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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1995

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 15

[ Page 16207 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce in the gallery, looking down on us here to learn a little about how our system of government works, a class of grade 7 students from Westmount Elementary School in Kamloops. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Goddard, and I believe there are some parents as well. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I call in Committee A the estimates of the Minister of Environment; and in Committee B, I call committee stage of Bill 32.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 4, section 10 (continued).

J. Weisgerber: My questions on this particular section are particularly around the areas of the appointment for fixed terms of the commissioner, the deputy commissioner and the commissioner of investigation and mediation. It seems unusual in our system to appoint for fixed terms those people other than officers of the Legislature. I'm curious to know the motivations and the genesis for this whole suggestion of fixed-term appointments. Is this something that was recommended by Mr. Black in his recommendations? Can the minister rationalize for us why in the world we would want to appoint three key individuals for a fixed term? If one were a cynic, one might suggest that a government which is not expecting to be re-elected is simply going to put in place some impediments for future governments. I don't expect the minister will confirm that. But I think it's important to know whether these recommendations came out of the committee examining it and, if that was where they came from, the rationale for this notion of fixed terms.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, I hope no government is so small-minded that it would bring in legislation aiming to appoint three individuals for no other reason than simply to have long-lasting appointments. Secondly, it is not uncommon for bodies of a quasi-judicial nature to have fixed terms so that they can function without undue interference from the legislative arm or the executive arm on an ongoing basis -- so they're able to do their job of quasi-judicially determining the rights and obligations of the public of British Columbia. Thirdly, this was based on the recommendations of Professor Black.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says it's not uncommon, but the only examples that come to my mind are the officers of the Legislature. These folks are not officers of the Legislature; they are order-in-council appointments, which are normally at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. So that we can come to some understanding of direction, perhaps the minister could give us some examples of other fixed-term appointments that are not OICs.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, there has been a shift in the employment law, and there are really no at-pleasure appointments in bodies such as these, practically speaking, although that's what the order might say.

Secondly, there are bodies such as the Public Service Appeal Board, Expropriation Compensation Board and Parole Board where currently we have appointments for term. Also, it is appropriate to note that some other human rights jurisdictions across Canada have similar appointments on a term basis.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I can understand the rationale for fixed-term appointments with people like the freedom-of-information commissioner, the conflict-of-interest commissioner, the auditor general and others. But the clear distinction between those appointments and the ones being anticipated here is that the appointment of the officers of the Legislature is done in a very open way. Normally, a legislative committee holds meetings, short-lists and indeed goes through quite a rigorous selection process for those particular individuals. If this section of the legislation provided a process whereby a select standing committee of the Legislature rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council were making the appointments, then I believe it would be far more consistent with the practices of not only this government but former governments of British Columbia.

But it seems to me that the government has taken the two processes and married them together. With all due respect, I believe we'll come out with the worst of both. You've got people in place who, regardless of how well or how poorly they perform, you're going to be stuck for a period of five years with -- appointees for whom there is no recognizable, transparent process for their appointment, no way for British Columbians, let alone legislators, to understand the process that led to the selection and to have any confidence that it wasn't a partisan political appointment. Heaven knows, the track record of this government over the last three and a half years would be enough to cause anyone a great deal of anxiety over the process by which appointments are made.

[10:15]

I have to tell you that I have significant reservations about the fairness and objectivity of the process, because I have seen nothing and heard nothing to suggest that these appointments are going to be made in a non-partisan way or in a way that serves the interests of the community that the legislation purports to serve.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The whole thrust of this legislation is that we put the appointments in the human rights process beyond the pale of political influence and meddling, so that we can function in quasi-judicial bodies and administrative bodies that need to promote proactively the human rights issues in British Columbia and so that they aren't subject to meddling by politicians. Firstly, also, you have to provide for security, because if you want individuals of calibre who have some talents and something to contribute to such important positions as the commissioners envisaged in section 10, you need to provide those individuals with some security.

[ Page 16208 ]

As well, the current process is essentially the same. You have under the human rights council, for all practical purposes, three-year terms for the appointees. They are appointed by a fairly public process, and I understand that the process would either be enhanced, or at least retained, for the selection of the three commissioners. In the process for the last two human rights council appointments, the deputy minister of the ministry, the former chair of the council, two members of the community and the director of personnel were members of the panel. There was a public posting for the positions so that people could apply, and then there was a panel of selection and interview. There was a process that was gone through. I can assure the member that it is my intention that that process be in place and be enhanced, perhaps.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I believe that the public good has to be the paramount consideration. Quite candidly, I don't believe that you have to offer security of tenure; you don't have to guarantee someone a five-year term in office in order to get qualified, capable, committed people to take this form of employment. We can agree or disagree, but I reject that as a rationale.

I don't necessarily think this is something that is going to happen regularly, but the ability to make new appointments where any one of these appointments proves unsatisfactory for one reason or another seems to me to be far more in the interests of the people this bill purports to serve than the protection of tenure as the minister outlines it. I don't like the notion of fixed-term appointments, but I am particularly opposed to them when given this lack of process for selection.

The minister has outlined a process that I believe falls far short of the kind of process used to select an officer of this Legislature. These folks may well have at least as large an impact on British Columbians, and perhaps larger, than the officers of the Legislature I've mentioned, but the minister outlines a process far less comprehensive and one that's not detailed at all in legislation. It's there in the first line of this section. Section 10 says: "...the following members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council..." -- at the will of cabinet, at the will of the government of the day.

You can dress it up any way you want, but what it says is that these are fixed-term cabinet appointments done at the will of the government, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think you either have to be there at the pleasure of the Crown through an order-in-council appointment, or you need some very detailed and rigorous process for appointment if indeed the overwhelming good is served by fixed-term appointments. I must say I'm most unhappy with this combination, which I see as the worst of both worlds.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The current appointments to the human rights council are also at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I understand that the member served in that government and did not change one of the very important appointment processes in place today under the current human rights council, which, I might add, has become a model for other jurisdictions in human rights area to follow. They have followed the process being currently used by the B.C. Council of Human Rights of seeking appointments through a public posting process and a panel for hiring and interviews. For the stability of the agency, you also require some certainty about the positions of the individuals that you are seeking to bring into the commission.

Hon. member, let me state that whether the appointment is for term or for term uncertain, anyone at any time can be dismissed for cause. That is the assurance you have that politicians, whether through cabinet or otherwise, would not be able to meddle in this process unless there is cause for a person to be removed. Human rights law under employment law is pretty clear, as I said earlier. Whether it is an appointment at pleasure or for term, it's practically the same: you cannot let people go from these kinds of positions unless there is cause.

J. Weisgerber: Rather than clarifying it, I think the minister made it even more confusing. I don't believe for a moment that you can say, "We are going to bring in fixed terms, because people need the protection of fixed terms in order to perform their function without interference from government," and then say: "Everybody is there under terms of employment and can be dismissed for performance." Mr. Minister, that isn't going to wash.

I can't imagine anything that would allow you to dismiss someone appointed under the terms of this act other than the most derelict duty; I just can't. I mean, the act is clear: the act doesn't provide grounds. It would be most unusual and, I suspect, nearly impossible.

That takes me back.... The minister says that the current process of appointments has been in place and was in place when I was in government. The fact of the matter is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council had the comfort of knowing that appointments could be rescinded. I wouldn't suggest that that is going to be a regular occurrence; that's not the point. The point is that there was a safeguard in place. You either have to have a safeguard in place while you are making the appointment -- to ensure that it is a comprehensive project, that it's non-partisan and that it's transparent, and then give the security of term -- or, if you're not going to make that kind of rigorous examination in the appointment, in order to serve the public you must leave the opportunity for the Lieutenant-Governor to make replacements and rescind appointments. I think you've failed on both counts.

I'm opposed to this, and I'm disappointed that there hasn't been more thought. Quite candidly, I don't think that there has been much thought given to the process, combined with the appointment for fixed terms.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The process is quite transparent as it is and most likely will be enhanced. For the stability of agencies such as the Human Rights Commission, it's important that they be appointed for term certain. I was in British Columbia in 1983 and witnessed almost wholesale massacring of human rights mechanisms in the province. I do not believe it serves the longer-term interests of British Columbians for any government to be able to meddle in such a massive way in such a sensitive area as human rights. It is for that reason -- to protect the area of human rights from political interference, whether by this government or any other government -- that this is being done.

I can tell you that a lot or thought has gone into this. It is not politically manipulative for anyone to do this simply to ensure that human rights areas and the endeavours that we engage in in those areas are protected from political interference of the kind that happened in 1983.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting that as you ask questions, you begin to get new answers. I'm not sure if what the 

[ Page 16209 ]

minister is suggesting is that the idea is to thwart future governments that might want to bring in amendments to this legislation. The kinds of changes the minister talks about could only be accomplished by a future government by way of amendments to this legislation. And by the minister's word, there is a suggestion that somehow these fixed-term appointments would frustrate the ability of future governments to bring in amendments to the code. Is that the motivation behind this section?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The human rights protections available in the current legislation or that might be available in this legislation could be amended at any time. We're talking about the structures that should last, to a certain extent, without undue interference, and the kind of interference and massacring that happened in 1983. The whole human rights area was thrown into chaos, and it has taken us that many years to recover from the chaos, to the extent that today we have a backlog of 1,200 complaints in British Columbia.

The human rights council members are overworked and cannot do what needs to be done in British Columbia. We do not have an adequate number of human rights officers to investigate the complaints. For a complaint that comes in today, it would take 30 to 36 months to conclude. It is exactly that kind of undue political meddling that we need to protect the human rights mechanisms from. If you want to bring in amendments to the kind of protection that we have, if you want to enhance protection, if you want to enhance certain procedures with respect to the Human Rights Tribunal, I think you would be able to do that. But for us to be able to provide certainty to the individuals you bring in who might have some talent to deal with these issues, they need some security of tenure. They need to be reassured that there will be no political interference in the work they do and the way they do that work, unless there is cause for dismissal. As I said, whether you are for term or at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, you can be dismissed for cause.

[10:30]

J. Weisgerber: It's usual that those of us in opposition are guilty of straying away from the specifics of the section. In this section, my concern is with respect to the fixed-term appointments and the impact they have on the functioning of the committee and the commission. Quite candidly, I can't see how the functioning of the committee is enhanced by these fixed-term appointments. I don't think it's going to get the backlog through any more quickly; I don't believe it is going to streamline the process. As one listens to the minister, one simply understands that the rationale for this is to provide security of tenure, which I don't believe is required. I think you will find good, dedicated people -- we do -- in the hundreds of good OIC appointments that are made. Then the minister gets into talking about somehow frustrating future governments and their abilities to change the structure of the commission, and one wonders if that indeed isn't the motivation.

I'm opposed to this legislation. I'm going to oppose it. I suspect that we're at the point where we're going to agree to disagree; however, I'll be quite happy to continue the debate.

V. Anderson: I'll follow up with the concern that on the one hand, the minister comments that the present system we have is the model for everybody else in the country, and on the other hand, he says that there are many things wrong with this model -- it needs to be changed, and that's why we have the new bill. Hon. Chair, you can't have it both ways; it's one or the other. So I think he has to decide; the minister has to realize that he can't talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. If it's such a wonderful bill, why did we need to amend it? If it's a model across the country, how come we have all the backlog? It's a very poor model if it's not working right.

The appearance of being neutral, fair and open is a difficult thing not only to maintain but also to achieve in the beginning. The supposition out there in the community at large is that this government is doing these things for its benefit. That's the reality. So we have to ask how we deal with that reality. How do we overcome, in establishing the commission, the suspicion that is there? In fairness to the commission members themselves, apart from the government, and in fairness to the trust that people need to have in this commission for it to be able to do its work.... In Bill Black's report, he commented that there should be a selection committee appointed for this purpose. He stresses a number of times that there should be a very open, fair and unbiased process.

When we chose a child advocate just recently, the process used was an all-party committee, and it worked extremely well. There was input, applications and persons who were suggested to that committee, and it worked extremely well. That advocate was appointed in that particular case for a five-year term. The term has its own questions; I agree with the hon. member here. Under this case, when there is a set term, and when there is a hidden process of selection that is not open and of equal quality to what we had in appointing the child advocate, then there is suspicion that is being directed from inside by the government. It's that suspicion, quite realistically, that we have to deal with. Can the minister assure us that there will be an all-party committee, or something of equal standing, that will be representative of the community at large and of the elected officials? These appointments, all three of them, are extremely important, and the three of them together have far more power as a team, if you like. It is only a three-member commission. They're self-regulating and self-governing once they're in place. It's a very powerful body which directly affects the lives of a great many people. It's very important that these persons be seen to be appointed independently of the government in power at the present time, particularly independently in the beginning, at this time, with this particular government, because of the attitudes and suspicions that are there. Can the minister assure us that...? He said there's going to be a process. What is the process? Is it going to have standing equal to that of the all-member legislative committee that was used in the child advocate process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Professor Black, in his report, discusses the current process of selection for the human rights council members and indicates that it should be entrenched in the legislation. We've looked at the practice; we're satisfied with the practice. It may need some enhancements. There was community representation in the previous selections, as I indicated earlier. There would be enhanced community representation on the panel to select these members.

But for us to make a jump from there to the level of the officers of the Legislature -- they're a different breed. Officers of the Legislature have a different standing and a different selection process. I don't believe that we should be proliferat-

[ Page 16210 ]

ing, without real cause, the number of officers of the Legislature. This process, as I indicated, has become the model for other jurisdictions. It is not the legislation and it is not the current human rights council and practices followed under the current legislation that have become the model. It is the public posting of the positions, in addition to the process for eventually interviewing and hiring the individuals, that has become the model for other jurisdictions across Canada. We intend to follow that, and we intend to make it more transparent.

V. Anderson: I want to clarify for the minister.... I know that I suggested that these persons should be officers of the Legislature. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't need more officers of the Legislature at this point. But I did suggest, quite clearly, not that they be officers of the Legislature but that the process of choosing them have the same non-partisan balance and opportunity to be dealt with in a way that is of equal quality and validity to the process that chose those particular officers in this Legislature. It's that process that....

The minister says we're going to follow what was done; we're going to possibly enhance it -- possibly, perhaps, maybe. How can we have confidence, when the minister is not prepared to actually state now, in the passage of this bill, what the process is going to be, who's going to be a part of that process and how we are going to be assured, in supporting this bill, what is happening? If he has it in mind, then why not share it? If he doesn't have it in mind, then let's be honest and say that the process is not developed yet.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have already alluded to the process that has been followed since this government came into power. In fact, this government put that process in place; there was no process initially. The process of the public posting of these positions, seeking applications from interested individuals, having people on the level of deputy ministers involved in the selection process, with some community representation involved on the panel.... The process couldn't be more transparent than that. It's a process that's designed to be unbiased and favour-free.

V. Anderson: We talk about the three commissioners, and that's what we have here in this commission. But it seems to me that in saying that the commission is being established.... We need to take a few minutes and talk about the nature of the commission itself and why it is an improvement -- in being established with these three members -- over the present system. What is the particular validity of this three-person commission, and what is the relation of the commission, then, to the other aspects of the council and the tribunal? The commission is independent of the council and the tribunal. So we have a three-person commission that is basically establishing its own operating procedures, because we haven't seen regulations yet. And they will be their own bosses with no one to be accountable to during the five, three and four years, initially, that they are appointed. Once appointed, it's a very powerful independent group, as the minister has mentioned. We need to have some concept of why this commission, apart from the tribunal, is so critical at this point.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The chief commissioner is accountable to the government or to the minister. The other two commissioners are accountable and answerable to the chief commissioner. The essence of this mechanism is to separate the functions of mediation and investigation from the education and proactive functions within the commission itself and, of course, the Human Rights Tribunal separates the adjudicator functions.

The functions of the commissioner of investigation and mediation, which is the one who would investigate and/or mediate all complaints, is protected from undue interference by the commissioner in subsection (8) of section 10. That's the essence of this commission. This commission would separate the functions of proactivity and education awareness from investigation, mediation and adjudication; and within the commission itself, the investigation and mediation will be in the hands of one commissioner and the other functions will be in the hands of the other two commissioners.

V. Anderson: Again, the minister has said two things at the same time, and I agree that they are both there. He has said that the commissioner of investigation and mediation is, on the one hand, responsible to the commissioner, but on the other hand, under subsection (8), as he has pointed out, the commissioner of investigation and mediation is granted powers and duties for which he is not accountable to the commissioner. They cannot interfere in what he is doing, and he is not accountable to the commissioner. In essence, he's an independent person doing the investigation and the mediation -- a very independent person. In a sense, since that's the original investigation and mediation that everyone goes through before they go to the tribunal.... As I understand it, as far as the tribunal process is concerned, that's the front door, and many people may or may not get through that door. That investigation and mediation commissioner, from the point of view of the tribunal, is the most important of these three commissioners.

He's very independent and very unaccountable to anyone except himself. Others may make comments, but they cannot interfere. I think we need to be aware that that third person is a much stronger, more independent and more invasive person -- depending on how they use their power -- than either of the other two, who are educational and reflective, if we like; and we can ignore or not ignore them, as the public may want to do. But we can't ignore the third person, because nothing operates unless we go through that third person first. I think we need to highlight the significance of that third person and not just slide them in, saying they are accountable to the other one or two commissioners, which they are not.

[10:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I apologize if it appeared that I was trying to slide the third commissioner through. It's very clear to me that, on the one hand, in terms of the administration under the act, the commissioner for investigation and mediation is accountable to the chief commissioner for administrative purposes. With respect to the commissioner's functions, for the purposes of investigation and mediation that commissioner would be independent of anyone.

Section 4 of Bill 32, section 10, approved on the following division:

[ Page 16211 ]

Section 4, section 11 approved.

On section 4, section 12.

V. Anderson: In sections 11 and 12, we're talking about employees necessary to carry out the function. In establishing the commission, we have the three commissioners, and you've outlined a fairly broad mandate for this commission. Could the minister give some indication of what kind of staff or employees he will need to establish this commission, and the kind of budget that's going to govern this commission at this particular part?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First and foremost, we will make every attempt to absorb under the new structures the current employees of the Council of Human Rights. These are employees and personnel who would be required to carry on the functions of the commission, including the investigation and mediation function which, as you know, would require human rights officers and the like.

With respect to the budget, a detailed implementation plan is being prepared. As I indicated yesterday, there might be a net increase in the cost of $1 million to $1.5 million to put in these structures.

V. Anderson: I'm not quite sure if this is in anticipation, but I know the ministry has expanded its staff and members in the area of human rights concerns. Will some of these people now be transferred into the commission out of the ministry? Is there going to be a transfer to put that responsibility over into the commission?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Within the ministry itself, the current staff would absorb any extra needs that might arise, but in terms of the structure of the commission and employees of the commission or the tribunal, they would first absorb the current Council of Human Rights staff and, if need be, then retain other staff.

Section 4, sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 4, section 14.

V. Anderson: I want to make a brief comment on the importance of section 14. We trust that the annual reports come in to the Legislature, but one of the difficulties with most annual reports that come in is that they are a year or so late, so they're not very timely. When annual reports come to the Legislature, they usually come a year or sometimes two or three years late. I'm hoping there will be some way of this annual report coming in. But the special reports deal with current issues, and it's important that there be timely reports on these. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on the areas he sees that the special reports in section 14 might particularly cover.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section is aimed at any issues of concern that might be urgent that cannot be deferred until the annual report. I can't think of any examples at this time that are currently before the people of the province in terms of issues, but there might arise a need when the commissioner feels it's important to bring to the attention of the Legislature a certain issue in British Columbia that can then be addressed.

Section 4, section 14 approved.

On section 4, section 15.

V. Anderson: It would be helpful if the minister expressed a few comments about this new advisory council and its powers, authority and objectives, apart from what is written here.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is important for all of us to recognize, one, that there would be no salaried positions with respect to this Human Rights Advisory Council. Two, there would be no employees of the Human Rights Advisory Council. The role of the advisory council is to educate the public about the work of the commission, and to make sure that public issues and concerns are brought to the commission's attention, then to continue to advise the commission from time to time.

There would obviously be a per diem available to the members who sit on the council, but I'm hoping that they would meet occasionally and that it would not be a regular thing of once or twice a week. It would be an occasional meeting such as the meetings that happen with the Multiculturalism Advisory Council, for example, which I believe are once a month. They produce a report at the end of the year, and in the interim, they continue to have dialogue with the minister. I'm hoping that this body will function similarly vis-a-vis the commission.

V. Anderson: If there are no employees, how is the staffing for this group, arranging their meetings and all that to be accomplished? Is that done by the employees of the commission, or is that being undertaken by the employees of the ministry? Where is the tie-in?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm hoping that the reporting, writing, correspondence and the like would be accommodated within the commission rather than within the ministry. I don't think that the Human Rights Advisory Council ought to have that kind of dependency relationship with the government. It's an independent body that is to advise, independently of anyone, on issues of human rights concern. That's how it should be accommodated.

[11:00]

[ Page 16212 ]

V. Anderson: What is the relationship of the commissioners in the commission to the advisory council? I presume they're not members of the council. Are they observers at or corresponding to council meetings? What is the relationship between the council and the commission in its regular meeting, planning and activity? Is it assumed that the commissioners will be giving an executive role to the advisory council?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Human Rights Advisory Council is intended to be an advisory body at arm's length from the commission and the ministry. There would no legal and ongoing relationship of.... I don't believe that the commissioners would be members of the Human Rights Advisory Council or vice versa. Membership will not overlap.

V. Anderson: I'm trying to understand. I could see the commission, being an independent body, going off in direction A. I can see the advisory council, being an independent body, going off in direction B. And I can see the tribunal, being an independent body, going off in direction C. Since none of these are responsible to anybody else and they are independent of the ministry, then the ministry is going off in direction D. So we have....

How is the interrelation, correlation -- or communication even, for that matter -- going to take place here? Is it a minister or a deputy minister who's working between all of these? I'm trying to see these three new bodies correlate with the ministry, because I can quite see them going off in different directions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission and the advisory council, in the end, are accountable to the minister. The Human Rights Tribunal is accountable to the confines of the law and, of course, accountable within the context of the law of British Columbia. It's a quasi-judicial body. I don't think they are accountable to the minister. I don't think they ought to be. They're not accountable to the commission, either.

Between the advisory council and the commission, the relationship would be one of an ongoing link, but an arm's-length link. The advisory council, as we view it, would serve as a link between the commission and the community, and, of course, provide important feedback upon the operation and substantive effectiveness of the code from the vantage point of the public, because when the commission is engaged in its task, it may not have this other view from the vantage point of the community. The Human Rights Advisory Council is there to advise the commission from that vantage point.

V. Anderson: It's still a little confusing. It seems to me that, without really saying so, there's a representative of the ministry who will be involved behind the scenes of both the advisory council and the commission. That's important. If they're not there, then everybody is independent. If they are there, we need to acknowledge.... The minister has said that they are responsible to the ministry. But I'm not sure that the act itself has spelled out that they're responsible to the ministry. It has said they're independent; they're appointed in order to be independent. So there's a lack of clarity there.

At the same time, I'll ask about the appointment of the members of the advisory council. How are those people arrived at? Will there be nominations from interested groups and individuals across the province? How will those advisory council members be selected? They'll be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but what's the push of selection? What is their term of appointment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, I don't believe that the commission or the Human Rights Advisory Council will have either direct or indirect representation from the government. I want to make that very clear.

Second, in terms of the selection process, I don't know whether the hon. member knows that I had a press conference on Friday, and for the first time in the history of this province, threw open applications or nominations for membership of the Multiculturalism Advisory Council. I am inviting people from all areas of British Columbia, from all backgrounds, to send in their nominations or applications to be members of the Multiculturalism Advisory Council, so that in the truest form, the Multiculturalism Advisory Council represents British Columbia as a whole.

With respect to the Human Rights Advisory Council, we would be seeking input with respect to nominations from various groups that have been in the human rights area, such as the B.C. Human Rights Coalition and others, and we will be consulting prominent individuals who might know of people who might be interested in serving. This is essentially a voluntary body that requires your energy and effort, as British Columbians, to participate in good public work on behalf of British Columbians. In the end, we may throw the nomination process open for anyone to provide their nominations and applications. There may have to be a selection process in place for that. I haven't given that much thought.

In the past, as you know, the advisory councils and bodies like this in other areas have been chosen from a talent pool of several thousand individuals that has been collected in the agencies, boards and commissions office. We would be utilizing some of that. In addition, I am committed to making the process more open.

V. Anderson: Just to summarize: the final selection process, or the process that will be used -- whichever way you want to describe it -- will be dependent upon the attitude, credibility and wise judgment of the minister.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is my intention to seek out representatives from business, labour, activists in the human rights area and others, so that we have a body that represents the interests of all British Columbians. In a sense, these bodies have not been appointed in a very public fashion in other areas in the past. The agencies, boards and commissions office has been trying to streamline that and make it more open. As I said, the Multiculturalism Advisory Council has been thrown completely open in terms of the nomination process at this point, and a selection process has yet to be determined. I can assure you that I am committed to making it as open as possible. Unless we put in place a selection process in the legislation, it would really depend on the mind-set of the individuals in charge. I can tell you that the view within this government is that we want to make the process of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions -- which are essentially voluntary bodies working on a per diem basis for the interests of all British Columbians -- more open as we go.

V. Anderson: I would commend the minister in that process, and trust and hope he's able to do that. The record to 

[ Page 16213 ]

date has not been seen that way. Whether it was intended to be that way or not, it has not been seen that way. There is a history there which will take a great deal of effort and openness to overcome, and I wish the minister well in that process. I hope he's there long enough to do it.

Section 4, section 15 approved.

On section 4, section 16.

V. Anderson: For the average person in the community, section 16 is, in a way, the crux of opening to a process. Perhaps the minister would explain to us why and how this complaint process is more open, more fair and more available to people of the community than what we've had previously. What are the essential improvements within this complaint process that benefit the public? How will this process make the backlog go away, plus all the increasing complaints that will come in as a result of it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the section that is an addition to what existed before. It adds a provision whereby the commission may now initiate complaints unilaterally in areas where the commission believes persons are unwilling or unable to lodge complaints. That, I believe, is the only change. In addition to that, the deputy chief commissioner may require the commissioner of investigation and mediation to add the deputy chief as a party to the complaint in matters of public interest -- not in every complaint, but in matters of larger public interest.

Having said that, there is a protection available with respect to individuals who might not be willing to allow the complaint to go ahead, and that is in subsection (5) of section 16. It says:

"The commissioner of investigation and mediation may refuse to accept, for filing under subsection (1), a complaint made on behalf of another person" -- and that includes the complaint made by the deputy chief commissioner -- "...if that commissioner is satisfied that

(a) the person alleged to have been discriminated against does not wish to proceed with the complaint, or

(b) proceeding with the complaint is not in the interest of the group or class on behalf of which the complaint is made."

You have an innovation that already exists in six other jurisdictions in Canada. It existed in this province, I believe, between '72 and '83 without causing any problems. This is an extra mechanism that is available for the commission to bring out matters that need to be adjudicated, so that the commission can give some guidance to the public through the adjudicative process.

I believe that this section in itself does not have any elements in it that would lead to dealing with the backlog in the quickest possible fashion, but it makes the human rights machinery more easily available and accessible to people who otherwise might not be able to make use of the functions of the commission or the Human Rights Tribunal.

V. Anderson: I would like to highlight section 16(2): "If the deputy chief commissioner believes that a person has contravened this Code, the deputy chief commissioner may file a complaint against that person under subsection (1)." Prior to this, it's been basically a reactive code: when complaints came in, they were dealt with then. But here we have a proactive code, where the deputy chief commissioner can be proactive and go out, if you like, and look for complaints as well as deal with complaints that he hears about but which, for whatever reason, no one else is able or willing to take forward.

I'm interested in the preamble from some of the other members of the House here in second reading. This was an area they highlighted, and I'm disappointed that they are not here to deal with it at this point. I think this makes a very significant difference. It could have a very positive result or, depending on how it's used, a very negative and threatening result. I think it's important that we ask: what are the guidelines that are going to be given -- in the regulations, I presume -- to the deputy chief commissioner as he or she goes out in this proactive fashion to deal with these issues in the community? I know many people will be happy about this, but there will be many businesses, organizations, firms and groups that will feel that this person interferes unduly in their natural human rights processes. There is a concern that this new section be clearly understood. What are the powers and regulations and guidelines given to the deputy minister in this section?

[11:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that there are any legislative guidelines for what the member is seeking to elicit from me. However, I can tell him historically that this power is rarely used in other jurisdictions, and it was rarely used between '72 and '83 in British Columbia. In fact, the check and balance in this situation is the availability of the funds in order to carry on investigations that may not otherwise be warranted. In that sense, you have very real control over how far a commission can go.

It's also important to note in this section.... I would correct myself. I said that there is nothing in this to deal with the backlog, but there is section 16(6), which says that the commissioner of investigation and mediation may proceed with two or more complaints together if the commissioner is satisfied that it's fair and reasonable in the circumstances to do so. So we could proceed with two or more complaints in one proceeding and save time and expense by doing so. That may deal with some complaints that are similar.

V. Anderson: The deputy minister may request and must be allowed to be part of a complaint if he wishes to do so. Under subsection (3) he may desire and be required and put himself into the complaint process in a particular case. Under subsection (5) the commissioner of investigation can refuse to accept the filing of a complaint. Is it reasonable to expect that even if the deputy minister became part of the complaint, the other commissioner could still refuse to accept it on the grounds that are here in (5)?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, and that's why we have that independence in section 4, section 10(8), I believe, that we talked about earlier. That independence of the commissioner of investigation and mediation is statutorily protected simply to do things of that nature.

Section 4, sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 4, section 18.

V. Anderson: Earlier we discussed the point briefly about a human rights officer in section 18(1). An employee or any 

[ Page 16214 ]

other person may be designated as a human rights officer. It still raises the question we raised earlier: what are the qualifications and expectations? The appointing of human rights officers seems to be very broad and very open, and it's very unclear when it says "any other person." We need some clarity in that section.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, with respect to this particular section, that firstly it is to accommodate the current situation, if it continues -- that is, the employees from the employment standards headquarters, the industrial relations officers, doing investigations as human rights officers.

Secondly, in areas of conflict, where there is a real conflict in the functioning of the commission, and the commission feels the matter should be dealt with by way of an outside human rights officer coming in, such as the federal human rights officer from a federal human rights branch.... It is to take care of contingencies of that nature that this clause is present in the current legislation.

Section 4, sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 4, section 20.

V. Anderson: In the "Deferral of a complaint" section, could you elaborate a bit what is meant by a deferral here? This is always a concern for people when they're in a process and there's an ability to defer it. Really, what's implied here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe, hon. member, when I looked at the legislation I had the same question. Let me say that my reading of it leads me to believe that this is a deferral that would make the functioning of the system more efficient. For instance, if you have a proceeding under the Labour Relations Code or a grievance under another piece of legislation that's available and that would more appropriately deal with the situation, the complaint or complaints may be deferred.

The deferrals would be time-limited; deferrals would not be forever. I'm hoping there would be some time limits in the regulations dealing with deferrals, under the regulatory powers present in this legislation.

V. Anderson: If I remember correctly, we indicated earlier -- I think it was in here -- that this act would override other acts. Can you explain how...? When you're talking about other acts, where you're deferring it because something is happening in another act and in essence this one would override those happenings in any event...? When this is the most powerful of those acts, why would you defer it to something that's happening in another jurisdiction with the same issue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, with respect to the override, this legislation prevails in the event of a conflict with other legislation in the areas where it prohibits discrimination.

In terms of the deferral, that has nothing to do with conflict or superseding by one piece of legislation over another. That is simply that the power is here in section 20 to make the functioning smoother for all concerned.

For example, the employers, trade unions and employees' groups want grievance procedures to be dealt with, rather than having the human rights officers come in and start a human rights process on the same facts, if the grievance procedures would provide a more adequate remedy. In that situation, this puts the discretion in the hands of the commissioner to decide to defer the matter until the matter is dealt with. The employers, trade unions and other groups involved with those situations are only too happy for us to be able to entrench this provision in the legislation, because it makes everyone's life easier. You don't have two proceedings going on at the same time, duplicating the work, essentially, and causing unnecessary inconvenience and expense.

Section 4, section 20 approved.

On section 4, section 21.

V. Anderson: "Disposition of a complaint" refers in part to the question we discussed above. If a grievance is dealt with in another system -- in a labour situation or a grievance situation -- and a person is not happy with the result of the decision, can that decision then be referred to this process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that a decision from the grievance procedure, for example, would be appealable to this body. However, the deferral that has been in abeyance may be reactivated by the individual concerned. At that time, under this legislation, the commission would have to look at whether an adequate remedy has been provided in the other proceeding.

V. Anderson: If a person had not made a reference in the beginning to the tribunal and had gone through the grievance procedure, then I am presuming that like anyone else, they could make a referral after that process was over, and it would be dealt with in the complaint process.

I am not sure it is clear to the public -- and I think I am right in this -- that every person who wants to complain about a human rights issue they want resolved sends that complaint first to the commissioner, who is responsible for receiving complaints and dealing with them. In essence, that commissioner is the funnel through which all the complaints initially come. They come, if you like, into the small end or the big end of the funnel -- I'm not sure which way it will work -- and then they go out the other end either to resolution or to non-resolution or perhaps to tribunal. If I am right, these are the three ways they can go. But they all come to the commissioner, then they go out either with a resolution that the commissioner has worked out or with a non-resolution which they then can appeal to the tribunal -- or the commissioner sends them directly to the tribunal.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When they come to the commissioner of investigation and mediation, complaints would either be summarily dismissed or deferred or referred to the tribunal. Those are the three ways they could go.

V. Anderson: But in the first stage the commissioner will examine the request and make a decision about what should be done with it. The initial investigation about it will be done by the commissioner's office, and some resolution made. If it's to go on to the tribunal, then is it that investigative material and all of the material to date that is passed on to the tribunal for consideration? I'm trying to clarify the process.

[ Page 16215 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The investigative material and evidence gathered is, of course, passed on to the respondent -- the party against whom the complaint is made -- not to the tribunal. The tribunal is a quasi-judicial body that would hear evidence from both the complainant and the respondent; therefore I don't think any material would go to the tribunal directly.

V. Anderson: One of the areas of concern that people have about the process is understanding what the cost in time and preparation is, and also what the dollar cost is of coming forth with complaints. If a person -- John or Jane -- brings a complaint about where they live, where they work or how they've been treated, is there a cost to them in bringing that complaint? Is there a cost to the person they're complaining about, whether it's a business or an individual? What are the cost factors involved? Who has to pay, as part of this complaint process? That's a concern for people. Are lawyers involved? What's the process of these complaints?

[11:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the cost of the complaint process, currently there is no cost to the individual lodging the complaint -- the complainant. Once the matter goes to the Human Rights Advisory Council, currently there is legal counsel available through legal aid. I believe that under the new system, the commission would provide those services. The cost would essentially be the same -- or less, hopefully -- with the efficiencies that are gained from the system. It's important for us to recognize that the commission and the way it would function would not impose burdens on complainants. If the complaint is without merit on the face of it -- for lack of jurisdiction, for example -- it would be summarily dismissed without spending the public's money. If there was a grievance procedure available under alternative legislation, the complaint would most likely be deferred, at the discretion of the commissioner, again saving money, time and energy. If the complaint is worthy of investigation immediately, barring those two situations, the commission would investigate the matter. At that time, the real money begins to be spent.

V. Anderson: The concern that I'm hearing raised and I'd like to get clarified is that the person who lodges the complaint will be supported, and there's no cost to them in that complaint being investigated. What is the cost to the person against whom they are making the complaint? I hear, on the other hand, that these are business persons, families or individuals who have to take time off from their work, from their business, and there are personal costs involved. And again, in the investigation, they have to have time to present their case as well as the other case. There seems to be a concern that the process is biased, initially, on behalf of the person who makes the complaint as compared to the person who is complained about -- that it's not an unbiased process, and that in essence you're judged guilty until proven innocent, and that it's very expensive and costly to prove your innocence.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, the investigators are deemed to be neutral. They are on a fact-finding mission to gather evidence to substantiate the existence or lack of discrimination. Secondly, with respect to the respondents -- the parties against whom the complaint is made -- there is also legal aid available.

V. Anderson: When you say there's legal aid available, are you talking about the legal aid process? In that case there are financial requirements. You have to have a low income in order to get it. If you're above that income, you're able to afford it, and therefore the balance comes in. If you're poor enough, you get a lawyer; if you're just above the line, you're not able to provide the lawyer and have the defence. There's an inequality in that medium area.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that at the hearing stage, when the matter goes before the tribunal, legal aid is available. It's means-tested, of course.

With respect to having a lawyer or to the costs associated with investigation, it is my humble view, hon. member, that investigators are not police officers but they are in the nature of officers of the law. Hopefully, they would do their functions in a way that is honourable and that doesn't cause undue inconvenience and suffering to individuals or corporate entities who may be investigated. Of course, if a respondent is troubled about the way the investigation is handled, at that point the respondent is free to retain legal services. But legal aid is not available at that stage.

Section 4, section 21 approved.

On section 4, section 22.

V. Anderson: I have an amendment to deal with a concern that has been brought to us and that I want to put forward:

[SECTION 4

In section 22(1)(c), by striking out "no reasonable basis" and substituting "insufficient evidence".]

The amendment has to do with the words "reasonable basis." The present bill says in section 4, section 22(1)(c), that the commissioner may make a dismissal if "there is no reasonable basis to warrant referring the complaint or that part of the complaint to the tribunal for a hearing." Instead of "no reasonable basis," the recommendation we would like to make with the amendment is that "no reasonable basis" be replaced with "insufficient evidence."

As people looked at this, they felt that "insufficient evidence" gives a far clearer understanding than "no reasonable basis," because that was too wide-open and too free a representation. I would move that section 4, section 22(1)(c), be changed as in the amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The test of "reasonable basis" has evolved over time in the judicial process, and that's the wording used in this new section. It also gets away from the old section 13(1)(c), which talks about the complaint not proceeding because it's trivial, frivolous or vexatious. I think that's offensive language, and it's much more important for us to deal with these issues in language that is not offensive. This also incorporates the current test that has evolved in the courts. If the matter were before the courts, I understand that in arriving at that assessment, the courts would take into account whether or not there is some evidence upon which an adjudicator could make a finding. I think that this language in section 22(1)(c) has been used for that purpose and reason.

[ Page 16216 ]

Amendment negatived.

V. Anderson: I just want to comment briefly that I appreciate the fact that in a number of cases -- in subsection (3) in particular -- decisions are to be given to people in writing so they clearly understand what's happening. I just want to comment that I appreciate that that kind of feedback has been built into the act a number of times.

Section 4, section 22 approved.

On section 4, section 23.

V. Anderson: The decision to dismiss is "final except for a review under section 24." Perhaps the minister would comment on the finality of a decision, and where a person can go with this -- or whether they can. People are always concerned about how far they can appeal a decision that goes against them, one side or the other.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The review in section 24 is to the tribunal. That's something new. That was not available before; before, you only had the judicial review available. So you now have two kicks at the can: if you're unable to succeed before the tribunal with the review under section 24 and you're still aggrieved, you can go to court and have a judicial review. So section 24 is new. The process has been enhanced so that a person who is complaining or a person.... Let's say the person's complaint is dismissed; it then goes to a review under section 24 and the complainant wins the review. In the case of a loss by the complainant, the complainant could go to court; in the case of a victory by the complainant, the respondent could go to court seeking a judicial review.

Section 4, section 23 approved.

On section 4, section 24.

V. Anderson: The minister has already commented on section 24. I just want to clarify. As I read this, when it goes to review under section 24 it seems to be quite clear that no new information can be brought forward. They're simply dealing with the material that had been presented in the first case. Am I correct in that? There's no chance to re-evaluate or bring additional material, new information or anything else forward; it's simply reviewing what was done before.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 24 does not envisage a trial de novo -- a new trial; it envisages a review on the record available. In practice, the principles of natural and administrative justice would require that the parties be entitled to make submissions to the reviewer based on that record.

Section 4, sections 24 and 25 approved.

On section 4, section 26.

V. Anderson: The enforcement of agreements has always been a concern, because oftentimes agreements seem to be difficult to enforce. Perhaps the minister would explain if there are new provisions for enforcement here that we've not had previously that are more likely to mean that the decisions of the commission will actually be implemented.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section enhances the mechanisms and provides the impetus and motivation on the part of the complainants and the respondents to enter into negotiations for mediated settlements, either independently or through the commission, rather than wasting the time of the tribunal or of the courts and costing the taxpayers a lot more money in the end. This section indicates that the terms of the settlement thus arrived at may will be filed with the tribunal, and that agreement will have the force of an order of the tribunal.

As you know, further along in the legislation the orders of the tribunal can be enforced through the court system. Similarly, a settlement agreement entered into in good faith between the parties, through mediation or otherwise, can be entered with the tribunal and subsequently filed with the court, and it can be enforced as an order of the court. That provides assurance to individuals who might not want to go through the litigious process of the tribunal and the courts. It would give them the comfort that they would be able to arrive at a settlement, and it would have the force of law.

Section 4, section 26 approved.

[11:45]

On section 4, section 27.

V. Anderson: The Human Rights Tribunal is the third significant leg of the stool, if you like, so I think we should take a few moments to look at that. First, can you explain what is new or significant about the tribunal and its aspect of the work that is different from what was done in this area previously by the council?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This section is one of the pivotal sections, as are some of the earlier sections dealing with the establishment of the commission. This clearly delineates, for all British Columbians to see, the functions of the Human Rights Tribunal. They would be completely independent of the commission. Their function would be focused on adjudication and nothing else within the confines of this legislation. By providing that kind of clear focus and streamlining of functions, we would be able to accelerate the processing of complaints and make the time lines shorter. With clear and quick decisions, British Columbians across the province might hopefully get some guidance and therefore might not have that many complaints arising.

V. Anderson: We seem to have here in its structural form simply a duplication, almost word-for-word, of what we had in the commission. There are three full-time members, as there were three full-time commissioners, except that here it lists that there may be up to six part-time members. Is it the expectation that three full-time members would normally be the functioning body of the tribunal? Are the six part-time members there to deal particularly with the backlog of the 1,200 cases that exist at the moment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the part-time members, I don't think it would necessarily depend on the backlog. It would depend more on the number of complaints that arise as we go along and on regional representation. It's totally 

[ Page 16217 ]

counterproductive to have someone travel from Prince Rupert to sit in Vancouver, for instance. If we had a part-time tribunal member in that area, he or she would be able to deal with complaints from the area, wouldn't have to travel all across the province, and would save time and expense.

V. Anderson: I would like to have leave to welcome the students who have just arrived in the gallery and to let the students know that we're debating the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, at the present time. We are talking about the formation of a Human Rights Advisory Council with a minister from the government, the opposition and others who will be involved in the discussion.

I notice that the three full-time members are there for a five-year term, like the other commissioners, but I gather that the part-time persons are without a term appointment. They are strictly part-time and without contracts for any specific length of time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The part-time members would be paid per diem; there would be no set salary for them. The full-time members would be appointed for staggered terms. I believe that on the first appointment one member would be appointed for a term of three years, one member would be appointed for a term of four years and one would be appointed for a term of five years. The appointments are staggered so that individuals can be replaced with ease, without having to worry about the need for continuity in the makeup of the body.

R. Neufeld: The part-time members.... I noticed the minister referred to Prince Rupert or the outer parts of the province. Are you saying that the part-time members will be chosen from different parts of rural B.C. so that you have members around the province to perform that duty?

I wonder if there isn't some need to have a term. How do you go about...? Do you just appoint someone when you need them? Or do they understand that they may have to do duty at different periods of time -- over what period of time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At this time it is the intention to ensure that we have part-time members in various regions of the province, if need be -- individuals who have the experience and skills necessary to deal with these issues on a part-time, per diem basis in the regions where they reside.

Regarding a term appointment, we don't know at this time for certain how many members we are going to need. I don't believe that we should be aiming for full terms or certain terms for individuals where we may not know how often their services are going to be required and whether we are going to be able to use them on a full-time basis. This is simply a cost-saving measure, number one. Number two, it represents an attempt to have members of the tribunal residing in all parts of British Columbia so that for the complainants and the respondents and the members who would hear those complaints, it is not a long journey or a travelling exercise; it is much more an exercise in being able to save time and expense and deal with the issues in the local areas.

V. Anderson: Regarding both the full-time and the part-time members, the nature, quality and expertise of these people is going to be extremely important. What kind of process is in place for selecting them and for ongoing upgrading, training or orientation to this particular kind of work, which is unique? What kind of background will you expect of these persons?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The process for selecting the members of the tribunal would be the same as for selecting the members of the commission, which is the current process, albeit in a somewhat enhanced and more transparent form than in the past. It has been known to those of us in government that it is a transparent process, but I believe that there is a need for everyone in British Columbia to know that the process is transparent, and efforts will be made to inform them.

V. Anderson: I can't help but think that when you talked about it being transparent, it has perhaps been transparent to the minister of this particular branch; but I doubt if any of the other government members know any more about it than the rest of us in the public do, because everybody gets into their own little bailiwick. If we really want to make this transparent, that will be great.

I couldn't help thinking as I.... It didn't occur to me before, but when you talk about equity, I'm not sure how you can have gender equity with a three-member commission.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, if the hon. member had been looking for a position on the human rights council in the last three or four years, he would have been aware of the process that I described earlier and that there were public postings for those positions. Those who are looking for positions like that have known for some time that the process has been open and publicly posted.

In terms of gender equity, I guess we will have to have equity on a part-time basis.

Section 4, section 27 approved.

On section 4, section 28.

R. Neufeld: Briefly, one question on section 28(1). I understand that there is a need for remuneration. Could the minister tell us what that will be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Members of the current B.C. Council of Human Rights are appointed the same way that appointments are envisaged under the present section. The salaries are set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and have been since 1987, when the process was put in place. I don't have their salaries in my mind at this time; I understand that they are paid somewhere in the range of $70,000 a year. I don't believe that anyone has put their mind to the issue of salaries. My inclination at this point would be to consult with the present staff of the B.C. Council of Human Rights and deal with the issue as it comes up.

R. Neufeld: Would it be fair to assume that it would be something similar to what members of the B.C. Council of Human Rights are being paid at the present time?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would be inclined to think that it would be something similar. Of course, it would be subject to Treasury Board approval, and you know the kinds of times that we are going through.

Section 4, sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

[ Page 16218 ]

On section 4, section 31.

V. Anderson: We might as well finish this one. This is on hearings. Hearings, I gather, are being conducted in the same mode as a court hearing, where each person has their lawyer or representative to represent them. Will it be required or advisable that they have counsel, lawyers, working on their behalf in putting complaints forward? This is, again, where the question of expenses comes in for the complainant and the respondent. Are they supported equally, or is there a bias toward one or the other as far as the financial costs of coming to a tribunal?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of whether or not one requires lawyers, I don't believe lawyers are mandatory to have in hearings before the tribunal or in any court in this land. It's really up to the individuals as to whether or not they think they need or can afford a lawyer.

In terms of the availability of legal representation, I believe the commission would be responsible for the carriage of the complaint for the tribunal.... I stand corrected. I understand that the current practice would continue, which is that the parties would be responsible for the carriage of the complaint before the tribunal and, legally, they would be available to either party. However, I understand there is a slight bias in the current process, which has been in place for some time, and that is that legal aid is available to the complainants without being means-tested, while it's only available to the respondents subsequent to a means test.

V. Anderson: Having said that, the persons on both sides of that issue could be in the same financial position. Is there a chance that this bias, which seems, in many cases, to be unequal and discriminatory...? Will you be looking at that so the very process can be equal and non-discriminatory? At the moment, it does discriminate on one side or the other in many cases.

[12:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The process is somewhat biased because it has been viewed in the past -- as we've had the current process in place for many years, long before this government came into power -- that it's in the public interest for individuals to be able to come forward with complaints and not necessarily face the risk of having to pay for dealing with those complaints. It is in the interest of society as a whole that we stamp out discrimination, as it's prohibited in the code. Having practised law in the courts, I can tell you that I'm very conscious of the fact that if the means at the disposal of both parties aren't essentially the same, the justice they receive isn't equal sometimes. I will certainly look at that process and see if we can streamline it to ensure that the needy respondents -- not necessarily respondents who are in the same position as the complainants, but the respondents who are needy -- would get a significant contribution in terms of dealing with their part of the case.

V. Anderson: I would appreciate it if the minister would look into that, because I think it will give a lot more credibility to the process if there can be equality for both the complainant and the respondent. If there is a judgment, that in itself will take care of some of the inequalities, but it's in bringing the case forward until that decision is made....

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. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.

The committee met at 10:15 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)

On vote 30: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).

R. Chisholm: The first question that I'd like to pose to the minister.... I'll read an excerpt from the paper in reference to power-generating plants that are proposed for the Chilliwack area. As the minister knows, the air quality in that end of the valley is pretty poor at the best of times, and now we have B.C. Hydro apparently going to build two generators. I'd just like to read a couple of excerpts from the Chilliwack Progress and then pose a question for her.

"We have two words for the people behind two massive gas-fired power plants that are being considered for Chilliwack: Forget it. Chilliwack residents have been sucking back Vancouver-made smog for years. They're sick and tired of having air pollution concerns ignored by those in power, and they're literally gasping in anger over inaction over air quality in the upper Fraser Valley."

That's why the Selkirk generating project and the Tenaska generating project are such bad ideas. I wonder why this government is even considering a proposal to build a gas-fired power plant in my riding in Chilliwack when the air pollution and smog levels over Chilliwack are already bad enough, as the minister knows.

This proposed Selkirk generating project, which would see a gas-fired power plant built near the Cheam Indian reserve in my riding of Chilliwack would only add to an already bad situation of air pollution in the Fraser Valley. I am certain that Chilliwack residents do not want to breathe air that has in the past few years been consistently far more polluted than the downtown Vancouver core. To build this 

[ Page 16219 ]

gas-fired power plant in Rosedale would be ridiculous. After all, all the pollution is congregating at that end of the valley, and all this is going to do is increase the levels in the Chilliwack end. I cannot support the construction of these gas-fired power plants in my riding. What is the minister's view on this? Has she had any studies or any involvement with these proposals from Selkirk?

Hon. E. Cull: I believe this is part of a B.C. Hydro call for proposals that was issued at some time in the last year. Because I'm not the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, I'm not familiar with the status of those proposals, what they have received and where they are in the system. What I can tell the member is that should any particular proposal be determined as being worthy to proceed, it would have to go through the review under the Environmental Assessment Act, which has recently been concluded and is about to come into effect.

R. Chisholm: As the minister knows, I've had a bill on ethanol before the House for the past four years; it was tabled just last week. The reason I have been very adamant every year about that was the pollution in that end of the valley, which is far worse than anywhere else in the rest of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, our geography helps to create the pollution problem. We end up with having all the pollution from Vancouver and the Burrard Thermal plant. It congregates at that end of the valley due to winds coming off the ocean, which are stronger in the day than the winds going back to the ocean at night. We really do have a problem with this. Like I said in my speech the other day, a few years ago you could see Cheam Peak; now you're lucky if you can see it on any given day. This is only going to aggravate it more. I would hope that the minister would look into this situation.

For my next question, I would like to know from the minister if her ministry has looked into the ethanol situation. Is her ministry willing to put ethanol into the plan, for instance, for gasoline? As we know, the federal government is taking MMT out of gasoline and putting something back in. The federal Green Plan has allotted $70 million as incentives for ethanol plants. I'm wondering if the minister sees this as a temporary step until we get to zero emissions; after all, there other problems, as I will talk about a little later. I would like to hear the minister's view of the benefits of ethanol and whether she sees this as a possible solution.

Hon. E. Cull: The member raises the issue of air quality, particularly at his end of the Fraser Valley; it is an issue that our ministry is extremely concerned about. I concur with the member. I've lived in this province and travelled back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver for many years. When going to Vancouver, particularly by plane, I have been alarmed by the fact that on many days you can't see the mountains because of air pollution. It is a very serious concern that our ministry takes very seriously as well. We have been looking at a wide variety of strategies to address the air quality problem, not just in the lower mainland, but definitely focusing on the lower mainland and Fraser Valley, because that's where the biggest problems are. We did discuss that a bit last night when we were talking about the tax breaks for conversions to propane and natural gas.

I encouraged the member with respect to the private member's legislation that he has brought in. I think the type of support that he is giving to these initiatives is the kind that I'd like to see all MLAs in the House give. I'm not speaking to the specifics of your bill, because I haven't had a chance to fully analyze it. But yes, support for alternative fuels and for any strategy that is going to reduce auto emissions and improve air quality in the Fraser Valley is something that we have to pay attention to.

Two weeks ago I released a ministry study on the impact of air pollution on our health. The study, done by Dr. Vedal of UBC, showed alarming consequences for the health of British Columbians as a result of air pollution: 2,800 preventable deaths, 33,000 preventable hospitalizations and all kinds of particular ailments affecting our lungs and our hearts, all caused by air pollution primarily coming from automobiles.

So we have started to put together a strategy that deals with cleaner fuel, with cleaner automobiles and with eliminating the other sources of air pollution, such as beehive burners -- a whole variety of strategies which come together to try to improve air quality in the Fraser Valley. We do give tax breaks to fuels that have a high component of ethanol, and we have encouraged the use of blended fuels with an ethanol component. So in principle, I support what the member is talking about. I share his concern about the air quality problems in the valley, particularly in his community, and I encourage him to support the government as we initiate the various clean air initiatives that we are currently working on with the fuel industry and the automobile industry to get cleaner cars, cleaner fuel and cleaner air.

R. Chisholm: I thank you for those words. We also heard some of those from the previous minister in other years when we debated these items in estimates. When it comes down to ethanol, basically there is no cost to government. With ethanol there is about a 30-40 percent reduction in emissions out of the tailpipe, depending on whether you're talking about carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and so on.

What I'm proposing to the minister is that while we go through the process of getting people to change to propane, natural gas or whatever solution comes, this solution can be put in almost immediately. It will put the farmers back to work. There are ethanol plants out there, and there are plants being built. There are incentives from the federal government, and within a very short period of time there can be a reduction in the Fraser Valley, it being the hot spot with pollution.

I wonder if the minister doesn't see that as at least a temporary solution to lower those levels. It does give its own benefits by putting the farmers back to work. If you want to make ethanol out of the landfills, where we're putting half our newsprint, you can make ethanol out of newsprint. If you want, you can make ethanol from hog fuel. There are consortiums out there that are willing to do this. They just need to have a market, and the market happens to be the fuel industry itself. Does the minister see any possibility of this as at least a temporary step until we get to a zero-emission vehicle?

Hon. E. Cull: Again, at a very general level we have been exploring ethanol or part-ethanol fuels as alternatives. I just said we've given tax breaks to fuels that are 85 percent ethanol and have taken other initiatives to encourage a lower blend of ethanol in gasoline. So, yes, ethanol is a part of what we're looking at; my point is that it's not the only thing we're looking at.

R. Chisholm: I appreciate that it's not the only thing you're looking at, but I also appreciate that five years ago you 

[ Page 16220 ]

could see Cheam Peak 365 days of the year, and now you see it two days of the year. That is not tolerable. The minister has mentioned the 33,000 hospital visits, the 2,800 deaths; the former minister mentioned the same things last year. Those statistics aren't improving, whereas this temporary situation could be mandated without any major expenses to government.

For instance, with propane or natural gas, we are talking about a $2,000 modification to automobiles. With 10 percent ethanol, there's no modification whatsoever to the automobile, and it will run on standard fuel as previously. The Americans have been running trillions and trillions of miles on ethanol-based fuels, and it has proven itself. If you go down to Brazil and South America, you'll find they run on straight ethanol without any problems. Mind you, their automobiles have been converted to that. I just hope the minister will look kindly at that and possibly put a bit more emphasis on it.

If I take a look at some things that are coming out now, I find the government has been talking about buying three electric cars. This is from Chrysler Canada and from an article in the Detroit Free Press, and I'd like to quote it to the minister. I just want to prove that we're a long way from zero-emission and that we have to do something now. Otherwise we're going to have more deaths, more costs in the health care system, and so on. This says:

"I read the enclosed article from the Detroit Free Press, written by Mr. Doron Levin and I thought that you might find it as informative as I did. It is refreshing to read a newspaper article based on fact and not on conjecture or speculation. It is truly unfortunate that so much of what we read today, particularly in respect of emerging automobile technology, has no factual base. This article is one of the most informative and correct statements on electric vehicles that I have read in any newspaper."

That's signed by Michael J. Walker of Chrysler Corp. I'll just quote one paragraph from the article that was in the Detroit Free Press:

"The first stirrings of presidential politics raise the prospect that one of the most misguided pieces of legislation ever to see the light of day will be put out of its misery. I'm speaking, of course, about California's law mandating the sale of electric vehicles starting in 1998. Word from the automotive executives in Detroit who have visited aides to Governor Pete Wilson is that the governor agrees the mandate is awful and should be dropped."

The article goes on and on. If the minister would like copies of it, I would gladly give them to her.

All I'm saying is that we obviously still have an awful lot of problems. The battery technology isn't there for the automobiles, and we're looking at the cost for propane and natural gas. They're fossil fuels; they are non-renewable resources. They produce their own emissions.

[10:30]

In the meantime, we need some sort of temporary solution to help clean up the Fraser Valley, because it's only going to get worse. As the minister knows, they're expecting another million and a half people. I'm just asking her if maybe she could look into the situation and perhaps speed it up a bit. There are an awful lot of people living out there and ending up dying because of the situation.

Hon. E. Cull: Let me assure the member that not only am I looking into it to speed it up, it is one of the priorities of our government to address this issue, but not by focusing on any one particular strategy. That's not to say that the strategies that are suggested -- ethanol or any of the other things that the member is talking about -- are not worthy of pursuing. It's just that, as he's indicated by reading the article into the record, this is a very complex area. It's an area where there are many barriers.

There's a lot of resistance, particularly at the manufacturer's end, when it comes to either vehicles or fuel. There are technological issues to be dealt with. I think the best way to deal with such a complex situation is to have a multifaceted approach which works on a number of fronts at once. If you are meeting some resistance or have a barrier that you can't overcome in one area, hopefully you'll be making progress in other areas. That will allow you to advance better than if you just headed down one avenue at a time.

We have a variety of programs. I'll just mention some of the ones that we are looking at, have actually implemented or are in negotiation on right now: a scrap program that allows us to get older vehicles off the road, the ones that pollute the most; the AirCare program, which gets those high-polluting vehicles off the road until they have been repaired or returned so that they are putting out fewer emissions. We have been doing work with the automobile industry around low-emission and ultra low-emission vehicles. We have been staying in touch with what's going on in California and the northeast United States to ensure that as other jurisdictions start to legislate cleaner cars, British Columbia leads the way in Canada in making sure that we have cleaner cars that are going to be marketed elsewhere and also here in British Columbia.

We have been talking to the industry about doing research into zero-emission vehicles. Here in B.C., we have probably one of the leading-edge technologies in the Ballard fuel cell. A prototype bus has been developed, and we're now looking at a full-sized bus so that continuing work can be done on this. There's international interest in that particular fuel cell and that technology.

We've been working with the fuel and gas industry to produce cleaner fuels, to set higher standards. One of a few things we did last year, just off the top of my head, is bring in low-sulphur diesel regulations.

I haven't been exhaustive here; I've tried to canvass the landscape. I'm saying that there is a variety of things that we are doing under our clean air strategy. It is an extremely serious issue in the Vancouver area. It's an issue of economics, human health and the environment. I know this member knows that it's also an issue of agricultural productivity. Those are all concerns that we have to take very seriously; we are doing that. We are investigating the avenues that the member is suggesting, but we are also doing a lot more, because we think this is such an important issue that we can't afford to put all our eggs in one basket and just hope for one approach to solve the problem. We have to work right across the spectrum.

R. Chisholm: I appreciate where the minister is coming from. I'm glad that they're looking at all the aspects, but maybe the minister can look at a temporary one in the meantime so that we can have some temporary relief from the pollution, or a portion of it, until we come to that. That might be a possibility; I hope the minister would look kindly upon that.

[ Page 16221 ]

Could I obtain from the minister a commitment to have any studies that she has on these particular commodities sent to me? I don't mean the whole thing, but the package on exactly what is being covered, especially when it comes down to ethanol. I would appreciate that.

Another problem we have with pollution is that we seem to be getting conflicting messages from government. I'll read to you from a document sent by the three regional districts to your ministry. That was before your time as minister. They stated: "We understand that the provincial budget for 1995 contains no funding to continue air quality monitoring in the Fraser Valley. Please be advised that we would regard any cessation of monitoring as a very serious matter." And the letter goes on.

But I know that moneys have been allotted to do some studies -- for instance, $20,000 was, recently. Could the minister clarify exactly what the status of monitoring is? Who is going to monitor and who is going to pay for it? There are mixed signals being sent out to the communities, as we see by this letter from the three regional districts, yet I know that moneys have been allotted to do studies. Maybe the minister could clarify this whole confusing situation.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe it's correct that there is no money. There's probably less money going, and I guess that's part of the balance that we've been discussing on and off throughout these estimates. There are many needs, concerns and priorities in the environmental area, and there are other concerns and priorities in Lands and Parks issues that have to be addressed. But the public is also saying that they want taxes frozen, and they want fewer dollars spent on government services.

As much as you say, "Set your priorities and cut somewhere else," when you're dealing with a budget the size of the budget of the province of British Columbia, at some point the kind of low spending increases that have been given in the last couple of years do equate to some services either not being fully funded or not being funded at all.

[A. Hagen in the chair.]

We have tried, again, to prioritize in the ministry, so there is still some money there. We're working with the GVRD and, at the other end of the valley, the Fraser-Cheam Regional District to ensure that there is air quality monitoring. There probably have been some changes in the funding formula as a result of having no increase in the budget this year.

R. Chisholm: I realize that budgets have been cut, that funding is down and that the federal government has cut their funding, too. With the problem we have in the valley, obviously this is not exactly the time to be taking a step back from the situation. This is a time to solve it, because it's costing us more money throughout the health system, agriculture, fisheries and whatever subject you want to talk about. It is costing us in terms of resources and finances. How is this government going to make up for the federal government stepping back from the issue of air quality? Is the provincial government going to be able to take up some of the responsibilities that the federal government has now stepped back from?

Hon. E. Cull: That is a very big problem, which the federal government has dumped on provinces right across Canada. They have unilaterally made decisions to cut transfers to provinces in order to get out of funding areas that are essential or of very high priority to provinces. There has been very little discussion at all with provincial governments about how to manage those problems.

I have to say that I don't think there's anyone who doesn't recognize that the federal government has a deficit problem, which it must address. But we gave the federal government over $9 billion worth of program cut choices that they could have made instead of the cuts they did make to health, higher education and some of the essential environmental services. The federal government had choices, and they made those choices. They did not seek the provinces' advice, and they do not appear to be particularly interested in resolving the overlap and duplication problems that exist. In some areas, we would gladly see the federal government move out of the jurisdiction, whether it's environment in some cases, the labour market, skills training, etc.

The federal government made its decision without a lot of consultation with the provinces. I don't think that anyone can turn around and say: "Since the federal government stopped funding it, now the province is going to have to pick it up." There's really only one taxpayer at the end of the day, and that taxpayer is saying that they are paying enough taxes. They want to see governments manage with what they have. The federal government has made its choices for whatever reasons it has, and the federal government is going to have to answer to the citizens of British Columbia about why it has cut air quality monitoring instead of business subsidies and why it's cut central services with respect to environmental protection on the West Coast instead of getting rid of the regional economic development slush funds which.... I think almost everybody who has looked at them has agreed they really are not accomplishing anything.

I think it's absolutely unrealistic to expect that when the federal government backs out of any area, the province is going to move into it. In fact, if we were to do that we would be inviting the federal government to continue to get out of all kinds of areas that they have responsibility for, and the provincial taxpayer would just have to pick it up. It doesn't make sense, and it's not doable.

R. Chisholm: I appreciate your words. I understand your position and where you're coming from, but the bottom line is still that the people in the Fraser Valley are having an increase of pollution. There is more and more happening every day, every week, every month and every year, and the federal government has opted out. It still leaves us with our citizens living in a hodgepodge of many mixed gases, pollution and what have you, and we still have to rectify the situation. We still have to solve it if at all possible.

I realize that this is a very difficult situation, but somehow or other we do have to pick up some. It happens to be our province; it happens to be within our jurisdiction. Unfortunately, our people, our taxpayers -- the same people you're talking about -- are living there.

For instance, the municipal mayors and regional district chairs who have been in Ottawa visiting the federal Minister of Environment, Sheila Copps, are talking about federal funding. Is there any coordination between these other levels of government, whether it be municipal, regional district, provincial or federal? Is there any coordination going on at all 

[ Page 16222 ]

or is it all fragmented? It seems to me that it is very much fragmented. People do their own thing either because there doesn't seem to be leadership or it hasn't come together in some sort of cohesive manner. Maybe the minister could tell me what she sees and whether somebody is going to get a handle on this situation and correct it.

Hon. E. Cull: British Columbia has led the way when it comes to clean air policy in Canada. We have been pushing the federal government to adopt standards along the lines of what we are doing here in B.C. Every time we go to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, where we meet with our provincial counterparts and the federal minister, British Columbia has taken the lead on clean air policy. So we are doing things in this province.

While the federal government is cutting their funding for air quality monitoring, we are bringing in a comprehensive program to reduce air emissions in greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley and to improve air quality, through working with the manufacturers and the fuel industry, through research into zero-emission vehicles and through negotiating with the automobile manufacturers about low- and ultralow-emission vehicles. So there's a whole variety of things we've been doing, such as AirCare and vapour regulations. We have been active; we have been taking the actions.

The federal government has been doing all the talking, while cutting the funding. So we have been pushing them to follow our lead and to not back out of areas that are of great significance to people in our province. I would suggest to the member that, while I share his concern, he should probably be lobbying his federal MP on this issue and pointing out to his federal MP that they did have a choice. They made the wrong choices for the people in British Columbia.

We have worked with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and with specific municipalities and regional districts on issues that have a federal component to them. For example, recently we accompanied people from the GVRD on a trip to Ottawa to meet with ministers there regarding sewage treatment. We are continuing to work on an issue-by-issue basis with local governments, particularly where there are federal issues, so that we can provide them with the support they need.

[10:45]

The province has put its money on the table for many of these issues. We've put our policy out; we have enacted legislation. We can only do our share of it, and I think it's high time that someone started putting the pressure back on the federal government to do their share and their part, particularly when it comes to funding these important services.

R. Chisholm: I have been lobbying for quite a number of years. As you know, the four bills have been there. I've been lobbying under other governments and other ministers, federally and provincially, and I am lobbying with all the MPs and MLAs around British Columbia, as you well know.

But my concern here is that there isn't a coordinated effort. For instance, my municipality was allotted $20,000 to do a study on AirCare, and I'm just wondering if there is any coordination between municipalities like Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Matsqui and so on. Is that same type of coordination happening with the regional districts and the provincial and federal governments? There doesn't seem to be a coordinated effort, and without it I don't think we're going to be very successful. It's being done in a fragmented manner, and unfortunately that doesn't seem to be solving the problem; the problem is still increasing. Are the municipalities talking to each other to coordinate this? Is the provincial government giving them some leadership?

Hon. E. Cull: My staff advises me that we do have a committee involving all the municipalities and regional districts in the area. It meets regularly with Ministry of Environment staff on issues of air quality.

R. Chisholm: This is my last question on air quality. Over the years you've developed a commuter service. I asked for that in 1991-92. I wanted it to go out to Chilliwack; it didn't arrive, but that's fine. It's a step in the right direction on the north side of the river. But on the south side, there still isn't any sort of mass transit. As a matter of fact, the bus lines that were operating out of the Hope-Chilliwack-Abbotsford area into Vancouver are now defunct. We are not getting automobiles off the road. As you stated earlier, this is of primary concern because automobiles cause about 80 to 85 percent of the pollution in the valley. Do you have any plans, or are you working with other ministries to develop plans, to ease the congestion on the south side, where bumper-to-bumper traffic going into Vancouver is producing the bulk of the pollution? I think that's another key to this particular problem.

Hon. E. Cull: While the Ministry of Environment is obviously concerned with the development of rapid transit and other forms of public transit, we are not the lead ministry. Questions concerning the work being done are best answered by the minister responsible for B.C. Transit.

The committee recessed from 10:48 a.m. to 10:57 a.m.

R. Chisholm: The next area I would like to talk about is the Chilliwack River valley and the Vedder River. I'd just like to ask one question on this, and I'm sure the minister knows of this situation too. The former minister knew about the flooding and the problem with the valley.

As I said, I'm sure the minister is aware of this serious situation. This year it's not too bad because we've had dry weather. In other years it has been a major disaster. The question is with regard to the phenomenal lack of flood protection for the citizens of the valley. As of this date, there has been no response to the citizens of the Chilliwack River valley, which would make them feel secure in their own homes. No funding from the provincial government has been secured to ensure protection from floods. The Regional District of Fraser-Cheam and the federal government are also doing absolutely nothing to help the Chilliwack River valley citizens.

What is this minister prepared to do to protect the Chilliwack River valley residents from the high probability of devastating yearly floods so that the citizens can feel safe in their homes in this valley?

Hon. E. Cull: I have a question for the member. I understand that in 1994 the regional district held a referendum to establish a local service area to raise funds for diking, bank protection and storm drainage. The referendum was defeated by a margin of 2 to 1.

[ Page 16223 ]

[11:00]

R. Chisholm: That is correct, but the problem still exists. The flooding still happens, people's lives are in danger and communities are in danger. Whether that referendum failed or not, the floods still happen every year, other than this year when we have dry weather. You find that the referendum was not ethical, if you start talking to the different parties that were involved in it.

My question to the minister still is: what are we going to do about this continuing situation? It doesn't seem to want to go away. We do see the floods, we see the reaction every year, and something eventually has to be done. We're moving Mount Thurston Camp because of the flooding in the Chilliwack River valley, which has become a contentious issue in itself. That's all part and parcel of the ongoing referendum. I'd have to say, as far as the referendum is concerned, that I'd take that with a grain of salt. The situation is still the same; the flooding is still the same. People are in danger, property is in danger and the provincial government is moving a prison because of the problem.

My question to the minister still remains: what are we going to do about this river? Is the ministry willing to get involved? I realize there is a federal DFO problem here, and it's also a provincial problem. Sooner or later we will have to address the situation before some lives are lost. So far, property has been lost, but not lives.

Hon. E. Cull: I understand what the member is saying. However, I am a little puzzled about the lack of local support for the initiatives that the regional district has been attempting to undertake. I understand that not only was the referendum of 1994 defeated, but a recent attempt by the electoral area director to generate support for another bylaw to establish a local service area also failed. There continues to be opposition to the regulations that the regional district has developed to protect people from flooding. So we're getting a bit of a mixed message here. I agree with the member that there are serious concerns with respect to property damage and life that can arise as a result of flooding. But there has to be a partnership between the provincial government and the local community.

We are willing to continue working with the regional district. There are some priority flood protection projects that we have identified. Probably cobbling together about $1.5 million would be required, but I would like to see a greater indication of support from the local residents and an indication that they're willing to work together to assume some of the costs of this with the provincial government. I think that if we can get together in a cooperative framework, we can do our best to find the money to do the high-priority bank protection or flood protection projects that are required.

R. Chisholm: The residents out there feel it is a provincial problem, and they feel that it is downloading by the provincial government. That was one of the problems with the referendum. This is no different than the problem with pollution. In that particular situation, we know 2,800 people are dying every year, yet we don't have a coordinated effort. Where's the coordination, where's the leadership and who's going to solve the problem? Are we going to continue to live with that problem until people die? We don't see leadership from any level of government.

What is the province willing to do? Are they willing to get involved? Are they willing to show leadership, bring this to a head and solve the problem once and for all? Are we going to hear about this problem ten years down the road, when there will still be property damage and lives at risk, the same as we see with pollution? That's the bottom line. The question is: who is going to take the problem in hand, bring all these groups together, come to a consensus and solve the problem, rather than continually fighting for decades? We don't solve the problem -- just like with pollution.

Hon. E. Cull: We have shown leadership on air quality. We are taking the lead on cleaner air in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley, and we are doing it through a number of initiatives. We've been showing that leadership working with municipalities, the GVRD and the other regional districts in the Fraser Valley to ensure that we have cleaner air, not only here in British Columbia but right across Canada.

With respect to flood protection issues in the Chilliwack area, there's only so far that the province can go in attempting to force a solution on the regional district. I have to pay some attention, as I'm sure you do, to the wishes of the public in the area. If the public has turned down a referendum and the electoral area director can't get a referendum to establish a local services area, then there must be some message there. I have to say that in my experience as a community planner, everybody wants flood protection but nobody wants flood protection bylaws. We insist on building in floodplains. We argue with the building inspectors, we argue with the zoning bylaws and we argue with municipal councils when they say: "You will be flooded if you build in this fashion." People say, "No, I don't want to build my house up this high; no I don't want to do this protective work," and then when the flood occurs, people say: "Why don't you do something about it?"

What I'm saying to you is that if the regional district and the people in that area are willing to sit down and work cooperatively with the provincial government to resolve these issues, I will make the commitment that we'll show some leadership, and we'll provide some of the funding to it. But they have to come to the table, too.

R. Chisholm: I appreciate the minister's remarks and I understand the frustrations here, because it's been going on for many years. If you've made a commitment that you'll sit down at the table and show leadership if these other parties can come to the same table, maybe we'll solve some of these problems.

I'm sure the minister is aware of the sewage outfall line which will extend from Fairfield Island to the middle of the Fraser River. It is set to be built in the near future in my riding of Chilliwack. As of this date, my constituents and I have heard very little about the possible environmental impact that this sewage line will have on the Fraser River and its habitat. Can the minister please tell me what the impact on the Fraser River will be and whether any studies have been conducted to support the minister's arguments or the arguments from the municipality?

Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that particular proposal. All I can say is that there are new discharge requirements which any proposal discharging into the Fraser would have to meet. We have a very high priority on protecting the Fraser River. I can undertake to get the information back to the member about the specific proposal.

R. Chisholm: I'll get the information to the minister, and maybe that will alleviate the problem.

[ Page 16224 ]

My next question concerns urban sprawl. We see it happening up at our end of the valley to a great degree. We have places like Ryder Lake and Promontory, and we're watching where the sprawl is going up in to the hills and destroying the environment. I'm just wondering if the ministry has done any studies on this. Can you give us those studies so we can have a look at what effects this urban sprawl is having on the environment in the local area? If she could give us the studies, it would be most appreciated.

Hon. E. Cull: The member has touched on one of the major environmental issues facing the lower mainland, the east coast of Vancouver Island -- the greater Victoria area -- and the area that we refer to as the Georgia Basin, if you take in Seattle as well. The urban growth in this very fragile environmental area has been phenomenal. There is no indication that the growth is going to slow down. This is one of the most desirable places in North America to live in terms of quality of life, in terms of the strong economy here in British Columbia. There are lots of jobs, and lots of in-migration. It continues to be a very desirable place for people to settle and raise families. That will keep happening in the foreseeable future.

Our government has recognized that and recognized that while growth has its positive attributes -- and certainly the Minister of Finance can confirm that -- it also has some negative impacts. If growth rate is unmanaged, we could see ourselves within the next 30 years having a population in the Georgia Basin somewhat the size of the city of Los Angeles. This is an area that has all of the environmental and geographical problems that Los Angeles has -- ringed in by mountains so that air pollution is kept in, the loss of green space, traffic congestion, problems with water quality, and on and on.

Our government has introduced the growth strategies act, which was passed during this session of the Legislature. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, although through the Georgia Basin initiative, the Ministry of Environment has been involved in work on that.

The studies that were done on growth impacts were primarily done by local governments. There is funding from the provincial government -- mostly, again, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The studies were done by them. I have some information that I could share with you, but the vast majority of the technical work that you might be looking for would be in the hands of regional districts. I know that particularly the GVRD, but also the other regional districts, has done considerable work looking at regional growth problems over the last ten years, going right back to when regional planning was last in existence in this province.

The growth strategies act will start to manage urban growth. It gives municipalities the tools so that they can ensure that while growth is encouraged where it's appropriate, it will be directed away from those areas where it's going to cause problems for the environment. Environmental values will be factored into planning so that our growing population will have access to green space, be able to breathe the air and have high-quality drinking water. All of those aspects are now possible, but they were not possible a year ago. As you well know, you can't maintain air quality inside a municipal boundary. It's a regional issue and must be managed on a regional basis.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been working on the Georgia Basin initiative. I hope you had the opportunity to question the minister during her estimates, because they have the lead responsibility in this area.

R. Chisholm: Thank you for offering the information.

My next question concerns the Recycling Council of B.C., which advocates the use of recycling to reduce the waste that is filling our landfills. I mentioned how ethanol could empty some of them; it's one of the possible solutions. I have always believed that recycling works, yet there are still many cities and towns in British Columbia that do not have recycling programs in place to take advantage of the benefits of recycling. Can the minister tell us what she is doing to help make recycling affordable for these municipalities and British Columbians generally? What is her ministry doing to enhance attitudes toward recycling in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: We have been working on a number of different fronts to encourage recycling. We talked about this last night, so I'm not going to go into details. The waste management plans that regional districts are preparing have, as one of their objectives, reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfills and increasing the amount of waste material that ends up being recycled. We provide support through grants to municipalities and regional districts to develop, set up and operate recycling programs. We also have been working on the particular types of products that go into the landfill. We talked about paint last night. We have been working on beverage containers and on a number of other issues to try to encourage more recycling and less landfilling.

The overall principle that drives what we are doing is that it is polluter-pay. We don't believe that municipalities should have to take the cost solely upon themselves to deal with this issue. There is some responsibility on the part of manufacturers of the products that are problematic, and also on consumers. The cost should be borne by those who make them and use them, as opposed to generally spread across the tax base.

R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister could elaborate a little more. I'd like to hear about the tires and the battery aspects, especially with the thought of electric cars and this type of thing. I'd like to hear what the province and the ministry are doing to ensure that happens. We've seen news broadcasts in the last little while, where companies are not making any money and are losing money on the tire situation. I'd like to have an update on exactly where batteries are in the recycling system.

Hon. E. Cull: On the matter of tires, I'll refer the member to the Blues from last night, because we did canvass tire recycling extensively. I'm sure all his questions will be answered by reading those. If not, he can talk to me afterwards, but I don't want to repeat the ground we went over.

[11:15]

We didn't cover batteries, though. We do have a recycling program for lead-acid batteries, and 100 percent of these are recycled and go to two locations -- I believe to Cominco and to another plant in Richmond.

R. Chisholm: My own constituency of Chilliwack and that of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi are two of 

[ Page 16225 ]

the forestry regions most impacted by the existence of the spotted owl. Just in case these estimates conclude today, I wish to put two specific questions on behalf of both constituencies on this topic.

Last year, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi asked the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks about a joint initiative between this ministry and the Ministry of Forests. Following the surveys, recommendations were to be made to a joint committee. I believe those recommendations were made this past year. I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was quite effective in estimates in getting the former minister to understand the overlap issue of SOCAs and protected areas. We have just recently seen the government's response to that issue, saying that SOCAs will be within, not separate from, the protected-areas strategy. That is good news. But could I get from the minister what is left to learn about the spotted owl? Do we know at this date how many spotted owls there are to help protect, and how much area in each protected area will be required for each pair of spotted owls?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm going to refer the member to the announcement that we made recently with respect to Pinecone Lake-Mount Burke. Part of that announcement included the announcement of a protected-areas strategy for the lower mainland, which includes both of the areas the member is talking about. We did make decisions with respect to protection of areas for the spotted owl. If the member hasn't got that material, I'd be happy to send it to him. It will have more detail than I'm going to give him.

We announced at that time that within the 13 percent of protected areas in the lower mainland, we would be protecting almost 50 percent of the area that had been identified as critical for the spotted owl. Those areas would be protected inside our protected-areas strategy and managed accordingly. The remaining areas, which are outside of whatever ultimately becomes a protected area under this strategy, will be managed under special guidelines being developed between my ministry and the Ministry of Forests under the Forest Practices Code.

This decision has freed up 400,000 hectares of land from the protected-areas study for logging in the lower mainland area. It was an important decision to try to focus in on those areas that would be protected in the long run and that would also capture some of the spotted owl issue, and also provide some certainty to the forest industry in those communities so that they would know what areas were available for active forestry. So we've narrowed down the area under study. We have made a decision that most of the protection for spotted owls will be within designated protected areas, and there will be special management guidelines for those spotted owl sites outside of the protected areas themselves.

R. Chisholm: I do have the Pinecone package. I was very much involved in the situation. After all, J.S. Jones is in my riding, so the vast majority of the land that was allotted to the park comes out of my particular forestry area. So I know what you're referring to. That's why I said that I was glad to see that spotted owls were going to be within the protected-areas strategy; that's great. I still don't know how many spotted owls will be within that area.

Has there been any study on that? Could the minister inform the committee what studies are left to be done on the spotted owl? Are there any more studies still outstanding? Are there any new studies that could be publicly released, and should we expect to see any release soon? The question about spotted owls is: just exactly how much land within that protected-areas strategy are we allocating for spotted owls?

I'd like to see the final results of all of this furor over the last two years. After all, we've just incorporated within a protected-areas strategy. I still don't know or understand what we're trying to protect, how much we're trying to protect and how many owls are involved.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't have the number of owls, but as I indicated -- and there is more detail in the announcement itself -- approximately 40 percent of the habitat that was identified as critical to spotted owls is protected and will be protected under the protected-areas strategy. There is probably about another 10 percent in the Greater Vancouver Water District, which is also protected. The study that is underway right now is the one that will develop the special management guidelines for protecting those spotted owl conservation areas outside of protected areas that will be managed within the area available for forestry.

R. Chisholm: We have still not seen the scientific studies. Are they available? Will we see them? Can we see recommendations from those scientific studies? Finally, could the minister tell us if there is any public process at all still to be gone through before final decisions on protection of the spotted owl are complete in British Columbia? Will we finally settle this issue after these numerous years?

Hon. E. Cull: A study of six months ago, the spotted owl recovery team study, was released. If the member is not aware or familiar with it, I will make a copy available to him.

R. Chisholm: I would like to change the subject again a bit and go into the agricultural area, of which we have some, as you know, in the Chilliwack area.

We have a lot of wildlife damage. There used to be programs under Agriculture for fencing and that type of thing, but they are no longer in existence. Is the Ministry of Environment looking into assisting in this area? After all, we have all of the orchards in these areas, and damage caused by deer and that type of thing. Is the Ministry of Environment going to take it from where the Agriculture ministry left off or is the Ministry of Environment not going to get involved in this area at all? There is extensive damage and costs to the agriculturalists. It's a problem that has been around for a number of years, and nobody has really addressed it. Now that ALDA has gone out of that particular ministry, they are left with nothing. Maybe the minister could tell us what her vision is.

Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe that this is within the purview of our ministry. From the member's comments, I gather that it's a matter that the Ministry of Agriculture has decided to discontinue. I assume that that decision was made for budgetary considerations, although there may be other matters that I'm just not familiar with. I can't answer that question.

R. Chisholm: I beg to differ with the minister on this; it would have to be within your purview. The wild deer, elk and 

[ Page 16226 ]

so on, which are coming into the orchards and eating crops, come under the Environment ministry. Agriculture has decided that it's no longer going along with this program. Is the Ministry of Environment going to take up any of this responsibility? One option left to the orchardists is the gun, but I don't think that's the answer the minister wants to hear.

Hon. E. Cull: I appreciate the problem, but I really think that the question of farmers receiving assistance to fence their land or keep deer out of crops is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture. Obviously there are situations where there is probably not an awful lot that can be done -- for example, to keep birds out of fields when they damage crops. I know that Ducks Unlimited, for example, tries to do work to create other opportunities for waterfowl to feed elsewhere. We work with them on that. It's essentially an agricultural issue, and I encourage the member to take it up with the Minister of Agriculture.

C. Evans: I would like to ask a group of questions about the Creston Valley wildlife management area. In order to introduce the subject in the quickest possible way, I'll read an introductory letter that I wrote to another minister:

"The Creston Valley wildlife management area was initially proposed early in this century to maintain some of the nesting grounds and migration feeding areas of the western flyway. The marshland was threatened at the time in the Creston area by the diking and draining of land for agricultural purposes. The battle between conservationists and developers raged for decades early in this century and included municipal, provincial, federal and international players.

"It was not until the Columbia River Treaty was signed 30 years ago that all governments realized that the threat to the flyway from agricultural uses was tiny compared to the absolute devastation of the wetlands that would result from the flood-control activities of the treaty. The Libby Dam, for example, would dry out the cross-border marshlands that run all the way from the dam to Kootenay Lake, while Duncan, Revelstoke and Arrow reservoirs would flood the marshland in those valleys.

"The Creston Valley wildlife management area was thus created and funded as a result of the treaty and not as a result of land development. In recognition of their joint responsibilities for both wildlife and the treaty, the federal government and the province of British Columbia agreed to fund the Creston Valley wildlife management area quite liberally with matching grants of $100,000 per year. Last year the previous minister and the federal government nominated the Creston Valley wildlife management area as a Ramsar site -- a United Nations site of international significance for birds. This year the federal funding for the Creston Valley wildlife management area will be cut by 100 percent and the provincial contribution by 50 percent. The ability of the board to manage the Creston Valley wildlife management area will be crippled, staff will be laid off and the commitment to migratory wetland will be lost."

I know the minister is well aware of this issue. My first question is on the short-term, crisis-management nature of the problem. Two years ago we had $200,000 a year in core funding by contractual agreement between the federal and provincial governments -- an agreement that's been in place since the Creston Valley Wildlife Act was passed in 1979 -- which raised about two-fifths of the money that was required to keep the 17,000 acres flooded and the habitat alive. That $200,000 is reduced in 24 months to $50,000, which is not enough to maintain the staff anymore: to run the pumps, maintain the dikes and keep the wildlife management area functioning. Can the minister help me find a short-term -- over the next few months -- solution to the funding crisis at the Creston Valley wildlife management area?

Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I want to start by congratulating this particular member for being so persistent on this matter. I know that he accompanied the mayor of Creston to meet with my staff. Originally, they were scheduled to meet with me, but unfortunately I was ill that day. They carried on and met with my staff, and as a result of that discussion and some further discussions that took place afterwards, we have agreed that we will work to find bridge or short-term financing this year to deal with the problem. It has been created, I might add, primarily by the federal government backing out of about $100,000 they were planning to put into this particular area. We will work to find bridge financing. There are a couple of options that are available to us; I can't say exactly which one will be the one we'll be successful with. I have written back to the Minister of Environment protesting the withdrawal of the federal money, and I will continue to press the federal government to live up to its commitments.

[11:30]

Then we will have a longer-range problem to solve. Once we have secured some short-term funding for this fiscal year, we will commit to working with the community to try to establish long-term funding. Again, there are a number of sources that are possible. Not all of them are government sources, I'm delighted to add. But there are some things that can be done to try to pull together a longer-range strategy for this. Obviously this is a very significant area because of its designation, its recognition. I know people who've been through it who say it is absolutely a magical area to be in, and I will continue to work with the MLA and the community to ensure that we do have long-term financing secured for this particular area.

C. Evans: The minister is right about the persistence, but I don't want to take credit for it. I don't know if it's in order, but these are 100 letters from constituents who are certainly persistent in support of the thing, and the other package you see is full of letters I wrote to various ministers. Everybody is persistent and agrees that we have to solve this problem.

The minister suggests that besides short-term bridge funding, which I think everyone would be thrilled to see, we have to come up with a long-term solution. Probably all the parties in the room would agree that something that has existed for almost 30 years on annual funding and is in a crisis almost every year has to be shifted over to some kind of long-term institutional financing to allow people to plan and to get the matter out of an annual debate. It's somewhat inappropriate that everybody has to sit in estimates and talk about attempting year after year to finance something that goes on for, well, literally forever.

Some of the people who support the Creston Valley wildlife management area have made a really wonderful suggestion. They propose that we attempt to accumulate enough money in a perpetual fund so that the Creston Valley wildlife management area could exist on the interest from the funds. Years ago, such an account was opened with the Vancouver Foundation. If we get through this fiscal year, 1995-96, and manage bridge funding, I wonder what the the minister's thoughts would be about the following.

It has been suggested that the federal government, the provincial government, Ducks Unlimited, the corporate sector, individual donors, the people of Creston, municipal government, perhaps the Hydro mitigation fund, perhaps the 

[ Page 16227 ]

Columbia Basin Trust, can all try to get into a room and contribute enough money so that we could accumulate $4 million, the interest on which would be $300,000 or $400,000 a year so that we never come back into this room and ask for annual funding again. My question to the minister would be: if such a meeting was called, could your ministry help to facilitate it, and would you be interested in participating?

Hon. E. Cull: Absolutely.

C. Evans: Oh, super!

The Chair: The member continues.

C. Evans: The member's still standing up. That's true.

I have one final question that has to do with the governance of the wildlife management area. The act that created the 17,000-acre wildlife area said that it would be governed by three people who constituted an authority: one would be a federal appointee, one would be a provincial appointee, and one would be agreed upon by the other two. Now the federal government has pulled the pin on 100 percent of their funding, or, in parliamentary language, the federal government has ceased to spend their $100,000 a year, and in recognition of that they've withdrawn their member of the authority.

It seems to me that the legal body that has run the Creston Valley wildlife management area is now in question. The people who are attempting to keep it alive this year are talking about fairly radical measures to get through the short-term problem, including selling timber, leasing land and borrowing money. Any of these activities would, of course, require the legal authority to do so. Can the minister advise me so that I can advise the people in Creston of what the legal authority is right now in the Creston Valley wildlife management area? If the remaining two people in the authority were to decide to make structural changes, would they have the power to do so? Would they be in danger of a veto by either senior level of government?

Hon. E. Cull: The answer is yes. Those two people would have the authority to do so -- at least that's our interpretation from the Ministry of Attorney General. But given the types of things that we're trying to do and the fact that we are still putting pressure on the federal government, the member may wish to meet further with my staff to discuss some of the nuances of this management committee and where we go from here.

C. Evans: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Committee members, I note the hour. We seem to have finished a series of questions, so perhaps it would be in order to adjourn this session at this time.

Hon. E. Cull: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:36 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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