(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 2, Part 2
[ Page 771 ]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply A to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In the chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 10.
The House in committee on Bill 10; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 6.
R. Neufeld: In section 6, section 76.2(a)(2)(b) talks about a speed-monitoring device. I know that when the minister did first reading on this bill, she talked briefly about the 85 percentile. I would like the minister to explain to me how the process works with the speed-monitoring device, and who decides what the 85 percentile is. Is there some formula in place that we use? Maybe, for my purposes, the minister could start
Hon. L. Boone: This has nothing to do with this particular section of the act. I'll tell you this, just to keep the member happy: the photo radar act was passed last year; what we are enacting here are some amendments. The particular section that we're talking about, section 6, deals with the authority to complete and sign evidentiary certificates electronically. That really doesn't have anything to do with the 85 percentile, but I'll humour the member.
The 85 percentile is determined by the police after a site has been chosen by the motor vehicle branch, ICBC, the police and the community. Working together, they determine what site has the highest accident rate and what site they want to see photo radar in. The police then do an assessment to determine what speed 85 percent of the population is driving. Then they assess where the tickets should be.
They are out to get the excessive speeder. Photo radar is not there to ticket anybody who is speeding a few miles over the limit but to get the excessive speeder. Tickets will not be issued for less than 11 kilometres over the speed limit. They determine what 85 percent of the people are doing, and between 11 and 19 kilometres over the speed
As I stated earlier, photo radar is there to get the excessive speeder, to get people to reduce their speed. The 85 percentile is done to make an assessment of what 85 percent of the people see as being a responsible speed limit.
R. Coleman: I have a number of questions and concerns related to section 6, as well. They relate back to the continuity and management of evidence for court purposes and having successful convictions. Earlier the minister alluded to the fact that the evidence was going to be handled the same as with all other police matters. First of all, I must submit that that is not correct. I'll give you an example of a piece of evidence that uses certification as evidence in court, and then maybe we can deal with how this continuity should be looked at.
If a person is charged under section 236 -- I believe that's still the section -- of the Criminal Code, which is blowing over the legal limit, the breathalyser technician at the time issues two certificates. One of the certificates deals with a standard alcohol solution test of the instrument itself, certifying the instrument, and the second certificate is a certificate that identifies the individual who blew over. Those are obviously not served when the person is intoxicated, but they are served on the individual as soon as is practicable for them to have evidence.
My first question to the minister therefore would be: is not this photo radar system capable of issuing the certificate at the time of the offence and having it delivered with the ticket?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess the system is capable of it, but I don't know why we would go to the expense of creating a certificate until such time as it is needed. It's not required until there is an actual dispute, until it actually goes to court.
[6:45]
R. Coleman: The reason that concern exists is this: if a policeman goes into court on any offence and he has to refer to his notes, the lawyer who is doing the cross-examination will ask the policeman when he made those notes. If he doesn't give the answer "as soon as possible after the time of the offence that the evidence occurred," chances are the admissibility of that evidence will be thrown out of court.
If a photo radar technician is asked a question like, "When did this offence take place," and he says January 1, 1996, and then is asked when he did the certificate, and he says he did it on June 30, 1996, the courts, I am sure, will ask the question: "Well, how can you be absolutely sure that it is the same vehicle, the same ticket and the same information to be able to certify that ticket?" The answer the policeman will give is: "I issued the ticket." The next question will be: "How many tickets have you issued in the last six months?" They will say there is a preponderance of breakdown in the possibility of the continuity of the evidence -- and that's my concern.
Hon. L. Boone: It hasn't been an issue anywhere else. This section of the bill does not preclude that from happening. This section of the bill merely allows for the authority to create, complete and sign evidentiary certificates electronically. As to when it may be signed, the police can change their policy to do that. It hasn't been a problem in other jurisdictions where photo radar has been in place.
R. Coleman: I'll bet it will become an issue here.
The next question I have for you is this: in your previous comments when I first came back into the chamber, you referred to something called photo radar. This bill doesn't refer to photo radar, it refers to electronic devices. I just wonder: is the camera we are dealing with the electronic device, or is it a combination of a radar system and a camera that we are referring to in this bill as the device? You don't actually identify it as radar in this particular bill, do you?
[ Page 772 ]
Hon. L. Boone: The camera is identified in section 5.
R. Coleman: I am aware of that. My question, though, is that we keep referring back to photo radar. I wonder where previous to this, or in this section, when we are referring to this certificate, that we are using the word "radar."
Hon. L. Boone: This section does not does not deal with cameras. It deals with the electronic creation of the evidentiary certificate, but it doesn't deal with the camera. The previous section dealt with the camera.
R. Coleman: That is correct, but my question
Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, I was answering the previous member's question even though it had nothing to do with the particular section that I was dealing with. I was humouring him just to answer his question.
R. Coleman: Okay, let's try it another way. There is a certificate issued under this section that is served on somebody as a piece of evidence when they go to court. Would the minister please tell me what is on the certificate? Does it identify: (a) the licence plate of the vehicle; (b) the registered owner; (c) the type of device, be it radar or laser; (d) the make of the camera that is used to accomplish that; and, if it's radar, (e) whether there is a tuning-fork certificate attached to the certificate identifying the fact that the radar itself has been certified for calibration?
Hon. L. Boone: There are two certificates. In one certificate, a qualified operator sets out how the camera was set up. The other is the certificate of photo evidence, which explains what's on the photo and the location of the photo.
R. Coleman: So there is no certificate that identifies the instrument that actually calculated the speed?
Hon. L. Boone: That's established in regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
R. Coleman: So the answer is no, there is no certificate on the piece of equipment that actually establishes the speed that's on the certificate?
Hon. L. Boone: The name is written on the certificate.
R. Coleman: So by identifying the name, I guess we are going to have to get into a technical discussion about the equipment somewhere in this bill -- because there are a variety of types of radar and laser equipment that detect speed, and there are actually some different methods of operation that they have. You will have to deal with that in court, because at some point in time people are going to plead not guilty.
In the explanatory comments of section 6 it says that "the person against whom the certificate is produced may cross-examine the enforcement officer who signed the certificate," which tells me that the person who signs the certificate, if the person pleads not guilty, must attend court. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: No, the police officer does not have to attend court.
R. Coleman: Then this section says:
"...provides that an enforcement officer may sign a completed certificate for the purpose of providing evidence of an offence under section 76.1 (2) or under a provision referred to in that section if evidence of the offence was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device, and the person against whom the certificate is produced may cross-examine the enforcement officer who signed the certificate."
If the police don't attend, who's the enforcement officer, if I get charged by photo radar, that I'm going to get the opportunity to cross-examine?
Hon. L. Boone: Section 6(a), section 76.2(4), states that "a person against whom a certificate under this section is produced may, with leave of the court, require the attendance of the enforcement officer who signed the certificate, for the purpose of cross-examination." The enforcement officer is not required to be there as a normal case of duties.
R. Coleman: I would advise anybody that's watching this tonight that gets a ticket from photo radar to make sure they get an opportunity to cross-examine the enforcement officer that supplies them with the ticket so they can find out whether the facts are actually true. That's going to happen. I'm convinced it's going to happen. If somebody phoned up my constituency office, I would say that you have the right to see your accuser and look your accuser in the eye.
That brings me to my next question. I guess you could say it's a threefold question. The first part of the question is: have you put a provision in your budget for photo radar for the summonses that you're going to have to be serving to people? Because it's going to take personal service to get them to react to your 45-day ticket. What overtime provisions have you allowed for RCMP and particularly city police officers, who have a collective bargaining agreement that provides them with a certain amount of overtime? This comes under the evidentiary fact of the certificate, so I think I'm in the right section. In addition to that, does the system have the capability to handle these hundreds and hundreds of not-guilty pleas that are going to be coming in from photo radar?
Hon. L. Boone: The information that we have is that in other jurisdictions 60 to 85 percent of the population pay their fines. We're hoping that they do so. We're hoping that they recognize that photo radar is there to reduce the speed and that they have in fact been caught speeding and breaking the law. I would think that you would think that that would be an admirable thing to do, to stop people from speeding excessively. As a former police officer, you ought to know that your members and the people you formerly worked with are very supportive of this and look for this as a means of reducing speed and keeping people safe on our highways. So I would urge the member to work with the government to encourage people to obey the law and not to speed; but if they do speed and break the law, they have a responsibility to pay their fines. I would hope you would do those things.
As to the dollars and all that kind of stuff, that is not part of this section, hon. member. We will be in our estimates at some point in time. This merely has to do with the electronic processing of the certificate. I hope that the Chair would recognize that this bill is a very limited bill. The debate on photo radar took place last year. You were not here, hon. member, but your colleague sitting to the right of you was and can tell you that this was voted on and passed in this House. This is merely dealing with the electronic transmittal of data and documents. So I would urge the member to please keep his comments relevant to this section.
[ Page 773 ]
R. Coleman: Frankly, I've been asking questions relevant to the section. I believe it's the minister that's not keeping her comments relevant to the section when she starts bringing my previous profession into a discussion relative to section 6 of this bill. I don't find that acceptable.
The fact of the matter is that if you talk to the people on the street, you might find a different story than you're going to find from the administrative body of any police force. Also, the fact of the matter is that I can tell you how preventive policing is done, and it's not done by sending somebody a ticket 45 days after the fact. I'm not going to get into that debate.
I have no more questions under this section -- we'll deal with it under section 23 -- but I ask the minister to apologize for bringing up my previous profession and questioning my integrity when all I was doing was asking a question about a section of a bill.
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. member, I didn't think that raising your previous occupation questioned your integrity. If you felt that was questioning your integrity, then I certainly apologize. But most former police officers I know are very proud of their profession and the job that they do.
[7:00]
Section 6 of Bill 10 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 35 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Petter | Miller | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Sihota | |
| Randall | Sawicki | Lali | |
| Doyle | Gillespie | Robertson | |
| Farnworth | Smallwood | Conroy | |
| McGregor | Janssen | ||
|
|
NAYS -- 28 | ||
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Farrell-Collins | Hurd | Sanders | |
| Plant | Coell | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | van Dongen | Thorpe | |
| Penner | Weisgerber | J. Wilson | |
| Hansen | C. Clark | Hawkins | |
| Symons | Abbott | Jarvis | |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Coleman | |
| Masi | McKinnon | Barisoff | |
| Neufeld | |||
Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
D. Jarvis: On section 14, with respect to the authority of the superintendent where he can "suspend, in specified circumstances, a driver's licence even after an imposed period of a zero blood alcohol condition has expired," could the minister give me a typical circumstance where this would apply?
Hon. L. Boone: This amendment ensures that new drivers who commit offences or violate the zero blood alcohol content condition, but who escape penalties by delaying conviction or through administration delays, can be suspended after exiting the program. If at the end of the two-year program for the novice driver, for some reason or other they have delayed going to court, they still can have their licence suspended after that. They can't use the delay of a court appearance as a way of getting around not dealing with their sentencing on this.
Section 14 approved.
On section 15.
D. Jarvis: Section 15(a) authorizes the superintendent of vehicles, not peace officers, to order the release of motor vehicles. Would this apply where there is evidence? What if the RCMP or some police officer has impounded the vehicle for evidence for some reason?
Hon. L. Boone: This is just for the impoundment of a vehicle, and it takes place only after the impoundment period has expired. Rather than having a police officer release the vehicle, it can now be done by the superintendent or an officer designated by the superintendent. The police are actually quite happy with this, because it was going to take some of their time and cause delays. This will make sure that people get their vehicles back faster if no delays are involved, because they will be able to go to a designate of the superintendent.
Sections 15 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
J. Weisgerber: We've moved along with such lightning speed that we're at the section where the minister originally indicated that the question of the necessity to serve the summons on an offender was covered in this act. I've looked at section 14 of the Offence Act. It's pretty clear that there is an obligation to serve someone with notice of a violation. I've looked at this amendment to the Offence Act, and I certainly don't see anything there that changes that. Could the minister confirm that there is still a requirement for anyone disputing a citation or a ticket to be served personally rather than by mail?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure of your exact question, but we went through this before, when you were out of the room, hon. member. What happens is that the ticket is served -- it is mailed -- and if somebody doesn't respond to that ticket within a period of time -- 45 days -- then they must be served in person. If they choose, they may
J. Weisgerber: I expect you hope and the authorities are hopeful that everyone will simply acknowledge the ticket sent by mail. But my understanding, from people who are very closely involved with the pilot project that went on in
[ Page 774 ]
question raised earlier by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, which suggests that this process isn't nearly as efficient as government agencies would have us believe, once you factor in the serving cost.
Hon. L. Boone: The pilot project that you talk about actually was included in our estimates for the response rates to the mail. So we're very hopeful that people will respond. But I can tell you that if they don't respond, they will be served. We will be very diligent in making sure that they are served. My experience is that people generally don't like having service processors at their door, their work or whatever it is. So I think people would prefer to obey the law. They know they've been caught. They've got their ticket. They've got their photo. They know they've been speeding. The majority of people that I know out there say: "Well, I'll just pay my dues and get on with it."
J. Weisgerber: Before dinner I read a couple of examples of individuals who not only knew they hadn't been caught but knew, indeed, that this information was dead wrong. So there really has to be some process for serving.
Can the minister advise me of the mechanism that her ministry and officials have developed for identifying vehicles from out of province and out of country, and how the minister intends to go about, first of all, getting the addresses for the purposes of mailing, as described under this section? Then perhaps we can explore how you go about serving someone in another jurisdiction.
Hon. L. Boone: There is an international shared database that we will be using to
J. Weisgerber: Whether they're from other provinces, other states or from
[7:15]
You've passed some legislation here that deems certain people to be owners. But I assume that the effect of previous sections of the legislation can only apply to someone in British Columbia who has rented an automobile and been deemed to be the owner for this -- for a lessee to have been deemed to be the owner. We're deeming ownership by this legislation and then issuing a ticket on that basis. It doesn't seem very probable that you can extend that to the many drivers from other jurisdictions who drive in British Columbia.
Hon. L. Boone: We will be mailing the tickets to them, and then we will be considering whether we will be using process servers to serve them. How you're going to be serving those individuals outside the province is really out of the scope of this bill.
J. Weisgerber: I entirely disagree with the minister about the scope of the legislation. The legislation lays out who the owner of a vehicle is, how that owner is described under section 5, lays out under section 6 how the documentation is to be developed, and lays out under section 22 and subsequent sections how that person is going to be served. It doesn't in any way say we're only talking about the people of British Columbia. It talks about the Motor Vehicle Act and its application in British Columbia. A fairly substantial percentage of the vehicles on our roads are from Washington State, Idaho, California, Alberta and on and on. I want to know if there is some process that ensures that others are going to be treated the same as British Columbians. Are you going to serve a rental car agency? Are you going to ticket a rental car agency in Washington State? Are you going to ticket a lessor who is shown on the registration as the owner in some other jurisdiction? I think that's entirely within the scope.
Hon. L. Boone: I already answered you. I said that we will be mailing the ticket to them and that we will consider using a process server. But those things will be worked out later on. We will definitely be mailing them. We have to figure out if it is worthwhile for us to use a process server to deal with tickets in New York State: how much it is going to cost us and what we will be bringing back. So those are the things that we will be dealing with on a case-by-case basis. But we will be mailing all the tickets to the individuals from across Canada and from the U.S.
J. Weisgerber: Just to confine the scope of the argument, perhaps the minister could tell us what the information leading up to the decision to introduce this bill has identified with respect to serving in the two most closely adjacent jurisdictions, Alberta and Washington State. What kinds of formulas, processes and arrangements are in place to serve the drivers and owners of vehicles in the two most immediately adjacent jurisdictions?
Hon. L. Boone: We will be using process-serving companies, who will have the capacity to use other process-serving companies in other jurisdictions.
J. Weisgerber: What comfort can the minister give us that this legislation will have any force in the two jurisdictions I just mentioned?
Hon. L. Boone: I guess they would have the same enforcement that any other ticket had. If somebody from Washington came up and got a ticket on our streets, they could either pay or not pay, as the case may be, and they would have to deal with it then. We would be dealing with
D. Jarvis: I don't want to belabour this,
My figures here are approximate. I think we still have about $137 million in fines outstanding somewhere in this province. I always thought that if
[ Page 775 ]
was going to say naïve, but I don't really mean naïve. It's a situation when we think that people are going to receive a ticket in the
Hon. L. Boone: You have to make sure that the person has actually been served with the ticket. If a person pays the ticket, then you know they've received it. But if I mailed you a ticket, there is no guarantee that you received it. It could have gone to the next-door neighbour; it could have gone to somebody else; it could have been picked up by the dog and been chewed -- who knows? -- any of these things. We can't just automatically say you've received your ticket and therefore we're going to fine you; we have to actually serve you with the ticket if you don't respond to it.
D. Jarvis: So that would apply with the certificate that the peace officer signs before mailing it out. If I get a ticket today for any kind of a violation, the officer has to sign that ticket. Your certificate that he sends out with it has a signature on it that he's gathered these all in and signed them. Does it -- on a
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the member was asking. Yes, the officer signs a ticket by the roadside, and now the ticket that you would get would be signed by the officer. It would be done after the picture was done. He or she would match the picture with the information that you have from motor vehicles which states that the licence plate is such and such, and who the owner is. That would be signed by the officer at that time.
Sections 22 to 28 inclusive approved.
On section 29.
G. Janssen: I rise under section 29 because it says: "Motor Vehicle Act." As an avid motorcyclist, considering that motorcyclists are far more exposed on the open roadway than vehicles and that that exposure leads to the size of the licence plate -- which proportionately is much larger on a motorcycle than it is on a motor vehicle, a car -- I wonder, considering that photo radar is coming in, if the minister had given any consideration to reducing the size of the motorcycle licence plate to approximately one quarter of its present size?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
Sections 29 to 38 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. L. Boone: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.
Bill 10, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, reported complete with amendment.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 10, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 4.
The House in committee on Bill 4; G. Brewin in the chair.
[7:30]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: Madam Chair, I don't want to let section 2 pass without making the observation that jobs are the most important thing in this province. Clearly, the income tax rates for entrepreneurs who see themselves in later years, as their businesses succeed, making good incomes are not encouraged by the fact that British Columbia has, at the top end, the highest tax rates in Canada. I questioned that at one point. I sat down and actually worked them all out. If you get into astronomical salaries, we in British Columbia hit the peak, and it's done through the surtax.
I'm not standing here to argue about a progressive taxation system. Both sides of the House believe that jobs are important, and I'd like to suggest to the minister that next year -- if they're still in office and they bring in further tax reductions -- they really should think about creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurship.
With that, I'm happy to let section 2 pass.
J. Weisgerber: Madam Chair, unlike my friend from Delta South, I haven't gone through and done all the calculations. I'm wondering if the minister can confirm, with these new formulas under section 2, if there are any income brackets in British Columbia where in fact the taxpayer winds up paying more tax with this formula than they did prior to the introduction of this bill.
Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that if one had an income in excess of $1.4 million, at that point the flattening out and clawback would marginally exceed the benefit of the tax rate. The idea here was to flatten out the benefit at $80,000. However, the administrative means by which that is available are such that you can't do it absolutely as a flat line. You have to do it as a slightly descending line. I take it from staff that when you project it out in excess of an income of $1.4 million -- if there's anyone who's in that happy situation -- you actually get a marginal increase.
J. Weisgerber: For the benefit of tax accountants and others who may want to look at this, it would be safe to say that anyone in British Columbia with a taxable income of $1 million a year or less will in fact see a tax reduction as a result of the introduction of this legislation.
[ Page 776 ]
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct, hon. Chair.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
F. Gingell: I would just like it to be recorded in Hansard again -- and I'm sure the member for Peace River South will join me -- that we thoroughly support the reduction of the small business corporate tax rate to 9 percent. But let us all recognize that it was this government that increased it to 10 percent from the earlier 9 percent.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
F. Gingell: We got into a discussion on the night that we debated this in second reading, and I pointed
I've only had one phone call on the issue, from a CGA who operates an accounting practice in South Delta that looks after small business. What I did was fax all of Bill 4 to this lady, which was not a big deal. I got a phone call back from her. She picked this up after happening to flick through the channels and seeing us have the second reading debate.
Your commissioner of income tax and your policy man on the other side have worked in government for many years. I haven't been in public practice for many, many years -- 25 years -- and we don't sometimes have an appreciation of the world that is real. I can tell you that the CGA practising in Delta South, who has lots of little clients, doesn't see this as being real.
The real problem is this: the majority of small businesses start as a proprietorship or a partnership. After a little time, whilst they get started, they've saved up enough money -- it used to be $400 to $500 in my day, but I guess it's now $800 to $1,000 -- to incorporate. The business is still starting. The ownership hasn't changed -- not really; it has changed factually. But my understanding of section 4 is that you've put in a restriction that the incorporation must take place within 90 days or, more practically, it must start off as a corporation.
Now, Mr. Minister, if you decided after you are defeated in the next election to go into the grass-cutting business in Saanich South, you wouldn't go off and incorporate a company. You would take the $500 you've saved and you wouldn't spend it on incorporating a company; you'd spend it on a good lawnmower. That's the way businesses are. What bothers me is that you've surrounded this provision -- which is a good idea, and I don't have any problem with the public policy issue -- with so many ifs, ands, or buts -- "got to get permission from the commissioner" and all those kinds of things -- that you're going to lose the real benefit.
So I'd like to suggest what I suggested to you in second reading in the hope that there would be an amendment tabled by yourself, because my experience with amendments proposed by the opposition is they don't have much chance of success. I was hoping that you would propose an amendment that would lengthen the time between the start of the business and the incorporation of it into a company, because with the difficult provisions of the Income Tax Act you can only make this applicable to corporations. To make it applicable to individuals or to partnerships would be very difficult and would cause all kinds of administrative problems. Recognizing that it is for corporations only, I would really like to have seen you make the transition from proprietorship or partnership to corporation more encompassing of the exemption that you're intending to give to new businesses starting up.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion for future career opportunities. No doubt he made that observation knowing that I'm not the kind of person who would let the grass grow under my feet. That being said, let me just respond to a few of the points he made.
First of all, the reason it applies to corporations is simply a matter of the administration of the tax system and the requirements that Revenue Canada has for that administration. Far from not being realistic, this provision is based on provisions that have been used in other provinces -- such as Nova Scotia, in particular -- which, I understand, have been effective in the experience of those provinces. We anticipate that about 2,000 new small businesses may qualify for this tax holiday annually and that the annual cost is estimated to be $5 million, with benefits ranging up to $18,000 per corporation per year.
I'm informed that the reason for there being a grace period, and for it being of the duration that it is, is that one wants to allow those who are individual proprietors to have a reasonable period to take advantage of this holiday, if they so choose -- recognizing that there may be tax advantages to being an individual proprietor and not wanting to encourage people to, in a sense, benefit on both sides of the fence by sitting on their proprietorship for tax advantage and then, through a long grace period, moving over and taking advantage of this holiday. It's always a question of: is the period right? Is it too long or is it too short? The advice I received is that 90 days is a reasonable period to allow for incorporation for those who may wish to take advantage of this provision, without allowing for that kind of double benefit or abuse of the provision.
F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest that the thing an individual thinks about most for the first 90 days is getting the damn business started: collecting their receivables and paying their bills. Ninety days, three months, is a very short period of time.
[7:45]
I appreciate the size of the tax expenditures, if we could refer to it as such, that you anticipate resulting from these changes. Perhaps in next year's budget the minister could report -- if it's not too soon -- on the amount of savings that have accrued to this point and give consideration to an amendment at that time. That might extend this. There is a tax expenditure section in the budget reports.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll simply say that I'm always anxious to review the effectiveness of measures that are undertaken. I will be happy to report back to the member and to consider how the program is developing and changes we can make to improve it, if necessary, at that time.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper.
[ Page 777 ]
[SECTION 6, by deleting the proposed section 50.1 and substituting the following:Information-sharing agreements
(1) In this section, "information-sharing agreement" includes a data-matching agreement, but does not include an agreement to share
(a) information obtained by the Provincial minister for the purposes of another Act administered by that minister, or
(b) information obtained by the Provincial minister pursuant to an agreement under this section, except an agreement with the government of Canada relating to income tax.
(2) With the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the Provincial minister may, for the purposes set out in subsection (3), enter into an information-sharing agreement with any of the following:
(a) the government of Canada or an agency of that government;
(b) the government of a province or other jurisdiction in Canada or an agency of that province or other jurisdiction;
(c) a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
(3) An information sharing agreement may be entered into for the purposes of
(a) the administration of this Act, the federal Act or an Act of another jurisdiction in Canada relating to income tax, or
(b) the administration of a social benefit program operated by a government, agency or public body referred to in subsection (2).
(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe terms and conditions that are to be included in information agreements entered into by the Provincial minister.]
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: This amendment is an effort, I think, to respond to concerns that I have had about the original wording of the provision and also those expressed by others, including members of the opposition, flowing from consultations with the Civil Liberties Association and with the privacy commissioner. I provided to the critic whose chief interest is in this area some of the correspondence between my officials and those of the privacy commissioner. Essentially, I think the concern was that the provision as originally drafted might be overly broad. While there was plenty of good argument on the part of the government counsel that the interpretation need not be that broad, out of an abundance of caution I felt that we should amend the wording to make it clear that this provision was limited to the sharing of information with respect to information gathered under the Income Tax Act; that we specify that the purposes to which that information may be put are limited to tax purposes or purposes relating to social benefit legislation.
There was previously a suggestion of information being shared outside of this country. That has been removed. There was a suggestion of information being shared with officials. That has been removed. So there has been a general tightening up of this provision in a way that I think corresponds to the concerns expressed by many, and shared by myself, that when one is dealing with the trading of information and privacy concerns, one should err on the side of being clear and well defined, and contained and narrow in favour of privacy. I think these amendments reflect that concern. I want to report to the House that discussions with the privacy commissioner's office suggest that that office is now satisfied that these amendments do reflect the concerns expressed by the privacy commissioner.
In addition to the amendments, there has been an exchange of correspondence with the privacy commissioner which I think is helpful as well, because it confirms that we will be incorporating in the information-sharing agreements reference to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act to ensure that those who receive information are cognizant of our privacy expectations and requirements. We have also undertaken to work with the privacy commissioner in reviewing such agreements. We have also included a provision in subsection (4) which may be useful to enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe terms and conditions to be included in information agreements that will give effect to some of those recommendations.
I speak generally to these changes. I hope they are well received. I think they reflect a well-founded concern that we all have to protect privacy, on the one hand, while allowing for the appropriate sharing of information to administer taxation statutes and to ensure that those statutes and other statutes -- social benefit legislation -- are well administered in the interests of all British Columbians.
G. Plant: I rise to speak generally in support of the amendment. I want to begin by saying that I think the amendment which has been introduced is a significant improvement over the section as it previously existed.
I don't want to restate all of the concerns that motivated me some weeks ago to bring this provision to the attention of the Civil Liberties Association and the privacy commissioner, but broadly speaking, I think government needs to do more, and we need to be reminded as members of society of the importance of personal privacy. I think the section as it previously stood raised several different categories of concern about giving government too much power to interfere with personal privacy, more or less along the lines that the minister has outlined. There was concern that the power granted was too broad. I think that in large measure, with one small point that I'll deal with in a minute, that concern is adequately addressed in this amendment.
For my part, however, there is also a concern about public accountability. I think that if we are going to give government the power to make agreements which will have the effect of infringing on personal privacy rights, we should do so in as public a way as possible. I think the best way to do that is by a mechanism that ensures legislatively that the information and privacy commissioner is involved in -- or at least informed about, and if he wishes, involved in -- any attempt to enter into an agreement of this nature. I'll have more to say about that point in just a minute.
Before I talk about those two points I want to say that I think it is difficult to overstate the importance of this issue. My sense is that technology and, shall we say, the complexity of government have brought us to a point where governments are capable and we as a society are capable of infringing personal privacy in ways that we don't even yet fully understand the implications of. When we see here, in the first couple of bills that are brought before the House in this session, sections that are intended to give government power to make agreements that will have the effect of infringing privacy, then I think there's some cause for general concern.
In that regard, I have to say that having scanned the bills that are already before us on the order paper for debate but have not yet been debated, at least at the committee stage, I note that in Bill 11, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act, there is also an information-sharing provision which defines the term "information sharing agreement" in similarly offensive ways -- that is, an open-ended way. I understand that those who draft the provision expect that they will never abuse the
[ Page 778 ]
power that they're given. But frankly, I think it's our job here in the Legislature not just to accept those assurances, but to take active steps to make sure that the opportunity to abuse these powers doesn't arise.
With that general context, let me say a little bit more about two continuing concerns. The first is the extent to which this amendment confines the scope of the agreements. I said that I generally agree with what it does. I have a lingering concern with respect to section 3(b) of the amendment because the term "social benefit program" is, to my knowledge, not a term that is defined statutorily anywhere. It's a term that most people would probably agree about the content of in most cases. Again, my concern, speaking here as a legislator, is hardly ever with what it is that people will agree about -- most of the time about most things -- but rather, what with the problems are going to be when people disagree about what that means. I think that the intent here is a good intent. I think that the amendment goes quite a ways down the pike to alleviate my concern. But I still have a bit of a lingering problem with the fact that that term -- social benefit program -- is a pretty expensive one and could allow for people to use it creatively beyond my own comfort zone and perhaps the comfort zone of other people interested in this.
I think there's a way to deal with that -- which leads to the second respect in which I think this amendment is incomplete or deficient -- and that is to legislatively implement an accountability process. I heard what the minister said, in introducing the amendment, about the discussions and the correspondence that he and his staff have had with the office of the commissioner, and I'm glad to hear that those discussions are taking place. I've read the correspondence. Frankly, I think that the letters do go some distance -- in fact, quite a considerable distance -- to addressing the concerns. Letters are perhaps less ephemeral than ministers, but they're certainly less durable than statutes. I think that this is an important enough question, particularly given the fact that, as I alluded to earlier, similar provisions are now looming in other bills that we will come to debate, and I think it's an important enough occasion, that we should set a precedent. I think the precedent we should set is to implement, legislatively, a form of accountability that requires government to submit these proposed agreements to the information and privacy commissioner for public comment prior to entering into them.
I intend to say something more about that subject in due course, because I have an amendment to make in that regard. I want, however, to identify it as a continuing concern in relation to the amendment which the minister has made. In conclusion, I want to say again that I think this is a good indication of how, in important circumstances, people on the government side can in fact work cooperatively with people on the other side. I hope that occasions for that will arise in the future, and I support the amendment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to add my words to those of the member for Richmond-Steveston -- certainly not nearly as eloquently nor as technically precise -- to thank the minister for taking seriously the concerns that were raised in second reading. It doesn't always happen that way, and I'm glad to see that in this case it did.
I think the bill will be substantially better, given the change in this section that was brought about as a result of the issues raised by the opposition and others, and the positive way that the minister approached it from day one. I think there should be more of that in here. I think it's a very good sign, and I'd like to congratulate the minister for doing so. I'll sit down before I get carried away with myself.
[8:00]
Amendment approved.
On section 6 as amended.
G. Plant: I rise to propose an amendment to section 6 of the bill as amended. I have actually filed on the table a copy of the proposed amendment, but I think I'll read it. It's a proposal to amend section 6 of the Income Tax Amendment Act.
[SECTION 6, as amended, by renumbering section 50.1(4) to be section 50.1(5) and the insertion of a new section 50.1(4) as follows:(4) The Provincial minister shall not enter into an information sharing agreement unless a copy of the proposed agreement has been provided to the Information and Privacy Commissioner for public comment at least sixty (60) days beforehand.]
The Chair: You may speak to the amendment if you like. Carry on.
On the amendment.
G. Plant: I wanted to be sure the amendment was in order.
Interjections.
G. Plant: People have said that there's no order in what I say anyway, but enough of that false humility.
I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Here is the amendment. I spoke earlier about the importance of accountability and the importance of making public the process by which government enters into information-sharing agreements. The intent of the amendment is to do that -- that is, to create a process through which the government becomes publicly accountable for the agreements that it wishes to enter into. It uses as the mechanism for that the information and privacy commissioner, because he is the person who, as an officer of this Legislature and as charged by statute, has that duty. It is his job to act as a watchdog for the decisions which people in this House, as government, make decisions which may have implications for either freedom of information or, in this case, protection of personal privacy.
In that context, I want to draw members' attention to section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It says, among other things: "In addition to the commissioner's powers and
Now, I refer to those sections to do a couple of things. First of all, it is to make the technical point that that which we seek to ask the privacy commissioner to do, he is empowered to do. So there's a technical point. The second point is a more substantive point, which is to say that that which we seek to do in this amendment is the very thing that the commissioner is set up to do. What we're saying is that when the government proposes to do things like link records or enter into agreements to share information that may infringe on privacy
[ Page 779 ]
rights, then the information and privacy commissioner is there -- and he ought to be there -- to have a look at those agreements.
Now, you could say that the commissioner already has the power to do these things, so why do we need the amendment? What I say in answer to that is that we need the amendment in order to ensure that government provides copies of these proposed agreements, which would not otherwise become public documents, to the information and privacy commissioner to give him the chance to commence. It compels government to do that which it ought to do, in any event, but which it does not always do.
I know, again, that the minister will probably refer to the correspondence that he has had with the office of the commissioner. I appreciate the intent of that correspondence, but the point of this amendment is to create a durable and lasting accountability mechanism, which I say will improve the protection afforded by what we've just done in confining the terms of section 50.1.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me say at the outset that I do appreciate the spirit of the amendment, and I appreciate the spirit of some of the comments made by the members opposite. They reflect my own sense that too often in this House we engage in gratuitous debate when there aren't many times when there are opportunities for us to find common cause. I think we have in respect of this matter.
I'm going to oppose this amendment. I did consider this matter, obviously, in preparing the amendments I brought before the House today and decided not to proceed with an amendment of this kind. Let me explain why. There are essentially three reasons why I don't think it would be appropriate to approve this amendment -- although I don't disagree with the intent of it, as I think will be clear from the first reason, which the member has already alluded to. That is that during the discussions with the information and privacy commissioner, and in follow-up correspondence, we have in fact undertaken to review with his office both existing and new information-sharing agreements. That was part of the understanding. So the commitment is already there.
The second reason is actually the flip side of the member's own reason. There is a danger in saying in respect of one particular concern that we're going to legislate it, because the implication is that the concern regarding privacy is less worthy of concern in respect of other acts. In other words, I think there are many different statutes that may raise concerns about privacy. It should be the responsibility of legislators and of executive members to consult with the privacy commissioner from time to time around those. I would hate to think that the inclusion of an explicit requirement to do so would be taken as some kind of signal that there was any less of an obligation or an expectation that members of the Legislature or of the executive council would consult the privacy commissioner in other cases.
So I guess I'm saying there is a danger, when you commit in one piece of legislation an explicit requirement, that the implication that's taken is not that the requirement must be adhered to -- because indeed we've already done that in our letter -- but rather that in respect of other legislation, because there is not such an explicit undertaking, there is less of an expectation. So I worry about formalizing in legislation these kinds of process requirements, lest they be taken as diminishing the expectation elsewhere.
The third reason is that, as I understand the discussions from the privacy commissioner, he never requested that this be reduced to legislation. There may be an explanation for that. As I understand it, he is expecting to pay fairly close scrutiny to the initial agreements. Then perhaps as the ministry becomes acquainted with his concerns and requirements, the degree of scrutiny can be lessened. So there is a concern that he be given the flexibility to scrutinize these agreements in the way that he wishes. I worry as well about a 60-day rule that would perhaps unnecessarily tie the hands of government when the privacy commissioner may well be satisfied within a period a lot less than that.
But at the end of the day there is at times a danger in being overly specific, overly prescriptive. If there is goodwill and intention to observe the requirements of privacy, then I think that will prevail. If there isn't, then no amount of legislation can assist. In this case, I believe the balance that we have found through correspondence and oral communications with the privacy commissioner, and reflected in the letters that I've shared with the member, meet the test. While I agree with the spirit of what the member is saying, I think that spirit will be observed and is already contained in those letters.
G. Plant: I want to make some comments in response to the points made by the hon. minister and perhaps deal with them in the order in which he made them. I understand the first point that the commitment to undertake this review is already there. But I'm concerned that it's what I think Mary Poppins called a piecrust promise -- easily made and easily broken. I don't in any way question the good faith of either party to the commitment. It's simply the fact that some commitments are too important to be made in the way that is proposed to make this commitment. But that's not really a point of much concern, listening to what the minister has said.
The minister's second point was that there's a danger in making explicit here that which is not made explicit anywhere else, because it may tilt the balance in interpreting the provisions in other statutes which would not contain the same express requirement. I think I understand the point of the suggestion, but it doesn't persuade me, because I think that's a point which speaks to the defect in the other acts rather than to what we're trying to do here, which is to fix this one. If, in fixing this one, we identify a concern that exists elsewhere, I think the answer is to fix it elsewhere rather than to avoid fixing it here. I fully understand the interpretive issues that arise when people try to construe these acts, but I'm not sure that the kind of obligation that we're considering imposing here is the kind of obligation that really would give rise to the concern that the minister is speaking to.
The minister also said that the privacy commissioner didn't ask for this. I know that's so, but I also know that the privacy commissioner wasn't told that this section was in the bill and wasn't shown this section in the bill until after it had been read here in this House for the first time. I understand that his office had been consulted in a very general way with respect to privacy issues arising in these acts, but he hadn't seen this section. Because of the way the legislative process seems to work, he, like the rest of us, didn't have a whole lot of time to think about this. If he didn't think that he wanted any more than that, I'm quite happy to second-guess his views in that regard because I think that we do need something more permanent and, in particular, something that would outlast his own tenure in that chair.
I don't think this unfairly ties the hands of government. I think what it does is give appropriate recognition to a concern that really is beyond simply a concern; it's almost a fundamental premise on which governments should operate. There is no danger in being overly specific here. That is exactly how
[ Page 780 ]
government ought to be limited when it wants to infringe privacy; it ought to do so in a very limited, specific way. What the existing amendment does is strike a balance in order to give the bureaucrats enough of a free hand to make the agreements they want to make. We already give up something in terms of what I think of as the legitimate expectation of personal privacy rights. I'm not in favour of trading any more of that away without entrenching on a durable and permanent basis an obligation to put this into the public sphere and to give it to the information and privacy commissioner to comment on.
If he thinks he only needs five days to comment, he can do that. If he needs 24 hours, he can do that. If he needs 60 days -- which is enough time, I think, to look at one of these things and understand it properly -- this gives him that right. If he doesn't want to look at the third one as hard as he wants to look at the first one, that's his right. I say that because there's nothing in the proposed section that requires him to spend any time looking at it. It does require government to give the agreement to him and to let him look at it and make the decision -- and to them make the decision, if he wants, to comment publicly. He can do that on his terms -- and I'm quite happy with that -- but I think that it's necessary to impose that requirement on government.
Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to prolong what is coming dangerously close to becoming a lawyers' debate -- although on this side simply a law professor's debate, of course, something of lesser value. I would just say three real quick points. First of all, I don't think it is legitimate to refer to this as a "piecrust promise." Certainly I don't think that's how the information and privacy commissioner views it; his correspondence indicates that he views it in a more serious and enduring vein than that.
[8:15]
Secondly, I don't disagree that it's a fundamental premise that legislatures and members of the executive should be concerned about privacy in all legislation. That's indeed my point, that other agreements and other legislation should be no less required to be treated with the same sensitivity than this. If the member is saying we put it in all legislation, then maybe that's a different matter; but I don't understand how putting it in one piece of legislation doesn't diminish the sense of obligation elsewhere.
Thirdly, whatever the member may say, this would tie the
So for all of those
F. Gingell: I'm hoping I can say a couple of words that will encourage the minister to not only support it in spirit but to support it in fact. Both sides of this House believe that the role of government is to create good governance, and we move towards that in a manner that, to many of us, seems like a snail's pace.
Whenever you bring in a new function like the information and privacy commissioner, there is no way that you go back and review every single act that's been brought in to the province of British Columbia in our 125 years of existence and make all the amendments that are necessary to reflect this new opportunity for a better, accountable process and system to fit within that act. That doesn't mean to say that we shouldn't be taking every opportunity there is to make those improvements. Don't turn this down because it isn't in other acts. That's a terrible mistake.
As these things occur to us, as you bring up amendments to various statutes where we suddenly realize, both government and opposition members, that there's an opportunity to improve the accountability and protection of our citizens through recognizing a role that the information and privacy commissioner can play, then we should do it. Don't not do it in one because you haven't got it in all the others. That won't move us to good governance; that will just leave us standing still.
This is not a big issue, but I do suggest that it's an opportunity for us to take a small step in the right direction. It would be a mistake for the government not to take that step. That indicates that you have closed yourselves to all the opportunities that will come along in the future because you can't put into a myriad of
We have appointed a privacy and information commissioner who has the trust of this House, and I would suggest to you that he will recognize his responsibility. When he's dealing with the third instance of something that he's dealt with before, it will be dealt with promptly and sensibly. We trust the person that we appointed to fulfil this role to fulfil his responsibilities in a responsible manner that recognizes the needs of government to be able to move ahead on the arrangements that they make.
So one last plea, Mr. Minister. You have an opportunity, I think, to really move the accountability and the protection of citizens forward by supporting this amendment, and I plead with you to do so.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 31 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid |
| Farrell-Collins | Hurd | Sanders |
| Plant | Stephens | de Jong |
| Cole | Anderson | Nebbeling |
| Whittred | van Dongen | Thorpe |
| Penner | J. Wilson | Reitsma |
| Hansen | C. Clark | Hawkins |
| Symons | Abbott | Jarvis |
| Weisbeck | Chong | Coleman |
| Masi | McKinnon | Krueger |
| Barisoff | ||
|
NAYS -- 37 | ||
| Neufeld | Weisgerber | Evans |
| Zirnhelt | Cashore | Boone |
| Hammell | Streifel | Ramsey |
| Kwan | Waddell | Calendino |
| Pullinger | Stevenson | Bowbrick |
| Goodacre | Giesbrecht | Walsh |
| Kasper | Orcherton | Hartley |
| Petter | Miller | Dosanjh |
| MacPhail | Sihota | Randall |
| Sawicki | Lali | Doyle |
| Gillespie | Robertson | Farnworth |
| Smallwood | Conroy | McGregor |
| Janssen | ||
[ Page 781 ]
Section 6 as amended approved.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:(2) Section 3 is deemed to have come into force on July 1, 1996.]
Amendment approved.
Section 8 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
[8:30]
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1996, reported complete with amendments.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. A. Petter: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1966, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 12.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Creating employment opportunities for forest workers is a fundamental objective of this government and of Forest Renewal B.C. In March, Premier Clark announced the target of 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector over the next five years. This target will be achieved by getting more benefits and jobs for every tree cut on public land and through new jobs in the timber accord with industry. Forest Renewal B.C. was created to make possible a smooth transition to a renewed forest sector that is environmentally and economically sustainable. Ensuring that the existing pool of forest workers is included in this transition is a key part of making this plan work.
Forest Renewal B.C.'s role in this transition is absolutely critical to our success, which is why this government would not do anything to jeopardize its ability to do the job. Forest Renewal B.C. has been built carefully to ensure that it has the right programs and the right investments to help the forest sector workers and communities through this transition to a renewed forest, and that building process will continue. This past February the Forest Renewal B.C. board directed staff to give first priority funding to land-based project proposals that would employ displaced forest workers. However, particularly on Vancouver Island and in other areas with land use plans, there is a need for further action to keep the existing pool of forest workers working. That's why this government has tabled Bill 12 -- to make amendments to the B.C. Forest Renewal Act to allow for additional assistance and support to displaced or underemployed forest workers.
Bill 12 will give displaced forest workers first priority hiring on Forest Renewal B.C.-funded projects. Forest workers will be eligible for priority placement if they have lost jobs, faced layoffs or have a reduced work year. B.C. cannot afford to lose the knowledge and experience that these workers have to offer. Forest-dependent communities can't afford to lose their contribution to local communities and economies. This bill will protect working people, their families and their communities.
This bill also provides for the establishment of an agency which will match eligible B.C. forest workers with jobs on Forest Renewal B.C. projects. The new agency will take the role of existing forest and resource jobs commissioners a step further and extend their type of service to more workers. Workers will be able to register with the agency, which will assess the skills of the workers and match those workers with Forest Renewal B.C.-funded projects offering work opportunities. Where new skills are needed to match workers with FRBC project opportunities, the new agency can help place those workers in appropriate training programs.
In keeping with this government's commitment to work with stakeholders in the forest sector, implementation of a direction contained in this bill will be guided by consultation with key forest sector stakeholders, who will have an opportunity to provide input and to understand how the direction in Bill 12 will affect them. Stakeholders will provide input on how the agency's activities could interface with provisions in the forest industry's collective agreements, how workers could register and other activities of the agency. The forest worker agency will require some resources to operate, and while it is not anticipated that there would be a large infrastructure required, the resources actually required will depend on the final shaping of the agency after consultation with Forest Renewal B.C. stakeholders.
This bill builds on a resolution passed by the Forest Renewal board back in February which gave displaced workers priority in areas of high unemployment. Bill 12 builds on this government's commitment to forest workers and their families by establishing their priority for Forest Renewal B.C. employment. I move second reading of Bill 12.
J. Wilson: We live in a province where we have an almost unlimited amount of opportunity. It seems sad to arrive at a state where we do find unemployed forest workers. Four years ago we were told by this government: "Not one forest worker will be displaced." Unfortunately, today we have arrived at a situation where many forest workers will be displaced. The opposition must take the position that we are in agreement with second reading of this bill because it would be wrong not to provide employment for people who have been forced out of a job situation -- or training, as far as that goes. However, we have some major concerns with this bill, and we would like to put the minister on notice so that we can address these in the committee stage.
[ Page 782 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'm going to rise and speak in opposition to the bill. I believe this bill goes much further than any reasonable person would believe necessary in order to accomplish what the minister outlines.
I'd like to ask, at least in a general way, about young people in forest-dependent communities who can't get a first job because of reductions in forest activity. Are those young British Columbians less entitled to employment opportunities than someone whose job may be threatened or may be facing reduced time? I don't think so.
Earlier today we heard the Minister of Education talking about the critical problem in this province with young workers aged 19 to 25 who find themselves unable to get jobs or find opportunities, and we're putting restrictions on social assistance opportunities for them. I don't have any argument with the need to provide some discipline, but I can tell you that I'm offended by the notion that this government would take $400 million a year, almost $1 billion, in revenue from the forest industry, put it into a fund and then legislate the fact that forestry workers are going to have priority.
Mr. Speaker, what about the very real problem of aboriginal people looking for opportunities in areas such as environmental enhancements which are a direct result of forestry activity and directly covered by the legislation that established Forest Renewal B.C.? The minister rises in this House and says that he's going to deny equal opportunity for aboriginal people to get work on a Forest Renewal-funded project. I can't believe what I'm hearing. I can't believe that this government would set out deliberately to disadvantage young workers, aboriginal workers and people who live in the community that's most directly affected and the beneficiary of a project funded under Forest Renewal.
It wasn't long ago that I sat down in my constituency office to write a letter of support for an aboriginal group who were making application for their members to put a project forward.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: It's interesting to hear the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith heckling the notion that I would be opposed to denying aboriginal people an opportunity to work on a project funded by Forest Renewal B.C. I can't believe for a minute that that member would say that and that this minister would be so unthinking in his rush to bring in some legislation to satisfy some special interests that have driven this agenda and this silly piece of legislation that's coming forward. If indeed Forest Renewal wants to set policy, let them set it. You don't need to come to this Legislature and make a show of presenting a little, skinny, one-page bill in order to give priority to a group of people that you depend on for votes. That's what this is all about.
It seems to me that the minister, at the very least, owes this Legislature an explanation of the circumstances leading up to this legislation. What events happened that made it impossible for Forest Renewal B.C. to implement the policy the minister says they adopted six or eight months ago? Why was legislation necessary? Why didn't Forest Renewal B.C. simply impose or implement a policy that they had established? I particularly want to hear from the minister how he can rationalize denying young people in his community equal access to jobs on projects funded by Forest Renewal B.C., and I want to hear him explain at the same time how he can rationalize denying aboriginal people equal access to projects funded by Forest Renewal B.C. that may well be designed to mitigate damages to those first nations people as a result of forestry activity.
I'm surprised, quite honestly, to hear the Liberal opposition say that they support the legislation. This legislation is discriminatory, and it discriminates against the very groups in society that I hear this government talk about having a commitment to -- young workers and aboriginal workers. If I happen to be all alone, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you I will vote against this legislation, because the underlying principle of this bill is fundamentally wrong. It is bad legislation that has simply been the knee-jerk reaction of the Minister of Forests to some interest groups that he has long represented.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to enter into the debate about the amendment to the Forest Renewal Act. I'm aware that when the briefing was held for the bill, the ministry and the minister had some problem defining exactly what a forestry worker was, and that is one issue we really need to flesh out in committee. When you look at the employment profile in the forest industry, we have always traditionally talked about direct and indirect jobs, and I think the ratio has traditionally been three indirect jobs to every one that's a direct job.
One of the concerns about the environment and the land use planning process in the province has been that those indirect jobs have been largely forgotten in the province -- the people who supply contract services to the forest industry and people whose businesses may bring them in contact with the forest industry at, say, 50 or 60 percent of their total business volume. Those people have never really been factored in to the government's employment profile. When you look at the intent of this legislation, it's designed to deal with the concern that the government has heard from IWA members who have expressed real concerns to the government about the pace of Forest Renewal funding that's been available for retraining.
The government made a big show of appointing forest jobs commissioners. There was one appointed in the Kootenays, I know, and one on Vancouver Island. The Premier of the day assured British Columbians that those forest jobs commissioners would be like the Maytag repairman; they would be the loneliest people in town -- and they were, at the time, because they had a differing view of the term "layoff." On Vancouver Island, as I recall, if you were on indefinite layoff, you weren't actually terminated, according to the jobs commissioner. We had incidents where members were on a indefinite layoff that stretched into months and years, and they might have worked one or two months out of the current year. According to the jobs commissioner of the day, they were still technically employed.
[8:45]
I certainly welcome discussing with the minister in committee stage the nature of what he means by forestry worker. Clearly, the minister will be aware that one of the big concerns about pushing IWA members back into silvicultural work has always been that the work has been competitive, piecemeal work generally awarded to British Columbians with strong backs and an ability to plant many trees in the course of an hour. It's really a young person's work. I know there has been a great deal of concern expressed by people in the silviculture industry, which is based on competitive performance, that Forest Renewal funds may in fact be pushing older forestry workers into those types of jobs, and that productivity may decrease and the taxpayers may not be getting the benefit of sound forestry work based on volume and competitive tendering. I know the minister has heard from people in the silviculture industry who are very concerned about job
[ Page 783 ]
retraining programs and how they may impact that very competitive industry -- which, again, is based on performance and reaching certain contracts.
For example, I'm aware that private silviculture contractors on Vancouver Island approached this government -- the deputy minister -- and expressed real concerns about how Forest Renewal was dealing with the silviculture industry, and about the fact that the standards for work done under Forest Renewal B.C. were far less than they were for ministry stands or other public stands in the province. So if we're subsidizing work, and if part of the mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. is to spend money as a job subsidy instead of based on performance, there's a concern there as well.
I know the ministry got a lot of heat from forestry workers in Clayoquot Sound who, as I indicated earlier, fell into that category of being idled by the absence of issued cutting permits but being technically still employed, according to the jobs commissioner of the day. The House committee on which I served, the Select Standing Committee on Forests, stands charged, as the minister knows, with reviewing the annual business plan of Forest Renewal B.C. That committee asked the auditor general to review the Clayoquot Sound decision by Forest Renewal B.C. to pay forestry workers for doing nothing, in essence, at that particular time.
So clearly there are some issues here that have to be fleshed out. Is this a bill that is really designed to take care of unionized forest workers in the province? Is it a bill that will deal with those indirect employees who may find themselves out of work as a result of cutbacks by the licensee, which they might have dealt with as a business? Are those workers to be in any way retrained or helped by Forest Renewal B.C.?
I think the leader of the Reform Party has quite correctly identified that there are people who would like to be active in forest-dependent communities but have never been able to get into the race at all; they may have worked summers and have a desire to have a career in the industry in some way. Will they be helped? Or is this just a bill designed to help the unionized friends of the government who may find themselves out of work as a result of delays in cutting permits?
Those are the kinds of issues I'd certainly like to hear the minister discuss in his closing remarks and in committee stage, because when the annual allowable harvest comes down in the province, and when there is a reduction in the amount of wood volumes harvested, clearly the impacts are on a broad spectrum of people, not just on people who may be directly employed by a mill or have a job in the woods as a logger. As the minister well knows, it could be woodlot owners or people who might have harvested a small amount of timber off private land; it could be a whole range of individuals. I'll be seeking assurance from the minister in committee that this bill will be of assistance to all who may find themselves idled or out of work as the result of a reduction in the amount of harvest levels in the province.
J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to rise in my place and speak in favour of Bill 12, which essentially links Forest Renewal B.C. money directly to laid-off forest workers. In my riding, which is one of those Vancouver Island ridings, we've seen some companies circumventing the intent of Forest Renewal B.C. by hiring people from out of province, while people in my riding are laid off. That's what this bill is about. I have lobbied hard for this piece of legislation, and I'm very pleased to have this come through, because B.C. tax dollars from Forest Renewal B.C. should go to B.C. workers first. I fully support that.
In the 1980s we saw profits go up, the cut go up and the number of jobs go down. We've reversed that. This is one piece in the puzzle; it's one piece in the solution to reversing that dynamic. For instance, between 1986 and 1991, Local 1-80 of the IWA lost 43 percent of its membership while the cut went up. Since 1991 the membership has increased and the number of people working in our forests has increased by 50 percent, from 0.9 to 1.4. This will make sure that FRBC money, tax dollars collected in British Columbia, will go to British Columbia workers. I think that is good news indeed.
I've heard a number of comments about tree-planting. I guarantee that there is not a logger in my riding who is planting trees. That's a separate budget; that's something else. This money is going to loggers who are operating the same kind of equipment they did as loggers, and they're putting logging roads to bed, thinning trees and forests, and doing intensive silviculture that the IWA, the environmental movement and so many others have said for years should and must happen in British Columbia.
I am very pleased to see that kind of work going on in my riding. I am pleased to see those workers who had such a very difficult time in the 1980s with a sympathetic government finally getting the benefits of the resources in their area and the benefits of FRBC. This ties that link just one bit tighter, and for that reason I am an enthusiastic supporter of this piece of legislation. I welcome it.
T. Nebbeling: I quickly rise on this bill to indicate my support for second reading, but I also want it to be known that the reason is that I am looking forward to some serious debate. Although it is only two sections, I think there are many questions that have to be answered before we go to third reading. I was a bit surprised with the member for Peace River South starting off with a very narrow view by just looking at it from one angle. That has to do with the aboriginal community getting contracts without having to go into a competitive arena with others, and I understand the motivation for that. But I am also concerned about what will happen with these so-called contracts with the aboriginal communities that have been using these contracts to get into silviculture. How are they going to stay in the industry?
At the same time, I am a bit surprised to hear the ideology behind the argument of the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith. I feel that her argument is based more on the fact that the IWA worker has been shortchanged in the past and that it is time to get even by shortchanging people who are not necessarily carrying a ticket. I will support this bill at this stage, but it is certainly only to open up a really fair dialogue to make sure that every worker in this province has a chance at getting the jobs that come from Forest Renewal B.C., not just workers who have a ticket.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister, whose comments will close debate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll touch on the high points. I'm pleased with the support the principle of the bill has, and we will indeed get into it in the sections. It is a short bill, but it gives the force of law, really, to the policy that has been established by Forest Renewal B.C. -- that is, to give
[ Page 784 ]
The member for Surrey-White Rock mentioned the workers in Clayoquot Sound. Yes, this illustrates some of the problems we have of matching training opportunities while people are waiting to go back into the woods on cutting permits. But I am happy to say those people are continuing with the training, and it is fully expected that the jobs will be there when the period of training runs out. So we need to have a mechanism in place.
This is not a major change to the act. It still directs programs into communities and into value-added, and it gives opportunities to first nations peoples. It gives first priority to those people working in the industry, and there are young people and first nations peoples working in the forest industry.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, there are. Of course there are. To give preference to young
With those few comments, I call the motion.
[9:00]
Second reading of Bill 12 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 67 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton |
| Hartley | Petter | Miller |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Sihota |
| Brewin | Randall | Sawicki |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen |
| Penner | Thorpe | van Dongen |
| Whittred | Nebbeling | Anderson |
| Coell | de Jong | Stephens |
| Plant | Sanders | Hurd |
| Farrell-Collins | Reid | Gingell |
| Dalton | Barisoff | Krueger |
| McKinnon | Masi | Coleman |
| Chong | Weisbeck | Jarvis |
| Abbott | Symons | Hawkins |
| C. Clark | Hansen | Reitsma |
| J. Wilson | ||
|
NAYS -- 3 | ||
| G. Wilson | Weisgerber | Neufeld |
Bill 12, BC Forest Renewal Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 13.
Hon. S. Hammell: It's my pleasure to rise today for the second reading of Bill 13. Ours was the first government in Canada to include child care in our plans to create jobs and invest in the economy. This new act recognizes child care as an integral part of our plan to renew the social safety net. Accessible, affordable child care is a key element of the B.C. Benefits program to support parents moving from welfare to work.
This government has already achieved an impressive record in this area. Since 1991 there has been a 55 percent increase in licensed child care spaces, an 89 percent increase in the number of children supported by child care subsidies, and a 105 percent increase in funding for child care support programs. These programs help parents find the child care they need, and they support and train unlicensed family child care providers. The BC Benefits (Child Care) Act will provide the legal basis for a comprehensive child care service to children and families. The child care system will also promote the health, safety and well-being of children receiving child care; promote quality child care; promote access to child care services, including access for children with special needs; and financially support families with limited incomes who require child care.
Three issues have driven the need to strengthen our commitment to child care. First, as more parents move into the paid labour force, the demand for child care spaces increases. Second, B.C. Benefits will move people from welfare to work. A child care act will enhance this focus by moving child care out of the GAIN Act into an act recognizing the necessity of child care as a support for employment and training. Third, as a society we have become increasingly aware of the rights of the child and the necessity of ensuring children's safety and well-being. The UN convention on the rights of the child, ratified by Canada in 1981, contains article 18, which states: "States parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities for which they are eligible."
The BC Benefits (Child Care) Act provides a clear sign of British Columbia's commitment to improve the well-being of children. Child care and early education help give children a good head start on their education. The result is a healthier, better educated population. Bill 13 reflects our commitment to increase options for women and our commitment to the well-being of children. With that, I move Bill 13 be read for a second time now.
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure for me to rise tonight to speak to second reading of Bill 13. The minister has outlined the purposes and the explanatory notes of this bill, and I think members opposite generally agree with the principle of this bill.
It really formalizes the Ministry of Women's Equality's child care policy that has been undertaken for a number of years. There are a number of issues in the bill where I have some grave concerns. One of those is that this bill now provides for a Provincial Child Care Council, whereas in the past this was strictly an advisory council. Incorporating this particular council into the bill in a formal way allows the government another vehicle in which to make the many patronage appointments to friends and insiders that it has been known for. It also increases the size and cost of government.
Clearly, child care is a worthwhile goal and one that is good for children, families and communities. Accessible, quality child care is also good for the economy. We know that an investment in quality child care is an investment in the potential of the present. There are a number of
[ Page 785 ]
under the age of five are in the paid workforce. Work is a financial necessity for most families, and an obvious necessity for single-parent families. Regardless, working does not make families immune to poverty. So there are initiatives in this bill that go towards trying to address those kinds of inequities for low-income families. An investment in quality child care is an investment in the future as well, because there's a desperate need for licensed, high-quality child care spaces.
I'm going to read into the record now a comment made by UBC's child care administrator, Darcelle Cottons, who has done extensive research around this whole issue of affordable, accessible child care. She sets out some principles of what child care is, which I think are quite excellent, and I would like to read them into the record and inform the House. She says:
"Child care is: an essential service to support and promote employment; a critical element needed to facilitate parents' opportunities to complete or continue their education or to participate in job training; an effective means to enhance children's development and improve school readiness, and to help children to develop the competencies they will need to be the next generation of skilled workers and caring adults; an ideal vehicle to counteract the effects of poverty and disadvantage for children at risk; and a basic way to improve family support and help to build and sustain parents' skills in raising their children in an ever-changing world."
With parents struggling to provide and to find affordable, accessible and safe child care for their children, we as a society have a responsibility to help them do that. So, in principle, the opposition supports this bill and looks forward to committee stage to explore those concerns that we have around some of the sections in this bill.
G. Wilson: In rising to Bill 13, one is reminded that this B.C. Benefits legislation is part of a packet. It's important, as we enter into this debate, that we don't lose sight of the fact that you can't look at one component without looking at the whole packet of what's being intended.
I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for those who require child care and those people who may require some financial assistance in order to get child care. I certainly don't have any objection to that principle. We have that today, and we have a variety of different ways in which that can be obtained. It's the federal government who spoke loudly and long about providing universal, accessible child care before the last election. They failed to deliver on this and, of course, this is in large part the reason why we now, at the provincial level, have to pick up, at least in part, that mandate. That's unfortunate, because if one talks of broken promises, that's certainly a glaring one with respect to the commitment that was made by the current federal government in the last election.
Having said that, I think that the objections I raised earlier on with respect to the act that dealt with youth and youth unemployment and the need to try to move toward a new system of providing services to youth can be echoed, at least under the sections in this act that alter the structure by which we finance child care in the province, removing from the community the level of community control. To a large degree it removes the opportunity to make decisions at the community level with respect to the provisions of the child care subsidy, and puts that squarely in the hands of the minister -- unless the minister chooses to delegate those powers to any one group or class, as is stated here in section 12, the section that deals with the minister's delegation of power.
[9:15]
It does give tremendous authority to the minister to make decisions on the basis of information that will now have to be forwarded to the minister, so that he can make decisions as to whether or not there's an eligibility factor there. That information is now subject to audit. That sounds to me an awful lot like the introduction of means tests. That is a departure in principle from the manner by which we have in the past determined how the social safety net is going to work.
I have some real concern because it seems that the government of the day has abandoned solidly held principles -- principles that we have heard this government speak of many, many times -- with respect to universality in terms of accessibility, and the provision of funding at the community level to make sure that the decisions at the community level will be made and adhered to. We've now gone to a highly centralized model that tends to put enormous powers in the hands of the minister, including the requirement of an individual who is seeking to have the child care subsidy to provide information to the minister upon request and that that information may be audited.
The thing that causes me even further concern is that it seems that this bill is highly subject to regulation. Like all of the bills in this session, the regulations are in fact the meat of what we should be discussing. Yet we have no opportunity to do so because we don't have the regulations in front of us. It is clear that the minister has very broad, very wide discretionary powers as spelled out in those regulations.
One of the things that is introduced here which I find quite concerning is that not only is the individual now required to provide information, not only is that individual subject to audit of that information to verify that the information is in fact correct -- and we don't know what this information is that this government's going to have on file -- but this act provides for an information-sharing agreement which allows this government to essentially exchange personal or other information necessary within the prescriptions of British Columbia or the prescription of Canada with jurisdictions outside the country. That causes me a great deal of concern -- the whole notion of respecting an individual's privacy.
Those people who may find themselves, on a temporary basis, in need of income assistance are going to find it hard enough to go through the task of having to request the money. Many of them don't want to do it. Many of them feel philosophically and ideologically opposed to having to go and get income assistance. Most of the people who are going to be seeking assistance will be women because that's, unfortunately, the nature of the beast when it comes to child care, especially among single parents, and that's predominantly the people we're talking about. They're going to find it even more difficult to do that if they're requested to provide this information, which will be subject to audit, only to know there's an information-sharing agreement that allows that information to now be electronically transferred between jurisdictions and for accessibility of that information to now be shared not only between federal and provincial jurisdictions but, indeed, shared outside of this country. That's a concern because it's an erosion of an individual liberty, a freedom that we have now. That's the right to agree to have what information may be deemed personal to us protected in the confidence of one governmental jurisdiction.
Some may argue that that's not a big deal, and when it comes to child care and the provision of child care funding, perhaps it's not that big a deal; but it's the beginning of the very thin edge of a very large and rather problematic wedge. If we allow the introduction of the beginning of means testing
[ Page 786 ]
with the provision of the services that are delivered
If we allow that
I caution those who are hearing me tonight, and those who may take the time to look at and review this bill, that if we start down the road of putting in place government-restricted or ministerially imposed regulation that's founded on information that is required of people -- information that's subject to audit -- and if means tests are established, we are starting down the road to the dismantling of what we have known to be the social safety net within Canada that has made us distinct as a nation, and we are going to start to move into a blending of systems with that of the continental U.S.A. Let us not forget at any time in this Legislative Assembly that that is a precondition of the FTA -- the Free Trade Agreement -- and of NAFTA, and that is where we are headed with these bills. If people don't think that's a problem or think it's simply not a big deal, then I would ask that they start to review seriously the data that is now becoming more and more available to us with respect to the overall implications of both the FTA and NAFTA: the growing continentalization of our economy and the blending of our societies -- the harmonization process. This extends it.
Do you know what really causes me the most concern? I don't think that even half the people looking at this legislation see that, and that causes me grave concern. Furthermore, I don't think those who do see it -- the other half -- care. As a British Columbian and as a Canadian, that causes me even greater concern.
If we're complacent on this issue and about the fact that what we are essentially attempting to do here is to reweave the social fabric, and if we're going to start to put in place those kinds of preconditions, then when the minister stood up and said that welfare as we've known it will never be the same, he was quite correct. But we will not have improved the system; we will have worsened it. The very people who will be most in need of getting this service will be the very people who will least be able to access it. That's the nature of where we're headed with this.
If you don't take my word for it -- and some of the members opposite are shaking their heads and saying they don't understand that -- go and talk to the agencies that are dealing with this. They're the ones who are saying that they cannot contemplate why this government of all governments would head down this particular road at this particular juncture in our history in B.C.
This is not a money-saver. It may be deemed to be, and maybe some people may see it to be, but what this does is segregate our community with respect to the provision of child care services. That's what this will do, and it does so by providing sole discretion to the minister with respect to eligibility, by regulations that we're not even going to have a chance to look at or debate in this House. If people aren't concerned, then I lament, frankly, for where we're going as a society, because it's a dramatic departure from the kinds of principles that we've held in this province in the past.
K. Whittred: I share with my colleagues admiration for the purpose of this act. I read under point 2, which itemizes the purposes of the act, that this is to implement a child care system that will promote the health and safety of children, promote quality child care, improve access and provide financial help. Those are all worthy attributes, ones that no one in this House can deny are most desirable.
Unfortunately, when I look at the other headings in this act, I have many concerns, because I do not see where the other parts of this act in total have anything to do with the itemized purposes of the act. What I see, first of all, has already been identified, and that is giving a minister almost total control over every child who is in child care.
Secondly, I see a heading that talks about information and verification. In other words, it's talking about who has this much money and who has this much money and who is going to tell on their neighbour and so on, in order to determine who is eligible for this subsidy. Then we talk about appeals. I do not know what appeals have to do with providing quality health care. It sounds like more of a legal thing to me. Then we talk about overpayment, repayment and assignment -- again, legalistic stuff in a bill that is supposed to be related to providing quality child care. And on and on it goes.
The next section talks about no garnishment; the next section about agreements, about supplying false information; and finally we wind up with almost two pages of regulations solely at the minister's discretion. For those reasons I do have some grave reservations about this bill, and I look forward to discussing these things in much more detail at committee stage.
V. Anderson: This is one of the bills on B.C. Benefits, which, as has already been mentioned, is a package which, in principle, is attempting to deal with very important and needed issues in our society. Once again, how they are dealt with is a concern. Once again, we have a very blatant attempt at social engineering, which is directed, according to the philosophy of the
In most of the bills where they've attempted to deal with their social concerns, they've at least had the courtesy to spell out what it was they were planning to do. But in this particular bill, other than the purpose statement and the clause which defines child care and child care grant -- and even there it says
[ Page 787 ]
ended. In the Youth Works bill they had 26 categories which were the guts of the bill and the regulations, and in none of them did they spell out what the regulations will be, what they will cover, or what the intent of the regulations is. In the Youth Works bill there were 26 areas; in this one they've modified themselves a little and there are only 20 areas. I think it would behoove the minister, when we come to discuss this section, to explain to us the intent of each of those 20 sections. What is it that they intend to do in setting out regulations? I would be interested to know if those regulations are already primarily written. If they're not written, then I would be concerned, because at least if they're written, and they can share them with us, they can clarify some of the concern and the suspicion which others might have.
[9:30]
I'm also concerned -- it's already been mentioned -- about the centralization which is reflected here. In health care, in education and in other aspects of the government's presentation they have tried to encourage community involvement and community regionalization. In some of the child care programs prior to this document they have developed methods and promotion for community child care programs where the local citizens could be involved, where local undertakings could be there. None of that is mentioned in this bill. It's because of the absence of that that there is a concern. Why wouldn't those very credible programs, which were developed under this government and promoted by the Ministry of Women's Equality and others over the last number of years, and which we're encouraging many people around the
Once again we're developing a blank cheque -- a blank cheque without any understanding of what it's for, what the implications are and what the responsibility is to the persons. There is the possibility of infringing on the privacy of those who are in greatest need and who have the least opportunity to protect themselves. For this government of all governments to do that is unconscionable, but that's the kind of thing we're beginning to see.
People are beginning to wonder. They can put a three-month freeze, if you like, on people moving into the province and receiving income support. They can say to refugees who come into the province: "Sorry, you're really not welcome for three months' time." They can say to people with mental handicaps who come into the province: "Sorry, we will not meet your needs." It's that kind of policy which has been coming of late -- over the last six months -- from this government. It makes us very concerned. Up until six or eight months ago, we didn't hear that kind of trend from this government, and now it's coming in every policy. It's reminiscent of the last election campaign, in which they forgot about the audience they were usually concerned with, and were concerned with only the middle class. In their presentation they were concerned, document after document and speech after speech, about the middle class. It's that kind of context that leads us to have caution and concern about this bill.
We agree in principle about the need for properly developed child care and opportunities. We agree that the person should have that opportunity, but it needs to be spelled out. It needs to be spelled out so that the very persons who are going to use it do not have to sell their soul, their respectability and their privacy in order to be part of it. There are real concerns on principle again, yes -- as with the previous bill on works -- but on practice, no.
G. Plant: I rise to speak to one aspect of this bill, and it is a point of principle. In prefacing what I want to say, I want to tell a story of sorts about my days in administrative law classes in law school when, as law students, we would look at the developing trend to enact these kinds of empty-vessel bills and say: "Well, sooner or later government is going to get it exactly right. What we'll do is enact a statute called the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, and then section 1 will simply say that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations." There isn't a heck of a lot more in this bill than that.
But buried in the heart of this bill is a poison pill that we've already seen in legislation that was previously introduced in this session by this government -- by a government that I am increasingly concerned about, for it doesn't have the slightest bit of concern for personal privacy. My concern relates to this new animal -- this new vehicle of government -- called "information sharing agreements." I don't see how the provisions of section 9 -- about which I will have more to say when we come to it in committee stage -- are in any way necessary to implement even that vaguely general statement of principle that everyone supports in section 2. If you read the information-sharing provisions in section 9 of the act, you'll find that this statute gives this government the power to make an agreement to share information with anybody in North America about almost any subject whatsoever. It goes way beyond what any government needs to implement the purposes of this bill.
This is bad drafting; this is bad law-making; this is bad statute-making. This is statute-making by bureaucrats. This is not statute-making by people who care about personal privacy; it's statute-making by people who don't care about it, who want to achieve administrative efficiencies and to heck with the consequences for individuals. It's statute-making by bureaucrats who would like to sit down in their offices and make deals with people all over North America to make their lives easier without respect for the personal privacy that makes it possible for us to have identities as human beings.
This isn't just word talk; this is something that I think is seriously important. It really is disturbing to me that a government that should care, and that says it cares about individual rights, writes this kind of bill that shows no care for individual rights but gives the government the power to walk all over them. While anyone standing up in any legislature anywhere in the world would agree with section 2 of this act, I don't
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the Minister of Women's Equality, whose comments will now close debate on this bill.
Hon. S. Hammell: It's actually quite a delight to hear such interest in this issue. I'm pleased to hear the general support for child care from the members opposite, especially for those parents who work hard and need the extra support so they can go to work knowing that their children are well cared for.
Some of the members spoke to specifics, which I will reply to in committee stage. There are some misunderstandings, like being unaware that child care subsidies are currently means-tested and that 80 percent of child care costs are carried by those parents who use the care. Until then, however, I move second reading of Bill 13.
Second reading of Bill 13 approved on the following division:
[ Page 788 ]
[9:45]
| YEAS -- 67 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Evans | Zirnhelt | Cashore | |
| Boone | Hammell | Streifel | |
| Ramsey | Kwan | Waddell | |
| Calendino | Pullinger | Stevenson | |
| Bowbrick | Goodacre | Giesbrecht | |
| Walsh | Kasper | Orcherton | |
| Hartley | Petter | Miller | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Sihota | |
| Brewin | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
| Dalton | Gingell | Reid | |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | Sanders | |
| Plant | Stephens | de Jong | |
| Coell | Anderson | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | van Dongen | Thorpe | |
| Penner | Barisoff | Krueger | |
| McKinnon | Masi | Coleman | |
| Chong | Weisbeck | Jarvis | |
| Abbott | Symons | Hawkins | |
| C. Clark | Hansen | Reitsma | |
| J. Wilson | |||
|
NAYS -- 3 | |||
| G. Wilson | Weisgerber | Neufeld | |
Bill 13, BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 6:39 p.m.
On vote 27: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).
C. Clark: Going back to the topic we were discussing earlier, I think we left off on the issue of the permit process and how the ministry went about it in this case. One of the reasons that I'm pursuing this line of questioning -- and the member for Cariboo North has talked a little bit about this, as well -- is that there sometimes seems to be an attitude in the regional offices of the ministry that there isn't really an urgent need to notify local people about what the ministry is up to. This is probably a more serious case than normal, but it's a case where the impact of the lack of consultation has been quite grave. We have a community that's very, very worried as a result of the secrecy on the part of the ministry. I wonder if the minister could tell us how the ministry managed to deviate in this process from what I think would be its normal operating procedure, which would be to take out an advertisement in a newspaper, to undertake a full public review or at least to give an opportunity for public input.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, a word on the general proposition: I expect the ministry to be open and to consult the public widely. I believe the ministry has a good record on that issue. If it deviates from that, I think that's the exception which needs to be corrected rather than the rule that should be followed. The specific case that the member is addressing was an approval under a permit, not a permit, and therefore public hearing is not required. It could occur; it could not occur. Notification in the newspaper is under the same restrictions. Apparently, because it was technically an approval under a permit, not a permit, some of these things were not done.
C. Clark: I take it from his comments that the minister agrees with me that this process was unacceptable, even though it seems to have been technically correct -- that the process the ministry actually undertook was unacceptable procedure and that the ministry should have operated differently, particularly in this case.
The minister alluded earlier to testing that the ministry has done on the sludge there. I wonder if he could tell us the exact nature of that testing, what kind of testing was done and what the results of that testing were.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The testing was done by Celgar and the quality control by the Ministry of Environment, to make sure they got it right. The sludge was spread and, as I said, was 20 times more diluted than allowed under the permit. Those are the concentrations for what the main issue seems to be here -- heavy metals.
C. Clark: Is it normal and acceptable for the ministry to deposit this kind of material on top of an area where it would be likely to seep into the water table -- particularly when there are 70 families that rely on it? What I'm getting at here is: doesn't the ministry have guidelines for depositing this kind of material -- particularly when you've got heavy metals concentrated in it? Surely the Ministry of Environment should be thinking about trying to keep that kind of material out of the water table. This is leaving aside the issue of day care. Ministry officials told the local residents it wasn't even aware that it was anywhere near a child
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, indeed, there are guidelines covering what can be in such deposits: where they can be applied, adjacency to groundwater, and other features. All of that is contained in guidelines. If the member is interested in ascertaining some of that stuff, I can get more information provided for her.
[6:45]
C. Clark: I look forward to receiving that, because I want to turn to the chapter where it says it's okay to have it there
[ Page 789 ]
-- have it on top of a water table that supplies 70 families and their wells. I'll turn to that chapter immediately if it's in the book, but I suspect that it's probably not. I suspect that this is a case of the ministry not living up to at least the moral requirements that the public expects it to.
I'd like to ask the minister
Hon. P. Ramsey: The specificity of detail is not available in this chamber tonight. The ministry will be meeting with people in the community to provide it directly to them, so that they will know exactly what is in this material.
I hesitate to do this, because I know the member is very concerned about the issue -- and I share her concern that this ministry and all ministries act in an open way and within the bounds that we as legislators expect -- but I will say it: I caution her about allegations that indicate that members of the public service have acted immorally. In my four years' experience, members of the public service carry out their duties with high levels of competence and with a high level of ethics as well. I recognize that that slipped out as part of a general sort of characterization of this issue. I do think it does a disservice to those who work very hard, I believe, and very well on behalf of the people of the province.
C. Clark: I have no idea why the ministry made this mistake. I have no idea why the ministry refused -- failed, first of all, and then refused -- to let residents in the area know about what was in their community. I have no idea what might have happened there. I would assume that it was a mistake on the part of the ministry.
I am trying to find out from the minister what he is willing to do to correct this situation. I and the community remain concerned not only that contaminants are there that they might find unacceptable in their community but also that the actual framework of the permit wasn't lived up to. They've asked us to ask you how this amount of sludge was allowed to be dumped on a smaller plot of property than the permit allowed for. They say that the permit, I think, required four or five acres in order to have that amount dumped there. They say the plot of land is actually only 2.5 acres in total. I wonder if the minister can put our minds at ease about that -- whether the actual terms of the permit were even lived up to at all.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me again say the member is asking for a level of detail that I do not have available to me in this chamber tonight. You may continue to ask me those questions. I will respond when I have the level of detail that you're asking for. As far as what the ministry and this minister are prepared to do, I've already indicated to the member that the members of the ministry staff are going to be meeting with members of the community to discuss all matters arising from this permit and from the application of this material to the tree nursery on which it was spread.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could take a brief period to explain to the committee the standards that exist for special waste disposal in the province. It's my understanding that the ministry has a set of guidelines with respect to a whole range of issues: the presence of wetland areas, the types of soil that lend themselves to dealing with a special waste disposal facility. I wonder if he could explain what kind of standards we're dealing with, with respect to the creation of special waste disposal facilities in the province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The regulations covering special waste disposal are probably an inch thick. There are a variety of materials that explain portions of it to those who are affected by it and wish to reference it. If there is some specific question the member has, I'd be glad to ask staff about it.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding that there are a number of such sites in British Columbia where PCBs are stored; the ministry and the government have been unable to dispose of them because of the absence of a waste management facility or a breakdown facility in the province. I guess my question is related to those storage sites. I am aware that B.C. Hydro, for example, has a number, but there are others where generators are stored, and types of machinery that use PCBs. I just wonder whether the ministry has some sort of process by which it monitors these sites and inspects them. I'm certainly aware, as I say, that Hydro has a number of them. I wonder if the ministry takes any sort of role in monitoring the security and the types of construction used. Some of them are getting a little old now. I wonder if you could just explain about those sites.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are both federal and provincial inspections of these storage facilities annually. They are also operating under a federal environmental regulation. Indeed, as the member alluded to, it specifies a number of things: the type of storage, the security required, and the like -- labelling, warning, all that sort of information. As I think the member knows, we now have a permanent arrangement with Alberta which gives us access to the Swan Hills facility for disposal of PCBs.
W. Hurd: I'm aware that in the auditor general's report on special wastes, which goes back a few years, there were statistics about the amount of waste that is generated annually, how much of it ends up being exported and how much of it ends up being stored. I wonder if the minister could tell us perhaps not the specific numbers, but what the trends are in the province in terms of the amount of waste generated each year, how much of it ends up in storage facilities in the province, how much of it might be exported, and whether we're actually reducing the amount of hazardous materials in storage or it is continuing to escalate. If it is, are there any strategies the ministry has to deal with this issue, or are we likely to see more storage facilities built?
Hon. P. Ramsey: PCBs specifically?
W. Hurd: PCBs, obviously, are one, but there are a number of special wastes that exist. I'm certainly looking at the auditor general'
[ Page 790 ]
identified in the auditor general's report of 1993 are in
Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff doesn't have enough specifics here tonight, so I can't answer that question with the accuracy that I'd like to. As for the long-term strategy here, there is a very exciting initiative that the ministry is working on with a number of major industries -- a whole range of pollution prevention initiatives -- in order to say to a major industry, corporate entity or
The Chair: We'll have to have another recess for a vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 6:58 p.m. to 7:08 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I just wanted to continue briefly a discussion on special waste in the province. I am aware that there are concentration standards that the ministry maintains and that there is a need to review those standards occasionally based on the latest scientific information or studies that may come forth. I know that in his review of special waste-handling earlier in the government's mandate, the auditor general expressed some concern about the ability of the ministry to receive and update its scientific information on special waste concentrations.
I just wonder if the minister could take a minute to explain. He indicated earlier that there is an annual inspection of these sites. I wonder if the minister could just assure us, in terms of the updated scientific information that may be available, whether that type of input is applied to these inspections. Because obviously, some sites, by virtue of the knowledge that existed when they were built, might need to be upgraded and reviewed. That's why I think it would be most helpful if the minister could get back to the committee and advise us, in terms of volumes, where we are in special waste in the province.
I wonder if the minister, or perhaps his officials, could take a minute to explain the progress that might have been made since the auditor general's concerns about the ability of the ministry to receive updated scientific information about special wastes and the hazards they pose to the public when they are consumed and stored.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I've just been briefly reviewing with staff the state of standards and regulations for sites for special waste storage. I can assure the member that the standards and regulations in effect at those sites meet current knowledge and current standards for handling them across the country. This ministry is part of the network of ministries across the country that, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, sets and updates standards for handling special waste. I do understand that the auditor general's report had some concern about the documentation related to initial regulation for storage of special waste. I think those concerns have been alleviated. If there is anything that's of specific concern, I can ask staff to contact the member directly.
W. Hurd: Just on a slightly different but related topic, does the ministry routinely monitor the types of substances that end up in landfills in the province? Is there a ministry checkpoint there with respect to regional district landfills or municipal landfills, to ensure that these substances which are the subject of fines under the Waste Management Act are in fact not being introduced into landfills in the province? I wonder if the minister could explain what type of checks and balances we're dealing with on landfill sites in the province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry does monitor to make sure that waste is disposed of and landfills are covered. It does monitor some of the leachate wells to assess what is happening within the landfills. It does not monitor, on a daily basis, what goes into the landfills. That's the responsibility of the permittee, regional district or, most likely, city.
W. Hurd: One of the concerns that I do have with respect to landfills in the province is the long-term impact of something as simple as household batteries. I'm certainly aware that in other jurisdictions in North America, the serious long-term impacts of the elements in household batteries have been identified in landfills. It has always surprised me that we don't have a program in British Columbia that's very successful at either disposing of or recycling batteries, and that we continue to introduce them into landfills. I am certainly aware that they contain such trace elements as mercury, lead, dissolved nickel and zinc, all of which are classified as special wastes in the province and are subject to the Waste Management Act.
I wonder if the minister sees some incongruity there in light of the fact that we do have a Waste Management Act and a system in place to deal with special wastes that have to be stored. Yet when it comes to something as simple as household batteries, which have been demonstrated to create serious impacts on landfills in the United States -- the toxic impacts are one of the significant reasons why they are running out of landfill
[7:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are engaged in a long process here to reduce by about 50 percent the amount of material that we, as citizens of this province, put into landfills. We are on the way to doing that. We are over halfway there right now, in reduction in terms of volume. That's the first part of it.
We've required every regional district and every city that has a landfill to produce their plans for getting to the 50 percent mark. A substantial proportion of them have already submitted these, and more are coming in weekly.
We've also taken an approach to domestic waste which says: "Let's target and move down the line some of the major elements that used to be landfill, that can either be recycled or that need some sort of special handling and responsibility for their disposal by the manufacturer." So we've gone and dealt with the tire issue, the battery issue and with the paint issue. We are in the process of working on solvents and other household solvents. Earlier this month, I announced -- with the help of the drugstores and the pharmaceutical industry -- that we are starting to deal with household pharmaceuticals.
[ Page 791 ]
I agree with the member that batteries are an issue. I would say that in terms of the waste stream, it's a relatively small component. Yes, that is an issue that should be dealt with eventually. As I say, we are working our way into reducing and disposing otherwise of household wastes.
W. Hurd: With respect to household batteries, I'm certainly aware -- I'm sure the minister is as well -- that there are proposals out there to handle them in a better way than by introducing them into landfills. I am certainly aware of private sector proposals for a collection system.
I just wonder if the minister can confirm that in order for someone to actually collect household batteries, they would require a waste management permit and some sort of secure trucking or storage. Yet while we have a waste management permit for that, there's absolutely nothing to prevent someone from just simply taking them down and putting them into the landfill. Could he first confirm that if some entrepreneur were to decide to get into the battery collection business, that individual would face a battery of permits -- including, I might add, the need to have a special waste permit to deal with collecting household batteries and transporting them?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Household wastes, by their nature, are excluded from this special management permit. If you get a large volume or concentration of them, as you would if you were collecting truckloads of them, you would require the permits that the member refers to.
W. Hurd: I'm not going to belabour the point, but I'm sure the minister can see the laughable situation. Someone who wants to collect batteries would have to go through the full teeth of a permitting process. Yet if you wanted to introduce one battery at a time into the landfill, it wouldn't be a major environmental issue.
I want to encourage the minister to give serious consideration to a battery recycling program. Even if it involved just the batteries that governments use, it would certainly be a start. Maybe the minister can tell me whether the batteries the government uses end up in the landfill as well.
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's no governmentwide initiative to recycle used government batteries. I must say that it's an interesting line of questioning. I'm not sure whether the member wants the permits eased for somebody who wanted to have two tonnes of batteries or whether he wants to have the restrictions on landfill disposal heightened.
W. Hurd: I'm aware that there are proposals out there that would not see batteries introduced to the landfills.
I have another issue with respect to batteries that I want to canvass. I understand that the ministry has a contract with Laidlaw to deal with industrial batteries that are used in such installations as B.C. Hydro and SkyTrain, for example, and that the batteries are collected by Laidlaw from government enterprises. Can the minister tell us what happens to those batteries after they're collected by Laidlaw? My information is that they are eventually introduced into a landfill as well, but I wonder if the ministry does track the movement of those once they're picked up by the contractor.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Staff with me tonight are not familiar with that contract. They'll look into it and get back to you and me.
W. Hurd: I'm glad the minister mentioned the environmental tire levy briefly. One of my constituents phoned my office not too long ago after having bought a new set of tires and paying the environmental levy. He was an enterprising individual who actually talked to the tire operator and soon found out that the tires were ending up behind the store, and that's where they tended to stay. He inquired why he was paying, I think, a $5 levy per tire when the operator had advised him that there was very little recycling of the tires actually going on.
I'm certainly aware that this is another issue that the auditor general identified in his report. In fact, he did a specific assessment of the environmental levy in which he determined that $46 million was collected for the sustainable environment fund and as little as $16 million or $17 million was actually spent on any initiatives to recycle tires. The natural conclusion is that the environmental tire levy in the province is a generous cash cow for the province, but in terms of protecting the environment by actually recycling tires, it falls far short. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many tires are actually collected in the province and how many end up being recycled.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I can provide the member with some information. The program collects an average of around 225,000 passenger tires a month. It has collected 11 million since it started in June of 1991. Heck, it achieved its goal of diverting 90 percent of scrap tires from landfill to recycling as early as the second year of its operation, in 1993, and it remains above that level. So contrary to anecdotes the member may be hearing, the evidence the ministry has is that the recycling of scrap tires has indeed been a success in this province. We're aware of one substantial stockpile of tires in a processing facility in Port Alberni, and we're trying to get rid of them by the end of this month. We're unaware of any other large stockpiles of tires in the province. So I would say that this program has achieved its goals, and that the levy that the hon. member and I pay when we buy tires has been well used.
The member is correct in that not all of the levy goes specifically to the tire recycling program. There are a number of other expenditures from the fund which are not tied to tires or batteries, such as regulating industrial and hazardous waste, regulating municipal solid and liquid waste, and setting standards and guidelines for waste discharge and pesticide control management. But I hope the member would agree that they are nevertheless part of ensuring a sustainable environment for our children.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that explanation to the committee. I'm not sure, however, that it would satisfy the auditor general, who, as the minister knows, looked at the issue in 1995-96 and expressed, among other things, the concern that the tire revenue was not dedicated revenue. I believe he felt strongly that revenue collected for various environmental levies should actually go in its entirety to the purpose for which it was collected. I wonder if the minister shares the concern of the auditor general. I'm just looking at the one paragraph here where the auditor general says:
I guess I can ask the minister whether the public has a right to expect that when they pay a levy for the disposal of a tire, battery or some other product, which adds to the consumer cost of buying tires, batteries and other such items for a car, the funds collected from consumers should be spent on specific programs aimed at dealing with the environmental issue
[ Page 792 ]
that the tire or battery creates -- whether the minister regards that as another form of taxation or believes that it should at least be revenue-neutral and that the funds that are collected from consumers should be spent on specific programs aimed at dealing with that environmental issue that the tire or the battery creates.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe the sustainable environment fund is broadly achieving its purposes. Part of the revenue stream for the environment fund is, as the member says, from the levies on the sale of tires. We also have a tax on the sale of disposable diapers and on batteries. We have waste permit fees and other sources of funding. So there are a variety of sources of revenue that go into this fund. I'm not quite sure why the member wants to disaggregate everything in there and deal with them separately. I find this to be a good way of dealing with broad issues around revenue sources for sustainable environment. I might mention that one of the things we spent part of this fund on is control of Eurasian milfoil, a topic that received a great deal of debate earlier in this committee.
W. Hurd: This really gets us into a general philosophical discussion about environmental levies. I should say that I think the public has a right to expect that if they're paying an environmental levy to deal with a specific problem, they should pay to have the problem dealt with; otherwise what we're dealing with is another form of taxation. If the minister is suggesting that a $5 tire levy should generate an excess of revenue, my question is: what's the difference between that and a tax on the consumer? Surely the surplus funds, wherever they're
I think that the whole process of permitting and levies should at least be based on cost recovery in some way. If it's costing the ministry $46 million to administer or to fund a tire recycling program, then I understand the need to raise $46 million. But if, in fact, we're raising $46 million with a $5 levy on tires and pocketing $28
[7:30]
I would just caution the minister: where do you draw the line? What is too much? If the environmental tire levy generates a profit of $28 million for other sources, who is deciding, on behalf of the ministry, what's fair and what isn't? Where do you draw the line on fair taxation, when the minister seems to be suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to collect $46 million in 1995-96 from the environmental tire levy and only spend whatever on an actual program to deal with tires? And the rest becomes what -- another tax?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let's get the correct facts. Levies on the sale of tires in '95-96 amounted to around $10.25 million.
Second, I would say that the legislation that was passed in 1990, establishing the sustainable environment fund, clearly said that this is a dedicated fund to receive levies from a variety of sources and to support environmental protection programs. I believe the auditor general's report said there's no legislative requirement that every dollar from a specific item must be spent on that specific item's disposal. This is a fund. What the auditor general did recommend, and what the ministry has followed through on, is producing and distributing fact sheets that explain precisely what the auditor general found about this fund: that it's used for a wide range of initiatives.
I might say, hon. Chair, I find this fascinating. If we are to reduce the levy on tires -- and I assume for batteries or maybe the sale of diapers -- to the actual cost of dealing with it, which items that are now supported by the sustainable environment fund would the member advocate cutting out? Would he recommend that we cease to manage a pesticide control program? Or would he suggest that we stop regulating industrial and hazardous waste? Would he have said that the work we've done on setting standards for management of biomedical waste is a waste of the tax dollars from the sustainable environment fund? Or should we just cut out altogether money for control of Eurasian milfoil?
W. Hurd: The minister is quite correct that the $46 million is the amount collected between 1990 and 1995, and a total of $18 million was actually spent on recycling and disposal programs. So the profit, I suppose -- if you can use that term -- was developed over a period of five years, and that's a lot of money out of the pockets of consumers. I understand the minister's rationale if the money went to do the Lord's work in other parts of the ministry; I can appreciate that.
I just emphasize to the minister that if we are going to assess environmental levies on specific products, and the minister expects that those levies will in fact generate a surplus of revenues, I'm really troubled by the idea that it will be within the parameters or jurisdiction of the ministry and the minister to decide how much surplus profit should be generated. I have a lot of trouble with the fact
I think the auditor general has quite correctly expressed a real concern that the environmental tire levy is not, at least, revenue-neutral, and that the ministry is really imposing a hidden tax on legitimate consumers who are required to buy these products, particularly tires, for the operation of their businesses, to commute to their jobs or whatever. We understand the Minister of Finance is in the business of generating revenue -- obviously that's what NDP Ministers of Finance do best -- but I just hope that when the Minister of Environment decides we're going to tax or levy specific products, he will at least set some guidelines about how much excess revenue he expects to generate. Otherwise, you've got the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Environment running around hitting consumers twice with sales taxes and environmental levies.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Far from the money from the levy on tires and other sources of revenue for the sustainable environment fund going into general ministry operations, it is in a fund that's used specifically for the purposes that are included in the legislation. I think the member recognizes that. It doesn't go into support for parks; it doesn't go into the initiatives we're taking on wildlife issues. It goes specifically to the initiatives under the act which are used to reduce the waste stream and pass on a more sustainable environment for our children. I submit that the tire recycling program has been a success.
What I take from the member's comments, and what the people of the province can expect should that party ever form government, is that they intend to amend the act. They intend
[ Page 793 ]
to amend the act to require that every dollar collected from tires goes specifically to tire recycling, every dollar collected for batteries goes specifically to battery recycling, and every dollar collected for disposable diapers goes specifically to that issue. I hope that is the view of the Liberal Party, that they will stand up and say so, and that they will also say which other expenditures from the sustainable environment fund -- which other initiatives for making sure we pass on a cleaner environment to our children -- they intend to abandon.
W. Hurd: The minister has completely missed the point. He's hitting a specific product. If he wants to issue an environmental levy across the board on tinned dog food and everything else, fine; but he's targeting tires and asking tire manufacturers and tire purchasers to sustain a fund far beyond the environmental risk for that product. Surely the minister can see the inequity of that situation, where certain products are being targeted and the money being generated isn't even being spent on dealing with the environmental hazard that they pose in the first place.
I think it's unfortunate, and I will say that the auditor general thought enough about the issue to actually include it in a compliance-with-authorities audit in 1995-96. I would commend the report to the minister. I urge him to read it, because while he places very little stock in what the opposition may say, I just know that he follows chapter and verse the concerns of the auditor general. I urge him to read the report, and I recommend to him the recommendations, because the one that I have identified, particularly the surplus revenue being generated, is the one that caused the auditor general great concern. I think it deserves a review by the ministry.
S. Hawkins: I think my concern is related to what the member was just talking about as well. I have a constituency complaint related to tire waste disposal and the fee that has to be paid, and it's from Cavell Tire in Kelowna. Apparently they're being charged $3 for all new tires that they sell to customers. Unfortunately, the dump in Kelowna is running out of room, so they have to take their tires to Penticton, at $25 a trip. Their other option is to pay somebody $3 a tire to get rid of them. They contacted the ministry to find out if they could deduct their cost from their waste disposal fee, and they're quite frustrated because they were told it isn't possible. They're wondering if they can get some assistance from the ministry, seeing as the dump is full. They're already being charged $3 a tire, plus an extra $25 every time they take a trip of tires to another dump. I wonder if the minister would comment on the situation that these business people are being put into.
Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff are somewhat puzzled by the specifics that the member brings forward. The information that the ministry has, and that I was surely briefed on, is that right now those who are using used tires for a variety of purposes, recycling into a variety of products or fuel uses, are really consuming all of that waste stream that we can provide and that there is a demand for this used product. I would be glad to have members of the staff look into it and contact the member's constituent and see what the specific concern is here, because it seems at odds with the general state of the tire recycling program in the province.
S. Hawkins: I think the problem is that the company that picks up the tires has been instructed not to use the dump in Kelowna, so now when they have to get rid of their
Hon. P. Ramsey: You can't throw them in the dump.
S. Hawkins: Well, wherever they're supposed to be going, they're not going there. They're being charged, and the ministry is not helping them with a solution. So yes, if you would help out this particular constituent, I will refer the problem to the ministry.
I'd like to go back in time to the sludge problem, hon. Chair. [Laughter.] It might seem a little funny, but it's not to the people that live there.
Apparently, a hundred tons of sludge was dumped on land in Crescent Valley, and my concern is for the health of the 70 families who rely on the water supply in the immediate area. Our information, from what I understand, is that the ministry has refused to test the water or refused to allow testing of the water locally. So would the minister agree that this sludge potentially poses a health risk to these people, and will the minister commit to an analysis of the sludge? The threat is there, and I think the minister would have to agree that there is a possibility of illness or injury to children, those who are quite infirm, the elderly, pregnant women, etc., in the area. Will the minister commit to testing this water and doing some kind of study to understand the health implications and the risk posed to the people in this area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the tire issue: your second comments were no more enlightening to us than the first. There is something that the ministry needs to touch on directly with your constituent. We don't want tires
On the sludge issue, this has been canvassed extensively, before the member arrived. I am not going to engage in further discussion of it. The water has been tested by the Ministry of Health, and we have those results, which indicate no contamination. The sludge has also been tested and found to be within the approval allowed under the permit. There are a number of issues of concern to the citizens in that region, and the Ministry of Environment is going to be meeting with them to try to iron out any factual disputes and make sure that they understand the circumstances under which this substance was disposed of on this, I guess, tree nursery.
S. Hawkins: Can the minister make available the report of the health testing or the report that refers to the test done on the water that shows there is no risk to health for those people in that area?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll get that for the member.
R. Masi: I'd like to go from sludge to bog here. I'm sure the minister is aware of Burns Bog and that it's located in Delta. Essentially it's located in Delta South, but it seems to be a problem for Delta North. It is of considerable size -- 10,000 acres, about ten times the size of Stanley Park -- and it's largely privately owned by Western Delta Lands, as I'm sure the minister understands.
It's a very sensitive issue -- environmentally sensitive, politically sensitive. It's politically charged. In Delta North, if you want to get a big turnout to a political meeting, bring forth the topic of Burns Bog, and you'll fill the hall -- no
[ Page 794 ]
question about that. The recent fire there, of course, focused on Burns Bog again, and it seems that it's broadening its scope of interest throughout the lower mainland. It is probably internationally recognized as a sensitive area but probably not provincially recognized so much as a sensitive area.
It is a huge area; it's approximately 20 percent of the municipality of Delta. It would take a big chunk of east Vancouver, if you plunked it down in the middle. I have a satellite map in my office, and you've probably seen the same picture yourself. It is a huge, huge area in the lower mainland -- sometimes described as the lungs of the lower mainland because of the high level of oxygen production. My question is: what is the progress at this time in terms of the ministry acquiring the land and declaring it a protected area?
[7:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I welcome the hon. member to the Burns Bog issue. I'm sure he'll find it an enjoyable one in his years in these halls.
Earlier, as we started this estimates debate, the two sides here were sort of exchanging some views on how our view of environmentalist issues has changed over the years. I think Burns Bog is an excellent example of that. The member refers to it as the lungs of Vancouver. For a long time, I think, bogs were derided as a wasteland that you could do anything with, and it's fascinating to see how public opinion and perception have changed, now recognizing the importance to the biodiversity, which we have such a wealth of here in British Columbia, and even recognizing the importance of something called a bog. So all the old jokes about 20 percent of Delta being a bog are now a positive, I suspect.
But to the issue. We -- this government, this ministry -- negotiated most seriously to try to acquire a substantial portion of Burns Bog and protect it permanently for the people of the province. I take no joy in finding, as I assumed this ministry, that those negotiations were not successful. We made a full market value offer for some 3,000 acres of the bog, and that was not acceptable to the owner. I wish there were a chance of finding another avenue to reopen those negotiations; I don't see one now. No negotiations are taking place. If the owner has further suggestions, I would encourage him, as I've done in the public press, to come forward and make such approaches to the ministry, and negotiations may be able to resume. But negotiations stalled: an offer was made and rejected, and no current negotiations are taking place.
R. Masi: Just prior to the election, the owner stated categorically at a public meeting that he was prepared to sell the land and he was prepared
Hon. P. Ramsey: This has been a longstanding set of negotiations, and it may well be that at some time we should simply meet and talk in more detail, quietly, about where they were, where they went to and why they went sideways.
One of the real issues here, which I think frustrated both the seller and us as a potential purchaser, was the issue of subsurface rights. We said very clearly that we are not interested in buying only the surface of Burns Bog, nor do I think the constituents would consider that an adequate protection for the area. The owner was unable to make a proposal to us that included surface and subsurface rights, and regrettably, the offer failed. That's where we are. If the owner has other means to bring forward an offer which might be more acceptable to the province, fine. We'll be looking at potentially resuming negotiations, but right now I don't see a way to make that happen.
R. Masi: Has there been any opportunity to engage in joint discussions with the Delta council and the GVRD in terms of accumulating funds to make a deal? It's my understanding that we're talking about a fair dollar figure here, in terms of the 10,000 acres.
Hon. P. Ramsey: In discussions with GVRD, there was some indication that they were prepared to contribute toward the proposed purchase price for some 3,000 acres. I'm not aware of any larger discussion with GVRD which would lead to some sort of sinking fund for 10,000 acres, but GVRD was surely willing to participate. Delta council was not willing to participate in the funds for purchase of the 3,000 acres.
R. Masi: During the election campaign, the previous MLA expounded quite dramatically on the lists of lands acquired by the Ministry of Environment, but said we couldn't swing this deal. I'm just wondering where Burns Bog now fits on the priority list.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Right now it sits in limbo, off to one side. We think we made what was a market-value offer for a substantial portion of Burns Bog. Regrettably, the seller could not meet the conditions of that offer. Unless the owner has some new proposal to bring forward, those negotiations are at an impasse.
R. Masi: In terms of the Burns Bog Conservation Society, I wonder if there has been any interaction between the ministry and the society. I'm sure there has been. Why I'm bringing this forward, though, is that their concept of the bog is total. I'm a little hazy on how many acres we're talking about in terms of their total. It could be somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000, but it's total; it's not the 3,000 acres that was negotiated for. I'm just wondering whether the ministry, as an environmental ministry supporting an environmental group, would consider the Burns Bog Society as being positioned correctly on this issue.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Burns Bog Society is in regular contact with both my office and the ministry. This is -- not to make too bad a pun of it -- a burning issue with them, and I'm sure they will continue to lobby both me and the ministry. They were well involved and informed about the offer, and the proposal that led to the offer, to purchase 3,000 acres of the bog. Obviously, they would like a wholly purchased and protected area, but they recognized an approach that said: "Here's a core area that we could purchase, and additional lands could be protected through zoning and land use decisions." They found that an acceptable way of proceeding -- at least, that's the information from the ministry. Sure, they would love to say all 10,000, but they recognize the fiscal limitations, and were fully apprised of what the ministry was proposing.
R. Masi: I would like to thank the minister for those answers. I would also like to take the minister up on the offer to speak privately about Burns Bog. I probably have an awful lot to learn about it as well.
[ Page 795 ]
J. van Dongen: In his opening comments, I think the minister talked about putting $400,000, or an additional $400,000, into the habitat conservation fund. I have an interest in habitat conservation from the perspective of problem wildlife in agriculture. I'm wondering if the minister is going to be modifying the terms of reference of that fund to provide compensation for farmers who have their crops damaged by wildlife. I'm thinking about deer in orchards, for example, or geese in vegetable and field crops in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer is no. We're not prepared to modify the terms of reference to enable compensation from the fund. The fund is available to work with agriculturists and others on measures to prevent wildlife damage.
J. van Dongen: Does the minister think that it's just, fair and right for farmers to bear the burden of damage to their crops caused by problem wildlife?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The wildlife branch of the ministry does work with farmers around the province to take preventive measures around wildlife issues, whether it's deer, bear or wolves. There is a range of issues, depending on what the agricultural operation is and what the concern is, but no, there is no fund for compensation established under this ministry.
J. van Dongen: I don't think the minister answered my question. I asked if he thought it was just, fair and right for farmers to bear the burden of problem wildlife damaging their crops. This is wildlife that I presume society generally would like to preserve. Is it fair for farmers to carry that burden of damage?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure that the issue the member raises is greatly different from what we ask the forest industry to do, and that's to manage the resource for their particular purposes -- i.e., the industrial use of the forest -- with respect for other values. Those other values are there, and that's a fact of doing business in land-based industries in this province, whether it's agriculture or forestry.
J. van Dongen: Well, I'm not sure if I understand the analogy the minister is making, but I just don't see how the minister or anybody else could consider such a situation as fair. Bear in mind that, through a variety of circumstances some would classify as an act of God, you could have a crop wiped out in a matter of days; a crop that you invested a great deal of money in growing just wiped out overnight. I don't think that's the same as asking the forest industry or any other industry to meet certain environmental standards.
I've had the experience of growing a crop of peas and having a quarter of that field disappear in a couple of days. I just cannot accept the position that has been taken by the government on wildlife for a number of years as being fair, particularly when you see the number of deer, for example, in the Okanagan continue to escalate -- just more and more of them all the time. How's a farmer supposed to cope with that?
[8:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we may have to disagree on the principle of whether the province should compensate agriculturists for damage caused by wildlife. I don't think it's on. I will say that the ministry does work with farmers to try to minimize damage and to do prevention measures through fencing and other measures where that's appropriate, and obviously concerns about damage to crops by wildlife are one of the factors that goes into the establishment of hunting seasons for game species around the province. In those ways, the ministry does work with agriculturists and indeed does modify the population of wildlife in various regions to try to prevent crop damage. But on the fundamental principle of whether this damage should be compensable by the province, there is no such program in place in the ministry.
J. van Dongen: I guess I'd like to have a better explanation as to why there isn't that kind of program. Is there a concern that the program will be abused? Is that the concern?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asks for some sort of philosophical rationale for this position. Wildlife are part of the landscape; they're part of the land in this province. We ask the forest industry, under the Forest Practices Code, to forgo a large portion of what they would otherwise harvest out of respect for wildlife values, riparian values and others. That's part of the cost the forest industry incurs by doing business in this province. We may get into debate on that in this chamber, but that is part of the cost of doing the forest business.
With respect, wildlife are part of the natural resources that we value in this province. I recognize that this
J. van Dongen: I wonder if the minister could comment on the effectiveness of the wildlife control programs that he's talked about within the ministry.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As far as predator control goes, I think the ministry has a fairly effective record of trying to remove predation either by relocating or by destroying wildlife that is preying on domestic animals. At times, it's done to quite some extent. At times, people who are concerned about wildlife have said we've overdone it.
As for the issue of deer population, the controls are relatively effective in terms of lengthening the hunting season to ensure that there's a larger cull from the herd. This is fairly effective in rural areas. It is less effective around urban centres, where hunting and shooting are somewhat more restricted.
J. van Dongen: I guess if I was to draw an analogy from the farmer's point of view, vis-�-vis the rest of society, I could argue that a certain amount of environmental damage is just a by-product of operating within the agricultural land reserve and that society has to accept it. That's the kind of argument you are making to the farmer. On the one hand, you're asking the farmer -- and I think rightly so -- to control his environmental damage. On the other hand, when society has an overall goal of preserving wildlife, again you're asking the farmer to carry the burden. I just don't accept the rationale.
In talking to fruit farmers in the Okanagan, for example, they will argue that we've got all kinds of fencing on the Coquihalla Highway. Would the Ministry of Environment consider funding a certain amount of fencing in the Kelowna area, for example, to deal with problem wildlife on a sort of community scale and keep it out of areas where the orchards are located?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There's no such current program. I recognize that the members of the agriculture community,
[ Page 796 ]
who the member is speaking for, have a genuine interest in seeing what we can do to reduce wildlife damage to crops and herds. But no, there is no program for compensation for losses under it. Again, let me draw some analogies. I know the member doesn't find them pertinent, but I believe they are accurate.
Yes, we ask folks who work on the ALR to recognize that there are values on the ALR other than agriculture, just as we ask those who are harvesting and processing timber from the forest reserve of the province to respect that there are other values on that land base, too. Whether they are viewscapes, aboriginal heritage issues, wildlife issues or riparian zones to protect fish habitat -- a huge range of issues -- we say to the forest companies: "That's the cost of doing business, because we have a diversity of values on that land base for use in this province." I don't know where we go other than that. That is the analogy I draw. We do try to work with the agricultural community to do prevention where possible. There is no program for communitywide fencing that I'm aware of -- I'm not quite sure where you stop -- and we do what we can, through adjusting hunting seasons, to deal with an excessive number of wildlife causing damage to agricultural products.
J. van Dongen: Am I correct in my understanding that the Forest Practices Code doesn't apply to private land?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that's correct.
J. van Dongen: In the case of the ALR, we're talking about private land that's being held in the agricultural land reserve by the province for the production of food, supposedly -- privately held land being constrained by policies of the province, in terms of its use -- and again you're asking the farmer to take all the risk, in that situation, for the crop.
The Chair: Excuse me, member. Could I remind you of the rules of the House. Could you address the minister through the Chair, please.
J. van Dongen: Thank you, hon. Chair. If I could just put that last question to the minister: privately held land, held in the agricultural land reserve for the production of food, by government
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have anything to add to my previous comments. I think we've exhausted this topic.
R. Neufeld: Briefly on the same subject -- I won't be long -- I just have a couple of questions that relate to the constituency of Peace River North and exactly what the member for Abbotsford was talking about.
Last winter we had an extremely severe winter. I'm sure the minister is aware that there's a large buffalo herd, which I believe is owned by the Crown, located in the Pink Mountain area, about mile 147 on the Alaska Highway. Did the ministry last year undertake to haul feed to those buffalo? Some of them were, I guess, running a little short of feed, according to the Environment ministry. Did we as a government, as a Crown, haul feed up to mile 147 to feed those buffalo? It's a herd of about 400 or 500.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand that there were two initiatives of government to deal with that very hard winter: first, we did do some feeding of the herd; and second, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways plowed out some areas where the feeding could occur, to keep them off the highways.
R. Neufeld: The difficulty, and how it relates to what the member for Abbotsford was talking
We have ranchers in the mile 147 area, Pink Mountain, that are having difficulty with that same herd going through their fences, into their fields and into their feed. Can the minister tell me what responsibility the Crown now has? We've gone ahead and fed those buffalo, getting them a little more used to tame hay, and we've spent a fair number of dollars. Now these buffalo are, I guess you could say, starting to attack the feedstock of the local ranchers of the area. Can the minister tell us what procedure we're going to use now as a ministry to alleviate those problems?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This has indeed been a wide-ranging debate; we've gone from bog to buffalo.
R. Neufeld: We're staying on the same letter of the alphabet.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Which means we're going to be here a long time before we get to zoology.
A couple of general points here. First, the feeding operation by this ministry and the clearing operation by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways were done largely not to keep buffalo alive, but to get them the heck off the highways. That was a way of doing it and keeping them out of areas where they could do serious harm to the travelling public.
Second, we are unaware of any information that would suggest there has been an increase in the activity the member describes of buffalo ignoring the fence boundaries and doing damage to the agricultural community in that area.
Third is what we are planning to do. We are aware of the issue for agriculturists in Pink Mountain area. The wildlife branch of the ministry is looking at hunting regulations which would provide a considerably larger harvest in the areas adjacent to the agricultural lands, to make sure that we reduce that problem as much as possible.
[8:15]
R. Neufeld: I believe a limited-entry hunt is going to take place this year. I am not sure how many animals; there are quite a few. That's a move in the right direction, but I think the minister is trying to avoid the connection that I am trying to make here.
The member for Abbotsford was talking about difficulties for tree fruit farmers -- maybe himself, where he farms -- with wildlife. The minister is saying there are no funds available to look after those things. What I am saying is that, as a government or as a ministry, you have encouraged those animals through feeding them, so I would say that you now have a bit of a responsibility for what those animals do. If the minister is not aware of what has taken place in there, I can arrange for a visit to 147 for the minister. I would like to take him in there, show him a bit of the country and talk to some of the ranchers that have approached me within the last month
[ Page 797 ]
or so about some of the difficulties they are having with the buffalo.
The other analogy that the minister uses is too simple to let go, and that's to keep them off the highway. Maybe nobody on that side over there is aware of what happens on the Alaska Highway every winter, because many animals -- caribou by the hundreds, moose, elk -- feed along the highways. We didn't undertake to feed those animals to keep them off the highways. So, really, saying that we're going to feed these animals to keep them off the highway is rather a vague excuse, I would say to be polite -- through the Chair to the minister. Because if that is the reason, then we should look at all the other animals that are killed along the Alaska Highway, which number hundreds.
If that's what we have to do to keep them off the highway, then we better look at that. I don't think that the minister really wants to undertake any kind of a project like that. I would really like to see the ministry actively look at some kind of compensation or some help for these farmers that are having difficulty with wildlife. Farmers don't hate the wildlife; they don't dislike the wildlife; they don't want it all killed. They all understand, we all understand, that some of those values have to stay, but there should be some compensation if the ministry is going to start looking after these animals.
The other thing is that we lost about 4,000 or 5,000 deer last winter in the Fort St. John area. To my knowledge, there was no feeding process there. That was an issue because the snow was far too deep, the winter was too long, and the animals couldn't make it. You've picked one part of the animal kingdom, at 147, to help, and they are going to create some problems down the road. I think the minister is going to have to seriously look at some type of compensation for those people.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It may strike the member as
On the larger issue the member raises, the same one as the member for Abbotsford, I can only say that the wildlife branch will continue to work with the agriculturists in that area. We do have a rather extensive hunting opportunity plan this year, and we'll do whatever we can to work with the agriculturists and make sure that we're doing what we can to keep the herd size under control. On the larger issue of compensation, though, I can only repeat that there's no such program currently available through this ministry -- or through other ministries, to my knowledge.
J. Wilson: This is a subject dear to my heart. A little while ago I made the suggestion that perhaps the ministry should consider seeking other ways of doing things and work in conjunction, not with the Ministry of Agriculture, but with the agricultural industry. There is no group of people out there who care more and who are more willing to protect and look after the well-being of game. However, there comes a time when that favour must be returned. The past performance of the Environment ministry has been one of use and abuse of the agricultural industry. Time and time again, they will pay us lip service and do nothing except abuse a good thing. The rapport that has developed between the Environment ministry and the industry is not good.
When you plant your corn crop, 500 sandhill cranes descend on it when it's this high. You go back next week and replant it; sometimes you go back the following week and replant it and hope you can harvest half a crop, in some cases. We don't compensate. We protect these birds, because they're endangered; there aren't enough of them around. But several thousand of them can descend on your fresh fields and literally destroy them. That's fine, we can survive a lot.
Every time I think of the management that goes into our
The Chair: We'll have to interrupt proceedings. We'll recess.
The committee recessed from 8:23 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
J. van Dongen: I've just got some miscellaneous questions for the minister. Looking at the Environmental Appeal Board '95-96 annual report and the recommendations on page 15, the board is recommending some amendments with respect to the legislation that governs the appeal board itself. There are three different recommendations, and I think the first two in particular are extremely valid in terms of some of the appeal decisions that I've reviewed. I am wondering if the minister would consider making those amendments as recommended by the Environmental Appeal Board.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Would you refresh my memory? I can't remember what they are.
J. van Dongen: The first one is: "The board recommends amending all its statutes to
The second one is amending the statutes to provide consistent authority to entertain appeals. "The board recommends that its enabling statutes be harmonized to allow any person 'who considers himself or herself aggrieved by a decision' to appeal to the board." That one is significant from my perspective -- the second one -- because there are certain decisions, for example under the Ministry of Health or under the Health
[ Page 798 ]
This broader wording would make it possible for any of those decisions to be appealed. I am wondering if the minister has given some thought to recommending a change in wording -- in this case to the Minister of Health, but I think this also applies to legislation under his ministry.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I met with the chair of the appeal board recently, reviewed this and other issues with him, and told him what I'll tell you: that I'll be asking the ministry to examine those recommendations and bring forward to me their advice on how we deal with them.
J. van Dongen: On a little different subject, environmental
Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with the member opposite. I would be delighted if we didn't levy one fine for violating any environmental regulation or permit. That would be an ideal situation for me. I don't consider that a measure of the ministry's effectiveness. What it does say -- and I think it's an important thing to say -- is that the ministry is vigilant and wants to make sure that environmental laws of the province are being adhered to. But I agree. There are far more effective measures. For instance, we do produce state-of-the-environment reports on a regular basis, which look at such things as water quality and air quality. Those are some of the long-term measures that I would submit we need to be looking at.
I just reported to this committee on the effectiveness of the tire recycling program. I believe it's been a very effective program and relatively few used tires are going -- as they were, massively, in the 1980s -- into landfill or being stockpiled and then burned, creating other environmental hazards. So there are a number of measures of how a program can be effective.
We're looking at getting solid waste management under control and reducing the amount of waste by 50 percent. We're measuring year by year our progress toward obtaining that goal. We've committed, as part of Canada, to a greenhouse gas initiative and said that by the year 2000 we're going to be at 1990 levels. Either we make it or we don't, but we have measurements of greenhouse gas emissions there.
I agree with the member that there are concrete, objective measures of performance for making sure we have a sustainable environment, clean and safe drinking water, and respect for the biodiversity that we have in this province to pass on. We said we wanted to protect 12 percent of the land mass; we're at 9 percent right now, but we're making progress. Those figures are relatively objective. We can talk about what proportion of various sorts of biogeoclimatic zones are now protected at the 12 percent level; we can measure those things. There are a variety of ways of measuring progress within the ministry, and the one that the member alludes to, I think, is a minor part of those measurements.
J. van Dongen: Probably one thing that parallels what the minister is talking about in terms of state-of-the-environment reports is the Fraser Basin Management Board report card, which I think makes a reasonable attempt at putting some sort of measure on progress. I would maybe suggest to the minister for his consideration that something like that be encompassed in the annual report of the ministry. I say that because if I want to get some simple scan on what a ministry is doing, that's the first place I go. I don't know what other people do, but for me the annual report is the first place to look in terms of performance of a ministry. I leave that for the minister's consideration.
As the minister knows, I try to always find out the facts on both sides of the story. I had it put to me here recently that the city of Vernon was persuaded -- or compelled; I don't know what the appropriate term is -- about ten years ago to put in a sewer line to the lake. I think it was Okanagan Lake. It was a $7.5 million project, an installation which has never been used in ten years. As I understand it -- and this is a few months old -- there are still ongoing discussions between the city of Vernon and the ministry about attempting to get that sewage system activated. In the meantime, the city of Vernon has been doing a lot of what they consider, I guess, to be innovative works in terms of some level of treatment of sewage and then using it for fertilization of farmland, etc.
I'm wondering if the minister could fill me in from the ministry's perspective on what happened ten years ago and why the ministry, as I understand it, is still today trying to persuade the city of Vernon to start discharging their sewage, or some sort of treated sewage, into the lake through that system.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would be pleased to get the ministry to respond to those issues for the member. If he will provide me with relevant correspondence, I will get them to reply to him in writing.
[8:45]
J. Wilson: I think what I was talking about when I left was the disrespectful attitude of certain ministries towards some industry. I can't help but think that when people work together, they can get something done. A few years ago -- about 12 years ago now -- a good friend of mine was trying to farm in Skookumchuck. He was running about 200 head of beef cattle there. He had a nice, beautiful place. The Ministry of Environment was working on a elk herd down there, and they were actually getting something done. They were increasing the herd in numbers and getting it built back up to where it
However, this elk herd was literally putting this producer out of business. He told me the day before Christmas, I believe, that he had a stand of alfalfa, his third crop, 18 inches high. He had left it covered for the winter. He said he looked out the window and there were 500 elk in his field eating this. It lasted two days. They tramped it into the frost, and the winter killed every last plant. This went on for a few years. He complained to the point where the ministry bought him out and said: "Fine, we'll buy your place. Move out, and then we'll let the elk have it."
Well, elk or deer, whatever the species is, are not exactly dumb animals. They know what they like to eat, and they know what they don't like to eat. So the next year the ministry let the place grow up in weeds. And next fall, when the elk came down, what did they do? They moved across the road and visited his neighbour. Then the neighbours on each side
[ Page 799 ]
had the same problem. Had they maintained the growing conditions of that particular piece of land, they would have provided feed for that herd for many years, but that isn't what happened. That is mismanagement, a cost to the taxpayer all the way down the line.
My point is that if we're going to get anywhere in this country, we have to try to work together. Instead of approaching it with tunnel vision and trying to accommodate only your own interests out there, you end up defeating yourself and everything you're trying to do. Unfortunately, that is what happens.
I would like to throw a little bit out here. I've got a question or two for the minister, once I get done rambling on. An example I would like to present would be in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. We have a reasonably healthy agricultural industry there. We have a reasonably healthy mule deer population. As a matter of fact, it's probably more than a bit reasonably healthy; it's a good healthy population, I would say. A good percentage of those deer live on the protected ranchland. All of those ranchers have some timber for cover. They have some crops for forage for these animals, and those animals have learned what a good life is all about. They don't go off that place, so they're not going to get their butts shot off. They stay right there year-round. Why should they leave? They've got alfalfa first thing in the spring, they have silage in the winter, or your stockyard. If you're trying to feed a few calves from grain, they'll be in the feeder actually lined up with your calves in the wintertime eating the grain. They know what a good life is all about; they're not leaving. The producers don't mind these deer. They like to see them around, and they like to protect them, as long as they're not reaching a point where they could force the producers out of business.
We have a problem, and it has to do with the way the Ministry of Environment has gone about implementing the mule deer winter habitat. Under the land use plan which we have developed -- and, I might add, it's one of the better ones in the province, if not the only one, that was developed by the
Almost all -- not all of these woodlots, but the vast majority -- are woodlots that are controlled by those people who are in agriculture. On one hand, we have the minister saying: "Whatever these deer do to you is okay. We're not going to acknowledge the fact that you take care of them, you feed them year-round, and that you protect them from the hunters because you don't allow everybody to run across your place and shoot them." On the other hand: "We're going to reduce the cut on your woodlot by 60 percent because you don't need all that wood; those deer need it to survive through the winter."
This, to me, is not management. If the two got together they could do a terrific job, but it would appear that this has not happened. Even though I hear some remarks that we will make an attempt to work together, I have to have that proven to me. Is there anything the minister can do in this case to get his ministry to take a really good, hard look at the socioeconomic impact there because of the policy they introduced, rather than introducing policy with tunnel vision by the ministry?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This is about the last question that I'm going to answer on this particular topic. First, in the Skookumchuck area over the last eight to ten years, the elk numbers have been reduced from around 28,000 to 20,000. I hear that some of the guiding community in the area are saying that we've got too few elk.
As for the situation that the member describes in the Cariboo, I would urge the member and his constituents with concerns to take those concerns to the implementation group that's working on the Cariboo land use plan. That's where it can get sorted out. I hope it can be sorted out. I think the member is right that that land use plan was a good one, and that one of the reasons it was good is that we had a high level of community involvement and input. That's why I think many of the LRMPs around the province will be similarly successful. I would urge him to direct his constituents to those who are implementing that plan. Our ministry and others work on it, but his constituents can surely approach the committee directly.
J. Wilson: Okay, hon. Chair, I'll take his advice. We shouldn't have to go that route. We should work together and come up with the right solution right off the bat, and save a lot of time and trouble and taxpayers' dollars. But so be it.
Back to predators. It's my understanding that our predator control officer in the Cariboo-Chilcotin has been let go. Is this correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, could the member please repeat the question? My staff missed it.
J. Wilson: The question, hon. Chair, was that it is my understanding that our chief predator control officer in the Williams Lake area has been relieved of his duties; we no longer have one.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll get the staff to respond to the member. They seem unaware that the position has been eliminated.
J. Wilson: I've heard this from several people. We had a producer in the Tatlayoko Lake area that was killed by a black bear. He had a problem, he knew that beforehand, and I was told that there is no predator control person there to handle these problems. We have conservation officers, COs. They're all over the place. I know right
Any complaints that we've had in our area have not been attended to by a predator control officer. I can think of one recent example: a cougar that has been harassing the people at Cottonwood House Park. It's been hanging around there for a month or two now, and we have a couple of COs that have been attempting to go out and bag this cat. Unfortunately, the COs have got a work pattern, and it's hard to break. You go to the A&W at 8:15 in the morning and have breakfast and coffee. You go downtown at 9 o'clock and pick up your mail. At 10 o'clock you go to Tim Horton's for coffee. Then you go around town to see what's happening, and you may take a quick run out in the country. At noon you're back at the A&W, you go do something for half an hour, and then you're back in there again at 3 o'clock. This goes on day after day after day, and it's all documented. There are hundreds of people that can tell you where they are at any particular time of day.
[ Page 800 ]
Anyway, in this case these people asked them to come out and do something with this cat which had been around there. It was eating some sheep they had, and they were a little nervous about letting the tourists' children wander around outside the yard. The COs show up with a Lab and a six-month-old pup to tree a cougar. This is not performance. I feel that a predator control officer is probably more important than a CO in that area.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First to the facts of the case: staff are unaware that this position in Williams Lake is vacant. They'll check into it and get back to you and me.
More generally, though, I find the comments of the member about the work that COs do extremely offensive, and I hope that he would consider withdrawing that slander of the public servants who work for this province. COs log literally thousands of hours of overtime every year -- paid -- and additional thousands of hours unpaid. The great majority are not on any nine-to-five clock but on an hour-reporting system, because they work unusual hours and very long hours. I find his characterization offensive to the good work that COs do and the excellent job that they have done to preserve and manage wildlife in this province.
The Chair: Perhaps we could reflect on that while we recess for the vote in the House.
The committee recessed from 8:59 p.m. to 9:08 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
J. Wilson: I offer my apologies in this case. However, I could bring some video footage if the minister would like. Unfortunately, one of the things that's happened in the last year or two is that the ministry has been partly responsible for the demoralization of their people out there working. They have turned the COs from people that are actually out there protecting and enforcing our game laws into general enforcement officers. They do everything from issuing seatbelt tickets and traffic tickets to checking logbooks in logging trucks -- the whole spectrum. Their ticket books are identical to any RCMP officer's ticket book. They are out there in the back country in a roadblock, and it doesn't matter what you are doing -- if it's out of line, you'll get a ticket from a CO.
Their workload has been diversified. I think, in part, we should maybe focus it some more.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I accept the apology of the member opposite. I share his view that conservation officers are a vital part of the staff of the Ministry of Environment. I must say that I find his latest
J. Wilson: I didn't mention speeding tickets; I
Interjection.
J. Wilson: Yes, they can if they wish. They also
J. Weisgerber: There's a whole host of issues. I apologize, because I've just come in from the other debates. Perhaps a good place for me to
I want to start -- but I don't want the minister to think I'm setting a precedent -- by commending the ministry on some of the changes that I've seen in my part of the world, at least, with respect to hunting seasons. It seems to me that the decision to limit cow/calf draws on moose and, I believe, on elk to private farmland, and to put the hunting season late in the year when farmers are often bothered by game coming in to haystacks and the
Hon. P. Ramsey: You're right on one, member; we have engaged in a good deal of discussion on it. I will simply repeat what I said earlier. The ministry -- and the wildlife management branch particularly -- seeks to work closely with agriculturists and, where possible, to do exactly this sort of shaping of the wildlife seasons that you've described, in order to minimize or at least reduce damage to crops and property by wildlife.
J. Weisgerber: While I'm familiar with the limited entry this year, late in the season in region 7, I guess, which restricts antlerless draws to farmland, so that it concentrates hunting pressure on
[9:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The ministry is willing to consider expanding that approach. Obviously, a fair bit of consultation with the agricultural sector, hunting community and others in the areas that you're talking about would be required before we moved ahead on such an approach. But the member is right in saying it has proved to be a good approach. It's one that should be considered for expansion.
J. Weisgerber: In a perhaps somewhat similar vein, I'm aware that this year the ministry intends to introduce in the Peace region -- I believe it's this year -- the notion of very specific horn configurations on bull moose for the purpose of
[ Page 801 ]
encouraging the harvest of very young and very old bull moose. I wonder if the minister can tell me: have there been any seasons conducted where there has been an experience with this set of regulations that I understand is proposed for the Peace region?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right that we have been working with a committee in the area -- comprised of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide-Outfitters Association, our own branch staff and a conservation officer -- to put together some recommendations on horn configurations for moose seasons. This is an approach that has been successful in Alaska, where they've had it for a number of years. We're going to try it for one year, evaluate it and see what the success has been -- see if it parallels what's been going on in Alaska -- before we consider extending it to subsequent years.
J. Weisgerber: Could the minister give me a bit of a sense of the timing of that, in terms of whether it applies to the so-called early season, before the rut? My understanding has been that when moose are in the velvet stage, it's very, very tough for hunters to identify them, particularly in a period of time when leaves are still on the trees. My concern is if hunters are unable to identify accurately, you're going to get a number of animals shot and left because they don't meet the requirements.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have that specific information with me in the chamber tonight. Staff will get it to the member.
We have been preparing a video and brochure to assist hunters in adapting to the new program. It's been distributed to all rod and gun clubs across the province, as well as to all COs in regional offices. We're doing what we can to educate the hunting public on the program, and we will be assessing it after one year. I'll get the member the information he requires about the timing of it; I don't have that here tonight.
J. Weisgerber: Fair enough.
I wonder if the minister could give me a sense of where the ministry's going with respect to aboriginal hunting and interpretation of some of the decisions that have come down. I would preface that by saying that I believe the ministry takes far too broad an interpretation of what many times are very narrow decisions. I believe the ministry is not recognizing the fact that these are narrow decisions, dealing with very specific hunting situations. I'm concerned about events we've seen on Vancouver Island with Roosevelt elk. I'm very much concerned about the event, and I was happy to see the ministry move ahead with prosecution in the case of the bighorn sheep.
There are some other areas that I think are much less clear. An area of great concern to me is so-called Treaty 8 hunters who come from as far away as Saskatchewan to hunt in British Columbia. I'm not at all satisfied that there's even a reciprocal right or an interest for aboriginal hunters, treaty members from British Columbia, to travel into those other jurisdictions. It's become an issue with big-game animals: elk, moose and particularly bison. I want to get into the area of discussing bison at a later time.
I want to encourage the minister to look at this law very critically rather than take the kind of approach that we've seen the Department of Fisheries and Oceans take with decisions related to aboriginal fishing and the evolving aboriginal fishing strategy. I believe that that flows from a misinterpretation -- I hesitate to say a deliberate misinterpretation, but certainly a very generous interpretation -- of those decisions.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, let me say something I think the member and I will agree on: conservation has to be the prime consideration in whatever we do on hunting regulations. I think that is recognized by all varieties of opinion on what the constitution and court rulings mean in terms of aboriginal rights to hunt for sustenance. Conservation is clearly the prime consideration, and I intend to make that my prime consideration in dealing with the issue. On many of the points under that, the member and I may find ourselves in disagreement. The ministry operates under the principle that, first, conservation is paramount; second, the constitution and the Delgamuukw decision have given aboriginal peoples rights to harvest for sustenance, and those rights need to be respected by this ministry and by this government.
Having said that, I find myself at a point where I don't feel myself as well briefed in some of the nuances of this issue as I might be to engage in full debate with the member. This is an issue that, when I took over the ministry, I found was one of great concern to people in my riding and indeed in the northern part of the province in general. It is one that I intend to devote a good deal of time to before I make any pronouncements about what I believe are the options that we should pursue. It is clear to me that one thing must be done, though, and that is to keep the lines of communication open with aboriginal peoples about these issues. Most of the first nations that I've talked to that are concerned about these issues do want to work with the province on principles of conservation and on getting a way of working in harmony on this wide range of how aboriginal rights to hunting and overall provincial responsibility for wildlife management fit together. There are some that simply don't want to, and I recognize that.
With those comments, I guess I would thank the member for his observations and say that this is an issue of concern to me. I want to get a fair bit more information and a fair bit more legal opinion from diverse sources before I announce any major initiatives in this area.
J. Weisgerber: I'm disappointed that the minister would want a second legal opinion, having gotten one from me.
I don't expect we'll have an answer. I'm expecting a commitment, but I do think it's worthwhile putting onto the record some issues that should be considered. Conservation comes first, obviously. But I think the minister would -- at least, I hope the minister would -- also agree that equitable access to resources is also an issue. And if I am put to the test of deciding whether that access beyond conservation goes to a status Treaty 8 member from northern Saskatchewan or a member from my community in the northeast, I will argue for access, first of all, for British Columbians. I worry that agencies will simply say: "Well, Delgamuukw
I think somebody should have a look at that. Somebody should be prepared, then -- I'm suggesting that perhaps it's the minister, through his ministry -- to challenge people on this. Say: "No, indeed. There are rights, and we don't accept the fact that your treaty right from Saskatchewan entitles you to preferential access to wildlife in northern British Columbia." I think the same argument could be made for a status person going from Vancouver Island to the Kootenays to hunt, because I don't think Delgamuukw said that there was any traditional right to move anywhere in British Columbia to hunt. I don't think the question was ever put. It never will be put unless the ministry decides to become, with the cooperation of the Attorney General, a bit more involved in these
[ Page 802 ]
kinds of discussions. I don't suggest that I'm always right or even that I am right, but I think it's a question that most British Columbians would agree needs to be raised and hasn't been raised. So with that, if the minister has any more comments, fine. If not, I'll hope that he will at least give us an undertaking to take a look at some of these issues.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will only say to the member that I do take these issues with a great deal of seriousness. I recognize the concern from his constituents and mine. I also think it is incumbent, of course, that we act within the laws of the country and the province, and I will be seeking solutions. I will also be seeking those in a cooperative way with first nations, where possible.
F. Gingell: The first issue I'd like to deal with has been prevalent and a high priority in the minds of many people in my constituency, and it became an even bigger issue during the recent election. It is the expropriation of some 4,000 acres of farmland in Delta, which were expropriated in the late 1960s by an earlier Social Credit government for the purpose of backup and industrial development lands for the Roberts Bank development. The minister has probably travelled on the ferry from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen and has seen that the additional two pods at Roberts Bank have been built. The first is being developed for a container terminal, and the second is being developed for a specialty grain operation.
In all the exercises that have to do with the planning of the highway and transportation infrastructure down the causeway from these developments to the rest of the world, it has clearly become the case that the Roberts Bank backup lands that were originally expropriated from their owners -- from the farmers, many of whom were the original settlers in the middle and latter parts of the nineteenth century -- will never be used for that purpose. In fact, the government has made that statement very clearly: these lands are going to remain in agriculture. They're going to recognize the contribution they can make to wildlife in the area, and they are not going to be used for the purposes for which they were originally expropriated.
[9:30]
During the course of the election, the Premier gave a commitment that this government would revisit the issue of returning those lands to the original families. Clearly, there are many issues to be dealt with: price, and the fact that these lands do sit within the agricultural land reserve, they are not for future development and they are for agriculture. In my opinion -- and I don't think anyone in government would argue with this -- the government has not been a good husbander of these lands. The lands have been allowed to let go, leases have been short term, and the farmers have not been encouraged to reinvest in the lands or keep up the barns and facilities to ensure that drainage and irrigation is kept up and land-levelling takes place. Much of the land has, in fact, been mined -- and I use that term -- for people's lawns throughout the lower mainland.
The Premier made a commitment during the election that cabinet would revisit the issue of who should own these lands. I appreciate that nothing in this world is simple and that there are many sides to this issue, but a month has gone by -- in fact, three months have gone by since before the election was called, when the Premier made this commitment. Nothing has happened.
I believe we all agree in the democratic tenet that land should be expropriated only for a specific purpose. If that purpose is no longer valid and is not going to be carried through, then the land should be returned with due dispatch, under reasonable arrangements, to the original owners. That clearly was the case that was determined in the courts of Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, where they were dealing with issues to do with airports, where land had been expropriated and the airports were not built. This isn't due dispatch. Many years have gone by, but the original families are on that land.
I don't want to get into the issue, because I don't think it's appropriate, of whether I believe the land should be sold back and under what terms. This government has made a real commitment to the farmers of Delta who call themselves the victims of expropriation. They feel that they have a commitment from your government for this issue to be revisited in an open manner. We're not talking about a quiet cabinet meeting where you listen only to your own side; we're talking about a real, open process where everybody will believe at the end that justice has been done.
I know that's a rather long speech, and the question at the end is somewhat minor. The question is: does the minister recognize the commitment the government has made, and will the minister give assurance to this committee that there will be a real re-evaluation of this whole issue and not just a quick endorsement of what has happened in the past?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his rather thorough discussion of the issue. My answer will be brief. The Premier, during the election, did promise to re-examine this issue. He has asked the Attorney General to do the initial work on looking into the issue of expropriated lands and their return.
F. Gingell: Would the minister be willing to give us some calendar or schedule, for publication, for this to happen?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think your initial question should probably go to the AG, since it's his ministry that is doing the work.
F. Gingell: But it is your ministry that has jurisdiction and control of this land. If I may be so bold, I suggest to the minister that it has been officials within his ministry that have been the major influence or have had major input, from my understanding, into this issue up to this point.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will consult with my colleague the Attorney General and see if we can provide at least some informal indication to the member as to how this process will unfold and in what time frame.
F. Gingell: That's a lot better than we've done in the past on this issue.
Understandably, the second issue -- which I'm sure you're expecting me to discuss, if you'll open your briefing notes -- is the issue of Tsatsu Shores. The issue isn't really Tsatsu Shores; the issue is that there is, within all the areas of the province, land that is presently under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government. In many cases that land is very involved in and close to and part of local communities.
In the end, the issue of Tsatsu Shores is not the particular building that you see rising out of the mists as you come in on the ferry to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal; it's the need for and the desire of local communities to have input and influence into the decisions about the types of development that
[ Page 803 ]
happen on federal land within municipalities. It's all very well to say that the federal government has jurisdiction; nevertheless, these lands are within local government geographic areas.
In my years on the Harbour Commission, also a federal body that was able to ignore the concerns of local
As the minister knows, a great part of this issue has been involved in the exercise of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which doesn't apply to this project for one reason only: because there doesn't happen to be any federal government funding involved. The fact is that it's going to be built on federal land. I would suggest to you that the use of that land is a contribution, but it's financed by offshore investors and a bank that is owned offshore.
It's critically important, I believe, for the provincial government to push the negotiations with their federal counterparts -- and you have regular meetings with them -- to ensure that provincial and local government concerns are addressed by the federal government in these kinds of issues. I was most grateful for the efforts of the previous deputy minister, with whom I had communicated. I felt things were kind of moving along, but then the election came, and everything seemed to die.
So now we have a sewage treatment plant being built on a salt marsh -- a situation that we don't think has met the intent of the federal legislation. The federal government isn't willing to make the kinds of commitments that the local community wants, which is not that they won't allow this development to proceed but that there will be a process that is open, professional and meets technical standards to ensure that it's all done in an appropriate manner.
I am concerned that at this moment in time I don't have the feeling of comfort that the provincial government recognizes the import of this or recognizes that what's happening on the beaches in Tsawwassen, on the land that is the Tsawwassen Indian reserve, is going to be a precedent for all other parts of Canada.
I appreciate that the division bells have rung. Perhaps the minister can respond after.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, a very brief response. The bells are summoning us to another chamber, and I do understand that we will be adjourning shortly thereafter. I will respond very, very briefly, and if the member wishes, we can revisit it tomorrow.
As you know, the former minister wrote to the federal Minister of Environment in August, saying: "Hey, get on with it; this is important." They are now in a process where Environment Canada, Health Canada, DFO and local agencies are assembling all public comments into a draft report to be released on July 26, at the end of this week. Following an agency meeting, that screening report will be completed by the end, which will set the conditions concerning whether the project can
F. Gingell: It has already proceeded.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I know.
With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:44 p.m.