[ Page 3439 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

I. Waddell: I'd like the House to welcome Don and Pearl Collinson, who are here from Pitt Meadows. Don's mother was an old friend of mine in one of my old ridings.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I wonder if I might also introduce to the House. . . . We had a delegation here today of chartered accountants. They'll have to forgive me -- I see them there -- I've forgotten their cards, but I know their numbers. There are four of them, and they are right up there. I'd like the House to welcome these distinguished professionals.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce a couple of constituents of mine: Don and Helen Yelland from Kaleden. Don is a World War II vet, Helen a war bride, and both are members of the Royal Canadian Legion. They are the in-laws of the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Today in the members' gallery are visitors from the People's Republic of China. We have two senior officials from the ministry of foreign affairs of Guangdong province, the province which we have a twinning relationship with. They are Mr. Huang and Mr. Chang. Will the House please make them very welcome.

I. Chong: Earlier today members of this assembly were guests at a luncheon hosted by the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia. Those of us who attended, I'm sure, enjoyed the event. So I'm pleased to introduce to the House two members of the CGA staff. They are Mr. Edward Downing, director of communications and public relations, and Mr. Bill Caulfield, executive director. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I have sad news and some happy news to inform the House about today. The sad news is that this is the last day that Mr. Jim Beatty of the Vancouver Sun will be with us in the gallery for some time. The happy news is that the reason for his absence is that Jim and Diana Nethercott are leaving for Toronto this Saturday, where they'll be married next Saturday, May 24.

And a brown envelope, which I found under my door this morning, also informs me that they'll be then going off to Spain and Portugal for two weeks. Would all please join me in wishing them congratulations and best wishes.

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, today I have guests from Mayne Island in my constituency: Shelby Toderel and John and Maxine Bianchin. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Gingell: To make sure the introduction gets into Hansard in the proper fashion, rather than being beaten to it, I would like the House to welcome Alison Morse, first vice-president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia; Woody Hayes, the secretary; Ritchie McCloy, the executive vice-president; and Doug McClelland, the director of communications.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to introduce two guests. The first is Patrick Weir. Patrick is the husband of our very outstanding researcher, Sarah Bonner. He is joined today by a relative, Fred Doyle, from Shediac, New Brunswick, which I am told is the lobster capital of the world.

R. Coleman: I'd also like to welcome to the House today my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Don and Helen Yelland, from Kaleden. In addition to that, on August 31, 1974, I made the smartest decision of my life. I married my wife Michele. She's the person who keeps me grounded and keeps me in touch with reality. I'd like the House to please make my wife Michele welcome as well.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like the House to make welcome Marcia Braundy, who is my constituent, and Olga Ogloff, who is a constituent of the member for Rossland-Trail.

P. Reitsma: In the precincts today are three people I would like to introduce. One is Alice Hughes, our legislative assistant, and the other two are family members, my better half's sister and brother-in-law from Chicago. Both are police officers, visiting us. And with your permission and advice, I would like to say one or two lines in Spanish to welcome them. [Spanish spoken.] Please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, I have three introductions, but I will be as quick as I can. One of our Pages, Teresa Cameron, has her mother Mickie Cameron and her grandparents Maria and Tony Romano in the House today. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Although my colleague has welcomed Marcia Braundy, I too want to do that. During my breast cancer treatment last year, she presented me with a wonderful Kootenay goddess, who was very much a part of my healing. So, in addition to my colleague, I want to welcome her.

Lastly, my ministerial introduction. Today I would like to introduce those who I think are some of the most important people in the Ministry for Children and Families. There are administrative staff support here from all over the province. They have come to help the ministry find ways to streamline office procedures and eliminate paper backlog. What I have learned in the working years I've had is that if you want to find out how it really works and you want to make it work better, you ask the people who do the work every day. Their efforts will help tremendously in our mandate to support children and families in British Columbia. I'll look forward to seeing them in my office after question period. Please, will the House make them welcome.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today are seven students from Camosun College. They are here to discuss their concerns about child care issues, and they are: Linda LeDrew, Larry Lewis, Steve Washington, Peter Knox, Angela Poy, Melissa Berting and Darnell Washington. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FISH PROTECTION ACT

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to announce today that our government is once again demonstrating its leadership by introducing a bill 

[ Page 3440 ]

which provides progressive and comprehensive measures to protect and sustainably manage another key resource of our province -- our fishery.

This is a resource which British Columbians view as a symbol of both our heritage and our environmental values. The Fish Protection Act reflects our government's continued commitment to environmental protection and is the newest addition to our recently announced B.C. fisheries strategy. It establishes a legislative framework to ensure that fish and fish habitat will be sustained for future generations.

This act provides powerful tools to protect water flows and habitat needs for fish, particularly in urban areas where fish habitat is disappearing at an alarming rate. It represents a fundamental shift in fisheries management in B.C. by focusing protection where it is needed most: on streams where the sustainability of fish is threatened. This new act will also help ensure a more secure future for coastal communities and the people who depend on fish for their livelihood and way of life.

Some highlights of the bill include: no new dams on the Fraser and other provincially significant rivers; improved riparian protection measures for urban streams; tax incentives for landowners to protect fish habitat; designation of sensitive streams and recovery plans to restore fish populations to historical levels; and improved water-licensing tools to protect fish and fish habitat in all streams.

The significance of this bill should not be underestimated. For the first time ever, the needs of fish will be balanced with the needs of humans for the benefit of both. It builds on our stewardship initiatives, such as the watershed restoration program and our urban salmon habitat program.

[2:15]

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 27. These amendments will benefit the effective enforcement of environmental legislation and indeed the effective enforcement of other provincial statutes. The amendments in this bill will allow the court to order the continued detention of evidence seized under a search warrant or otherwise during the investigation, beyond the three-month limit which the act presently imposes. The amendments would also provide for a complete process respecting the preservation and disposition of seized exhibits in a manner similar in substance to the equivalent provisions in the Criminal Code. These amendments will allow adequate time for the proper investigation of provincial statute offences involving complicated issues and voluminous evidence.

This bill will also provide, where a person disputes a violation ticket, that the first appearance of that person in court may be an appearance for the purpose of setting a hearing date, rather than the hearing itself. This amendment will assist in reducing costs relating to court time and resources without infringing the rights of the defendants.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. In spite of its rather utilitarian name, it's a bill that demonstrates the strength of this government's commitment to the environment and to jobs for B.C. The bill is an important part of the fisheries renewal strategy. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. minister. I believe we need a motion before. . . .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

In my enthusiasm, because this is such a great bill. . . . This bill is an important part of the fisheries renewal strategy recently announced by the Premier, and I'm proud to join my hon. colleagues in presenting legislation that will make British Columbia the national leader in fish habitat protection.

Local governments, through planning practices and development approval processes, have a critical role to play in the protection of the natural environment, and this bill strengthens the powers of local government to protect the environment, including but not restricted to fish habitat. For the first time ever, local government will have the power to strike a balance between fish habitat and human habitat, something extremely important to all of us. I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CONSEQUENCES OF
B.C. FERRIES WILDCAT STRIKE

[ Page 3441 ]

My question to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries is: can he tell this House and the people of British Columbia how he intends to maintain this vital transportation link throughout the year?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, with respect to the illegal activities that have taken place to date, the processes that are available when these instances happen have been utilized. There is an order from the labour board and now from the courts which prohibits illegal activity, and we fully expect that responsible trade unions will comply with the law of the province.

G. Campbell: Illegal activity is prohibited by the law. It is always prohibited, not just when you feel like it being prohibited. The question to the minister is: how does he intend to maintain a vital link to Vancouver Island throughout the summer months? The second question, which the minister did not answer, is: what does he intend to do with the lawbreakers who disrupted this link last week?

Hon. D. Miller: There's no reason to presuppose that there will not be the maintenance of ferry service to and from Vancouver Island and, indeed, to many other ports in British Columbia this summer. The opposition leader is basing his question on some hypothesis, which perhaps he may wish to elaborate on. Apart from an incident a couple of days ago and some rumours, there is nothing that I'm aware of that presupposes that those systems and services will not be maintained.

G. Campbell: On Tuesday of this week, a thousand British Columbians were held up. They were stranded because of an illegal act. The simple question to the minister is: what does the minister intend to do to discipline those workers who broke the law? He has no trouble standing up at other times. What is he going to do to discipline the workers in the Ferry Corporation who stranded British Columbians? And how does he intend to assure that the law is upheld through the coming months?

Hon. D. Miller: Just as a general statement, we have laws prohibiting all kinds of activity. I presume there's a general understanding with the opposition that, notwithstanding that society has laws prohibiting all kinds of activities, we also have police forces to ensure that when people do violate the law, the consequences of the law are felt.

I said yesterday that the corporation is now gathering facts with respect to the issue of whether or not pursuit of damages is applicable in this case. As well, the corporation is assembling those facts to see whether or not, in terms of due process, there will be discipline as a result of the events of a couple of days ago. So those processes are in place, and decisions will subsequently be made.

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD

Will the minister tell us whether or not the ministry has done a thorough investigation to determine if there was any past history of violence in the proposed foster home in Saskatchewan that might place this child in danger?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member opposite knows that this is a child whose circumstances are currently before the Child and Family Review Board, who I expect to make a decision as early as tomorrow. We have given to the Child and Family Review Board the results of the two home studies that were done, and in those home studies are included criminal-record checks, interviews with relatives, etc. We have placed all of the information we have before the Child and Family Review Board, and we will await their decision.

M. Coell: Time is of the utmost, as the minister says. The review board will make its recommendation tomorrow. The opposition has confirmed that the uncle with whom the government intends to place this child was charged with child battery on November 14, 1990, and was incarcerated. Does the minister feel that this is an appropriate placement for any child?

Hon. P. Priddy: Given that the Child and Family Review Board has not yet reported out their decision, I don't think it is appropriate for me to be commenting on a board that is not part of this ministry.

We have given all of the information we have, including criminal record checks, to the Child and Family Review Board. We'll await their decision tomorrow, and I look forward to that.

ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
OF DANGEROUS OFFENDER

My question is for the Attorney General. Can he tell us how a man with this dangerous track record was accidentally set free?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This was obviously an unfortunate human error that occurred. There is an internal investigation underway, and I'll await the results of that investigation. If any further investigation by the independent investigation, inspection and standards office is required by Mr. Anderson, I will be ordering that. In the interim, I am happy to report that Mr. Middleton is back in custody.

[2:30]

There is, however, a larger issue. Can the minister tell us why, when the prisons of British Columbia are already dangerously overcrowded, the corrections branch isn't on full alert to prevent these unfortunate events from occurring?

[ Page 3442 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The facility in Prince George is a state-of-the-art facility. I understand that it is the most secure British Columbia facility in terms of corrections.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told by the corrections branch that there is an internal investigation. They tell me that this was an unfortunate human error, and I am awaiting the results of that internal investigation. If there is need to have an independent investigation by the investigation, inspection and standards office of Mr. Anderson, I'll be ordering one.

WORKER ELIGIBILITY FOR FRBC FUNDING

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Do I need to remind the other side that this is the party that brought in the forest renewal program in order to assist displaced forest workers and that there is no discrimination in the definition of displaced forest workers? The fact remains that we are attempting to negotiate arrangements to effectively put displaced forest workers back to work in jobs in the forests.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Forests is answering my question, he's not only answering to you or to me, he's also speaking to the thousands of displaced forest workers and unemployed silviculture workers throughout the province. Last Monday he promised to provide non-union forest workers equal access to FRBC funds. Now he has broken that promise. Will the Minister of Forests explain why he is discriminating against workers who choose not to be members of the union?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be a lot easier to engage in this discussion if they read beyond the headlines -- some of which are put in quotes, and aren't quotes.

There is $150 million in silviculture work, paid for by the companies. There is $60 million for basic silviculture paid for by FRBC. That is available to the same people it's always available to. There is. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What that opposition doesn't understand is that we intend to spend it on good family-supporting jobs, where it needs to be spent. What they would spend it on is to pay Repap to pay the banks. Or they would pay it on projects that don't qualify.

C. Hansen: We can see where this government's priorities shift from month to month, because only a few months ago they wanted to raid that very fund. Earlier this week the Minister of Forests. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members -- on both sides.

C. Hansen: . . .stated that he would not put students in the same category as other workers when it comes to tree-planting jobs this summer. Those students are relying on those jobs to earn enough money to go back to school this fall. Will the minister tell this House and tell the students of this province where they fit into his priorities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the members on that side would read even the quotes in the paper that are accurate, they would know that I've said there is as much opportunity this year for students to be employed in silviculture as there was last year. In fact, more money is going to be spent on silviculture this year than last year. But the purpose of Forest Renewal is to renew the forests and to assist displaced forest workers in obtaining jobs. If the student is a displaced forest worker, you can expect they'll get a high priority. But there is no discrimination against students in the funding of FRBC projects.

C. Hansen: Will the Minister of Forests assure this House and assure the students of this province that none of those jobs that normally would be going to students for tree-planting projects in British Columbia will be steered to Dave Haggard's IWA?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be wonderful if the opposition could assure us that they would do a better job. They would spend it on the banks.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me tell you. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please! I realize that this is Thursday and that it's a long weekend -- but a little less exuberance.

Minister, will you please answer the question.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What that side would spend the funds on. . . . Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition: ". . .[we would] basically give the money to Repap." Hon. Speaker, that means the big majority would go to the banks.

Earlier this week the member for Cariboo North stood up in this House and defended an application that I found out contained many training activities outside Forest Renewal's mandate. It did not clearly demonstrate the need for the proposed training, was expensive compared to other training programs and had administrative costs which were high compared to many other similar projects. That's what they'd spend the money on. They don't know what they're talking about.

Point of Privilege

[ Page 3443 ]

The Speaker: Please proceed.

G. Plant: My motion relates to a statement made during question period on May 6 by the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations, who said this:

"It is my understanding that the members opposite declined to become involved in the process, have not responded. They attended a briefing and then did not participate -- preferred to sit back and sandbag this process in order to undermine the attempt to produce a non-partisan approach to resolving our constitutional issues."

By letter of March 13, the opposition leader accepted the invitation. The briefing took place on March 25. I attended; so did the opposition leader, the member for Matsqui, the special adviser and his assistant. At the meeting, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast outlined his project as constitutional adviser. He provided me with a signed agreement entitled "Proposal for Project to Provide Advice to Minister of Intergovernmental Relations on National Unity Issues."

Mr. Speaker, the first stage of the process established by the agreement is the preparation of papers. To date we have not been provided with any papers. Apart from the March 25 briefing, we have had no other invitation or opportunity to participate in the adviser's process.

In this context I wish to review the four components of the minister's statement of May 6. First, the minister said: ". . .the members opposite declined to become involved in the process." In fact, members of the official opposition were invited to a briefing, accepted the invitation and attended the briefing.

Second, the minister said that the members opposite "have not responded." In fact, the adviser wrote a letter to the opposition leader, and the leader responded. Nothing else has invited or required a response.

Third, the minister said that the members opposite "attended a briefing and then did not participate." This statement incorrectly implies that there has been something to participate in since the briefing.

Fourth, the minister said that the members opposite prefer to "sit back and sandbag this process." In fact, the members of the opposition have participated in the process to the full extent that they have been given the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order! I must hear the case.

G. Plant: . . .is not a case of disagreement on the facts. I suggest that it is clear that the minister's statements in the House on May 6 were false. The only issue is intent. The question is whether the minister knew his facts were wrong. That issue, I respectfully suggest, is not for you to decide but ought to be considered by the committee to which this matter should be referred.

An Hon. Member: Hire a lawyer.

G. Plant: Hire a tailor.

The Speaker: Members, please. Sorry, member for Richmond-Steveston. Would you mind taking your seat for just a moment.

Members, one of the most important single things that we decide about and that we listen to are allegations about breaches of privilege, and surely we all ought to acknowledge a member's right to be heard when he or she perceives that that privilege has been breached.

I would caution all members that any kind of barracking, any kind of hectoring, any kind of noise-making will not be tolerated at times like this.

Richmond-Steveston, please proceed.

G. Plant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is intent, as I said, and in that context I do want to draw your attention to two further facts. First, on May 6 in the House, the minister stated that the government had conducted exhaustive research into our involvement in the project, words which suggest that the minister was carefully briefed on the facts.

Secondly, on May 6, I wrote the minister to give him an opportunity to exculpate himself. He has not responded to my letter. I invite you to consider the appropriate inference from the minister's silence.

Mr. Speaker, your task is not to decide the issue, but only to determine whether a prima facie case for breach of privilege has been made. I invite you to conclude that there is a prima facie case. Mr. Speaker, I'm tendering the appropriate motion.

Hon. A. Petter: Methinks the member doth protest considerably too much. There is no point of privilege here, hon. Speaker. My understanding today is unchanged from the day in question. It remains my understanding that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast invited members of the official opposition to attend a briefing with a view to gaining their involvement in a process to canvass critically important issues surrounding national unity.

It remains my understanding today that members of the official opposition attended that briefing, where the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast reiterated his invitation to participate in this process and specifically invited the official opposition to submit any documentation or position papers they wished for inclusion in the debate. I'm advised that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has yet to hear from the members opposite.

[2:45]

I will table some documents that substantiate the points I've just made, including a letter to myself from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast outlining the process to date, 

[ Page 3444 ]

as well as the letter that was sent by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on Feb. 6, inviting the Leader of the Opposition and caucus to participate in this process that they have so far declined to participate in.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. As is the established practice in this House, I will consider the submissions and attachments made thereto and shall report back to the House at the first opportunity.

Ministerial Statement

FAMILY DAY

Today we celebrate families in all their varied forms, and we renew our commitment to build on the strengths inherent in all family units. Some families need help to be healthy, loving places. For these families, we offer our support and the tools they need to get stronger and to look after their own. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all members of this House to look beyond the traditional boundaries of family and offer their energy and their support.

It could mean becoming a Big Brother or Big Sister, volunteering some time to a local community centre or any event in the community that benefits children. I urge all of you and all British Columbians to reach into your communities to help a child and make a difference. Not only will you be strengthening your families and communities, you will be making the life of a child better.

I would like to encourage each of you to celebrate this day in a way that has meaning to you and those closest to you. The B.C. Council for Families invites all of us to celebrate our family connections by carrying out an act of kindness for a family member -- a phone call to a grandparent, taking a niece or nephew to the park, making mom's lunch -- because it takes only the smallest gesture to make someone feel special, to strengthen the family and to let those who are there for you know that they're loved and appreciated. The benefits to us and our society are immeasurable.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to join with the minister in celebrating the family today. A family is the most important resource that any individual can have throughout his or her life. I think we need to turn our eyes, too, to the people who don't have the benefit of families in our society and in the world -- the people whose families are shattered by war and poverty, the people whose families are shattered by child labour and slavery. I think that all of us in this House are supportive of families in every sense of the word. There are children in our province for whom we are the family. Those are the children who are in the care of government, and I would hope that all of us can make decisions with regard to those children and their families with love and understanding in our hearts. I thank the minister for her statement today.

Orders of the Day

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The small House. And in this House, I call second reading of Bill 14.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill contains urgently needed measures to achieve administrative efficiencies while enhancing environmental protection. These amendments will ensure that the ministry can continue to deliver all of its essential services. In implementing five different initiatives, the bill amends seven acts: the Land Act, the Pesticide Control Act, the Waste Management Act, the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Environment Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act.

First the Land Act. Amendments to the Land Act are required to transfer responsibility for the Crown land registry from the surveyor general to the minister. Under the new organizational structure of our ministry, responsibility for the maintenance and security of the registry is vested with the director of Crown land registry services, to whom the surveyor general now reports. Transferring responsibility for the Crown land registry to the minister will allow this responsibility to be delegated to the director under existing provisions of the act. These amendments are minor housekeeping ones which do not affect the operation or maintenance of the Crown land registry, but are necessary to legally delegate this responsibility. They will ensure that any future restructuring in the ministry does not result in a need for further minor amendments to this provision of the act.

This bill also amends the Pesticide Control Act. Many people across British Columbia are concerned with what they view to be the too-heavy use of pesticides and pesticide products. These amendments provide an innovative means through which these kinds of concerns can be addressed. This bill amends the Pesticide Control Act to allow for the use of approved pest management plans in addition to permits which authorize pesticide applications, primarily on public lands. These amendments will have two advantages. First, they will benefit the environment by encouraging comprehensive, long-term planning in pest management as an alternative to the individual permitting system. I'm told that by coordination of activity, this will significantly reduce the amount of pesticides used. Pest management plans will incorporate principles of integrated pest management in order to manage pests and reduce both the frequency and the amount of pesticides which may be applied.

Secondly, these amendments will also reduce delays and the paperwork currently required in the permitting process. This will enable staff to have more time to promote effective pesticide management planning and gives them the tools through which they can encourage alternative methods of pest control.

[ Page 3445 ]

Amendments to the Pesticide Control Act will also enable approved external training institutes and trainers to issue pesticide applicator and dispenser certificates. This will allow the ministry to enter into partnerships with educational institutions to deliver education and certification programs throughout the province. Of course, the ministry will always continue to set standards for education and certification, which will maintain public confidence and will continue to ensure public access to these services throughout the province.

Amendments to this act will also build on the work we have done as a government in creating a comprehensive, industry-based stewardship model. The key principle is that producers have responsibility to collect and safely dispose of hazardous products, which keeps them out of our landfills and water systems.

Amendments to the Pesticide Control Act will also expand regulation-making authority under the act to include requirements that commercial pesticide vendors participate in residual pesticide stewardship programs. These changes will enable the ministry to implement a residual agricultural pesticide stewardship program, which has been proposed by industry and developed in conjunction with government officials. This program will reduce the environmental hazard posed by residual agricultural pesticides stored throughout the province and complement the household hazardous waste program for consumers, which includes household pesticide products.

The bill also includes an amendment to the Waste Management Act to broaden a manager's powers to suspend or cancel permits to include matters of routine administration. These changes will streamline the permitting system and reduce unnecessary paperwork. These changes also ensure that a manager gives notice in those cases where the new powers to suspend or cancel a permit or approval are exercised. Should the permittee disagree, decisions of a manager to suspend or cancel a permit or approval can be appealed by the permit or approval holder.

Another extremely important provision in this bill is spill cost recovery. A spill of hazardous materials can threaten both public health and our environment, causing untold damage. Amendments to the Waste Management Act specifically authorize the ministry to take immediate action in response to a spill or threat of a spill that is hazardous to public health or the environment.

They also allow the ministry to recover the costs of such actions from the persons responsible. Currently the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks spends almost $1.3 million annually in dealing with spills throughout the province. The amendments will thus reduce the amount of public subsidization of these costs, shifting accountability to those who are directly responsible, and will encourage spill prevention, thereby reducing the number of hazardous spills across the province.

Finally, we are improving the appeal process to a variety of acts, including amendments to the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Environment Management Act, the Pesticide Control Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act, which will streamline the existing appeal system by creating a one-step appeal process. Currently there is a two-step internal appeal process under the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act. The first level of appeal is to the director or comptroller of water rights, and the second is to the Environmental Appeal Board. The ministry's current appeal process has long been criticized by appellants and environmental groups, because it involves having a manager's decision reviewed internally by a colleague or a supervisor and results in a perception of bias. The current appeal system is also costly and time-consuming for both appellants and government.

These amendments will direct all appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board in order to ensure an independent review of decisions and to remove a time-consuming and costly layer of bureaucracy. These amendments will also result in a consistent system of appeals for all environmental legislation. The Environmental Appeal Board will now have the same powers with respect to all appeals they hear. These appeal mechanisms are consistent with the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness.

In conclusion, this bill reflects our government's commitment to an efficient and streamlined administration while continuing to foster a healthy and sustainable environment.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

[3:00]

There are many aspects of the bill which I think reflect sound principles and are intended to achieve some of the principles of good government with respect to the Ministry of Environment. In committee, though, we will be looking in greater detail at some of the areas which could potentially be cause for some concern not just for us on the opposition side but for some of the many stakeholder groups that we've consulted with on this legislation, who have continued to express concerns about some areas. I will initially offer some supportive comments, but with a caution that we from this side of the House are also going to offer some of what I hope will be constructive criticism and will be looking for answers about some potentially very important questions about the way this bill will change the way some of the processes affecting farmers, horticulturists, wildlife management and waste management work.

I'll begin, I think, by talking a little bit about the changes to the appeals process. Certainly it's wonderful to see that the appeals process will be somewhat streamlined. I know there is a great deal of frustration out there, amongst industry and environmental groups and citizens' groups, that the appeals process takes much, much too long. It demands much too much time, and there's far too much uncertainty built into the process for stakeholders. So any moves and any intentions to try and simplify that process are something that will certainly be welcome.

Some of the comments I have about the bill as it stands, though -- and I'm sure we'll have a great deal of time to discuss this in detail in committee -- are with respect to the fact that the board, for example, will have the opportunity to assess costs against appellants. I would have some concern that because the legislation doesn't say that those costs need to be fair and reasonable, or that there doesn't seem to be any allowance for hardship cases, individual citizens in particular -- those who have a complaint with what goes on in their neighbours' back yard -- might be deterred from bringing a case before the appeal board.

I would suggest to the minister that it's important that every citizen feel as though they can -- and certainly, in reality, have the ability to -- go before the board, no matter what their means, whether they're rich or poor, whether they 

[ Page 3446 ]

have access to lawyers or not. I would suggest that as it stands, it appears that what the legislation might do is just encourage people to feel as though they have to hire lawyers to go before the board. And I may have some colleagues -- on my side of the House as well as on the minister's -- who might argue that that's a good thing, but I wouldn't be among them. I think citizens should be able to represent themselves at a fair and reasonable cost before the board. I would be suspicious of any changes that might deter people from having access to the board, particularly since very regular citizens can frequently find themselves in situations where they need to go before the board. It would be a shame if we were to do anything that might inadvertently deny them access to the board.

So I suggest that perhaps that in committee we may want to consider including some provisions for hardship cases or some detail that the costs assessed will be fair and reasonable. Those kinds of changes might be something the minister would be prepared to consider.

I'd also point out my concern around the fact that when it comes to determining cases -- appeals about wildlife decisions -- the board will need to ensure that adequate expertise exists in advising it, to ensure that we don't have a situation where a quasi-judicial board without any specific expertise in the area of wildlife management ends up in charge of wildlife management decisions. As I know the minister knows, many of those decisions -- all of those decisions -- are very technical. They need to be based on sound science and a good understanding of the local biology and what's going on in the local environment of an area. There certainly needs to be a great deal of expertise put into that.

I have some concern that this expertise would need to be guaranteed to be available to the board so that we don't end up in a situation, because I think the wildlife section of the ministry in the past has done a fairly good job on making these kinds of decisions. I know from talking to stakeholder groups that previously -- before the big cuts that have happened to the ministry particularly -- stakeholders were fairly happy with the kinds of decisions that came out and the kind of expertise that existed within the ministry.

I know that this expertise in the wildlife section of the ministry has been drastically reduced. I know that as a result of budget cuts, the ministry's ability to make some of those decisions has been decreased a great deal. Nonetheless, I suggest that even in its really reduced state, that section of the ministry certainly will have more expertise than the quasi-judicial board would, because I don't suspect that any of them are necessarily trained in some of those very specific and detailed issues that they would need to be aware of.

I will be expressing in the committee stage some concern that a deposit could be required to be posted by any appellant that comes before the board. Again, I'll go back to my concern about putting a cost deterrent in there for citizens who may not necessarily have the means. That certainly will be a source of concern for the minister, as well, when we get to that in committee.

One of the concerns that is frequently expressed by appellants that go before the board as it is under the current rules is. . . . One will frequently hear in those hearings: "Well, if only the ministry had had a little more communication with us on this issue, we might not be at the appeal board as it stands." That's a frequent complaint that, I suppose, every citizen has about government once or twice in their lives if they have a fair degree of contact with government.

I know it is very difficult for the civil service to always communicate with all the stakeholders all the time. Civil servants don't have unlimited time, unlimited knowledge and unlimited resources; I'm aware of that. However, in cases that go before the board, I'm sure the minister would agree that it would almost always be preferable to have tried to work these issues out in advance of their getting to that stage. It saves everyone money, time and grief. It certainly makes citizens feel like they have better access to government.

I suggest that the minister may want to consider including some duty for the government to consult before something goes to the appeal board. I know from briefings with the ministry that there's certainly an informal intention there to do that. But I would feel more comfortable if that intention were made a formal duty in the legislation, rather than something informal. I know that mandatory mediation can often be just as expensive as going to the appeal board itself. But there are other routes that the ministry could take in amending this legislation to ensure that there is some sort of a communication process required by officials before something goes directly to the board.

There has been a great deal of concern expressed to me by my colleagues on this side of the House and by some stakeholder groups about the amendments that will be made to this act in the pesticide management portion of the bill. Some of those concerns come from horticulture groups that have told the minister that they don't believe they have been consulted at all on this legislation and the changes it will make.

The requirements for a permit and a pest management plan for the use of regulated pesticides on land. . . . I know the minister makes a differentiation between public and private land and that that's the intention of the ministry, but it does not say that in the legislation. I know from stakeholder groups that there is a great deal of discomfort out there about that. I would suggest the minister may want to consider making that differentiation in the legislation.

Of course there are still, at the end of the day, a whole lot of people -- private individuals, private business people -- who farm and use pesticides on public land, on Crown land. That's been a concern that's been expressed, as well -- the impact that this will have on them. The minister will be aware that it's in the day-to-day farming practices. . . . When there's an infestation of pests, a farmer may not necessarily have the time to draw up the pest management plan, get it approved, go get the permit and all that. It's a long process.

These are the kinds of issues that stakeholders have told us they are very worried about with this legislation. I'm looking forward to being able to discuss that section in particular with the minister in committee. I hope that we can either amend it or put their minds to rest and that their concerns and fears are unfounded.

I will close by touching on the changes to the Waste Management Act and giving you my comments on that. Allowing the government to recover costs from the source -- from the polluter -- is a principle that we on this side of the House have long supported. It is certainly a direction the government should go in. Citizens and taxpayers should not be expected to pick up the bills for polluters. Polluters should be responsible for their outputs into the environment, and they should be responsible for their own remediation. The way the government goes about making that possible is a big source of debate and is an ongoing source of debate, which I'm sure we will continue to have over the next few years. I don't believe that citizens and taxpayers and government should be left holding the bag when businesses and individuals pollute.

[ Page 3447 ]

So recovering costs, streamlining the permitting system with respect to the Waste Management Act and allowing those items to be appealed are certainly areas of this bill that we will support. We will have a vigorous debate, I'm sure, about all of the portions of this bill in committee. And we will certainly need to have the fears and concerns that have been expressed to us from stakeholder groups about the impacts of this bill put to rest in committee.

I will offer that very, very reserved support at this point and tell the minister that I'm certainly looking forward to a vigorous and detailed debate in committee about this bill. Thank you for your rapt attention.

G. Abbott: My comments today will be directed exclusively to sections 5 and 6 of Bill 14. These are the sections that apply to pesticide management -- in particular, to the integrated pest management plans and the application of those to public and private lands.

Hopefully, my comments today will be useful. They are based on close to 20 years of experience in the horticulture business, in the berry business. Certainly, in the berry business we have frequent reference to things like integrated pest management, and I do hope that the minister will find my comments useful and that my concerns are ones that she will be able to resolve.

The first concern I have is with respect to the definition of integrated pest management, which we find on page 3 of Bill 14. I'll just briefly quote that and then explain the concerns that I have with the particular definition. Bill 14 reads: " 'Integrated pest management' means a decision making process that uses a combination of techniques to suppress pests and that must include but is not limited to the following elements." It goes on to list "identifying potential pest problems. . .planning and managing ecosystems. . .using injury thresholds in making decision treatments." It lists, I guess, six items which must, according to this legislation, be a part of an approved pest management plan.

I have some reservations with respect to this particular definition of integrated pest management. I want to note that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods also shares some concerns in that regard, at least it did in a memorandum of February 27. I'm not raising this to try to embarrass the government and to indicate that there is some division. This is the opinion of one member of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it may well be that his concerns have now been resolved. We, of course, will be determining that in committee stage debate on this bill. But I think the point being made in this memo is a very important one, and I hope the minister can consider this in looking at the definition we have in this bill.

[3:15]

"IPM is more than a decision-making process, as indicated in the elements -- actions -- described in [subsections] (a) to (f). However, the word `must' means that inclusion of all the elements is mandatory in order to have the process accepted as IPM. In reality, not all elements have been developed for all pest situations. For example, there are no injury thresholds for most plant diseases. The definition would be more acceptable as follows. . . ."

Now, I think I can fairly say that my considerable experience with integrated pest management would lead me to conclude that the alternative definition -- that one put forward by the ministry official -- may, in fact, be preferable to the one contained in the bill. And let me say at the outset that as a farmer I'm very much committed and continue to be committed to integrated pest management. I was relieved of the onerous burden of farming by the election of May 28, 1996. I do very little now on my farm, although others do. It continues to be a good operation and is still very much committed to integrated pest management. In fact, now that we have eliminated our strawberry and raspberry crops and have only blueberries, we have an operation that is pretty much entirely non-chemical and relies entirely on cultural and biological controls. So I'm very much committed to it, and what I'd like to see in this bill is a realistic appraisal of what IPM is and what IPM can do for people.

The problem I have with this bill, and hopefully the minister can resolve this concern, is that I think it bureaucratizes what is essentially a practical, commonsense matter. It makes good sense to use a combination of techniques in trying to address the various pests that afflict agricultural operations, whether they be weeds, insects, small birds or whatever they may happen to be. There are a range of problems that an operation has to face, and I think it's sensible at all times to use a combination of ways to try to deal with that problem.

Also, integrated pest management clearly reduces vulnerability to outbreaks of pests. Over time, it has been well established that some pests become resistant to some chemicals. As a consequence, those chemicals actually become detrimental to the environmental health of the farm. The pest in question literally grows out of control because there is no longer a suitable, appropriate or practical measure to control that pest. Often that's a consequence of overuse of chemicals over time, so it's always good to use other means that spread the risk, if you like.

There is a big difference in the combination that is apt to be used on any given crop. My experience in agriculture is limited to only a few horticultural crops. I'm sure that my colleague from Cariboo North, for example, would have some things to say about hay or alfalfa or the range of crops that are common up there. What I can say with respect to horticulture is that in a successful farming operation, one is apt to have a much different integrated pest management approach to the production of strawberries than one is apt to have, for example, to the production of blueberries. I've learned through painful experience, over a long period of time, that an approach to blueberries may well be ineffective for strawberries. There are different weeds, different vulnerabilities to fruit rots and different ranges of insect pests that attack these crops. As a consequence, you really need to have a different arsenal, if you like, or a different approach in order to deal with the pests that are common to those two.

The upshot is that we shouldn't try to limit the flexibility with which we can deal with this issue. As has been mentioned, integrated pest management is more than a decision-making process; it's a process that changes from day to day. I think we should try, as much as we possibly can, to avoid bureaucratic restrictions on the way in which farmers use integrated pest management to deal with their undoubtedly unique situations.

In relation to IPM and agricultural operations, it's also important to note that even in the best of circumstances there 

[ Page 3448 ]

is a huge element of unpredictability in agriculture. Believe me, I have learned this fact through enormously painful experiences over the years -- unexpected weather and so on. I know full well that a farmer might start off the agricultural year with a specific integrated pest management plan in mind and find, weeks or months after that plan is put into place, unexpectedly heavy rains, unexpectedly early heat, late frost or the appearance of unexpected pests. All of these can very quickly throw the best-laid integrated pest management plans into disarray. That is reality in farming. Farmers are constantly trying to deal with new problems that they hadn't anticipated. It's more unpredictable than life in this chamber -- and it's hard to top that.

Sometimes, for example, a farmer might hope to use a combination of biological and cultural controls to deal with a particular crop for that harvest year, and then they are suddenly confronted with an infestation of a pest that hadn't been a big problem in the area for years. And this does happen, for reasons that are entirely beyond the control of the farmer. It's simply a reflection of nature that there is periodically a growth in the infestation of certain types of pests. Again, this will inevitably force the farmer to try to adjust his integrated pest management plan to deal with that situation, and they may have to use chemicals where they had hoped not to. This does happen. The important point that I am hopefully making here is that we should not, whether in legislation or anything else, take away the kind of flexibility that farmers, whether they're on public lands or private lands, will need to respond to these kinds of situations.

I think that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in fact done a very commendable job in the past five to ten years of promoting the concept of integrated pest management. From my experience with other farmers, I find that integrated pest management is being more and more accepted by a very broad range of farmers in British Columbia -- and that's good. As the minister has suggested, it's something which has quite dramatically reduced the use of chemicals in agriculture in British Columbia -- and that's very good. It's very good for the farmers, who don't have to ingest a little bit of it whenever they're applying it to their crops; it's good for the environment; and it's good for the consumer as well.

But I think there is a delicate balance here. I think it's important that the ministry maintain its encouragement of adoption of IPM plans and approaches. But I think it's also very important that the whole balance in the approach to agriculture not be upset by the province attempting, in a bureaucratic or heavy-handed manner, to force people to move in a direction that limits their flexibility. I think it's absolutely essential that flexibility be preserved if indeed we are to preserve agriculture in the province of British Columbia.

One of the important questions here, if I may just move along to section 6, is the application of section 6 of Bill 14 to private farmlands. There seem to be some questions floating around about whether or not it applies to private farmlands. There are, for example, a couple of memos out there. I'll quickly note them here. This is a memo of March 6 from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Agriculture, I believe. It says:

"Farmers are currently not required to apply for a permit or to implement an approved pest management plan on private farm land. The legislation will not impose such a requirement. The types of land for which pest management plans are required will be set out in the Pesticide Control Act regulation in the same way as permit requirements, and will exclude private agricultural land."

However, the problem I have. . . . Perhaps in committee stage, through amendment or whatever process, the minister will be able to overcome this particular concern. At this point there is nothing -- at least as I read the bill, and I think I've read it reasonably carefully -- in Bill 14 as it presently stands which would confirm that provisions of Bill 14 will not apply to private farmland. I understand from my reading of the bill that the determination of the lands to be included within the scope of this bill will be determined by regulation. Again, hopefully the minister will be able to confirm this in our discussion of this at committee level.

In short, if in fact the determination on whether lands are going to be included will be a product of regulation, what that means is that the lands that will be included will be determined by order-in-council, with no requirement for debate on this matter in this House should cabinet decide at some point in the future, for whatever reason, that the provisions of Bill 14 should apply to private farmlands as well as public farmlands. There is nothing, as I say, in Bill 14 as I read it at this time which would suggest that this could not be applied to private farmland should the cabinet conclude that it would be appropriate.

Now, this may be resolved by amendment. Or it may at committee stage be resolved by an explanation by the Minister of Environment. Either way, I hope we can do that. In the absence of definitive assurance that it will not apply to private farmland without the debate and approval of this House, I think we must assume that it may at some point apply to private farmland, given that it appears that it is within the scope of the bill as it presently exists.

[3:30]

I believe it would also reduce the competitiveness of agriculture in British Columbia were it imposed. Already, I think, farmers in British Columbia face a range of regulations which their counterparts in other parts of the world do not face. We have to look very seriously at this problem in the years ahead if we hope to maintain a viable and sustainable agricultural industry in British Columbia.

The problem with respect to the application of this to private farmland revolves around, I guess, the issue of permits. The term used here is "approved pest management plan." This section 6, were it adopted and applied to private as well as public farmlands, would require. . . . I'll read section 6, section 6(1):

"Except as provided in the regulations, a person must not apply a pesticide to a body of water or an area of land unless the person (a) holds a permit or approved pest management plan, and (b) applies the pesticide in accordance with the terms of the permit or approved pest management plan."

[ Page 3449 ]

farmers in British Columbia. As I understand it, the only time that you currently require a permit to apply pesticides, if you're a farmer in British Columbia, is if your operation requires the use of what are termed "restricted chemicals" or "restricted pesticides." Fortunately, in the case of the operation that I was involved in, there were relatively few occasions when the use of a restricted pesticide was required. Typically, farmers in British Columbia would not be needing a permit. Certainly some would, but there are a lot of farmers in British Columbia who would not require a pesticide applicator permit in order to go about the business of farming.

This legislation would require every farmer in British Columbia to have either a permit or an approved pest management plan. So obviously, if they didn't require a permit or didn't wish to get one, they would be obliged to get the approved pest management plan. This, of course, is going to impose a burden on them that they don't currently face.

An Hon. Member: You're sure of that?

G. Abbott: I am absolutely sure of that.

An Hon. Member: Well, you'd be surprised.

G. Abbott: I probably would be surprised, given your enormous wealth of experience in farming. I'm sure you have numerous things you want to offer in terms of debate on this bill, and we'll look forward to hearing from the Minister from Everywhere on that issue.

Before we descend too far into calling across the floor, I want to offer a couple of quotes in support of what I'm suggesting here. Again, this is from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to these issues. The Ministry of Agriculture notes: "Farmers need to be able to apply pesticides to private farm lands without the need for a permit or an approved pest management plan." People need the flexibility to go about their business without having to try to live up to certain imposed standards that may not be applicable or suitable in their circumstances.

From the British Columbia Horticultural Coalition there are -- and the critic mentioned these -- some concerns, again, about what effect this would have on private operations, and perhaps on public lands, as well. I'll quote from the B.C. Horticultural Coalition:

"Section 6 (1) through (3) creates a large and unwieldy bureaucracy. During the EPA we fought against this very section. Pests don't arrive on a predetermined schedule. It would be impossible to have to submit a plan every time a pesticide is being applied. Again, the imposition of IPM alternatives when they aren't available makes compliance impossible."

So with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close. I do hope that the minister will give due regard to my comments. They are not offered to be provocative or difficult; they are offered in terms of trying to develop a piece of legislation, here, that is going to work.

G. Wilson: In dealing with a bill that amends so many statutes, it's often difficult to speak to the principle of the bill, but I'm going to seek to do that in second reading, as intended.

Before I do, I would just suggest that prior to getting into committee stage, we might bring in an amendment to section 1 so that it makes reference to the appropriate section. It should be section 40, not sections 38(2) to 38(7), because sections 38(2) to 38(7) refer to the 1995 statutes, not the consolidated statutes RSBC,1996. This document is actually incorrect, and a simple amendment on the sections would clarify that.

Having said that, and speaking more to the principle, I think there needs to be some considerable discussion with respect to the amendments that are being made under section 11. Generally, what this deals with is the issue of an appeal and the right of the appeal board to introduce what I think, in principle, is bad practice. What this bill does is say that the board may now require an appellant to deposit with the board an amount of money that it considers sufficient to cover the costs of all or part "of the anticipated costs of the respondent," and it goes on to say: ". . .the anticipated expenses of the appeal board in connection with the appeal." Well, in principle, hon. Speaker, I'm not sure that that's where we want to be headed, here.

If a person makes an appeal, presumably, and if that appeal is seen to be vexatious or seems frivolous or abusive -- and that's the language in the bill -- then yes, assign costs against the person for taking that position. But if the person has a legitimate appeal to be made, it strikes me that we should not be giving the board the opportunity to request or require that the appellant put on deposit a lump sum of money that is going to be in large measure determined by whatever the respondent thinks their anticipated costs are going to be in advance of hearing the appeal.

If the appeal is successful, then I guess they get their money back. But what if we have people who simply are not financially able to put up the amount of money that is required by for the anticipated costs of the respondent and are therefore precluded by virtue of the fact they don't have the cash to launch an appeal?

I suppose the minister is going to come back and say: "Well, the board may. . . ." That's the operative word. I don't want to leave that line of discretion with the Environmental Appeal Board, frankly. It seems to me that there's ample protection in here from vexatious or frivolous appeals. I think that is clearly something that can be assigned once the appeal is heard, and if there's no merit to the appeal -- if it looks like it's simply a waste of everybody's time and money -- then you assign costs against the person who is wasting our time and money.

On that point of principle, I would have to say that I take exception to and find difficult. . . . In fact, I don't think I can support that principle, because what it may very well do is prohibit people who are without money from launching what should be an appropriate appeal.

The second point of principle -- and this is a difficult one that we need a bit of debate around, as well -- comes under the amendments to the Land Act. What this does is that it changes the responsibilities of sharing maintenance of the land registry from the surveyor general to the minister. There's going to have to be some explanatione from this minister in committe as to why we want to do that. I don't think it's a good practice to take the land registry -- that is, the registry of Crown lands. . . .

[ Page 3450 ]

Under this act every ministry is going to be responsible under its administration for providing to this land registry any acquisition in fee simple or disposition of lands and so on. I don't think that registry should rest with a political authority. I think the registry should appropriately sit with an independent agency, an independent authority, that is independent of the body politic and more representative of the Crown. These are, after all, Crown lands.

I think we have to have some pretty thorough discussion in committee stage to convince me that it's a good idea to go from the surveyor general to the minister. As a matter of public policy, and I'm trying to focus on principle here, I'm not sure that's what we should be doing. I think we need to have some explanation -- certainly more than I've heard so far in this debate -- as to why the minister wants to move in that direction.

Hon. Speaker, I would then like to go on to talk about this issue with respect to the Pesticide Control Act. It is interesting, in reviewing the statutes. . . . I don't know. For policy nerds like me, I guess we like to go back and check out definitions. The definition of what a pest is, if you go back to some of the regulations pre-1930, is quite different from what it is today. Some people who are trying to get on with life and business -- listening to the member for Shuswap -- think most politicians are pests; they should be regulated. Certainly farmers do on many occasions, when they're trying to get on with their business.

I think that what we have to look at here is this question of licence requirements, and we have to understand the levels at which pesticide application is made in British Columbia. I'm not a huge advocate for the application of pesticides generally, and I think there are other management techniques that can be and should be used from time to time. But let's be clear that we may be talking about a considerable difference in magnitude in the application of pesticides if we're talking about an application from a forest company, which may be talking about widespread application, and an application from somebody who wants to put Weed N Feed on their lawn. Both, essentially, are applying pest management controls.

I think when we deal with this. . . . I can recall the debate we had in this chamber when this bill was brought in with respect to those people who apply pesticides and what it talks about under section 6, section 4(1). It says, essentially: ". . .provided in the regulations, a person who does not hold a licence must not (a) carry on, or represent that the person is available to carry on, the business of selling pesticides." I think most of us could understand that. Then it talks about applying pesticides.

There's a huge discussion that needs to be made around this in committee stage with respect to the principle of the application of pesticides. Those who are avid gardeners, unless they're involved strictly in trying to use "organic gardening" -- which I think is in itself a misnomer, because I don't know many gardens that aren't organic. . . . But anyway, the point is that those people try to get in and avoid pesticide application.

Most people who are involved on a day-to-day basis with managing even their own yards are involved in the application of pesticides, whether they know it or not. That, on delivery of scale, it is quite different on an individual basis from somebody who may be using a widespread application. But if you consider the millions of gardens that that gets applied to, its cumulative effect on the environment is substantial and may, in fact, in many cases. . . . People talk about golf courses that are frequently right in the middle of watersheds, where those kinds of applications are made without a view to the longstanding management of those water resources themselves. I think that section is going to require some discussion as to what the minister is intending.

[3:45]

I'm going to keep my remarks brief and to those points. I look forward to the minister coming forward in committee stage and speaking more specifically to some of these issues of public policy that I have concerns with. Most of what is in this document, in this bill, is housekeeping, in large measure. But there are several points of principle which I have raised, two of which I have raised today, that cause me concern. I would like to have a fuller understanding of what the government has in mind with respect to those provisions.

In closing, I also just refer back again to the need. . . . This is going to be difficult. In all the legislation that comes into this chamber in this session, most of the legislation has been drafted using 1995 statutes. The revised statutes, which were only available a couple of weeks ago, have different sections. It's very, very difficult, when we're trying to do proper research and cross-referencing, to follow through. So I would ask that those amendments be made and that those appropriate sections be named.

With that, I would take my seat and look forward to committee stage.

M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: As we contemplate going home at the end of the week, 20-odd students from Bradner Elementary are making their way into the gallery, visiting from Abbotsford. They've toured across, and if the ferries are running, maybe they'll get back home. They're here with their teacher Ms. Christian, and I hope the House will make these students from Bradner Elementary welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: Given the lateness of the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. C. McGregor moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20. I wish all members a very enjoyable May weekend.

Hon. P. Ramsey moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:49 p.m.

[ Page 3451 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to get some things coming from earlier discussion on the record, if I may. One is to correct the record in response to questions about the budget expenditures on mapping. I indicated that to the best of my knowledge these expenditures do not include the cost of purchasing mapping material from other ministries. I've since been advised that these expenditures do include some costs of acquiring mapping material from other ministries, in accordance with current government pricing policy.

Second, with regard to the question -- I think it was this morning -- about the B.C. Hydro aboriginal hiring in the summer. . . . The question was: is there any B.C. Hydro program to hire aboriginal students for summer employment? The answer is: there are no specific programs to hire aboriginal youth for the summer. However, Hydro participates in the Guarantee for Youth initiative, which covers hiring for aboriginal youth in the summer as one element of the initiative.

Third, as a corporation, Hydro is committed to employment equity in the workplace.

This morning I think there was a question about whether or not the First Citizens Fund loan limit had dropped, and the answer is no, it has not. An applicant is eligible for assistance up to the lifetime program maximum of $76,500.

[3:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: We would have to find that out.

M. de Jong: Can the minister maybe indicate which STOB that would fall within? I've forgotten where we were when we canvassed those issues.

Hon. J. Cashore: STOB 50.

M. de Jong: Now, in no particular order, some issues that we might canvass in the limited time we have available today. . . . The minister and his staff earlier provided me with some documentation particularizing expenses within STOB 20 -- that is, contracts. I wonder if I could direct the minister to that document and ask a couple of questions about a couple of the items that appear there, starting with the contract with the Angus Reid Group, which refers to a report: "Canada's Aboriginal Leaders." Can the minister elaborate as to what that would have been for, Angus Reid generally being associated with polling activities?

Hon. J. Cashore: The contract with the Angus Reid Group was for $9,850. It was to provide the ministry with a copy of a report titled "Canada's Aboriginal Leaders: Perspectives from the Inside." The report prepared by Angus Reid -- it may not be releasable, because Angus Reid has a copyright -- provides the ministry with greater understanding of first nations perspectives. The report is for information only. The ministry subscribed to but did not commission this report. The province's approach to treaties is not based on polling, but we must be informed of all views in this process.

M. de Jong: To clarify, then, this wasn't a report or poll commissioned by the province, but something that the ministry became aware of and sought to purchase?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, as is often the case.

M. de Jong: The difference being that the minister. . . . Well, let me ask this. The minister seemed uncertain about whether the document was releasable or not. I have an insatiable appetite to know what the minister knows about what aboriginal leaders are thinking. Is he able to be more certain about the availability of that document?

Hon. J. Cashore: We could ask Angus Reid.

M. de Jong: There is a reference made to John Nicol and Associates, media training for Nisga'a negotiators. The amount is not huge -- $3,000 -- but given the volume of negotiations now taking place, is it standard practice for negotiators to be offered what's termed media training? What is the nature of that training?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think I'd say it is standard practice, but it is a practice that is sometimes exercised. With regard to the John Nicol contract, it was to provide a media training session for the Nisga'a negotiating team, to enable the team to work with local media to ensure that they understood the treaty process and how it works. We do this kind of work in-house as much as possible, but it's not always possible.

M. de Jong: Was that training undertaken jointly with either of the other parties at the table -- that is, the federal government or the Nisga'a tribal council?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

M. de Jong: One general question. I think the minister knows the document that I am referring to, the Osgoode Communications reference for monitoring and summaries of electronic media. The sum there is quite significant -- $84,000. What information is the ministry collecting? What is the nature of the purpose of that particular contract?

Hon. J. Cashore: Media monitoring services involving television and radio reports gathered from around the province. The ministry believes it's important that we remain informed of the views of all British Columbians -- the public, the stakeholders -- on the issue of treaties and also on non-treaty-related issues.

This service was particularly helpful last year in keeping us informed about the views of British Columbians on the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, especially in the regional communities in the northwest.

The 1997-98 contract is significantly reduced to $48,500 for this fiscal year. The ministry has developed in-house 

[ Page 3452 ]

capabilities to do a portion of this valuable work. For example, a media relations staff member has acquired the technical capabilities to do some of this work. We require the contract to assist with regional news reports so that we can continue monitoring the views of British Columbians on treaties.

M. de Jong: First thing, hon. Chair: is a contract like that put out for tender?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is a contract that has gone on for several years -- I think about five years -- so it's been a renewing contract. I don't have the information with regard to when that contract was initially entered into; I think it was five years ago -- if my memory serves me correctly -- at a time when I wasn't the minister.

M. de Jong: Implicit in what the minister is saying is the suggestion that when contracts come up for renewal, they would not go to tender as a matter of course. Is that the case within his ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: When contracts come up for renewal, we have to weigh the value of the continuity and the experience and the track record of the group we've been working with in deciding whether to renew a contract or go out to tender. In this case, we felt and continue to feel that there are values in the continuity and expertise of the contractor.

M. de Jong: I know that the government communications office has an extensive media-monitoring system in place. I know also that Members of the Legislative Assembly receive a document that is a product of media monitoring. What information is the minister getting as a result of this service that is not available through those other services?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those other services, which we also access, provide service on a more generalized basis dealing with a global range of issues. This particular service is focused on the activities that are within government in our relations with aboriginal people. They're specialized in that way, and that's what describes the difference.

M. de Jong: Well, I don't want to belabour this, but it is apparently a description of monitoring and summaries of electronic media. The services that I am familiar with as part of government, and those which we as MLAs have access to, monitor the regional electronic media. So I've got to presume, hon. Chair, that there's something else. Is there an assessment component to this?

Hon. J. Cashore: Sometimes there is a commentary that goes with it that is reflective of the category of information we are looking for. Also, an important part of the answer to that question is that in some instances we need the information a lot more quickly than would be available to us with the usual route of monitoring, especially with regard to some of the weekly press and also some of the activities that are happening electronically in other parts of the province. There is a need for a quick return on much of this, so we can respond to issues as they are emerging. Some of that is needed, for instance, when the House is in session, so I as the minister can be kept informed of issues that might be arising during the course of our exchanges within the House.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister knows that I share any information with him freely and immediately upon receipt, and I know he willingly avails himself of that source.

Last point on this. Is the minister able to provide a copy of the relevant contract with Osgoode Communications? I don't know how often he gets this material, but is he prepared to provide an example of the type of report he gets as a result of this contract?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the contract, we would try to expedite that. We would use the FOI standards in doing that, but we would try to expedite it so it isn't a lengthy turnaround process in order to get that.

With regard to the earlier part of the question, I've also been advised that what this contractor does is provide a much more comprehensive review of the media services that are out there. As a result of that, we actually receive quite a bit of copy -- electronic and print -- that doesn't show up in the other services.

M. de Jong: Now it's really the last question on this. It sounds like a great service, and so I have to ask: is the minister prepared to share it with the opposition?

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, I'm not going to tell you what the deputy said. I will look into it. I won't give you an answer to that right now.

M. de Jong: Well, my pitch is that if it's purely a monitoring service, I think this one should be available for the same reasons that monitoring services obtained with public funds in other areas of government are available.

I wonder if I can just deal quickly with an issue that we canvassed yesterday -- that is, the departure of Assistant Deputy Minister Brant earlier this year. We spent some time dealing with that issue, but I don't think I really asked the question that I should have asked -- out of fairness to Mr. Brant at least -- and that is: when did he leave the ministry? What date did he leave the ministry? What date did he provide notice of his intention to leave? And when did the minister become aware of Mr. Brant's intention to leave, if that date is different from the others?

[3:15]

M. de Jong: And there's another date I think is significant. When is the minister saying that he and the ministry became aware that Mr. Brant would be employed by the Yukon territorial government?

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, we did not know that on the day he left. That could be clarified or corrected, but to the best of my knowledge, we did not know that on that date. I think that's all I can say about that. There may have been another question there that I've forgotten.

M. de Jong: Then I've forgotten it, as well.

I just want to draw, in fairness, the minister's attention to an article that appeared in the Yukon News on March 14, 1997, in which reference is made to. . . . Well, I'll read it:

"On January 3 the News reported" -- that would be January 3, 1997 -- "based on an interview with a fellow B.C. treaty negotiator that Brant was moving here to take a senior position 

[ Page 3453 ]

with the territorial government related to devolution. 'I know the people who are all going up there very well,' said Mark Stevenson, citing John Walsh, Brant and the territorial government's newest employee Angus Robertson. He was particularly certain about Brant."

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, he's the negotiator for the northwest team.

M. de Jong: Is it fair for me to suggest, then, that there were certainly senior people within the ministry who, if the contents of the news reports are correct, knew as early as January 3 that Mr. Brant intended to take a job with the territorial government?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. I just want to quote from the January 8, 1997, Yukon News story by Adam Killick: " 'Nothing has been finalized with respect to their coming to work in the Yukon,' say. . .B.C. bureaucrats Angus Robertson and Randy Brant."

M. de Jong: Will the minister agree with me that the report in the January 3 edition of the Yukon News indicates that for Mr. Stevenson, at least, it was clear that Mr. Brant would be taking employment with the Yukon territorial government?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not going to confirm or deny what should be read into a newspaper article. It is a matter of a reporter doing an interview and then reporting on the basis of the interview. I think that in fairness, that would be a matter between those two individuals. I'm aware of what is stated in that report, but I would refer the member to the points that I made when we had this discussion a couple of days ago. I think I made the salient points at that time.

One thing I want to put on the record -- because I feel badly about a discussion like this about a person who provided very valuable service to this government -- is that Mr. Brant, when he served this government, served exceeding well, and I think his contribution will leave a legacy. I want to say that for the record, because I know that not saying that perhaps leaves an impression that that is not the assessment of his time here. I just want to say, without any equivocation, that Mr. Brant's work with this government was very valuable indeed.

M. de Jong: I'm glad the minister said that. I should emphasize that my concern -- and I think I emphasized this the other day -- is not with Mr. Brant per se. He did avail himself of an opportunity that was provided to him, as we would expect individuals to, including his taking advantage of the severance package.

However, when government is announcing its intention to cut costs and trumpeting to some extent its achievements in doing so, I think it is relevant to query whether or not that is in fact happening.

I guess the bottom line on all of this is this: how did Mr. Brant's departure and his receiving a six-months' severance payout ultimately result in any cost saving to the government and therefore the people of British Columbia, when his position was apparently available to be filled and apparently was filled by someone who was not coming from another ministry but was promoted, and who wasn't formerly in an assistant deputy minister's position?

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to point out that Mr. Brant has given us his okay to share some information that he made available to us. And that is that the Yukon government letter of offer, offering him a position, is dated March 10, 1997.

M. de Jong: While I appreciate the minister's reference to that document, I must confess that my reading of the media reports emanating out of the Yukon suggest that that document is far from conclusive as to what took place. Again, maybe I can ask this. I surely don't want to belabour it, and I don't want to focus on Mr. Brant the individual. But what cost saving accrued to the province of British Columbia by virtue of Mr. Brant's participation in this severance package? We paid out six month's severance, but apparently the position remains.

Hon. J. Cashore: I will advise the Minister of Finance that you will be asking him that question.

M. de Jong: Really, I think all I can do is place on the record my disappointment that the minister would deal with a question. . . . I've tried sincerely not to make this an issue about Mr. Brant or Mr. Robertson but to make this an issue about government policy with respect to downsizing and cutting costs. It doesn't strike me as being an unfair question to ask the minister, who has defended a particular personnel move on the basis of cost savings, what those savings were if in fact there were any at all.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the contrary, I'm sure the hon. member will agree and has acknowledged that I have gone outside the strict mandate of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs on several occasions throughout these estimates in order to participate -- if you'll pardon the expression -- in as liberal a debate as possible.

On this issue I don't have the information. It's information that should be available through the Ministry of Finance, and therefore I'm not trying to evade something that's my responsibility. It is not information that I have.

M. de Jong: My colleagues from the Okanagan have some questions. I think I alerted the deputy and the minister about the Gallagher's Canyon region, and I wonder if we might canvass that now.

S. Hawkins: This is an issue of local concern, and it has been getting quite a bit of significant attention in the Okanagan. There are several parties involved. Certainly one of the them is the Westbank first nation, the provincial and federal governments, the regional district, the city of Kelowna, local governments and local irrigation districts.

I believe the member for Matsqui perhaps alerted the ministry about this. It's lands involving the Gallagher's Canyon area. There are 1,200 acres of land that were purchased about 13 years ago by the Westbank first nation. My understanding was that the provincial government bought some land from the Westbank first nation, which was their traditional reserve land, to widen a highway across the lake to the west side of the lake and through the reserve. With the purchase money, the money that the Westbank first nation received from the province, they bought 1,200 acres of land on the east side of the lake in an area called Gallagher's Canyon. My understanding to date is that there are ongoing negotiations with local governments, with irrigation districts, with the province and with the feds to turn this land into reserve-status land. There are certainly a lot of concerns around that. There 

[ Page 3454 ]

are concerns that perhaps this is being done outside the treaty process. There are concerns that perhaps this has been done without an open process. And there's certainly a concern about how this agreement could have been made without local input, local knowledge and consultation.

I have a letter, and I'm sorry I didn't bring it with me. I tried to have it faxed to me at the Legislature. It's in my office today in Kelowna. There seems to be some reference that, yes, there was an agreement about 13-odd years ago, when the province bought the land from the Westbank first nation, that they and the feds would help the Westbank first nation and assist them, with any lands they sold to the province, in a process to turn those into reserve lands. I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

[3:30]

There's some information I could read into the record here, just following some of the judicial history of this, which may be helpful:

"The lands have not yet acquired reserve status and are subject to real property taxation, since they are fee simple lands owned by a corporation. The band has refused to pay property taxes to the province. The outstanding amount owing as of June '96 is approximately $96,000. The band appealed, but a judgment was found that property taxes could be levied against the fee simple lands. The Westbank first nation unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the B.C. Supreme Court. The Westbank first nation decided to appeal the Supreme Court decision, and a hearing was scheduled for May 1996. By mutual consent the appeal was dropped because of the expectation of an imminent conversion to reserve status and a commitment on the part of the province to issue remission orders for the outstanding taxes. The conversion to reserve status of the Gallagher canyon lands would allow the taxation issue to be resolved.

"The regional director general, B.C., Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, indicated in a May 17, 1996, letter to the deputy minister, Aboriginal Affairs, that Canada would consider proceeding with the conversion to reserve status of the Gallagher lands in the absence of formalized agreements with local authorities. Recently, individual citizens have raised jurisdictional concerns regarding the change in status of the Gallagher lands. The formal designation of reserve lands rests with Canada. British Columbia is obligated by the original 1983 transaction to support the conversion of the land to reserve status."

I have another question, and it's, of course, in the same line of questioning. The province bought the land from the Westbank first nation on the west side of the lake to widen the highway. There's a highway -- it's called Highway 97 -- that goes through reserve land as it stands now, which the Westbank first nation has apparently sold to the province. What is the status of that highway, then, that was supposed to have been transferred to the province? Because if this is still being negotiated, I think people have a right to know whether the land that the province bought for the highway belongs to the province and what the status of that is.

Hon. J. Cashore: I expect that we probably own that land in fee simple, but again I'm stepping way outside my mandate, because this is a Transportation and Highways question. I will do two things. We can't guarantee this, but we'll try to get an answer for the hon. member on Tuesday. But if we're not able to do that, it is a question that would legitimately go to Transportation and Highways.

I just want to point out with regard to that earlier issue that B.C.'s role, as described in that, is part of that agreement. So B.C.'s participation in that is not a sort of newly developed mandate, but it is to fulfil what was the original deal.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, and I appreciate the minister's efforts to get us that information. From talking to the parties that are involved in this issue, my understanding is that the highway has not been transferred over to the province, and that is something that is still waiting to be done. If that land was sold years ago -- more than 13 or 16 years ago -- perhaps we should find out who owns what land, what the status of the title is and when we're going to resolve this issue.

I believe my colleague from Okanagan East has a line of questioning with respect to this issue.

J. Weisbeck: Well, this is kind of a unique situation. In one sense, the member for Okanagan West has a land issue over there, and, of course, the land has been transferred into my riding. So I think the biggest problem. . . . I heard the same thing: that the land has never been registered as far as that road is concerned -- Highway 97.

I think the biggest concern for the people of my riding is just the uncertainty that's happening right now. I understand that we're approximately 90 percent complete in the negotiations. Probably the biggest concern is on behalf of the regional district about what's going to be happening with water issues and subdivision issues and this sort of thing. I guess I'd like to know: what can I tell the people of my riding? And what sort of certainty do we have when these negotiations are underway? How can we tell the people that their water rights will be preserved? And if the Westbank first nation make a promise that they're not going to subdivide their property but use it for their own uses rather than leasing it to the public, what sort of certainty do we have?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, hon. Chair, this is an issue that is appropriately dealt with by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We will advise that ministry that these hon. members want answers on these issues. I would say generally, though, that with regard to the frustrations around the length of time that it takes to negotiate, nobody can ever duck responsibility when it comes to negotiations. The fact is that the federal government has the lead role in this, and therefore that is where the major responsibility lies. B.C.'s role is to protect the interests of B.C. and to fulfil commitments that B.C. has made.

J. Weisbeck: Well, it was my understanding that it was a discussion between three parties -- federal, provincial and municipal. As I said, the public don't feel as though they were particularly involved, and I guess that's where part of the uncertainty lies. So what do I tell my constituents? What sort 

[ Page 3455 ]

of certainty do we have in some of these discussions? How can I tell them that. . . .? Why weren't they involved in some of these discussions?

I realize it's outside the treaty process; it's a separate issue. It's sort of a private land deal at this point in time, but by the same token, the public just don't feel they've been involved.

Hon. J. Cashore: As I said, this is an issue for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. But I'm not sure if the hon. member is referring to discussions that took place in 1983 or subsequent discussions. He would have to advise me on the discussions that have taken place without local representation. I would certainly be glad to follow up on that if he can give me some information about it.

J. Weisbeck: Yes, I will. I think there certainly have been discussions with regional districts, but the public themselves feel as though they haven't been privy to all of the information that's been passing. It appears that the discussions have been left behind closed doors, and they haven't been involved.

Hon. J. Cashore: Within the aegis of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, I have no way of having that information. We don't track that; that is not an issue for this ministry. But we're interested in the fact that people have frustrations, and we think it's a legitimate concern. My own belief on that is that it is appropriate for me to advise the member that we're going to notify the Minister of Transportation and Highways to be prepared for this question.

Having said that, I'd like to move that the committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:40 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada