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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 4
[ Page 15543 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
Hon. J. Pement presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995.
Hon. J. Pement: There's nothing more tragic than a death that could have been prevented if safer practices had been followed. This legislation includes a provision requiring all bicycle riders to wear an approved helmet -- a provision designed to save lives and prevent needless deaths. The legislation also updates and modernizes our bicycle laws, which have remained unchanged from a policy perspective for almost 40 years. At the same time, we are introducing several amendments, mostly housekeeping in nature, but we are also including a provision to change the duration of drivers' licences -- a move that is tied to our fines collection program.
In developing our mandatory helmet legislation, we have consulted with many groups and individuals concerned about making our roads safer for cyclists. Our partners and stakeholders are the cycling community, the medical sector, educators and police. We have valued their input, and we will be continuing to consult with them. We support and encourage cycling in this province, and this legislation is part of our ongoing commitment to safety and to making our roads safer for all users. I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 50 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and in the House, I call second reading of Bill 35.
FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
(second reading)
Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 35, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, be read for a second time.
As I indicated during the bill's first reading, this bill is being introduced to facilitate collective bargaining between firefighters, police officers and their employers. Under the Labour Relations Code, firefighters....
Perhaps I'll just pause for a moment, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Hon. members, attention would be most appreciated. Please proceed, hon. minister.
Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated -- and we'll no doubt get into some discussion at committee stage -- the bill is designed to facilitate firefighters, police officers and their employers to reach a collective agreement. I want to say, before I make any further remarks with respect to substance, that I have talked to many members opposite, and I realize that there may be a diversity of opinion with respect to the bill. I have talked to those who are supportive, and they may or may not take that position in this second reading debate. But I want to point out that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has been an enthusiastic supporter of the legislation, and I certainly appreciate the support that that member has given to this process.
We have a situation where our police and fire services employees are considered to be under the Labour Relations Code and to have the rights that other people who are covered under the Labour Relations Code have with respect to their ability, at least in theory, to use all of the devices that are normally employed in collective bargaining -- up to and including the, I guess, final weapon in the arsenal, which is withdrawal of labour -- in order to pursue a collective agreement. That is the fundamental basis of our labour relations history and legislation, regardless of which government exists. That is fundamental to the notion of free collective bargaining.
However, fire and police services employees find themselves in the position.... While in theory they do have the right to withdraw their labour in pursuit of a collective agreement, in fact they cannot withdraw their labour. They can take no action to pursue or further their aims in collective bargaining. That results in a situation where there is an impasse or a stalemate, and there is no means under the current legislation to allow those disputes to be resolved.
My own view of collective bargaining is that the more quickly and expeditiously collective agreements are concluded and people get on with life, the better. To have protracted negotiations, negotiations that are dragged out.... For example, the city of Vernon and their firefighters have been bargaining -- not bargaining, quite frankly, in some instances.... Three and a half years have elapsed since the expiry of their last collective agreement, and the issue is deadlocked and stalemated. There is...
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the member from Okanagan will have an opportunity to rise in his place and speak to the bill in second reading. If he wants to wait his turn.... I don't care. He can continue to heckle, and we can take all day on what should be a simple second reading.
The Speaker: Order, hon. minister. The hon. member for Okanagan West is as familiar with the standing orders and the rules as any member in the House. I'm sure that he will appreciate the difficulty created when he attempts to engage in debate from his place. However, I am sure he will have an opportunity in due course.
I call on the hon. minister to please proceed.
Hon. D. Miller: We have this situation where under the current Labour Code, there is no ability in the case that I've described -- where there is an absolute impasse and where nothing can move forward to resolve this collective agreement.... Fire and police services in seven out of the ten
[ Page 15544 ]
provinces across Canada have the unilateral right, in the face of that kind of impasse, to move to an arbitrated settlement. They have that right in seven other provinces; they do not have that right here in British Columbia.
In looking at the issue, we employed Mr. Stephen Kelleher to review it and to try to assist the parties in Vernon to come to a collective agreement. Nanaimo also had that kind of impasse. But I also asked Mr. Kelleher, in reviewing the situation, to make recommendations to me as to how we could make changes to avoid these situations in the future. This bill is a direct reflection of the recommendations made by Mr. Kelleher.
The approach we're using is somewhat unique. It is not the historic approach, where either party in dispute can arbitrarily say that they're going to arbitration. Rather, under the bill that we are presenting today, there are a series of tests that they must meet in order to be allowed to pursue the issue through arbitration.
Critics of the unilateral right to arbitration are right, I think, in some respects. If the parties know that they have the unilateral right to proceed to arbitration, there is a tendency for the parties not to bargain seriously. They do what is called surface bargaining: they go through the motions of bargaining but do not really bargain seriously. It's not to try to bring their positions closer together but to posture and remain far apart on the theory that.... Arbitrators -- as described by Paul Weiler, in his book -- normally do not display the wisdom of Solomon but tend to split the baby in half over time. That is not a desirable result in collective bargaining.
For that reason we have put in a series of tests that must be passed by the party that is applying to proceed to arbitration. The final decision is one that will be made by the Minister of Labour, but only on the advice of officials on the Labour Relations Board and in the ministry after they have been satisfied that the party that is making the application to proceed to arbitration has bargained meaningfully. We're satisfied, on balance, that we have that right.
[10:15]
I've had some recent discussions with the GVRD and with Okanagan Mainline municipalities. Indeed, a representative from the city of Vernon attended those discussions. I'm not going to try to put words in their mouths, but I think there is a recognition of the problem. There have been discussions about the criteria that are contained in the bill. We think the criteria are comprehensive. In addition to that, the minister has the ability to impose additional criteria.
Finally, under the bill, it is not simply a matter of, once a party has received approval from the minister to proceed to arbitration, the arbitrator writing out the new contract in isolation or even in consultation -- in other words, making an arbitrator's decision. Rather, once that decision has been made, that arbitrator has the opportunity to begin a process of mediation arbitration and to try to get the parties to agree to a collective agreement. It's a fairly powerful tool in the hands of an experienced person in mediation and arbitration, in that the parties still have the opportunity to work with that individual to conclude a collective agreement with the full knowledge that that arbitrator will write a decision that is binding.
This legislation is not biased or tilted in favour of employees or employers. It is simply a device that will allow us to resolve disputes without conflict and in a timely fashion in circumstances where we're dealing with services that are vital to the health and safety of the public. I would hope that the members opposite would see the wisdom of pursuing this particular course of action, and I look forward to their comments in the second reading debate.
F. Garden: In the gallery this morning is a very good personal friend. He's actually....
The Speaker: Hon. member, just as a matter of pro forma, would the member request that leave be granted.
F. Garden: Sorry, yes.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: Up in the gallery this morning is a personal friend. He's a constituent of the member for Peace River North. I'd like you to make Brian Churchill, from that part of the country, welcome at this time.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was worried there for a minute, Mr. Speaker. I thought he was going to enter into debate, but an introduction is fine.
I want to say at the outset that I think the minister and probably all members of this House agree with the assessment of the problem by the minister -- agree with, I think, a good deal of what he said up to the point of the solution. I guess that's where we part and come from different perspectives. I guess the solution that has been proposed by the bill before us is one where we're trying to address that difficult position with collective bargaining, where the principles of collective bargaining.... People bargain in good faith and come to a conclusion on their own, and the right of one of the parties is to deny access to the workplace as a form of lockout; and for the other party, the final option is to withdraw their services. That's the way our system of collective bargaining works.
Unfortunately, though, we've designated firefighters and police officers as essential services. As a result, they find it difficult to ever go that final step and withdraw their services, and the employer finds it virtually impossible to ever lock them out. Neither option is one that the public would stand for, nor is either option a very responsible choice by either party. So we have a conflict here between trying to provide an essential service -- something that the public demands and that we all believe is necessary -- and trying to ensure that the rights of both parties are there and available to them as much as possible. That's the conflict here: we have two desirables, which are both mutually exclusive. The government has proposed a solution whereby the minister would take somewhat of a more active role in the process, and the two parties would have an option to move to arbitration. Somebody professional, skilled and trained in the area comes in, looks at the cases of both parties, looks at the surrounding criteria to a certain extent, and tries to come up with some conclusion.
I think the problem with the bill before us is twofold. First of all, historically, arbitration, as the minister alluded, is not necessarily the best way to go -- you don't necessarily find the best solution. Secondly, with arbitration, you have a problem in that the way the government has structured the bill, the criteria around the environment within which this arbitrator would operate are pretty broad. Historically, in this province
[ Page 15545 ]
the pattern of negotiation and settlement has been one of waiting out. You look nationally and try to find the location where the contract is likely to be settled quicker or is likely to be settled at the higher level. Once that high level is set in one jurisdiction, the next jurisdiction starts to move through their collective bargaining process and eventually arrives at arbitration. The arbitrators are then required to look at other settlements in place, and there's really only one -- or very few. They draw upon the findings there without regard to local conditions or circumstances -- without regard necessarily to local settlements in other public sector contracts or to negotiations where the full force of collective bargaining, including the lockout and the strike, were available to the employer and the employee.
So the context within which the arbitrator is making his or her decision is somewhat distorted from the local scene. As a result, in many cases you end up with settlements -- and I think historically I would tend to disagree with Mr. Kelleher and the minister to a certain extent, and Mr. Weiler to a certain extent, I suppose.... I don't think -- in recent history, anyway -- that the baby has necessarily been cut in half, as the minister suggested, but the proportions have been somewhat lopsided. I think the support of one party for this bill and the adamant opposition of the other party indicates that that has been the case. The firefighters are in strong support of the legislation, and those people who bargain on the opposite side of the table from the firefighters tend to be somewhat adamantly opposed to the legislation. I think that's somewhat of an indication of the balance on the bill.
We have to look very carefully to see if we can try to preserve the essentials of collective bargaining without distorting the results. One of the options that's been put forward, and it's an option that I tend to support -- I don't think it's a perfect option, but I think it's probably going to be better than the one the minister is proposing -- is that of final-offer selection. The reason I think that would be more productive is that the goal of what we're trying to bring forward is to increase real, meaningful collective bargaining. The only way to do that is to try to imitate the risk that's out there for two parties if a strike or a lockout were to occur. Trying to put an element of risk in the collective bargaining process that encourages the parties to bargain meaningfully, to try and come to a conclusion and a solution on their own, rather than have one imposed upon them by sitting back and relaxing, and throwing it to an arbitrator -- someone, by the way, that they can blame if they don't agree with it.... That's often the case. Parties for the union and parties for the employer can always blame an imposed solution on an arbitrator; they never have to take their own accountability back to their union members or back to their board members -- or back to council members and the electorate if it's a municipality. What we're trying to do here is encourage collective bargaining, rather than dissuade people from engaging in meaningful bargaining.
The problem with the arbitration method, as I said, is that the parties can sit back, dig in their heels and bargain on a surface level. As the minister said, they can try and make it look like they're bargaining meaningfully, but they never really engage in any sort of risk-taking at the bargaining table by offering something that might break the logjam and end in a settlement from either side. There are cases where the employers have not bargained fairly or meaningfully and there are certainly cases where the employees have not bargained meaningfully, either.
What we're trying to do with the final offer is impose an element of risk and accountability. Accountability is put on the shoulders of the two parties to try and get the best agreement they can. At the end of the day, when they reach that impasse, they're going to have to take those two opposing positions and put them before the arbitrator, and the arbitrator is going to have to pick one or the other. That's where the risk lies. If you're the one who's seen to be unreasonable, if your party is the one that's seen to have dug in its heels and not bargained meaningfully, then the likelihood of your party being the one that loses in that arbitration is far higher. Final-interest arbitration forces both parties to try and get to the middle as best they can. Each tries to appear to be the most reasonable party, the party that is bargaining most meaningfully, so that when the arbitrator has a look at it, they can see how far people have come, how meaningful their offers have been and how realistic their attempts to come to an agreement have been. Then they will more likely be the ones who win in the arbitration.
If they lose, the responsibility doesn't lie with the arbitrator but with the people who were negotiating. They are now held accountable for their decisions. The negotiators then have to go back to the regional district or the council, if it's a municipality, and say why they lost that arbitration: "You obviously weren't willing to bargain hard enough, and as a result, we lost and the other guys won." The same thing applies to the union. The union reps, the bargainers for the union, then have to go back to their members and explain why they lost that arbitration; they have to explain why they got what they got. If they'd given just a little bit more, maybe they would have been the ones to achieve the victory in that arbitration.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. In due course, everyone will have an opportunity to enter debate. I'd appreciate it if members would allow the person who has his place to continue without interruption.
The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston seeks the floor.
A. Warnke: Yes. Considering that there is a pause in the speech being given by my colleague, I would like to take this opportunity to ask leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: On behalf of my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale -- who is a very hard-working member of this Legislature, as everyone knows -- I would like to introduce 85 grades 3 and 4 students from Coyote Creek Elementary School who are seated in the gallery this morning. They are accompanied by 40 parents and by their teachers: Mr. Marcus Berndt, Mr. Kai Chin and Mr. Alan Jones. I would really appreciate it if the House could make them welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: As I was saying, to sum up my comments, I don't think the bill is terribly complex, and I don't think anyone in this House would disagree that the problem exists. The people in Vernon have been without a contract for what seems like ages -- it is ages. It should be addressed and dealt with. The question arises of how we do that, and I have a different solution from the minister's. I know from talking to
[ Page 15546 ]
him that he doesn't agree with my assessment of, certainly, the balance of arbitration and the things that need to be taken into consideration for an arbitrated settlement -- the environment and the direction that should be given to the arbitrator. We diverge on that point. But I do believe there is probably a better solution than the one the ministry has brought forward. I'm not confident that the minister is going to be as successful as perhaps he thinks he is with the structure he has put in place. The encouragement.... Well, he's smiling; maybe he knows something we don't know. But, quite frankly, as a minister, I think he'd probably rather not have to deal with this if he didn't have to, because I can imagine there's going to be a flood of them over the next little while.
[10:30]
I don't believe there's going to be the same ability that the minister feels he has to improve the bargaining system. I don't see anything in the bill that's really going to break that logjam. People are going to be able to apply for arbitration as they have in the past. The only thing that's really different is that they have to prove to the minister that they've bargained in good faith. If they haven't, he's going to send them back. And what are they going to do? They're going to sit there and just let the thing run on again and again. I don't see anything in this bill that's going to change that. I think it's unfortunate. I think that a final-offer arbitration is probably a better way to go.
I will take my seat and wait to hear what other members have to say. I understand the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is an active supporter of the firefighters and of the bill that's before us. I'm interested in hearing his comments, because I know he has a background in negotiations. I'll be encouraged to hear what contribution he has to make to the debate. I'm sure that when we get to committee stage, we'll be able to have a much more thorough, comprehensive and pointed debate on the various factors that I've identified today.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, an interesting issue. This Bill 35 is often referred to as the Vernon firefighters' legislation, and I think the Vernon situation demonstrates clearly the difficulty of collective bargaining for police and firefighters around the province. Strikes are something that both groups are extremely reluctant to engage in. Lockouts are something that the employer -- in most cases, municipalities -- is almost completely unwilling to consider. So we have situations like Vernon with long, long deadlocks, long standoffs, where there is no progress. I know we all -- each and every member of the assembly -- have been lobbied in an attempt to find a solution.
I don't think the government has found the right solution here. If the minister were willing to consider some rather substantial changes that we are going to propose, I believe we could support it. But it seems to me that the fact of the matter is that strikes and lockouts are not a remedy for police and firefighters. We should recognize that. By the minister's own words, they are an essential service. They're vital to the health and safety of our communities. I say: let's recognize that up front.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Then let's, as part of this legislative package, establish and define police and firefighters as an essential service, and eliminate the charade of a strike or a lockout. It doesn't exist in reality. Why, then, should we continue to pretend that a strike or a lockout is a remedy in the collective bargaining process? It simply is not practical; it's not workable. Both sides recognize that: firefighters, police officers and their representatives recognize that, and their employers recognize that. The minister recognizes it; I think most members of the House recognize it. So, indeed, I think we should take the logical step forward and deem them, under this legislation, to be an essential service -- and do away with the charade of strike or lockout as a remedy for achieving a collective agreement.
So that's the first recommendation; the first amendment we will put forward is a formal statement of designation of police and firefighters in the province as an essential service.
Secondly -- and in agreement, at least to a degree, with the opposition critic -- I believe there needs to be some form of final-offer arbitration. I don't think that conventional arbitration is a satisfactory resolution in this situation, and I believe there would be far better bargaining, and far more likelihood of negotiated settlements, if the remedy, at the end of the day, were indeed final-offer arbitration.
I have read with interest correspondence from the Greater Vancouver Regional District. They have looked at this issue, are opposed to this legislation, and have most recently put forward some proposed amendments of their own with respect to final-offer arbitration, and perhaps some variations on that theme which might be employed.
I will speak only very briefly to this, because my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon has far more experience in the area of labour relations. He served as a former Minister of Labour; he is very keenly aware and knowledgable about the situation in Vernon, and he will also be in a position to expand on the amendments that we believe are necessary before the Reform Party could support the legislation. I would say that our support will be conditional, and only with an agreement to accept an amendment with respect to the designation of firefighters and police services as an essential service, and to adopt an amendment with respect to final-offer arbitration. With that, I will sit down and listen with some interest to the other members, and perhaps to a positive response from the minister.
F. Randall: I just have a few words that I want to say on this particular matter, Bill 35, which relates to the firefighters and police. First of all, I think it should be fairly common knowledge that the labour movement generally is opposed to binding arbitration. I think we all recognize that firefighters and police have a special problem, and I agree with comments made by previous speakers that it's very difficult for them to strike. I have talked to them, and they acknowledge that they are in a position where it's not practical, common sense or in the interest of the public to strike, so there has to be a way of finding a solution. I think they accept the notion of binding arbitration, which normally the labour movement is not supportive of.
I guess the question becomes: how do you reach an agreement? I know there was a problem in Nanaimo, but in the Vernon case it was well over three years, I understand, and that is a long time to wait to find a resolution. I think Bill 35 allows for meaningful negotiations; the mediation officer who is involved must include in his report that every reasonable
[ Page 15547 ]
effort has been made by the party who is requesting the arbitration. So there have to be pretty meaningful negotiations, and I would be of the opinion that anybody who was playing a game would certainly not be getting any support as far as the mediation officer goes. I think that when you get to the point of binding arbitration, the arbitrator would certainly be taking a long look at the mediation officer's report on who was not cooperating as far as meaningful negotiations go.
Also, the other point in here -- and I think it is interesting -- is that even while it's in arbitration, whether it's an individual arbitrator or a board, they can encourage the parties to reach agreement while these discussions are going on. That can happen many, many times. I think you'll find that with an arbitration board or an arbitrator, most people are scared of what the results will be, because you really don't know what you are going to get. I think the best deal anybody can make is the deal they agree on themselves. I see this as being very effective. It's going to encourage the parties to bargain more meaningfully, for fear of going to arbitration. I've seen arbitration decisions that both parties were not happy with. Many times they say it would have been a lot better to make their own deal. I think the fact that there is binding arbitration is going to create more meaningful negotiations by the parties.
I've had a lot of involvement in the labour movement, and that has been my experience. Most people don't want that third-party recommendation if there is any hope at all of reaching an agreement between the parties. I think this will encourage the parties to have much more meaningful negotiations. I would certainly encourage all members of this Legislature to support Bill 35. I think it will make for much better labour relations with firefighters and police in the province of British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I rise in support of Bill 35. In standing in support of Bill 35, I would like to advance some arguments that I hope will persuade my colleagues on the opposition benches that they, in fact, should get behind this legislation. This legislation, notwithstanding some of the opposition we hear from the employers -- I'll try to address some of their concerns -- is, I believe, balanced legislation. I have to say by way of introduction to my remarks that I was in preparation of a private member's bill that would address this issue, and I think that having done the research and work, and having sat down with both sides -- the unionized worker as well as the employer -- there clearly is a need for some mechanism to try to break the logjams.
Unless you've lived in a community -- I'll listen with great interest to the member from Vernon, because he has lived in a community where there has been a dispute, and so have I: Powell River -- where there are very, very difficult disputes that leave a lasting legacy of hurt and distrust in a community that otherwise shouldn't have that.... People become entrenched in their positions, and for reasons that are often more specific to the individuals than to the issues, there is no possible way to get resolution. Therefore there has to be a mechanism, there has to be a trigger that can be pulled, that moves us into another stage where resolution is possible.
I guess there are a number of models that can be used for that. One of them is to simply designate police and firefighters as essential services and remove the right to strike, period -- say: "It's a take-it-or-leave-it deal. Here's a final-offer arbitration. That's the way it's going to be, and you can accept that." That's one way to go. I don't think that is the best way to go, because, quite clearly, what we want to do is try to come out of this process with all parties feeling that they have fairly, openly and freely negotiated a just settlement with respect to the remuneration they're going to receive for the work they are doing.
Nobody would argue, I don't think, that police and firefighters aren't an essential component of a community. However, I would argue that we have to be extremely careful, if we're going to protect the rights of working women and men in the province, that we don't arbitrarily assign essential service designation under the Labour Code. There are two quite different things here. Yes, we can acknowledge that they are essential services in the sense that they are essential to the community. But I think we have to be quite careful, in the way we draft our legislation, that we don't remove rights -- not only of the employee but potentially of the employer -- to negotiate a matter with respect to a collective agreement.
It's important for us to recognize a bit of the history of the Essential Service Disputes Act in British Columbia, which came in during the 1970s. It's also important to recognize that the original system suggested that only trade unions could opt for a binding arbitration mechanism. When the legislation was changed in the 1980s under the Industrial Relations Act, we moved away from that designation to a designation that said that you needed the consent of both parties to be able to move forward. Hence we run into this difficulty. If we have the consent of both parties, and if the weight of public opinion falls on one side or the other.... Based on the manner in which the dispute has progressed, by virtue of the kind of public relations surrounding it and by virtue of the economic climate of the time that the negotiation is being undertaken, a huge public opinion hammer comes down that hopefully can move negotiations forward.
[10:45]
Having been involved in public sector negotiations, I can tell you that it becomes critically important for both sides to believe that free, open and fair collective bargaining will proceed to achievement of an agreement. If there is any understanding that either side is going to simply hold out to try to break the other on the basis of an assault with respect to public opinion, the whole decorum within which that negotiation is taking place very quickly breaks down. On very trivial and less contentious issues, sometimes the disputes become quite embroiled and intransigent.
I think this is good legislation, because it says that either side can move forward if there is a set of conditions in place. It also says that under section 74 of the code we have to have a mediation officer to review the negotiations to that point. It also suggests that the associate chair of the mediation division must take that, by way of report, to the minister. There are some steps that need to be taken here, and at each step of the way it provides both parties an opportunity to come back to the table and get down to the business of free collective bargaining. And that's good, because it means there can be no holdout in those negotiations and that we can move them forward before we get to the point of strike or a lockout.
[ Page 15548 ]
It then goes on to say -- and I think this is an important situation -- that if the minister, in review of that procedure, declares that the dispute must be resolved by arbitration, we are going to remove the opportunity for either party...in the case of the union to go for a strike and in the case of the employer to go to a lockout. I have met and talked with a number of people on the employer side, and there are some issues set out in a letter that's been circulated to the minister and made public for this debate by Mr. George Abbott, chairman of the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association, who is strongly opposed to this legislation. He suggests that in this legislation, the employers, taxpayers, electorate and voters lose. I have very carefully reviewed what Mr. Abbott is saying here, and with great respect, I disagree.
If we had moved to a situation where it biased the direction of arbitration toward either party, that may in fact have been a charge that could have been labelled. But the tone of the letter alone gives us some inkling as to why we get into intransigent positions. If the free negotiation with respect to salaries for police and firefighters gets thrown out as a cost to the taxpayer, and therefore the burden of any of those services is the taxpayer's responsibility, and anybody who asks for a fair wage settlement is going to be a burden to the taxpayer, you have immediately politicized the negotiation. You have immediately put that negotiation in an extremely difficult position. That, unfortunately, is the rub that we run into when we get into public sector collective bargaining, because the employer, in the final analysis, is all of us -- ironically, even the firefighters and the police, because they also pay tax. They also are responsible for the cost of whatever the settlements may be with their municipalities.
With great respect, I think that we have to recognize that this is a facilitating measure that provides an opportunity for the employer. I don't think it weighs in favour of the unions, necessarily; in fact, if I was a member of either the firefighter or the police unions looking at this legislation, I would review it with some care and discretion, because quite clearly, either side has this use now. Either side can use this mechanism; either side has this opportunity. If an unreasonable position is put forward on behalf of members of the bargaining unit in the union, quite clearly that's going to be unsupportable in the process of mediation, review by the minister and final arbitration. So because either side can now agree, we have in fact a level playing field and an equal opportunity for resolution of these issues. I think this is a very useful bill, and it's important that it pass. I would hope that my colleagues in the opposition benches would see it to be so.
I think the most important point that Mr. Abbott puts forward in the June 2 letter -- and I think it needs to go on the record; I'll read it -- is: "Similarly, the provincial government does not have the right to require us to place an additional tax burden on our citizens to pay for increased wages and benefits when we would not have done so of our own free will." It's a very important point, because that's one that, if spun into the media and pushed out to the public, is, I think, going to whip up the sentiment of an already overtaxed population that does not want to see their taxes rise.
In fact, in law, the province does have the right to do that. Whether it's morally right or wrong is another issue, and whether it should or shouldn't have it could be debated; but in fact it does. One of the problems that school boards have had in the past is that there has been an arbitrary assignment of budgets, despite the fact that there has been a local collective agreement and negotiating process. Therefore, in the final analysis, the government ultimately has the right to make those determinations and directions to those levels of government. I think it would be an interesting challenge in a court of law if that were to be challenged otherwise, because if it were, then quite clearly the labour legislation would have to be subjugated through the process of local collective bargaining, which is driven by a municipal authority that would therefore be able to implement its own set of standards. So clearly, that statement is actually incorrect -- and I say that with great respect, because I'm sure Mr. Abbott is very strong in his convictions and that he believes that this is in fact bad legislation. The tone of his letter is quite clear.
But I think that the alternative is worse, because if we go to a final-offer arbitration, as is being proposed by the Liberal opposition, or if we go to an essential service designation with final-offer arbitration, it seems to me that we start on a very slippery slope with respect to labour relations in British Columbia. If we want to talk about the opportunity to come up with meaningful settlements for working women and men in the province that are going to be driven by a top-down agenda -- largely driven by the interest of government -- then that's the way we should go. I think that's the wrong way to proceed. I think that what we have to try to do is to instil a labour climate in British Columbia where there can be a collective bargaining process that looks to the interests of both parties -- and, most particularly, that looks to the interest of the people they purport to serve: the public. I think that that can only be done if there is a fair opportunity for both sides to access an arbitration process that will be fair in its construction.
With respect to that, I particularly draw attention of the members to section 4, because I think it does set out a very clear standard, with a prescription of the number of days in which settlement by arbitration must proceed. I defy any member in this second reading debate to demonstrate -- and, when we get to committee stage, to address this -- where that is patently biased to the union. It isn't. It clearly isn't, and neither is it biased to the employer. If the underlying assumption is that an arbitrator is always going to rule in favour of the union, which is what we hear and what I have read in some of the material, I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that that's not always true; the arbitrator does not always rule in favour of the employee.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I can tell you from firsthand information.... I hear my colleague and friend from Okanagan West saying: "They never lose." I don't think that a careful review of labour law in British Columbia would prove that correct. There are times when an arbitrated settlement will provide an increase that the employer may not wish to see; that's true. But that does not necessarily mean that an arbitrator will come in and give the union everything it asks for.
I guess where we may differ is in whether or not the original request is well beyond anybody's expected limit. In other words, does this legislation encourage unions to come in with a completely unrealistic set of requests, in the hope that they are eventually going to go to arbitration and get a saw-off somewhere in the middle? It's kind of like budgeting in government. If you think your ministry needs $100,000 a year, ask for $200,000. Then when they cut it off at fifty-fifty, you'll get $100,000. If that's the kind of concern that is out there, I think that has to be addressed within section 4. I think that the arbitrator clearly has to have at their disposal the opportunity to review labour legislation and settlements that are consistent within the province.
[ Page 15549 ]
Now, I can see where there is another issue that comes to mind, and that is where smaller, interior firefighters' unions or fire departments may be looking to settlements that are signed in Burnaby or Vancouver and saying: "Look at these rich settlements in the urban centres; we want parity with those agreements." Nothing in this legislation changes that. There is nothing in here that suggests that an arbitrator is going to rule that way, because there is a history of labour negotiation and contract law respecting police and firefighters in the province that the arbitrator will be bound by. The arbitrator cannot -- nor will the arbitrator have an opportunity to -- widely direct their ruling away from the set of established contracts and contract law that precedes them.
So I don't share the concerns.... I'm going to listen very carefully.... I tell you, the member for Okanagan West changed my mind on one piece of legislation this session -- who knows? I don't think he will on this. But I'll listen with great care to what their concerns are, because I do believe that this is a fair and balanced piece of legislation.
I can understand that there are some outstanding disputes that have left a legacy of concern and mistrust between parties that currently sit in positions where they have to negotiate. But looking at it as somebody who has had some experience in labour negotiation and has spent a fair bit of time in public sector negotiation, I believe that Bill 35 is a fair and honest attempt to try to resolve what is an extremely difficult and unworkable situation with respect to firefighters and police. I would urge that we drop any partisan issues that may come into this negotiation or debate -- here we are, already in labour negotiations -- and try to work for the interests of all British Columbians. I believe that this bill in fact addresses the interests of all British Columbians in finding a sensible and proper way to resolve labour disputes. I would urge that all members would support it.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 35 in this debate. I was rather interested to hear the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast finally mention the real people who will be paying for these settlements in the province: it's the taxpayers again, often lamented and often forgotten. Unlike in other private sector settlements, it is the taxpayers in the various jurisdictions of British Columbia that will be asked to pay for these arbitrated settlements.
You know, when I listen to the minister talk about the virtues of arbitration, I can recall that in this House this government rejected binding arbitration when it was called for by the B.C. Medical Association. The reason they did was that -- quite rightly -- they did not want to lose control of that part of the provincial budget which related to health care and doctors' salaries -- a quite legitimate concern on the part of the provincial government. They did not want to lose control of that large expenditure of government, which they would do with binding arbitration. It's perfectly acceptable for the government to stand up in this chamber and suggest that municipalities in the province should lose control of that component of their costs, but not us at the provincial level. I think that's the fundamental hypocrisy we're dealing with here.
[11:00]
Let's be realistic about the ability of a number of local governments in the province to pay. We know they face a variety of problems. For example, some of them have inadequate sewage systems that have to be upgraded. They face a myriad of difficulties in coping with growth. Every one of them is facing difficulties and challenges that require decisions to be made with respect to the expenditure of money.
This legislation, which sets up a system of binding arbitration.... The minister and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggest that the arbitrator will be fair, that he will not impose a settlement on the parties that they can't afford. But what real hope does a provincial mediator, a provincial bargainer or a provincial person have with respect to the needs of local governments? What knowledge is he likely to have with respect to the challenges that that municipality faces?
The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, the opposition critic, has proposed a reasonable solution to this problem. He has suggested that final-offer option for the arbitrator represents a realistic compromise. But there are no compromises in this issue. It may well be that the arbitrator rules more in favour of the union than the employer. What's likely to happen if that occurs? I'll tell you what will happen. There will be layoffs of firefighters. The only option that municipalities have is to reduce the levels of employment; it's the only way to save costs. It's the major component of the budget for firefighting in the province. You're going to see layoffs of firefighters. You're going to see a two-tier level of firefighting service in British Columbia. It's the only option you're leaving to municipalities with this legislation.
I respect the fact that the firefighters' unions have been active in British Columbia in lobbying for this type of arbitration. There's no doubt that there's been a problem, correctly identified by the minister, the critics and members of the opposition. But is binding arbitration really the solution, when local communities throughout the province face differing firefighting requirements?
Let's take the lessons learned during the school strikes in the province. I can recall the former Minister of Labour -- the former Minister of Environment, now the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- standing in this House and saying that based on 35 settlements in the public school system in British Columbia, it was a mandate for the rest to settle their contracts. I can recall it well; that's what he believed. This government believes that if they reach a settlement in Vernon, for example, somehow that will be a model to be used by other municipalities in British Columbia. There's no flexibility built into a position like that.
The letter from the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association bargainer correctly identifies the issue, which is a loss of control for local governments over that component of their costs. I think it's a critical issue that they should be concerned about. There are options that the minister has declined to consider and undoubtedly will continue to decline to consider. But the effects of these arbitrated settlements will be a reduction in employment levels of the various fire departments in the province, because there remains no other option.
From speaking to some of the people who have been involved recently in bargaining sessions with police and fire -- particulary with fire departments -- I know that some of the recommendations coming forward from the unions represent a significant imposition of costs on local governments. What has this government done in the past four years to recognize the financial pressures that municipalities face? What have they really done?
[ Page 15550 ]
Interjection.
W. Hurd: The minister says: "Quite a lot." But he would get an argument from a lot of mayors and councillors and people who serve the public in a more direct way in the province than this government does -- people who have to deal with these legislated settlements.
The municipality of Surrey, the city of Surrey, that I represent made a decision that they were going to go for a zero-base budget last year. It was a decision in response to the taxpayers in that jurisdiction. The people said to their elected representatives in Surrey: "Our taxes are too high; we can't sustain any more tax hikes." Quite legitimate, and the council decided at the end of the day that they would impose a zero-base budget.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Well, what we're suggesting with this legislation, if we end up in a dispute with the firefighters, is that that zero-base budget could go right out the window, based on the ruling of an arbitrator at the provincial level. Where's the accountability for local taxpayers in the province? What kind of demands can local taxpayers place on their elected representatives, when this government suggests that a binding settlement in something as critical as fire and police services is in the hands of the provincial government rather than local authorities? That's what's being debated here; that's what's being dealt with here.
I think the solution that has been proposed, which is final-offer arbitration, requiring the parties to submit their agreements to the Labour Relations Board for review, is a much more realistic way of dealing with this issue. Because at the end of the day, binding arbitration, wherever it comes down, however it happens, however it breaks down, represents a loss of control for local governments over something that's critical to local taxpayers.
There are some 176 local governments and regional districts in British Columbia. They all have a variety of needs; they all have a variety of challenges, as I've stated. Some may be able to afford an arbitrated settlement; some may not. I look forward to the remarks of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who undoubtedly has detailed knowledge of this particular dispute that has brought this legislation forward. I imagine there is a legitimate position that the municipality has with respect to its cause. I know that they've incorporated into their boundaries a new portion of land, which has to be serviced. It requires expensive upgrading of sewers, and other issues have to be addressed.
Those are the kinds of tough decisions that local governments have to make. Maybe the desire to upgrade a sewage system in this particular budget year, or even over the next two years, represents a more critical use of taxpayers' dollars than an arbitrated settlement for firefighters. Welcome to the real world. There are private sector companies that haven't given raises in five years in this province.
Why is it that, as a public sector employee in British Columbia, people expect a raise every year? This government stood up in the House and rejected a raise for Provincial Court judges, unanimously supported by the Members of the Legislative Assembly. They said the judges weren't deserving of an increase in British Columbia, and the House agreed with them. But when it comes to a union in British Columbia, and a public sector union, the rules change. They always change.
The proposal that has been brought forward by the official opposition is a reasonable one. In the representations that have come to us, it's one that represents a reasonable compromise. I urge the minister to reconsider the kind of bill he's bringing forward, the kind of costs that it will impose on local governments. At the end of the day, I urge him to remember that unlike other labour relations issues in the province, it's the taxpayers in the local jurisdictions who will have to pay for this kind of arbitration at the provincial level. And the ones at the local level should be empowered under our system of governance in British Columbia to make the decisions that affect local taxpayers for better or for worse.
Again, before I take my seat, I emphasize that the official opposition has come up with a compromise position, a position that has been endorsed and supported by those who have to deal with the current round of labour negotiations with police and firefighters in our province. I urge all members of the House to give those recommendations careful consideration and to support amendments when they come forward, as they will, because at the end of the day, we have to represent all taxpayers in British Columbia; not just those at the provincial level -- we know how they have been treated in the last three and a half years -- but also those at the local level, who need protection, I think, from this government.
C. Serwa: In listening to the discussion here, I guess we're all part of the problem, and perhaps, hopefully, part of the solution. But when we're looking at this, it's one element of a bigger picture, and I think that it's important to say that. Whether it's the government of Canada, the provincial government or the municipalities, obviously the first and foremost thing on the minds of most people is the high rate of taxes and the accelerated rate at which those taxes have grown over the past number of years.
When we look at the provincial situation, we have to bear in mind that approximately 85 percent of the expenditures of the provincial budget are related to labour costs in the public sector. When this particular government took office, they removed any form of controls on wage increases for public sector employees, certainly with respect to school teachers and initial settlements that had been agreed to by school boards, knowing full well that the compensation fairness commissioner would roll them back. They were very high when this government came in. They removed that bit of legislation, and school districts were forced to pay much higher wages than they had anticipated.
The net result of all of this, of course, is the increasing debt that British Columbia finds itself faced with at the present time. There is an accelerated rate of taxation, of spending and of increasing debt. When we look at what we're discussing here in Bill 35, we have to bear the big picture in mind. To remain competitive -- whether it's in the forest industry or the manufacturing or agriculture sectors -- we have to be competitive with every item we produce. Whether it is consumed internally or exported out of this province, it has to bear a part of all costs, be they government-imposed or in the actual cost of production of goods and items.
That's what we're looking at in the total picture. It's not for me to argue one way or the other that firefighters or policemen are well compensated at the present time or that
[ Page 15551 ]
they have good benefit packages. That's a matter we're discussing, and we're hoping to arrive at some form of a solution here that is acceptable -- and acceptable to the public at large. That's the important thing. We're well aware that, generally, the public sector unions have done very well in British Columbia, and I think there is an increasing awareness out there in the real world, perhaps with the baby-boomers coming along and becoming older and having their pensions coming up, that in all likelihood even the federal pensions will be lost, and the only ones who will be looked after with pensions are probably public sector employees.
Those are some of the realities we're faced with. We're also faced with the idea that somehow there's an absolute entitlement for annual wage increases in the public sector to be looked after, regardless of the state of the economy. The state of the economy happens to hit every other British Columbian who is not employed in the public sector, either through wage losses, loss of jobs or slowdowns in business and industry. That's what we're trying to look at and trying to balance.
The position that I bring to this debate in second reading is a position that the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association has put forward. This is the accredited bargaining agent for nine municipalities: Kelowna, Keremeos, Penticton, Princeton, Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Summerland and the regional districts of Columbia-Shuswap and Thompson-Nicola. They are all adamantly opposed to this legislation. In a letter to the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour dated June 2, they criticized the government's handling of these changes:
"With the introduction of this legislation, your government broke a promise it made when it introduced the new Labour Relations Code. Your government promised that it would take labour law out of the realm of partisan politics by establishing a special committee of advisers to make recommendations with respect to future labour relations legislation. You never did establish that committee. Not only did you renege on that promise, you did not even extend us the courtesy of prior notice of your intent to introduce Bill 35."
In Hansard of October 28, 1992, the former Minister of Labour, also the former Minister of Environment, made a couple of statements.
An Hon. Member: Now a backbencher.
C. Serwa: Now a private member, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. These are the former minister's words: "We think that labour legislation must ensure that the public interest is protected during the course of labour disputes." That's very important: that the public interest be protected. I think that warrants memory and consideration. He goes on to say: "We think that one of the fundamental purposes of labour legislation is to encourage the use of mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. We've done that through this legislation, through the example of binding arbitration only" -- and I stress only -- "with the consent of the parties." So the minister at that time was certainly aware, and there was this commitment on behalf of the minister and the government: only with the consent of both parties.
[11:15]
They go on to criticize the effect of the legislation. The minister has alluded to some of this in his opening remarks, because he's certainly privy to and has read the correspondence.
"Unions do not bargain when arbitration exists as the ultimate method of resolving bargaining disputes. They take what they can get at the bargaining table and refer the rest to arbitration -- and why not...? They have nothing to lose. In fact, a review of interest arbitrations clearly demonstrates that the union wins -- not just some of the time, all of the time. Employers, the taxpayers, the electorate and the voters lose...this legislation most certainly would appear to be an attempt to buy off the continued support of the union for the pending election."
There's some question.... My colleague the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has indicated that in his mind, the unions do not always win. Nevertheless, if you look at the base criteria, they always do win. They may not necessarily achieve parity with Vancouver or Toronto or somewhere else, but in this particular case their position is always advanced. Not in all elements; some elements may not be advanced at all. But they never suffer reverses. They gain, but perhaps not what they fully want. Once they have bargained for as much as they possibly can, they have fundamentally nothing to lose by going to arbitration. That is why I say and I believe that they always win.
An Hon. Member: Where have you been? I thought fantasyland ended in 1991. Are you still there?
C. Serwa: I think, member.... I hear some muttering from the dark, deep corners of this legislative room. If the member has anything concrete to add -- and he will, because he has not once represented constituents but has certainly represented the labour movement ardently -- I'm confident that he'll rise in second reading debate.
The role of local government is clearly being usurped in this legislation, and the association is quick to point it out:
"If a municipal government decides that it cannot afford to increase employee-related costs, then, Mr. Minister, with respect, the provincial government does not have the right to require us...to place an additional tax burden on our citizens to pay for increased wages and benefits when we would not have done so of our own free will."
It has been quoted again, but fundamentally this is part of the real world and part of the economy of communities throughout British Columbia. The economy of British Columbia is not necessarily the heated economy of the lower mainland or of the greater Victoria area, which is fuelled by different resource abilities. They have a distinct advantage over many of the economies throughout the province.
"The real loser in all of this is each individual taxpayer in our communities, and that, Mr. Minister, is morally and fundamentally wrong."
That's the position they have taken; the association supports arbitration when mutually-agreed upon, and that exists under the current labour legislation.
"We strongly urge you and your government to abandon Bill 35. We respectfully suggest that the current legislation requiring both parties in a dispute to agree to arbitration is the correct approach, is workable and is most representative of free collective bargaining."
The bill provides no specific consideration of the public's ability to pay or of the comparability of pay standards to those in other jurisdictions to determine what is reasonable. Section 3 allows the minister to set terms of reference. Section 4(6) sets out factors to be considered by the arbitrator. The interest and welfare of the community, as well as any factors affecting the
[ Page 15552 ]
community, are to be considered under subsection (6)(d), and any other factor that the arbitrator or arbitration board considers relevant is to be considered under subsection (6)(f). So why not require consideration of the ability to pay, and pay for the same services in other jurisdictions?
The basic problem with the current collective bargaining model is that it operates mainly by seniority. The more often the agreement goes to arbitration, the more raises there are. Public bodies will respond by cutting staff, if possible, or through other cost-cutting measures. When staff is cut, it is cut by seniority. The old hands have an interest in going for the biggest wage increase attainable since it's the newer or the younger individuals who will lose their jobs. We've seen this in the forest industry, in the IWA, where wage increases have continued in the last ten or so years. More than 30 percent -- 35 percent -- of IWA members have lost their jobs. The reality is that there have been wage increases, but for the industry to compensate for that, productivity through mechanization and computerization has had to be utilized. And when we look at the operations in the bush in the harvesting process, or in the milling process -- the processing of wood fibre -- we increasingly find resorting to mechanization to minimize the higher labour cost. Not only does the employer really lose -- or the community -- but certainly the employment opportunities for people are lost. That is a significant concern. If public bodies respond by cutting staff, we lose jobs and we lose economic viability in a lot of communities.
With arbitration easily available, the union has no interest in settling unless they have a friendly council. The council can't hire replacement workers or choose the best of workers to keep in a layoff situation. Even if not designated an essential service, it is virtually so, in terms that the community will tolerate.
Wages can't rise beyond competitive levels, which cuts down on employment expansion and may lead to layoffs or unnecessary and unreasonable tax hikes. Thus it is neither a free-market situation nor a true collective bargaining situation, since management has one arm tied behind its back. There are a number of possible solutions that we will be looking at, probably in the process of this debate and certainly in discussion on the section. The ability to pay has to be first and foremost. That ability to pay means consistent, fair, equitable and just treatment of all employees within a reasonable economic plan or budget for the municipality. That means fairness for all of the taxpayers and the ability to increase revenue through taxes. It does not mean changing priorities to cover wage increases; it does not mean arbitrators can manage a public employer; it does not mean freeing up money through layoffs or liquidation of assets.
Also, the Okanagan Mainline municipal association, through their organization bargaining, provide a set of guidelines for assessing labour market comparability and the arbitration process; employment terms and conditions in the general local labour market for the community in which the employees work; terms and conditions of employment for employees doing similar work in the community served by the employer and the employees; settlements freely negotiated between the employer and its other occupational groups. They have also provided figures showing that since 1983, arbitrated settlements in their region have resulted in a cumulative differential over freely bargained CUPE agreements, ranging as high as 12 percent. The NDP legislation is apparently the 12 percent solution as far as most taxpayers are concerned.
I listened closely when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds spoke. He said that unions do not like binding arbitration and everyone is scared of the results. Nevertheless, it appears that the results have worked very successfully in favour of unions, out of all proportion to the freely negotiated bargaining between public unions and public employers. They suggest mandatory votes on all comprehensive management offers; mandatory public bargaining sessions for greater accountability to taxpayers; and final-offer selection, which encourages both sides to seek a reasonable compromise, since one position or the other will be selected. I think that is certainly a viable and practical opportunity.
I don't think anyone likes to see a dispute such as that which occurred in the Vernon area -- or in any other area. But the rules of the game have to be laid out so that it is exhibited. The perception and the reality is that fairness and balance exist -- fairness and balance not only for the employer, which is a public agency, and the employees, but obviously for the taxpayers and the public sector. When we see what is happening in British Columbia we are mitigating our competitive position in the expanding trade market we must play in. We must be viable, competitive players in that. We cannot deal in isolation in an internal economy and still expect our manufacturers to compete successfully, either in the local market or in the export market. Unless we are able to do that, we will lose the advantages we have in the strength of our economy and not be able to provide the quality health care or education, or even the social services we're providing at the present time.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks and look forward to continuing this matter in Committee of the Whole.
R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to introduce to the House today 18 students and teachers from Chilliwack Christian School. Mrs. B. Bakker and some adult supporters have come to this precinct to watch parliament in action. I hope they're learning how we govern ourselves as a society today, and that they have a good visit to Victoria, this wonderful city. Would the House make them most welcome.
H. Giesbrecht: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 35, Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act. I would like my remarks to be relatively brief, considering that there are a number of speakers who wish to speak after me before noonhour.
I come from a profession that was subject to compulsory and binding arbitration for many years, until the previous government decided to give them the freedom to bargain collectively like most other normal professions. The suggestion has been made, of course, that introducing arbitration somehow unleashes the floodgates, and that the money will pour out to those people who are engaging in the process. I'd like to assure the members that never in all my years did the statistics ever show that the arbitrations exceeded the normal trends in the private sector; in fact, they generally tended to follow the trends in the private sector. So the argument that somehow there's going to be a flood of money flowing and
[ Page 15553 ]
that the taxpayers will be hard-hit by this doesn't stand up to the reality, I think.
The member for Surrey-White Rock made what I thought was a rather incredible statement, which was that we can't have an option for arbitration, or for third-party mediation and arbitration, because the employer needs the right to dictate the terms of a settlement. That was essentially the argument. There was a lot of other sort of extraneous stuff that entered into the discussion, but I found it rather interesting that it is quite acceptable in this day and age for an employer to dictate the outcome through total indifference and neglect, and that you couldn't have an arbitration process that would actually settle an issue. I found it quite incredible that there would be people actually arguing that in this day and age in this House.
[11:30]
Clearly that's an indication of the difference between the government and some of the opposition members, particularly the last two who have spoken. I would think that in terms of the public sector, the ability to pay has always been a factor -- and it's always a factor even in arbitrations. The issue is frequently raised by any agency, any council, any board that has to be responsible to the taxpayers. It's always raised in arbitration hearings, and it's considered by whoever does the arbitration. That's part of the case that's made; it will always be there. There have been arbitrations where the increase has been so marginal as to be insignificant. That could possibly be the case if the ability of the taxpayer to pay was a factor that the arbitration considered real and to be dealt with.
I listened with interest to the member for Okanagan West, who wanted to revive some form of the old compensation stabilization process. In the first place, he argued that you shouldn't take the ability to make the decision away from local governments and local councils, but in turn that there had to be government direction and interference in the process. I thought that seemed a little strange. You can't have it both ways. If you have confidence in the local council to make a decision and to present a good case for the arbitration, then don't argue that the government needs some other form of control to influence the outcome that is totally unrelated to the local situation and does not consider any of the local needs. That would be political interference, and I can't see that anybody in this day and age would argue that you need that to further influence an arbitration. I thought that was rather inconsistent.
I want to wrap up my remarks fairly quickly. Here's a bill that offers those in the fire and police services -- those are the truly essential services in the province -- a reasonable option, and the option is something they're willing to undertake. They really don't want to strike; the public doesn't want them to. Tremendous public relations damage results from any job action, and there's a tremendous risk to the population. They have requested a reasonable option. All the opponents can suggest is that we keep them at the mercy of the people who don't want the arbitration process because they don't want a fair result. I find that incredible.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to say just a few words on the bill before us: Bill 35, the Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act. I'm pleased to follow the member for Skeena. I note that the member for Skeena has full confidence that arbitration will achieve fair settlements. He indicates that he's had no problem with arbitration in the past, and maybe that's one of the reasons there's a concern in the House about whether arbitration -- binding arbitration in particular -- is the fair way to go.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member for Skeena now says he didn't like arbitration. He's contradicting what he just said in the debate. During the committee stage, maybe he'll get a chance to clarify that. But I won't be distracted, because I want to keep my comments on this bill brief.
There are a couple of delicate questions which the minister is trying to address with this piece of legislation. First of all, we all know that those men and women in British Columbia who provide fire protection and police services, and who serve as peace officers, provide among the most valued services to the public of any British Columbian in the public sector. They're valuable employees. They are highly valued in each and every community in this province, and we want to see them continue to do an excellent job on behalf of British Columbians. I don't think there can be any question about that from any member of this Legislative Assembly.
The question is: how do we address the issue of collective bargaining, fairly and freely, for them? We know that members of those unions representing those men and women have made representation to -- maybe we could call it lobbied -- members of this Legislative Assembly because they've been concerned about the need for some form of interest arbitration that will break the deadlocks that have occurred in some communities.
One of the questions we have to ask is: why is the experience in some municipalities different than in others? Why do we have a situation in Vernon that goes on for three years, unresolved? Why do we have a situation in Nanaimo or in Powell River, as members have indicated? And why is it that in other municipalities we don't have any problems? Why is it that in some municipalities we are able to establish dispute resolution mechanisms that are appropriate to the labour relations history and experience in those communities in a satisfactory way that doesn't end up in disputes or the withdrawal of services or the threat of that? Why is it that in some exceptional circumstances -- and fortunately these are the exceptions to the general rule -- we have problems? How do we resolve that?
The minister seeks to resolve that by bringing in Bill 35, which brings in a form of binding arbitration where the minister himself will play a direct role. Is that the appropriate model? Is that what we want to see in British Columbia?
Some other models have been suggested in this debate. The members of the Liberal opposition have talked about final-offer arbitration perhaps being the alternative. That's an idea that's been discussed in industrial relations theory. It's been used in the United States and in other jurisdictions. It's hard for me to understand how final-offer arbitration is going to present a preferable solution to the problem if what we're concerned about is cost-effectiveness -- and I think we all should be concerned about cost-effectiveness for municipalities -- and if we're concerned about the off-loading question that has also been raised at the municipal level. One of the realities of politics in British Columbia is that as governments devolve from the federal to the provincial level and from the
[ Page 15554 ]
provincial to the municipal level in terms of responsibilities, municipal politicians have to be concerned about getting increased responsibilities and increased costs without the resources to cover those costs.
If we're simply saying that the government of British Columbia is going to say, "Look, we'll impose binding arbitration, and the municipalities will have to pay the cost," that's not exactly going to be popular with municipalities, which are struggling as it is in a period of fiscal restraint, where off-loading is a very real, practical concern to those who are trying to balance their budgets at the municipal level -- and, of course, municipalities are required by law to balance their budgets.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Liberal opposition raises an interesting point about final-offer arbitration, but that doesn't address the issue of cost-effectiveness. It does not deal with that at all, especially when the leader of the Liberal opposition talks about how if he became Premier -- heaven forbid! -- and ever sat on the government side of this House, he would slash public service salaries by 10, 15 or 20 percent. Now, if he's going to do that, presumably that is going to affect police officers and those who fight fires and provide emergency fire services as well. If he's going to cut their salaries by 10 or 15 or 20 percent, how is final-offer arbitration actually going to work? Is he -- and are the Liberals -- actually in favour of bringing in measures that are conducive to collective bargaining in this Legislature?
When the Leader of the Opposition travels around the province talking about how he's going to slash the salaries and benefits of all public servants by 10 or 15 or 20 percent -- whatever the number is on the particular day he's making his speech -- then the position taken by the members of the Liberal opposition, I regret, doesn't have a lot of credibility. Even though I think they're trying to speak genuinely to the concerns of this bill, their concerns about cost-effectiveness and about off-loading to municipal levels of government don't really wash when you talk about that.
I note that the Liberal opposition is also talking about some kind of community charter, which is also supposedly going to help municipalities in the province. Again, that doesn't seem to jibe with the position they've taken on this bill.
I raise those as questions. The leader of the Reform Party has raised the issue of whether or not essential services should come into this, and I think that is the most important contribution we can make to this debate at this point. Should fire and police services be regarded as essential public services? The governing party, the NDP, has brought in a new Labour Code that really makes it difficult and that takes away the provision for designation of essential services for a number of services. The minister brings in a separate piece of legislation; he could have just amended the Labour Code. He could have brought in a simple amendment to the Labour Code, allowing for the designation of fire and police services as essential services. That is one solution. It's one solution that I have a lot of sympathy for, but the minister didn't choose to do that.
He brought in something else. He brought in a bill that, under section 3, gives him, as minister, extraordinary powers in terms of having the discretion to direct a dispute to be resolved by arbitration. The settlement by arbitration, under section 4, is interesting. Section 3(4) gives the minister the power to effectively declare those services essential. So instead of declaring the services essential, this minister says that he, as minister, should have the power and the right, exclusively, to decide whether or not providers of fire and police servies should have the opportunity to strike -- or be locked out, if they are the employer. Why should the minister alone have those powers? Perhaps they should be codified in law. I think that's the issue that should be debated here. I'm going to terminate my comments at this point and save the remainder of my comments for the committee stage.
L. Hanson: Someone referred to this bill as the Vernon firefighters' bill. I think it is fair that it be called that, because that's the issue which has triggered the minister's initiative.
I think that we should look for a moment at why we are here debating this particular issue. Obviously, we've had strikes before in health care; we've had strikes in education. We resolved education by coming back to the Legislature and ordering a form of binding settlement, which, of course, I might point out to the minister, is available under all circumstances where strikes are prolonged and, in the opinion of the government, are unreasonably prolonged. I think the minister is aware that that opportunity is available.
Obviously, when the government brought in the revisions, or the new Labour Code, there was a lot of discussion surrounding the issue of essential services. The debate went on for some time that there should be a designation for certain segments of our service community that are essential and therefore should not have the right to strike. I think the minister, in this bill, is trying to avoid the appearance of his government removing the right to strike from the police and firefighters, but in fact that is exactly what has happened.
I have to oppose the bill as it is structured now, knowing some of the reasons for the issues that happened in my own community. The major issue was.... I have to build a little bit of a story to make this clearly understood. There was an initiative by the city of Vernon to take in a community bordering the city's boundaries -- a community of, I think, something like 4,000 or 5,000 people. Part of the initiative to include them within the boundaries of the city were the issues of sewer and water and a volunteer fire department that was serving the area.
Those of you who have had some experience in a municipality -- particularly in the smaller ones -- have some recognition of the volunteer aspect of a volunteer fire department in terms of other services they provide. They become almost a club, a community, an organization within that community. They do all sorts of volunteer things -- raise money -- that have nothing to do with firefighting. They become a very active and very, I think, necessary group of people.
In the negotiations over the years with the city of Vernon firefighters, the clause was put into the contract -- and duly negotiated, I believe; I don't know whether it was awarded by arbitration or whether it was negotiated -- that the international British Columbia Professional Firefighters' Association had the exclusive right to operate equipment that was used for the purposes of firefighting. Volunteers were okay to have, but they couldn't operate any of the equipment. Naturally, the volunteer fire department of this community that was taken into the city wanted to continue with their service and their provision of protection. The association of firefighters said:
[ Page 15555 ]
"No. We have in our contract the right to operate the equipment, therefore we have to take over that fire hall."
I think it has been fairly well established that as far as wages and benefits are concerned, one side takes the lower position that they can, and the other side takes as many higher comparisons as they can. In this particular case, most of the firefighters have taken the position that they want parity with their big brothers in Vancouver. I think all of these issues were compounded, to a degree, by the fact that the president of the British Columbia Professional Firefighters' Association happens to be one of the firefighter drivers in the city of Vernon. I suppose there's a certain amount of one-upmanship or example-setting that came into those negotiations, also.
The bill that we have in front of us will not encourage realistic negotiations. The experience with interest arbitration -- and that's what the bill says they are going to apply -- is that the arbitrator tends to cut somewhere in the centre and arrive at a solution. When people know that this is hanging over their heads, that encourages the one side to take as low a position as possible and bargain unrealistically; it encourages the other side to take as high a position as possible and bargain unrealistically. Hopefully, when the arbitrator is appointed, we end up somewhere in between. I think the expression is "cutting the something in half." That's where we arrive. That is not in the best interests of that community.
[11:45]
In the community of Vernon, there was a strike vote by the firefighters. That was supported by 19 out of 20. I don't know if they ever found out who the one was, but in any case, they supported the right to strike.
The city of Vernon and the council.... There are seven people elected there democratically. I hope we all recognize that they were elected by the people of that community to look after their business. They said: "If you want to go on strike, we will allow you to go on strike; but first of all, we have to apply to essential services to find out how much manning is required in the interests of public safety."
They went to the Labour Relations Board, and they did designate what were essential services. Of course, there was an argument about how much essential services were required. The firefighters said that they wanted everybody declared essential, the city said they only wanted the dispatchers, and there was some compromise in the ruling by the Labour Relations Board. But at the end of the day, the firefighters decided that because of the public interest they could not go on strike. Yet the duly elected members of the council of the city of Vernon were prepared to accept a strike by the firefighters as a test to see where the public, I guess, stood on the situation. It has become, I must admit, a thorn in the side of this government as well as the labour relations community in the province. They have been without a contract for almost four years, so I don't think the legislation we have before us is going to settle that issue. I recognize that the minister has mentioned a number of tests he will apply before there is the ordering of essential services. But unless there is some discipline to the process -- unless there is some method put into the process that provides a discipline on the two parties -- interest arbitration will not work to resolve these difficulties.
The minister is dedicated to passing this bill, and I firmly believe that with some modifications it might be acceptable to those communities. Without those modifications, I don't think it is acceptable. I think the minister should consider the compromise that has been mentioned by the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association and by the GVRD that final-offer arbitration be incorporated into this act, as well as the requirement for the arbitrator or the arbitration panel to consider the settlements that have been made in that community -- not the settlements that have been made in Vancouver versus Vernon, but the settlements that have been made within the city of Vernon with its CUPE, health and school board employees. It should be a term of reference given to the arbitrator that those settlements must be considered in the awarding of the final offer.
But I also think if the minister is honest -- and I'm not suggesting he isn't.... As a matter of fact, I have to give him credit for being maybe as straightforward as anyone sitting over there. I think the minister would recognize that through this process, he has effectively made fire and police protection services essential services and removed the right to strike. Now, I know that he is going to say that he hasn't. But I'll almost make a wager, Mr. Speaker, that there will never be another strike by a police force or a fire department in British Columbia as a result of this kind of legislation. I am not a supporter of them striking....
I see the minister waving his hands and gesturing: "What else can I do?" I have some sympathy for that situation, because there has to be some solution in an impasse, as we have here. But if the minister is truly concerned about the health and safety of British Columbia, why didn't he include in that act a number of other services, which I think British Columbians could consider as essential to the health and welfare of this province as police and fire protection? I'm opposed to the bill as it's constituted now, and I look forward to committee stage of the bill.
F. Gingell: I also welcome the opportunity to speak very briefly to Bill 35. I think all sides of this House subscribe to and agree with the right to organize. We all agree and understand that certain services provided by public servants are what we would call essential services. I think we all recognize that in those circumstances, lockouts and strikes are no solution. I think we also understand the reluctance of governments to leave the decision about how much money they will spend in the hands of third parties, because that's clearly their role and responsibility. It's what governments are elected to do.
So how do we get resolution? How do we have a process that causes resolution to take place? Clearly we have to give up some of those rights, or one of those rights, to arrive at a conclusion. I presume that everybody is willing to give up the right for a government to determine the amount of money that is going to be spent, and accept the proposition that the taxpayers are going to be sent a bill for whatever additional costs may arise through this process.
I'd like to just make sure that we're all understanding the right words, because the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, as did some of our own members, referred to a process called final-offer arbitration. I'd like to suggest to you that there is no such thing. There is either arbitration, in which a third party looks at all of the offers that have been made and strikes a new arrangement, or there is final-offer selection, in which the party that is given the responsibility determines which of the offers is to rule, and no other -- they cannot be changed; they are to be taken in their entirety.
[ Page 15556 ]
I was a member of a school board in the early 1970s when wage settlements in the public sector hit their all-time high. I got used to the practice of agreeing to the settlement and then immediately bending my back so that an adjoining school district could promptly leapfrog over us -- and that's what happened, in fact. So when one looks at all of the options there are to bring resolution -- because in the end that's what this legislation must do; it must bring resolution to the situation -- the one that appeals to me, the one that makes the most common sense and the one that I believe will cause parties to bargain in good faith and in a meaningful manner, is that of final-offer selection. As I say, I never like the role or the decision of government to determine how much money is to be spent to be removed from government's hands. But I guess that has to happen.
In the interest of causing the parties to quickly get to sensible, thoughtful and acceptable positions, I believe that final-offer selection is the right process. This dispute that people talk about, whether it was three years or four years.... The contract expired on December 31, 1991, so it will be three and a half years in 15 more days. Clearly that's not an acceptable way for things to happen.
I join my colleagues in the official opposition in suggesting to the minister that, yes, we agree that a solution is required, but we do believe that there is a better solution than the one he has proposed.
With that, I move that we adjourn the debate.
Motion approved.
J. van Dongen: I ask leave of the Speaker to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. van Dongen: I would like to introduce to the House my uncle and aunt, Bill and Anne Zylmans, from Richmond. They operate W&A Farms on Westminster Highway in Richmond. Bill and Anne invented direct farm marketing many, many years ago. Accompanying them from Holland are two other members of my family who are here on a visit. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
On vote 12: minister's office, $332,812 (continued).
J. van Dongen: First, I want the minister to know that I worked very late last night to try and dream up some tough questions for him. We were not too successful on that, but I did peruse the Hansard of last year's estimates, and I found an interesting comment: "I can confirm that ALDA is not being cancelled." That was a comment made by the minister on June 6, 1994. I found it rather interesting.
Like a dutiful MLA, I talked to my House Leader and asked him what I should do with this. He said that I should really take the minister to task on that and allege that here was a government that didn't live up to its promises and all that sort of thing. I want the minister to know that I've just done that and lashed him with a wet noodle and done my job. It is interesting how things appear to change in one year.
D. Schreck: I'm beginning to like this new member more all the time.
J. van Dongen: You may be disappointed at some point in the future.
I indicated to the minister last night that we would start on the Agricultural Land Commission and those issues today. I have a copy of the report of the auditor general. I have had the benefit of sitting through a Public Accounts Committee which reviewed this report, and I'm not going to question the minister in detail on it. I am aware that there have been specific responses to the recommendations made by the Land Commission, and I just want to ask a few questions generally about the process and the outcome of this report from the minister's perspective and about his directions and relationship with the Land Commission. From that I may want to talk a little bit more generally about directions and relationships in other parts of the ministry.
The audit seems to based on the following questions: what are the objectives? Have we established the objectives? Do we know clearly what they are? How are we going to measure performance in terms of achieving those objectives? How are we going to report that to the Legislative Assembly so that the Legislative Assembly and the public knows that they're getting value for money?
I wonder if the minister could comment in terms of his own reaction and what he's done since this report was been tabled.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was just reviewing, in case there was something new that the Land Commission had done that I wasn't aware of. I think I'm aware of everything they've done. I took the report seriously when it came out, because people who are not supportive of the land reserve could take it negatively. I think if you look at it, there are a lot of positive suggestions.
The Land Commission has purchased computers. I remember the first week or so that I was minister, I looked at their office records. Over the years, they had been starved for funds and were using a very old paper system to process documents. It was my determination that we would reduce
[ Page 15557 ]
the turnaround time, improve the efficiency and thereby reduce the frustration of local governments and individuals who wanted to appeal. We've reduced the turnaround time from over six months to around three months, so it is more efficient in that respect.
The Land Commission will move on every recommendation in the auditor's report that they can move on. The ones that they can't move on speak to issues of policy direction. We've met those head on. I guess I'd been minister a couple of months when I took the challenge from the farming federation to develop agrifood policy. The agrifood policy will inform the auditor, I hope -- I find it hard to believe that with a $90,000 study, they didn't begin to learn anything about agriculture. So I think it's very difficult to expect an auditor to do this kind of a study. I think it would be more informative for the auditor, for the ministry and for the Land Commission if we continue to carry out the agrifood consultation and to carry out the debate about the future of agriculture and the role of preserving food-land resources to do it.
Let me just digress to answer your first comment about ALDA. I want to make sure that the record is absolutely clear. I admit having said that; at the time it was true. It was a fact that the ALDA program was not cancelled in last year's estimates; we did budget for it. Equally truthfully, I am prepared to admit that it was cancelled this year, although we are honouring any application that came in before the March 31 deadline. Anybody who was in the system will be processed, and moneys will flow. We didn't leave people out in the cold on that.
J. van Dongen: One of the things discussed in the auditor general's report is the requirement of the legislation that part of the Land Commission's mandate is -- and I don't know what the exact wording is -- to maintain and enhance agriculture. Quite rightfully so, the Land Commission, in its response, wondered if it really has the capability to carry out that mandate and suggested that it would perhaps be more appropriately carried out by the ministry. How is the minister going to reconcile that situation?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commission is confined to its powers under the legislation. I think you rightly point out that there is much more to supporting the establishment, continuation and flourishing of farms than.... That has to be a government commitment and a commitment of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Land Commission, insofar as it has powers, for example, over 4,200 acres in Delta, is working with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, who own this land on behalf of the Crown, to actively promote and enhance farming through the development of long-term leases. I think the purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission are being taken literally in this case by the auditor. But the commission has assured me that when we develop new purposes or directions for them, which might come out of the agrifood policy review, they would be happy to work with government as a whole to ensure that their powers are used to enhance agriculture.
They have powers under the amendments last year to cooperate with local government to do planning for agriculture, and that supports agriculture. An administrative zoning framework that is friendly to agriculture is supporting the establishment of farms. Quite frankly, to say that it should do more is to get into extension services, financial programs or something else like that; that's the role of the ministry. If it ever shows that the Agricultural Land Commission could more appropriately provide a service that would support farming, then we will support that.
I think there's a bit of a lag here. The Agricultural Land Commission has done a lot more with local governments to encourage and support farming, and I don't think that's been recognized by the farming community yet. Certainly they were instrumental in bringing the right to farm to the table. They have already done some work on model bylaws. The work is out there, and I don't think their reputation has caught up to the good work they've been doing.
J. van Dongen: I want to back up a bit to the auditor general's report and speak more in general terms with respect to the Land Commission and the rest of the ministry. I think the intent of the auditor general's report is good in its concept of establishing objectives and agreeing with such agencies as the Land Commission, the Tree Fruit Authority and your staff on the operations of the ministry: what the objectives are, how we are going to accomplish them, how we are going to measure performance, etc.
I'd like to ask the minister if that approach in terms of the day-to-day management of the ministry is well established in terms of the whole of the ministry, including the Land Commission.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our ministry is fairly well advanced in using the best in terms of methodology, accountability, rating performance and that sort of thing. We have worked on that in terms of setting objectives. This goes for the whole ministry, so we consider the Land Commission to the extent that we budget money for them to do certain things as one responsibility centre with a set of objectives. They are evaluated as to whether or not they are meeting those objectives. We have a strategic plan for the Land Commission; we have a strategic plan for the ministry. Those two dovetail.
The Land Commission is basically there to preserve the food-land resources. The ministry is there in other ways to support agriculture. We have advanced and we will ensure that all the agencies that report to me are using the best methodologies out there. I would refer you to the 12 attributes of effectiveness of the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. We've been working with them, and, as I said, we're fairly well advanced.
J. van Dongen: I would certainly be interested in getting a copy of those standards and the process. The minister is saying that the expectations that the auditor general would be measuring in a study or an audit like this are fairly well known and established within his ministry. In terms of the methodology, I guess nothing here was a surprise to the minister or to the Land Commission.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We spent quite a bit of time on this; I took that report seriously. That methodology that the auditor used was based on this system. When he did his report, that system wasn't in place in the Land Commission, but it now is. We have acted on his recommendations.
J. van Dongen: I would ask the minister if this system is in place and operational within the Tree Fruit Authority, with respect to the marketing board and to the other parts of his ministry?
[ Page 15558 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I understand, it is not yet in place with the marketing board. A number of branches are using it. There's a cost to this. It takes management time, and that's one of the problems with some of the auditor's reports. We just don't have the money to do it all.
The midterm review of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority used this methodology, as did a number of branches. As I say, we're fairly well advanced and proud of the progress we've made as a ministry to be accountable.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear those comments from the minister. I'll have some questions dealing with personnel and performance a little later on, so maybe I'll pick this topic up at that point.
To get back to the Land Commission, there's been a fair bit of comment -- some of it was in last year's Hansard account of the estimates, and I'm sure the minister has heard it throughout the province from various parties -- that the Land Commission needs a lot of fine-tuning. To be specific, as some of the comments go, some ALR land is not very good farmland and should be taken out. I think there was a comment from the member for Peace River to that effect in last year's Hansard. Similarly, you'll hear those comments in the Fraser Valley or the Okanagan.
[10:30]
If you look at the basis of the current lines as to what was in and what was out when the ALR was established, as I understand it, it was a Canada land inventory program. I wonder if the minister could comment on that, whether he's aware that the Land Commission might consider some kind of overall review of what's in and what's out, and maybe some of the boundaries.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This will probably be an ongoing debate, depending on how much people support agriculture and what their view of agriculture is. I think the best way to review is to look at official community planning on a community-by-community basis. Some municipalities plan for urban growth, and others will actually look at the needs of agriculture and plan ahead from that to mesh with urban growth. That would allow you to mesh or balance land capability and zoning.
There are two things that the land reserve does: it sets up a zone in which farming can take place, and it preserves the soil base for farming. Because our soils vary, particularly in the north and the interior, you do get spots of poor soil in the midst of good soil. But some of these extensive agricultural holdings require that there be similar activities around them, so if you excluded every poor piece of soil, you would have dogs and people and motor bikes in the middle of extensive ranching operations. It's really zoning. The fine-tuning takes place on a site-by-site basis through applications. But if you look, for example, at the applications for exclusion for the city of Kelowna, there wouldn't be any agricultural land left, because it's all been applied for exclusion.
To answer your question, there have been calls for review. I understand that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the tree fruit people think there should be a review. Well, I have to say that it's continually under review. It's partly because we reviewed activities in the land reserve that we've come to the Right to Farm Act. It says that if you have a place zoned for agriculture, people ought to have the right to farm there. So I think the review is much more complex. I would emphasize that at the community level, you plan for the community's growth needs and you plan for agriculture, then you make your decisions. We've had too little of that planning for agriculture in the past, and our amendments last year provided for that.
J. van Dongen: I have a follow-up, then, to the minister's response. If, as I assume will occur and as the minister, I think, has indicated, there will be more emphasis on long-term planning on a community basis rather than just reacting to applications for exclusions, does the Land Commission have the ability, authority and discretion in the current legislation to do some trade-offs on a community basis, based on judgment calls with respect to zoning, soil types, etc.?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it has the authority to do that, and it does do that. But I can tell you what I hear when I'm on the road. Where prime farmland has been excluded, where it isn't part of what was out of the ALR before or a previous government didn't do it, I hear people saying: "You're not to let any prime farmland out." But we can't choke the normal growth needs of communities. Fortunately, with the growth strategies act and so on, we're now able to get ahead of that, and I think some communities will be constrained forever in terms of urban sprawl. But I need to remind you that since the commission was established, 19,276 acres were excluded from 1979 to 1993. In that period there was a large number of exclusions, and there remains some 40,000 hectares outside the ALR that are available for development in the lower mainland region alone.
J. van Dongen: I'm just curious: were those 19,000 acres concentrated anywhere geographically or were they throughout the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They are throughout the province. I'm going to send you a copy of the table in the report. For example, in the Cariboo Regional District, there are 2,200 hectares; in the Regional District of Central Okanagan, 1,600 hectares; in Columbia-Shuswap, 1,200; and in East Kootenay, 2,800.
J. van Dongen: I want to make sure the minister knows that I'm not necessarily pushing for exclusions of good farmland or any other farmland. But I think that when you look at situations on a community basis, sometimes the public interest is better served by considering trade-offs of some kind that can be supported by common sense and a fair weighing of the public need. I don't mind going on record as saying that I would be the last person to condone taking out good farmland needlessly or without some very good reasons.
I know that in virtually every application for an exclusion, they'll tell you how crummy the farmland is. A notable example is a farm right in my own constituency -- I guess it's Abbyview Farm -- that was originally slated for a golf course. I was quite surprised to read that it is poor farmland; it's not, in my estimation. I just want to make that clear. I certainly support the recognition of all legitimate public interests in terms of a review by a community. If in some situations logic dictates that we should trade off some good farmland for some other need, then I would support that, too. I am not necessarily pushing for exclusions per se, but I wanted to canvass these issues.
[ Page 15559 ]
Further to the discussion of reviewing the ALR on a community basis, the minister may also be aware that there's been comment that maybe certain parts of British Columbia require different treatment and different considerations than others. From my own experience, I think you can look at the Fraser Valley, Kelowna and the Okanagan. Even within the Okanagan, you've got the Kelowna situation, and then you've got other parts of the tree fruit-growing segment in that area, and then you've got the rest of British Columbia -- the Cariboo, Prince George and Peace River.
I'm wondering if the minister, in his experience with the Land Commission, would view that in some parts of British Columbia, the Land Commission and that regulation may not be as necessary as they are in the high-pressure areas like the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and southern Vancouver Island. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. As well, I'm not familiar personally with some of the issues that arise in areas like the Peace River, Smithers, the North and the Cariboo. Is there as big a need there for the Land Commission with the full set of comprehensive regulations that are in place right now?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Before we would do what some opposition parties have suggested -- that is, regionalize the Land Commission, which would create six or seven little bureaucracies -- we have instructed the Land Commission to be sensitive to regional needs, and I think they're taking that seriously. Since I have been minister, I've tried to get representation from regions that haven't been on the commission for some time; the Cariboo and the Kootenays were two of them. I think it's reduced the comments, because now you have commissioners who are intimately familiar with those regions and those regions' needs.
The problem is that the size of the commission's budget doesn't allow for a commissioner from every region at all times. We will try to meet the needs of regions that are not represented by having active farmers or people who are familiar with the industry on the board. I could say, though, that by the Land Commission travelling to regions, holding their meetings and actually going out and visiting the sites, I think we have gotten better decisions. The majority of applications for exclusion are actually outside the lower mainland, so that's where a lot of the pressure is.
In an area like the Peace River, it's hard to believe that they would ever run out of agricultural land. Therefore why not carve it up into estates? But I think the trouble is that we know the world has a food production problem; we know that we have opportunities to export. Ultimately, there will be a more level playing field. If we could ever get rid of other countries' subsidies, we'd be able to compete in the grain industry a whole lot better.
I tell people that we're going to see shifts. We might see shifts in intensive agriculture from the lower mainland into areas like the Peace because of the costs of grain and so on. We may see land that has been producing forage get into producing something else. I would use the example of the Thompson, where it is now producing forage and non-edible crops. It could easily go back into potatoes, tomatoes, corn and those kinds of things on the benches of the Fraser and Thompson rivers. We could have that conversion, as there are pressures to develop more food for British Columbians and for exports.
I think the point about the agricultural land reserve is that we know needs are going to increase in the future, and we think that ultimately having a lot of land available will be a part of our comparative advantage over other countries and competitors.
I agree that the regional sensitivity must be there. We have provided for that through the development of official community plans. Where a local community wants to plan for agriculture, we will sit down with them and negotiate what is appropriate in their areas. If they want to preplan and set out areas that they think should come out of agriculture or be in a buffer for agriculture industry or hobby farms, that can be arranged, but first of all there has to be a determination to substantially preserve the land base for agriculture in that region. If there's that commitment, then there's going to be more flexibility on the side of the Land Commission. But it will be a hard bargain, because the purpose of the Land Commission is to preserve the food lands as we have defined them by the present boundaries, albeit ready to look at regional and specific community needs in considering rezoning applications.
J. van Dongen: I hear the minister say that the land use decisions and the involvement of the Land Commission in areas like the Peace River or in Smithers, for example, is equally critical in the Fraser Valley. Would you say that?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to scope out the problem in the Peace River, for example, there have been over 1,000 applications to subdivide in the ALR. If they were all approved -- or even half of them -- that would start to have a major impact on the land base. I guess what we're saying is that we're still new at farming. We're still new at having a footprint on the soil of the Peace River, and we don't know how much is needed to sustain even the current production if you get into crop rotation or whatever.
I think the point is that while the ALR may be needed less there -- that is, the agricultural land reserve in order to preserve land base for agriculture -- it is still needed, when you look at the erosion that could take place if the Land Commission rolled over on every application.
J. van Dongen: I'd like to pursue a little those 1,000 applications in the Peace River. Are those applications all supported by local government? Is that a requirement under the legislation? In this case, were they all supported by local government?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While we don't have the exact figures, I'm told that those applications were supported predominantly by local governments until the last few years. What's happened since then is that we've got more farmers on the boards, and they've been rejecting them. We've got farmers in local communities on the advisory committees to regional districts and in local governments. It's changed their approach to the land reserve, and we're not seeing as much support for exclusions and subdivisions as we saw before.
J. van Dongen: I'm curious about the kinds of applications you get in the Peace River. What is the nature of the applications? Are they bona fide farmers who are under financial pressure? Are they people who have moved out of town, bought land within the ALR and are looking to resell to build another house? Could the minister comment at all on the nature of the applications and the motivations?
[ Page 15560 ]
[10:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Across the province, the majority of applications are not from farmers; the majority are from people who bought after the land freeze came in. In the Peace River it's a mix. There are some farmers wanting to subdivide, and we probably get more applications when grain farming is having a tough time, less when it's more viable.
J. van Dongen: The comment that there are more and more applications coming from people who bought the agricultural land within the ALR after, say, 1972, is very interesting. Are there any statistics on that, or is there a way to track that ownership? That would be a very interesting statistic with respect to the ALR lands.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: These statistics weren't collected on a formal basis, but in discussions with the general manager. They are now beginning to collect those statistics so we can generate.... We haven't generated it in any formal report, but that's the sense they have from the observations they've made over the years.
I'd like to add to the comment about the Peace River. Most of the subdivisions are rural residential. That is a case that has to be debated. Do you want to force people onto quarter sections to live and keep the land ultimately available for farming in a large parcel size, or do you want to assume that the parcel size of the farm should be larger and then let some land out for rural subdivision? Those are debates that have to be taken on by people planning, both for the commission and for the land reserve.
What happens in a place like the Peace River is that during the booms, if oil and gas are up and grain is down, you're going to see a lot of people wanting to bail out of farming because it doesn't look very good. So that's part of the phenomenon.
But with respect to people who bought after the land freeze was in, knowing there was a zone for agriculture, we've been trying to tell people: "Don't count on subdividing your land. Don't drive up the price for farmers by continuing to speculate on land that's in the ALR, because it isn't going to come out." There are going to be exceptions to that statement, but we want people to know that this is a place for farming and that the market value of that land ought to be determined by its value for farming. But you can't do that if people continue to be allowed to speculate. Since we became government, very strong messages have been directed to people to say: "Don't speculate, because you aren't going to get it out." The problem is that if land is generally expensive in the urban areas, it's going to be generally expensive in the farming areas.
J. van Dongen: Just one further question on the subdivision applications, maybe with respect to Peace River and to B.C. generally. The nature of the applications is that a case of someone owning a particular legal size and wanting to split it in half and add a second house or add a second house and one acre.... Are there a lot of cases where people are looking to subdivide a parcel of land into multiple parcels?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think there's been recognition of local needs. For example, applications in the Okanagan are for five acres -- because that's the standard -- off a quarter section, an 80 or a 40, or for splitting a ten into two fives. In the case of the Peace River area, it's generally ten acres off a quarter, but it's mixed. There are probably some rural subdivisions also.
Just to give you some information, last year in the Peace River we approved 45 lots on 700 hectares. There is some flexibility there. The need is there, and it recognizes the soil types in that area. I would bet that there's a need for rural subdivisions, and it's been recognized by the Land Commission.
J. van Dongen: One of the things the minister mentioned was the presence or development of farm advisory committees in some of these communities. Could the minister comment on how many of those committees are active in our main areas of farmland -- the Fraser Valley, Kelowna or the Okanagan and other parts of British Columbia? How many of those committees are active? Is it something that's being pursued by most municipalities?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Land Commission's approach, whenever they go and meet with local governments, has been to say that they should establish one of these. The pattern has been that the areas where we've concentrated have been the areas of most pressure -- the Okanagan, Kelowna, the lower Island. Comox has one, there's one in the Central Okanagan Regional District, and the GVRD has one. We're trying to promote this. It's less important where there are more farmers on the regional district boards, but where there aren't, it's necessary. For example, I encouraged the Cariboo Regional District to do it because there are fewer farmers on the board. In fact, there's probably only one -- maybe a couple -- in the Cariboo, where there used to be four or five. Everywhere the Land Commission goes, they encourage it.
J. van Dongen: I want to back to a discussion we had a few minutes ago. The minister kind of headed me off on a comment because he knows it's something that bothers people. There is no one on the Land Commission from the Fraser Valley per se. I want to say very clearly that I think that's unacceptable. I don't think it's good for the Land Commission not to have a credible farmer or someone from the Fraser Valley who is very close to agriculture on the commission. When you consider that a very, very significant portion of agricultural production is from the Fraser Valley, and when you consider the urban pressures and the conflict issues we get into, I feel that it's critical from a public perception point of view and from the perspective of the land commission to have someone credible on there from the valley.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It used to be that there were three representatives from the lower mainland on the commission. Now we have two, but they don't represent the farming community per se; they represent the common public interest. I acknowledge the problem; I've tried to balance it. As I said, I've made appointments to the Kootenays and the Cariboo in order to give representation to areas that didn't have it. So the lower mainland did sort of dominate the commission at one point, but when we started to get the majority of applications from another region, we had to show representation there.
If I could find a way to give every region representation from the farming community, yet leave room for broader public interest representation, then I would do that. The cost has to be kept under control, but I'm aware of it. I think we need more, though. We need people from the agricultural
[ Page 15561 ]
advisory committees to the regional districts there as part of the process, as well. There are two appointments coming up this summer, and I will be taking into account regions that aren't represented when I make those appointments.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that this issue is under constant review. The minister said something that I want to pick up on in talking about a farmer on the board. I think it's important that whoever is on the board recognizes the responsibility to represent all of the public interest. I wouldn't expect a farmer to be representing farm interests exclusively; they would be representing the whole of the public interest, but certainly with knowledge of the farm side on those things.
Probably at this point it's useful to raise a couple of issues of local interest in my constituency, and that is the Fraser Valley College application and a couple of other school applications for expansion. I want the minister to know that I'm aware of the history of the college application; I'm not as familiar with the others. Again, I think these are examples where it's appropriate from a public interest perspective to make some consideration. I would certainly differentiate between an institution like the college and virtually any other use, such as development or churches. Once an institution like that, for whatever reason, has started in a location, and it's hemmed in.... Some of the reasons it's there may be wrong reasons, but I think that we can't continue to hem in that operation or institution because we're taking a very hard line on agricultural land. There again, you know, we've had the comment that it's not very good land; I don't agree. It is fairly good land there, but I think that on those ten or 20 acres, the public need for non-farm use in that particular situation is greater than the farm use when you weigh everything. Could the minister comment?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would be happy to; this is something I've given a lot of thought to. I question every application that somebody raises with me. Schools are generally considered an urban use. If it's for other institutions.... I mean, isn't a hospital important, too? And we said schools may be more important than churches. There's a whole hierarchy that I guess you could get into there.
With respect to these specific applications, while the commission has rejected the college application, they have never said: "Absolutely no, never." They have never stopped the dialogue. I think this is a case of where the commission pushes back on school applications, they've always found alternative land. In some cases there may be a higher cost. That's why we're trying to get in and have schools planned for so that we have land set aside, and the public isn't always paying inflated costs for public facilities due to growth.
I would have to say that if there is a local plan in place that provides for community growth and considers what the commission has been putting forward as a no-net-loss policy, then I think there's more room. For example, I would think that if a school purchased some farmland outside the ALR, which exists in almost every community, and was willing to trade it or find a way to enhance agricultural resource base in exchange, then more can be done. We're trying to promote this idea of no net loss -- we're trying.
[11:00]
That may be the way we can get a breakthrough here, but it's fair enough for the commission to push back, because the school is only planning from its point of view. They aren't looking at the needs of agriculture. But if the community itself has said, "We have planned for agriculture; we've got buffers in place; we've said we're not going to change our official community plan to designate land for commercial development on top of farmland," then there has to be some room to move. That's why I say that the commission has not cut off the dialogue on those sites.
J. van Dongen: There's another specific policy issue that I want to canvass. I found out recently that my understanding of a particular policy was incorrect, and I want to question the provision that was made when the legislation first came in.
As I understood it, if a farmer owned his land when the Land Commission legislation was first set up, it was written into the act that he had the ability to apply to the Land Commission to take off one acre. A particular individual in the fruit industry, who I think was one of the first commissioners, pushed for this so that if a farmer wanted to retire, he could take off one acre and retire. I understood that was in the legislation.
More recently I was approached by someone in what was formerly the district of Matsqui who was applying under that provision, and I understood the facts in that particular case to be that they did not have the support of the municipality in that application. And because they didn't have that support, they didn't qualify for that provision.
It is my more recent understanding that the one-acre policy is actually a policy of the commission -- or at least it's not in the legislation. I wonder if the minister could clarify for me the rules and the process with respect to that provision.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What you have pointed out is a case where the former municipality of Matsqui did not support the internal policy of the commission, not in the legislation. It's a provision that said if the farmer owned the land when the reserve was set up, they could apply to have a homesite severance, provided that it allowed for the continuation of farming on the remainder of the parcel. Here's a case where the municipality did not promote what might seem to be good for retiring farmers.
J. van Dongen: Am I correct in my understanding that for the most part, within that particular municipality, those applications were not supported, and on the basis of the lack of municipal support, the Land Commission pretty much consistently turned those applications down?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because this situation changes, I'm in danger of making a general statement here without the specifics. I will have the general manager of the commission get back to you with the specifics. But I'm informed that it is not the case that the local government refused every application and therefore the Land Commission refused. We have to look at the particular area or case. If you know some specific cases and make them known to the general manager of the commission, we'll get you the facts.
J. van Dongen: I just want to say in response that I'm not as much concerned about a particular individual application as I am about the general policy. Throughout the course of my investigation on that situation, I became aware that in the district of Chilliwack, for example, these types of applications
[ Page 15562 ]
were consistently supported, and I would like some clarification on this, if I could. My understanding is that applications of this nature -- the homesite severance in Chilliwack -- were consistently supported by the Land Commission. Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In considering every individual application, the commission has to look at a number of facts, including what the local government has said. That's one of the reasons why we have a provincial policy. People call for locally sensitive policies from the commission, but they have to be consistent across the province. So you're not treating people in the Fraser Valley substantively different from the way you are treating people on lower Vancouver Island, when there's no other reason for it except that they're in different regions. So you really have to look at what the determining factors were. It may be some of this and some of that in order to make the determination.
J. van Dongen: By way of background, the reason I'm asking the questions is that I've never supported that policy. I've always considered it a compromise that shouldn't have been made. If the Land Commission has it in its power to not grant those kinds of subdivisions, certainly in the Fraser Valley, then I think that would be more consistent with the intent of the legislation than what might be happening in some districts. I will leave it at that, but I would certainly look for some consistency within the Fraser Valley. It really does create difficulty for the Land Commission if these applications are consistently turned down in Matsqui because the local government doesn't support it -- I think for the right reasons -- when they're consistently approved in some other municipalities. That's the background to why I'm raising it.
Further to that, given that I've been told that it's part of Land Commission policy, I would certainly submit that the policy should be reviewed in the Fraser Valley. I say that because it's appropriate to lead into my next discussion, which is the one about ancient subdivisions.
I have felt for a very, very long time that this is a very critical problem for agriculture in the Fraser Valley and possibly in other areas of British Columbia that I'm less familiar with. I happen to believe that there are things that can be done with respect to ancient subdivisions that respect and recognize those individuals' development rights. I'm talking here about a situation where a farmer may own 100 acres of land, and it's not one parcel. It may be ten parcels, and there are an incredibly large number of those. Even given all the ones we've already lost by farms being broken up into ten-acre legals, there's still a lot of them left. I think there's still time to make some dent into those situations.
In the area I live in, for example, I have a 140-acre dairy farm, a very thriving commercial operation that's 14 ten-acre legals. When that farmer retires, just like other farmers who are currently retiring -- there's another one at the north end of Mount Lehman Road with 100 acres, ten ten-acre legals -- those all get broken up. Every one of them gets a house on it, and every one of them is someone wanting to live in a rural, farm area. I don't begrudge the interest of people to want to do that, but if we're going to maintain agriculture in the Fraser Valley, then I'd say we're in a lot of trouble if we continue to have this kind of proliferation.
I'm wondering if the minister could comment on any thought, discussion or plans by the Land Commission to deal with this problem. I think it's a very serious concern if, in fact, we're serious about the intent of the legislation, which is to maintain agriculture.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're optimistic that something will be done in the case of the Coldstream Ranch, which you may or may not know is a large ranch with some ancient subdivisions on it. We're looking at a combination of trading development rights on the edge, in a more appropriate place, for consolidation of title -- maybe allowing some exclusions -- and looking for net benefit for agriculture and the reserve. It can be done.
In the case of the lower mainland, it always comes up: "Well, how can you compensate for the development rights without simply expropriating those?" How do you do that? There's going to be a cost, because you inevitably will trade land or purchase. So how you do it effectively and at a low cost is very difficult. If there was money for this program, you might be able to do it easily, but it's getting money to do that sort of thing now....
We may have to have this dialogue over the next years in order to find some solution that people agree to. Maybe the whole principle of no net loss could be brought to bear. Inevitably, if you're trading development rights in one area for another area, you've got to have some equalization or some transfer between landowners. That's very difficult unless we get into some kind of a land-banking situation. Right now, any program I've seen has a price tag attached to do. I don't know if the member is suggesting that we might just remove the titles, but that's a move that we haven't been prepared to make at this point.
J. van Dongen: I certainly wouldn't be advocating that. I think it's paramount to recognize that the development rights, the private property rights, are inherent in those subdivisions. I think there are things that can be done, based on the principles that I understand are being applied in the Coldstream Ranch situation.
As I say, from my observation it tends to happen when farmers retire. Some of them got out of the industry, for example, because of financial pressures, so it may tend to happen then. I look at a program in which people would have an option to move those rights to another low-capability area of the ALR, where they would actually be able to sell those rights to some area where they would be more appropriately used. I wouldn't envision anything that would cost the government money in terms of the rights themselves. I would envision some kind of program that would be designed so that the government would pick up the costs of administration, promoting the program and stickhandling individual situations. It may be something that could and should be considered within these community reviews that I understand may take place.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the member to know that in the case of Fraser Valley College, that's exactly the kind of thing we're looking at, but you need to have two willing landowners or some way that the local government or provincial government can be the middleperson to deal with this. For example, if you allow farmland to go into a higher use like a school, you're increasing the value. How do you take that value, transfer it to a farm and get rid of the ancient subdivision? We're looking at those kinds of things in principle.
[ Page 15563 ]
There's no easy way to do that in a cost-effective way, but we're looking at it.
J. van Dongen: On a little different subject, I know that the Land Commission has been invited to look at, and has been involved in looking at, what I would term ancillary uses -- I'm not sure that's the term that the Land Commission would use -- within the ALR. I'm thinking of the wine industry, for example, where there has been some initiative made to allow estate wineries some broader uses to help them promote their product. I wonder if the minister could inform us a bit about what's happening, specifically with respect to the wine industry and the involvement of the Land Commission in those broader uses.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the member to know that we're working on that. The J licences were created for the farm wineries to be able to have restaurant services in limited hours. The Agricultural Land Commission is drafting a general order that would allow them to be consistent with the J-licensing provisions so that that would be streamlined. But we have to bear in mind that there can't be an impact on the adjacent agricultural operators.
[11:15]
To give you a case in point, there are wineries, which are recent on the landscape, set up next to vegetable farmers who have been there for 20 years. The establishment of this more intensive use -- more cars that stay longer -- has created a negative impact on the adjoining farm. So we're trying to find ways to approve the J licences in the ALR where they're compatible with the surrounding farm uses. Getting that balance is what we're working on right now. But we knew this, we were out ahead of it, and work had started long before we approved the J licence.
J. van Dongen: Is the general order that's being drafted specific to the wine industry, or does it have a broader application?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have a general order that deals with retail operations in the land reserve, but we found that it wasn't entirely appropriate, so the general order that's being developed is specific to the wine industry.
J. van Dongen: With respect to retail operations, has there been any recent change, or is there any change contemplated, affecting other types of retail operations on ALR land?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As a general rule, we're always trying to develop these so that they're there ahead of time. That way, farmers can be facilitated in developing their own ability to sell agricultural products. The problem comes where there is a sale of products that are not produced on the farm. Where do you draw the line? How much produce do you allow somebody to bring into an operation? You bring it in from local farmers, you allow them to come in from California year-round, etc. In effect, you are creating non-farm uses if you don't do this carefully.
We will provide you with a copy of the general order; you may want to query it further later. I think the whole idea there is to facilitate ancillary operations, particularly around the sale of agricultural products. We know that direct sales is a real benefit to the farmer in terms of getting the price for his product.
J. van Dongen: On another subject, Colony Farm is a very interesting, good-potential piece of farmland that has been the subject of a lot of controversy over the years. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on what's been happening recently with respect to Colony Farm, what the involvement of the Land Commission has been and what we can expect from the ministry with respect to that very interesting piece of farmland.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have all the details with me about the land use plan, but the Land Commission has been working to come up with a detailed land use plan for that piece of land. A significant component of it will be for agriculture. The agricultural interest has been represented in the planning process. This is one situation where park and recreational uses are permitted under the Land Act. It's been our approach as a ministry and as a commission to see that what happens ultimately will promote and be supportive of farming.
I don't have the actual details with me of what's going to happen. We could provide you with what we know; we would be happy to do that.
J. van Dongen: I just wanted to confirm with the minister whether or not that land is still held by B.C. Buildings. My second one is: is the ministry or the Land Commission directly involved on the committee or in the current process?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry is on the committee. The Land Commission was, but they're not any more simply because any use that is not permitted in the agricultural land reserve will have to be subject to a decision by the Land Commission. Therefore, you've got somebody in a conflict situation. Any uses that come forth for any plan will have to go through the commission if they are not acceptable uses as they are.
As you know, throughout the valley there is this debate, where some of the people who are supporting farmland and the preservation of farmland are also supporting greenbelt uses and park uses, so there's a very vigorous dialogue going on about the compatibility of public spaces that are used for wildlife, recreation purposes, or whatever. The PNE is going to be thrown right into that debate; the PNE helps to support farming and keep the urban support for farming, and yet it is a heavy institutional use. You could argue that it ought to be placed on farmland, because it's an auxiliary activity to farming.
These are debates that are going on, and I can assure you that we're there for the agricultural uses in the debate that goes on within government and between government and local government.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that the ministry is involved there. It may be that the best agricultural use there is as a vehicle to promote agriculture to a population that's all around us there. I'm pleased that you're involved.
I have a couple of individual concerns that came to my attention, and one goes back a little while now. It involves B.C. Gas and Charlie Iberg's farm. I know that Mr. Iberg was
[ Page 15564 ]
extremely dissatisfied with the Land Commission's involvement in that process, and I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the status of that situation. Has it been reconciled?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the case you raised has been useful in that it resulted in us creating a new brochure that reflects changed procedure. Iberg had a right to be dissatisfied with the procedure. We've changed that process, based on the concerns that he raised, and I understand he's in negotiations with B.C. Gas. Hopefully there will be a happy resolution to that problem.
J. van Dongen: There has been considerable criticism of many aspects of the Land Commission. Another that came to my attention seemed to have some validity, based on my personal observation, and I want to pass it on to the minister. This dealt with the Soil Conservation Act and gravel removal. I looked at the site in Aldergrove. It's a gravel company that does a very credible job of restoration, etc. They've been on 12 sites; they've received awards for the work they've done.
In that particular situation, the land was being restored for raspberry use, and they had been required by the approving officer to screen one or one and a half feet of topsoil. A concern was expressed that with the material screened down to the fine soil components, it would affect the surface drainage of that field after it was restored. I'm not here to advocate one way or another for that particular company, but it was put to me as an example of bureaucracy that went a little too far. I agreed that in that particular case, based on my judgment as a farmer, that probably shouldn't have happened.
I think that when regulatory people are reviewing these applications, they should use their discretion wisely and pay particular attention to people who have historically done a good job, who are not looking to shave corners and who have a reputation to maintain. In this particular case, the cost of doing that extra screening was about $25,000, as I understood it. In fact, we ended up with an inferior product in the end in terms of raspberry production. This ties in with my comments yesterday. I don't know if this is typical. I'm not saying it is, but I wonder if the minister could comment.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I would certainly be interested in it if the member provides me with some details. I appreciate that he's not advocating, but these are precisely the things where we might see a policy problem if we look into them.
We tend to rely on the recommendation of the agrologists. In this case, the agrologist was arguing that it is good for the soils to have coarser materials. It's so unusual that I think we ought to look at it. We've had a historical problem in Matsqui with lack of rehabilitation. You cite a good actor here with 12 sites, some of which they've received awards for. You may have pointed out an anomaly or a weakness in the policy. I would like to know the details, and I'll get the commission to look into it and get a report back to me on it.
J. van Dongen: I've no hesitation in giving you the name of the firm that's involved. It's West Coast Aggregates. Maybe the Land Commission could check it out and review it. What I'm saying in that case is that the requirement was to take the natural gravel out. In fact, what we ended up with on the surface was very fine topsoil by removing some of the gravel that was included in that topsoil originally.
[11:30]
I want to raise a few questions about the Harbours Board lands. I have a copy of a brief here, which I understand was given to the minister a few days ago, from farmers involved in that situation who want to buy their land back in some manner. I wonder if the minister could comment on the situation to date on that land. Has the Land Commission been involved in those leases to date? Are they now under the management of some other agency?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The situation as it presently stands is that the government, through the Premier, has announced that we will be pursuing long-term agricultural leases on the areas. The lands branch has been the government agency managing the lands, so the Land Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture have not been involved in managing the lands per se. The development of policy that goes into the future of land and the terms and conditions under which it will be farmed has had involvement by the Land Commission.
A task force was set up, co-chaired by the general manager of the Land Commission and the regional director of Lands. They oversaw the development of the leases. Those leases are about to go to the farmers. They will reflect the need to have some kind of tenure that gives them the ability to make investments and steward the land appropriately. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Land Commission will continue to be interested in and influence the future management of that land, but currently they are under the Lands ministry.
With respect to the submission that came from the people who asked for their land to be sold back to them, I told them when they came to see me that I would pass on their brief to the Minister of Lands and the Premier's office. But at this point in time, we're not going to change direction and slow down getting that land into a lease form so that farmers can plan for long-term agricultural activities there.
J. van Dongen: Certainly the issue of leases and long-term leases is a very critical one. Are there other areas of British Columbia where there are significant farm lands under the management of Lands and Parks?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not land that was formerly private land. But tens of thousands of hectares of the agricultural lease program is managed by the Lands ministry. In the decisions that I've seen, at least those that are controversial, the Ministry of Agriculture agrologists do get involved. When someone proposes an agricultural lease, they hire an independent agrologist to bring forth an analysis of the capability of the soils and then present that to the Lands ministry. But the Lands ministry is the land manager pretty well wherever there is Crown land.
J. van Dongen: I want to thank the minister for his responses this morning. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:33 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]