1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 5

[ Page 15565 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

D. Schreck: Sitting in the gallery today are two people that I can only describe as two of the finest people on earth: Jim and Doreen Bartley, now living in the Gibsons area, formerly of North Vancouver. They would give their heart and soul for anyone. I am sure they are here in part to give advice to both the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Forests. I know they would give favourable audiences to two such fine people. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have a special guest in the members' gallery. Ali Abdullah is the newly appointed consul general of Malaysia at Vancouver and is making his official calls in Victoria. Please join me in welcoming him to the House.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would the House please welcome two friends from Williams Lake, Rick Barnes and Andrew Hunt, who are in the gallery today.

L. Reid: I have just had the pleasure of meeting Mr. John McPherson from Kelowna and four of his colleagues, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I ask the House to make welcome one of my constituents, Dorothy Giovando -- who is also the mother of Madeline Giovando, one of our research persons, who helps us to be clever and smart in this House -- and three friends of Dorothy: Barbara Tabata, Renee Tabata and Joyce Lem. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like to add my welcome, if I may, to Jim and Doreen Bartley. I don't know if the members of this Legislature know, but they have been absolutely major contributors to the protection of the Tetrahedron watershed on behalf of the people of the Sunshine Coast, and for that I think they need some support. If they're going to meet with the Minister of Highways, then it looks like the Gibsons bypass is in for sure. I certainly welcome them here.

D. Symons: I want to draw to the attention of the members and of the gallery that today is the 780th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. I believe that that was the beginning of the British parliamentary tradition from which this Legislature derives its origins.

F. Randall: On behalf of the MLA for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I'd like to introduce in the gallery, 17 grade 5 students from College Park Elementary School in Port Moody, accompanied by Mr. Seath, their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

M. de Jong: On June 5 the Minister of Finance's duty was clear. Her duty was to release the Parks report so that the victims in Nanaimo could proceed with their pursuit of justice. She failed in that duty. My question is to the Minister of Finance. On June 5, why didn't she release the Parks report?

Hon. E. Cull: This member is choosing to ignore the fact that from the moment I received this report I have totally fulfilled my duties as the minister responsible for the Society Act. I immediately commenced preparation to release the report, and in 24 hours received....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, I must remind all hon. members that the purpose of question period is to ask questions and to listen while the answers are given. As long as we can follow this practice we will avoid a repeat of the situation we went through yesterday. I would ask all hon. members for their cooperation in order to save valuable time during question period.

Hon. E. Cull: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will briefly conclude my remarks.

When I received a call from Mr. Parks -- 24 hours after he initially gave me the report -- asking me not to release the report until further discussions had taken place with officials from the Attorney General's ministry, I respected that advice. The following day I received the advice from the Deputy Attorney General to not release any information about the report. As I said at the outset, I have totally fulfilled my responsibilities as the minister responsible for the Society Act, and I will continue to do so.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The facts sadly tell a very different story. Mr. Parks was commissioned to examine criminal activity by the fundraising wing of the NDP. The minister got the report on June 5. She didn't release the report. Instead, in her dogged pursuit of justice, she decided to share the report with her cabinet colleagues and the two senior NDP henchmen in the Premier's office. My question to the minister is: why did she go to the very people who stood to benefit by the NCHS's illegal activity, those very members of the NDP who could be implicated in Mr. Parks's report? Having done so, having been so derelict in her duty, how can she possibly continue in her office today?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: Let me first correct the record. Mr. Parks was appointed by me under the Society Act to investigate all of the unanswered questions that remained at the end of the last RCMP investigation, not to investigate any allegations of criminal activities at that time. Those have come out as a result of his report.

What this member is doing is suggesting that I should have violated the advice that I received from the Deputy Attorney General and the RCMP. What this member is suggesting I should have done would have benefited only those people who are subject to the investigation, and I will not participate in assisting those people. I will participate in assisting the RCMP.

F. Gingell: Listening to the minister's explanation just now, it is quite clear that she was advised on the night of June 

[ Page 15566 ]

5 or the morning of June 6 -- either the Monday night or the Tuesday morning -- by Mr. Parks that he felt that this should be moved forward for potential criminal investigation. At that time, she referred him to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. She was aware that there was a potential criminal investigation of a society controlled by her party, which may well extend to the party itself and could even include members of cabinet and the caucus. Can the minister explain why the priorities committee of cabinet was briefed the following afternoon, after she you had made these decisions that it should not be public?

Hon. E. Cull: I repeat again that it is my intention and the intention of our government to see this report released to the public as soon as possible. I immediately began preparations on Monday to release this report. I had to read the report. There were recommendations in the report with respect to legislative changes, which had to be reviewed. There was a need to prepare a statement to indicate what the government's response would be to the report.

All those actions were underway when Mr. Parks called me on the morning of June 6 and suggested that we meet again with his legal counsel to discuss actions that could be taken to secure evidence and other matters that were addressed in this report. Mr. Parks was subsequently referred to the Attorney General's ministry, and on the morning of June 7 the Attorney General's ministry advised me not to disclose the report or take any further action on it.

My discussions with Mr. Parks on the 6th and Mr. Quantz on the 7th subsequently changed the action that I was taking in preparation to release that report, and it changed the reports that I gave to the cabinet committee. But until very recently, when we learned that the whole thing was going to be dealt with by the RCMP, it did not change the fact that I fully expected that the report would be in the public's hands by the end of last week or very early this week, as soon as we had the green light to go ahead. I hope that the Deputy Attorney General will do that as soon as possible. I have written to the Deputy Attorney General, asking for that permission.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The minister's actions, or lack of actions, clearly demonstrate why she has lost the confidence of British Columbians, and why it's time to go.

I put it to all this House that the priorities committee of cabinet briefing had nothing to do with justice, but had only to do with damage control. If the minister says that she is facilitating justice through her actions, can the minister please tell us what benefit to the justice system was achieved by having her chief political fixer, John Heaney, brief the leader of the party under investigation and other senior NDP cabinet ministers?

Hon. E. Cull: That was a very long preamble, but I did detect a question at the end, and I can confirm that the information in that question is absolutely incorrect.

J. Weisgerber: The subject of the forensic audit was not only NCHS but the NDP and members of the government caucus. Given that fact, the Minister of Finance had an obligation to protect the integrity and independence of the Parks report from any potential political interference. Does the minister understand that it was fundamentally wrong to give copies of the report to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Heaney, who are political activists -- political hacks -- in the Premier's office? Does the minister understand that it was wrong to brief the cabinet ministers who may well have been involved? Will the minister now do the right thing -- the honourable and the traditional thing -- and stand up and resign her seat, because she is indeed guilty of a breach of trust and a breach of duty?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I find it rather hard to take that kind of accusation from this member. This was the member who was suggesting yesterday that the advice I received from the RCMP and the Deputy Attorney General was politically tainted. This member lacks credibility on this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. A supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier's own involvement in this issue is in question -- and the NDP's Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, along with the members of caucus. The last people who should have been at the briefing with Mr. Parks were the Premier's chief political hacks. Can't the minister understand that was fundamentally wrong? They're the last ones who should have been given copies of the report, given the circumstances. Is the minister so ethically bereft that she can't understand the fundamental mistakes and fundamental wrongs? Will the minister not understand that she's obliged under parliamentary tradition to stand today and resign her seat?

Hon. E. Cull: This member can't have it both ways. Yesterday he was complaining that we hadn't released the report. Today he is complaining that I took the necessary steps to prepare the release of the report. He has to get his facts straight.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would put it to the minister that the preparations that were taking place weren't preparations that would benefit the public and benefit justice, but preparations that would benefit the NDP and benefit the NCHS.

The minister says in her own correspondence that she was told by Mr. Parks on the evening of the 5th, Monday evening, that he had concerns that criminal actions may have taken place. She advised him on the evening of the 5th, according to her own correspondence, to seek the advice of the Deputy Attorney General -- it's in her own correspondence. Why, then, the next day, did she see fit to take the political hacks out of the Premier's office and have them brief the very people who may well have been under investigation?

Hon. E. Cull: I believe that I have already answered that question with respect to the chronology of events. But I have to again state that it was on the morning of the 7th that the Deputy Attorney General gave me the advice to hold the report, to not discuss the report and to not reveal the contents of the report. Until that time, the preparations continued for the release of the report, and there was nothing that Mr. Parks said to me between the event of giving me the report and my talking to the Deputy Attorney General that would have changed that course of action.

[ Page 15567 ]

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: In case the minister has forgotten, the Premier himself availed himself of the services of Bert Rougeau as a campaign manager at a time when Mr. Rougeau was being paid by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. The Premier himself may well be implicated in this case. Can the minister tell us why she would choose to brief cabinet colleagues -- NDP cabinet colleagues -- and why she would choose to have the chief political hacks in the office deal with that? Was this one of those integrated sleaze plans that was negotiated by Brian Gardiner and John Walsh, according to the memo?

Hon. E. Cull: I will table these in the House at the end of question period, but I have written to Mr. Quantz this morning indicating to him that I do understand the advice that I have received from him and the RCMP with respect to this report. I have also said that I believe that there is an equal and compelling public interest that the report be released as soon as possible, and I have asked him to do whatever he can do to expedite that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: On the matter of anyone who is subject to investigations, I can advise the House....

Interjection.

Hon. E. Cull: If the member doesn't want to hear this, I can sit down. But I can advise the House that the RCMP has released a press release within the last hour saying that if at any point in the investigation the RCMP are of the view that the information in their possession potentially compromises the ability of any sitting MLA to carry out his or her public duties, the commanding officer of E Division will immediately advise the Attorney General and the Premier, without releasing to the Premier details that could compromise their investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Premier. She may be able to allay some of the concerns and fears and apprehensions over the possibility of a political cover-up by simply making a commitment on behalf of the government -- a simple commitment that the Parks report and all the details of the investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal will be released to the public in advance of the next provincial election. Is the Deputy Premier, on behalf of the government, willing to make that commitment today? That might allay some of the concerns about a political cover-up in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: If the decision were simply up to me to make, I would release the report this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. E. Cull: While I can't give the member the confirmation he would like, because the report is not mine to release at this stage, I can assure the member that the public interest will be served by having that report in the hands of the public as soon as possible. I hope that it is well before any other events take place.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the House, I call the continuation of second reading of Bill 35.

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT
(second reading continued)

The Speaker: I call the House back to order. The debate on Bill 35, Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, was adjourned by the hon. member for Delta South, but I gather he's concluded his remarks.

[2:30]

D. Symons: I've listened with great interest to the introduction of second reading by the minister responsible, and I've listened very carefully to the remarks made by the various members of this Legislature regarding the bill. I'd like to just add my comments to it.

I think, from everything I've heard from members commenting on the minister's opening remarks, that we all agree, and I don't think anyone will disagree, with the idea that when a labour negotiation reaches an impasse or breaks down -- and certainly the Vernon situation seems to illustrate this -- there has to be some way of resolving the differences there, and in the case of emergency services such as fire and police, some way other than having a strike or lockout situation. That purportedly is what this bill is attempting to do.

However, we should look at two or three things that have been said during the course of this debate. One of the items mentioned by the minister himself was the extensive consultation that went on prior to putting together and introducing the bill. Yet I have a letter dated May 26, 1995, from the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It's from the manager of personnel and labour relations. He says:

"We represent 11 municipal employers of professional firefighters and four municipal police boards within the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. These municipalities and boards employ an overwhelming majority of the professional firefighters and municipal police, respectively, in the province. Our dismay stems from the fact that this legislation has been tabled in the House with absolutely no consultation with these employers. It seems incomprehensible to us that such legislation, which will have its most significant effect on the employers we represent, could be tabled without such consultation."

I think that shows somehow that maybe when the minister is introducing the legislation and talking so glowingly on certain aspects of it -- one of the aspects being consultation.... If 

[ Page 15568 ]

you leave out the Greater Vancouver Regional District, who are the negotiators for a large number of the people who are involved or could be involved in this act, surely that consultation process is somewhat less than satisfactory. I think that's the first comment I would like to make.

The second comment deals with the problem of the solutions to these dispute resolutions that are presented within this bill. It presents the idea of bringing in an arbitrator so that we can have binding arbitration. I note that a gentleman, Mr. Paul Weiler, wrote a book in 1980 called Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law. He said: "The arbitration fraternity is frank to recognize that it does not have the wisdom of Solomon." You may remember why Solomon was deemed to be so wise. "Normally it is content to split the baby down the middle." That's his comment.

I think that is where the problem may arise in this legislation if it's passed in the way it's currently written. I do hope, when we get into committee stage, that this minister will be considering some amendments. I looked on the order paper to see whether he had already put some forward, and I see he hasn't. I'm sure there will be amendments coming forward, and I hope, if the concern of the minister is as expressed during his opening statements -- that it's simply a way to find a fair and equitable way of bringing about resolution of labour disputes -- that he will listen most carefully to these amendments that are going to come forward and see whether they might not be an improvement upon what is currently in the bill.

I might bring to the minister's attention Bill 20, which was companioned with Bill 19 in 1987. If I have the minister's attention, I'm sure he can turn his mind back to the year 1987, when we had a fair amount of labour unrest in the province of British Columbia. Bill 20 is the bill that unionized the teachers of the province. What I think we should look at is why Bill 20 was introduced at that time. Bill 20 replaced what was common practice in this province for the teaching profession -- that is, by legislation in the education act, they had to go to negotiation, conciliation and arbitration on set dates.

For years and years that process worked, but during the seventies and moving into the eighties, what generally tended to happen was that too often these things went to arbitration -- it got to the arbitration stage; it wasn't settled in negotiation or conciliation. In the eyes of the government of 1987.... They said that the system wasn't working, because what was happening.... I must admit, hon. members, that I have a vested interest in this, because at that time I was a member of the BCTF, an active teacher and involved in the politics of teaching in this province. So I was there when these things were happening.

Basically, the teachers did quite well in those years. They did quite well because we went to arbitration. In arbitration you simply looked for the district that was weakest and got a settlement with that particular district. After that the arbitration boards often, as Mr. Weiler mentioned, used that as the basis for setting the agreements of those that went to arbitration. So if you got a good negotiation in one district, or if the first district that went to arbitration turned out quite well, that became the norm for the province. Generally, the best agreement became the average agreement. You would find that in those years the average salary.... There are 75 school districts in the province, and using this whipsaw effect of negotiation -- which was taking place and working very effectively, I must say, for teachers.... To show how well it worked in the province, for a teacher who had a basic professional certificate with a salary of about $50,000, the range throughout the whole province -- all 75 districts -- was less than about $200. So the whipsaw effect.... It didn't matter whether you lived in Vancouver, Fort St. John, or wherever in the province. Any living costs and other things could enter into it as being differences that might be legitimate. To say there could be legitimate living expenses and other expenses to make, possibly the salary differences might be justifiable. But because of the way that negotiations went on, that sort of effect took place.

I can see built in to this act that exactly the same thing will happen. We will find that it will not necessarily do what I think the minister has claimed it's going to do. It's going to possibly put Vancouver -- a large fire district and police district -- as the norm for all the areas in the province. I would suggest that the working conditions, the working expectations, the job descriptions and so forth, of firemen in Vancouver and firemen in some of the outlying areas of the province are different. There could possibly be expectations that because of those differences the salary remuneration could be different. But with this act, that will not happen. What will happen with this act is that the particular circumstances within given communities -- the ability of the particular community to pay, the circumstances of the job descriptions there -- will not matter when it comes to negotiations. Those are some of the reasons I have reservations about this particular bill, and those are things that have to be discussed during committee stage.

Another area that we have to look at is the fact that when you are in the negotiation process, what currently tends to happen -- and I think that's why this bill is on the floor -- is that the labour side basically sets its expectations rather high. If you're going to go to arbitration, you want to set them excessively high. On the other hand, what's the employer's duty? I suppose the employer's duty is to try to keep the bottom line and set expectations rather low. So you're going to have quite divergent views.

Supposedly, the act has sections that say there will be meaningful negotiation before binding arbitration sets in. I can see the situation where the employees, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other hand, will have quite convincing arguments that the last offer put in is the bottom line. "It's the best we can do, and it's a very reasonable offer that we've made." I have taken part in some negotiations and I have yet to hear either side in the negotiation process say: "We put out an unreasonable offer here." How they're going to decide whether there's been meaningful negotiations is going to be a real problem.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Did the minister say: "Tough"?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I thought the minister indicated that that's tough. I think that's going to be one of the tough points within this legislation. That's one of the concerns I have. This will tend to cause exactly that to happen. It will cause the negotiating parties to set their limits quite unrealistically, either high or low. If we then get the Solomon effect of meeting somewhere 

[ Page 15569 ]

in the middle, we may not necessarily hit a fair and equitable agreement. The middle isn't necessarily that, particularly if one or both sides are not negotiating in good faith. How the minister is going to determine whether or not good faith is taking place is going to be another job for Solomon.

Those are some of the issues that have to be addressed in third reading. In spite of the minister's protestations otherwise, those are issues in this bill that do not really meet the needs of solving negotiations when they reach this impasse stage.

So I will watch the committee stage with great interest and see whether we might have some differences and resolutions on those issues.

The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to briefly touch on some of the issues that were raised by members in the debate. I look forward to the discussion that is going to take place in committee stage, because -- if I might be so bold as to suggest it -- throughout the debates I've heard on this bill, I would venture to say that my conclusion at least is that there is no disagreement with the need for legislation to deal with the issues that will be dealt with by this bill. And that is, if you like, something positive. At least there appears to be unanimous agreement that, in fact, we do need legislation. That will leave us to debate some of the specifics in really one, maybe two, areas of the bill. Hopefully, it will be a useful debate.

I must say that I was somewhat surprised at the remarks of the member for Richmond Centre, because I was under a mistaken impression, perhaps, based on conversations I had with the member, that he was fairly enthusiastic about this bill. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's fine. I must say, I think consistency is a good thing in this business, but it's not my job to ensure that everybody does stay consistent.

I could say, though, with respect to the two employers' organizations that have been referred to by members opposite, I have had meetings with both of them -- that is, the GVRD meeting held with Mayor Philip Owen, Mayor Jack Loucks of North Vancouver and Mark Leffler, and with representatives of the Okanagan Mainline group of municipalities and regional districts which bargain collectively. Without trying to put words in their mouths, I they and I left the meeting with the same conclusion. They agreed that there needed to be a means of resolving these types of disputes, and therefore didn't fundamentally agree with legislation, but rather, dealt with the criteria that are in the bill. To a remarkable degree, the members opposite spoke exclusively on behalf of those groups. Perhaps there were some who were also speaking for the firemen and police. I didn't detect it in any of the remarks made by members opposite, except those of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[2:45]

I want to make the point -- because it has been made almost implicitly in this debate -- about taking sides. I said at the outset, in my introduction to this bill.... I've said this to the employers' organizations, and I have also said it to the unionized sector of the firefighters, but not the police, because I've not had a chance to address them in any kind of forum. I've said very clearly to both sides: this bill is not intended to tilt the balance to one side or the other. I've said that directly to the parties involved. Rather, this bill -- and I have refrained as well.... People know my partisan politics; people know my background. They know I come from a labour background. But not once in this debate have I chosen to even remotely side with one side or the other. I am bringing forward purely and simply a bill that will facilitate collective agreements in areas that are fundamentally important to society. Those are....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Gee, the hon. critic for Forests wants me to deal with doctors now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, we're now in the closing remarks by the minister. Every member has had an opportunity to speak, and I do believe the hon. member who is interjecting at this moment has indeed had an opportunity to enter the debate. So let's....

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, he, in fact, entered the debate, but I can only say that most trade unionists in the province would be green with envy at the prospect of having a trade union like the doctors have in British Columbia. They not only control how many people enter but they control their practice, and it's about as good a closed shop as you'll find anywhere. They appear to be doing quite well, based on the income levels that I've seen published in the newspapers.

Let me try to wrap up very quickly, hon. Speaker. I want to reiterate that the bill contains three areas that are critical in terms of the issues the opposition has raised, the tests that have to be passed in order for a dispute to go to binding arbitration: (1) I have to be satisfied, on the advice of the mediation division, that meaningful bargaining has taken place; (2) there is a list of criteria that I think cover the range of issues that were canvassed by members and that will guide an arbitrator; (3) the minister is able, under the bill, to offer additional criteria to the arbitrator; (4) while the arbitrator is trying to determine what an appropriate arbitrated settlement should be, that arbitrator is also empowered under the act to engage in mediation arbitration, and therefore has another useful tool to seek resolution of the dispute.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 35, Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 49.

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY ACT
(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I would move that Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, be read for a second time. This act establishes Royal Roads University as an independent degree-granting institution. The act is consistent with the vision described by the Royal Roads advisory panel for a unique public post-secondary institution. The advisory panel was established to undertake an independent review and to make recommendations on the future direction of Royal Roads Military College.

As members may be aware, the federal government unilaterally determined to close Royal Roads, and that left the issue to be dealt with. As a province, we negotiated with the federal government at the strong urging of the elected members for the area and the citizens of the communities involved, and we were able to achieve an agreement. While I can never say that we are completely satisfied, at least the agreement will allow us to move on and open the institution that is going to be given authority by this act.

The purpose of the act is to give authority to the work that is required now to establish this independent, degree-granting university. As set out in the act, the purpose of the university is to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels solely in the applied and professional fields. These programs must be responsive to the changing needs of industry, students, and local and international communities.

Another purpose of the university is to provide continuing education in response to the needs of the local community. These programs will be offered through conferences and seminars, and certificate and diploma programs. The university will also maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs, again in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia.

[3:00]

The act provides for a corporate governance model to enable the university to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs and to prepare students for twenty-first-century employment needs. The governance structure includes a board of governors who will have expertise in both academic and non-academic matters; the president, who is the chief executive officer of the university; the program and research council; and the academic council.

The board of governors and the president will have the powers and duties of the traditional academic senate, as specified in the act. The program and research council, composed of a majority of appointed external representatives, will advise the board of governors on instructional, program and research priorities, program objectives and desirable learning outcomes to ensure their relevance to the mandate of the institution. The academic council, composed of elected internal representatives, will advise the president on such matters as qualifications for admission, curriculum content within priorities established by the board of governors, academic standards, and criteria for awarding certificates, diplomas and degrees and for recognition of academic excellence.

Qualifications for admission will include the recognition of prior experience. This is important in that the institution hopes to attract, particularly in the postgraduate field, people with a wealth of experience in the province who may not have academic degrees or qualifications. Looking at prior learning assessment will be an important part of the university, particularly in the postgraduate function. Mature students lacking formal entrance requirements will have the opportunity, as I say, to demonstrate that they have acquired the equivalent education through a combination of previous training and life experience.

It is noteworthy that the act uses the term "professor" rather than "faculty" to define teaching and research staff employed by the university. This reflects the fact that there will be no tenure for teaching staff and probably no faculties as such.

The corporate governance structure provided by the act will ensure flexibility in programming and staff requirements. This will enable the institution to undertake new ways of teaching and conducting research, to enter into partnerships with existing post-secondary institutions and to increase its ability to be self-financing, which is an important feature.

Although this act establishes Royal Roads University as a unique institution, by reference it does incorporate some of the provisions of the University Act. These relate mainly to the powers of the board of governors, the president and the university. The Royal Roads University Act, in establishing a university with applied and professional programming that will be responsive to change, is consistent with the government's commitment to investing in people -- and I spoke of that in my wrap-up of the estimates debate of my ministry yesterday. It's very important in terms of being consistent with the government's commitment to investing in people by equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge to compete in the provincial, national and global economies. I will close with those remarks, and I look forward with anticipation to second reading debate.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, on behalf of the Liberal caucus. Certainly I'm delighted that under the Canada-B.C. framework agreement on Royal Roads, the federal Liberal government is providing this province with $20 million for costs relating to the development and operation of the campus over the next five years. This funding will ensure that there is no cost to British Columbia taxpayers in 1995 and 1996.

While we are on the federal government issue, I would also stand as the science and technology critic for the Liberal caucus and, again, applaud the contribution -- the recent funding announcement -- by the federal government of $167 million to the TRIUMF research station. Certainly the Minister 

[ Page 15571 ]

of Employment and Investment of this government and I have been at many announcements surrounding the future of that institution, and both of us believe fundamentally in the future of science and how important it is to this province. Indeed, we have one of the foremost research centres in Canada housed in British Columbia, and I think we can take tremendous pride in that.

In terms of how important ongoing research is to the future of Royal Roads, it will indeed be very, very important. I too would agree with the minister when he talks about the uniqueness of that facility. I do believe it will be unique. Certainly it talks about it being a small, independent degree-granting institution, offering graduate- and undergraduate-level programs. In this context, we're talking about an institution that is financially independent, so we are indeed talking about a different way to provide education in British Columbia -- and, I believe, about a way that is complementary to the existing resources in the different institutions we have today, whether they be a formal college, a university program or a number of other skills programs around the province. This is one more piece of an ever-growing pie in terms of providing choices for students around post-secondary education.

I accept and support the notion of applied studies, and I certainly am delighted to see professional-degree-granting opportunities for individuals who are returning to school later in life, and who are, again, coming with a different set of skills and perhaps not a formalized degree. Indeed, all through the estimates debate with this minister, I talked about a seamless system. If we can recognize the credit base that individuals bring to the system and actually grant them credit for their work experience as opposed to a previous degree, I think the system is moving ahead extremely well. Again, I would offer my acknowledgment of this particular act, because it appears that it will allow that to happen. I think that that news is always good news.

In terms of the federal contribution, I would hope that this minister will rise during his closing remarks and thank the federal government; $20 million is a significant sum of money. It will allow an expanded choice along the continuum. Frankly, this act and that funding will allow for the operation of the Royal Roads University. I can honestly commit in this debate that I don't believe this government would have come forth and operated that university this September without that funding contribution. I think that is a valid comment.

Again, just to speak very strongly in support of this act's seeming commitment to research and development, that is the future of this province. We spend untold dollars in this province encouraging young women to take to science and the study of mathematics, and now we are recognizing how important that is across the continuum. Again, that's always good news.

In terms of some specific aspects of the bill, I will certainly canvass these issues in some detail in second reading, but I would be interested in the minister's remarks on particular fundraising endeavours, and on whether or not the tax receipting for this particular institution will differ in any way from the other universities we know in the province.

Another particular question I would have for this minister, which perhaps he can address prior to committee stage of this debate, looks at removal of professors. My question would simply be: is there an appeal process in place?

If the minister could comment on those in his closing remarks, that indeed may allow us to move through committee stage of this bill much more quickly. So I'm standing in support of Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act. I think it will again allow some expanded choices for students in British Columbia, and I urge its support.

A. Warnke: There are a couple of remarks I want to make, and I guess they're based on the response to the minister's opening statement on Bill 49. Indeed, the opening statement by the minister suggests almost a lament that the federal government unilaterally closed Royal Roads, and therefore the provincial government somehow was left something to be dealt with.

I look at this entirely differently. It's in that kind of context that I want to make one remark: military colleges -- and all military colleges -- unlike universities, are somewhat vulnerable or expendable. We have to be reminded that not only in Canada but throughout the world -- certainly the western world -- there was something called a peace dividend. The peace dividend did have an effect, insofar as it meant reallocating resources to the non-military sector that perhaps belonged formerly to the military sector. Not only in this country but in other countries as well, a transformation is going through in the military sector. Of course, what's going to be affected by that are the various military colleges.

In the western world there have been some outstanding military colleges. Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, England, certainly comes to mind; Sandhurst, of course; Cranwell; and in the United States, West Point and Annapolis. Actually, I visited the United States Air Force Academy several years ago. I have personal favourites: Fort Ord, California, and the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, that I'm very familiar with.

All of these institutions and colleges have had to go through a transformation as a result of the peace dividend. Most people see that as a very positive thing. We've had distinguished schools and colleges in this country as well. Le College Militaire Royal de St. Jean in Quebec, the Royal Military College in Kingston and, of course, the Royal Roads Military College in Victoria. All of the colleges I've mentioned have had to go through an adjustment -- minimally -- as a result of the peace dividend.

Indeed, in the context of Royal Roads itself, it's very important to reflect on a bit of history as well. The Naval Services Act, which established the Royal Canadian Navy in 1910 -- and I believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the Prime Minister really responsible for that -- led to the establishment of the Royal Naval College in Halifax the following year. We don't want to go into the whole history, but as a result of World War I and one terrible incident in Halifax in 1917, it affected the college in Halifax and meant establishing, the following year, a college in Esquimalt on this side. In 1940, HMCS Royal Roads was commissioned. It's had quite a history since then.

I want to draw attention to the fact that this has not been the first time that there has been some discussion as to the future of Royal Roads College. Indeed, I draw the House's attention to the Landymore commission, which did attempt to articulate about the cost of training officers. This was back in the 1960s. The Landymore commission found that the cost of training officers was three times what it would cost to train the very same officers in some sort of university program with the ROTP. Nonetheless, the Landymore commission did conclude that the military colleges were cost-efficient. Another commis-

[ Page 15572 ]

sion, the Glassco commission -- which some members might remember -- focused on the waste and inefficiency of the federal government. It did find that military colleges were not efficient according to the dollars spent. A Defence department advisory board, however, still supported colleges. This was in the context of the 1960s. It's very fair to say that the reason military colleges are expendable, not only in Canada but throughout the world, is that in terms of dollars, they are cost-inefficient. As a result of what we would now dub the peace dividend, those colleges are naturally quite vulnerable.

Some people in the 1960s had the foresight to say that somewhere down the line, Royal Roads and other military colleges were going to have to face the prospect of some sort of transformation. Therefore, about 1969 or 1970, there was the suggestion that Royal Roads should be the site of a world college. Indeed, one of its proponents was General Allard, who was the chief of defence staff for Canada. It was a large thesis that essentially Canada was moving to where the allocation of resources in a military context may have been best reallocated somewhere else. Therefore we must have a new vision for Royal Roads.

To his credit... It may have been the wrong decision, but the commandant of Royal Roads at the time, Colonel Lewis, convinced Ottawa otherwise. It's easy in retrospect to suggest that Colonel Lewis was wrong. On the other hand, as the commandant for Royal Roads at the time, he stuck up for the college.

It is very clear that in 1969 and 1970, the future of Royal Roads was beginning to be examined. Perhaps it's a mistake that.... In retrospect, after seeing what has happened, perhaps Royal Roads should have been the site for what later became known as the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. Indeed, that was suggested at the time. So with 20-20 hindsight, perhaps that should have been the future of Royal Roads. Eventually, with the coming of the peace dividend, it's obvious that something had to happen with Royal Roads.

[3:15]

This is not new, and that is essentially the reason that I thought I would make my comments. This is not something to lament. This is not something that the federal government just somehow came up with from the upper clouds: this idea, in the era of cost-cutting, that they would unilaterally close Royal Roads. This issue as to the future of Royal Roads has been around for 25 years and more. In an ideal, perfect world, we would all like to support the idea of a military college. But time and time again it has been pointed out that in terms of moneys and government expenditures, they're cost-inefficient and therefore vulnerable.

There is another argument that this is a sign of the times. It's a great time in that in the era of the peace dividend, we can actually begin to shift some of our attention and resources from the military to the non-military sector. So be it. It's in this kind of context that I would like to put forward the notion that instead of a lament that something went wrong, there is genuine cause here for extending enthusiastic support.

It's not without some problems. One problem from the summary remarks of the minister can be put this way -- that is, what is the impact of Royal Roads University on Camosun College in Victoria and, of course, on the University of Victoria itself? Within the greater Victoria area now, we have three institutions of degree-granting status. I think the way the minister has put out in the opening remarks that Royal Roads University is perhaps going to give us something different that Camosun College and the University of Victoria are not going to give us is fair enough. That's heading in the right direction. For that matter, therefore, it is quite proper that we lend enthusiastic support in this particular direction.

There is another point I want to raise as well. The bill as it reads certainly can be supported, but I want to draw attention to one part of the bill, section 2(c). I know we can get it at committee stage, but it's a point I would like to raise. The purpose of the university, according to 2(c), is to maintain teaching excellence and research activities -- and that's fine -- that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia. There is nothing wrong with putting forward the phrase "labour market needs." It is certainly a very good, noble goal to pursue, but to provide something that might have some implications, let's say when the university draws up its calendar, I have suggested.... I would like the minister just to contemplate it and perhaps he'll apply an amendment; it's entirely up to him. I'm not going to make a big issue out of it.

In the original provincial news release entitled "Royal Roads University to Start Up in September," the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour put it this way: "We have built a vision for Royal Roads University based on the recommendations we've received from the advisory panel...Royal Roads will offer contemporary professional mid-career graduate programs such as international business and marketing, environmental management and technology management." Those three phrases -- international business and marketing, environmental management and technology management -- are something very constructive and positive. It's something in that, somehow, and perhaps more.

I would say the university could certainly address socioeconomic needs, and that could be another phrase. If we could somehow ensure that that is in the context of this bill -- to provide the university with the aspiration and the scope in a more general and comprehensive context in terms of developing its curriculum -- it is something I would really support. Those are the two points I want to raise.

I certainly don't lament the development of this kind of situation. Indeed, I think it is the only option. Maybe, in that context, the government might see itself in a regrettable situation. It may be the only option, but I think it's a positive option that the government is pursuing here, and that's the reason I think this is headed in the right direction. It is based on 25 years or more of consideration. This is nothing new in terms of establishing Royal Roads as a university, and I would hope that in passing this bill, we somehow not only lend enthusiastic support for the new university, but celebrate the fact that we have a new post-secondary institution in the province most worthy of its people.

L. Fox: I am pleased to rise and support Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act. I find it quite amusing, though, that at the outset we've heard more defence in the last speaker's argument in terms of the actions of the federal government than we heard around the opportunities that this provides British Columbia to come out with a unique opportunity to create some new directions in secondary education.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Well, I don't know whether Ottawa's decision was good or bad, based on military needs. I'm not prepared to 

[ Page 15573 ]

discuss that aspect of it. I guess, coming out of this, I'm a believer that there is a silver lining in almost every cloud. While we may have lost a facility that, indeed, was designed to meet different objectives, I think we have gained one that we can look forward to providing some unique opportunities in post-secondary education.

Before I read some of my prepared text, the only thing I would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss when this bill came forward is the presentation made to our caucus by the faculty at Royal Roads -- and I know they made the presentation to the minister and government as well as, I'm sure, the opposition caucus -- around the opportunities for developing a wholly-owned, independent institution, which would have been funded on its own, generated its own revenues and controlled its own expenditures without needing any provincial or federal money. It was a rather unique opportunity not only to look at a pilot -- perhaps it was only designed to be a two-year pilot -- but maybe also to try something new in terms of our post-secondary education. I would have liked to have seen us explore that. Perhaps the minister in his sum-up will tell us why that wasn't a viable option, because I would like to hear that.

By creating this entirely new university on a campus of the former Royal Roads Military College, this bill represents a significant change in the way provincial government governs its post-secondary education. I want to talk about one or two of the initiatives here that I really feel strongly about and really support in the bill. The university's mandate will be to provide academic programs aimed exclusively at applied and professional fields of study, responsive to the specific needs of British Columbia's labour market. I think that is an excellent initiative; that's what I read into this legislation.

The administrative and governing structures of the new university are very different from those of existing institutions. Royal Roads University will be an efficient and streamlined school, operating more like a business than a traditional institution. The introduction of two new councils in the university structure, entrenched in this legislative mandate, should help facilitate the progressive thrust of its technical and professional goals. Charged with developing the educational and research agendas of the university, the program and research council and the academic council are interesting new creatures, in my view. And although I have some concerns about how they will operate, I hope that they are there to bring Royal Roads to the cutting edge and keep it there. Its emphasis on research and development programs, combined with a sharp focus on applied and professional studies, represents an important new direction for post-secondary education in the province.

Hon. Speaker, I guess I'm almost sounding like I'm the minister presenting the bill, but I feel strongly, having been raised in northern British Columbia, where all the emphasis in the past -- other than, as we've seen, the development of the colleges -- has been on the academic side. Having seen so many llost opportunities for young people, I really believe that if given the opportunity that could flow out of the intent of the bill.... I think there is a great opportunity here for young British Columbians, and I totally support the bill.

D. Mitchell: Today we are engaged in a process of creating a new university in British Columbia. Many of us will feel that Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act, is something that should be supported with some pride. I think there are also some questions and concerns about this. But at the outset, I'd like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward the bill. At the very least, we can say that the military college that was closed by the federal government in far-off Ottawa will be preserved as a centre for post-secondary education in the province. At the very least, that opportunity hasn't been lost and the site hasn't been lost or forfeited for some other use.

I think the traditions of Royal Roads Military College should continue. Indeed, many might argue that it should have continued as a military college. That opportunity is not there, so there's no sense debating that or speaking about an opportunity that has been lost. But I think we can talk about an opportunity which exists today that is not being approached as creatively, perhaps, as one might want to. We're creating yet another university -- as the minister says, another independent, degree-granting university in the province.

I think it's a valid question to ask whether we need one. We have four publicly funded universities in the province today. We have another number of university colleges, which also grant degrees. There is a concern about the depreciation of the currency of the degrees that are granted by British Columbia post-secondary institutions today. There is a concern. Do we have too many degree-granting institutions? I see the minister shaking his head in the negative. I know that he will have applications coming forward from other colleges who would also like to grant degrees and would like to have that degree-granting power. But I wonder if the opportunity that we're pursuing today to create a new university -- a separate, stand-alone university at the Royal Roads Military College site -- is the right approach. At the very least, we're preserving an opportunity for post-secondary education.

The board of governors that will be created pursuant to this act, the academic council that the minister spoke of, which is going to be appointed pursuant to this act, may have the opportunity, perhaps, to apply some creativity and some ingenuity to turn attention to the opportunity that I think really presents itself at the Royal Roads Military College site. What we have here, I think, could have been handled differently. It could have been handled a lot differently, and it could have addressed the concerns about an opportunity to do something better.

I know that the minister will have received representation not only from the faculty and staff of Royal Roads Military College, but from others in the post-secondary education community as well. The opportunity for some kind of an alliance with the University of Victoria, right here in Victoria, certainly is there and presented itself, but the government decided to reject that opportunity and instead go the route of a separate, independent university. I think the minister's going to have to answer why.

Why not create a bond or a strategic alliance with the University of Victoria and take a look at the opportunities for expanding Royal Roads Military College to create perhaps a unique institution, more unique than the minister has said? The minister has said that this is a special and unique institution. He has even indicated, in his second reading comments today, that the teaching staff will not have tenure, I think is what he said. The teaching staff at this university, unlike all the other universities, will not have tenure. That is different. It will be interesting to know why.

[3:30]

[ Page 15574 ]

It will be interesting to know about transferability or the ability to hire staff and faculty from other universities in British Columbia, if they'll be willing to go there, or whether this is simply a move in the direction of removing tenure from all university faculty in the province. It will be interesting to know if that's what the minister is starting here. He's putting the foot in the door to taking away tenure from all faculty in British Columbia. We don't know that. But at Royal Roads University the faculty and teaching staff will not have tenure. He has said that.

We have an opportunity to take a look at creating a unique institution, at taking Royal Roads Military College.... The federal government had no vision for continuing that institution; they simply wanted to close it. There was a complete lack of vision from Ottawa, and that's not unusual. In fact, that's something we in British Columbia have come to expect from Ottawa. The provincial government not only had the opportunity to pick up the ball -- and I give credit to the minister that at least he picked up the ball and did not allow an opportunity to be forgone -- but they could have taken a look at creating a special institute for studying the oceans. Here we are situated on the Pacific Rim. We could have taken a look at an engineering institute that would focus on the handling of international disasters. We could have taken a look at a number of other opportunities for a specialized technical training institute, because we have BCIT in Burnaby, which does an outstanding job, but is sometimes criticized for being the Burnaby institute of technology. A lot of people wonder why we don't have similar institutes in the interior and in the north and perhaps right here on Vancouver Island. There might have been room to create a specialized technical training institute.

Perhaps there's nothing in the purposes section of this bill to prevent the board of governors of Royal Roads University from focusing the attentions, energies and talents that are going to be hired at this new university in these new directions. But the bill itself, in the explanatory note, simply says that the act establishes this new university "to offer certificate, diploma, undergraduate and graduate programs in applied and professional fields." That's a fairly general statement for a fairly general approach to post-secondary education. It's not very specialized or very unique. So there is going to be a lot of weight on the shoulders of the board of governors the minister is going to be appointing pursuant to this act, and of the academic council that is established. The vision that is imparted to them in this act isn't very specific. The minister's comments in the House might be offering them some further direction, so when he closes debate I am going to be encouraging him to not only answer some of these questions, but to indicate a willingness during the committee stage to talk a little bit about some of the specialized visions that might be applied.

The reason I'm going to do that is that there are alternative visions for post-secondary education: how we're going to fund it and who is going to have the opportunity to participate in advanced education in British Columbia. I will note a discussion paper put out by the Liberal opposition recently which talks about directions for post-secondary education in British Columbia. The Liberal vision, if they should ever be given an opportunity to govern -- and heaven forbid if they are -- apparently sees privatization of post-secondary education as the way to go. You would perhaps have to gain access to a voucher of some kind. Maybe you'd be able to spend your voucher at Royal Roads University, or maybe it wouldn't cover the tuition. I don't know. I don't know if the new "Directions for Post-Secondary Education" is official policy. I don't know if it has been approved by the leader of the Liberal opposition yet, but it talks about a vision for post-secondary education which is certainly at odds with the reality today. I wonder if the minister would have any comments on that, in the context of this act.

Interjection.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: I saw the minister's press release. I was actually quite impressed with his press release, but I wonder.... He didn't mention anything about that approach to post-secondary education in his second reading comments on Bill 49. I'm hoping that he won't miss the opportunity to do so.

As I said, Bill 49 establishes a new university -- another publicly funded university in British Columbia. I'm not certain that's what we need in British Columbia today. I'm disappointed that the government didn't take advantage of the opportunity to use the very best creative minds, and some of the other ideas in the post-secondary education sector, to really apply itself to the Royal Roads Military College site, and to create an even more interesting and unique institution that might be aligned or affiliated with other post-secondary institutions such as the University of Victoria, and to focus specifically on some of the new emerging technologies -- some of the opportunities presented by our geographic location here on the coast to create something truly new.

We are creating a new mini-university. It's going to grant degrees, like many other institutions in British Columbia that grant degrees. I hope that it won't be the case that we're simply going to be producing more degrees, depreciating the currency of the degrees that are being produced in British Columbia and not really adding the significant value that we could to the post-secondary education sector.

M. Sihota: I rise in this debate as the MLA for the area in which the new Royal Roads University will be situate. I want to start by saying that this legislation is a tribute to the hard work of the people in the Western Communities of the greater Victoria area. They recognized that the federal government was making a mistake when it was closing Royal Roads Military College, and quickly rallied in this community to fight for and encourage the provincial government to protect Royal Roads and to create a university for the benefit of future generations who will be requiring training in a number of disciplines here in the greater Victoria area.

I want to talk a few minutes about this decision of the federal government, because I know other hon. members have spoken on it, particularly the member for Richmond-Steveston, whose comments I listened to with great interest. The decision on the part of the federal Liberal government to close Royal Roads Military College was a mistake. The reason I say that is that on an international basis around the world we are seeing a change in the geopolitical makeup of the defence alignment, inasmuch as prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union there was one identifiable -- if I can put it this way -- enemy or area of concern. With the fracturing that has occurred in Europe -- we've seen that in a number of disputes that have occurred since the breakup of the Soviet Union -- 

[ Page 15575 ]

there is a real need to have our peacekeepers equipped with the requisite skills to maintain peace throughout the world. Royal Roads Military College made sure that Canada's brightest military minds were trained in disciplines so as to enhance Canada's peacekeeping skills and allow this country to do that which it has carved out a niche for, namely peacekeeping.

It is true that there are three military colleges in Canada. It is also true, as other hon. members from the Liberal Party have mentioned, that for the past 25 years there have been many studies that have pointed to a review of the three military colleges in this country. The majority of those studies have concluded that it makes sense for this nation to have at least one military college in western Canada -- here on the west coast of Canada, in the Esquimalt area, in particular -- and one in eastern Canada. All of the studies that I have seen with regard to efficiencies pointed out repeatedly that the Royal Roads Military College was the most efficient of the three military colleges that were established in this country.

There's a need to ensure that people who are trained in, for example, peacekeeping duties, and in naval skills, are trained at a facility which is close to navigable waters. This is not the case for Kingston, nor was it the case for St. Jean, Quebec. That alone warranted the maintenance of a military college here on the west coast of Canada. In addition, it makes sense, when students are engaged in military studies, that we maintain a triservice facility so that students are equipped in skills that deal not only with naval matters but with matters relating to aircraft and the army.

I think the federal government, therefore, made a political decision not to offend the voters in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada and to maintain their political base in eastern Canada -- to maintain a facility in eastern Canada and to deny western Canadian students the opportunity to be educated here in western Canada. I put that on the record only because I think it rebuts the arguments that have just been made by the Liberal Party in the sense that this was something that needed to be closed. It did not need to be closed. There was a compelling argument to maintain a military college.

Having said that, the federal government nonetheless made this ill-informed decision. Royal Roads and the site that this university is to be located on is a treasure here in the Western Communities, and people appreciate the importance of having an academic institution, particularly on the western side of the greater Victoria area. We, as a provincial government, could have done that which other Reform-minded governments -- I use that in the capital-R sense -- endeavour to do, which is to simply pass on these cuts to the communities and say: "Well, there's nothing we can do about it."

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I am being heckled by the Liberals now, because they're upset that the point has been made that a decision was poorly thought through in terms of the Liberal Party. If they want to heckle, I guess that's their choice, but I think it's important that they feel the pain that people in the Western Communities felt when the decision was made with regard to the closure of Royal Roads Military College, and that they feel some of the sting of the anger that I am expected to articulate on their behalf here in this Legislature.

Let me return to the point. We could have made a decision, as the government, to ignore the wishes of the people of the Western Communities, of the greater Victoria area, and allow Royal Roads to wither -- to allow that which the federal Liberals wanted to do: sell off those lands for commercial development and deny the establishment of an educational institute.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Again, I know I've woken the Liberal members opposite, who now wish to....

An Hon. Member: That's impossible.

M. Sihota: Some say that's impossible, and I guess there's some pleasure in the fact that I've been able to do the impossible.

But I know it hurts them to know that it was they who made the decision to close this facility. We made a conscious decision -- the Premier, in February 1994 -- to indicate that we would seek to preserve Royal Roads Military College. During the course of the last year a tremendous amount of work has been done by, first of all, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, in seeking to fulfil that obligation that the Premier made, furthered by my colleagues from the greater Victoria area, the locally elected MLAs: the members for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Victoria-Beacon Hill, Malahat-Juan de Fuca, Saanich South...

An Hon. Member: Victoria-Hillside.

M. Sihota: ...and yes, the member for Victoria-Hillside, when he was a member of this caucus.

All of us worked diligently to try to encourage the government to protect Royal Roads. We were able to secure an agreement with the federal government, which I think is in the best interests of this province. It allows the federal government to contribute the same amount of money that they contributed in the province of Quebec to compensate Quebec for the loss of their military college. We are taking those funds and establishing an innovative educational facility here in the Western Communities.

I want to specifically acknowledge the work of the staff and faculty of Royal Roads, who worked aggressively with us over the past year in a grassroots campaign designed to save this facility and convert it into a post-secondary institute -- in particular, Drs. Boutilier, Dunnett and Akbar, who were instrumental in leading and spearheading that community desire. One afternoon last June, I think, they were able to attract 13,000 Victorians to Royal Roads to demonstrate to this province the affinity that people in the Western Communities and greater Victoria have to that site.

This educational facility -- and I want to credit the government for having made this decision -- will not duplicate the work of UVic and Camosun. Some hon. members have asked: why is this not an adjunct of UVic and Camosun? Well, we do not want to create a duplication of those program opportunities in the Western Communities. People can access UVic and Camosun for the programs available there. We want to make sure that Royal Roads University carves out its own special niche.

There's tremendous opportunity. One of those areas is in the area of environmental technologies and environmental 

[ Page 15576 ]

training. I want to comment on that for a minute. We as a provincial government have designed or endeavoured to provide the infrastructure to ensure that the Western Communities and the people in the Western Communities prosper in the years ahead. We've made a commitment to establish and have started the work on $152 million worth of roadworks, to allow people to transport themselves from the Western Communities to Victoria in a far more efficient way. Hopefully, we'll follow that up with some announcements on light rail transit. At the same time, we have provided for $30 million in infrastructure work for sewers in the Western Communities, to allow development to occur in the Western Communities.

[3:45]

But it seems to me that what really allows a community to achieve its economic potential is a leading-edge educational institute. If you can say to the world, "Move to the Western Communities, and you can have access to the academic institution known as Royal Roads, which specializes" -- let's say, to illustrate my point -- "in the area of environmental technologies; you can live in communities like Metchosin and the Highlands, which have a rural quality to them, a high quality of life and a profoundly rich environment; you can work in Colwood in areas that we are sewering, so there's going to be more density, and locate your businesses there in proximity to Royal Roads," then you set the basis for that which has been created in communities like Stanford, where we saw the development of Silicon Valley -- high-tech industries situating themselves adjacent to a first-class educational institute and creating economic prosperity for that portion of California.

The same potential exists here in the Western Communities. We could become the home for green industries by taking advantage of Royal Roads and its ability to offer training in environmental technologies, by encouraging green industries to locate in one of the greenest areas in British Columbia, the greater Victoria area, and by making sure we have a transportation system that efficiently moves people from one area to the other. There are also opportunities with regard to international trade. Indeed, as the minister has mentioned, this will be an institute that will be working in the form of applied arts as opposed to academic arts, so as not -- to pick up on the comments made by other hon. members -- to duplicate the programming that is offered at the University of Victoria and at Camosun College.

Let me also say that this facility will offer special programming to people in the Western Communities to deal with the needs of the people in the Western Communities. For example, we have a high percentage of women in the Western Communities who are endeavouring to make the transition, living in the suburbs of Victoria, from life at home to the workforce. They require upgrading in terms of skills so as to make sure that they can achieve their potential as human beings. We see a tremendous opportunity to fulfil their aspirations by establishing these types of programs, developed by the community for the community, in the Western Communities portion of the greater Victoria area.

It's a win-win. It's a win in terms of economic opportunities and the economic development of the Western Communities; it's a win in terms of an academic institution, which has been long overdue in that component of Victoria; and it's a win for the people of the Western Communities, who will now have access to post-secondary educational opportunities designed in a way that is tailor-made to their concerns. It is win for the people of the greater Victoria area who lobbied hard and aggressively and attracted the ear of a government that was prepared to listen. It is also a win in the sense that it takes a decision that was poorly made by the Liberal government and converts it into something that future generations can be proud of.

H. Lali: I request leave to make a couple of introductions.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make an introduction of two groups of 80 students from grade 6, along with several adults, and their teacher, Mr. B. Bagnall, from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. As well, there is another group of 42 visitors: students from grades 5 and 6, with several adults, and their teacher, Mr. Coppendon, from Hellen Keller Elementary School in Kirkland, Washington. Would the House please bid our visitors a warm British Columbia welcome.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of Bill 49, and I do so to offer some considerable congratulations to the government for preventing what would have been the exacerbation of a very bad decision, and that was the decision to close Royal Roads Military College.

I'm going to keep my remarks somewhat brief, because I know that my colleague for Okanagan East wishes to speak more specifically to the philosophy of the bill. I want to echo some of the comments made by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who talked about the incredible mistake that was made with respect to the removal of federal funding for Royal Roads Military College. I don't think Canadians generally understood the magnitude of the decision that was taken, but British Columbians clearly did.

We have to know -- because the constitution of Canada keeps us together as ten united provinces -- that the federal government has obligations to all regions of the country and to this province. Notwithstanding the fact that perhaps we didn't send as many Liberals back as they might have liked, we did not deserve the kind of treatment we received with respect to the cuts in budgets that we are unfortunately having to deal with.

I really do underscore what was said. I'm delighted to hear in this chamber that we are finally starting to talk -- at least on the matter of the principles of these bills -- about some of the broader issues and interests that Canadians must have and that we as provincial legislators have to have. We see the changing nature of alliances that exist continentally both north and south, because of our economic trade agreements and alliances, but more importantly, the different alliances that are now starting to take place with respect to the changing global political map.

It was necessary to maintain Royal Roads Military College in order to keep the very best and brightest minds available, so that we in western Canada could have a military training college that would allow those individuals who chose to take that path an opportunity to be trained in the most advanced and most modern of technologies.

I can say that I have a particular interest in it. I know that my colleague and I both do, because it was a place where we 

[ Page 15577 ]

were married, and in the time leading up to that event we had an opportunity to have a tour.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East is saying that she enjoyed herself greatly there. It was very much a Liberal event, but I won't get into that. The interesting thing was that we had an opportunity to have a tour of those facilities and to see firsthand what exists there. I think the trouble is that an awful lot of British Columbians are not aware of the extent to which that facility has been provided with some of the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art equipment.

I would hope that the federal government does not compound its folly by removing funding from Royal Roads by attempting, in this transition period, to gut that institution of the equipment that exists there, particularly with respect to the science labs and the communications and electrical technologies labs. I would say that the next move this government has to make is to get in there and lock the doors and let them take nothing out. It will be in the interests of the federal government to try to move that equipment to the eastern institutions, particularly in Quebec. I am suggesting that this government should move quickly now to make sure that the equipment that is there is there for the use of this institution as it is reconstituted and that we do not allow the federal government to come in and gut that institution. After all, it is equipment that has been bought with taxpayers' money, and that includes British Columbia taxpayers, which sometimes the central government in Ottawa tends to forget. They tend to forget that we are one of the key contributors to Confederation, and we often get very little back in return for our efforts. So I would say that we have to secure that equipment, and we must move quickly to do so.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that it took some courage for this government.... In a time when there is a huge call for fiscal restraint, it took some courage for this government to recognize the asset that that institution provided, not just for the people of British Columbia, but for all of Canada. It took some courage to come forward and say that we were going to get in there to preserve it, to protect it and to maintain the integrity of that institution.

For the small part that we were able to play, we met with the faculty out there and with the administration and with those that were organizing the move to try and have this institution put in place. We were as vocal and forceful as we could be in putting forward this proposal. So we're delighted to see that whatever our efforts have contributed to this cause has borne fruit. I would say that congratulations to this government are in order. However, we are going to look very carefully at the clause-by-clause sections of this bill. There are issues, particularly a couple that were raised by my colleague for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that I think need to be looked at and addressed, and more that will be commented on in the remarks by my colleague for Okanagan East that will follow.

R. Kasper: I would like to pick up on and echo the comments of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The government has shown remarkable vision in picking up the slack from our federal government when they abandoned the people of the Western Communities with their decision to close the Royal Roads Military College. With the hard work and determination of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, the hard work and effort of my colleague for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and in particular, the local councils, the business community and the staff and workers of Royal Roads mounting a very strong, effective lobby to ensure that there was some form of post-secondary education maintained in the Western Communities.... Through this act, it will become a reality. I am confident that the board -- which will help deliberate on the future direction of this post-secondary institution -- will reflect the economic realities of the community, the employment opportunities and the marketplace in the kinds of skills and training needed to make both the Western Communities region and the province more prosperous in the future.

It is important, though, that the partnership that has been developed over the past year and a half since the federal government decided to abandon Royal Roads Military College -- again putting additional costs on the backs of B.C. taxpayers -- struck a hard bargain to ensure that our taxpayers in this province would not be penalized for the federal government's abandonment of that college facility.

But after saying that, I'm confident that the people in the Western Communities will take great pride in knowing that there will be an education facility there that will truly reflect the values of the people of the Western Communities and will afford students of all ages an opportunity to seek a post-secondary education when other opportunities are not available at UVic or at other post-secondary education facilities.

I know that many members, I trust, will support this bill. I have to remark that I know that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has spoken highly of the government's decision; I'd like to echo that. I know that my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has also spoken highly of it and actually played a very major role in making this piece of legislation and the government's announcement a reality.

I know that with the involvement of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, there are other opportunities available with this facility. Whatever courses are going to be struck at that post-secondary facility, they will reflect involvement from the business community in both the Western Communities and the rest of the greater Victoria area. If it wasn't for the partnership that this government has established with the business community within this region, much of the hard work and effort that has taken place would not be a reality. So I would also like to thank the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He has shown a keen interest in seeing this particular institution become a reality.

Thank you very much. I take my place in support of this legislation.

[4:00]

J. Tyabji: I am happy to rise in support of this bill, and certainly there were days when we thought this bill wouldn't come forward. Many of us were quite concerned that Royal Roads would be lost forever to the people of British Columbia.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't spent any time up at Royal Roads to go there. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentioned, I myself would not have even known the asset that exists there if I hadn't had a personal interest in it, which developed, obviously, because we were married there and had the opportunity to get to know some of the faculty and to tour the facility. One of the things he 

[ Page 15578 ]

brought up that I would really like to emphasize is the computer equipment and technology -- including satellite technology -- we have because this was a military college. The federal government funded the most advanced technology available for communications, for weather predictions and for geographic full-colour mapping. The scientific laboratories are unbelievably well put together.

When we were there a few months ago, what bothered me was that shortly after the federal government's decision had come out, the order went out to start removing assets -- any movable assets. There were beds going out; there were computers going out. Anything that was movable had an order to be shipped back east to the Quebec college. And this, I think, gets to the heart of why British Columbians become frustrated with the way the federal government treats us. We're almost like second-class citizens, and it's been a difficult exercise at best to see how the.... I think the Minister of Finance has to be given some credit for negotiations. I know the Minister of Employment and Investment was involved; and certainly the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, in addition to the minister who has brought this bill forward, has been part of the negotiations and the arguments in favour of this institution. But it has been a very difficult challenge for them to have any response from Ottawa. That's something that has to be stated for the record: the federal government didn't really care about British Columbians losing this asset.

In addition to the equipment, which is a very important asset.... I would hope that the minister is paying attention to the fact that the equipment should be kept where it is. I would also hope that the provincial government is going to make a requisition for the equipment that has already been moved back east to be sent back, because for their dollar they have paid the federal government, they deserve to have everything that the taxpayers of the province originally invested in at that site. I wouldn't like us to lose that, because it would be very difficult for this government to ever afford to replace it once it is gone.

Having said that, the land and the buildings on that site would be impossible to replace. Not only would we not have the money, but with the way that the province is growing, it would be very difficult to have land of that size and calibre put aside in this day and age, when obviously we treat land as a commodity. The commodity value of it would be too high to put aside for the public trust.

With respect to this bill, I think it's interesting, and perhaps a bit ironic, that the provincial government has chosen to experiment and go in a different direction from what we see in the University Act for the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, UNBC and UBC, and that we have in this bill an almost radical departure from the way universities have been administered in the past. I want to spend a minute just speaking about this, because.... The reason I mention that it's ironic is that we are going from a military college, which is a fairly conservative institution, to an institution that is of this minister's design, which is a radical departure. The reason it is....

There are a few things. First of all, there's no purposes section in the University Act as it exists and as it governs the four other universities in the province. But we do have a purposes section in this act -- section 2. I know the member for Richmond-Steveston mentioned it briefly. But if the purposes of this university are, as in subsection (a), "to provide continuing education," and, as in subsection (b), "to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs...in solely the applied and professional fields," then it's interesting that in subsection (c), we see that the purposes of the university are also, "to maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia." Now, this is certainly a bill that is the brainchild of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.

I remember last year's debate on the education councils, and in that debate, those also were a creature of this minister. I note that there's no provision for education councils in this bill, and that begs the question of whether or not those will be brought in automatically because they exist in the other statute, or whether they will not exist because we have an academic council in this bill. I'm sure we'll get to that in committee stage.

The other thing that I think is interesting is that on the board of governors there's no provision for cabinet appointments of alumni, which exists in the University Act that governs the other four universities. I would certainly speak in favour of alumni, at the point when there are alumni, being on the board of governors. That's something we can take up later.

But I think the most important difference between this bill and the University Act is that section 46.1 of the University Act, which is headed "Minister not to interfere," reads:

"(1) The minister shall not interfere in the exercise of powers conferred on a university, its board, senate and other constituent bodies by this act respecting (a) the formulation and adoption of academic policies and standards, (b) the establishment of standards for admission and graduation, and (c) the selection and appointment of staff."

And then it says in section 46.1(2): "Notwithstanding subsection (1), a university shall not establish a new degree program without the approval of the minister." So obviously there's a reason that there's no provision for the minister not to interfere in the new university.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I see that the minister is trying to insult me by saying that I think too much. I think that's a very interesting angle, to put that forward as an insult. Withdraw.... I don't know if it's parliamentary language to say that someone thinks too much -- in this House. In this House, I think that would be seen as an insult.

That aside, it's important to note that there is a purposes section which talks about responding to the labour market, and there's no provision for the minister not to interfere in the regular business of the university. Those are two things that don't exist in the University Act for the four other universities. As I say, it is ironic that this bill, which will govern a place that has been a more conservative institution, is going to be radically different.

We note that the president has expanded powers or responsibilities in addition to those in the University Act. Later on in the debate perhaps we'll get to whether or not that's because he or she will be picking up the slack from the lack of a senate. I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked a little bit about the lack of tenure that exists in this, and certainly we'll explore that in committee stage.

There are two things that need to be said. First of all, many people would argue that it is time for a radical change 

[ Page 15579 ]

in the university institution. In that respect, in terms of supporting the principle of this bill, we're certainly not prepared to criticize the minister for trying to take some initiative in changing the institution of universities. For that I think he should be congratulated. When we get to committee stage, we can try to find out which direction he's trying to take.

As we said in the debate on the education council last year, the Progressive Democratic Alliance is extremely nervous when we see any kind of educational institution trying to respond to the labour market. That can be very problematic, because usually by the time government has done an analysis sufficient to respond to a labour market, the labour market has changed. That's typical of any market, whether it's the agricultural market that the Minister of Agriculture tries to direct, whether it's education with the Year 2000 program, or whether it's post-secondary education, where we try to train people for jobs that are available today but which may not be available at the time they complete their program. That's where we have some concerns.

But overriding all of this, I think, is a sense of celebration that the minister has taken this initiative. His government should be congratulated. There's no question that if our grandchildren are around to enjoy that facility, it will be one of the legacies of this government, and for that, they should be very proud.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for the opportunity, hon. Speaker. I'm certain that if it were up to some government members, they would not want me to have this opportunity. I know it surprises the hon. Speaker; nevertheless, I will keep it fairly short.

Perhaps I'll play a little bit of the devil's advocate in the Royal Roads situation. It's not often that I have an opportunity to agree with the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, but in this particular instance I do concur with his discourse on the need for Royal Roads to have continued as a military college. Over the last three or four years I've had the opportunity to talk to a number of people in active military service, and some who are recently retired, through the British Columbia Dragoons in Kelowna at their annual mess dinners.

I can see sort of a creeping paralysis coming over governments and society in Canada. It is ignoring our responsibility to our people and to peoples throughout the world by diminishing the size of our military commitment to the point where it is falling below the critical mass that will enable its continuation. When we lose a system such as Royal Roads Military College, we're losing a great deal -- a great deal in the continuity of staff, training and curriculum, which I think we have a responsibility in Canada to maintain. It's my sincere and devout belief that the decision made by the current government in Ottawa was very wrong indeed. On that basis, I certainly am pleased to support the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

I come to this debate as a Social Credit member who is very proud of the Social Credit commitment to advanced education over many years, and I want to make that absolutely clear. Whether it's the University of Victoria or Simon Fraser or the Access for All program that enabled colleges and college-universities to develop throughout British Columbia, I'm very, very proud of that commitment.

We in this Legislature and most British Columbians recognize that our future is in a highly advanced, sophisticated, technological world. We need the best of our students to be educated in the best-quality facilities that we can possibly afford and maintain. I'm very pleased, too, with the university of the north, and I'm very pleased that a Social Credit government advanced the university of the north to the point where the current government couldn't stop it. Today we do have a very fine facility centred in Prince George, creating access opportunities for students in those areas.

When we talk specifically about the advantages of that, I think they're obvious to most British Columbians. I've looked at statistics that indicate that in the interior of the province, only 9 percent to a maximum of 10 percent of our graduating students went on to post-secondary studies in universities in British Columbia, which is a rather poor record compared to the Victoria area or the Vancouver area, where approximately 19 percent of those who graduated from grade 12 went on to a university education. The Access for All program is creating opportunities for young people throughout the province to obtain university degrees, and I'm very proud of that. I know that in the future the whole province will benefit as we move along with a more sophisticated, more skilled, more educated group of young people taking their places in society and creating jobs and opportunities for other British Columbians.

The concerns I have with the Royal Roads initiative probably stem from practical considerations. Obviously, we've heard from the Minister of Finance and members of the government throughout the discourse and debate of the federal government's cutbacks in transfer payments. We hear a great deal about the impact on medicare. We must be well apprised that there are two beneficiaries of that funding: one is medicare, and the other one is advanced education, as you know.

With the significant and substantial cutbacks, we have some very interesting challenges with respect to the universities and colleges that already exist in British Columbia. In Okanagan University College, for example, we have space in some cases and too few professors. Our applied science program has had cutbacks simply because of the lack of funding for adequate staff for the demand for applied science. Other sites need expansion; they need the room. We're hard pressed to find the necessary capital funding to enable the student placement that society requires.

[4:15]

When we look at the cutbacks and find that we're going to divert more money into yet another institution, I just wonder what the impact will be on the other advanced education institutions throughout British Columbia. Obviously, there's a finite sum of money, and that becomes increasingly evident as runaway taxes and runaway costs and runaway debt in the province become more obvious and apparent. Are we succumbing to a knee-jerk reaction? Are we succumbing to an actual need and demand? I recognize that there is an opportunity there, but from my perspective, coming from the interior of the province, I don't see that the Western Communities are that isolated or that far away from Camosun College or the University of Victoria. I wonder if this is the best direction in spending in the cause of advanced education that we can make in British Columbia.

There certainly will be challenges with the operation. As other speakers have said, there were opportunities for a private sector operation of the facility at no further cost to the provincial or federal governments. From my perspective, that would have been a very acceptable route. I believe in competi-

[ Page 15580 ]

tion as the best opportunity for achieving a standard of excellence, and I would have welcomed that type of opportunity. Nevertheless, the minister has the facts and statistics, and is abundantly aware of the challenges facing British Columbians throughout the province. If the minister is confident that the funding can be found -- and I understand from the former speakers here that that is a very fine facility -- so be it, and welcome into the fold.

There are concerns about the quality and meaningfulness of the degree issued. With a great deal of pride, I note that Okanagan University College has taken on a close relationship, not only with the University of British Columbia but with the University of Victoria, and is using that accreditation in the initial years to indicate the quality of the diploma from that institution. It seems to me that it is probably a better system, rather than the creation of a new one, which may or may not have the acknowledgment of the credibility of that particular diploma.

I will look at this with interest. I think it's a positive opportunity. I hope that it doesn't sap strength and opportunities from other British Columbians. In the end, I believe that the Access for All program was a very good one. If we can give our students education in the areas where they live, undoubtedly they are going to continue on with their professional careers in those areas -- that is, home. I'd rather see that than students from the interior of the province coming to the lower mainland or the southern part of Vancouver Island and then -- whether doctors, engineers or other professional individuals -- maintaining a livelihood here because there are a great many advantages here. We need students with the academic ability, the God-given grey matter and the enthusiasm and resourcefulness spread throughout British Columbia. In the end, that will serve British Columbians best of all. With that, I'll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, I will call upon the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to run through very briefly to try to touch on some of the comments made by the members, and then we will look forward to committee stage debate.

The member for Okanagan West touched on a valid point. I don't want to get into debate about the military, but.... Other members talked about the need to service all of British Columbia. I must say that initially I was not overly enthusiastic about taking on this challenge, because in planning.... You know my feelings about post-secondary; I expressed them very strongly in summing up debate on my estimates. We have a very, very ambitious post-secondary initiative under Skills Now. We are determined that there be a general change in the thrust of our post-secondary -- real skills for the real world. We need that to build our economy.

Without getting into that in a detailed way, one of the issues that I feel very strongly about -- I come from one of the regions of the province -- is that the participation rates should be equalized. If we look at the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, I think the figures are that roughly 35 people per 1,000 people go to post-secondary institutions. If you look at northern British Columbia and some of the other regions of the province, the participation rates are down as low as seven or eight people per 1,000 who go to post-secondary. I feel we have an obligation to ensure that people, no matter where they come from in this province, have an opportunity to attend a post-secondary institution or take post-secondary courses. We're trying to move away from bricks and mortar as the only delivery vehicle and looking at distance education and a number of other issues. So we are trying to do that.

In funding our community colleges, for example, we have quite consciously -- over the time I've been minister -- increased funding in some areas at a much greater rate than we have in others. East Kootenay College and North Island College, for example, have received fairly significant percentage increases in recognition that their costs are higher, they cover a larger geographic region and they have smaller populations. We're trying to ensure that no matter where people come from in this province, they have some equal opportunity.

Therefore the prospect of starting a new post-secondary institution -- a new university -- here on southern Vancouver Island was to me, at first blush, not the way to go. People have talked about the need -- I think it was the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi who talked about the need and referred to the Liberal policy paper on post-secondary education. I'd be happy to give him a briefing on Skills Now, because all of the needs that have been identified are contained under the umbrella program Skills Now. We are, indeed, delivering many of those things that people are talking about.

We have a new technical university, which we have announced, in the Fraser Valley. That is important. It's linked with the three community colleges in the region: Kwantlen College, the University College of the Fraser Valley and the British Columbia Institute of Technology. There is a representative on the interim board from the University of British Columbia. We need to link and integrate our post-secondary systems to break down the walls between them, to ensure that there is no overlap and duplication and that we are providing the kinds of education and training that are relevant.

So we looked at the issue of Royal Roads. I don't want to take this occasion to get into some fed-bashing. I can do that quite readily, and I will, believe me. There are other issues that I will be talking about in the very near future where I will speak very strongly for British Columbia. While I can appreciate that we have been able to sit down and negotiate this agreement, which really parallels the Quebec agreement.... When I look at the sum total of the revenue from this agreement and some other recent agreements, it is very tiny when contrasted with the revenue that has been taken out of the province by the federal government.

I said in my estimates conclusion the other day that I will not thank the federal government for withdrawing money from British Columbia that is vital to training. They have withdrawn $30 million this year. That means that those groups around the province who have relied on the federal funding are now turning to the province and saying: "You must fund us." I'm being very hard-nosed and I'm saying: "No, we cannot do that. We have a budget; we have a plan. The budget is fully allocated, and we can't simply assume those responsibilities."

These are issues we considered. I did put together what I considered to be a very good panel of people: the former MLA Scott Wallace from Victoria; Bob Stewart, the former president and CEO of Scott Paper and a very knowledgeable, leading industrial figure; and a professor from UBC, Catherine Vertesi, 

[ Page 15581 ]

who by coincidence happens to be the sister of the Leader of the Opposition. The panel was headed by Dr. Keith Saddlemyer, who made what I thought was a good recommendation -- not a detailed recommendation about program but rather a vision of what a university could be on the Royal Roads site.

So I was content with that to move ahead. I established some pretty tight criteria that there be no ongoing provincial funding. Time will tell. We must be realistic. Twenty million dollars is not a lot of money. It is not sufficient to do the job necessary to run and develop and maintain this university.

That is why we have chosen the approach we have taken, which is a partnership approach. We need to have private sector involvement with this university, and we need to have it as a place.... Whether it's the postgraduate people I'm talking about, who may come from industry -- there are many leaders in industry who do not have postgraduate degrees and might like to acquire them at Royal Roads.... We're looking at a university that has the ability to take on tasks that might run for a year or two years, to bring together assembled teams of people -- some from the academic side, some from the business side, some from the labour side -- to consider a particular problem, to find resolution, or at least as much as can be obtained, and then to disband. We do not want the traditional structure that exists in our universities now in British Columbia, because they do an admirable job. We think that with the recent addition of the University of Northern B.C., we have added capacity for 1,000 new students there -- possibly up to 1,200 or 1,400. We have added 9,000 new full-time student spaces this year in our post-secondary systems, so space has not driven this debate with respect to Royal Roads.

I want to be absolutely clear on the agreement that we have negotiated with the federal government. I should say that it's not a failure on our part; it was the best agreement we could get. And it did parallel.... In fact, we've gone back and made some adjustments, which we'll be signing off soon. Because we think Quebec got a few more things, we have gone back to the table; we have got those now in our agreement, and we'll be concluding that fairly soon. But let nobody be under any illusion. The Royal Roads site is 640 acres. The agreement we have with the federal government gives us 136 acres. That's it. The balance of the site is and remains under the complete control of the federal government, and we have absolutely no say in what might happen with the balance of those lands.

Because we are conscious of the concerns of the community of Colwood -- and indeed, all British Columbians -- because this is a heritage treasure, we did put in the agreement that any plans the federal government has for disposition of the lands have to meet the tests imposed by zoning bylaws or whatever of the municipality of Colwood. They cannot cast aside.... The federal government has a lot of power, you know, on their own lands, so we did put in the agreement that they must conform to the laws of British Columbia and the municipality of Colwood.

But the decisions they make are their decisions. The revenue stream is tied to the disposal of some of the federal lands. That is clearly spelled out in the agreement. There is a direct link between the federal government being able to develop some of those lands and the money flowing to British Columbia. We don't want to stand in the way of that; we have negotiated an agreement which will see the money flow, regardless of whether the lands have been disposed of. But there is a very clear linkage, and members should be aware of that. I don't wish to enter into debates about what the federal government is going to do. That's between them and the authorities, particularly Colwood and other authorities in the province.

There are other issues, but I'm sure we will explore them in more detail in committee stage. With that, I would move second reading.

[4:30]

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 41.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a great pleasure for me to rise today for second reading of Bill 41, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995. As members will recall, last year this government introduced the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which was passed by the House. The act addressed public demand for significant change in the area of child protection. My ministry is currently working diligently with the child protection community to prepare to implement this act and its companion piece, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, after they are proclaimed later this year.

I believe these acts represent a significant improvement in the legal framework required to protect children in the 1990s. As we move forward toward implementation, we recognize the need to continually examine the newly crafted legislation to ensure that it provides an effective framework for meeting our child protection mandate. The bill we are dealing with today proposes changes to strengthen, improve and clarify the Child, Family and Community Service Act. A number of these are technical in nature and therefore, in the interest of time, I'll direct my comments to those amendments that are most substantial.

As all of us in this House know, over this past year Judge Thomas Gove has been conducting an independent inquiry into child protection in this province. It was the wish and direction of this government that Judge Gove recommend improvements to the system. We are awaiting his findings now, but we have received an interim report that recommends a number of legislative changes, some of which I'm pleased to formally outline here today.

The first affects section 2, the portion of the act that lists its guiding principles. These set out the absolute right of all children to be protected from abuse, neglect, harm and threat of harm, and produce a guide for the interpretation and administration of the act. Judge Gove has suggested that we strengthen this section by expressly declaring the principle that the safety and well-being of a child be the paramount consideration in the administration and interpretation of this 

[ Page 15582 ]

act. The rewording we propose will reinforce and clarify this central vision of our child protection legislation.

Another significant change affects section 41, which governs orders made at child protection hearings. Currently, when a temporary custody order expires and a child is returned to his or her parents, the ministry cannot supervise the child's care without a further court appearance to obtain a legal supervision order. We propose to amend this section to make the second court appearance unnecessary, allowing the courts to add a supervision order to any temporary custody order at the time that the custody order is made. This would improve efficiency and enhance the ministry's ability to protect children in their homes.

Further amendments that we propose include clarification of the circumstances when a director can seek a continuing custody order at a child protection hearing, when it is in the child's best interest to do so. We're allowing for extension of maximum time limits for temporary custody orders, when a court decides that's in the best interest of the child. That will prevent the court or a director from losing jurisdiction over a child just because of court delays or court scheduling. The act will require mandatory disclosure, by all parties involved, of information to be presented at child protection hearings. In the act passed in 1994, only the director was required to disclose information on request. And we're creating a mandatory process to review complaints and the exercise of the director's duties.

In addition, the amendment act before us today clarifies the child protection responsibility of members of the public. Currently, subsection 14(1) of the act states: "A person who has reason to believe that a child needs protection must promptly report the matter to a director or a person designated by a director." In our ministry reviews of the legislation, we've actually determined that this wording is inadequate. It may place an unfair burden on the public to assess situations where a child may need protection.

Therefore we're proposing to replace this section with a more explicit statement, which begins by saying the onus to report belongs with anyone who has reason to believe that a child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited by a parent or other person. It then goes on to reference a list of other situations in which a child may need protection.

The amendments before this House today represent the latest effort by our government to build a stronger, more responsive child protection system. Further amendments may be required as experience presents opportunities for further legislative improvements. That's often the case with new legislation. As we move towards implementation of the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995, we will continue to seek the opinions of the people we serve and those who deliver services.

We're also continuing to examine Judge Gove's inquiry -- the remaining interim recommendations, which could not be addressed in time for this legislative session. Some of those recommendations require extensive consultation with affected communities. For example, some of the interim recommendations have a significant impact on the court system, so my ministry and the Attorney General's ministry are carefully reviewing all of these issues and will address them with the bar and the judiciary. These and other similar consultations will continue, in anticipation of the final report of the inquiry into child protection, which we expect to receive later this year.

In conclusion, I would like to remind all of us in this House that the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995 was drafted after more than two years of consultation with British Columbians in all of our communities. It directly reflects their needs, wishes and concerns, and it introduces significant new ways of protecting children by involving them, their families and their communities. The amendment act before us today will improve our ability to protect children, an issue that affects each and every one of us. The way we treat our children today will affect the quality of life for all British Columbians in the future.

V. Anderson: I rise to respond to the minister's statement on Bill 41, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995. I would say in the beginning that we certainly agree with the principle of what is being undertaken here and with many of the directions in which the act is intending to go. Naturally, as we go through third reading, there are a number of issues that we would want to clarify as to meanings and definitions and terms within the act.

Responding just briefly, though, to the minister's last comments about the articles from Judge Gove, which were recommendations he put forward to include in these amendments in this section.... As I looked at these recommendations, I discovered, I think, that only four of the 12 have actually been instituted. I find that interesting, because, being a judge, he certainly knows the court requirements, and he certainly believed that all of these should be considered seriously and brought forward before the act was proclaimed. That was his reason for bringing forth the interim report. I'm curious to know in more detail why the minister has commented that they are working on these and want to do further work with the court.

I think I'd like to highlight the ones that, as far as I can see, have not been included within these amendments. I think we need to be aware of them and have them on the record. One of these stated: "...I recommend that the new act be amended to make it clear that the right of children to early determination of decisions relating to them is paramount, and that the onus should rest on any other party to show that their interests should take priority over those of the child." That's very important, because at the present time children are put into grave jeopardy because of the delays by the ministry, by the courts, by whatever. Their cases go on for weeks, months and years -- and they are in temporary care; they are separated from their families, from their parents -- doing harm to them which, if it can be overcome, would take years and resources to implement. These time limits -- I know the judge heard it again and again -- needed to be there in order to meet the needs of the children. I'm curious to know why, at least in part, this process wasn't put into place.

Also, the judge was concerned about how some of the needs of the child could be followed up quickly and in good order. He recommended that the new act give the director the discretion to proceed by way of a summons as an alternative to removal. This ties in with the concern of the new child, family and community service act to maintain the child at home when possible, but to also meet the needs of the moment. At the moment, there is no alternative but for the child to be taken out. Then you enter into a long and cumbersome process, which the new act, in and of itself, will not necessarily prevent without this statement.

[ Page 15583 ]

Also, the acts get caught up in the courts unendingly, and they get deferred. Time and time again, and even this week, I've had concerns brought to me from two or three different families about when their cases came to court. The ministry expressed their opinions, but there wasn't time for the families to express their concerns, and so judgments were made without their concerns being expressed. Not only were judgments made but the cases were put over for an indefinite period of time.

The judge recommended that appeals under the new act go directly to the B.C. Court of Appeal. I recognize that these are things that must be worked through, but I think there needs to be some definite statement and response on why they did not come forward at this time -- more than just saying: "We're working on it, and it will come through next year or the year after." A year from now is a long time, and that's why the judge put them forward so that they could be enacted in the present circumstance. Also, he recommended that:

"...the new act be amended, before proclamation, to entrench the fundamental principles that all children and youth capable of forming their own views be informed of important administrative decisions and judicial proceedings affecting them, and be given the opportunity to express their views about them. This would include the right to attend at court or other proceedings where decisions affecting them were being made."

That's an important circumstance, because as signatories of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada and British Columbia are bound by articles 12 and 13, as the judge pointed out, which state in part:

"State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely on all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law."

[4:45]

When we say that we are bringing forth improvements to this bill, and when we have a person like Judge Gove, who has seen the radical failure of our present system in hundreds of cases of children throughout this province, with disastrous results, and when the minister herself has commended the youth activities that she has helped to promote so that they might have a voice in their future, it seems hard to understand why this particular regulation and suggestion has not been brought forward into the act at this time.

This one would not necessarily be written into the act, but I would appreciate the minister's comment regarding Judge Gove's recommendation that the proclamation of section 83 be postponed until after consideration of his final report. This has to do with the implementation of a Child and Family Review Board, which was in the act. It would be interesting to hear if the minister is planning to give him that option.

Another recommendation from the judge was: "...that the act be amended, before proclamation, to declare unequivocally that the role of the advocate is to advocate on behalf of children and youth, and to amend the title of the act and of the advocate accordingly." That's a particular recommendation that I'm not at this moment prepared to agree with, so I'm not recommending to the minister that she move in that direction.

I still think it's important to acknowledge to the community at large the rationale for not doing so when we are moving on some of the other recommendations that he has given us. Where we agree, and where it has been incorporated in the recommendations that the well-being of the child is paramount, I would always want to maintain that the well-being of the child is, wherever possible, in relation to their family; and if not, it's to a substitute family as quickly and as effectively as possible. I would not want to take out the emphasis on the family and the community that the act maintains, but I do think that in fairness to Judge Gove and his concerns, we should express our interests to him in that particular regard.

The judge has also pointed out another one, which refers to the second act rather than to this one, so I'll leave it at this particular time. The other refers to the other bill, which we'll be discussing later.

There are some concerns within the act. There are a couple of recommendations and proposed amendments that we will be bringing forward. Just to highlight, one will be in section 15, where the director must, in accordance with directives established by the minister.... There's a review process here. The director must establish a review process about his or her own review. We think the director should not be establishing the process for reviewing their own work; rather, that should be done by the minister. Information about this review process would thus be made to the minister as quickly as possible.

I would say that we generally agree with the process, but there are some definitions of terms and some clarity that we will expect to deal with as we go through committee stage.

R. Neufeld: Bill 41 is obviously a bill to enact some of the recommendations of the Gove report. I agree with the critic for the Liberal Party that we would have liked to have seen more of the recommendations that Justice Gove made incorporated in the act. When I say that, I understand some of the difficulties that the ministry must be going through in trying to adjust so that they can incorporate some of those recommendations. Knowing the minister as I do, I'm sure she would like to incorporate as many of the recommendations as possible, but there obviously must be some difficulties that have to be overcome.

The bill deals with quite a number of sections. It's hard to speak to the principle of a bill when it's a bunch of amendments to a piece of legislation that we passed last year, and that we in the Reform Party supported last year. I also have some questions that we will bring forward during committee stage on the bill for further clarification from the minister.

I would also like to put on record a bit about the court system and the children at risk. I think all of us in this Legislature and, generally speaking, most British Columbians and Canadians are very cognizant of the problems our society is facing with respect to children being mistreated or abused. It's something that I think each one of us has to deal with within our own heart in the way we think we can best resolve that problem. Although I'm afraid to say that I don't think we're going to be able to resolve all the problems, we can certainly make a concerted stand and effort to try and resolve as many as possible.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 15584 ]

I think that our court system and the slowness of the court system is something that we probably have to really look at seriously -- and how we're going to deal with families and children both. It seems as though there are times when it takes so long to get an order or something put through the court system, and you think about the fear that is going through a young person's heart or a family's heart at the time, while the courts are clogged up with all kinds of issues. I think that's probably one of the largest issues we have to deal with as legislators: to try and resolve those problems so that we can deal in a quicker fashion with some of the problems that we face in society today.

I would like to say that we generally support all sections of the bill. I know we discussed some of the amendments at length during debate last year. I guess I would be remiss if I didn't put on record that the minister wasn't responsive to some of our arguments last year, and as we see what some of the other ministers.... This year they're coming through with some of the recommendations that were made by the opposition parties when we discussed the bill last year.

With those few words, I would like to say that we generally support the bill. We do have some concerns with some sections, and I'm sure that during committee stage the minister will explain the rationale behind each and every one of the amendments, and we'll go from there. With that, I'd like to conclude my remarks.

J. Tyabji: We spent quite a bit of time last year on the Child, Family and Community Service Act in this House. I think we stated at that time that there are few acts which are more important in terms of how we as a society define the role of the state vis-a-vis the family, and how we as a society envision the state's intervention when it's necessary to protect a child, as opposed to the state allowing the family to self-determine at the point that it is choosing to develop and exist without the state's intervention.

I note in the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act that, in large measure, they are technical in nature; there are some amendments that clarify and make the act a better act. However, there's one amendment that causes us particular difficulty, and that's under section 7. In that amendment, I think we almost have to revisit the implications that this act has on the family. What dragged out the debate last year was a philosophical difference in terms of when the state is at liberty to intervene in a family and when the family has a right to decide for itself how it will develop.

There is, no question, a fundamental difference of opinion between the Progressive Democratic Alliance and the NDP on the matter of the family. There's no question there. I would be remiss if I didn't stand up, as the MLA for Okanagan East, and tell the minister how much time I'm having to spend these days dealing with constituents who are angry that the government is taking such a huge role in their lives. I'd like to mention one while I'm on my feet, because I'm in the middle of this one -- in fact, I'm about to bring it to the minister's office. I think it's a good example of where an act like this, which -- although we can congratulate the minister for recognizing there was a serious problem, for bringing about an inquiry into one of the most serious problems facing us, and for trying to initiate a mechanism to deal with that....

Notwithstanding those things, the serious problem continues to exist, and the example that I'm talking about has occurred in one measure because of the amendment to the Infants Act that the government brought in -- which may have been brought in for a completely different reason than what I'm going to outline, but which is causing a problem. It is also a problem because of the operation of Social Services and the way the machine has been structured, the guidelines that the people in Social Services are forced to follow, and the way that the hands of the RCMP are tied because of the way we have decided to construct the relationship between the state and the child and the family of the child.

In this instance, there is a mother and a father -- but it's the mother I've been dealing with -- whose 13-year-old daughter has run away from home, for whatever reason. She continues to be close to her mother, but she is now living on the streets of Vancouver, and the person who is looking out for her interests is a 26-year-old pimp. This person is obviously preying on the vulnerabilities of this 13-year-old, and the mother is distraught. The reason this has come about is in part because there were problems at school with the 13-year-old. The problems were that she wasn't finding school particularly relevant and she started to hang around on the streets with her friends during the daytime when she should have been at school, so she was expelled from school. When the mother tried to intervene to have her reinstated in school, she came across the machine that we've developed to deal with students who don't find the school system relevant. So she wasn't allowed to be reinstated in school.

[5:00]

The mother went to Social Services and said: "Would you please assist me. My daughter has been kicked out of school because she wasn't finding the program relevant. She's now hanging around with people downtown. She's getting into drugs, she's getting into a lifestyle that she's never been involved with before, and I'm concerned." And because Social Services has this set of guidelines, the first thing they have to do is investigate the family to find out if there was a reason the daughter was choosing to spend all this time on the street. The mother wanted Social Services to assist her in apprehending her daughter and bringing her home, but before they would do that they had to go to the daughter to find out if that home environment was suitable for her to return to. While this investigation was going on, the daughter became quite involved in the street life and that's when she ran away to Vancouver.

She's only 13 years old. She took up with this pimp who is 26. There are two other 13-year-olds he is working with. The mother then went back to Social Services and said: "Would you please assist me in taking my child off the streets and return her to Kelowna, and I will restrain her long enough to correct her behaviour, because I don't want her on the streets of Vancouver." Social Services says, "I'm sorry, we can't do that, because she's 13 years old," and the minister is saying that's right.

So the mother went to the RCMP and said: "My daughter is 13, she is using drugs, she is working as a prostitute, there's a 26-year-old who is her pimp, and I would like you to take her into custody." She became hysterical on the phone with the RCMP and said: "I will not stop bothering you until you do that." And they did do that. They took her to Social Services. Social Services didn't do anything, and the 13-year-old phoned the 26-year-old pimp, who came and picked her up, and she went right back on the streets.

[ Page 15585 ]

Now, what do I see in this amendment? I see another intervention. This is only one section of this act, but it relates to the same debate we had last year in this chamber about the role of the state versus the role of the parent. In the mind of the minister, a 13-year-old may be someone who is of sound mind to make that decision....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: The minister says that I'm missing the point. I look forward to the minister's response, because Social Services refused to do anything to assist the mother in keeping her daughter off the street, and there was no home to take the child to. I refer to her as a child, even though she's 13 years old. The mother is very frustrated, and maybe the minister will have something.... After this debate, maybe we can talk about this and she can assist me, but I can't find a provision in here for the parent to have the ability to exercise some parental rights.

Under section 7 of the amendment act that we have in front of us, we see another movement of the state to garner some of the role that the parent used to have -- and that is the very simple change of taking out the word "essential" and adding the word "necessary." The minister will remember that last year we had a protracted debate around the Child, Family and Community Service Act, because at that time the minister had introduced a provision under section 29, entitled "Child who needs essential health care" -- and it was called essential health care. It said that if a child, or parent of a child, refuses to consent to health care that, in the opinion of 2 health care practitioners, is deemed essential, then the state intervenes; the state will ensure that the child has that essential health care administered to him or her.

We had a long debate about that, and the reason I did that.... I would not stand up and debate that point if I weren't hearing from my constituents, on an almost daily basis, about the fact that they liked the state to get out of their families. They would like to be able to have the ability to deal with their teenagers, when teenagers go through those difficult years, without the teenagers having the state intervene against the parent. It is very difficult.

I understand that there's a philosophical difference. But what do we see in this amendment? We see that it's no longer "essential" health care the state is going to intervene to ensure is administered to the child, even if that's against the wishes of the parent; it's "necessary." Well, what's "necessary"? Who decides it's necessary?

As an adult patient, if I had this provision for me personally, I could imagine an instance where two medical practitioners would be prepared to prescribe something for me to take that I might not want to take. I would hope that as a parent, I would have the freedom to say: "I do not want my children to have that administered to them." It's easy to find examples. We spent so much time on this last year. At that point the state was talking about "essential" health care, and the minister was talking about blood transfusions and religious dogma -- religious dogma versus medical practitioners and blood transfusions. It was a long debate, and even then, although we disagreed on that, I could respect that the minister was saying that where the child's life was in danger, in those cases.... We tried to get amendments made to it so we would specify that when the child's life would be in danger, in that case the state could override a religious practice. We tried to at least get it to that level of debate, and we were not successful.

But now we find out that we're moving some distance from the essential provision, and now we're talking about "necessary." What's "necessary"? Is a vitamin prescription necessary? To what extent is the state going to now have the power to intervene against the wishes of a parent to prescribe "necessary" medical care to a child? As an MLA and as a parent, I'm strongly against this provision of the bill. If I felt -- and certainly if I heard from my constituents -- that the machine of Social Services and the child protection machinery was in good order, that would be different. But I'm not hearing that; I'm hearing the opposite. In fact, as I'm sure the minister knows, if there is one area where people will repeatedly talk about the need for systemic change from the ground up, it's in this area. As I said earlier, I recognize that the minister has listened to people and has heard that we need change. But I have yet to hear anyone say we need more state intervention to allow two medical practitioners.... We tried to amend it so it would be more specific than that in terms of what is a medical practitioner.

We tried to do many things with this section of the bill last year, and we didn't succeed. Now we're moving from "essential" to "necessary." This is the wrong way to go; we are against this amendment. Unfortunately, our concerns about this amendment in this bill will override whatever benefits the people of British Columbia may get from some of the technical amendments -- all the rest of it is just fine-tuning. In terms of philosophy and principles, this is the wrong way to go, and we do not support this amendment.

I look forward to the rest of debate when the Gove inquiry finally reports out in detail on this act. At some point we have to have an adequate debate in British Columbia about the machinery of child protection, why it's been failing and how we can get responsible parents plugged in to the solution to this.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the comments of the members opposite. To address some of the concerns raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara, the majority of the recommendations.... Let me start by saying that all of the recommendations made by Judge Gove are under active consideration for implementation. However, the majority that we're not able to proceed on right now deal with substantial changes in the way we proceed to court in matters of child protection. Unfortunately, the court system is now backlogged, and it would be unfortunate if we amended a piece of legislation that just set us up for failure again before we address the issues of enhancing the judicial system toward faster dealings with our children.

But certainly the intent there is to persuade operationally, as we say, the judicial system through the Attorney General to get on with the job of getting more resources in place so that we can amend the act to allow for speedy resolution for our children through the court system. I would be more than happy to discuss in detail the consultation we're having with the Attorney General and the judicial system toward that end.

It's quite surprising -- dismaying to see.... I ask monthly for the statistics on where child protection cases are in the court system, and it's extremely dismaying to see the 

[ Page 15586 ]

delay. I may be biased, but it's my view that the delay comes from lawyers and then a clogged judicial system, but certainly not from the ministry. We see the results of children who are left in limbo, and we know it's not in the best interests of the child to do that.

I would be more than happy to engage with the member for Okanagan East around the issue of the balance between the family and the child, but.... Last year our debate was around the issue of too much state intervention into families' lives, and the example that you give is asking for more state intervention. The fact of the matter is that when a child is not being abused, neglected or harmed by her own family.... That's what child protection is all about, and that's what the legislation is about. This legislation is not about parenting; this legislation is not about enforcing the state's view on parenting.

If a child is not suffering from abuse or neglect or harm but is in a situation that's precarious or dangerous to her, then it does become a matter for the law. The children live around me; each and every day in my own riding I see these children. There is absolutely no question that the pimps and the johns who abuse these children in the sex trade are.... It's child abuse; it's absolutely child abuse. That has to be enforced from a legal perspective by the police dealing with the pimps and the johns. In the meantime, our Social Services ministry can give as much support as possible in attempting to remove our children from the streets in a safe and healthy way. But at the end of the day, if the child does not wish -- and it breaks my heart to see this.... If a child who is just short of leaving puberty does not wish to stay with her parents, you cannot.... In this day and age there is no method of incarcerating a child against....

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. That is the requirement under the act -- to investigate the parents.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There are lots of reasons children leave their homes, and we have to make sure that the child's home is a safe place for the child to be. I think that's good child protection law.

But I'm just bewildered by the example of the member for Okanagan East in switching her position about state intervention. However, we can certainly talk about many of the concerns that individual members have with particular sections in committee stage, and I very much look forward to that. With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 47.

CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCACY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's my pleasure to rise today for second reading of Bill 47. In May of 1994, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act was passed by this Legislature. It really is another landmark in this government's commitment to the protection and well-being of all children. It offers support to people of all ages receiving designated services to make their needs and wishes known and to secure the services and resources they need. It says that government is here to listen and respond.

The Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, like its companion legislation that we just referred to previously in second reading, was drafted after more than two years of public and community consultation. As we moved toward implementation this year, we continued to seek the opinions of the people we serve and the community we employ.

In our new legislation and in the duties of this ministry, the safety and well-being of children is our paramount consideration at all times. The ultimate test of any decision made in the name of child protection must be: "Will this serve the child's best interest?" Sometimes only the child can answer that question. The member for Vancouver-Langara made that point very eloquently. With that in mind, the Legislature recently appointed Joyce Preston as the child, youth and family advocate. The advocate is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. The advocate offers children, youth and families support to make their needs and wishes known and to secure the services and resources they need.

Everyone receiving services under the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995, will have direct private access to the advocate, whose chief responsibilities are protecting their rights, ensuring that their views are heard and considered, and ensuring that complaint and review processes are fair and accessible to children, youth and families. The appointment of the advocate addresses many of the longstanding issues identified during our public consultations. It also addresses some of the very serious shortcomings in British Columbia's child protection system that have been brought to our attention.

If, for example, a citizen were to express concern that no action was taken on complaints about an apparently neglected child, the advocate could initiate a review or investigation. If the complaint related to a child in the ministry's care, the advocate could refer the case to the Child and Family Review Board which we are establishing to hear and remedy these complaints. The advocate will be in a unique position to monitor the needs of families and children and how well those needs are being met by government. As such, the position is one more example of this ministry's and our government's commitment to public accountability.

In addition to the new legislation, I called last year for an independent inquiry into child protection to examine ways to strengthen this province's child protection system. The inquiry, led by Judge Gove -- as we talked about earlier -- has done much to raise public awareness about child abuse in our communities. Judge Gove's insights and recommendations are leading to further improvements and amendments to the legislation. On April 18, I tabled Judge Gove's interim 

[ Page 15587 ]

report, which recommended six changes to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. I actually asked the advocate to review the recommendations.

[5:15]

The bill before us today, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, incorporates three of Judge Gove's recommendations, with which the advocate wishes to proceed at this time. First, the reporting powers of the advocate will be expanded beyond an annual report to the Legislative Assembly; the advocate will be able to comment publicly about an issue or make a special report to the Legislative Assembly. This is fundamental to the role of the advocate, to ensure her independence of government.

Second, the amendment act adds a provision prohibiting retribution against people who complain, give evidence, or otherwise assist in an investigation. This will encourage youth, families and caregivers to talk to the advocate, thereby increasing the position's effectiveness and authority.

Third, we are amending the provisions governing the advocate's salary and superannuation plan. The advocate will receive a salary equivalent to that of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia. That's consistent with the salaries paid to other independent officers of the Legislature, such as the ombudsman and the auditor general. The advocate will now get a pension that's similar to the ombudsman and the auditor general. The remuneration provisions will be made retroactive to May 15, the day the advocate commenced her duties. It's only fair that the person who is responsible for the well-being of children in our province have the same status as other independent officers of the Legislature.

The advocate has said that she will examine Judge Gove's remaining three recommendations during the early part of her term. Amendments such as those we're proposing today arise as experience presents further possible improvements. This is often the case with new legislation. A responsible government must always be prepared to incorporate appropriate amendments, to ensure that our laws keep pace with the changing needs of our society. We will ask the advocate to further examine the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act when the final report of the inquiry into child protection is completed later this year.

The creation of an independent advocate is an important addition to the range of external advocates available to British Columbia. We see advocacy as something positive and constructive. It ensures that those who have a voice will be heard, that those who have difficulty speaking for themselves will be given help and that those who have no voice will have someone to speak on their behalf. I urge all of us in this House to work together in amending the act to provide this vital service to B.C.'s children, young people and families.

V. Anderson: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act. We were very favourable to the development of this act previously. We're glad it, in part, has been proclaimed.

We're particularly pleased about the new advocate, Ms. Joyce Preston. We had the opportunity to participate in the interviewing of those persons, all of a very high calibre and a variety of backgrounds, who applied for this particular privilege. All of them saw it as a great privilege to be able to sit and have the opportunity to even be interviewed for this particular position.

It is a milestone, and a very important one, in someone being able to advocate with, for and on behalf of our children when the circumstances warrant that particular advocacy, because unfortunately this has not been the case. As mentioned, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has not been fulfilled without this kind of opportunity in our communities. So we commend the act of the minister. We'll basically be in favour of the act and amendments that are before us.

We suggest, though, that the minister think about an amendment in section 1, section 10.1, to make it consistent with the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's in the section "Protection for complainants and others." There is a phrase left out: "simply in good faith." We would recommend that this wording, as is in the Child, Family and Community Service Act, be included in this. We'll make that recommendation to the minister now so that she may consider it. Hopefully it will be added, because it will strengthen that and make it consistent with the other acts we are dealing with, particularly the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I question, though, the minister's decision to not include at least two of the amendments that Judge Gove made, so they would be in the act and could be proclaimed at the time it was relevant to the new advocate. If the new advocate discovers within the next six months that it's important or necessary to have these two additional opportunities, they are not there, and they will not be there until another meeting of the Legislature. We're not sure whether that's in the next six months or the next year or the next year and a half, so that's an important consideration. I think we would have covered our bases if we were really concerned about this particular direction.

I mentioned two of those, one being the recommendation that a similar schedule be included in this act setting out the designated acts and designated services that will over time be brought within the child advocate's mandate. That's a schedule of inclusion into other relevant areas as well as the Social Services welfare system, which the present act mandates.

We're very well aware in the community, as we have been in so many other activities in this House, that there is a barrier between the ministries and their jurisdictions. It makes it impossible to meet the needs of children when those barriers come down like cages around them. Without the ability to go across those barriers, to include Health and Education and other areas of concern and other ministries -- the Attorney General's ministry, for instance -- and without the advocate's ability to interact between those ministries, she is going to be very frustrated, and the best interests of the child will not be served until this act is amended again.

We have this opportunity. We have the recommendation of Judge Gove before us, and it should be there. I would still encourage the minister to put it in the act. Hold off on the proclamation until the advocate is ready to use it, but have it there when it's needed. It's like having a fire escape ladder available to you: you may never use it, but it's there when it's needed. Even if it's needed for only one child in the next six or nine months, if it saves them hardship and deprivation, I think it's fundamentally important that it be there. I would encourage the minister to include that recommendation in this act at this time.

[ Page 15588 ]

The other area that was not included in the act which Judge Gove recommended was that "...Bill 45 be amended to give the child advocate explicit authority to appoint legal counsel to represent children individually or collectively, in appropriate circumstances." Judge Gove has pointed out quite clearly that the present powers of the advocate are not adequate to give legal counsel to children individually or collectively when they have need of it. Because we have a complicated legal system, simply to say that something needs to be done, but not to have the legal counsel available for the child, is only a halfway measure. So I would encourage the minister to think carefully about this inclusion between second reading and third reading, because, again, even if it is not proclaimed immediately, the opportunity is there to proclaim it when the need arises. These are very important emergency recommendations, which Judge Gove was adamant should be made available so they could be amended before the act comes into effect and the minister wouldn't have to wait until his other recommendations come forth.

I would urge the minister to think seriously about these and put them in the act at this time, even if she should choose to wait for the proclamation until the advocate is ready to use them. I think not to put them in the act is very shortsighted and very inadequate. Therefore I would affirm again that we support the act as far as it goes, with one amendment about good faith, and we would recommend that the others be added so that the emergency possibility is there. I'm convinced, as Judge Gove is convinced, that in all of the cases that he saw, these two fundamental changes are needed, and it would be inadequate and unfair not to do it at this time.

The Speaker: The minister concludes debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I look forward to the debate at committee stage on this, but I would inform the House that these amendments are put forward on the advice of the advocate. These are the only ones she wishes to proceed on at this time. The decision was not left up to us. She wishes time to consider the implications and the effect the amendments would have on not only her job but the role of the advocate in other areas. It is not that we disagree with the amendments or that we don't think that the judge was accurate in putting them forward, but there is another voice to be heard here, and that is the advocate herself. She is looking at these issues as we speak, and is keeping those of us who have the ability to amend legislation informed of her views on that. It's a very exciting time for the advocate, as it is for all of us who have the best interests of children at heart.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 47.

Motion approved.

Bill 47, Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[5:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Committee on Bill 29, hon. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendments to section 1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed section 1:

(a) by deleting the definition of "immediate family" and substituting the following:

"immediate family" means

(a) the spouse, child, parent, guardian, sibling, grandchild or grandparent of an employee, and

(b) any person who lives with an employee as a member of the employee's family;

(b) by deleting the definition of "temporary layoff"

and substituting the following:

"temporary layoff" means

(a) in the case of an employee who has a right of recall, a layoff that exceeds the specified period within which the employee is entitled to be recalled to employment, and

(b) in any other case, a layoff of up to 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks; , and

(c) by deleting the definition of "termination pay" and substituting the following:

"termination pay" means, for each week of notice an employee is entitled to, the amount obtained by totalling the employee's weekly wages, at the regular wage, during the last 8 weeks in which the employee worked normal or average hours of work and dividing the total by 8; .]

On the amendments.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can just run through his amendments and give us an explanation of them. That's the standard procedure, and I'd be glad to hear it.

Hon. D. Miller: The definition of immediate family, as originally constructed in the bill, was in our view too wide. In fact, we received some advice from various parties, including employers' organizations. We have revised the definition -- I'm just looking for the original here -- to be somewhat narrower. As it reads now, the members will see two parts. The first deals with the relatives -- the spouse, child, parent, guardians, sibling, grandchild or grandparent of an employee. The second part of the amendment deals with people who live together as a family. This obviously deals with an issue that may or may not be contentious, depending on who is speaking to it -- for example, the issue of same-sex partners. As I said, the reason for the change is to narrow the definition that was originally drafted in the bill.

Temporary layoff is the next amendment. We've deleted the reference in the bill and have put in a new definition, which is: "...in the case of an employee who has a right of recall, a layoff that exceeds the specified period within which the employee is entitled to be recalled to employment, and (b) in any other case, a layoff of up to 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks...." The reason for the amendment is to clarify the time period of determining when a temporary layoff becomes a termination, and is tied to the recall period of a collective agreement. Most of these periods are much longer than 13 weeks in any period of 20 consecutive weeks, which is the definition most appropriate for the non-union sector.

Termination pay is the next amendment. The reason for the amendment was to capture current practice. The employment standards branch always looks at an eight-week period in which the employee earned regular wages. At times, this may require going back further than eight weeks. For example, if an employee earned less than 50 percent of their regular 

[ Page 15589 ]

wages one week, that week would be considered a week of layoff and not counted as part of the eight-week period. The definition in Bill 29 did not allow for the branch to go beyond the eight-week period before the termination of employment. I think that's all of the amendments to the definitions.

J. Beattie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: On behalf of yourself, hon. Chair, I'd like to introduce a constituent of yours from Nanaimo, Mr. Terry Cormons. I would ask the House to please make him welcome on your behalf.

Amendments approved.

On section 1 as amended.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can talk to us a little bit about the definition of construction. My understanding of the change is that it has removed the definition of vessels -- ships -- which is a little different from what was there before, obviously, and under the changes to the act now, would put all the layoff provisions, which were formally excluded by regulation, out of whack. Does the minister intend to bring in the same regulations that currently exist with regard to layoffs and the construction of vessels?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll just read what construction includes in the existing act: "...the erection, demolition, repair, remodelling, decoration or alteration of the whole or part of a building, works, or a vessel or a structure including a road, railway, parking lot, driveway, sidewalk, curb gutters, sewer, water main, gas main, pipeline, tunnel, bridge, wharf, pier, canal, dam or electrical undertaking...." It goes on to talk about the preparation of a foundation, etc., and that definition does include vessels.

G. Wilson: I just wonder if the minister might explain for a moment the definition of farm labour contractor. I raise this partly as a result of some concerns expressed by the B.C. Horticultural Council, which has some concerns as to the change in that definition. Would the minister tell us what was intended by the change in the provision?

Hon. D. Miller: The definition has removed the reference to horticulture; notwithstanding that, horticulture is captured by agriculture. The issue, if you like -- and I don't know that this is the place to debate it -- is the one that had been identified by the farming community. It's the liability that is now joint between the farm labour contractor and the farmer. That, I think, would be most appropriately addressed in the section that deals with that. The definitions section is really the same, for all intents and purposes.

G. Wilson: Except that.... I would agree with that, and we'll pick it up in section 30, I think it is, of the bill. It just concerns me a bit, because presumably at all times, whether it's during a harvest period or any other kinds of activities, anybody who is under the direct control of a farm labour contractor, or an agent of that contractor, would have to fall under this definition, I assume. Is that not right? Yet the definition seems to imply that horticultural operations are not included. If the minister can just clear that up, we can move on.

Hon. D. Miller: I did say in my last answer, I think, that horticulture is captured under the definition of agriculture.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question to the minister -- more a comment, I suppose, than a direct question. Once again we have a piece of legislation that is going to require a great deal of fleshing out with the introduction of regulations over a period of time. Given the stress that was encouraged to be put on this bill -- that it be in plain language, that it be easily understand and that consultation take place -- I think it would have been much easier for various employer and employee communities and individuals to understand and to comment upon the impact of this new legislation if they had those regulations available at the time the bill was introduced. Given that the bill was sort of expected a year ago -- it was anticipated a year ago, anyway, after Mr. Thompson's report -- and that there was a fairly long period of time intervening.... I guess I'm asking the minister if he can explain why those regulations weren't made public at the time the bill was -- or certainly some time ago, anyway.

Hon. D. Miller: It's not unusual to not have all of the regulations that flow from any particular bill prepared and available at the time the bill is debated. This undertaking to completely redo and rewrite the Employment Standards Act has been a very massive undertaking, believe me. The staff in my ministry and others have worked, I think, in an exemplary fashion to achieve the results that we're debating today.

A significant amount of work must be done to draft regulations that will flow from various sections of the bill. While I can attempt to answer about intent in any particular section, that will be the case throughout the debate on the bill. It's not in any way an attempt not to have those there; it's simply a very massive exercise. Once this bill has been debated in this House, as I say, there exists a great deal of work that still must be done to ensure that those regulations are in place at the time the bill comes into force.

J. Tyabji: I came in when we were talking about section 1, hon. Chair. When you called the vote and said, "Section 1 as amended," I couldn't hear it properly. I actually have questions for the minister on a few of those definitions in the purposes section of the bill, and I was hoping.... The purposes section needed some comment.

The Chair: Perhaps, member, you could simply make a formal request rather than treat this as a point of order. Then I could deal with that. Okay?

[ Page 15590 ]

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. A formal request to the minister that we can have a little discussion on the purposes and go back to the definitions for just.... I promise I'll be as brief as possible, but the questions need to be asked.

The Chair: I will defer to the minister on this, because we are obviously not worrying much about the normal rules of procedure.

Hon. D. Miller: I am prepared to do that. I certainly am taking the member at face value with respect to brevity, because at this point in time there's no compulsion to go back. But I am prepared to answer questions.

The Chair: If we accept that as the given, it seems to me that we can proceed from there. If I might, members, I'll take Okanagan-Penticton first, who I believe is rising on another matter.

[5:45]

J. Beattie: Yes, I have the opportunity here, I hope, to introduce some more friends of the Legislature. I wonder if I might have permission from the House to do that.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: I didn't notice them, because I thought they would be sitting across from me in the gallery here. But up in the galleries at the end are some students from West Bench School in Penticton. They're a grade 7 class, and they're accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Richard Hall and Miss Charlene Niemi, and the principal, Mr. Bruce Johnson. As well, there are some parents with them: Bill Reed, Debbie Desgagne, Les Burton, Kim Burroughs and Randy Wilkes. They're here along with many other school children and adults to look at the Legislature, visit the museum, see Victoria and just experience British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make them welcome today.

J. Tyabji: The definition of regular wage is something that needs to be talked about. I will commit to keeping this as brief as possible, and I would thank the minister on the record for allowing us some liberty with the rules.

With respect to this, I note that as we go through the bill, if we don't talk about regular wage, many of the provisions of the bill that come after that are very difficult to deal with. The question is: why did the minister choose to have all labour broken down on the basis of an hourly wage? I note particularly subsection (b), which says that "if an employee is paid on a flat rate, piece rate, commission or other incentive basis, the employee's wages in a pay period divided by the employee's total hours of work during that pay period" represent the regular wage. Notwithstanding the Mark Thompson report, I'd be curious to know why in legislation we have to break everything down to an hourly wage -- and of course, that plays out in the bill.

Hon. D. Miller: I should point out that the language in here simply re-enacts the existing definitions. In other words, there's not been a material change; it has simply been rewritten.

I should say at this point, as well, that there has been some controversy -- mild controversy, in my view -- on the question of whether or not the bill is in fact written in plain language. There are conflicting views. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses has written in a way that I don't think is as thoughtful as I would have liked. They suggest that it is not in plain language. On the other hand, the Business Council of B.C. has written and said: "Thank you very much for putting it in plain language." Maybe it depends on the reader.

So the section has really been rewritten in an attempt to use plainer language but has not materially changed the definition that has been in the act. The reason we need to be able to have that breakdown is for the purpose of calculating other sections of the act -- for example, overtime. Unless you can break that down on an hourly basis, you cannot determine what the appropriate overtime rate might be.

J. Tyabji: Looking at the act before it's amended and at the new definitions, I would note that the new definition will also include piecework and work that may not have been deemed to be work but that could be broken down into a wage rate. I would assume that's why even the name has been changed from "wages" to "regular wage." Could the minister speak to that and also speak to whether or not that is the intent: that now all labour that is construed to be paid labour will be construed as having a regular hourly wage?

Hon. D. Miller: That has always been the way the branch has interpreted this section. I see the former Minister of Labour nodding his head. It's simply an attempt to be explicit in the legislation as opposed to having that as a matter of policy by the branch.

J. Tyabji: I note that there was no provision for a regular wage in the act, and that actually the wages that are in there have a change of definition.

Under the definition of wages in the new act, in section 1(b), where it talks about money that is paid or payable by an employer as an incentive and relates to hours of work, production or efficiency.... Coming fairly new to this, I would assume that that would mean it's payable with evidence -- that there was some evidence of that being part of the contract -- or has been paid out.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

J. Tyabji: It is funny to hear it referred to that way.

Under section 1(2), where it says: "An employee is deemed to be at work while on call at a location designated by the employer unless the designated location is the employee's residence...." I wonder if, when we're talking about piecework.... In the field of technological piecework, many people actually have their principal place of work within their residence. For example, if someone is a computer expert and has their computers based out of their home or is a consultant based out of their home.... To what extent has that been canvassed in putting in subsection (2)? It is something that might be problematic with the employee claiming that while they're at the office portion of their home, they're on call for somebody who may or may not be a contractor. Was that considered there -- where a residence also contains the office?

Hon. D. Miller: The definition captures an employee at work, whether that work is in their home or wherever it might be. If they're a contractor, then they're not.

[ Page 15591 ]

J. Tyabji: Then how do we deal with section 1(2), where it says: "...unless the designated location is the employee's residence"? Are we to assume then -- because it's not in the definition -- that a residence is that portion of someone's home that does not include the office, which may also be in their residence? There are so many home-based businesses now that I think it's an important point to clarify.

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's immaterial.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure I understand the answer. Is the minister saying it's immaterial because they would automatically recognize an office in someone's residence, or immaterial because if it's someone's residence they won't recognize the office? I think this will play up.... If the minister isn't aware, there are so many home-based businesses in British Columbia right now. It's a huge part of how we do business, especially as people computerize. Given that section 1(2) says specifically that an employee is deemed to be at work while on call at a location designed by the employer, unless that's at the employee's residence, who's going to be interpreting that?

Hon. D. Miller: Home-based businesses are not captured by this.

J. Tyabji: Then that's an important point for us to know, because when the minister was talking about piecework, I would assume that some of the piecework that has been done... In fact, home-based businesses primarily rely on piecework.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Okay, go ahead.

Hon. D. Miller: The act contains definitions to determine whether an individual is an employee or not. If you are working for someone in that individual's home, then you are an employee. If you have a business of your own, and you operate that business out of your home, you're not an employee for the purposes of this act. You really have to look at the definitions section to see whether or not... So I think the member is perhaps wandering down a bit of a path there that....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: If you're a consultant....

J. Tyabji: A consultant is someone who will actually have.... It could be an individual who calls himself or herself a business. Where the minister has brought in the provision for regular wage, he's talking about piecework. And that's why.... If this isn't captured at all, and if a person who is an employee but has been hired.... How does that relate to farm labour, then? Farm labourers would fall under much the same designation, where you might have a farm labour contractor who might be working out of his or her home. I'm quite confused about how this could possibly apply in the case of a farm labour contractors but not apply in the case of a computer consultant.

Hon. D. Miller: The act defines the circumstances under which an individual is an employee. People who are consultants who may operate a business out of their home are not captured by the definition of an employee. They are independent contractors, whatever their business might be.

J. Tyabji: Let's use the example of a journalist, who may be part of a union, but work out of his or her home. We are trying to find out what is captured by subsection (2) of section 1. Who's in and who's not, and are there going to be regulations? A Vancouver Sun journalist, for example, works out of his or her home, modems into the office and is part of a union. Is that person on call while at home? If so, how did the minister make that distinction under subsection (2)?

Hon. D. Miller: The Vancouver Sun journalist that you referred to -- I won't comment on a Vancouver Sun journalist -- is an employee. The fact that they may do some of the work in their home doesn't change that at all.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, they're working. With the greatest of respect, sometimes the member can overcomplicate the issues -- in other words, look for things that are not there. I think the literal reading is the best approach to the act.

J. Tyabji: We know that the minister wants to get out of here very quickly, but the methods he is choosing to use to do that are very interesting. Under section 2 of the act -- the purposes section -- I think we should actually.... The minister said we could go back, even though we're on section 3. There wasn't even a comment made on the purposes section. I think we should at least make a comment.... And I note the hour. I don't know if we should do that or look for direction from the Chair about that.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I guess there will be a thirty-second comment on record for the purposes section of Bill 29 coming from the Alliance caucus.

We have some concerns about this that we obviously won't be having a dialogue on, but we're talking about basic standards of compensation, and we would assume that that's going to come by regulation. How would the minister envision encouraging open communication between employers and employees for the purposes of section 2? If the purposes of this act are to do that, are we to assume that if someone contravenes the purposes section, they can then fall under the tribunal which is established in a later section of this act? I think this section actually deserves an hour of dialogue, and I know we're not going to get that.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the member and I can agree on that, hon. Chair.

The purposes section of any act is generally broadly interpreted, and the six sentences here set forth the general thrust or the purpose of the act. The specific question the member asked is about communication, and it is our intention to attempt to draft the bill in simpler language. We've also committed to working with employers to produce -- as we've done in the past -- pamphlets that describe the act in simple language, and to working with employers in terms of explaining the act. It's our view that if the act is understood by both 

[ Page 15592 ]

employees and employers, it will work to their benefit and people really would have nothing to fear. It will reduce violations, or applications from people who feel that the act has been violated, and that's a good approach.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; A. Hagen in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)

On vote 12: minister's office, $332,812 (continued).

J. van Dongen: I want to follow up with the minister on the Land Commission, in particular the situation in the Okanagan, where we have a group of agricultural landowners who over the years have become more and more upset, concerned and disappointed with the agricultural land reserve and with the lack of ability to earn an income off that land. They look over the fence and see the escalating land values outside the ALR. The other options for the use of land have now reached a point where they are mounting, I understand, a constitutional challenge of the legislation.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that from a policy point of view. How does he intend to respond to that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Any challenge to the agricultural land reserve, should a challenge be launched, will have to be handled upon the advice of the Ministry of Attorney General. At this point we don't have a challenge. The people who have made the comments have said that they are going to do this before an election. That sounds to me like it's a political challenge as much as it is a legal challenge.

We have every confidence in the efficacy of that law: that it stands; that when the provincial government brought in the law, it had the right to do so; that we brought in legislative changes last year which firmed up the boundaries, which in our view is constitutional. We remain confident that the agricultural land reserve will stay. We are always concerned that bona fide farmers may be unhappy, but it seems to me that if someone is interested in farming, then they are interested in having land for farming, and just because a farmer can't make a living at a particular time and particular cycle of the commodities prices, I don't think we can throw the land base out just because some farmers are having difficulty.

We responded to the farmers in the Okanagan by engaging representatives of farmers and packing houses in a prolonged policy development process that had never before happened in the Okanagan. They made recommendations which were supported by the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. I brought in an enhanced transition program to assist those farmers to make the changes necessary to become viable in the ALR.

There's no guarantee. The government is not going to guarantee financial viability for farmers. Farmers have to make management decisions on their own in order to ensure profitability.

J. van Dongen: More specifically, does the minister have a legal opinion that the initial legislation is constitutionally valid at the present time, since the new Charter came in?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We sought advice from the Ministry of Attorney General. They advise us that, yes, it is constitutionally valid under the laws of Canada today.

J. van Dongen: Further to the minister on this issue, have there been direct discussions between the minister and LORA, the Land Owners' Rights Association, on this issue? Have there been attempts to reconcile differences, if you will? Has there been any response from these producers with respect to some of the transitional programs that the minister has announced?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes the Land Owners' Rights Association made their concerns known. There were other groups in the Okanagan that made their concerns known, which always turned around the viability of agriculture and what the government was doing to assist the tree fruit industry in particular. We responded, and since we responded, the vast majority of farmers have been supportive of the programs of revitalization. That left LORA to launch another philosophic challenge -- as opposed to an economic challenge -- of the land reserve.

In my view, these people have not sought to reconcile any differences. I think they have a different frame of reference than the government has. They have not written to me, that I'm aware of, since they chose to seek their own legal advice, which, of course, they don't make public. I suspect that they are interested in litigating as opposed to resolving problems; otherwise I would have heard from them.

R. Chisholm: The first thing I would like to do is congratulate the ALC on its decision on the Mount Thurston issue; the minister has probably heard of it. I'll just quote from a couple of papers here. Basically, I'm hoping the ALC stands firm on this statement, which was a reply from Mr. Miller: 

[ Page 15593 ]

"The commission believes it would be inappropriate to introduce a non-farm use such as a prison into this area. There appear to be other viable sites outside of the ALR. It is suggested that these, and possibly other viable options outside the reserve, be explored." The mayor of the area and the regional district.... He was quoted as saying: "Earlier, the settlement plan for the area actively discouraged farming, and the parcel should never have been included in the ALR." The fact of the matter is that it was included way back in 1914 by the deputy governor for the Department of the Interior under King George V, who granted B.C. homestead number 8217 as a designated farm.

[2:45]

I'm glad the ALC saw fit to make this judgment call. I appreciate that there is mounting opposition from the Attorney General's ministry and the regional district. I hope it stands firm on it, because I believe it made the right decision. The people of the area are firmly behind the ALC on this and are definitely not in favour of the Mount Thurston change. I think it is time that we stand firm on the ALC and the ALR; otherwise we're going to see the chipping away and erosion of this policy. I don't think that would be healthy for our agricultural industry in general.

My first question goes right back to the basics. I would like to ask a couple of questions about the Okanagan. I want to go back to when the ALR was instituted. I'll start off by applauding the minister on the right-to-farm legislation. It's another building block that, when added to the ALR, will ensure that agriculture survives. Many farmers in my constituency feel that it is long overdue. I think everybody agrees that this is the right way to go. All the farmers I've talked to in my constituency agree on this, but they have a problem, of course, with the ALR. However, when the ALR was first created, the farmers whose farms were in the ALR were forced by legislation to give up their rights to develop their land. It stands to reason that because the ALR is strictly for farming and not for non-farming development, nothing other than farms are allowed to exist in the ALR. One cannot build a highrise in the ALR, for example. This, in effect, limits the property owners living in the ALR in what they're allowed to do with their property.

In other words, the government took away the farmers' development rights in the ALR when they legislated the ALR into existence. But the problem arises in that not one farmer was ever compensated for the loss of their development rights. This seems to be a grave oversight on the part of the B.C. government. This oversight has forced poverty on the very people who are in charge of growing food that all British Columbians depend on for sustenance -- the very people that we put right-to-farm legislation into existence for. Is this minister prepared to acknowledge that an injustice to our farmers has occurred? Is this minister prepared to look at ways to compensate the ALR farmers for the government's legislated removal of their development rights when they created the ALR in the first place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

R. Chisholm: That answer was very blunt.

The fact of the matter is that they did voluntarily give up the rights to their land, but they have not been compensated. They have not been protected as an agriculture industry. We are going about producing legislation which will protect the individual farmer, which protects the industry, but yet we have this injustice that this whole system started out with.

I'm just wondering if the minister should not at least discuss this with the farmers, at least go out there and confront them and say no bluntly to their face. After all, he is getting a court challenge from the Okanagan, and that can only be the start of it. It is good policy that was developed back in the early seventies; it's good policy with the right-to-farm bills. But it all can fall apart if we keep confronting the farmer and not addressing the issue. The issue is out there, just waiting to hit the courts. Which is the next area we'll go to court over?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It was a direct question, so I gave you a direct answer. I knew we would get into some dialogue on some of these issues.

First of all, the assertion is made that farmers have development rights, and my question is: what development rights? Governments create development rights through rezoning. Much of the land that went into the ALR was zoned as farmland, so it didn't have development rights by that action of government. Most of the land in the agricultural land reserve, with very little exception, was granted for farm purposes when they were homesteaded. It was homesteaded for farm purposes. So if you go back that far, that's why it became land. The government didn't say: "Here, you can have this land for farming, and when you want to develop it, you can develop it." I don't think that was ever said.

In the Okanagan $375 million has been spent to assist farmers, either through farm income insurance or other programs. That amounts to over $16,000 per acre and about $150,000 or more per farm since the inception of the agricultural land reserve, so there has been considerable assistance. Presently we are working on long-term safety nets that will work for farmers who are actively farming and making an income. The whole future of agriculture depends on a land base. If the land base erodes, we won't have agriculture. I think we'll be looking back and saying of the fruit industry in the Okanagan what we are now saying about the wine industry, and that is that we wouldn't have an industry if we didn't have an ALR.

The committee recessed from 2:51 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to question the minister on the composition of the ALC.

The Fraser Valley, from Hope to Georgia strait, represents over 65 percent of agriculture in British Columbia. Yet when you take a look at the present makeup of the Land Commission, the representation is not there by percentage of agriculture. Can you see that percentage change, considering that the vast majority of agriculture in British Columbia happens to be in the Fraser Valley? There's only one representative on that commission at this point in time. Just by virtue of the makeup and where the majority of agriculture is, you would think that there would be more representation from the valley, especially when the vast majority of your development happens to be in that area, too.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said this morning to another member, historically the lower mainland has had as many as 

[ Page 15594 ]

three members. They've had as much as half the representation in the past. Currently there are members who live in that area, but they don't represent farming interests per se.

[3:00]

The Agricultural Land Commission has to represent a broader public interest, the interests of a variety of commodities and regions. There have been regions in the province that have not had representation on the commission for a long time. So when appointments come up, we consider whether the region has been represented recently.

In the case of the lower mainland, when I'm considering two appointments this summer, I will consider that they presently don't have someone who's actively involved in agricultural production. I can't guarantee, because there are other regions presently that also aren't represented, and they have to consider those as well. I'll let the member know that only 10 percent of the applications are from the lower mainland, so if it were based on percentage of applications, it wouldn't even come up to one of the seven members. It depends on how you cut it.

Certainly the farming interests are well known to the commission. The Land Commission operates out of the lower mainland and is very close to the community there -- both the municipal and the farming community.

R. Chisholm: The vast majority of the conflict and major development going on, though, seems to be in the Fraser Valley -- other than the Okanagan. If the minister could look at this issue a little more closely, I think the farming community would be most appreciative.

The next area I'd like to talk about is the funding of the ALC, which had an increase of an extra $400,000. When I was talking to Jake Janzen of the BCMAFF, he seriously questioned why this funding should come out of the Agriculture budget since it's to provide funding to administer the recently established forest land reserve. Maybe the minister would like to clarify this and elaborate a little bit for Mr. Janzen and the BCFA, so they understand exactly what this funding is for and how it is supposed to be spent.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The money spent on the Forest Land Commission administration would not have been in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is there as a matter of convenience and as a matter of government efficiency. We chose to piggyback the administration of the forest land reserve on the operation of the agricultural land reserve in order to have all the efficiencies that are available by using existing bureaucratic apparatus. I assured Mr. Janzen that if there were no FLR, there would be no extra $400,000 in our budget. It would have been used by Forests in some other form. In fact, we ensured that the funds were kept whole by the budgeting process.

R. Chisholm: You said you talked to Mr. Janzen since, so hopefully that will clarify it for them and their members.

I would like to get back to the justification for another couple of questions on the ALC and the ALR, because I think this is a very important discussion. I think we're at a crossroads here as to whether the ALR will or will not survive or whether we will see more areas of conflict with the ALR. I said at the outset that I'm very much in favour of the ALR, but I think we might see other areas. I know I hear rumblings in the Fraser Valley, and when I go around the province I hear rumblings about the ALR too.

I'd like to quote from the Okanagan in December of last year. It is a very important statement that's being made. Mind you, we have to take into account that this again is the Okanagan speaking, but I'm hearing it now down in the Chilliwack area, where we didn't hear as much of it before. But we're hearing it now. This was put in by David Hobson. I believe the minister knows him. He says:

"If the ALR is to remain, then past promises to growers must be kept. Growers are willing to work hard to ensure they earn their money from the market. If that is not possible because of circumstances beyond their control, help is needed in order to pay bills and remain in business. Unfortunately, most growers are caught in a dilemma wherein they can't live on their farm returns and can't farm successfully if they have to work away from the farm. In the end, many growers feel they have no choice but to either seek government assistance to offset the restrictions placed on their land by the ALR or seek outright removal of their land from the reserve in order to seek a free market, free enterprise solution to support their families. Provincial politicians must soon make the choice of finding the money and the political will to support agriculture in a realistic manner or honestly face the removal of the land reserve."

I don't necessarily agree with the person's comments, but they are out there, they're realistic and that's what we have to face. The problem is that I'm starting to hear them in other areas.

Since then, Steve Thompson and David Hobson have asked me to pose a couple of questions to the minister. You will realize that you've partially answered this question, but you might want to put your answer on the record so that when they see it, they'll know exactly where you're coming from, what you're willing to change and whether you're willing to change. I understand that moneys have been paid to the tree fruit industry to keep it viable. My fear is that this could grow and end up in other areas of the province. Their question is:

"The minister is aware that a serious legal challenge is being mounted against the agricultural land reserve legislation. What is the minister's view on whether the legislation is working, and what plans does he have for any changes in approach, given the fact that it does not appear to be working? The auditor general's report identified significant shortcomings the ALR has encountered in meeting its mandates."

Could the minister comment and perhaps alleviate some of their fears, as well as the fears of people in other areas of the province who are now starting to listen to this?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As to the question of whether the ALR is working, I think it is: less than 0.3 percent of the land has been let out over these many years. From time to time commodities have serious problems that we have to address. The supply management commodities are having trouble now because of the change in grain subsidies and cutbacks from the federal government. They will have trouble, because they're going to be forced into a more competitive world trade environment. All we can do is address those issues and try to be ahead of them. To say that it is not working is wrong, I think. We are preserving a land base for agriculture in large enough parcels that people can farm economically, and the price of land within the ALR is still within reason, in terms of people being able to invest in a farm. We could always hope that it was less, but I still think it's possible to buy farmland, and it wouldn't be if it wasn't preserved in some form.

I think people are grasping onto the auditor general's comments to prove something. I don't know if you were 

[ Page 15595 ]

present, but if you review the discussion with the auditor general at the Public Accounts Committee, I think people raised a lot of issues with the auditor general. My conclusion from reading the comments by members is that he was raising policy issues that needed to be raised in some other forum and that his comments were not, in fact, in any way an indictment of the Agricultural Land Commission.

As far as I'm concerned, we will implement those recommendations that we can afford. There are some in there that have cost implications, like the suggestion that the land outside the ALR ought to come into the ALR. All of that sort of thing would be an administrative burden as well.

I'd like to say, though, after the comments of December '94 that you read, that I've got comments from February 1 from David Hobson of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, where he's expressing appreciation for the assistance that we've given to growers. It wasn't as much as what some of them had expected and didn't solve any of the long-term problems, but it is meaningful support and will make a critical difference for many producers.

I don't think we can keep all farmers, no matter how big or small, whole in terms of their financial survival. No government can guarantee that. All we can do is look at competitiveness issues that we can affect by government policy. One of the things that will keep farmers competitive is having a supply -- a good supply, not a short supply -- of farmland on which farming can take place. I maintain that that will become more and more important and be seen as a part of the comparative advantage that we have in agriculture in British Columbia.

R. Chisholm: I have to agree with some of what you're saying, but my problem here is that while the Okanagan may be happy with their buyout program that has happened, I see the trend now happening in the Fraser Valley and other areas of the province. We just can't go around the province buying off people, either. Eventually we're going to have to come up with a policy that is acceptable and that people are going to live with. Can you tell me if you are making any headway in changing the policy so that it will be acceptable to farmers in other areas? We cannot just continually buy off industries, either.

Like I said, I'm starting to hear this more and more in the Fraser Valley, on the Island and other areas. I just wonder if the minister has any comments on how we are going to nip this in the bud before it becomes an ongoing flood.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it is inappropriate to characterize the program in the Okanagan as a buyoff, buyout or anything like that. It is a transition program targeted to assist people while they make the transition to a different, more marketable configuration of product.

When we looked at profitability questions around the Okanagan, we found that 53 percent of the profitability problem had to do with marketing. Some 25 percent or 27 percent had to do with management, the size of operation and so on. The government-related costs were down between 4 percent and 7 percent, not enough to give anybody a significant disadvantage with competitors. That's not the issue.

In my view, on the lower mainland.... I don't know if you're hearing from farmers or from non-farmers. There will always be people who are unhappy and would rather be developers making a bigger buck by subdividing their land or developing it in some other way than farming.

I have to say that quota is still of high value in the lower mainland. That is one indicator of the viability of farming in that area. I'm not sure where you hear it from, but I do know that in the lower mainland and in your riding as well, there is now an agreement between the Agricultural Land Commission and local governments on a plan to reduce the conflicts. They've sorted it out. We do have some long-term plans in place where there has been a bit of give on the part of the Land Commission and the municipalities; we're working it out.

I submit to you that that has not happened in the Okanagan to the extent necessary, nor to some extent on lower Vancouver Island. When we resolve these planning and growth issues, I think the farmers will then settle down and realize that the local government has an interest in keeping them there as part of the economic base for their communities as well.

R. Chisholm: Those comments have come from farmers, not from others.

I'd like to change the subject matter a bit and talk about this ministry's responsibility to the PEP program. If I take a look at the PEP instructions, there is a flood plan, and it gives information on earthquakes, forest fires or whatever the case may be. Every ministry was tasked to supply either equipment or manpower assistance during times of crisis. I notice that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is on that line diagram as being a member that reports to the chief support coordinator and liaison for PEP.

[3:15]

I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate on what his responsibilities are and, if at all possible, supply the policies which govern his support to PEP. The reason for this line of questioning is that I'm in the midst of a struggle with the federal government on CFB Chilliwack. I'm just fishing for information now to build a case against them at this point in time. So if you could elaborate on what your responsibilities are, it would be most appreciated.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We would be happy to supply you with a copy of the agreement with the federal government about our responsibilities. In a nutshell, we are responsible to facilitate communications in and around farming and rural issues. That's as I understand it; I stand to be corrected. We are responsible for plans to evacuate livestock, if necessary, and for the inventory of food and food supplies. Just as an aside, we might be called upon to milk the cows if there's a problem in particular dairies. We know there's a lot of farmers working for the department, and they're always happy to get in there and pull their own weight. The director out there, Wayne Wickens, is on the committee and works very closely with them, but we are governed by this agreement with the federal government.

[ Page 15596 ]

R. Chisholm: Two more questions, then. Would you be responsible for containment or transportation of livestock in the event of a disaster? How much federal resource would you rely on, or do you rely on federal resource at all to assist you in your responsibilities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To my knowledge, we don't depend on the resources of the military base for our plans. We maintain lists of people who can store milk, for example, or store feed or provide feed or haul milk or haul livestock, and we would put those lists at their disposal. We help administer the whole program by adjusting those lists, updating them and refining them. Actually, when it comes to putting a plan into place, we might be there to phone the farmers or phone the truckers. That's our role. To my knowledge and the knowledge of my officials here, we don't have any direct dependence on the forces base there.

R. Neufeld: Just a few brief questions for the Minister of Agriculture. I have one on the ALR. In the annual report from last year, there are comments made about the 1,760 acres at Roberts Bank, which in 1993 the Premier declared would be preserved as farmland. Also, the municipality of Delta initiated a study in 1993 to reinforce the continued agriculture use of these lands, and that's commendable. I don't find fault with that; I think that's a good move. But the Premier is aware that with the treaty process in place, those lands are under discussion at the present time.

I'm quite sure that the agricultural land reserve does not apply to any reserve lands at the present time. On reserves, natives can do whatever they want with their land. In fact, I think that's evident in the Okanagan, where they built houses on some of the best farmland in the Okanagan. I'm wondering what position the Ministry of Agriculture takes within the treaty-making process to ensure that if these lands are dealt off to the natives, for whatever reason, they will remain agricultural land, as they are now designated. Is that the intent of the Agricultural Land Commission and your ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can assure you that the Agricultural Land Commission will undoubtedly make that recommendation. I will use the analogy of parks for a moment. We have stated very clearly that if we create parks and particular zones, we will take that zonation to the treaty table. With respect to the ALR, we have maps that go over the reserve, but because it's federal land, it doesn't apply.

In the development of a mandate for negotiators, I think that will be considered. As the Minister of Agriculture, I will argue that we should be arguing for the highest and best use of resource land; if it's scarce, then we can make that argument. But I can't stand here and tell you that it is the government's position that we will legally take into the land reserve those lands that are not in the agricultural land reserve now. I can, however, say to you that this topic can be addressed in the development of the provincial government's mandate, which will go to a particular treaty table.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate what the minister is saying about reserves that are in place now; they're under federal jurisdiction. It would be pretty difficult to do. I'm turning it around to this particular portion of land. It's not on a reserve at the present time, but it is prime agricultural land. I'm sure this is not the only piece of land in British Columbia that may fall under this line of questioning. What I'd really like to be assured of by the minister -- and I wasn't from his answer -- is that the Ministry of Agriculture will take to the treaty-making process the fact that any lands that are considered farmland, such as the Roberts Bank backup lands, if I can use that terminology, will remain as agricultural land if they're dealt off in a land swap or a deal with the native Indians.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The lands of which you speak are Crown lands. There is no dispute in the province's mind that the underlying title rests with the Crown. Those lands that are in dispute are federal Crown lands where the provincial Crown does not apply. These are two different things. We'll restrict the discussion here to those lands having an underlying title that rests with the province, such as the Roberts Bank lands, which are fully in the ALR. As we go to the treaty table, therefore, the surrounding lands will be fee simple lands with an underlying Crown title. There will be a covenant on the title, however, that says they are in the agricultural land reserve.

R. Neufeld: The minister is confirming that if these lands are dealt off to the natives in the treaty-making process, they will be fully covered by the ALR process in place right now and protected as farmland as long as the agricultural land reserve is around.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member has to realize that I can't speculate on the outcome of a treaty-making process. Many things might be on the table. The Premier has stated that the interest of those lands is for long-term agriculture. We have been dealing with members of the farming community there with a view to creating long-term leases that will provide security. To go back to statements that have been made, our policy will honour the terms of any leases on Crown land, and we will insist on treaties that will respect the terms of those agreements.

R. Neufeld: The negotiations going on now with the farmers of that area.... Of course, they are obligated toward and in fact tied to that land if they obtain a long-term lease or are sold the land, etc. Those farmers know full well that the land will be in the ALR and that they will have to live and farm those lands for as long as the ALR is in place or until sometime down the road when they can remove it. I understand that. That's what's going to happen to those people if they happen to get the lease or buy the land.

Is the ministry working very hard on efforts to ensure that if the land is dealt to native Indians through the treaty-making process, the lands will be used for agricultural purposes only? That's the question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't want to foreshadow the outcome of treaty negotiations, but I can assure you that the provincial interest in agriculture will be represented on any lands that are currently in the ALR, the title of which remains with the Crown. It would be our position that if it's zoned agriculture, then we take that zoning. That's the beginning; that's what we take to the table. But I would be guided, in my formulation of advice to government, by third-party consultations in the area. We have to be aware that the provincial interest in lands that are in the ALR is agricultural.

[ Page 15597 ]

I remind the member that we are very aware of the fact that these are among the most productive lands in Canada, and I think it's in the provincial interest to see them remain in agriculture.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for those comments.

Going a little further with the ALR, in my constituency recently, either in the last year or over the last two years, a person wanted to subdivide a piece of land so that they could sell two five-acre parcels -- not for farming, but for rural residential -- and was turned down. The Land Commission agreed it was not suitable for farming because there were some creeks running through it. Apparently it was not very good land. I believe the fact that there were some farms around there and that there could be an issue with smells and those types of things were the words used by the commission to turn the application down. I can quite understand why they used that rationale to turn that down.

[3:30]

Will the new right-to-farm legislation that the minister has passed maybe expedite that person being able to reapply to the Agricultural Land Commission? We now have something in place in the statutes that will say: "Farmers around you have the right to farm, and you're going to have to expect this if you want to live on a rural residential lot." Will it now facilitate people like that to move forward and subdivide land such as that so that it can be used as rural residential?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't comment on a particular application, because we don't have the details here, but you're using it to illustrate a very good point. I would say in general terms that it should help to have the right to farm there so that people are aware, when they are moving into farming areas, that they won't be protected if smells or the operation of machinery are in fact among the reasons why we wouldn't encourage intrusion into the farming area.

The right-to-farm legislation will protect people who are now unbuffered, and it will in the long term argue in favour of buffers. So if the answer to the question, "Do we need a buffer between farm lands and non-farm lands in this area?" is yes, then we have to ask the question: "Are five-acre parcels adequate for the buffer?" If the answer to that is no, then they'd be turned down; if the answer is yes, they might get approval.

A lot of the way in which the right to farm will play out hasn't been.... We haven't thought through every single particular application, but I wouldn't want to give anybody any false hope that this changes it substantially. It's still the nature of what goes on in the five acres, compared to what goes on in the areas surrounding them. It might be worth at least a letter to ask the commission whether or not things have changed because of the legisition. That would depend on the nature of the application and the circumstances around it.

R. Neufeld: Just so the minister understands, I agree with the right-to-farm legislation. In fact, I think it's a pretty good piece of legislation. I just thought that it could be worked both ways so that if the person does subdivide and sell to people who know that there is a right to farm around them, then they're going to have to live with that. If it happens to be a pig farmer or whatever next door, they're going to have to live with it. It's in statute now, so they can't say that they didn't really know at the time. The argument from urban residents has always been that they didn't know what was going to happen. This legislation can now be put in front of them, so they should know. That's encouraging, and I'll mention it to the people involved. I'm going to move from the Agricultural Land Commission that I spoke to earlier. I have just a few other questions about agriculture, then I have to get back to the House with some other issues.

I don't know if anyone has asked the minister about the issue of deer and elk. In Penticton and in the Boundary areas, one rancher is saying that deer have cost up to $50,000 a year in destroyed feed, stacks of hay and so on. The minister is well aware of what happens with deer and elk, but there does not seem to be a way that anyone can convince the Ministry of Environment -- and I know that's not your ministry -- to increase the hunting regulations for deer and elk in those areas. They're not just peculiar to those two areas. I think the minister should know, and I'm sure he does, that the orchardists in the Okanagan have a lot of the same problems with deer.

In fact, I remember listening to the member for Okanagan West lobby the minister last year about fencing or something with deer. In my constituency of Peace River North there are an awful lot of deer, and also in my colleague's constituency of Peace River South. They cause a hazard on the highways. It doesn't take much to rack up a $2,000 bill on your car if you happen to hit a deer on the road, and we have a tremendous amount of them. In fact, the highway between Hudson's Hope and Fort St. John should be closed at night because of the deer population.

From what I understand, Penticton, Boundary and other parts of the Okanagan are having some of the same difficulties. Is the minister actively working with the Ministry of Environment to try to deal with the issue of elk and deer in those areas, so as to help the agricultural community and the residents at large?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are. Like so many things, there are lots of problems out there. We admit that it's a problem. It attests, I guess, to the success in managing the survival of wildlife. But as people move further out and develop further, and as we see development of different kinds of farming practices like the dwarf trees in the Okanagan, it's more susceptible to wildlife -- at least for longer periods of time.

We worked actively with the Ministry of Environment and producers on the problem wildlife committee, and it's an ongoing debate. We are encouraging development of fencing. We have a brochure on protecting orchards from deer. Some of this fencing is working. I think the conclusion we've come to is not fencing every parcel but kind of fencing regions to try to stop the drift of deer. We have to do more on this. I believe we have problems because of our success in protecting habitat for wildlife.

There is a deer and elk problem, and let me address the elk problem for a moment. In the areas in the Kootenays where this is primarily a problem, we have established a grazing enhancement program that will hopefully build on the successes and failures of previous attempts to reconcile conflicting grazing needs. We have left flexibility in the fund criteria to allow for regionally specific needs, which might involve planting browse for wildlife on private land or even drift fencing or whatever is necessary.

I would like to leave my comments saying that we are actively working on this. We are working in the Creston area, 

[ Page 15598 ]

for example, where there is a nine-point proposal to deal with the orchard -- wildlife concerns. It includes the increasing problem of wildlife permit shooting, lobbying in the community to open up the graveyard forest to hunting during archery season, open hunting provisions that require increased access to private property and increasing limited-entry hunting permits for antlerless whitetails. It also includes fencing to minimize deer damage, initiating a feeding program, pursuing range enhancement through the Columbia-Kootenay compensation program, continuing the monitoring of Creston wildlife and implementation actions in developing an integrated package of initiatives for problem wildlife.

A lot of that has been developed by Fish and Wildlife and the problem wildlife task force. We are making progress on this, and in starting to implement this program in the Creston area, we'll begin to see results. I would submit that each area needs to get to that level of detail in its planning to overcome this problem.

R. Neufeld: I'm not going to belabour the issue too long, but the minister talked about his government protecting this habitat and that being what's bringing all these deer on. I want to make it perfectly clear to the minister that that's not particularly the case. We've had problems with deer in Peace River North, and they've had similar problems in the Okanagan long before your government took office. I want to put it on the record to make it perfectly clear that that's not the fact; there are other reasons for it.

The ministry should be actively working with the Ministry of Environment to increase the hunting opportunities, if that's what it takes to thin out some of the whitetail deer and caribou. Someone who doesn't live in a rural area probably wouldn't quite understand what I'm talking about, but I think the minister quite understands what I'm talking about, due to where he comes from.

I would like to leave that issue with the minister and hope that he will work with the Ministry of Environment to try and reduce the number somehow. The other thing that comes to mind is that disease will take its course in time with those animals, and that could be a lot worse for those animals than what could happen if we hunt them. With that, I'll just leave that issue.

The minister sent me some information about the budget. I appreciate it, and I thank the minister for sending me the information on the social services tax. Effective June 1, 1995, as I understand it, there will be no sales tax charged to farmers who use electricity, natural gas, propane or fuel oil for any purpose. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to find the language around that, but it's my understanding that it's for farm purposes.

R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, that's what I meant to say: it's for farm purposes. I just want to clarify that and go on to a couple of other questions. One is on markets for straw and on the Peace River Agricultural Strategic Planning Society using wheat and flax straw. I think the minister is aware that someone from Vulcan, Alberta, is producing paper products from the straw. I just wonder what work the ministry is doing now with the Peace River Agricultural Strategic Planning Society. Are they doing something parallel, working with this group in Alberta?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I'm a little unsure of the details of the particular plant in Vulcan, but we are working with PRASPS very closely, as we did on the agrifibre proposal, and we'll continue to do that. In terms of special studies that might be conducted down here, I'm not aware of any. We feel we have resourced PRASPS. If there's a good idea and they need to draw on our technical resources, we are happy to work with them. We would expect a partners application or something if they didn't have the resources to do it. But right now I'm not aware of working with Vulcan or a Vulcan-type paper product plant on the B.C. side of the Peace.

R. Neufeld: Dealing with the reduction of the Crow rate this coming year for the agricultural community in Fort St. John and the total Peace region -- North and South Peace -- I have had discussions with B.C. Rail and with farmers from North and South Peace in regard to making Fort St. John a central gathering point for grain, not just in North and South Peace but also in northern Alberta and as far east and north as Grimshaw and Grande Prairie -- all those areas. That grain would be moved into Fort St. John to be shipped on B.C. Rail.

The distance to move grain from Fort St. John to the port of Vancouver via BCR is 200 miles closer than it is via the CN route from Grande Prairie. There are some obvious advantages that BCR could make in car loads, and they would help the farmers in North and South Peace very much with moving their grain to port once the subsidy is removed. It would continue to encourage farming in the Peace River region and the growing of grain. I just wonder if the ministry has any active consultations going on with B.C. Rail on the issue of moving grain from the north, specifically from Fort St. John to the port of Vancouver.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I can confirm that the ministry is working with BCR on a strategy that would capture as much of the Peace and Alberta grain as possible. I have been encouraging that ever since I became aware of the possibility. As I say, we've got somebody assigned actively working on that.

[3:45]

We are painfully aware that with the Crow reduction, there are two things we have to do: find efficiencies around our rail systems, but make sure that we get our fair share of the adjustment moneys that are available. We've worked hard to get a commitment from the federal minister and other ministers that we would get our share, and that is defined as B.C. and Alberta working together to get their share, which maximizes the benefits for the Peace because of the time period over which they might average it. So I'm satisfied they're working on that. If there's anything we can do to nudge B.C. Rail to get a business plan that results from this strategy, we'll be doing that.

R. Neufeld: I want to thank the minister for that response. I received the same response from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is responsible for B.C. Rail. I think that could lead to the agricultural industry surviving and carrying on quite well in the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South.

I'm finished my questioning. The member for Mission-Kent, who seemed to have a number of remarks while I was asking my questions, has the floor now and can stand up and ask all the questions of the Minister of Agriculture he wishes.

[ Page 15599 ]

D. Streifel: I was supporting you every step of the way.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to carry on further with this letter that was sent to me from the tree fruit growers. It originated from Steve Thompson and David Hobson, as I said before. If the minister could just elaborate on some of the themes they have expressed here, maybe that could alleviate some of the problems they've got.

The first question they sent was: "The minister has previously talked about the development of an agrifood strategy for British Columbia. Where does that initiative stand now, and what now is his vision for the future of agriculture in British Columbia, as it is almost a year later?"

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the member to know that when I undertook to respond to the challenge of developing agrifood policy, we had a couple of choices. One was to put a special commissioner onto this job, or I could shoulder the load myself, roll up my sleeves and listen directly to farmers so that when things hit the cabinet table I was well immersed in the subject.

Where that initiative stands right now is that over the summer we will take a paper based on some 11 preliminary consultations we've held around the province primarily with agriculture industry people and related municipal people -- it will be developed from those people. It's being written as we speak. It will be available in August sometime -- I guess when I get back from holidays -- and it will be sent out in early to mid-September to a wide variety of farm groups, farmers and related organizations. We will start to market those ideas and see how they fly with the farming community and with the urban community. Then we will have another go-round on refining that paper through the fall. So that's the time frame I'm looking at. It's better that we take the time and do it well. I believe that these processes are, as much as possible, internal to the commodity groups, the interest group and government, and that we will be successful in being able to deliver on the vision that we have.

I'm not prejudging the vision, but I'm personally very optimistic about the future of agriculture in British Columbia, because we're starting from a very competitive base. It's my determination that the vast majority of our commodities will remain competitive. That's the vision I see. I see people very loyal to British Columbia producers and British Columbia products. We just have to keep the availability in front of people, and they will partake.

R. Chisholm: An evaluation of the OVTFA was carried out under contract by an independent firm. What is the status of that evaluation, and when will it be made public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That evaluation has been received by the ministry. It was sent on immediately to the board. The board is reviewing it and is in the process of responding to that. We have every intention of making that public when it has been dealt with by the board.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The time frame will be probably within the next month. What I intend to do is find some way of reviewing the long-term strategy that is acceptable to industry. As you correctly noted, and I recognize in the fruit growers' letter, we have not solved all of the long-term problems of the tree fruit industry. The role the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority plays in the long-term health of the industry, the role the ministry plays, the role the packing-houses play in terms of marketing and extension work -- I'm prepared to put all of those things in a forum similar to the one that developed the short-term strategy. I'm prepared to put that there with the resources necessary to finalize the strategic plan that will ensure the long-term health of the industry in the Okanagan. This report will form part of that.

R. Chisholm: The provincial government has indicated that the long-term stabilization and safety nets will be delivered through crop insurance and NISA. The minister commented previously about the need for companion programs in transition and adjustments to these two core programs. This budget does not appear to make any provision for companion income support programs that are needed to bridge the transition. Is there such a provision, and how much is in the budget that has not been noted?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The words "companion programs" are pretty broad in meaning. They are programs to assist moving to the free trade environment, an area with less subsidy, part of which is driven by governments just not having the resources to subsidize agriculture.

The $11.2 million in enhanced transition funding that I announced in January is a companion program, or has companion program components. The Partners in Progress under the ministry, the new development funds and hopefully the federal government.... The federal government is committed to assisting, and we're negotiating with them what companion programs might be. It is unclear at this point what any permanent companion programs might be. All that the federal government is prepared to commit to is NISA and crop insurance. They're the two base programs.

Companion programs are subject to negotiation, but we are relying in large part on development programs that are driven by the commodity groups themselves. We have them for beef, hogs, vegetables, strawberries and potatoes. These are funds in which the interest and some of the capital is spent on programs to develop markets, production techniques and so on.

I stand corrected. I earlier said that the federal government had not committed to it; they have committed to it. We are working with the federal government to make sure we get our fair share of companion programs developed. Right now I can tell you that it will be discussed, possibly at the next agriculture ministers' meeting. I don't know if we are going to make all that much progress on it. We will be endeavouring to make clear what these companion programs are so people like those in the tree fruit industry know where their long-term future lies with respect to government assistance.

R. Chisholm: Just to add to that question, I rather suspect that at the next conference for ministers of agriculture, there will be very aggressive lobbying for some of this funding. Just what is this ministry and minister doing to ensure that we get our fair share of these funds? I rather suspect that with federal downloading the nine other ministers there are going to be very, very aggressive in demanding money.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can inform the member that I met with Minister Ralph Goodale on this subject about a month 

[ Page 15600 ]

ago. We are developing a memorandum of understanding with them that we will hopefully table within the next few weeks. We hope to have some resolution on the development funds before the ministers' meeting on August 1 and 2. We are actively reminding them that we have not had historically our fair share of funds from the federal government, and we intend that any distribution will be equitable. The other agriculture ministers have agreed to that principle. Unfortunately, people are defining the share differently. We argue that it should be based on present farm cash receipts, whereas others argue for a historic share.

R. Chisholm: The ministry and the minister have cancelled the ALDA program. What is going to happen to the current funds on account? What happens to the repayment of principal and interest that will be made on current loans under the program? It appeared to be one program that was GATT-green, and it allowed some adjustment on the part of growers. It now leaves the BCFA without any program that provides any form of relief from interest rates.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, our interpretation is that ALDA was not GATT-green because it was a direct interest subsidy. The revenues and principal payments on the ALDA program will accrue to the Crown and go back into consolidated revenue, and the fund will be phased out over time. But all the commitments that are there will be honoured, and the program will run its course.

R. Chisholm: The British Columbia agriculture industry has been negatively impacted by the Columbia River Treaty. The provision of downstream benefits has allowed tremendous development and expansion in Washington State, particularly in the tree fruit sector. British Columbia has now negotiated compensation for downstream benefits. What is the minister's position on agriculture entitlement to a portion of those benefits?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The first question always is: what does agriculture need? We have to work with industry to look at what it takes to remain competitive, especially with the new trade rules. We are doing that, and we're working commodity by commodity to do that. I think the suggestion you're quoting is in a report and is the opinion of one agrologist. We will continue to review factors that affect competitiveness. The Columbia River Treaty might be one of those, but there are other factors and we need to look at them all.

[4:00]

We are currently doing things that assist competitiveness through marketing programs like Buy B.C., the farm management program and some of the programs of the Land Commission around zoning, and so on. There's a lot we are already doing to assist. The idea that we would be tying downstream benefits funds to a particular fund is a hypothetical question right now, as you know. Farmers can raise issues of competitiveness, but I need to remind the member that with respect to competitiveness with the state of Washington, there's a 4 to 7 percent difference in the cost of production between our fruit growers in the Okanagan and those in Washington. In my view, and I think in the view of the forum of farmers I consulted with, that's not a significant difference in comparative costs.

R. Chisholm: In regard to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, it is funded by taxpayers' money, and it was created by this government to assist tree fruit growers in the Okanagan with their farming. In the Fraser Valley, there is a very significant tree fruit farm population that does not enjoy the financial assistance of an organization like the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. Why is it that the Okanagan tree fruit growers have a taxpayer-funded organization to help them, when the same type of farmers in the Fraser Valley and other parts of British Columbia do not? The winery industry enjoys equal treatment from these programs, but it seems that the tree fruit growers in this area currently do not. Surely this minister, who represents all farmers, does not believe that some farmers are better than others. I'm sure this minister intends to either create a similar organization or assist them. The question is: when and how will the minister assist the tree fruit growers in the Fraser Valley to the same degree as he assists those in the Okanagan?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have a couple of things to say about the tree fruit industry in the Fraser Valley. They do have assistance from the ministry's extension programs. The extension programs and resources of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority are available to them. They have crop insurance, and NISA is available to them. Those core programs are available.

The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority was a regional economic development mechanism; it was regionally specific. We are dealing with a long-established industry that has been in transition and needs to transform to survive. It's a regionally significant industry in the Okanagan; in the Fraser Valley it is small. My advice to any commodity group starting up in a new region would be to make sure that you have the least possible dependence on government. They knew there was no assistance when they started up. They never had farm income insurance, they never became dependent on farm income insurance and they were never under the umbrella of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, since it was regionally specific. Therefore my advice to farmers there would be: don't count on a special authority or a special economic development program. We encourage you to develop on a self-sustaining basis as much as possible.

R. Chisholm: I understand what you're trying to say, hon. minister, but here are some of the problems that create antagonism when we start talking about the ALR. When we start talking about some of the differences between regions, and about certain commodity groups in certain regions having greater benefits than other groups in other regions, it definitely creates antagonism that doesn't need to be there. This is the same point that we had with ALR: we have a problem in one area that will fester and go into other areas. I'm just wondering what can be done by the ministry to alleviate this before it becomes a major sore point.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't think the allegation that we are creating problems between regions can be substantiated. We are moving towards NISA, which is for all farms and all products on an equal basis. We have extended the number of commodities and the amount that is spent on this program, which is available for everybody on an equal basis. As I said, crop insurance does extend across the province, so there is equity between regions.

The re-plant program in the Okanagan is not a development program; we do not fund new farm development. In the 

[ Page 15601 ]

Fraser Valley, farms are developing. It's not as though they had an established industry that had certain economic underpinnings, like FIA and so on; they are starting from scratch. As I say, most farmers understand that government assistance is not going to be there in the long term in the amounts that it has been historically. Therefore they need to look at what competitive advantages they have and roll with that.

I should have said earlier that the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority was brought in by the previous government, not this government. It was the second imposition on those people by the Lusztig royal commission on the tree fruit industry. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority was thrust on them. We took a different approach. We sat down with them and for the first time actually negotiated a program, sat down and looked at the options honestly and openly based on a common analysis of the problems. We didn't tell them what their problems were; we went through an analysis. I think that we could do that for any commodity group in any region.

R. Chisholm: The last question I have on tree fruits -- which we've debated and discussed before in other estimates, both with you and the previous minister -- is from an article on coddling moths. It talks about the first million being released this year:

"Last year, the first year of the program, wild moths won. Five million sterile moths were released every week, but weather conditions produced the biggest moth infestation in 40 years. The program had an $8 million startup cost and an annual budget of $1.8 million. In January, Agriculture minister David Zirnhelt added another $1.4 million to the program over the next two years."

I wonder if the minister can give us an update on exactly where we are with this program. I believe we're going in the right direction, but when you get this kind of press, it's somewhat negative. Maybe the minister could give us an update for exactly where this program is at this point in time and if we are going to see a success story in the near future.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In order to be successful, that program will have to be owned by the people in the region, not be a government program. By adding the $1.4 million, we assisted them in covering the added costs of a delayed startup. The extra moths -- the infestation numbers -- that you argue were in spite of, not because of, the program. I think there's a recognition that there has to be continued spraying for awhile until we can get the sterile insect release program up and running. It's there to assist the growers. As you know, it's a program that is run by growers and the regional district. It is their program for the long term, but because they had a faltered startup, we agreed to assist for two more years.

J. van Dongen: I want to follow up with some questions on the fruit industry and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. I'll start out by asking the minister if he could comment on the cost-effectiveness of having a separate authority as the delivery mechanism of programs. I note his comment that the authority was brought in under a previous government. I think it's a valid question as to whether or not it involves duplicate bureaucracy.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is frequent criticism of the administration of the OVTFA, but I can assure the member that when it comes to a vote as to whether we should throw it out, the vote fails before the farmers and the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association. Not all members belong to the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, but those most likely to be opposed to the OVTFA do belong, and there's been an ongoing fight.

I can tell you that this year, 1995-96, we expect that the administrative costs will be as low as 4 percent. That's as a result of higher program expenditures this year. When they don't have such big programs, there's a minimum administration that goes as high as 12 percent. The range of 10 percent to 15 percent administrative costs is common to government -- of course, the closer you can get to 10 percent, the better.

In terms of accountability, it submits an annual business plan that gets Treasury Board approval. There's a detailed budget with objectives and an action plan developed in consultation with the industry. We table an annual report. This midterm review employed the 12 attributes of effectiveness, and we'll be releasing that report in the near future. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority will use that report in consultation with industry.

In order to assure a structured relationship with the ministry and avoid overlap and duplication, there is actually a memorandum of understanding with the ministry that ensures that the roles are clearly defined and that sets out the financial accountability.

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

J. van Dongen: When it's put to a vote and gets positive support, this begs the question of what was included in the vote. Were the programs included in the vote, or was the vote just dealing with the delivery mechanism?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't want to get into the motives of the fruit growers who put forth the resolution, but the motion was simply to get rid of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority -- so it's the program's administration as a whole. Questions of administrative costs and administrative efficiency come up, and these were well within the terms of reference of the review. These will be the sorts of things we look at when we look at the respective roles of the packing-houses, the authority, the ministry and other agencies.

J. van Dongen: I want to ask the minister for some clarification in terms of the proposed budget. I'm looking at page 67 of the Estimates, where it sets out grants and contributions to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for $3 million in 1994-95 and $1.5 million in 1995-96. I just want to question where the salaries and administration costs, etc., are set out and how they're accounted for.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The administrative costs are detailed in the financial statements that are tabled in the Legislature. It operates based on earnings from money that's in reserve and the grant that's in the book here. Based on that, they establish how they meet their programs and establish their administrative budget.

J. van Dongen: I just wonder why the accounting for the Land Commission or the B.C. Marketing Board is different from that of the Tree Fruit Authority.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The simple answer is because they are a Crown corporation, and the other agencies aren't. The Crown corporations account in a different way.

[ Page 15602 ]

J. van Dongen: With respect to the Deloitte and Touche review, I understand that's being done under the legislation setting up the authority. Is that understanding correct?

[4:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Deloitte and Touche report that you talk of is only one part of the midterm review. The midterm review has to be tabled, as per the legislation of December 1995. The other parts, other than the Deloitte and Touche report, are a five-year plan that has to be submitted, and then the consultations that I would undertake with a forum of tree fruit industry people up in the Okanagan. There will be a participatory aspect to this evaluation, and all the cards will be on the table, including the Deloitte and Touche report and my response.

J. van Dongen: I'd like to ask then: is this part of a sunset clause on the legislation, where it requires a review after five years?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. This particular review was an additional accountability requirement put into the legislation. Sunset is the year 2000.

J. van Dongen: With respect to the review that's being done by Deloitte and Touche, could the minister explain why that would have been done by an independent agency as opposed to either the auditor general or possibly the comptroller general?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Special programs or agencies like that will quite often be reviewed by independent auditors. It is our view that it gives us the assurance that there's an independent voice commenting on this particular agency. The auditor general does more routine audits inside government. This is a special evaluation.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister comment on the selection process that was followed to hire Deloitte and Touche?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me clarify that this particular evaluation is a ministry evaluation, not the OVTFA contracting out an evaluation of itself. It's the ministry contracting out. Requests for proposals went out. There was a team comprised of ministry officials and the Tree Fruit Authority officials, and they agreed and selected this particular auditor.

J. van Dongen: Was there a formalized proposal that went out to a number of auditing firms? How many auditing firms applied for the job?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The request for proposal went out, and there were two applicants. I guess this is a management consulting report as opposed to an auditing type of report.

J. van Dongen: I wanted to follow up on the response the minister gave to the member for Chilliwack on the downstream benefits issue. He made reference to the study that Wendy Holm and Associates has done, and I'm a bit concerned about the response. I agree with the minister's response to the extent that it is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I would like the minister to confirm whether he would agree that it certainly raises some significant and valid arguments, although maybe we could quarrel with the degree. I would like the minister to comment on whether he thinks the argument in the report is fundamentally valid -- that there was significant impact on B.C. agriculture by the whole water deal that was made?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have to say that I'm still awaiting advice on this report. I do take it seriously, and I have asked for the very best advice to be brought to me. I'm prepared to say that it is possible that water is one of the factors affecting competitiveness, but it's not the only one. When looking at the tree fruit industry, for example, 53 percent of the competitiveness problem turns out to be marketing, and all the water in the world isn't going to change that. It's one factor, but we have to address all factors that affect competitiveness and profitability. We are doing that group by group. It's different for different groups. The point that's made in the study is that here's a source of revenue, so why don't we put it into a fund and beneficially affect competitiveness for B.C. producers?

I'm not prepared to admit to any of the premises underlying that study, certainly not before I've had a chance to review it, along with some commentary on it. I have asked for a very thorough commentary -- from inside government, universities and other parties. When I've had a chance to review that, I'll consider some of the assumptions there. It's a bit of a moot point right now. There is no money flowing from that, and we have to revisit the whole question. I'm prepared to do that.

The problem you have is that an arrangement had been made on the disbursements of the downstream benefit funds, and that didn't include agriculture. I have said publicly a number of times that no one in government and no one outside government made the case that it ought to be considered for benefits. I know the benefits were considered regionally. They weren't considered for across the province, other than it possibly going to skills development and debt reduction, which would benefit all British Columbians. So the debate can carry on and people can make their comments, but I'm not prepared to make any conclusive comments until I've had a chance to review it very thoroughly.

J. van Dongen: There was another comment that the minister made in talking about comparison of Okanagan versus Washington cost of production. I think you were citing a 4 to 7 percent difference in COP and said that most producers didn't feel that that was seriously material. I'm wondering what the basis is for that conclusion. Has there been a study? Could the minister tell us the basis for that comment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: During the process of consulting with the tree fruit industry through their forum, a study was done by Mr. Stennis, and we will provide that to you. The forum agreed that what he laid out was a 4 to 7 percent difference in COP. That was not considered to be significant, given the differences in revenue. For example, the revenue difference between Washington and British Columbia was 100 percent. You stack 4 to 7 percent up against the 100 percent, and you know where the problem lies. There was consent just on that conclusion.

[ Page 15603 ]

J. van Dongen: I assume this study came out, then.... I didn't quite catch the date, if the minister mentioned it. Was that this past fall, the fall of '94, leading up to your decisions that were announced in January '95? Is that when the study was done?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. It was done over the summer. It was available in the fall when we got into intensive consultation with the industry. At the same time, we did an analysis of the financial situation with a large sample of producers, just to confirm the financial situation, which was serious, and to indicate what kinds of models of operation were profitable. It indicated there was a financial problem, so we were able to convince government that assistance was needed.

I think what we did in that process was develop confidence in the numbers, because the numbers were developed using this forum as a kind of steering committee to at least crunch them. But it was the Stennis report; it was done plenty earlier enough. We ensured that this consultation process and the development of a short-term assistance program didn't fail for want of analysis of the industry.

J. van Dongen: I just want to ask if the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association were involved in that forum on some unofficial basis? A supplementary to that question is: what was their response to those numbers?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have to say that this was a process that, in my view, had integrity. I could look the president in the eye. We had a steering committee of two people from the Tree Fruit Authority, two from the fruit growers, who helped develop the technical material, and the ministry. We had, I think, four people on it; they weren't to be outvoted.

The fruit growers constituted, through their local presidents, a majority of the people on the forum, but they don't represent everybody, and we had others there from those organizations that don't belong to the fruit growers. I don't think there was any concern about whether that was a representative group. So when you talk about fruit growers, there are some who are represented by the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association and there are others who are not. We had to represent all tree fruit growers.

J. van Dongen: I certainly want to concur with the minister that that's the process that needs to be followed: to have a broad base of information. Very often, developing a common base of information is a start.

I know that the minister, as he said, went through a fairly comprehensive consultation process prior to the decisions and announcements he made in January '95. I'm wondering if he could tell me if he's satisfied that he and his government have done what they need to do, in the short and intermediate term, with respect to the fruit industry.

I am looking for his comment as to what can and should be done and the conclusions that he's drawn from the exercise that he went through this past fall. Are there other things that you feel you would like to do or need to do?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Here are quick conclusions about where we are and how I feel about it. What we did was confirm and endorse the revitalization strategy. The predominant view was to ensure that we stay the course with industry revitalization, and I was glad to have that endorsement from that group. We remain committed, as they are, to development of a long-term strategy. That's the next piece, because we haven't done anything but give short-term, maybe medium-term, relief. We've said that the programs will be there until the year 2000.

[4:30]

I would like to quote from David Hobson's February 1 letter, where he says:

"Over the next few months our association will be devoting much effort to identifying the changes in marketing and promotion that must take place in order to make the industry profitable with less government funding. In addition to the internal changes, it may be necessary to seek provincial legislation mandating provincial graze standards and a pricing discipline, as well as penalties for non-compliance."

So the industry is looking at some of these issues along with us.

I'd like to add that since 1991 the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority has provided fruit growers with $16.8 million in direct grants to assist them in making the transition. The federal government has contributed $2.6 million through the authority. That's a total of $19.4 million. I wanted to give you some idea of what the Tree Fruit Authority has done in the past four years.

J. van Dongen: I have one further comment with respect to the Agricultural Land Commission and then one other comment and question to wrap up our discussion, at least from my point of view, on the ALR and the fruit industry.

To follow up on a comment made by the member for Chilliwack with respect to the B.C. Buildings Corporation's application for a new site for the Mount Thurston prison, I want to support the decision of the land commission. I think it's indicative of the need to continue to educate not only the public but also government agencies about the legislation that's in place to protect farmland. In that situation, there probably are options that they could and should pursue. I simply wanted to mention that.

Finally, with respect to the agrifood strategy, as the minister knows, there is a fairly strong feeling within the agricultural sector that that initiative could be instrumental in helping to rationalize and strengthen agriculture. Would the minister tell us when we'll see some definitive results from that process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to the time line on the development of an agrifood policy, this summer the next draft or iteration of the policy will be written and made available for wide distribution. I intend to consult at the end of September or early October -- certainly by the end of October -- with the major farm organizations, which will include the Farmers' Institute, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the B.C. Horticulture Council. If there are any sectors that don't have an organization, they'll be included, too. This will get broad circulation. We'll look for comments, and we'll start to collect comments from the non-farm areas as well. That's the plan.

With respect to the prison situation, I wonder if the member would consider a prison farm as an acceptable use within the ALR.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain on a matter of....

[ Page 15604 ]

T. Perry: Urgent public policy -- the vineyard at West 12th Avenue in Vancouver. I'm not going to reveal the precise address. I want to report to hon. members of the committee that my vineyard still contains 12 grapevines, but in the interests of table grapes and the reform of wine production in British Columbia, and following the example of the Okanagan grape growers, I rooted out two unsuccessful vines last fall and replaced them with a Golden Muscat and with a Riesling from further down the alley.

In case you're wondering about this, I think the minister's responding to a call of nature. [Laughter.]

The crop was excellent last fall, and no pesticides were used. This year, the new vines were heavily fertilized with mushroom manure -- I'm not sure whose riding that came from, whether it was the member for Matsqui or the member for Abbotsford -- and are growing very well, thriving on that fertilizer.

I want to thank the minister, just as he takes his seat, for the initiative in organic agriculture that was launched in my riding at Granville Market last year; and I want to thank him for attending the second annual VanDusen Garden Show, which set new records for attendance and is going to become, in a few short years, the premier garden show in North America, with a little bit of help from his ministry. With those comments, I will take my place and look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.

The Chair: I'd like to thank the member for bringing the farm to the city. I'd like to recognize now the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: It probably is advisable not to give the precise location, given the application of mushroom manure, which is probably against some city bylaw, I'm sure.

My remarks and questions today, with one exception, are exclusive to the fisheries side of the minister -- although it is tempting, noting Mr. Miller there, to get into a long discussion on the agricultural land bank, which we think is an excellent concept for the long-term preservation of agricultural land, but I'm not going to do it.

I do want to ask the minister about issues that I know have been raised with both his office and the federal Fisheries minister, Mr. Tobin, with respect to the aquaculture industry, and in particular the aquaculture industry in the Broughton Archipelago and in the areas adjacent to that region.

The concerns are really fourfold. The first is with respect to adequate inspection, in terms of applications of the antibiotics into fish and the problems that those antibiotics may have with respect to adjacent salmon-spawning streams and the impact that that might have.

Second is the matter of continued escapement of Atlantics, which are being caught now by commercial fishers in ever-increasing numbers. What is the ministry doing with respect to that problem?

The third is a matter with respect to use of the seal scarer, which has been brought up with the Minister of Environment on a number of different occasions, and the particular impact that the use of those devices potentially has on seals and orca in that area. As the minister knows, seal scarers are high-pitched, sort of sonar devices, which I believe are illegal -- although there seems to be some dispute about that. Certainly they're being used, and I wonder about that.

And the last one is with respect to location of fish farms, in light of the known salmon-bearing streams and the salmon in that industry and the impact that the location of those farms apparently has with respect to fry that are escaping from the streams after they hatch.

So let me start first with the matter of the use of antibiotics. This has been a longstanding issue. The minister may well know there have been numerous letters of correspondence from June of last year through to May of this year with respect to demands by commercial fishers, as well as residents in the region, for there to be some adequate enforcement of existing regulations in terms of the use of those antibiotics. Could the minister bring us up to speed on what the ministry is doing this year in terms of providing for officers to get out there and to do that enforcement? Then we'll move on to the second section.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm certainly aware of the problem. The ministry is watching this issue very closely. It will, of course, be one of the things that is reviewed in the salmon farming action plan. I have to tell the member that over the last five years it has been reduced to 5 percent of what it was five years ago. There is one-twentieth the amount of antibiotics being used now compared to five years ago. It has come under control dramatically.

The DFO has a random inspection program for antibiotics in farmed fish. There has to be compliance with federal standards for residues, and the compliance is excellent. When the salmon is sold, they check for any residues that are in the flesh of the salmon. Antibiotics are expensive and difficult to administer, so no one who can't use it does. The industry has become very competitive; as a result, the use is kept to an absolute minimum.

Of course, what we know scientifically will be reviewed again in the process of the review that's been undertaken under the salmon farming action program.

G. Wilson: I draw the minister's attention to a letter. I don't expect that he has the letter, but I know his staff will be familiar with this issue. This letter was drafted by a marine biologist in July 1994. I've since communicated in the spring of this year with this individual, and she claims that little has been done. It says:

"There is, in fact, growing evidence that salmon and other species in the Broughton Archipelago are under severe impact from disease agents enhanced and disseminated by the farms. The remarkably coincidental outbreaks of the same strains of furunculosis, with similar antibiotic-resistant profiles in farm fish and then in wild fish, is evidence of a problem. Because MAFF and DFO will not examine the problem, it is not going to reduce its impact."

It goes on to say, referring to the spring of this year, that fishing guides began bringing in abnormal Chinook salmon organs. A DFO pathologist, as well as non-government-affiliated fish pathologists across Canada, reviewed the situation.

I'm going to try and give you a summary of this. Their answers were in agreement. The symptoms were classified as belonging to "very sick fish." It says:

"It is now rare to catch a salmon of any species in the Broughton Archipelago that does not have a grossly enlarged gall bladder or spleen. I've also been given fish with pustules clustered along the lower jaw. The lower jaw is where the flesh has rotted away, exposing the bone. All these fish came from heavily farmed areas."

[ Page 15605 ]

The reason this is of concern, obviously, is because the author of this letter is somebody who is well known within the circles of marine biology. Alexandra Morton, as you know, has a degree, lives in the area and has done a great deal of study and work in that area.

If the minister could give us a little bit more comfort than that they're simply monitoring the situation, we would feel happier. Clearly there has to be a program to start the research to find out whether or not there is a correlation between the kinds of diseases showing up in the wild stock and what's going on in the fish-farming industry. If those correlations exist, there has to be swift action taken to make sure that these diseases don't transfer.

[4:45]

The diseases in the farm fish are easy to monitor. You have them captive in a net pen; they're not tough to figure out. You can see those.that the members in the industry affectionately call "slow swimmers," which most of us call dead fish, are at the bottom of the net. With wild stock, we don't know. We have absolutely no knowledge save and except to say that you can't catch any salmon because they're simply gone. We really don't have the ability to use one as a control group and the other as an experimental group.

I wonder if the minister might just address the matters of furunculosis and disease transfer specifically.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our ministry's review of disease transfer has not found any documented case at all where disease has spread from farm to wild fish; in fact, it might be the other way around. That's as much of a problem. There is no disease that exists in farm fish that doesn't exist in the wild, so I think this is a point where you have one biologist making an assertion. The responsibility for research around this subject lies with the federal government. They have fallen behind, although they have said they will support the aquaculture industry by doing their part around the science associated with it such as that you referred to.

I'd like to say that MAFF, our ministry, has supported 20 studies on disease issues in salmon farming: four on impacts beneath the farms; ten on the possibility of breeding between wild and farm fish; and six on the uses of chemicals. Lots of studies have been done. When examining those, we find that the allegations against the industry and farm salmon just don't stand up. I know there are ongoing concerns. We have said that we want a process to deal with these. We've chosen the environmental review under the new legislation and have focused on the Broughton area.

I have to repeat that we have insisted that the federal aquaculture strategy, because it's their responsibility, will involve studies and the science surrounding that. We have given them three priorities that are absolutely essential for continued survival: enforcement, conservation and research. We see that there is now a pause in this industry. We see that there hasn't been sufficient evidence to say that we're going to knock this industry out. They feel thwarted because they feel they can develop, and there isn't a substantial scientific argument against them.

You do raise some evidence, and we are very familiar with the arguments. Our technical staff engages Alexandra Morton in those discussions. There have been a number of reviews. We intend to lay out these issues, once again, through this most thorough review and through the policy development that is going to accompany the environmental review -- or go in parallel. The environmental review will inform us, and we'll make sure all the evidence is out on the table.

I get letters every second day from various people. I got one the other day saying that there's been a conference that has put out some alarm bells. I think we listen to the alarm bells and try to substantiate them. But I have to repeat that we have done 20 studies on disease issues over the last five years -- we haven't been slacking off on this -- but none of those studies indicates that there is a significant or unmanageable effect on the environment or the wild fisheries.

G. Wilson: I can't say with honesty that I've read all 20 studies, but I've certainly read six. In the recommendations and findings that came out in those studies, I concur with the minister that they said there was no evidence to suggest.... That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it just means that you can't prove it.

I know enough from my own academic training to be leery of studies where an inadequate control group is put in place, and the wildstock is simply inadequate. You can't adequately measure or monitor except for that which is caught. Those fish that die and are consumed by whatever consumes them, or rot on the bottom of the ocean, are never there to be managed. To suggest that in fact it might be from the wild stock to the farm stock presents an ongoing and longtime problem. The difference is that we're now catching -- and the commercial industry will verify what I'm saying -- many more salmon with evidence of disease than has been normal in the past. Whether or not that's farm fish, it's difficult....

It's a little bit like saying: "I have a really good idea that smoking cigarettes causes cancer." But to go into a court of law and prove definitively that your lung cancer results from your smoking tobacco, you run into a difficult problem. It reminds me of the old story that I would give to students as I lectured them, that you have to be careful with what science comes up with. It's the story where the scientist had the two sets of flies in the jar, and every time he made a loud noise they all flew up and then landed. He plucked the wings off one set and clapped his hands and they didn't move, and he concluded that when you take the wings off flies, they go deaf. I don't mean that to be facetious. I'm just saying that sometimes you can come up with the wrong conclusions on the basis of evidence that's observed.

This is really complicated, because we don't have any way of controlling any ongoing experiment with the wild stock. So we have to err on the side of caution. I think the minister would agree with me.

I represent a riding that is pretty much almost one-third of the B.C. coastline, maybe a little more than that. In it there are many, many commercial fishers who are extremely concerned about the depletion of the stock. With great respect to the minister, they do not take comfort in hearing that it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' responsibility. In the judgment of a lot of them, the DFO has been neglecting the West Coast industry in many ways.

So I wonder, just to conclude this section -- and I don't want to belabour the point -- if the minister would make available to me the most recent studies. I haven't seen anything since the fall of last year. If anything has been done more recently than November of last year, I would very much like 

[ Page 15606 ]

to look at them and have a chance to study them. Then if I have questions, perhaps I might take up those issues directly with the ministry staff, rather than belabour that point.

Let me move on to the matter of predation and seal scarers. Can the minister tell us whether or not there has been action taken? I know the Ministry of Environment was actively involved in monitoring that situation last year. There was some money to be put aside for officers to inspect and to deal with that situation. Can the minister tell us to what extent there has been success?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: With respect to your request, just so you know and you're not left hanging, we're not sure if there have been studies since November of last year. But if there are, we'll make sure that you know what all the studies are and have copies of anything that's available.

With respect to seal scarers or the predation of seals on farm salmon, which I guess is what you're referring to, there has been a study done with DFO. It's still being evaluated, I'm told. So it's been completed, and the results are being evaluated.

With respect to the escapement of Atlantics, which you alluded to, we're intimately aware of it. We're working with industry, and we've actually funded the development of all female stock. We're not sure it's possible to do that, but we feel that by producing sterilized females, we'll stop any possible interaction of wild Pacific salmon with the farm stock.

The industry has been concentrating on the escape, and I think you alluded to an ever-increasing number. I haven't seen numbers coming from the commercial fisheries that substantiate that point. I would be happy to share if you have it, but we know that it's not in the economic interest of salmon farmers to allow escapement, because it's cash out the door which somebody else picks up.

The salmon farming action plan does call for the development of mandatory standards for farm operations, which will minimize -- hopefully to virtually nothing -- the escape that takes place. The MELP and DFO both have an Atlantic watch program on escaped Atlantics, and MELP is continuing with this as part of the action plan.

I can tell you that in all the rivers and creeks where we sent divers last year, I think we found three Atlantics swimming in rivers. There are some being caught, but I think we spent $60,000 last year in the summer just on people out there looking constantly. So we thought that was surprising -- that's not very many. I have to remind you that there was a period of 20 years where they tried to establish the Atlantic salmon in the streams. The Ministry of Environment tried to do that, and it was an abysmal failure.

G. Wilson: Just so the minister doesn't feel bad, I think I probably spent about $60,000 last summer, and I didn't catch one salmon. So there you go.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You weren't swimming.

G. Wilson: Maybe that was my problem. I had this little rod with a hook; that was the problem.

Coming back to this study on seal scarers, does the minister have any detail with respect to it? Is it now a publicly available document? What was done with respect to testing the impact on orcas? How was that concluded? I am aware that there was money put aside. I understood that there was going to be a joint effort between the provincial and federal governments, and I'm assuming that that's what took place, but we haven't seen or heard any conclusions. I wonder if that's a publicly available document, and if we could have a chance to have it for review.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can inform the member that it's not public at this point; it has just been completed. We haven't seen it, but it will be available, in my view, through the evaluation procedure. The salmon farming action plan and the environmental assessment -- any of the information that is available -- will be tabled with that review.

G. Wilson: My last set of questions on aquaculture specifically -- before I move on to more exotic species of fish -- has to do with the location of fish farms. I raise this matter particularly in light of the legislation that is in front of us. I don't want to get into that, because I'm aware of the rules of this committee, but there has been a tremendous amount of conflict. This is one of the issues that I first became involved with at the regional level of government in the Sunshine Coast, when we had virtually unrestricted growth of the salmon farming industry and net pens sprouting up in virtually every bay that could afford anchorage. It has become much more site-specific with respect to quality -- depth of the area, water quality and so on. However, many, especially in the Broughton Archipelago, are in areas that are directly on salmon spawning routes, or close to or adjacent to the mouths of salmon spawning streams.

Several problems result from this, because those who have a vested interest in wild stock -- specifically the commercial and sport industry -- would prefer that those sheltered bays remain open or free for the moorage of their boats and for them to access migrating wild salmon. However, my guess is that this new legislation, the Right to Farm Act, which includes fish farms, would prohibit action being taken by those who would like to see the relocation or termination of fish farms when their tenure concludes. As the minister is aware, these farms are under a foreshore lease or licence, and that licence is going to terminate at some point. Many people will be advocating -- not in all instances, but in some -- that those licences not be renewed.

[5:00]

I believe we had an agreement with the former Minister of Environment that the lines drawn on the map for the proposed set-aside on the Broughton Archipelago were going to be honoured; yet we're finding fish farms inside those lines now. I'm concerned because now it doesn't seem that the option we had with respect to the termination of those leases is still available, given the Right to Farm Act.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The right-to-farm legislation will protect people who follow standard farm practices once the location decision has been made. We won't protect people who are not tenured; it doesn't grandparent tenures. The tenuring process takes place, as you know, governed by Crown lands, and that's a separate decision. But if a land use decision is made to allow tenure in an area, then the legislation would say that if you were conducting standard practices, then it is acceptable. However, there will be a relationship between the siting decision and the practices. If one of the practices is that 

[ Page 15607 ]

you shouldn't locate near salmon-bearing streams and the guideline is that they shouldn't be within three kilometres of the salmon-bearing stream, then that has to be followed.

But I wanted to point out a bit about the size of the problem. The total area occupied by salmon farms is less than the third runway at Vancouver Airport. So in terms of the footprint on the water, it's not huge. There's less than 1,000 acres of farms out there, although potentially there's more.

As for the conflicts between the commercial and the sport fishery and conflict over some of the same bays and wanting to be in the same area, I see that as a siting issue. It has to be addressed during the referral process. If there's a need for better planning of this sort of thing, then I would say we should encourage land use planning or marine interface planning that will take that into account.

I remind the member that the Vancouver Island land use planning process, which had the interests at the table, really was supportive of aquaculture and, in general, was encouraging it. I would say that what's going to happen is that there may be relatively more in some areas and relatively less in other areas and areas where there won't be any at all. I think we're moving towards that. I think we have to encourage it and determine and reconfirm, if necessary, that it is a benign industry. I think there are other types of aquaculture, like shellfish and so on, that also are in a difficult situation where they can't expand. The economic needs of communities are such that we're going to look at employment opportunities. Of course, we will work to make sure it's environmentally sustainable, and that's the objective of the farming action plan.

G. Wilson: As tempting as it is to get into a philosophical debate on the merits of aquaculture, I'm going to resist, save and except to say that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is here. As a physician he will know there was a time when doctors used to prescribe that their patients start smoking to calm their nerves. Right? So times change, as we start to become more knowledgable of impacts.

I think the reason that people are keen to have net-pen aquaculture is because of the terrible record we have in the protection of the West Coast salmon fishing industry and the idea that somehow we can keep what is a seasonal operation ongoing year-round. I'm tempted to get into a debate.

I find it incredible that when we have the finest natural fish farm in the world right off our doorstep, with fish that have the very good manners to come back to where they begin, we would spend millions of dollars trying to raise salmon in these little net pens -- Atlantics at that -- pumping them full of antibiotics so that we can keep them reasonably healthy long enough to get them to market. Nevertheless, that's the decision the government has taken. Clearly it's an operation that's underway.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

My only concern with the answer that the minister gave is that the minister seems to confirm that once a farm is sited, there is a right for that farm to renew. I think there has to be a recognition, particularly in the Broughton Archipelago.... I single that out; I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be fish farms on the coast of British Columbia. But in the Broughton Archipelago, notwithstanding whether they only take up to a third of what the new runway is going to take up, they are sited in particular sensitive bays. In some instances, they are sited within an area that is possibly outside of the three-kilometre radius, but nevertheless right in the mainstream of runs of salmon.

There's a very strong concern that fry are being consumed by salmon. I hope the minister isn't going to stand up and say: "No, no, no. Farm fish only eat little pellets. They don't eat other fish." That would irritate me more than the fisheries officer who stood up in Pender Harbour a few months and said: "Come on, Mr. Wilson, you know that seals don't eat salmon and salmon don't eat herring." Unbelievable. I don't know where this guy got his training.

An Hon. Member: From Ottawa.

G. Wilson: From Ottawa, probably. They probably don't in Ottawa because they aren't served appropriately; I don't know.

In any event, I think that's a concern, and I'd like the minister to register it as a concern. I'd also like to know that there is going to be some provision for the protection of the Broughton region. It's an extremely sensitive habitat that is going to be very negatively impacted if we don't do something about more adequate siting of those farms.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, the Broughton is specifically named as the site of environmental assessment. Those things will all be taken into account. I don't think we can do any more than put it through a legislative process that has the confidence of the environmental and development communities. They bought into what in the end was a sort of negotiated process, and I haven't heard any criticism of that process that is significant. I think that the review should give us confidence.

I don't think it's fair to blame the decline in wild stock on salmon farming. I think it should be seen not as a replacement for wild stock but as supplemental to and compatible with it. There is a bit of an argument in management strategy where you're managing the risks as opposed to whether you have no tolerance at all. I think you're almost arguing zero tolerance. That does get philosophical, and raises the issue of whether the world is going to meet the demand for food if we don't get into cultural practices.

I would be the first to say that the biggest salmon farm of all, the Fraser watershed, is one that we think is critical. That's why we moved on things like the Forest Practices Code. The forest renewal program is coming in, and we want to do more where the urban environment impacts on the rearing of fish. We've got a lot of ground to make up, and we intend to do that.

This minister is concentrating equally on the conservation of wild stock and the commercial development of the industry, be it from wild stock or cultured stock. One of the reasons that the Pacific Salmon Treaty is so important is that it gives us a chance to stop overfishing, which has a greater impact by far than salmon farming, in my opinion. I think we have to continue to ensure that we manage on the side of conservation, which should be adverse to risk. I agree wholeheartedly with John Fraser. In his report he makes that prescription for managing on the West Coast.

G. Wilson: I'm going to move to a somewhat more exotic fish. This may come as a bit of a contradiction when I advocate 

[ Page 15608 ]

that we, in an on-land aquaculture operation, provide for the raising and sale of tilapia. The minister will know that we've had quite a bit of correspondence on this. It has to do with an application put in by a Mr. McIntyre from Aquabounty Farms. He is having a great deal of difficulty with the transplant committee. I understand that there are both federal and provincial considerations to be dealt with here.

The difficulty that I have with the B.C. Wildlife Act, B.C. Fisheries Act and the Canada Fisheries Act is that there is so much overlap with respect to the jurisdiction and the purview that the members of the transplant committee have to deal with. When somebody comes along with a good idea.... I think this is a good idea. If you talk about the provision of food fish, tilapia is just an excellent fish to raise and sell. In fact, it is sold around the world. It's fish that has a tremendous historical significance dating back to Biblical times. It also is a fish that is highly prone to parasites and able to transmit some specific diseases which it tends to carry. Clearly, any egg stock coming in or any fish being brought in have to come from legitimate sources. But having identified those sources and having had those sources approved, it's frustrating beyond any description here that an individual such as Mr. McIntyre cannot get licensed to have these fish, which everybody will agree are clean, come into a closed water system where there is no water going into any external bodies of water. He cannot get that fish allowed so that he can keep his operation up and running.

I wonder if the minister has some commentary around that. If you talk about the fish farming industry, where you're growing these Atlantics, with all these antibiotics and all of this disease, in open water, diseases can transfer either way, I'll admit. But I think they probably transfer from the overcrowded net pens where they arrive into the wild stock. It makes no sense to me that somebody who's going to raise a freshwater fish that has tremendous potential economically....

Ironic as it is, it was Canadian industry that went out to East Africa to set up TUFMAC Industries, which is now one of the largest filet-packing frozen fish industries on the continent. We can't do it here. Perhaps the minister could help us with our frustration a bit, because he has been kept informed of this from the beginning.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can tell the member that we're prepared to review the issue again. The Ministry of Environment and federal Fisheries are on the committee. Ultimately DFO, federal Fisheries, is responsible for the introduction of new species and what happens from there on in.

As a potential aquaculture industry, clearly we have an interest in it. I take your point that you think that by working in a closed system, there ought to be less risk. I don't personally know why there is resistance from DFO. I understand the frustration, and we're happy to have a look at it again. I thank you for raising it and bringing it to my attention.

G. Wilson: I'll make sure that the minister is kept up to date with the latest correspondence. I really do believe this is a winning industry, especially for rural communities that would like to get some diversification in their economy, so I'll bring it up.

This raises the next one, which I know the minister has been kept up to speed on, and that's the use of triploid grass carp as an agent to get rid of certain weeds or certain marine plants that grow in lakes.

It's ironic that we tend to have an easier time getting herbicidal or chemical use approved to get rid of unwanted aquatic plants, and then here come along the triploid grass carp, which eat those plants voraciously, and we can't introduce the carp here despite the fact that exhaustive research has been done in Alberta to prove that the problem with this little fish can be dealt with through genetic control.

I'm hoping that the minister might agree today to have his ministry.... The ministries have basically said: "No, sorry. We can't bring this in." I'm dealing with an application for Cranberry Lake in Powell River. This is a very sensitive watershed area, and we don't want to put any kind of chemical into the water because of the nature of the recreational use by people who live next door.

[5:15]

The minister could review the latest material from the Committee on Biological Control of Aquatic Vegetation from the agriculture centre in Lethbridge, Alberta, and go back through the material that came out in the latter part of last year. This is a perfectly acceptable biological control for unwanted noxious weeds, and it seems to me there is tremendous potential in the Okanagan for this, as well as in Cranberry Lake. We have to try to get our heads around the fact that there are better ways to do this business, and the last correspondence we had from the ministry on this indicated that they are not really up to speed with the latest research.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I take it you mean that the correspondence was from this ministry as opposed to MELP, which would be the responsible body in the freshwater lake system. We can work with them. I know you understand who is responsible there. I take your point that chemicals are probably much worse than biological control, and we are dealing with biological agents on the land. I'm personally not familiar with it, and if you do make it available, we noted in Hansard the report you referred to and will get hold of it. I wonder if the position of Environment is: why take a risk? I guess it's a matter of trade-offs. There is probably damage going on in those lakes because of the human footprint, and maybe this would assist in reversing that trend.

All I can say is that we'll have a look at it again. You know that our fisheries and food division has a total of 37 people in it, and we're kept pretty busy with growth in other areas and our responsibilities internationally.

I have to remind you that in the wild fishery, at least, we may see some declines that are normal. There are going to be declines that are management decisions; that is, in harvest. We're going to have to work on the community adjustment side; it might involve industrial adjustment. But it does represent an opportunity, and we should seize the opportunity for diversification in the fishery generally. I don't know who would own these creatures. We tend to involve ourselves with fish that are property. If they're in the wild like that, technically they would probably be a common property resource. I can think of a lot of places in British Columbia that might benefit from this, including my own back yard. Thank you for raising the matter.

[ Page 15609 ]

G. Wilson: I only have two other questions. I appreciate the opportunity from the member for Abbotsford. I said 20 minutes; I've gone over a little.

One question has to do with shellfish harvesting. I know this is a matter that I need to take up with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, because of the tenures, which are governed by them. But there is a growing concern that stocks now -- in terms of assessment of stocks, which the DFO is doing -- are being negotiated as part of settlements for coastal land claims. The ministry, as far as this minister is concerned.... Commercial operations, I think, have to be looked at separately from wild shellfish. What we're finding in the area north of Lund, up through Okeover Arm and into the reaches around and to the north of Stuart Island, is that long-standing tenure holders are being denied for what are deemed to be commercial oyster operations, even though those operations only exist now because of the commercial spat there. There's a big problem here.

It seems to me that people have a legal right to come back to maintain their operation if they have been responsible for the growth of the stock that exists there. I would like the minister's comment on that, and I will bring it up in the Environment, Lands and Parks estimates.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure that we have a complete analysis of the problem, but let me try to give some perspective on it.

If there can be a coexistence between the aboriginal right to traditional food-gathering by fishing and commercial development, then the two should be able to proceed. You should be able to preserve traditional use and grant a commercial right. I'd have to say that we don't know a lot about the impact of commercial shellfish harvesting on the traditional fisheries. In a lot of cases, we're not even sure where they're located. In some cases, even the first nations aren't sure where they were traditionally located, although they tend to argue that there was harvesting virtually everywhere. But if the analogy was with logging and traditional forest-based products like food and medicine, then we are finding ways that the two developments can coexist. I think the law is fairly clear.

What is less clear is what we have to do to discharge our fiduciary responsibility to consult. In some cases, we are developing interim measures agreements which really provide for a referral process. We have formalized and made absolutely clear what our obligation is to the first nations, whose rights exist as a matter of fact, not as a matter of opinion. We have to prove that they can coexist.

In our siting decisions, we have to be cognizant of what impact that might have on a traditional fishery. Otherwise, we are jeopardizing those tenure holders for their future development. You wouldn't want injunctive relief given to a first nation and then force these people to move. We are experiencing a bit of a learning curve, and it's frustrating; I appreciate that.

In part, the problem is that we haven't made it a high enough priority. The executive director of Lands accompanied some of the shellfish growers on a tour recently, and I understand that he is seeing firsthand what the problems are. I went on a tour myself a week ago to look at what is confronting the industry in terms of problems. We are well aware of that.

We intend, and I have committed publicly, to develop an aquaculture development strategy for the province. We have to work with the feds, because they make a lot of the decisions. MELP has to be involved. I'll have my small staff get on to that and if they can shoulder the load of yet another commercial....

J. Dalton: What do you want? More money?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do more with less; that's what this debate is about. Everybody asked us to do more, and we say: "We will if we can." I think it's needed. I think the industry is in a takeoff situation, where there's an incredible demand. It's a benign industry, and I personally think we should have more of it. I think we have to be cognizant of what's happening across the line, where we force this issue legally. We don't want to set up anybody to be a loser with respect to that. The sharing of cultured products has been the subject of litigation in the United States, and decisions are not favourable to commercial operators.

G. Wilson: I will make two points, and then I just want to end on a question that I promised I would bring to the minister's attention on behalf of a constituent of my colleague. The two points I'd make is that with respect to this aquaculture strategy, presumably the minister is talking about his ministry doing a finfish strategy and a shellfish strategy, and that those two will obviously be compatible because of the siting and so on. I would offer any assistance the minister might find that I or people working with me might be able to provide. Aquaculture has been a subject, outside of the political realms, of considerable research from an academic point of view, which I've been involved in for the last ten years.

I would offer any assistance I can in providing commentary on a strategy or suggestions that might be helpful. One of the suggestions I would note is on the matter of shellfish and the question of first nations rights, I can see clam, geoduck and other indigenous shellfish being included, but not oysters. Oysters are not indigenous to this coastline; they were introduced. It is probably one of the fastest-growing industries in the shellfish sector. I do not believe that the Crown should note any kind of priority or indigenous right to that which is not indigenous to the country. I make that point, and I think it's really an important one to note.

Having said that, my last comment is on behalf of Ms. Sylvia M. Dendy, who writes to my colleague the member for Okanagan East. We have written back, promising that we would raise this issue directly with the minister. Ms. Dendy would like to know what this minister is doing to prevent the absolutely disgraceful and shocking cruelty to veal calves in the province of British Columbia. If the minister could tell us, we can send her Hansard so that she may hear directly from the minister what we are doing.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Far be it for me to pass the buck on this one, but as you know, animals are raised with some standards. The standards for the raising of veal have been set with full consultation of the Canadian humane society. In the province here, it has been alleged that veal are grown in the dark, tethered immobile, malnourished and not fed iron products. I know of no such operations. The SPCA has not brought any of these to my attention -- not that they necessarily would. With 

[ Page 15610 ]

the strengthened inspection powers that we gave them last year, they can go into places where animals are raised for commercial purposes. They do have to provide some evidence of the conditions under which they're raised, and then they can litigate, as you know, and determine whether the animals are being mistreated.

On the allegations of cruelty, it seems to me cruelty is something that doesn't have to be proven as criminal intent. Right now a person can be ignorant that the practices are cruel. But that's a matter of judgment, and it's going to take some time to adjudicate these practices. As I say, there are some standards, and if the SPCA found someone who was not raising them with adequate food, shelter, care and attention, then they can be prosecuted. So people need to bring to my attention the existence of such farms here.

I can say that there has been a lot of media attention to this problem, but no one has written to me saying: "There is this operation in this location, and would you have the SPCA...?" If anybody did that, I would immediately refer it to the SPCA, and I can assure you that they have the powers to investigate and prosecute.

J. van Dongen: I want to say to the member from Powell River-Sunshine Coast that, based on his reputation, I expected him to go over 20 minutes a little bit, but since he was talking about a subject that I don't know very much about, I was quite happy to listen.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You should listen to me, not him.

J. van Dongen: Well, to both. I think it's probably appropriate at this time that I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:29 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada