason we are protesting this so strongly is that people might not know they have 30 days to respond. They may not realize that if they don't respond within 30 days, they suddenly have that liability incurred by them personally -- and in not knowing their rights, might not realize that they're liable to have a garnishee of their paycheque. That's the bottom line; that's what the amendment is there to take care of. It's a very simple thing.
All the amendment is saying is: before you register someone's debt, let them know. They might not know about that 30-day provision; they might not realize that they have the right to dispute, and if they don't dispute, they will suddenly have a liability. That liability should be served on them prior to it being registered in the court, so that before any action is taken they know what to expect. They may then take civil action or take action through another provision of a different act, but under the Offence Act they would at least have to be served. That's what the amendment says.
Hon. J. Pement: I think that we have basically answered the question that has been laid out. Again, with regard to Bill 25, there are procedures to deal with situations where a person has said that they have not seen their ticket. Those who have their ticket have the process laid out, in any given situation, on the ticket.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pement: No, really, there is a responsibility for any driver out there, when they are stopped and given a ticket, to know what the process is. Either they can ask, or they can read it on the ticket.
An Hon. Member: They're not stopped; we're talking about photo....
Hon. J. Pement: Well, it's also on the ticket when it's a photo situation. Again, I'll say to the members that they are again going back to section 25 of Bill 25 in terms of being able to challenge a situation where there is photo radar. In all other situations, they are served with that ticket.
[4:30]
The Chair: It seems to me that we have canvassed the amendment -- just a caution, but.... The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: We have canvassed the amendment, I think, but I think the minster must understand that what we are attempting to do in this amendment is to simply provide a
[ Page 15483 ]
requirement for the provision of a notice of intention to collect. Even B.C. Hydro sends you a notice if they're going to disconnect. Even the most basic....
J. Tyabji: Rogers Cable.
G. Wilson: Rogers Cable tells you if they're going to cut you off. B.C. Telephone tells you that if you don't pay, they're going to cut you off.
Some Hon. Members: How do you know this?
J. Tyabji: How do we know this? [Laughter.]
G. Wilson: How do I know this?
No, seriously, what we want is simply a service of notice of intention to collect, because there could be outstanding disputes on the basis of Bill 25. That's the only reason we make reference to Bill 25, because this is an amendment to the Offence Act. It involves far more than just motor vehicle issues.
If the minister is voting against this, she's directing the members of this government to vote against a very primary, basic requirement: to notify somebody of an intention to collect prior to garnisheeing that person's wage, which is a most fundamental responsibility of anybody intending to collect on an outstanding debt.
With that, I call the question and serve notice that we will move to division on this question.
The Chair: Richmond Centre, on the amendment. Then I think perhaps the question would be in order.
D. Symons: Just one brief thing. It's either in this act or in Bill 25 that I think the minister has made a serious error. There's an omission in there of the notification dealing with a photo radar ticket for the people who have got one. Simply a mailing to an address that may or may not be correct is insufficient notification. So one way or the other, I think the minister.... If they will admit that there's a loophole that's been left here and that the government is going to address it, whether it be in Bill 25 or in Bill 34, I would like to hear from the minister that there would be some attempt to correct this oversight that I believe has been made.
The Chair: Did the minister wish to respond? Or shall I call the question, minister?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, in terms of process, once a fine has been registered it goes to the motor vehicle branch's superintendent, who then sends out a notice to say you have an outstanding fine. There is a potential at that point for the driver to be notified.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 13 | ||
|
Dalton |
Warnke |
Hurd |
|
Hanson |
Wilson |
Tyabji |
|
Jarvis |
Symons |
van Dongen |
|
de Jong |
Fox |
Neufeld |
| Chisholm | ||
|
NAYS -- 39 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
|
Pement |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
Kasper |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Smallwood |
|
Cull |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Pullinger |
|
Sihota |
Randall |
Beattie |
|
Farnworth |
Doyle |
Janssen |
|
Streifel |
Jackson |
Krog |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
|
Lali |
Hartley |
Boone |
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Symons: Just a question on subsection (2), which says: "The Attorney General, in consultation with the chief judge of the Provincial Court, may set the rate of interest for the purpose of subsection (1)." This ties in again with Bill 25, which introduces photo radar and which could substantially change the ticketing of speeders in this province. I guess I have a concern here about the open-endedness of the interest rates that may be charged in this particular bill. I would like something a little more definite, because there has been some fear expressed by opposition members to the effect that this combination of bills is simply a cash-cow technique for the government.
One way of allaying those fears is indicating how Bill 25 is going to use the photo radar cameras, and ensuring that the interest rates set in this particular bill will not be usurious. There is nothing to indicate here that that could not happen. So rather than have it open-ended as this is.... I believe you've now said it's going to be prime plus a certain percentage point. Indeed it would be nice to see that written in the bill so we'll know that it's prime plus a certain percentage, or prime plus something else. Then we would know that it's not going to be changed at the whim of the government because maybe they have to increase their revenues.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Pement: The reason for the Chief Judge's involvement is the check on fairness. There is a practice in place already with respect to funds owed to and by government, and that is in the area of prime plus 3 percent.
D. Symons: Just in response to the minister's response, it isn't the Chief Judge. The bill reads: "The Attorney General...may set the rate...." It also says: "...in consultation with the chief judge...." So it doesn't mean that the Chief Judge really has anything other than.... I would suggest that it say: "The Attorney General in consultation with the Chief Justice of the province may set the rate...." If you look at the commas used in there, it is the Attorney General that's setting the rate; it's not necessarily an equal partnership in this consultation process.
[ Page 15484 ]
Hon. J. Pement: "The Attorney General, in consultation with the chief judge of the Provincial Court" -- not the Attorney General -- "may set the rate...." It's in consultation.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Pement: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 34, Offence Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Miller: I call committee stage on Bill 13.
MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 13; M. Farnworth in the chair.
On section 1 (continued).
D. Jarvis: We're back on this bill again, after spending a couple of hours not even covering section 1 the last time. I was rather surprised that the actual bill was not pulled completely, because there certainly is a question that comes up with respect to the need for and the drafting of this bill. My question is about what appears to be the level of trust in the minister with regard to sections in this bill, specifically starting with section 1. There's a general feeling out there that there has been a considerable lack of consultation, the wording is too broad and the intent is very suspicious. As I said earlier, the bill is lacking in participation by the people who are affected or are being punished, in essence, by this bill, and they and we on this side of the room wonder why. It's a matter of trust and attitude that the minister hasn't been able to pass on to the industry, and this resulting bill is certainly evidence of that. I only wish we could truly find out why this bill is before us. Obviously the minister will not pull it off the order paper, but I know there are several sections that are questionable in here. Perhaps an amendment here and there.... From what I have seen, there are even two or three amendments on the order paper that are not too out of line, and I would hope that the minister could see that our intention is not to destroy the bill, but to better the bill and instil a little confidence in the people it affects.
Starting at that point, I would say that we have pretty well covered all of section 1, except that there are a few other questions I would like to ask. On the bulk-sampling aspect, there is certainly a concern that this change will eliminate the individuals. There is certainly a lack of regulations in this, and it makes the individuals feel, from what I've been told, as though they're buying a pig in a poke. The intent should be to encourage the small miner; this bill does not. So I was wondering if the minister could give us a review as to what she really feels about section 1(e) and bulk sampling, and how she interprets it.
Hon. A. Edwards: Just to clarify it again, there was a significant amount of consultation on this bill. The mining industry requested section 1. They wanted these additions, so we tried to respond. If that's a bad attitude, then I plead guilty. As far as bulk sampling is concerned, the industry wanted bulk sampling to be included here because if it is not included here, then there has to be a mineral licence issued before they can do it....
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: It just clarifies the definition of bulk sampling. We are attempting to respond to situations and problems that the industry has had with all of these issues.
J. Tyabji: I would agree with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour in that, first of all, I'm surprised that this bill has come back to life in this session. I think many of us felt that after the initial industry response to the introduction of the bill and some of its provisions, it would actually die on the order paper. In addition to that, the minister just referred to the definition of bulk sample that's here, but I'm still not clear after her answer what the need was for that definition and how that definition plays out. For example, I note that in mining activity in the same section, there's no reference to a bulk sample. I would assume that mining activity includes the procurement of bulk samples, but since we don't see that in the original act, we have to only assume that in this act. So maybe the minister could clarify that, and tell us why we need this definition and how it will change the administration of the act.
Hon. A. Edwards: Bulk sample is defined here so that we can deal with it in section 11, where the circumstances are dealt with in much more detail. What happens under current legislation is that a bulk sample can be taken out up to 1,000 tonnes. However, you cannot do that as part of the exploration; you have to do it as part of production. In other words, you can't do it on a claim, but you could do it on a lease. What we are trying to do is allow miners to be able to do some bulk sampling and do the kind of work they need to do before they have to go to a mining lease.
J. Tyabji: So it is intentional that the definition of mining activity does not include bulk sample? And that's because bulk sample refers to a specific production of minerals -- is that correct?
Hon. A. Edwards: It looks to us that all the wording seems to fit together: it is an aspect of production.
J. Tyabji: I think there are some other members who might have questions on this section.
But I note in the definition of talus rock, which was mentioned briefly the last time we were in debate, that when we look at talus rock and then look back to the definition of mineral, there is a specific reference to talus rock in the mineral definition, and much of this is new to this act. Where did the initiative for bringing this in come from? I think the
[ Page 15485 ]
member for North Vancouver-Seymour began to canvass this the other day, and I don't believe we got an answer about why that's relevant, why that had to be specifically set aside.
[5:00]
Hon. A. Edwards: Talus rock has always been a mineral and been part of the definition of mineral. What this attempts to do is clarify that if the rock is fractured from its original block -- if you want to put it that way -- it remains a mineral, and the mining or production from a mine of that kind of product is now included; it's talus rock, and it's very specifically mentioned.
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister on section 1 as well. The minister commented in her second reading comments on the purpose of this bill being to address some definitional issues and some jurisdictional matters that were important to the mining industry and to the tenuring of industrial minerals.
I'd like to talk about one specific definition that is referred to in section 1, and that's the definition of private land. The reason I ask about this is because the definition says that private land means land owned in fee simple by a person other than the Crown. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not this would also include land that is held on Indian reserves in the province of British Columbia, or whether or not this definition anticipates the settlement of any land claims through the B.C. Treaty Commission process.
That would be important to know, because I think that when the minister referred to this in her comments, she said that she wanted to deal with some of the emerging land use issues in the province. Those were her words. If this bill, Bill 13, actually will give the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the ability to deal with the emerging land issues in this province, then I think we need to specifically -- and very specifically -- understand what she means by the definition of private land in this bill.
Hon. A. Edwards: This is new to this act. The Ministry of Lands asked us to put this in our legislation to make it consistent with Lands legislation. It was not put there to anticipate any sort of land claim or settlement; it is simply there to clarify what we deal with under mineral tenure.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, I need to seek some further clarification from the minister, then. She says that this section and this important definition of private land.... Nothing could be more crucial to most British Columbians than the definition of private land and fee simple ownership of land. She says that this was placed in the bill at the request of her colleagues in the Ministry of Lands. Yet here we are bringing in Bill 13, the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995.
It's not a modest bill, as the minister may want to let on. This is an important piece of legislation dealing with the tenuring of industrial minerals in the province. Not only the mining industry but other stakeholders, direct and indirect, in the mining industry will have a keen interest in how this definition is going to be applied to fee simple ownership of land.
I asked the minister, in my previous question, whether or not this would apply to lands on Indian reserves currently in the province. I'd appreciate an answer to that question. But more important, has there been any consultation with the officials in her ministry and the B.C. Treaty Commission process to ensure that any land claims that are resolved through the B.C. Treaty Commission process -- we hope there will be some resolution of land claims through it -- will be affected by this definition of private land? We've had some conflicting statements from a number of different people, federally and provincially, as to whether or not fee simple ownership and the concept of aboriginal title go hand in hand.
I can only assume that when there is a resolution of a land claim through the B.C. Treaty Commission process, the so-called first nation in British Columbia will, in effect, have something equivalent to fee simple ownership. Would that fit in with the definition of private land under this bill?
Hon. A. Edwards: We're trying to deal with what you want to know, so I hope we have it this time.
As you may know, mineral title.... This act deals with mineral tenure -- in other words, tenure for or title to minerals, which are Crown minerals. Mineral title does not diminish private land. We've got to remember that what we're talking about is a mineral tenure. Crown minerals exist under both Crown and private land, and this bill deals with Crown minerals. The definition is to attempt to define what private land is. I don't think we define Crown land in the definitions, but that may be better understood or defined in law. However, it is Crown minerals that we're dealing with, so we have defined private land -- and that may lie on the surface; under the surface we will have Crown minerals. What we're talking about are the Crown mineral rights, not the private land rights.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that explanation. Just so that I understand and that this is clear, the minister says that the definition of private land inserted in this bill is to differentiate private land as being everything that is not included in Crown land or where Crown mineral rights are granted on Crown land.
Going back to my question, then, what about Indian reserve lands? How would that apply? Are they somewhere in between, or would that be included as Crown land? I don't think that makes any sense. What about the whole issue of lands that may be given to first nations in British Columbia under the B.C. Treaty Commission process? Where do they fit in? I am trying to understand if there is yet a third category that isn't defined in this bill. Is there Crown land and private land, and something else that we're not discussing here? Where does Indian reserve land currently fit in? What about land that is ceded through the B.C. Treaty Commission process to first nations? Where would that fit in?
Hon. A. Edwards: Under provincial Crown.... Let me just go to the Indian reserve, which, as you know, is Crown federal. Underneath that we have an agreement. There are a few anomalies because of various historical situations, but in most cases we have an agreement with the federal government. They own the base metal rights; we own the precious metal rights and the coal mineral rights.
G. Wilson: Let me try to ask the same question in a slightly different way, because we haven't quite got the answer we're looking for. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi touches on a critically important point. The minister
[ Page 15486 ]
will know that under the agreement that has been signed with the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a have rights to all minerals above and below the ground. The minister says there is no agreement. Under the terms of the agreement -- that is, the leaked document that is pending and about to be dealt with, and at some point in the future might be made.... Certainly what's on the table there....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The minister is absolutely correct; I shouldn't be quite so facetious about that.
But what is on the table is rights to minerals above and below the ground. We understand what the relationship is between the federal and provincial agreements with respect to minerals below the ground. What we're concerned about here is that in every piece of legislation this government has introduced since they were elected in October 1991, there have been provisions that have outlined matters with respect to aboriginal rights, first nation rights, first nation obligations, notwithstanding title agreements. By the very absence of any discussion or mention of aboriginal entitlement with respect to this.... In no way does it even consider what that option is under the definition of private land. This bill raises the question of whether or not there is going to be -- or if there is today, in the mind of this minister -- a third category. I think that's what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was correctly asking. I think that's a very, very important point. And it becomes a very important point, especially in light of another section of the bill that talks about the relinquishment of title if there is a priority title deemed to be valid, which is an issue we'll get to when we get to it.
So that's why we're asking this question. It isn't to prolong or protract the discussion on section 1; it's because we need to know the definition of that land. There still has to be a sub judice right of the Crown to the land, but in fact in all other senses it is owned in fee simple by the aboriginal people.
Hon. A. Edwards: I want to repeat that this bill does not anticipate anything that could happen with aboriginal settlements. What it does try to define very clearly is how we deal with Crown mineral rights. Basically, except for Crown-granted mineral rights, the Crown owns mineral rights in the province. This is an attempt to define them. They are nearly all subsurface. As I say, we're trying to introduce how we deal with industrial minerals, but most of them are subsurface rights. What we deal with are subsurface rights, and we are trying to define what the.... We defined private land in order to make it easier to discuss this. G. Wilson: The difficulty that that answer poses for members on this side -- members of the Alliance.... I think I might also -- maybe I shouldn't -- speak for the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, in the remarks that he's made to date. By not anticipating or at least acknowledging that there is a provision underway with the Treaty Commission process that will involve the negotiation of lands and mineral rights and that is going to provide some jurisdiction, presumably, to first nations over minerals above and below the ground, we run into an interesting issue.
If what the minister is saying is correct, and if we can take the word of the Premier of this province that private land or private ownership is not on the table -- and we'll assume that we can -- then I would deem that once the passage of this act is in place, no minerals above or below the ground on anything other than that which is deemed Crown land -- that is, nothing that is fee simple, under licence or has in some other way been deemed through licence to a miner -- will be eligible as part of any settlement in aboriginal negotiations. If the minister can say that that's true, then I think many of us will rest easier on the basis of that answer.
[5:15]
Hon. A. Edwards: It may help to point out that once Crown minerals are claimed, there is no fee simple interest by the private interest that claims that mineral; it is not a fee simple interest. However, I am also trying to clarify for you that we are not dealing with fee simple land in this act. It has been very clear in our treaty negotiations that fee simple land is not what we are going to be trading off. That is not part of the negotiations; that is not what we'll be dealing with. Certainly, by policy, we'll not be dealing with claims and tenures.
D. Mitchell: I don't want to belabour this section; I know we're going to move on from section 1, the definitions section. But I notice that much of the legislation brought in by the hon. minister's colleagues in the House deals with the issue of aboriginal rights and deals specifically with matters that anticipate or contemplate the resolution of land claims disputes.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Would the minister care to express an opinion for the sake of members of the committee as to whether or not it might be a weakness of this piece of legislation that she brings forward -- Bill 13 -- that we don't deal with that, that we deal with the definition of private land? It says that private land is everything other than Crown land, but we aren't specifically dealing with the question of aboriginal title, the status of Indian reserve lands or the lands that might be involved in the settlement of the B.C. Treaty Commission process. Is that not a possible weakness in this piece of legislation that she brings forward?
Hon. A. Edwards: In treaty negotiations, what the Crown will deal with is what the Crown owns, and that is the Crown mineral rights. The Crown may have an agreement with tenure holders, which is a separate matter altogether. That's what this deals with. And what we would be dealing with in treaty negotiations would be mineral rights that are not claimed or not tenured. We would be dealing with what the Crown has, if we chose to deal with that. So what this does is simply define what Crown minerals are and how we deal with them.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, welcome to the chair; it's a scintillating debate.
I think the questions that have been asked on this issue are very important to have clarified. What we're hearing from the minister, then, is that since the Crown retains mineral rights above and below the ground, private land is something exclusive of this, a different category, and, notwithstanding the aboriginal claim over those Crown mineral rights, it does not qualify as private land. Is that what we're to understand?
The reason we're taking so much time with this is that this bill stands out from previous legislation in not making a
[ Page 15487 ]
reference to either "notwithstanding" or "without prejudice to" the ongoing treaty negotiation process. Perhaps for the purpose of the definition of private land, which says specifically, "land owned in fee simple by a person other than the Crown," the minister could let us know if Crown land includes those Crown mineral rights that are currently being negotiated at the treaty negotiation process table.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I can only repeat: this act deals with the tenure holder of Crown minerals. It does not deal with surface rights, except insofar as there are rules about what can happen on surface rights, and that happens on both private land and Crown land. But that's entry, and requirements for agreements, and so on. The tenure itself would be on Crown minerals. The tenure would be between the holder of the mineral and the Crown, and this deals with that issue. I don't know what relationship at all it would have with any other negotiations that the government is carrying on with first nations.
D. Mitchell: I know that the rules of the committee are such that we cannot compel the minister to answer, so I would just like the minister to sum up where we have been on this issue, because we've been talking around it. This definition section defines private land. The minister says we have private land and Crown land, and on the Crown land we have the tenuring of industrial minerals either on the surface or below the ground. To sum up where we are on this, is the minister saying that in the future we're perhaps going to require a different bill to be brought into the House by this minister or some other minister to deal with the issue of the tenuring of mineral rights on aboriginal lands? And might that bill include either Indian reserves in the province today or lands that are ceded to first nations in British Columbia through the B.C. Treaty Commission process? Is that simply a third category that isn't dealt with in this bill that we will have to deal with at some future date with another piece of legislation? If you could just sum up, I would be happy to move on.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd be delighted to canvass this very briefly. With all due respect, I would suggest that we could talk about hypothetical things until the cows come home, but that's not really allowed under the rules, either. I want to seek confirmation from the minister that the changes in this legislation are ones that will, hopefully, allow the development of increased mining activity. To my knowledge, there has been a bit of a conflict on the issue as it relates to the definitions of construction material and decorative stone. In fact, people who are seeking to develop some of these properties that will allow the development of new and fairly unobtrusive mines will see increased economic activity with the proper exploitation of some of these minerals, particularly the decorative stone. Black granite is one that comes to mind, because we do have some deposits. The speedy passage of this bill will no doubt be welcomed by those who are seeking to try to get on with those kinds of developments. I would just be pleased if the minister might confirm that. Hopefully, we can then move on.
D. Jarvis: Before that unnecessary interruption there on what we discussed a couple of nights ago, following up on the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I really wonder why this section on private land is in there, in the sense that.... Can you tell us, then, about licences and leases that are registrable items on Crown land. Who's going to deal with those?
Hon. A. Edwards: This fairly simple definition has certainly spawned a long discussion. As long as the Crown owns the minerals, this is how the Crown will tenure those minerals. Correct? We deal with leases and those kinds of surface tenures on Crown land to go with mining. We have sometimes to deal with surface access because of these mineral claims and the tenure of the minerals, and those are dealt with. We do not deal with the disposition of private land. But sometimes the Crown minerals exist under private land.
Now, this is quite simple, as far as I can understand. I have yet to discover that the suspicions you've been putting forward have any ground whatsoever. We are trying to be very open about how we tenure minerals -- Crown minerals under all of the land of British Columbia.
So I am trying to answer your questions. If you really have any further that I haven't answered so far, I will try again. But I do not understand why.... You know, I believe this is quite simple.
The Chair: Can I just remind members that we are indeed on a definition section? We don't need to debate the validity of whether we define something as X or Y; it's rather if it's accurate or not.
J. Tyabji: A point of clarification, then, from the minister. Are we to understand that minerals that are under claim or that exist on land which is under claim are not owned by the Crown and therefore do not fall into that category of Crown minerals?
Hon. A. Edwards: When Crown minerals are under claim, they are under tenure. These are the rules for the tenure.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps we should be more specific. We're not talking about a mining claim; we're talking about a claim under the treaty negotiation process or under another process -- for example, something exclusive to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or under the preliminary agreement with the Nisga'a. That's what we're talking about. If it's under claim by a process like that, is it owned by the Crown?
Hon. A. Edwards: All of British Columbia is under claim, as I understand. We are dealing with the minerals that the Crown owns. The surface claim has nothing to do with this.
R. Neufeld: Just a brief question. Does mining activity as it's described in Bill 13 affect or change in any way any of the intent of the present legislation in regard to mining?
Hon. A. Edwards: Not at all.
R. Neufeld: I just want to read from a letter. I'm sure the minister has it also. I want to get it on the record. I'm going to read it verbatim. It's from the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. I'll read from the information they sent us:
"The definition of 'mining activity' to include: (a) the search for a mineral or a placer mineral will bring all exploration activities by prospectors, claim stakers, etc., directly under the act, and provides a vehicle for government to completely regulate when, where and how any mining activity or exploration can take place."
[ Page 15488 ]
The final sentence says: "The chamber members are concerned about the effects, the costs, of this potential overregulation."
I wonder if the minister could respond to that concern from the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines.
[5:30]
Hon. A. Edwards: Let's remember what this act is about; this act is about tenure of minerals. The activity for mining is regulated under the Mines Act; it is not regulated under this act.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Jarvis: The minister says this is all about tenure, and tenure is probably the biggest problem with this whole bill. In sections 1.1(1), (2) and (3) about compensation, there is a perception out there -- and since I've been in politics, perception seems to be everything, especially in this industry -- that the minister isn't doing anything to relieve this problem. The perception out there is that they feel the powers given to the minister in this section are too broad and could be used to diminish the rights of the titleholder. Then we get into the part where.... I hate to quote Shakespeare, but the minister has the right to say: "To be or not to be a mineral." If that's the case....
An Hon. Member: What was the question?
D. Jarvis: I was interrupted. I worry about section 1.1(3). It's a prelude to the minister saying that this is a park and therefore your rights are gone, or it could be made into an aboriginal settlement, or whatever it may be, and there will be no compensation. That's what bothers me, so I think the minister should have to clarify what the intent of this really is.
Interjections.
Hon. A. Edwards: It may be a long night. I don't know, but certainly this is.... I don't know, but you're probably saying that we have no right to decide what is and what is not a mineral under the act. I believe that is the government's business. Government defines what is a mineral under the act, and what this says is that from that point on, if someone stakes a claim, they will not have a right to that mineral; but it also means that anybody who has staked it before that time, when the mineral was so defined, has the right to that mineral, and therefore no compensation will be required. There would be no compensation because you're not taking anything away from anyone who already has a claim. If they staked a claim, and at the time they staked the claim there was a definition under the Mineral Tenure Act of a certain substance as a mineral, and then that substance was taken out as a defined mineral on the second day of a month, then someone who owns a claim on the first day of the month still has a right to that mineral, because there's no retroactivity here. But there would be no compensation for the person who staked on day two for that particular substance, which is no longer a mineral.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister direct us to which section of the act protects the person who holds tenure? I think, for the record, we should say that we are talking about regulations defining a mineral, and that under section 2 we have the ability for the minister, by regulation, to change the definition of mineral, which could disenfranchise, in effect, somebody who may have a career mining a certain substance. The minister is saying that it wouldn't affect anybody who had a valid claim, and that their tenure would be protected. Where is that tenure protected?
Why is the minister responsible for the administration of the Land Act brought into this section to help define "mineral," when we're dealing with something that falls under minerals and the mine act?
Hon. A. Edwards: I've attempted to make it very clear that when you stake a claim, you stake a claim to what minerals are at that point defined as minerals. If a decision were made the day after that agates were not minerals, or whatever, then you could not mine them as a mineral under this act. But a person who owned a claim at the time it was defined as a mineral could not have their ability to work with that mineral taken away.
This is not retroactive, and with mining claims, the date is very important. When you stake a claim, you stake it under the current legislation, and if the legislation at that time defines a certain substance as a mineral, you have a right to that mineral. If the next day the two ministers decide that something isn't a mineral, and you stake that day, you won't be able to stake for that substance. But if you own the claim, you still have a right to that mineral because of the date and the importance of the date under mineral title.
G. Wilson: The minister may have actually changed my mind on one of my concerns here. It certainly doesn't seem to be the way that I read this section, but if I hear the minister correctly, the minister is saying that a person who has an established claim and is in the process of developing a mining operation to extract what is defined as a mineral will be able to continue to do that uninterrupted and unfettered -- well, maybe not totally unfettered, but within the regulations -- although at some point during that operation whatever it is they're taking out of the ground may change in its definition from being a mineral. Is that what the minister is saying? Or is the minister saying that at some point in that process it will no longer be deemed to be a mineral, and therefore the licences that apply will no longer be current and no longer considered to be valid?
Hon. A. Edwards: You are correct in assuming that if someone is mining a mineral that is defined so in the act, they have the right to continue to work with and use that mineral under their claim as long as that claim remains in good standing. As you know, claims can be renewed, so we are not talking about when they have to renew it. But as long as they keep the claim in good standing, they can continue to work with a substance which at that point would not, for somebody else, be defined as a mineral. But the people who had it and staked it when it was a mineral can continue to produce.
J. Tyabji: I want to repeat my question, then, because I didn't get an answer. Where is the tenure protected when the definition of mineral changes? Everywhere else in the bill we are dealing with the definition of mineral in the establishment
[ Page 15489 ]
of tenure. I don't see anything that says if the definition of mineral changes, tenure is protected for the life span of that tenure.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a matter of statutory interpretation. You don't define a right that has been granted under a claim, under a title.... You might find what you want to look at in section 24. You cannot diminish.... The statutory interpretation is what protects you. I think that's the best way to put it.
J. Tyabji: Are we talking about statutory interpretation through litigation or this minister's interpretation of the statutes protecting tenure? I don't read anything in this bill that protects somebody who holds tenure. Is it this minister who is interpreting this bill this way? Once she delegates her powers over to the gold commissioner, might he interpret them a different way? If they're both replaced, might someone else interpret it so that tenure is not protected? That's an important point. Or are we talking about litigation?
Hon. A. Edwards: The establishment of a definition does not affect your rights. You have rights under the tenure act, and those rights cannot be changed by a subsequent change in definition. If you hold a mineral tenure, you hold the rights -- whatever right you hold -- to whatever is defined as a mineral at that time. I cannot go forward and say.... I say "I" advisedly. I mean that ministers and governments cannot at a later date find that something is no longer defined as a mineral under the act and that therefore you don't have rights when in fact you were given those rights under a statute. It's a principle of law. As I say, I don't know if section 24 helps you, but it is a principle of law that is observed broadly -- I would hazard, universally.
J. Tyabji: With respect to section 24 of the act.... I'm assuming the minister is talking about section 24 of the act as opposed to section 24 of the amendment act. Is that right? Section 24 of the act, which is "Entitlement of minerals and nature of interest," says: "Subject to this act, the recorded holder of a claim is entitled to those minerals or placer minerals, as the case may be, that are situated vertically downward from and inside the boundaries of his claim...the interest of a recorded holder of a claim is a chattel interest."
If we look to the definition of minerals and then look to the regulations.... The minister used the example of an agate. If agates are taken out of the definition of minerals by regulation, I just can't see any protection.
The minister might want to make note of the fact that we in this chamber have seen retroactive legislation and regulations. There are many precedents for that occurring. Without protection by statute of the very interests that the minister says are protected, I don't know how we can support this section of the bill. What it does, in effect, is talk about people being disenfranchised from a claim through a change in the definition of a mineral and having no compensation paid for it. If the minister is going to say that that's not the case, then I think we need something a little stronger than section 24 to protect the rights of the tenure holder.
Hon. A. Edwards: Sometimes there are folks who like us to pass laws that say that people should obey the law. It's sort of like.... You don't need to do that. This is the law, as we are laying it out. If you are granted rights under a statute, you have those rights under a statute. If the statute is changed tomorrow, it's different. I can't say anything more than that. I really don't think I can give you a better definition or explanation of what we're doing.
[5:45]
D. Jarvis: I find it hard to see where.... The minister has said that the government can actually interpret what is a mineral and what is not a mineral. That's the hard thing to understand. Are we talking about future things that are discovered in the ground or below the surface? It's pretty well a defined thing. I think what this is.... I wonder if the minister could help me with this. Is this really a no-compensation-payable sort of paragraph that has come into this? Ostensibly, it says that you will refuse to pay compensation if something is not declared a mineral. Two paragraphs before that, it says that it allows the minister to say what is and what is not. That's the problem. The perception out there is that it's a further encroachment by this socialist government to diminish the effect of mining in this province, and of the miner himself.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'll bring up another point that may be useful to the discussion. If the government does not define a substance as a mineral, you can then go out and take it under other laws. You might have to get a soil removal permit or something like that, but if it's not a mineral, believe me, you are going to be a lot freer to work with it. We define minerals so that we can be very clear about what has to be dealt with under the tenure act, and then later, if there's mining, the regulations under a mining act. But after all, it's the government's place to determine what is going to be deemed a mineral for a mineral tenure. If it's not a mineral anymore, you're probably much more free to go ahead.
I don't know why you would need compensation, for two reasons: nothing has been taken away from you, because if you've previously claimed that substance and it was defined as a mineral, you haven't lost anything; and if it is no longer defined as a mineral, you are much more likely to have more freedom to work with it.
D. Jarvis: I have an example here. What's to preclude you from saying that gypsum or other non-metallic materials aren't metals? You can come down; you're the government. You can say that. What happens to someone who has a claim on that? It now becomes non-valuable. There's no value to it whatsoever, because you refuse to pay any compensation. The ministers could change their mind on that aspect.
Hon. A. Edwards: There are a few scientific principles involved as to what is a mineral, but basically, the whole point -- and I'm trying to be as practical as possible -- is that the Crown has the right to determine what a mineral is. That, I think, is an appropriate place for the decision to be made. If the Crown decided that something was a mineral yesterday and isn't a mineral today, if you held a claim yesterday, you can work with that as a mineral. You would not be owed any compensation, because you can work as long as you keep your claim active. As long as you work with it, you deserve nothing, because nothing will change. If you stake a claim after the definition has been changed, you will not have that as one of the minerals that you will work with. If it isn't a mineral, it probably is going to be something you can work with much more easily.
[ Page 15490 ]
D. Jarvis: Let me put it this way. The minister is saying that if I stake a claim tomorrow on a substance in the ground that everyone else in the world says is a metal, it still is a mineral. But if it's a substance that no one has ever heard of before, you have the right to declare it not a mineral. But everything in the world today that is a mineral.... Or are we going to go to the ridiculous end of it and say that if I stake a claim, and we find copper in the ground, you're going to declare that copper is not a mineral? That's how silly this thing is, because it gives you these powers to decide what is and what is not. It should be clarified.
Hon. A. Edwards: Perhaps it might help if we look at what it says in the amendment in section 2. Section 1.1(1) says: "For the purpose of paragraph (c) of the definition of 'mineral' in section 1...." That is "rock or a natural substance prescribed under section 1.1(1)." In section 2, section 1.1(2) says: "For the purpose of paragraph (g) of the definition of 'mineral'...." That is "rock or a natural substance prescribed under section 1.1(2)."
In either case we're dealing with materials that are going to be deemed either dimension stone or building material -- building stone. Those are the two places where the definition can be made under this section.
J. Tyabji: I have an amendment on the order paper that I'd like to move, but seeing the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: Before calling on the Government House Leader, I would like to report on two matters.
On Friday last, during private members' statements, the Speaker had to intervene on more than one occasion to remind hon. members about the spirit and intent of standing order 25A, which provides us with the authority for private members' statements. At the conclusion of private members' statements, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour rose on a point of order, suggesting that the rules had been transgressed by members using partisan attacks which prompted reciprocation in kind. The Government House Leader spoke to the same point of order and made the distinction between public policy matters which were of a political nature and the desirability of presenting these issues in a non-partisan way.
The Chair has also reviewed the comprehensive decision related to private members' statements of July 2, 1992. It seems to the Chair that the essence of that decision is as follows: "In reviewing the practice of this House, however, highly partisan remarks that negatively reflect on individual members or groups of members in the House have not been regarded as falling within the spirit and intent of standing order 25(A)." In considering the comments of both the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour and the Government House Leader, it seems as if the principle above quoted continues to be the general wish of this House. To paraphrase the point made by the Government House Leader, it seems to the Chair that it is quite possible to express a partisan position on political matters without indulging in personal attacks on individual members or groups of members in the House. I would ask that all hon. members be guided by these principles on private members' day.
Now to a matter of last evening. At the closing of proceedings last evening, the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rose on what he described as a matter of privilege relating to proceedings in Section A of Committee of Supply constituted under a sessional order of this House dated April 10, 1995. The substance of the hon. member's complaint was that he had not had an opportunity to speak to the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which were called, considered and concluded last evening. The Chair also heard representations from the Government House Leader, the House Leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Okanagan East and the hon. member for Peace River North, and has considered all submissions with great care.
First, a perusal of yesterday's Blues confirms that prior to the House recessing at 6:09 p.m., the Government House Leader announced to the House that Committee A would be considering the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs upon its return from recess at 6:45 p.m. As this announcement followed immediately upon the heels of a division in the House, the Chair notes that most members were present. After the recess, the House resumed at 6:50, at which time the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, acting as House Leader, advised the House that Committee of Supply would be sitting in Section A and debating the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
From this point until the House receives a report from Section A, the Speaker quite properly has no knowledge of what transpires in a committee of the House, nor are matters which occurred in a committee of the House properly within the domain of the Speaker, unless such matters are brought to the House by way of a report from the committee itself.
At the conclusion of last evening's sitting, Section A of Committee of Supply reported resolutions in a normal manner, and it was after this report was received by the House and the committee given permission to sit again, that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rose to raise the matter of privilege.
A careful examination of the Hansard report of proceedings in the House does not disclose any irregularity. Furthermore, no report was tendered or received by this House from the committee dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, apart from the perfectly normal report of resolutions with a request for leave to sit again.
At this point, I think it is relevant to refer hon. members to a decision of this House recorded in the Journals of April 12, 1994, which examined this whole matter in considerable detail. I quote in part from that decision:
"The substitution rules are designed in such a way to prevent any member being denied access to any estimate he or she chooses to debate. As with debates in the House or any committee thereof, it is incumbent on the member seeking to be heard to be present and to conform to the rules as interpreted by the presiding officer."
The record not disclosing any irregularity, and in the absence of the committee's report bringing irregularities to the Chair's
[ Page 15491 ]
attention, I must rule that the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast cannot succeed.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 3:42 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
On vote 12: minister's office, $332,812.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Chair, it's my pleasure to present the estimates for the ministry for 1995-96. With me today is the deputy minister, Bruce Hackett; Stuart Culbertson, ADM of the fisheries and food division; Tom Pringle, ADM of the agriculture division; Al Sakalauskas, ADM of financial programs, administrative division; Dave Davies, senior financial officer; from the Agricultural Land Commission, Jim Plotnikoff, director of strategic planning and corporate policy; from the B.C. Marketing Board, James Sandever, general manager; and from the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, the CEO, Ross Husdon.
The agriculture, fisheries and food sector is a major contributor to our healthy economy in British Columbia. There have been record sales throughout the agriculture, fisheries and food industry, including the retail and restaurant food sales -- in total, $14 billion of activity each year. There is a record value of food exports in the past year of $2.2 billion. This is the third-largest goods-producing sector in B.C.; it accounts for one in seven jobs. That's a total of 214,000 in 1994. There are 280 commodities; there's more variety here than in any other province in Canada.
Farm cash receipts in agriculture now exceed $1.5 billion, a total increase of 14 percent since 1991. Based on recently revised Statistics Canada estimates, B.C. farmers had record high net incomes in 1993 of $189 million. It declined a bit due to soft prices in 1994 to $175 million, which is still an increase of 32 percent over 1991.
[3:45]
There are presently 18,750 family farms in British Columbia, a figure that has increased over the last 20 years from 18,260 in 1971. There's been a substantial increase in the number of farms with over $100,000 in sales: a total of 3,005 farms in 1991, compared with 1,843 farms in 1971.
In the fisheries sector, the value of processed seafood was worth over $1 billion in the past year, based on an increasingly diversified product base. In total, there are 25,000 jobs in the commercial seafood industry. Seafood is B.C.'s number one food export, worth $886 million, and farmed salmon is B.C.'s number one agricultural export, worth $140 million per year.
The food and beverage industry added $901 million to the provincial gross domestic product. In 1994 shipments of food and beverages were estimated to be valued at $4.35 billion, made up of $3.621 billion for food and $726 million for beverages.
B.C.'s industry is currently facing a number of challenges in the new world markets. Our farmers, fishers and food processors are living with increased competition. There are new international trade rules and shrinking financial support from government, most recently illustrated by the federal government elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidy and the feed freight assistance subsidy.
The new trade agreements have changed the way government can assist industry. In recent meetings with my federal counterpart in agriculture. I clearly stated that trade actions by the United States and restrictive trade practices by other nations must be challenged head-on in order to protect our farmers. This refers to U.S. threats regarding tariffs to be established on Canada and British Columbia's supply-managed commodities. There is also an urgent need to conclude international agreements to conserve our fisheries resources. I've urged the federal Fisheries minister to ensure that the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the U.S. is pursued with the same vigour as he used to address the east coast turbot issue. Conservation of our fisheries resource must be the first priority of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This ministry has a mandate to foster the viability and sustainability of the agriculture, fisheries and food sector.
In 1994 the ministry, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, the B.C. Marketing Board and the Agricultural Land Commission carried out a strategic planning process which identified priority issues that the ministry should address. As a result, we are focusing on three major objectives: first, to enhance the capacity of industry to be profitable and competitive in provincial and global markets; second, to sustain the natural resource base for food production and the environment; and third, to enhance the strengths of rural and coastal families and their communities, promoting social stability and regional development.
This ministry's total budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year is $69,666,000. The ministry operates from headquarters here in Victoria, and there are three regional offices based in Prince George, Abbotsford and Kelowna, and 22 local offices throughout the province. Almost 60 percent of our 475 staff are based in rural and coastal areas, where they work closely with farmers, fishers and other members of the public.
The estimates also provide funding for three Crown agencies. The Agricultural Land Commission is responsible for administering the forest land reserve and the agricultural land reserve. It accounts for $2.64 million of the budget, of which $400,000 is for forest land reserve activities. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority administers industry, development and revitalization programs for the tree fruit industry and accounts for $1.5 million of the budget. This $1.5 million, when added to existing reserves of the OVTFA, will
[ Page 15492 ]
allow the continued implementation of the revitalization strategy and will cover fund applications expected this year. The B.C. Marketing Board, which supervises B.C.'s 12 agricultural marketing boards and handles appeals related to marketing board decisions, will receive $554,856 of this budget.
Assisting the agriculture, fisheries and food industries to develop and become more profitable is the number one priority of this ministry. Our greatest challenge is to create new economic opportunities for sustainable growth. Our resource planning and management, extension and rural development, and the development and transfer of technology represent some of the ministry's most important core services to our stakeholders.
These three areas account for approximately $18.6 million of the budget and approximately 170 of our staff. Staff and resources in this area are dedicated to the economic development of the agriculture, fisheries and food industries, while at the same time ensuring the long-term environmental sustainability of basic natural resources. While staff work directly with farm families, industry and organizations, they also provide technical and professional advice to government agencies to ensure that agricultural interests are incorporated into policy decisions regarding resource use. The grazing enhancement fund, a new initiative of the government, is an excellent example of recognizing the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the grazing resource, while also supporting the ongoing ranching interests.
Extension, technology transfer, research and rural development programs ensure that industry can continue to grow with the new trade rules while addressing environmental concerns and increased public interest in food production. Staff develop and distribute informational and educational publications and audiovisual materials, and organize short courses, seminars and workshops, such as the dairy, horticulture, farm management and horse industry short courses, in order to pass on the most up-to-date technology and information to farmers, fishers and food processors. We are currently testing delivery of some information via the Internet.
The ministry continues to be a strong supporter of the B.C. 4-H program, where we have seen a continuous increase in the number of clubs, members and leaders over the past four years. We support 61 agricultural fairs across the province, which provide millions of British Columbians and visitors the opportunity to gain better knowledge of this important industry. The ministry assists the Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation to raise the profile of agriculture with young people in our schools.
Partners in Progress, Buy B.C. and other agrifood industry development programs account for just over $6.8 million of our budget and are the most visible industry development programs in the public eye. These initiatives target industry diversification, employment creation and strategic planning.
The partners program was launched last year. Community partners are producing innovative ideas that can be put into action -- environmentally sound ideas like using brewery by-products as a nutritious feed for pigs, rather than disposing of it as waste -- and an action plan to monitor water quality in Baynes Sound, which will also resolve water-quality problems for the benefit of marine life in the area. The partners program is also helping a Sechelt company to research the potential for producing a salmon-chip snack food. Another project involves developing a mechanical device not unlike a plow to plant geoduck seed, reduce the cost and increase efficiency.
The Buy B.C. program, now in its fourth year, is directed at increasing consumer awareness, access and demand for B.C. food products in partnership with industry. Every buy-B.C. partnership project has resulted in increased sales, some of them very dramatic. We are gaining market share from imported produce and getting our foot in the door in tough markets like California, where they are buying our B.C. hothouse tomatoes. British Columbians endorse the importance of B.C. producing its own food. In a March buy-B.C. survey, some 82 percent of respondents said it was important for B.C. to produce its own food.
Other industry development programs promote technology transfer and competitiveness and support a regulatory framework for new food standards. B.C.'s wine industry is an example of how the ministry has been readjusting its strategies to bring market and production closer together. VQA wines have been winning international honours, and a six-year $3 million industry development fund cost-shared with industry will continue the success story of the wine and grape industry.
Sales of organic food at the retail level are growing at an estimated 20 percent to 30 percent a year. Our new organic certification program assures consumers of authenticity and quality, and it's the first program of its kind in Canada.
Aquaculture and commercial fisheries account for $3.8 million of the budget and 37 staff. Industry development is a key strategic priority. Our commercial fisheries staff promote B.C.'s interests with the federal government and in international discussions on the Pacific marine fishery. Our aquaculture program focuses on job creation in coastal communities and sustainable development of emerging industries through new technology development and environmental monitoring. The aquaculture industry has diversified into new products. The new salmon farming action plan, developed with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, will provide greater stability for the industry. It will assess the environmental impact of salmon farming and, as necessary, make adjustments to provincial policy-by-policy review, which will be undertaken as part of the action plan.
The aquaculture and commercial fisheries branch programs encourage job creation in local communities, where we are seeing some pressure on jobs in the forest industry. In some cases, such as Port Hardy, the life of a mine has come to an end, and the community is very hopeful that jobs will be produced through aquaculture.
The ministry provided technological support to allow the processing industry to develop in Ucluelet, which I visited recently. B.C. 21 has provided much-needed sewage and water infrastructure to allow the industry to expand. All of this is based on the fisheries resource that Canada allocated to Russian and Polish factory ships for mere cents per pound. The hake fishery in Ucluelet is providing 265 new jobs and an export product from an underutilized species. Our objective is to diversify the resource base of our seafood industry into new, underutilized species.
Financial programs account for $15.8 million, which is 23 percent of the budget. B.C. is working with the federal government to implement a farm stabilization program, or NISA,
[ Page 15493 ]
which stands for net income stabilization account. It encourages farmers to plan for economic fluctuations between good years and bad years. NISA is an example of cost-sharing between the federal government, the provincial government and the producer. Provincial funds budgeted for this initiative have increased from $5.94 million last year to $8.08 million this year. More commodities than ever before have access to this stabilization program.
The federal-provincial risk management program, such as crop insurance totalling $3.25 million, continues to be the mainstay of our financial programs. Crop insurance provides protection to farmers who encounter losses due to natural disasters. Consistent with the ministry's efforts to move toward industry development priorities, industry development funds have been created for some vegetable, fruit and livestock commodities. These funds are unique in Canada because they are industry driven. The funds are targeted at priorities that industry sees as important for its own long-term success. The staff of the ministry assists those programs in getting their projects underway.
In regard to federal programs such as the Western Grain Transportation Act and the feed freight assistance program, which were both victims of the cutbacks in the recent federal budget, B.C. has sent a clear message to the federal government that the province must be treated fairly and equitably for the distribution of federal adjustment funds to farmers.
Animal and plant health and statute enforcement programs are another major client service area and account for $9.6 million of the budget.
The ministry is responsible for administering 11 acts related to animal health and welfare, including veterinary diagnostic services, SPCA, brand inspection, game-farming and livestock protection. The new Abbotsford agriculture centre will provide a state-of-the-art facility for plant and animal diagnostic services to study and prevent disease.
The new centre will be a focal point for ministry efforts in the areas of regulation of apiculture, weed control, plant pathology, plant diseases, the promotion of pesticide safety and integrated pest management and applied research regarding biological methods to sustain B.C.'s grasslands and reduce pesticide use in commercial agriculture. This centre also consolidates the services of four existing offices in Abbotsford to better serve clients.
There are other important ministry initiatives which will help to strengthen this sector. In agriculture, as a result of the recommendation by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture in 1994, I've taken up the challenge to develop a comprehensive agrifood policy for British Columbia. During the past eight months I've been consulting with farmers, producers and local governments to identify the role of agriculture in the province and to reaffirm public support for growing and producing our own food. We have nearly completed the first phase of consultation and intend to circulate a draft paper for broader consultation with farm organizations, industry and the public. We will then consult with urban people to encourage dialogue and to reinforce the importance of farming and fishing in providing ourselves with food we can trust -- food that we have grown, caught and processed.
This government's right-to-farm legislation, which is before the Legislature, improves existing legislation in order to build and improve relationships between farmers and their non-farm neighbors. It encourages local government to plan for agriculture and offers an improved process for resolving conflicts around farming and aquaculture.
[4:00]
This budget also benefits farmers by providing a sales tax exemption as of June 1 on electricity, natural gas, fuel oil and propane used on the farm in engines other than cars or tractors. The exemption will also apply to artificial lighting systems used in greenhouse operations, thermal curtains used in greenhouses and crop protection netting systems. It is estimated that this exemption will save farmers up to $3 million each year.
In fisheries last year we established the Fish Processing Strategic Task Force and received their report and recommendations. The ministry is following up on these recommendations. We are hoping to find ways to improve labour-management relations, encourage diversification and set a strategy for the long-term success of the seafood and aquaculture sectors.
I have appointed Joe Weiler to review section 21 of the Fisheries Act. Mr. Weiler is a UBC professor and respected mediation lawyer who will help design a new joint price-setting mechanism for salmon. I have also announced provincial support for the development of a sectoral council, which is an industry wide body to address issues that affect the fishery. In less than a year, Partners in Progress has invested over $750,000 in partnerships designed to make the seafood and aquaculture sectors stronger. The salmon farming action plan will resolve issues in the industry and lead to a new provincial policy on salmon farming.
Staff and volunteers such as the 4-H, working on behalf of this ministry, have achieved a good reputation with the clients they serve throughout British Columbia. I am confident that the ministry will continue to provide the highest standards of service and excellent programs which benefit not only our farming and fishing communities, but each and every British Columbian. I look forward to the discussion that's going to take place during these estimates.
J. van Dongen: It's certainly my privilege and responsibility to address this session today and comment on the minister's presentation. I'm very, very pleased to have this opportunity to be here as the official critic for Agriculture, given the fact that I have a background in agriculture, as the minister knows, and given the fact that both primary and secondary agriculture are very critical industries in my riding: agribusiness, service to farmers and processing.
I had my first exposure yesterday to the other part of the ministry, which is fish farming, or more specifically, shellfish farming. I want to thank the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Culbertson, for vacating his seat on the plane; otherwise I might not have been able to go there. I understand that he didn't necessarily do it for me, but he did do it. It was a very useful tour. It gave me an opportunity to get exposed to some of the problems and issues in the aquaculture sector of the ministry.
What I found very interesting were the parallels in the organization of the industry, the structures, the biological processes and even some of the terminology. I had a look at the new subsoiler they're building. In one sense, you could draw a lot of parallels between that and an air-blown corn planter. It was a very useful and interesting day.
[ Page 15494 ]
One thing that needs to be said about agriculture, in addition to the positive comments the minister made in sketching out the scale and diversity of the industry, is that agriculture, like mining and forestry, is a primary generator of wealth in our economy. All of us who have a stake in agriculture need to continually remind the rest of society of that. These primary generators of wealth ultimately have to help pay for the social benefits and programs we enjoy. Agriculture, like forestry and mining, is a very important part of many local economies in British Columbia, so it's very critical that we do everything we can to not only maintain but expand the agricultural industry.
I want to highlight and note the various sectors of the industry. The supply management sector, for example, has always been a mainstay of the industry. From 50 to 60 percent of the dollars generated are from supply management. It is, as the minister indicated, under a significant amount of pressure. Probably a different kind of support is needed there. I certainly concur with his comment that we need to be aggressive in pushing the federal government to do everything they should be doing with respect to international trade negotiations and the demise of marketing boards -- which we know is coming, but certainly we try and maintain our independence as long as possible.
Some commodities are struggling. Obviously a lot of them are cyclical, but I note, for example, the fruit industry. We still have some adjustment difficulties that need to be worked on, and I know the ministry is working on them. I also note the vegetable industry, which I think has undergone quite a lot of pressure in recent years. I still have concerns, from my casual observations, that even what's left of it -- particularly the field crops and the sector processing those field crops -- is under significant competitive and economic pressures in terms of the maintenance of their operations.
Certainly there are some interesting bright spots in the industry. I've personally noted the continued growth and viability of industries like the greenhouse industry and the wine industry. Some of the berry crops have bounced back, and that's also very good to see.
I also note the cyclical nature of the industry. For example, the hog industry, in August of last year, hit a price for their product that was unprecedented since about 1972. They had a price that barely covered their current feed costs. Since then it has bounced back, but it underscores why supply management came in in the first place and why we have, as we had in the past, financial support programs like the farm income insurance and now programs like NISA.
I also note some very real opportunities in agriculture, in particular in the sector I was visiting yesterday. It's very interesting when you talk to someone and they have orders on their desk for four times the product they're putting out, and they're very anxious to increase their production capability, but then they go on to explain to you some of the problems they're having in doing that. It's certainly one of the things that I hope we can address in the course of these discussions.
I'll just mention very quickly five topic areas that I think will give some indication of the areas of concern that I intend to talk about, with the proviso that it's not to be interpreted as some kind of a limitation or whatever. As the minister knows, I'm fairly new to this, and we're partly developing the agenda as we go.
The first comment I have with respect to the ministry is that it has the third-smallest budget of all the ministries. I'm not necessarily saying that that's inappropriate, but it needs to be put in perspective that here we have one of our primary industries taking less than $70 million out of a $20 billion budget. We have other ministries, in particular the three large ones, taking a tremendous percentage of that budget. It's industries like agriculture that have to generate the dollars within our province to provide those dollars. While $70 million might seem like a lot of money, it's not a lot of money in a $20 billion budget. I certainly hope that we can at least maintain the budget that we have.
I want to talk a bit about the financial programs segment of the budget; I probably have a few questions in that area. The second general area of concern, which is probably, on the basis of my experience, the single biggest issue and concern that farmers of all commodities face, is the general area of government bureaucracy: rules and regulations that prevent them from getting on with their job. I think you could probably pick any commodity and find that is a generic problem. I want to spend a certain time on that.
There are the three agencies that the minister is responsible for: the Agricultural Land Commission, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the B.C. Marketing Board, and those are certainly areas we want to question, particularly with respect to the Land Commission and the Tree Fruit Marketing Board, areas with a lot of discussion and a certain amount of controversy. There are critical issues that we need to talk about.
With that, hon. Chair, I'll start out with a few questions in the area of financial programs. I noted the minister's comments about the percentage of the ministry budget going into financial programs. First of all, we need to recognize that the farmers in British Columbia are probably the least-subsidized farmers anywhere in Canada or in North America or in a lot of other jurisdictions that you could conceivably mention. I think that needs to be noted. It also needs to be noted in this area that all farmers in B.C. are facing critical adjustments. From that perspective, it's important that we try and maintain whatever financial programs we have as viably as possible.
[4:15]
I'll start out by saying that I was very, very surprised at the decision in the March budget by the government to remove the ALDA program. It took me very much by surprise. I thought that money was targeted and focused. I thought it was a very useful program from the perspective of being able to provide some assistance for projects that had redeeming qualities or redeeming merits for the rest of society. Environmental concerns, for example, were addressed by that program. I guess that would be my first question to the minister: what was the rationale for dropping that program from our slate of programs?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it's a good question. I've received about seven letters so far protesting the decision and asking for reconsideration. When I meet with farmers' groups, I tell them straight up that all budgets are under pressure and that we have to find places where there's the least amount of pain. When examining the ALDA program, we found that was approximately $500 per farmer. That's what the subsidy constituted; that's an average. That was very much a minority of farmers, so we had a choice in presenting our budget to do something to help the farmers on the revenue side. We opted for the sales tax on energy products. We thought that would
[ Page 15495 ]
distribute a larger benefit to more farmers. So all farmers benefited, and it was a case of what we could do to best help farmers.
The pressure is on their input costs. In discussions with farmers, I put it right to them that my discussion with bankers is that they can occupy the field. Granted, the interest rate is higher, but a sharp pencil for an investment of a capital nature should indicate that you'll have a return for that investment. It's my feeling in discussions with bankers and farmers that the $500 average subsidy per borrower is not something that you can't get out of an efficient production.
There may be some element of surprise, but I think the hints have been out there for a while that parts of the program were under pressure. The part of the program that it had been targeted at for a while is environmental adaptation. I think the first generation of environmental programs the farmers needed have been invested in.
The federal Green Plan has a program called the sustainable practices program. There are still funds available under that program for some of those kinds of projects that reduce environmental contamination.
J. van Dongen: I'm wondering what the annual cost was to the ministry for the program -- say, the average for the last five years. How is the $500 per farmer calculated?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The average lending had been an average of $4 million a year, but the value of the subsidy on an annual basis to all the programs was $1.5 million. So we just took the number of farmers who had loans and averaged it. That's a rough figure. I'm sure we could tell you exactly how we calculated it. I did the calculation myself some time ago, and it's been verified by my officials.
J. van Dongen: Did the minister not feel that this program was a good vehicle in terms of dealing with some of the problems that have spinoffs for the rest of society? I'm looking at things like situations where we have the cannons -- for example, in the blueberry industry. It seemed to me that in that kind of situation this program could have been used as an incentive for farmers to deal with those kinds of situations by putting up netting or offering assistance for netting.
It seems to me that the program was a good vehicle to deal with ongoing issues that would present themselves in terms of rural-urban conflict. That was really where the program was going; it was originally set up to assist with long-term financing for drainage and land-levelling, then it was extended into other areas. It just seemed to me it was a very good vehicle to deal with some of those kinds of issues, where the farmer on his own may not be willing to make the decision to invest in the kinds of things he needed to invest in to deal with long-term issues or rural-urban conflict issues.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I won't deny that it was a program that achieved some results. But in looking at it, we found that the largest number of the programs could be picked up by the private sector financers. It's simply a matter of priorities. We chose to rearrange it on the tax side and do a tax forgiveness there, which spreads it to all farmers, not just those who want to invest in a particular set of qualifying programs.
I think that rationale has been accepted by farmers. They know we had to make choices, and, as I say, I think most of them accept it. I won't deny that the program was useful. There are probably people in this room who have taken advantage of that program from time to time.
Further, I'd just like to say that we have to realize that this is a direct subsidy. Sooner or later this kind of program can be challenged under the trade rules. These aren't as green as other programs. I think it's a matter of time. We're finding that more and more, looking at priorities that industry sets up. In our consultations, industry has argued that we should generally try to get away from direct subsidies, so that's one of the programs that got on the cutting block.
J. van Dongen: I certainly acknowledge that we have to be concerned about the implications of the trade negotiations -- GATT and NAFTA -- in terms of what may be green and what may not be green. Like a lot of trade issues, that's open to debate, and we need to be aggressive in arguing our case against other countries with respect to that matter. I don't see them capitulating very quickly on a lot of these definitional-type arguments, and I don't think we should, either. I say that because I think that applies generally to other programs we may have on the books now or may be considering changing.
I just want to ask a few questions about the crop insurance program. It's been put to me -- I can't even remember by who -- that there's a lot of staff involved in that program and that possibly the process could be streamlined somewhat. I ask the question from a position of some ignorance on the program, because I've never used it in my farm operation. It probably applies to certain segments of the industry.
I wonder if the minister could tell us how many staff are involved in that program and comment on the efficiency of labour in that program. What is the process? What are the duties they are carrying out? Could he also comment on the efficiency of labour in that program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The premiere costs of the program are funded 50 percent by producers, 25 percent by the federal government and 25 percent by the province. The province and the federal government share the administrative costs of the program equally. The problem is that the provincial government funds the liability for any deficit, so with that onus on us, we have to make sure the program is run on what you might call an "actuarially sound basis." Our direction has been to push it toward a sound basis.
We've computerized to get some efficiencies. We currently have 38 staff who handle this. The complexity is compounded in British Columbia because of the geographic dispersement of agriculture and the number of commodities. There are about 200 commodities in agriculture, which is a huge number. We are constantly looking at efficiency. We have to meet federal standards to get federal benefits. We have to run this thing to standards that we don't necessarily set ourselves. Since we're responsible for liability, we are pretty cautious.
This program has been audited, and it's always one of the first that the auditors look at. We try to respond to any comments they make. We're running as efficiently as we can with the knowledge we have now. We're trying to run it even more efficiently by trying to make sure that the program is widely subscribed. As you know, crop insurance will be with NISA, the mainstay of support programs. One problem is that farmers think it costs too much, but it is a 50-percent-subsidized insurance program.
[ Page 15496 ]
J. van Dongen: The number of commodities certainly reflects the diversity of the B.C. agricultural industry more so than other provinces. Which are the main commodities that are participating in the program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They are as follows: berries, the provincial premiums amount to a subsidy of $500,000, and there are 157 contracts; forage, $100,000 in subsidies, with 164 contracts; grain, $450,000 and 296 contracts; grapes, $100,000 and 60 contracts; none currently in honey; tree fruit, $2 million premium subsidy, for a total of 1,447 contracts; vegetables, $100,000 and 47 contracts. That's a total of $3.25 million and 2,171 contracts.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister comment on the process of farmers making a claim? How are those claims adjudicated? As for the 38 staff, are they out in the regions or in Victoria?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to summarize briefly. First of all, the majority of staff is in the regions. We have staff in Williams Lake, Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Penticton, Kelowna, Oliver and Abbotsford. The process is basically that the people go out and talk to the farmer, the farmer comes in and they make an agreement on what is to be covered and the conditions of coverage. An assessment of risk is made by staff. If a claim is made, it will be adjudicated. If the client is unhappy with the results of the adjudication, they use an appeal mechanism.
[4:30]
J. van Dongen: The minister mentioned assessment of risk. When the farmer talks to staff, is that at the time of contracting to take insurance or is it part of the process for making a claim? What is the relevance of the assessment of risk?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The rate and coverage are involved when risk is assessed. It's done at the time of the application, and there is some discussion between the salesperson and the farmer. The farmer is offered a rate and certain coverage after the discussion, when it becomes known just what the farmer is doing. He'll be told what to do to get coverage. He might have to irrigate newly seeded ground or set up whatever management practice has to be put in place to ensure that he does his part to minimize risk.
If there is a claim during the year, they will go out and assess the amount of damage and then relate the contract to the available payout. There's a bit of toing and froing, but these people have standards they have to go by. As I mentioned before, there is always an appeal process.
J. van Dongen: On the issue of assessing what the rate should be, do staff have a range of risk levels that they could attribute to a particular crop based on geographic area, management practices, etc? Do you end up with an individual rate for that farm based on a range? Is that how it works?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Never having either applied or claimed under this program, I'm at a bit of a loss and have to get some details here. In assessing the risk, and in order to determine a rate, they will look at the historic coverage. The coverage will be based on a percentage of historical productivity rather than just, say, the last year, which might be the lowest productive year or the best, to try to get an average yield. The risk factors will be those that are based on the area, whether you're in a high rainfall area or a rain shadow or something like that. It varies by producer. If a producer frequently claims, then he's a poor risk. Rates do get individualized a bit, depending on the circumstances.
J. van Dongen: I can appreciate now that it's a fairly labour-intensive process, both in terms of agreeing to the insurance contracts and the settlement thereof. In terms of staffing and the 38 staff members mentioned to be committed to this program, are they fully employed through the course of the whole year?
The committee recessed from 4:35 p.m. to 4:46 p.m.
The Chair: Hon. minister, we now resume our session, and you have the floor.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, and we've had lots of time to prepare an answer. Most of the staff are full-time, but a number are on call as auxiliary staff. They are called in to carry out inspections when you have a hailstorm or something like that, or when there are losses, because the workload increases dramatically, and of course people are anxious to get their claims processed. Contractors are hired to do inspections of crop loss. The auditors have clearly indicated to us that in order to avoid conflict of interest, the staff involved in sales are not involved in underwriting or adjusting claims on the same contract. That sounds cumbersome, but it's fairly important. Incidentally, growers organizations in other provinces have acknowledged that B.C. has one of the best crop insurance programs in Canada. We feel, while it may be considered expensive, it's absolutely essential, and it's an effective program to reduce the risks that you are aware of in producing crops. There's a set of audit standards that must be met, and we're achieving those standards.
J. van Dongen: The minister mentioned the federal component in the funding for premiums. Is the crop insurance program available in all provinces? If so, are the guidelines fairly similar, or is there a fair bit of liberty between provinces as to how they run the program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is some latitude in the way in which the program is operated, but the basic cost-sharing is the same across the country. They don't pay a greater proportion anywhere else. But the program varies in the way risk is assessed -- for example, in the Prairies they do it on a large-area basis. Ontario, for example, has a lower level of insurance. In our case, ours is the most highly individualized because of the number of commodities, but we also feel it's a better quality of coverage for the individual. It really relates to the particular operation and the history of that type of operation in that area. There is a set of general guidelines that is consistent throughout the country.
J. van Dongen: In one of the minister's earlier responses, I think he said that there were 2,200 claims. I just want to double-check that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said there are 2,171 contracts; they don't all claim.
J. van Dongen: I assume that figure was for one calendar year. The question I have is: how many of those contracts
[ Page 15497 ]
resulted in claims? The other figure I'm interested in, if the minister has it available, is the average dollar cost of the claim.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that figure here for the member, but we can get it and supply it to you. I do have the figure for payments to producers last year. Producers received cheques totalling $5.388 million, which is considerable.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions about NISA. First of all, am I correct in understanding that NISA is more or less going through a second generation in terms of the design and development of the program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The original NISA program was in 1994. In 1995 they're looking at a value-added NISA so that people who add value and do some further processing of their product can have larger net sales that qualify for the program. I think it's fair to say that this value-added NISA is the second generation of the program.
J. van Dongen: Have there been any changes in the design of the forms and the application process for the program? It seems to me that the application process was fairly complex. It involved a lot of accounting figures and a fair bit of paperwork to make the application. Has there been any change in that area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you're right in indicating that there was a lot of confusion around. We found that the bankers were encouraging people to subscribe. The bankers didn't think it was too complex, but I think there was a certain amount of misunderstanding around it.
Just to give you an example, 600 people under the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority were counselled on a program that we announced earlier this year. Feedback from both the accountants and the growers is that it's much more simple than they had originally thought. That's partly due to the fact that there has been a simplification in the program; they now have a short form in the application. You realize that it is federal....They do the bookkeeping part of it, but there's been a simplification. They're trying to tie it more toward the tax system. Part of the program change has been trying to get earlier decisions on eligible commodities and so on, so people can collect when they have to. The program is still very much getting up and running. We pushed really hard in the case of the tree fruits in particular, because we wanted people to sign up and to become dependent on this program -- because this is the program of the future -- and not dependent on ad hoc payments.
J. van Dongen: I was made aware that there was a lack of adoption even in a commodity like the tree fruit industry, I guess for various reasons. Probably the efforts that were made to counsel people to get on are necessary and appropriate.
The other federal program that had been running -- and I'm not up to date as to what the status of it is -- is the GRIP program. I wonder if the minister could comment on whether that program is still in operation. If it is, how does it compare to the NISA program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The GRIP program, of course, was for grain. We have given notice, at the request of the producers and after extensive consultation, that we would be out after two years. There would be a replacement program, presumably of some companion type. We're out of it, because they want to move toward more standardized programs across the country.
J. van Dongen: Just to clarify, I understood the minister say that it applies to grain only. When he says the producers asked to get out of the program, I assume that the grain growers in the Peace River would have made that request. I wonder what he means by a companion program or a replacement program. Are we talking about a provincial program to replace their involvement in the GRIP program? Are we talking about some different kind of federal program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no definition to companion programs except that in addition to NISA and crop insurance, there can be -- in this period of adjustment under the trade agreement and by federal and provincial agreement -- companion programs, which are basically whatever the commodity group can negotiate with government. There is the question of what the treasury has available, but we start from what we have been putting into GRIP, and we'll say: "Well, can you configure that same amount in some other way?" Sometimes it's a lesser amount. The eligible commodities for GRIP are wheat, barley, canola and oats, so it's grains and oilseeds basically.
Yes, there was a request from the industry. We are in the process of negotiating with them just what a replacement program might be.
J. van Dongen: I just want to ask the minister if the ministry is still involved in any loan guarantee programs, in terms of bank loans and that sort of thing.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The only loan guarantee program that we conduct now is the feeder loan guarantee for cattle feeders.
J. van Dongen: I'm now going to get into a different section. This is the whole area of government regulation, bureaucracy, etc. I don't mean just in the Ministry of Agriculture, but in a lot of other ministries within provincial government and, in addition to that, local government, federal government, etc.
From the round-table discussions that the minister conducted, starting with the one in Abbotsford last spring, I'm sure he's aware of comments from farmers about the ongoing battles they face with many different segments of government. I want to address that issue. I'm looking first of all at the strategic plan to the year 2000, which was recently put out by the ministry. I note the mission statement.
I want to make a comment about the section entitled "The Current Situation" and subtitled "Challenges Facing the Ministry and the Sector." It sets out seven points which are considered to be challenges. I would submit to the minister that there's one major challenge missing, and that's the challenge of dealing with government generally. I think his notes on the round-table discussions with farmers would confirm that. I think this is something that affects virtually every commodity and every individual farmer at some point in time. It's what I call a generic problem. It was interesting that yesterday, during my tour of the aquaculture industry, we certainly ran across it there also.
[5:00]
[ Page 15498 ]
I'm looking here at three letters. One of them was written by an individual farmer to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; I won't comment on it specifically because of the nature of the problem. The second is a note from one of the farms we visited. I'm sure they don't mind me saying it's Fanny Bay Oysters. I will read one short paragraph from that letter. First, though, let me say that this particular operation expanded. In 1984 they did 9,000 gallons of shucked oysters. In 1994 they were up to 30,000 gallons, 288,000 dozen oysters in the shell and 405,000 pounds of Manila clams. There was major growth in that business. They were employing something like 25 people, and they had major plans for an expansion of their operation. Those plans are now on hold. The one paragraph that I think is significant is: "Our one seemingly unsolvable roadblock to greater or even continued success is the federal and provincial government bureaucracies. Their resistance to change and the constant undermining of a sound business environment is overwhelming."
The third thing I want to read into the record is a little longer, but I think it's another indication of the very real frustration felt by people. This example is also from the aquaculture industry. Here we have three situations in one day. I want to read this letter because I think it graphically reflects what a lot of the industry feels. The minister is probably aware of this letter, which is from a fellow by the name of Alex Munro, who left the shellfish industry. An excerpt from his letter of resignation to the board of the Shellfish Growers' Association was printed in their newsletter. It's entitled "An Open Letter to Those Concerned About Canada's Future." This section was printed with his permission. He states:
"Five years ago I formed a partnership with my brother. Together we've created Raincoast Sea Farm, one of the leading farms in the growing B.C. shellfish aquaculture industry.
"At about the same time, I joined the staff of Fanny Bay Oysters Ltd. as a labourer. In the last year, as operations manager for Fanny Bay Oysters, I have been planning a multimillion-dollar expansion that would employ over 150 people. Unfortunately for those people, the aquaculture business environment has deteriorated so far, because of government policy, that the project has been put on hold.
"After five years in the industry, I'm resigning all positions in the industry, because I cannot win the never-ending battle with government agencies. The last five years have been an ever-present struggle, trying to live up to government rules and adapting to ever-changing regulations. At every turn, the government has been hindering the progress of this dynamic and growing industry. I believe this industry will be ruined by government ineptitude and interference.
"To all those government field staff with the attitude of, 'Don't blame me -- I'm doing my job' and to all those superiors who claim to be advocates of the industry, while doing nothing, please re-evaluate the work being done by your departments and change policies and attitudes so industries can flourish in this country.
Sincerely,
Alex Munro"
I'll use that letter and these comments to introduce a subject that I think is very serious for agriculture and for government generally. All of our rules and regulations are generally well intentioned, and I think the employees of government are 95 percent well-intentioned. But everywhere I go, when I talk to voters, when I talk to citizens, when I talk to farmers and when I talk to small business men, the problem is the same. And the problem is to get through all this government bureaucracy.
I know that this minister has done a lot of work, particularly vis-a-vis other ministries, with respect to these kinds of problems. But I submit that it isn't close to being sufficient. The lack of mention in this strategic plan of the challenges that we face is an indication of that. It's time that all of us in government, in one capacity or another, seriously address this generic problem. I'll stop at this point and ask the minister to respond generally, and then maybe we can talk about some of the specific areas of concern after that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, as a producer myself, I am aware of what producers face when they try to do things. I think, as the hon. member recognized, there's always a good intention. Whether the regulation and its enforcement plays out according to the intention is another matter and can be debated. I would like to get into some of the specifics, but as a general rule, let me say that our ministry has good relations with its clientele, in large part because it isn't a regulating ministry for the most part. Other ministries are doing the regulating.
There are different approaches. Oregon has tried to consolidate a number of the regulatory matters that affect the agriculture industry within one ministry. But then you're the advocate of development, and that runs up against the need to regulate development, so you do get a bit of a conflict within the same ministry. One approach might be to, at least within one organization, assess the cumulative effects of different regulations. We're examining this in the agrifood policy development, and it's my hope that we can get some constructive suggestions out of that process.
In some of the examples you use, particularly the shellfish industry, we've seen a rapid development in recent years in terms of the demand for product. The industry wants to develop and expand rapidly, and as the numbers you showed indicate, people are doubling, tripling and quadrupling their production. As they do that, they want to expand their base. But an interesting thing is happening: they are producing more on what has been a relatively finite base so far. I will admit that there are problems out there, and we are trying to address them. It was the reason for my own tour of the shellfish areas a week ago. We are trying to work with those other provincial agencies. For the most part, it's those ministries that we should be debating those things with.
For our part, we are committed to developing a strategy for the aquaculture industry. We have it underway for salmon farms. I think salmon farming is a perfect indication. Without a regulatory environment, there was rapid expansion, there was economic failure and there were environmental consequences because of poor location, and so on.
I think what you've indicated is that there is a challenge, and we're rising to meet that challenge. We've asked the federal government to commit to supporting the aquaculture industry out here in terms of addressing the lack of responsiveness of its onerous regulations. DFO, while they have responsibility for aquaculture, are not moving very quickly to approve; they are basically a protector of the marine environment and not a developer of the industry.
Our ministry received a commitment, as recently as last week, from the DFO, and I've now got a letter from the minister committing to working to get up to speed. We can't progress by ourselves with it. There are things a province can do with respect to leases, and so on, for aquaculture industry, and we are trying to do that. Recently we announced nine or ten new sites for the fish farms. We need to do the same thing for aquaculture.
[ Page 15499 ]
We consider it a very environmentally benign industry, but I think there are cautions out there that I have to put up. Recently a court decision in the United States awarded 50 percent of farmed aquaculture shellfish to the first nations down there. That's in part because there's been a bit of a displacement of historical fisheries. There's a lot we don't know about the ocean, the ocean floor and the shore. We have to proceed carefully. That's not to say we shouldn't proceed; we should just make sure that we aren't creating problems. That's the purpose of some of the regulations.
I am prepared to admit that we do need to develop a strategy with the industry. This is an industry.... You mentioned one person leaving. There are people coming into it, and it's expanding because of tremendous opportunities. We have to take advantage of those opportunities because we are at a critical point that I think is being generated by the fact that there is an insatiable international demand for their products.
J. van Dongen: Maybe it's appropriate that we talk about the shellfish and fishing industries in terms of specifics at this point. I wonder about the approach and process taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to the whole area of regulation. As I understand it, Crown Lands and possibly the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are the lead agencies. Then there are numbers of other government ministries and agencies involved, like the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Are there things that we could do in terms of process that would help speed things up? One of the suggestions made yesterday was to actually have these agencies schedule a monthly meeting with all their respective staff. They could sit down, short-list the applications that could be dealt with quickly, get them out of the way and maybe segment the applications a little. Are there things we can do in that area?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As a backdrop, I think I have to remind the member that we don't often reflect on this in B.C., but B.C. has the smallest government for the size of its population. This means that we have fewer officials to process applications, unlike Alberta, Ontario or any other province. We don't have as many people to do that. We're asking our people to do more with fewer resources than fisheries ministries in other provinces. That's the backdrop.
In the salmon farming action plan we have.... I'd be happy to provide a copy if you haven't seen it. The Minister of Environment and I announced it two months ago. In it we spelled out that one of the things we will do is pull together all the agencies. This sounds simple, but it often doesn't happen. The government machinery we inherited had to be tuned to have its parts work together. We have to pull together those parts that affect salmon farming and work towards removing the obstacles to moving together. We will do the same for the shellfish industry. We're talking about the fish side right now, but we are doing that on the agriculture side, and I think we need to do more of that.
[5:15]
There are some very good things that could be done with the industries themselves, which are working together with all the agencies, and they can point out how the contradictions or the lack of coordination affects them. Those are very important forums. I think the B.C. Federation of Agriculture held one in Richmond where they did point out obstacles. I think it's an area that's been recognized at the highest level of this government -- the Premier's forum had a session on this -- and we've identified it as an area of challenge that we have to meet head-on.
J. van Dongen: I'd like to ask the minister about some of these regulatory processes within various ministries. Have there ever been audits done of why some of these things take so long? Certainly some of my personal experience with the Ministry of Health and the Motor Carrier Commission -- just to pick a couple of examples -- suggests to me that there are some reasons for the delays that are just not legitimate. I'm wondering if the government has ever done audits itself or if it would consider asking the comptroller general or some other independent source to audit these processes on some of these regulatory situations and look at how things actually happen, compared to how we think they're happening, or how they're supposed to happen in theory.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In terms of audits, there is a continual process of examining, because you hear complaints, you try to find out what's happening and you look into it. The one area that we addressed up front was the Agricultural Land Commission. When I became minister, we were somewhere around nine months -- certainly over six months -- in terms of turnaround time; we've reduced that to slightly less than three months. It is possible to do that, but it takes the reassignment of resources to try to catch up if there's a backlog.
With respect to the shellfish industry, because we aren't the primary regulating agency, we have to work with the agencies that are. We've undertaken to do that on behalf of the clients of the ministry.
J. van Dongen: To go back to an earlier question, would the ministry consider suggesting to the other agencies that a monthly meeting of the regulatory people involved be scheduled to compel everybody to come to the table in one place and deal with it? It seems to me that doing it once a month would be a catalyst in making things happen.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As part of doing business, there may not be monthly meetings as such, but there are certainly regular meetings. I can point to salmon farming where we focused on a problem area. We expect there to be regular meetings of the agencies to review not so much the regulations but the applications for tenures or licences that go through the process. That's happening. We will seek to do the same in the shellfish industry, which is where this discussion started.
In most cases the problems come from agencies that are not in the business of industry development but in the business of regulating or somehow stewarding Crown resources. It is the attempt to make careful assessments of the appropriateness of activities that generally result in the slowing up. Where we are aware of a problem that has been growing in recent times, we are committed to resolving it. If it requires a regular meeting, we'll make sure that happens. We do have regular communications with other agencies.
J. van Dongen: I should say that it wasn't my idea. It came to me yesterday from one of the industry people who has had significant experience at helping people deal with regulatory problems. The reason I say that is that there are
[ Page 15500 ]
examples -- and I've run into them myself -- where you may have six or eight agencies involved, and you have one individual who, sometimes for the wrong reasons, is holding up an application. There have been situations where people are actually looking over other regulatory agencies' shoulders and trying to do someone else's job. It seems to me that we need to put some peer pressure on the one holdout who's being difficult. You know, an industry is being held up here. I think there needs to be an attitude change in some of these agencies. I think there are a number of them that have a good attitude, and if we expose them to other agencies that are being difficult, that will help generate a more positive climate.
Maybe you could comment on that, because I think that's one of the difficulties. It isn't that they're all bad. There may be one or two situations where there is a holdup. It can drag on incredibly and unnecessarily long, even though everybody else has approved their part of that application.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our approach has been to develop a corporate policy so that all agencies fit the policy and it's clear. You don't have one agency that's there to protect the environment, which means no change if you want to reduce the risk, and another one that is there to push ahead regardless of environmental consequences. The key is to link those together and know under what conditions you can allow them to proceed.
There shouldn't be a holdout unless there's a legal responsibility. Clearly some of the holdouts are for reasons where, in the opinion of the agency, they're charged with doing a certain job. If they aren't charged with doing that and exceed their authority, then they should be brought around to it.
We have taken the approach that there isn't a Ministry of Environment view on aquaculture and a commercial fisheries view from our ministry; there's one government view. It's making sure that different aspects of that view are working together. I think in total that is positive. Clearly an industry needs to know what the ground rules and conditions of development are. Without that, it will be frustrating.
We point to the fact that although it's difficult, we're seeing an expansion in most of the agriculture industry. The industry is generally healthy. It has lots of paid-up capital and net incomes have been improving. I think we are focusing in part on emerging industries, although I think some of what you're getting at does deal with old problems that we're trying to deal with. They do require regulatory change and, yes, waiting for regulatory change is sometimes frustrating.
J. van Dongen: I certainly concur with the comments by the minister that there needs to be one government view that is understood by all government employees so that we get some overall context to the thing.
One of the comments we hear pretty regularly right now -- particularly yesterday with respect to Crown leases for the aquaculture industry; and I am sure the minister has also heard it from the beef industry, where they're talking about grazing tenures and grazing leases -- is that people who have all these applications are now being referred to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, with invitations to any of the aboriginal people who may have comment on those applications. Could the minister clarify his understanding of what's involved in that process? What actually does happen? What is the policy of the government with respect to any applications that may have implications for the land claims?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has helped government to develop procedures to be able to discharge our fiduciary responsibility. We have policy out there concerning Crown land -- Crown land tenures, for example.
We have to be careful not to confuse the land claims with the existing law as we interpret it. There are rights out there that exist as a matter of fact, and they have to be taken into account when assigning a use for development which might impact on the aboriginal right -- which is, generally, to use and occupy an area for traditional purposes. Our obligation as government is to ensure that the use that we license doesn't interfere unnecessarily. We have to prove that the traditional use can coexist with the use being developed. So we are trying to establish time lines that are appropriate, so that people know that they can't just sit on an application.
But there is a problem out there, and that is that all of a sudden, when they've never known what was going on around them, first nations are inundated by referrals. They argue that they don't have the capacity or the knowledge to be able to respond appropriately, and then government is left with the responsibility to try to check out what aboriginal right might exist there. Government is trying to ensure that it's carrying out its legal obligations. The potential downside -- and we have lots of examples -- is where first nations can convince a court that they have a right that hasn't been taken into account. Injunctive relief can then be given to them, which will then stop the development for some time. When a licence or any kind of a tenure is issued, we want to know that it won't subsequently be obstructed in its development.
J. van Dongen: My sense, irrespective of how fast the comments come back, is that it still amounts to a judgment call by the approving officer, whether it's someone in Lands and Parks or whatever. Given some of the responses I've heard about that, I'm not sure it's really adding anything to the process or to the certainty for government about the potential legal implications one way or another and balancing that against some fairly long delays in the process and a body of thought that says: "You know, we might as well shut the whole thing down and settle the land claims thing first."
You hear similar comments in the Ministry of Forests, for example. Pressure had to be put on by a deputy minister to move the applications through. I wonder if government could re-examine how we're handling that at this point of time. I certainly concur that there has to be recognition of the land claims situation. But are there different ways we can deal with it in the interim, recognizing that everything is subject to challenge? Everything we do is subject to challenge. Are there ways we can streamline the process and still recognize that some potential challenge exists?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If a government agency acts in a way that respects existing rights that aren't disputed as a matter of fact under the law, then I think we will build the confidence and the resulting certainty that rights will be respected. I think the problem of moving forward is that you can create that uncertainty by suspicion that's continually out there. Most agencies try to develop protocols, and the development of memoranda of understanding and interim agreements are
[ Page 15501 ]
precisely about trying to expedite the referral process. We have a number of interim agreements that are working very well. They provide for checking out probable problem areas in advance. They lay the groundwork so that a permit can go through the system expeditiously.
We're learning all of this, and the proof is there, I think, with the Sam Green case, which you may have seen, where the judge removed an injunction held by a band on a development simply because we had in place a procedure for referrals and we followed it. I also know that as we sit here, there's a court case in which first nations people and companies are examining archaeological sites within some cut permits in the east part of the Cariboo. They're doing that under instruction by the ministry, and they're trying to do it in a way that doesn't jeopardize the long-term relationship between these people, who have to work together. But when we don't know what's out there, people get really cautious. We're in a situation where we have to follow the procedures we've set up and not change the rules. If any one of the parties changes the rules, then we have a right to say, "Well, you've changed the rules on us," and I think a judge would back us up.
[5:30]
To say that it isn't making any difference.... My view is that it is making a difference, but it's sometimes a case of one step backwards and two steps forward. I think in the medium term it's going to improve things immeasurably, but it won't solve the fundamental, underlying land claim problem that we have.
J. van Dongen: The minister talked about interim agreements and said that they have helped in some situations to expedite the process. I'm sure that a lot of the province, though, isn't covered by interim agreements. Would that be a correct understanding? My second question is: do the interim agreements in place include specific agreements involving the regulatory process -- this referral process, for example?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To answer your question, no, not all areas are covered by interim agreements. They have to be worked out. We tend to go where there are problems. In the case of aquaculture we have some, and in the case of shellfish we have some. Yes, they do deal with licensing issues. They deal with the specifics of how we're going to consult on and process aspects that relate to the licensing part. We don't consult on the existing regulation unless the regulation talks about something that affects the situation -- say, the shellfish beds or something like that. But the interim agreements don't cover regulatory review or regulatory change. It's really about how we're going a to address a licence application.
J. van Dongen: Just one further question on the interim agreements: did the Ministry of Agriculture or the minister have some input into some of these agreements with respect to process?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are working on some. We have one that's been signed with the Kwakkiult Territorial Fisheries Commission, and that's an MOU that has been in place for 15 months and cost us a few thousand dollars. They are analyzing sediment loading under fish farms, for example.
There's another one with the Alexis Creek Indian band, where the band is an intermediary and participating agency between the fishing lodges, who are interested in the fish, and the agriculture users -- the ranchers, who use the water for irrigation. They developed an agreement on how they were going to resolve the need for the water for the fish and the water for irrigation, and so they've got an in-season adjustment mechanism. We consider that an interim measure.
There are a number of other ones. I could provide you with some details on them if you like. They tend to vary a bit and are dealing with the problems in a particular region. There might be one tribal council that's concerned with shellfish, another one with salmon farming, another one, as I mentioned, with recreational fishing and irrigation water.
J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:35 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]