(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997
Morning
Volume 5, Number 14
[ Page 3933 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
The Speaker: I understand that the member for Okanagan-Penticton is rising pursuant to a matter of privilege, substantially the same one raised earlier. In that case, members, I am going to ask the Deputy Speaker, for the same reasons elucidated the other day, to take the chair today.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Yesterday, during the course of her response to my point of privilege, the minister said this: "
The situation at hand is the question of whether Mr. Hughes gave the minister explicit approval to use her Ladysmith constituency office for partisan political purposes during the recent federal election. The situation is not whether Mr. Hughes spoke to the minister about the use of that office during the 1996 provincial election.
After reviewing the Hansard transcripts of the minister's remarks, I have reread the letter I received from Mr. Hughes. I have also read newspaper accounts published this morning of the minister's statements outside the House yesterday afternoon. I suggest it is clear that the conversation between Mr. Hughes and the minister concerned the use of the constituency office during the 1996 provincial election. There was never a discussion about the use of her constituency office during the 1997 federal election. Nothing in Mr. Hughes's letter can be construed as an acknowledgment that the minister spoke to him about the potential conflict in using a provincial constituency office for partisan purposes during a federal election.
The minister contends that she spoke to Mr. Hughes about the situation and that this fact is confirmed in Mr. Hughes's letter. Neither contention is correct. I suggest these facts disclose a prima facie case for breach of privilege. I am tendering the appropriate motion should you find a prima facie case exists. I am also tendering relevant documents.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.
I recognize the hon. Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, the comments I made yesterday are accurate. I have been clear from the beginning that I had a conversation with Mr. Hughes prior to the provincial election about the situation with my office, and I have nothing to add to that.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. As I said yesterday, I will reserve a decision on this and get back to the House as soon as possible.
TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 9; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 18.
G. Wilson: This perhaps -- from my perspective, anyway -- is one of the more problematic and possibly contentious sections, because it ties into sections 16 and 17, which were debated last evening. It essentially deals with the circumstance by which a director may have an interest in a contract and contract transactions. I think it's important. Originally, I had intended to move an amendment to that. I've since met with legal counsel, who has convinced me that to move an amendment would not be effective.
It talks about the word "account" under section 17. The reason I raise it under section 18 is because section 18 says:
"The circumstance that a director is, in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a proposed contract or transaction, or a contract or transaction, with the corporation does not make the contract or transaction invalid" -- and here is the line that I think is problematic -- "but, if the matters referred to in section 17 (1) (a) or (b) have not occurred, the Supreme Court, on the application of the government, of the corporation or of any interested person, may enjoin the corporation from entering into the proposed contract or transaction. . . . "
[10:15]
This becomes quite problematic, in my judgment, because the nature of this Crown corporation is such that there will be marketing proposals put in place that are likely to involve those who are sitting on the board by virtue of the fact that the board is going to be constituted of people who have a direct interest in tourism and tourism development. And so it seems to me that if, under section 17, disclosure is sufficient to allow contracts to proceed, what we are in effect doing is opening the door, potentially at least, for people to benefit directly through simple disclosure. Then at no point beyond that are they required to provide any kind of documented accounting for how that conflict has benefited them personally.I know under section 17 that the word "account" -- according to legal counsel, and I want this to be on the record -- suggests that if a person has personally benefited from this contract, they have to
Hon. J. Pullinger: For the information of the House -- and I believe the member knows this -- this entire section relies heavily on the Company Act, and it's in fact included in this legislation for greater clarity.
[ Page 3934 ]
The section the member refers to provides access to a process on the part of government or the board or the public. The member asked specifically who would make the determination of whether there was a conflict. This is a process so that if government, other board members or the public believe that a conflict has taken place, this simply provides for a process to deal with that difficulty.
For the second question of who would make the final determination, that would be the courts.
G. Wilson: I understand that this language was lifted out of the Company Act, but we're dealing with a rather unique animal that we've created here. We've hived off what would ordinarily be an activity of a ministry of government and put it into a Crown corporation. We are doing it in a way that is directed very specifically at promotion and marketing. I understand the reason why we're trying to do that. I would personally have preferred not to use a Crown corporation, but that's the choice of government, and I understand that -- not that I have to agree with it.
Where I become concerned
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is absolutely correct that this is a unique kind of situation, wherein the tourism industry is, in fact, heavily represented on the board. For the comfort of the member -- which I understand is what he's looking for -- we have included this section to do even more due diligence. Although it's in the Company Act -- and if it were not here, the Company Act would prevail -- we've put this section in the act just to be very clear, very transparent and very up front that these issues need to be dealt with carefully.
Also, it may provide the member some comfort to know that the policy area remains with government. The development of the industry will be a somewhat shared responsibility; it won't be entirely the responsibility of the corporation. For instance, in British Columbia there is clearly tremendous potential, both for the industry and for the people of British Columbia, specifically first nations, in working to assist first nations to develop a provincewide strategy and infrastructure for tourism. That would be a joint effort between the corporation and the ministry in terms of promoting that agenda.
Similarly, something that may provide further comfort to the member is the clause in the legislation that requires diversity on the board. There are ten seats that will be recommended by industry. Because of the unique situation that we have, where we're moving from an advisory board in government to a full-fledged Crown agency, I believe it's very important to have some rollover between the two boards. I may not achieve the entire diversity I would like on the first board. However, it would be very certain that on that board there would be regional representation, a diversity of interests and community-based voices, people who are connected to the community.
There is, I think, a very healthy tension within the industry and the industry representatives between communities, between regions and, to some degree, between sectors. On the one hand, the industry recognizes that it needs to cooperate to a high degree. To function, on the other hand, there is some competitiveness and tension. If that tension is reflected on the board, I think we'll find very good decision-making. I think that will serve to protect in the way that the member quite rightly wants to see it protected.
Section 18 approved.
On section 19.
P. Reitsma: Just some quick questions on sections 19(1) and 19(2). Do I take it that a continuous statement of assets and liabilities will be required? I also take it, then, that even if a director owns 1 percent, as we discussed yesterday, they still would have to declare any potential conflict of interest. Thirdly, what guidelines are there to exclude a director from the debate, predicated on what circumstances?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The member's question addresses the broad interests of disclosure. The policies, procedures and details of precisely what must be disclosed would be made
P. Reitsma: Is there a mechanism or a generally accepted principle or guideline in terms of having to exclude oneself? Will the board set those guidelines?
Hon. J. Pullinger: The board would indeed set those policies and procedures, but there would be a code of conduct with some sophisticated disclosure mechanisms. They will be expected to put those things in place, along with a code of conduct that must be transparent.
P. Reitsma: I would hope, while it is appreciated that the board must set some guidelines, that they are going to be submitted to an external party, so that the guidelines put together by the board are not self-serving but have an external opinion to make sure there is no real or perceived conflict of interest.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I would expect that would be the case.
Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved.
On section 22.
G. Wilson: A very brief question. Whenever we're talking about a percentage, we have to be clear on the percentage of what it is we're talking about. I understand that what we're doing is essentially substituting 6.35 percent of the purchase price for 8 percent of the purchase price. In other words, we're taking 8 percent and making it 6.35 in order to take the levy, which is going to come off the top of that, to go into funding this Crown corporation. I guess my only concern is that if that is going to be sort of an earmarked tax levy that's going to go into this particular Crown corporation, we want to make sure that as this Crown corporation increases in its financial demands, it isn't going to seek to get an increased amount of money out of this levy.
So when we're talking about 8 percent of the purchase price, we're talking about that price which is set by the industry.
[ Page 3935 ]
Correct? We're talking about a hotel room tax -- let's be very clear about what we're dealing with here -- which is set by industry; it's an industry-set rate. If the minister is saying no, then we better clear this up.
Hon. J. Pullinger: If I'm clear on what the member is saying
Interjection.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Okay.
We discussed this issue a bit yesterday, as well. Obviously it's a key issue for everyone, including the industry. But I would like to provide the House with the comfort that if the tax rate were to change, it would have to come back to this Legislature through the Ministry of Finance. If the proportion of the tax that was to go to this agency were to change, that would have to come back to this Legislature for debate.
So this is as much assurance as we can possibly have, both in the amount of the money and the formula for providing that money to the Crown agency. It's enshrined in legislation, so any changes that are to be made to this formula or to the way the Crown receives its funding would have to come back to this Legislature.
[10:30]
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the clarification. The difficulty, I guess -- it's by way of a statement, and the minister may not even want to respondI think I said in second reading -- and I don't want to go into that whole philosophical issue again -- that if you want to increase tourism in the province, the way to do that is by bringing the cost of hotel rooms down, not by forcing them up to feed a new Crown corporation.
Hon. J. Pullinger: A valid point. I think the industry is very well aware of the points that the member makes. Because the board will be dominated by people from the industry in one way or another, they would be very cognizant of the need to make sure that hotel prices are at fair market value and not set high enough to discourage visitors from coming to British Columbia. Clearly, what they want to do is increase tourism and keep the momentum that we've had over the last few years.
For the comfort of the member, again, this legislation and some of the reasons for having this agency are because it provides the industry with a marketing tool wherein they can partner with other governments or with the private sector; they can carry forward revenues they might earn; they will own the Super, Natural British Columbia and SuperHost trademarks, which they can then do things with and market and have funds come back to the corporation. They now have the means of generating their own funds, of carrying funds forward, so in high years, with very high levels of tourism and with perhaps an anticipated slowing of growth, they could in fact set aside funds, which is also provided for. They can invest moneys, as provided for in the legislation, so that in slower years they could augment their funds.
The purpose of having this agency is to provide all of those flexibilities to this marketing agency so that it can in fact adjust to all the vagaries of the marketplace and keep British Columbia competitive.
P. Reitsma: I have only one question on section 22 that has more of a technical nature. When I have guests coming to my motel, of course we have the PST and the GST, and we charge the 8 percent rather than the extra 2 percent. I make out the bill for the rate, plus the PST and GST. I would hope that there will be no requirement in the future for two computations, one being 6.35 percent and one being 1.65 percent.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It changes absolutely nothing at the front desk. We're actively seeking ways to lighten the overall paper burden for small business, and this would change absolutely nothing at the front desk. It's simply a division of the tax within government, with a portion sent to the agency.
Section 22 approved.
V. Anderson: May I make an introduction, please?
Leave granted.
V. Anderson: I'd like to welcome a group of students from John Henderson Elementary School in the riding of Vancouver-Langara, who have come to Victoria on a nice, sunny day with their teacher Mr. Greaves. I would ask the House to make this young and energetic group very welcome.
On section 23.
P. Reitsma: Again, as we discussed yesterday
Oh, pardon me. Section 23 is fine with me. I was going to talk about 24. I beg your pardon.
Section 23 approved.
On section 24.
P. Reitsma: Continuing with the comments I made, section 24
Hon. J. Pullinger: By enshrining the tax points in legislation, we have provided the highest level of assurance possible.
[ Page 3936 ]
So any changes would have to come back to this Legislature, and it's not anticipated that it will change. I certainly have put this
P. Reitsma: I do not accept this. I'd like to go on the record stating that I do not believe the words of the minister. I do not trust the words of the minister on behalf of the government, because FRBC
The Chair: Hon. member, I'm sorry. I have to interrupt. Your comments are really quite unparliamentary. It's not appropriate to make those comments, so I think you should withdraw them.
P. Reitsma: I withdraw those, Madam Chair.
I have a hard time believing some of the contents in terms of whether or not it's going to be changed. I give the example of FRBC, when we were assured that nothing that's legislated would change. I give the example of the municipal grants, whereby we were told that because it's legislated, it is enshrined. I have great difficulty trusting that this will take place. As far as I'm concerned, the minister offered explicit approval but I think has failed to give explicit guarantees that the funding will be secured for the next two to three years. It's almost like political schizophrenia at its best.
What the industry needs is security; what the industry needs is stability. That's what they asked for last year, which was were given. Hands were shaken; contracts were signed; pictures were taken. Lo and behold, just after the election things changed. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Our industry needs to market; our industry needs to plan. Our industry does not need a political sword of Damocles which is just hanging on some thin threads of non-promises or vague promises. I am extremely critical of this. Personally, I simply do not believe it, and I think we will see changes in that. Common sense and comfort would have been much greater. I regret that whilst I and my caucus fully support the bill, I have to mention this, because there's a failure to guarantee.
Hon. J. Pullinger: I recognize that the member likes to use this forum to make his speeches of questionable use. However, I would simply like to point out to the members and to the public that the right-wing coalition that sat in this House for 20 years as government -- which is very much like the right-wing coalition that sits in opposition today, with all the same lines -- knew very well that the industry wanted two things very, very much, one of which was this legislation. They did not ever provide that to the industry. They did not; they would not.
The funding under the right-wing coalition went up and down with revenues to government. That's a fact of life. It's a function of government. That happened under the right-wing coalition; that happens under our government.
What we have done here is provide, for the first time ever, guaranteed funding by legislation for the tourism industry. It is the first time in British Columbia and the first time in Canada, and indeed we have not located another jurisdiction that has provided this kind of surety and independence and flexibility to the tourism industry to market tourism, in partnership with government, in a jurisdiction.
It's worth noting that the industry is not complaining, as the opposition is. The industry is very positive about this. They have applauded this government. They have said that this is something they have wanted for a long, long time, and they're very, very happy to have it. They have applauded government for it. The only people complaining are the members opposite, and I understand that they want to do that for political reasons.
R. Thorpe: I was not going to rise, but I just cannot let those comments go, because they are absolutely wrong. This is not about politics of the right or politics of the left. This is about what is right and what is wrong. That's what it's about. As soon as they understand that it's about right versus wrong, then they'll have the picture. The government promised in February of '96 and broke that promise, promised in April of '96 and broke that promise. This is about the difference between right and wrong. The minister makes the comment that the industry is applauding. Well, we can't quite hear the applause. They are in fear -- like so many other groups that have to deal with this government -- because they know they'll get whacked by this government. To the minister: it's about right and wrong. Do what's right, not what's wrong.
Section 24 approved.
On section 25.
G. Wilson: Now that we've got all that off our chests, maybe we'll get back to the bill.
I think that as a matter of public policy, it is not a good idea to have retroactivity, and what section 25 says, essentially, is that the bill comes into effect or will be deemed to have come into effect as of April 1 of this year, which means that we're dealing with retroactivity. I'm well aware that within the estimates that have been put forward, those dollars had been allocated, and I appreciate that we can actually see those dollars. But as a matter of public policy it is not a good idea to bring in a bill that retroactively changes financial levies. Whether it's on doctors' contracts or on hotel tax applications or whatever it may be, retroactivity is generally not a good idea.
I really have only one question on this section: could the minister clarify what the projected value of this tax is since April 1? I wish I'd brought that particular section with me. Looking through the estimates to try to establish how much money that's going to be, it's not clear to me that in fact the amount that's been allocated is an accurate reflection, if we use last year's revenues to take the percentage that should have been accrued from April 1, 1997, to June 1, 1997. If we take that same period last year and look at revenue flow last year, it seems to me that there's a lot more money in there this year than there should be. Maybe the minister could account for those variations.
[10:45]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The reason for the retroactivity, first of all, for clarity for the member, is really mechanical. It's in order that we have the entire year reported in one document for clarity, so that the report of the corporation will go back to the beginning of the fiscal year rather than having part in my ministry and part in the report. It just makes a lot more sense.There are no rights changed; there is nothing changed by doing this. It simply provides a better benchmark. We know that the report will contain the entire income for the whole fiscal year of the corporation, and it will document all of the expenses, etc. It provides a much better reporting mechanism,
[ Page 3937 ]
but it doesn't change any rights or functions or anything else. Given this is a function and we're simply changing how it's delivered, it simply made sense to make it fit the fiscal year. That's why it's been done that way.
The amount of money that will flow to the corporation has been calculated to be about $17 million based on the tax points, based on the best calculations we have. Then there's a $1.3 million one-time transfer that we're providing to the corporation to assist with startup. The member wasn't here yesterday, so I'll simply reiterate that in my ministry budget we have provided for $6.5 million to fund the operations of Tourism British Columbia within my ministry, until such time as the corporation becomes active, at which time the corporation will be paid, retroactively to April 1, the funds due to it under the legislation. The corporation will then repay the amounts to the ministry that it has, in effect, borrowed from the ministry. It's simply a means of funding this body in its transition period.
G. Wilson: That is clear. I'm assuming the minister, of course, is negotiating a reasonable interest on that loan. That's just a joke.
An Hon. Member: We discussed it last night.
G. Wilson: I know. That was discussed at length last night. I've been reading the Blues; it's interesting, and I won't get back into that debate.
The question that comes to mind, and I really only
I guess I would say that the difficulty I have -- in a sense, it reflects on some of the comments the member for Parksville-Qualicum was making a few minutes ago -- is that we go through committee stage on these bills, we're told that nothing substantive is going to change, we're told this is going to put stability in it, we're told that this is the way we're going to finance it and that everybody now knows the game plan, and as the year progresses and the budgets change and deficits occur, the rules change. Governments frequently have to take action then, because they have no option but to take action, and the next thing you know, we're dealing once again with retroactivity in application of the law.
So I would say that because this section deals with the retroactive application, I hope the minister might convince her colleagues that a legislative calendar is a good idea. Let's come in in February, have a spring session and get these bills on the books in advance of the budget. Then let's come back in the fall, if necessary, to look at whatever amendments would be required for the following year, so we're not constantly in a retroactive situation.
R. Thorpe: I may have been out when this was asked yesterday, so if it was asked and answered, I do apologize. Can the minister confirm if the memorandum of understanding that ties in with this bill has been signed yet?
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's outside the scope of the legislation.
R. Thorpe: I guess, then, that one can only conclude it has not been signed. Would that be a fair conclusion?
Interjection.
The Chair: The hon. member wishes to
I recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum.
P. Reitsma: Two comments. One, my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Penticton was
The Chair: Hon. member, we're on section 25.
P. Reitsma: I know, Madam Chair.
The Chair: It doesn't refer to section 2.
P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. I'm referring to the memorandum of understanding which was contained in this bill in terms of having ten directors. Again, I would like to ask if it has been signed.
The Chair: No, hon. member. That's out of order.
P. Reitsma: Okay.
Secondly, whilst it gives me no comfort that the minister of explicit approval and blessings really failed the essential part -- that is, providing some explicit guarantee so that our industry has some stability, has some security in order to plan and to market -- nevertheless, our caucus unanimously will go along with the bill, because it in some way ultimately provides something rather than nothing. I congratulate the minister and everybody else who has worked diligently on this, including the industry, including the opposition, of course, and our side as well, because the bottom line is that it's an absolutely wonderful industry. There's nothing I would like to see more in the years to come than the hospitality industry -- of which I have been a member for 31 years in many, many ways -- become the number one industry in the province. And yes, we do support this unanimously.
Section 25 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 9, Tourism British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 22.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
(second reading)
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be now read a second time.
[ Page 3938 ]
The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, contains amendments to a number of statutes. I will now provide a brief description of each amendment.
The first amendments update the provisions in the Court Order Enforcement Act relating to the amount of a debtor's personal and family property exempt from seizure and sale. Currently, debtors may keep only $2,000 in personal property, a much outdated provision and far below the levels provided in other provinces. The provisions establish categories of exemptions which reflect basic needs, including household effects, clothing, equity in a motor vehicle, tools of the trade and limited equity in a home. The amount of these exemptions will be set by regulation in order to ensure that they do not become obsolete.
These amendments are made in the spirit of justice reform and of ensuring that all British Columbians are treated fairly. They will level the playing field between debtors and creditors and, most importantly, will allow debtors to re-establish themselves and begin contributing to the community again.
Next, amendments are made to the Employee Investment Act to address various shortcomings of the existing legislation, which, as members know, was proclaimed in September 1989. As the legislation is relatively new, it was expected that, over time, amendments would be brought forward. The amendments support the public policy objective of increasing the flow of long-term risk capital into fast-growing small and medium-size businesses and the corresponding job creation benefits.
The Hospital Act is amended to correct an error in the legislation.
This bill also repeals section 103 of the Labour Relations Code. Section 103 is neither necessary nor desirable, following the introduction of expedited arbitration provisions under section 104 of the code in 1993, as well as the expansion of other expedited models which had been introduced by the labour relations community in recent years. The transitional component of this provision will allow parties who have already initiated a process under section 103 to continue the process to its conclusion.
Section 25 of the bill provides authority for the city of Victoria to enter into agreements for the leasing of municipal property for the construction and operation of an arena. This authority will enable the city to replace the aging Memorial Arena with a modern, multipurpose facility through formation of a public-private partnership. The amendment will serve to clear away a number of obstacles in current municipal legislation which would otherwise make this pilot project difficult to negotiate. The project will create 300 jobs during construction, 150 jobs once the facility opens. The government is committed to providing decent, self-paying, family-supporting jobs and is pleased to be able to support this innovative solution to a long-outstanding issue.
As hon. members may be aware, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which governs conditions in employment pension plans, came into effect in 1993. The present bill includes three changes to the legislation which have the support of the superintendent of pensions and the representative, the Pension Benefits Standards Advisory Council. The first change is an amendment to expand the province's enabling authority to enter into agreements with other provinces and with the federal government on reciprocal enforcement of pension standards. It will allow for implementation of a new and improved multilateral agreement, which is targeted to take effect in the coming year. The new agreement will help to streamline the design, administration and regulation of pension plans which have members who work in more than one province.
The other two amendments are technical changes to give discretion to the superintendent of pensions to permit continuation of a pension plan in the situation where no current employer contributions are being made, rather than requiring automatic windup of the plan.
The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to provide purchasers in certain circumstances with a choice of how to determine for tax purposes the fair market value of industrial improvements. Although these amendments will apply to very few transactions on an annual basis, they will provide greater certainty for affected purchasers and government regarding the value of industrial property; enhance fairness and the consistent application of the tax by ensuring that purchasers of industrial properties pay tax on the same or similar basis to that of all other purchasers; and protect provincial revenue.
This bill also makes a minor amendment to the Real Estate Act to correct a drafting error. The amendment reinstates certain recision rights of real estate purchasers, which were inadvertently restricted during the course of recent amendments to the act.
Finally, this bill amends the Small Claims Act in the interests of using court resources more effectively. Under the Small Claims Act, appeals are heard in the Supreme Court by way of an entirely new trial. That process is outdated and inefficient and favours people who have the resources to continue litigating. Amendments to the Small Claims Act will address these issues by providing that appeals from small claims to the Supreme Court will be heard on the record rather than by way of a new trial. That concludes my remarks.
[11:00]
G. Plant: I am pleased to be able to rise to speak today to Bill 22, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997. I want to begin by repeating, with variations, the usual introductory remarks about how interesting and challenging it is to speak to the principle of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.I think that when I have done this before, I have probably talked about the undeniable utility in using a vehicle like this for introducing what might properly be called housekeeping legislation. I was thinking about that this morning, rereading Bill 22 and realizing that you could say that about one or two of the provisions in this bill -- that they are housekeeping.
For example, the Real Estate Act provision really does nothing more than insert a specific date, or two dates, into a provision in an act. This will make it easier for all those who want to rely on that statute to simply read the statute, understand the time frame within which the recision rights apply, and carry on; as opposed to what the act now requires, which is that you have to read the act and realize that the act talks about an effective date. You then need to go find an order-in-council, which is not a very efficient way of proceeding. So that's housekeeping.
In this bill, however, there are a number of changes of substance to the laws of British Columbia which are not something that one could call housekeeping. They are in some cases significant changes, and in some cases clearly desirable
[ Page 3939 ]
and necessary. However, because it is a miscellaneous statutes act, it is virtually inevitable that most of the debate around those provisions will occur in committee stage as the various provisions come up for debate one at a time.
In that context, nonetheless, I want to say a few things about the first part of this bill, the Court Order Enforcement Act amendments. I do that because the comments I want to make now are relatively general in nature. They speak to the issues of principle raised by the amendments here. They are one of the two parts of this bill that is perhaps closest to my critic responsibility, and therefore I may know something more about them. I'm sure I know something more about the Court Order Enforcement Act than I do about the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. I understand what those amendments are about, and we'll deal with them in due course. The official opposition does support the Victoria arena project. In that context I do want to say some things about the changes which are being proposed to the Court Order Enforcement Act.
The process of realizing on civil judgments is far more complex than anyone wants it to be. It is often extremely difficult for creditors, particularly unprofessional creditors, if I could call them that -- people other than banks who have loaned money, who are not getting the money repaid, who have judgment for the debt and who wish to collect from a reluctant debtor. Our system of laws erects a fairly complicated process in the way of someone who wishes to use our civil process to recover amounts of money owing to her or him.
The principal legislation in British Columbia that deals with this process is the Court Order Enforcement Act. It's an act that deals with a number of subjects, but this subject is certainly one that is an essential part of the bill: that is, what are the rules that apply to people who wish to realize on judgments they have obtained, who wish to collect from debtors amounts that are owing to them that have not been repaid?
The statute, in some respects, is old. Like all old statutes, it's a good idea to look at it every once in a while to see if it can be improved. It's also important, though, to see that this statute -- the Court Order Enforcement Act -- is but a piece of a larger picture of legislation, both provincial and federal, that regulates the lending of money, the securing of loans and the collection of unpaid loans. When one looks at the Court Order Enforcement Act and says, "How can we improve the collection mechanisms contained in this act?" it is important to look at the relationship between this act and the other statutes that bear on these questions. These would include statutes like the Bankruptcy Act of Canada, the Personal Property Security Act, the Rules of Court and various provisions in a host of statutes that give the Crown, both federal and provincial and both in their own right as well as through agencies, particular status as a creditor.
It's a complicated scheme. I used to try and pretend that I knew enough about it to give advice and represent people in the course of proceedings. I can tell you that it was my almost universal experience that for those unhappy creditors who have made the mistake of loaning money to someone who has turned out to not be a good credit risk, the law is not a very friendly place.
In addition to the point that I make about the interrelationship between this act and the other acts that need to be looked at every time you decide you're going to try and fix or improve the enforcement of judgments, it is preeminently an area of law where details count, where the actual words are important and where the technicalities become essential. Those observations provide a bit of context for some of the things I want to say about the amendments that are proposed here.
I believe it is time for a general review of this whole business of enforcing judgments. We have recently embarked upon a large-scale review of personal property security, and we've done other things in this area. But I think one statute that is in need of a broad-scale review is the Court Order Enforcement Act. I want to make this brief comment and then move on to something else.
I think it is unfortunate that in taking an opportunity to look at this act, the government has not seen fit to take the larger opportunity, in looking at the act as a whole, to embark upon a more comprehensive examination of this as opposed to the piecemeal approach that's been taken here. That's the first point of a substantive nature that I want to make, and having made that point, I understand that one of my colleagues wishes to seek leave to make an introduction.
G. Bowbrick: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a group of grade 5 students from Haney-Pitt Meadows Christian School and their teacher Mrs. Roda, along with several other adults who are with them. I would ask this House to join me in making them welcome.
The Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a similar
Leave granted.
B. McKinnon: In the halls somewhere right now on tour is a group of high school students from Coyote Creek Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. Berndt and some adults. If you see them in the halls, I ask that you make them welcome, as they won't be in the session today.
G. Plant: Let me give two brief examples of other issues that I believe are out there as being issues for consideration and reform in the area of court order enforcement. There are issues around whether or not the current way we deal with garnishing orders is adequate. Garnishing orders tend to be made and to then expire very quickly. They tend to exist on a one-off basis, and I think it's time to look at the question of whether or not garnishing orders should be made that have a continuing effect that would ensure that people who need to rely on them can do so efficiently.
I think it's also time now to again look at the definition of debts -- the kinds of debts that ought to be available for people who wish to pursue garnishment.
So I say it is a little unfortunate that having occupied our attention with some reform for the Court Order Enforcement Act, the government has not seen fit to take an opportunity -- which I understand it's been encouraged to do by the legal profession -- to embark upon a larger-scale review of these important questions.
I want to turn from that to say that there are at least two things that the process of judgment enforcement needs to do. First of all, the process needs to be efficient, cost-effective and all of that. Secondly, the whole business of collecting debts
[ Page 3940 ]
needs to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the needs of debtors who have gotten themselves into trouble financially but need in some respect to have the assurance that when they move through the process they will at the end of it have something to start with to get on with their renewed lives
The amendments which are proposed to the Court Order Enforcement Act by this bill alter the existing balance. They do it in two ways: they change the monetary limits that currently exist in the law that provide the protection to debtors of some small amount -- protection to them, a recognition to them that there will be some amount of their personal assets that will forever be exempt from seizure or sale. And the second way that the amendments alter the balance -- if I could call it the balance -- between creditor interests and debtor interests is by changing the category of property which is exempt from seizure and sale.
Under the current law there are personal assets of a debtor which are exempt from seizure and sale, and there's a relatively modest limit on the value of those assets. What these amendments seek to do is to alter those limits, both by altering the monetary value of the limits and by altering and expanding the category of exemptions. I want to speak briefly about each of those two things.
[11:15]
First of all, the question of changing the monetary limitsThe problem is that we don't have before us any statement in the bill of what the actual limits will be. I think a good way to look at the issue would be to undertake a comparative analysis -- that is, for the government of British Columbia to look at the court order enforcement legislation that exists in other provinces in Canada and, in setting the limits, have some regard to the limits which now exist in the laws in other provinces. Obviously, another good way of going about the process would be, in undertaking that analysis, to examine the way in which British Columbia may be slightly different than other provinces. After all, the cost of living is higher here than in other parts of Canada.
I've already done a bit of that comparative analysis, and what it suggests to me is that there is a need for change. The limits do need to be revised upward, but there needs to be only a relatively modest increase in the limits. And I would urge the Attorney General and the government to in fact undertake that comparative analysis and to consult widely with the debtor and creditor community before drafting the regulations which set the limits. And that's a topic that I think I'll probably pursue when we get to the committee stage debate.
The second issue is the changes in the category of exemptions. Here, there are a couple of important points to make, most of which, I think, are probably more easily raised in the committee stage debate. But what the government seeks to do is to increase the categories of property in respect of which there would be some exemption from seizure or sale. I think the most significant one, the one that one sees immediately, is the inclusion of personal residences in the category of property which will have some immunity or exemption from seizure or sale.
That is a significant change to the laws of British Columbia. As I understand it -- and I may be wrong -- only Alberta has a similar exemption for principal residences. Again, the question of whether that is fair or not will turn, to some extent, on the value of the exemption that is applied to principal residences. But I wanted to pause to point out that I think the debtor and creditor community -- those whose business it is to loan money and to try and collect on judgments -- are quite concerned about these changes and will want to be sure that when they come into force, they do not in fact create an entirely new climate for borrowing and lending money in British Columbia.
The next thing I want to talk about for a minute or two is what I sometimes call the phenomenon of unintended consequences. Here is something that looks like a good idea. Here is a bill that's being put forward with, probably, the intention of striking a fairer balance between debtors and creditors by giving debtors a slightly larger zone of protection, perhaps, for their assets. What may happen as a result of this that we haven't thought about and that may in fact not be helpful but may actually be harmful?
There are three things that occur to me as being potential risks -- issues we should keep our eyes on. First is one I'm going to return to in committee stage debate, and that is the extent to which these amendments, as drafted, will have an impact on other seizure and enforcement provisions in the law, and whether the interrelationship between the two will be a good one as opposed to a bad one. That is, have the people who have drafted this bill actually understood all of its implications for personal property security, for bankruptcy legislation, for preferred creditors and all of that? Does the interposition of these rules in the existing patchwork create a system that will make sense, that will be efficient, that will be fair? Or will it in fact contribute to more litigation, more uncertainty, less fairness? There is really no way to examine that issue other than in the context of the specific provisions, and I think we'll do that during committee stage debate of the bill.
The second is to understand what it means when we say that certain assets of a debtor can no longer be seized. On the one hand, it looks like a perfectly valid and legitimate purpose to afford some protection to people who want to borrow money. Well, let's be sure that in doing that we don't make it harder for people to borrow money. Let's be sure that in doing that we don't make it harder for people who generate wealth and prosperity in this province, especially small businesses -- businesses that are frequently started by people who have very few assets. Let's not make it harder for them to get their businesses going by creating a regulatory framework that sends the message to lenders: "Look, you can't lend money to these people anymore, because there's no security there. There's no chance of getting the money back. There's not going to be any opportunity to collect on the debt if the debt turns out to be bad."
What happens is that those who are in the business of lending money to others only do so when they think the loan
[ Page 3941 ]
is a good one. There's a limit on the risk that people are prepared to take and that people are prepared to assume, and if the limit is exceeded, then those who are in the business of loaning money will no longer do that. If we create too wide a zone of protection for debtors by taking that action, ostensibly in the best interests of debtors, we want to be sure and careful that we do not accidentally ultimately harm the interests of those who would like to borrow money to get businesses underway in order to generate wealth and prosperity for British Columbians.
There are some specific issues here around the way in which this bill may protect from seizure assets that would otherwise be used to obtain credit. Again, I think the only way to examine those particular questions is to do so in the context of the particular provisions, and we'll do that in committee stage debate.
The last point in terms of unintended consequences is a relatively small one but nonetheless an interesting one. The bill provides that the exemptions found in section 71 will now be found in section 71 of the Court Order Enforcement Act and will not apply to corporate debtors. So let's follow that. What does that mean? What that means is that if you are a company that borrows money, you don't get to rely on the exemptions in this act. Only if you are an unincorporated business will you be allowed to rely on these exemptions. Presumably that means if you are a sole proprietorship or partnership or some other form of unincorporated association, then you be allowed to rely on these exemptions. I think I understand the purpose; I think the purpose is to ensure that large multinational corporations don't get to claim exemptions.
What will be interesting to see is whether this provision will actually operate over time as an incentive not to incorporate -- that is, if it will in fact change the climate in which business is conducted in British Columbia. People who would now incorporate, in order to achieve the advantages of incorporation, may be tempted to no longer do that, because they would lose a significant advantage by incorporating. The advantage they would lose would be, for example, the very significant advantage that could exist in section 71(1)(d), where tools and personal property used to earn income from occupation are exempt from seizure.
Again, the question that I'm raising in the theoretical sense will take on flesh for good or for ill, to a considerable extent, depending on the amount of the exemption. If the exemption is not a significant increase over what currently exists, then perhaps my apprehension will simply diminish. But clearly, those are the kinds of things that I think we need to be mindful of when we're looking at attempts to reform the law in this way, because they're the kinds of consequences that I think are unintended. Sometimes they are unforeseen, and they can be quite significant.
I want to make one last general point about these provisions. It is, I suppose, a larger philosophical point -- probably too large for me. I think that we in Canadian society in the 1990s -- all of us -- are engaged in a debate, a discussion, a consideration of the important question of personal responsibility: the relationship between rights and responsibilities and the sense that some of us have that we have created a society in which it's all about entitlements and not about responsibilities.
In this bill we are looking in part at the issue of the fairness of the balance between debtors and creditors, and it is important to look at the fairness of that balance. I don't doubt that for a moment. But when we look at the fairness of that balance, it is important to make sure that we do not alter or re-alter that balance in such a way that we are in effect creating a larger immunity for individuals from the notion that they should be personally responsible for their decisions. And the decision that we're talking about here is the decision that we all make whenever we decide to borrow money from somebody else. We may do that when we charge a meal on a credit card. It's not necessarily a question of spending tens of thousands of dollars to buy expensive machinery; it's the kind of thing that happens every day.
When we read about the problems that young Canadians, young British Columbians -- in fact, families -- continually have in managing their personal debt, in outspending their resources and their ability to pay the debts that they accumulate by credit card or by some other means, I think we need to be careful to ensure that we don't enact legislation which effectively or essentially sanctions or rewards that behaviour. The larger question for us is: what role do we as legislators have in enhancing personal responsibility, in ensuring that people do become responsible for the decisions they make around things like borrowing money and are held accountable for those decisions when then turn out to be imprudent?
Again, when you take that nice, large philosophical question and put it into the context of the bill that's before us, I think the question is there. Because the bill does seek to alter the balance that currently exists between the protections available to debtors, on the one hand, and the processes available to creditors. Again, I'm not sure that we get an answer to the question here. To a large extent, the question is whether or not the balance is being struck in a way that is fair and yet does not take away from the important recognition of personal responsibility. It's difficult to answer that question, because the real decision will be made when cabinet decides on the amounts of the exemptions that are going to be created by these provisions.
If nothing else, I indulge myself in the hope that when those issues come before cabinet, cabinet will at least give some attention to the points I have made here. Of course, I think we're going to refer to some of them in committee stage debate.
That concludes my remarks on Bill 22. I think others may have remarks.
[11:30]
G. Bowbrick: I just want to take a few minutes to address some of the changes in the act which I think are quite important -- that is, sections 32 and 33 of the act, the amendments to the Small Claims Act. Until this point, until this bill passes and becomes law -- and I assume it will -- we've got a situation in British Columbia where people who use the small claims process and go through a trial may very well find themselves facing an entirely new trial in B.C. Supreme Court -- the means of appeal of small claims. In the legal community, this is referred to as appeal by way of trial de novo.The first thing I want to do is congratulate the legislation drafters on using plain language in drafting this act. In the act it's referred to simply as a new trial, which is, of course, exactly what it is. The Small Claims Act is one which is, more than most, a people's act. It's really very much about the access that regular people in British Columbia have to justice. That's what the small claims court process is all about.
For too long in British Columbia, in my view, there has been quite an injustice worked by the current provision. It
[ Page 3942 ]
effectively allowed for -- and still allows for -- a second kick at the can. So if someone is unhappy with the result they get in small claims court and wants an opportunity to have that reviewed, rather than seeking an appeal, as in most court processes, and arguing before a judge on primarily legal points of why there should be an appeal -- whether some error of law was committed or what have you -- people can now simply go to B.C. Supreme Court, by way of an automatic right, and take up the time of a B.C. Supreme Court justice to have a whole new trial.
Of course, B.C. Supreme Court is quite intimidating for the average person, especially if they represented themselves in small claims court, which is entirely appropriate; that's the way it should be. But they find themselves all of a sudden in B.C. Supreme Court before a justice of the Supreme Court. Often the party with more resources has hired counsel. While counsel are, of course, welcome in the small claims court process, I think in general it's frowned upon by people in the legal community, because it really appears to be a bit of a bullying tactic at times, quite frankly, when it really should be a process where regular people can adjudicate their disputes over minor matters, which is what the Small Claims Act is all about.
I should add, as well, that because the current provision allows for appeal as a right, the person who wants to appeal doesn't have to have any justification whatsoever. The result arrived at in small claims court in front of a Provincial Court judge could be the perfectly correct legal result, but the person who just has a grievance and doesn't like that perfectly correct legal result can essentially start the whole process over again.
This is something which has certainly caused me some irritation. In my short legal career prior to getting into politics, I worked as a legal aid staff lawyer. I saw people with minimal resources who went through the small claims court system. If they had success, they were often dragged in to B.C.'s Supreme Court by someone with greater resources. In my view -- and in the view of many other people -- that clearly isn't a recipe for justice. That is a recipe for allowing those who have more money to purchase justice. Certainly in many cases it amounts to a war of attrition. People without resources often find themselves in B.C. Supreme Court facing a B.C. Supreme Court judge, which in itself is intimidating. The other side, with more resources, has hired counsel. They appear in their robes, and it's a tremendously intimidating process. It certainly doesn't speak well in terms of justice for regular people.
There's obviously a cost to the system in the current appeal process, because this right of appeal ensures or allows for a B.C. Supreme Court justice to be pulled off an otherwise busy caseload to listen to what, in many cases, are minor grievances. There are far more serious and complex and important matters to be dealt with at the first stage in B.C. Supreme Court, whereas the parties who are the appeal from the small claims process have had a full hearing and a fair hearing in the Provincial Court with a small claims court judge. So obviously it stretches resources to the limit.
These changes are important because they ensure that we use our B.C. Supreme Court resources as efficiently as possible. It ensures that people will be able to have an appeal from small claims court, but not without proper justification. Certainly a judge has much greater leeway in the current appeal process to sanction, in effect, those who would be abusing the system. It certainly has been my sense, in the limited exposure I've had to small claims appeals, that judges themselves in the Supreme Court are often frustrated that their time is being taken up by this. They can see a clear injustice going on in front of them, but there's not much they can do other than just sit back, listen to a whole new trial and then make a judgment on that.
I support these changes; they're important changes. I want to draw attention to them. I don't consider them to be controversial in any way. Certainly, for people who have had this experience of the current appeal process under the Small Claims Act, it can be a very negative process. I think this is an important step forward in terms of justice for regular people who seek redress in small claims court.
F. Gingell: I wish to speak briefly to the amendments to the acts that come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance. They're all changes that the opposition agrees with. They tend to be technical in nature, and perhaps the discussion will be more appropriately focused in the committee stage.
I would like to bring up a couple of items. The first is in relation to the amendments to the property transfer tax. I will be interested, in discussions with the minister during committee stage, in what consequences he believes may flow from these changes and whether or not these changes may appropriately be made in certain other legislation that deals with fair market values of properties, specifically with respect to the Assessment Act.
The changes in the Real Estate Act, as previously mentioned by our critic, are purely and simply correcting an unintended error that was created through a previous amendment.
Having listened to the member for New Westminster speak about the issues of the small claims court, I thought I would put on record my own recent experience. Perhaps the Attorney General will take heed of the experience that I had and ensure that it doesn't happen to others.
My wife was involved in a dispute with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, truly a corporation of great resources, as mentioned by the member for New Westminster. I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that my wife and I are not people with great resources. We went to small claims court in an action against ICBC. I understood the issues more thoroughly than my wife did. She was uncomfortable and would not speak on her own behalf in the court, and I was willing to do so. I was refused, by the judge, an opportunity to represent my wife's interests in the court. I was informed by the judge that if my wife was not willing to speak for herself, she had to have legal representation.
My understanding of the appropriate legislation is that that is not correct. I obtained an opinion from the then Attorney General, Mr. Gabelmann, that that was not correct. I was able to effect a settlement on the issue that was not satisfactory to us, but you've got to settle these things and get on with your life.
I do think that some other person appearing in small claims court
Looking back, it surprises me that something that was so clear to the Attorney General, when I spoke to him at that
[ Page 3943 ]
time, was not clearly understood by the judge sitting in the small claims court, who was clearly an experienced member of the judiciary.
I hope that the Attorney General reviews the Hansard debate on this second reading of Bill 22 and responds to the concerns I have expressed.
G. Abbott: I rise, first of all, to speak to Bill 22, but by fortuitous coincidence I'm going to have an opportunity here to interrupt myself so that I can ask leave to make an introduction.
The Speaker: I'm not sure you need that, member, but what the heck.
Leave granted.
G. Abbott: Yes, it's an interesting coincidence and a very pleasant one.
I'm delighted today to welcome to this Legislative Assembly a large group of grade 7 students from Len W. Wood Elementary School in Armstrong. They are accompanied by their teacher Miss Smith. They are also accompanied by a number of adult chaperons, who, I'm sure, are enjoying the tour and the visit to Victoria, as well. In particular, I want, as Municipal Affairs critic, to point out another fortuitous circumstance, and that is that one of the chaperons is the mayor of Spallumcheen, His Worship Richard Medhurst. I'd like the House to welcome all of these students and their adult guests as well.
[11:45]
I do want to make a few brief comments with respect to Bill 22. In particular, I want to address a few brief comments to section 25 of Bill 22, which is, of course, the MEVA to permit the city of Victoria to enter into some long-term agreements with a developer in order to provide an arena in the city of Victoria.I'm pleased to be able to follow my friends and colleagues the members for Richmond-Steveston and Delta South. Both members, as you know, have encyclopedic knowledge in their respective areas. The member for Richmond-Steveston noted that the one area in which he's not encyclopedic is the area of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. So it's provided me with a new sense of purpose and usefulness that I can rise in the House today and speak on that. My life has felt very empty since Municipal Affairs estimates ended at 8 o'clock last night, and it's good to have that renewed sense of purpose again. So I'm going to plow boldly ahead and provide my comments on section 25.
As noted, it does provide the city of Victoria with the opportunity to enter into a long-term agreement for the purpose of construction and operation of an arena. This is something which is currently not possible under the provisions of the present Municipal Act. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and I had a very good discussion on this issue during Municipal Affairs estimates. I won't relive all the golden moments of our discussion here in the House today, but I think a few notes do need to be made here.
Obviously, the limitation, or impediment, that currently exists in the Municipal Act is that municipalities cannot enter into the long-term agreements which are necessary, frequently, in P3, or public-private partnership, arrangements in British Columbia. The Minister of Municipal Affairs advised in estimates that the MEVA for the city of Victoria is apt to be the only MEVA of this sort that we will be seeing. But given that there is no present way to proceed with this project under the current provisions of this act, clearly a MEVA is an acceptable and appropriate way to proceed, at least in this one instance.
As the minister noted in estimates, there are numerous projects around this province in communities like Penticton and elsewhere where those municipalities are also anticipating long-term public-private partnerships. For the moment, at least, they are unable to proceed with those projects due to the limitations in the Municipal Act.
Clearly, changes are needed to that act. I'm satisfied that the minister is certainly committed to proceeding in that direction. He's indicated that it's not appropriate to enact a continuous stream of MEVAs to deal with the demand for P3 partnerships. Given that all members of this House recognize the growing importance of public-private partnerships in the province of British Columbia, I do hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs can move very expeditiously to bring about appropriate amendments to the Municipal Act to ensure that important economic development projects across the province of British Columbia are not held up by the lack of statutory changes to the Municipal Act which are needed to provide this.
With those few comments, hon. Speaker, I thank you. I do urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs to move as quickly and efficiently as he can to seeing the kind of remedy needed in the Municipal Act that will not require further MEVAs of this sort in this House. [Applause.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I won't ask whether the applause is for my getting up to speak or for the fact that the hon. member has found a useful role now that estimates are over.
I'd like to thank the hon. member for his comments, because we did have an interesting discussion on this particular issue in estimates. What's happening today and why this particular section is required in this miscellaneous statute is the fact that throughout the province there are projects taking place in ways that are no longer the traditional way of doing things. It used to be the municipality would go out and borrow the money or raise the money internally and build a new facility, quite often an arena. What has happened today is that finances are tight, municipalities want to be more creative and the provincial government is encouraging communities to be more creative. So there's a lot more opportunities. One of the problems is the constraints put on municipalities by the Municipal Act.
In this case the city of Victoria wants to build a new arena to replace the old arena. There are sections of the act that prohibit the long-term leasing of land and entering into certain commercial arrangements, and this particular section will get around those and in fact allow the city of Victoria to enter into a commercial arrangement with a private developer to provide a new arena for the citizens of Victoria at a substantially reduced cost over what it might have been.
This is going to be, I think, a form of development and financing that's going to occur throughout the province. The member is quite correct when he pointed out that there are other communities with other projects in the works, and other projects are waiting to be developed. The fact is that I don't believe it's appropriate or desirable that we be doing a constant series of one-off MEVAs, as they're called -- municipalities enabling and validating acts. This is a one-of-a-kind pilot, if you like. It deals with a specific situation, because the project is ready to go and there were important time constraints that had to be met if the project were to proceed.
[ Page 3944 ]
Having said that, I think what's important is to state how we intend to address the issue from here. That is, we are sitting down with the UBCM through the joint council process and working on this issue so that we can develop legislation that will deal with the issue on a provincewide basis, so that all municipalities are able to take advantage of public-private partnerships -- P3s as they're commonly referred to -- in the same way as each other, and one is not getting special treatment over the other.
So this particular piece of legislation deals with a particular problem here in Victoria. It paves the way for future projects throughout the province, because it shows that this is a viable way of providing new facilities. The government is committed to working with the municipalities to develop legislation that will allow all municipalities to participate in P3s. I'm pleased by the comments of the hon. member, and I expect support from both sides of the House when the legislation is finally voted on.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Attorney General, whose comments will close the debate on Bill 22.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We will obviously have a debate in committee stage, and I will conclude my remarks and ask that the bill be read a second time now.
Motion approved.
Bill 22, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
J. van Dongen: As I said to the minister and his staff last night, I'd like to do a few general things first, and then we'll get into a little bit on the B.C. Marketing Board and the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. Then, after question period today, the member for Peace River South would like to ask a series of questions with respect to the Peace River area. So we'll try and work in that direction and accommodate the concerns of staff.
I want to start out today by picking up on some of the comments the minister made in his opening remarks last night, particularly in the area of key strategic priorities. The minister mentioned about six different issues: the completion of commodity business plans; the implementation of the Farm Practices Protection Act at the municipal level; a review of the B.C. Marketing Board system; the Fish Protection Act; integrated pest management, particularly the SIR program; and the Roberts Bank provincial farmland. Those were the six things he mentioned.
I want to ask the minister if this is a specific definitive list or if it was him simply talking in general terms about priorities.
Hon. C. Evans: I'd say the latter.
J. van Dongen: Is there anything within the ministry and the minister's office in the way of a specific strategic list of priorities for the coming year?
Hon. C. Evans: There will be a strategic plan produced in about a week, which will be a more comprehensive list of our objectives.
J. van Dongen: And will that be in the form of a fairly specific work plan in terms of projects that the ministry will aim to accomplish in the coming year?
Hon. C. Evans: That's right. The discussion we had last night was about five or six highlighted topics, largely chosen because they relate to the context of the speech about change. The strategic plan will list 20 to 25 issues that I'm saying I hope to address over the coming year so that there's some accountability when we meet again a year from now. And then there will be a business plan produced by staff, basically saying how they're going to do that.
J. van Dongen: The list of priorities will include some time frames and some expectations in terms of results, will it?
Hon. C. Evans: No, the strategic plan is basically a statement of what I would like to accomplish and, as I said, will create an opportunity for some accountability. The business plan -- which you won't have to FOI; I will actually give it to you, if you want -- will have more specific statements of dates and targets and staff assignments to go do those things.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's offer on the business plan.
In terms of the commodity business plans, how many of those commodity business plans -- strategic plans -- have been done, and how many are there left to do?
Hon. C. Evans: Thirteen, and almost done.
J. van Dongen: I'm wondering about the use that's being made of those plans. Who is using them? How are they being used?
Hon. C. Evans: It's a problem of the nineties and the way we live and talk; it isn't necessarily a problem of our objectives.
[ Page 3945 ]
We are producing 13 plans, which have to do with our commodity teams and regional teams from the ministry -- what they're going to do. Those people are charged with working with commodities, groups of people out there, to develop their industrial objectives and plan for how they will get there.
We are two steps away, I think, from what the member may be actually wishing to know, which is: is the industry producing the plan, and will it be the industry that delivers the plan, and is the industry happy with the plan? The 13 plans that I'm talking about are internal staff saying to the deputy and to me: "Here's how we're going to go do what you've asked us to do." One of the things they're going to go do is work with commodities to produce the plan for the commodity group.
J. van Dongen: I guess we have to be careful with all our semantics, etc. So I understand that there are 13 commodity plans or commodity team plans internal to the ministry's operations and that there are a few more of those left to do.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Then maybe I could ask the minister: in terms of the strategic plans that have been done on an industry basis, how many of those have been done? Is there a plan to do more of those? What is the thinking with respect to strategic business plans for the industry?
Hon. C. Evans: You know, I think the collective wisdom is that the member is pointing to the fact that in recent years there haven't been plans produced by the various commodity groups. One of the objectives of the reorganization process is to encourage industries to be involved in that process. Our internal planning is how we're going to make it happen. There are examples staff are offering, like oysters, where there's a plan in process right now.
But in the main, the answer to your question would be: it hasn't been happening in recent years, and it's our intention to organize ourselves and then encourage the industry to go through those processes commodity by commodity.
J. van Dongen: I apologize for flipping back and forth here, but I think they're fairly connected. In terms of the 13 internal commodity plans and the few that are being done, are they intended to cover the range of ministry activities with respect to the various commodities? Or are they intended to target certain commodities for the coming year, represented by this budget?
Hon. C. Evans: I actually think it's a good question. The example offered is in berries. There will be a business plan internal to the ministry about how we're going to advance berries as a group. However, blueberry growers, strawberry growers, raspberry growers and cranberry growers will be encouraged to develop a plan for their sector, and we're going to help them.
J. van Dongen: Would it be the intent of the ministry staff and/or the minister to share those internal commodity plans with the respective groups? Has there been any prior discussion in terms of what is going into those plans for the coming year?
Hon. C. Evans: We'll share it with them because we'll create it with them. The intention is not to have staff talk to me or a deputy or something and make up a plan for somebody else; it's to engage the industry. It's going to take time because that's not how we used to do stuff, and we're inventing the process to work with the industry to envision their own future and figure out how to get there. So the simple answer to your question would be, "Of course," but I think it needs the subtext of our understanding that this is our perception of how we're trying to reorganize the work that we do in partnership as opposed to the kind of parent role of traditional government.
J. van Dongen: Does the minister's staff
[10:30]
Hon. C. Evans: The short answer to that question is no. The long answer is that the function of a plan is to manage change. So there are plans that have been done historically by commodity groups, and staff feel that the evolution of change means that there are none that we can hold up and say are up to date to deal with the challenges of the coming year.The example is given of the chicken industry, where the hon. member knows that the challenges have actually evolved in months, never mind in the last year. So it's no to the question of whether we have plans that we could table or share as examples. But I don't want to denigrate the work over the years of either producers themselves or staff to produce plans.
J. van Dongen: I guess the minister was partly anticipating the reason for my questions, but maybe it's because the minister and his staff have come to the same conclusion I have. I know that even fairly recently, the ministry encouraged industry strategic plans. At least one of them that I know of was funded through a Partners in Progress grant, and there are probably more. That was the hog strategic plan, which was done just a year or two ago. So just to confirm that the ministry has changed its view, then, as to the merits of doing these industry strategic plans, and they would tend to view that they haven't been very useful as we go through this period of rapid change
Hon. C. Evans: The member is right that there have been such planning processes funded. He uses the hog example. He wants to know if they are useful in getting to the next step. The answer is yes, but in the case of hogs -- his example -- the plan was after changes to the Crow rate but before changes to the processing industry that have happened quite recently. So it needs to be made responsive to what's actually happening right now.
Staff are concerned that my answers are not properly separating out the internal processes in the ministry and the commodity groups. I should reiterate that the changes we're trying to make in the ministry and how we make our plans for how we're going to expend our time are intended to address
[ Page 3946 ]
the subtext of this conversation. We need to organize ourselves so that we are most useful to producers to deal with the changing marketplace and opportunities -- and difficulties and constraints, regulatory and environmental -- in the most progressive way possible.
Historically, government's role has been a little paternalistic. We need to change the way we do stuff, to be able to do the work that people are actually asking us to do but do it with them so that there isn't the assumption that the future will be predicted by the state and then laid out for other people. We will assist people to solve their own problems in their own industry.
J. van Dongen: I have two responses to the minister's comments. First of all, in terms of his frustration with the process, I can assure you that I'm just as frustrated. I think it speaks to the kinds of discussions that are going on in the Public Accounts Committee, whereby I think what is being discussed in terms of a better process
I mention it, also, because I suspect that in that business plan, the kind of things that the ministry is working on or finalizing, in terms of some of the details of the strategic issues and specifics as to what will be done in the coming year and what will be targeted in the coming year, will be there on the table and open for discussion. I think that will be a better, more productive process in terms of generating discussion on what's important and not important and how it should be done and that sort of thing, and also in terms of some accountability a year later, where you have a specific business plan that has been tabled and discussed and then is the first order of business to review a year later. That's a bit of an aside.
In terms of my questioning the strategic plans for the various commodities, I'm not attempting
In a related sort of area, I want to ask the minister about the agrifood strategy, which we talked about a bit last year. It's part of a project that had been initiated by the previous minister. The minister said last year that he would take a look at that project and decide whether or not he was going to continue it. I think the whole purpose of the agrifood strategy and the development of that -- and there was a fair bit of work that went into it -- was to try to establish more clearly for the industry and for government what its objectives and priorities for agriculture were, what the overall objective was and how it fit in with other goals of government and society.
I think a good example of the frustration that such a strategy was intended to address is the constant tradeoffs that we face in the Fraser Valley, for example, between the agricultural industry and all of the environmental issues. There are many times when people ask -- and to be frank, sometimes I wonder -- whether we should have any agriculture in the Fraser Valley, because of the difficulties we face in terms of conflicts and environmental issues, rural-urban conflicts and that kind of thing.
I think part of the industry's thinking in promoting the concept of an agrifood strategy was to try to get a sense from government as to how they weigh the importance of agriculture versus all these other goals. Maybe the minister could just comment on what considerations he's made on that issue and what his decision is.
Hon. C. Evans: Staff has no advice on how to answer this question. That's pretty illuminating.
The hon. member brings up a whole bunch of issues. Firstly, how estimates work. I'm going to try to address what I think he's actually talking about instead of giving a simple yes-or-no answer. But I don't want this to become a habit, because I don't want to be here next week. So let's not actually initiate a conversation in the context of estimates.
The member is suggesting that estimates don't work very well for actually answering questions and doing progressive work. I would submit that estimates weren't invented to do that at all; they were invented, or at least they function, in order to keep people from stealing. It's so that you, on behalf of all the people in B.C., can ask me all the questions you want about where all the money went; and if I do anything wrong, you'll figure it out. In trying to answer the questions, I get to turn to these folks and ask them where the money went. If they have anything to hide, that'll be evident.
Historically, I think, in the nations that do it this way, everybody is honest. In places where you don't get to answer these questions, there's a whole different system, a cultural system, a system of who you are and what access you have to money and power, creating an unhealthy atmosphere for democracy. That's the wonderful thing about estimates, and I think that's what we should use them for. You should hunt for where the money went and whether or not it was well spent.
There's a whole other thing you're talking about, which is: can we manage agriculture, and can we work together to make people's lives better and make the economy work? I think the answer to that should be: "Yes -- and not here." That isn't the function of these folks here recording all this stuff; that isn't why we've got a Clerk; that isn't why we've got a Chair. They're here to make a quasi-legal process so that you can have an effective search.
But I would offer the hon. member my agreement that some other system would work better for actually trying to cooperatively do a job. I don't think we have to wait for our respective parties and House Leaders and the apparatus of governance to do that. I'll offer you breakfast once a week for as long as each of us has our job, and I mean that. Pick the day -- I have to come here every Wednesday -- and we'll use that for the objective that you're talking about, rather than trying to change estimates. And if you want to bring your brothers and sisters, just make sure that they know what they're talking about and that they're friendly people.
Your second question is about the agrifood policy. I stood here last year and said: "Yeah, I'm kind of new, and I'm not really sure what I think about it. I'll think about it and get back to you." So now you want to know what I think; you not only want to know what I think, you want to know what I think for the record.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: Okay, here's what I think. The agrifood policy was a wonderful idea and ought to be finished. However, it's predicated, I think, on an incorrect notion. It's predicated on the idea that if government creates policy by virtue of consensus out there in the world, things will happen.
[ Page 3947 ]
I don't actually believe that that it's necessarily true that there is an understanding
The geopolitical issues that surrounded concerns about food security historically tended to be stuff like the 1930s drought conditions, a couple of world wars and the fact that we had people who emigrated from nations like Ireland, where, in the oral tradition of their families, they were actually starving. Those people aren't alive anymore.
So it is my belief that while finishing the agrifood discussion is absolutely imperative to the creation of a sensible definition of the future for agriculture, there's another job that has to be done -- and I think it's my job -- which is to create a climate where people understand what the heck we're talking about and are receptive to making the changes. Because what I think is dishonest -- and I'm not willing to do it -- is engaging farmers in a conversation that sets a future that I can't deliver in the real world of politics that we work in.
[10:45]
J. van Dongen: I'm going to thank the minister for his offer of ongoing consultation and discussion. I know that my brothers and sisters are really cheered by his offer. I'm sure that they'll all be very friendly.In terms of the agrifood strategy, I'm going to assume that the minister's answer is a polite no. I'm not going to say that's a wrong answer, quite frankly, because I know that the work that had been done
In terms of farm organizations, I did mention last night the demise of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I'm wondering if there has been any involvement by the ministry in the discussions taking place within the industry to organize a new central farm organization.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we have been involved, and we were given the message that the industry actually wishes to have an internal discussion and come back to us when they have answered the question for themselves about what they want to do. Then we'll work with them to implement that. So those discussions are not ongoing.
J. van Dongen: I just want to put on the record for the minister the discussion I had with the staff about my questioning about public affairs. I'm very interested in the discretionary spending in that budget, particularly the area of advertising. Could the minister just confirm that that information will be available, as detailed as possible, in terms of last year and this particular budget?
Hon. C. Evans: Sure. I will say on the record that I'm going to walk over there and hand him the breakdown of where the money goes, and he'll notice there are no Saabs on the list.
J. van Dongen: Also, picking up on our discussion last night, I want to just put on the record my comments about the provincial subsidization across Canada. I didn't have the figure for Quebec handy, but I think it's useful to put on the record that almost half of farm income in Quebec came from provincial subsidization of some kind. That's in addition to the numbers I mentioned for the other provinces. I think that's important to have on the record. Those were Agriculture Canada figures.
I also want to just mention and talk a little bit about something that we made reference to yesterday, and that is the closure of offices. I know there has been a fair bit of concern and discussion about the closure of six offices within the operations of the ministry. One of the things I always try to do is gauge what I'm hearing from people in terms of any of these decisions. There are three that I want to highlight as being significant to me: the one in Vanderhoof, the one in Quesnel and the elimination of a position of district horticulturist in the Oliver office -- the member for the Okanagan may want to comment on that also. But particularly on the offices in Quesnel and Vanderhoof, I did have the opportunity to speak directly to ranchers, mainly, but also to dairymen in Vanderhoof. I have had discussions with the member for Cariboo North and have got a lot of letters and newspaper accounts about the Quesnel office.
I know the rationale for the decision, and I know all of the thought and discussion that went into these decisions. But I want to raise the issue from the perspective of value for taxpayers' money. As I said last night, if I look across the whole range of where we spend money in government, I suspect that having one or two people in a ministry office in communities like Quesnel and Vanderhoof is an example of money that is relatively well spent. When I say relatively well spent, I mean that we're getting value for money. Those people clearly provide a lot of service at the front line. If I compare the actual tangible result that people provide to farmers, to members of the community, even to children in 4-H programs, I suspect that that's good value for taxpayer money.
I wonder if the minister could comment on that. To be fair, I'm going to mention to him ahead of time that I've seen some of his comments with respect to other office closures in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in his community. I'd like the minister to comment on those shutdowns from the perspective of service to the community.
Hon. C. Evans: I think that government's withdrawal generally from small towns across Canada is appalling, and it represents a historical trend that all of us should oppose. I understand the question is not, "Does the minister have a technical answer?" because he knows that I do. I can offer you the sieve for how we made the decisions that we made. You're asking a more philosophical question. In fact, the leader of your party went to the town that I represent and stood up and said: "Your MLA is doing a really lousy job, because he isn't defending you in the parochial battles in cabinet to look after the people in this town. The layoffs are too hard, and that's because of your MLA." I don't really blame him for that, although it certainly made me grumpy.
However, I use it at this moment to remind the hon. member that if what your leader said in my town is true, then at least I'm inoculated against any supposition of politics.
[ Page 3948 ]
I think it's all bad. I think Canada is making a bunch of wrong-headed decisions in trying to live like an urban society and trying to grow up to be what it isn't. I think it's really unfortunate that I have to play my role in it. But given that I am going to play my role in it, I'm going to be responsible for it and make decisions as best I can, in the least hurtful way that I can, and with as much respect for the people and the workers in the towns as I can.
Your comments about the fact that having a person in the rural area benefits the people who live there -- even one or two people -- and the children and the 4-H, are all true. But keep in mind the context in which you're asking the question. Remember that when we go over there at 2 o'clock, none of the rest of your side is going to stand up and say: "Why don't you guys spend more money?" Remember that that's not the nature of the argument in the election that we just went through. Keep in mind that when this whole thing's over, I get to answer what I think about all the questions that you guys asked collectively, and I will answer as I did last year: what is the sum total of ideological position of the people on the other side? There's a bit of a contradiction.
So if you want to ask me if I can defend these closures morally, I'd say no. If you want to ask me if I made technical decisions as well as I could, given the state of my budget and those communities out there and the gross incomes that each one of those offices reflected, then you bet I think I did -- or we did, collectively.
J. van Dongen: The minister has put the ball in my court, and I'll respond this way: first of all, the members on our side of the House are absolutely committed to a balanced budget, and I am, personally. If we were in government, we would achieve that. But I can assure you that we will not achieve a balanced budget -- any government in British Columbia -- by closing down one- or two-person offices in Quesnel or Vanderhoof, or in the Kootenays, for that matter. That will simply not happen. We've gone through that exercise in this ministry this past year; we've cut out one-quarter of the ministry. We only get three more shots at doing that and there is no ministry. And we will not have a balanced budget.
What the people on our side of the House believe is that unless other areas of government are addressed more aggressively, and addressed differently, we will not achieve a balanced budget.
Hon. C. Evans: If this was a Batman comic, Batman would say: "Holy hogwash!" I've been working here for two years, hon. member, speaking for this budget, and I go over there every day at 2 o'clock. Has any one of you ever asked a single question about cuts to Agriculture? Heck, no. You come over here in estimates with nobody watching, no television cameras, no press, and you say: "You shouldn't close those two-person offices." But your brothers and sisters only ask questions about cuts to health care. Why is that? Because it's in their political interest. If you want money going into agriculture and coming out of health care, you've got an ally. But don't play it over here with nobody watching. Don't put it on the record and mail it out to farmers and say, "We actually care," when in fact the rest of the people on your side don't give a good rip. If they did, they'd be asking questions. But over there, it's only those big, hot items: education, health care, universities. "You cut my hospital." That's all we ever hear about.
I think it's as unfortunate as the hon. member does. But you're going to have to come across in a unified fashion, because it's not okay to split it off, take it over there and ask the questions without your more urban members present. I think Canada and British Columbia are moving away from investment levels in the land that will sustain the economic dream of the future, and I think that's unfortunate. It runs from railroads to rivers to fisheries: shutting down lighthouses, laying off, closing the experimental farms, on and on and on across the piece. But you don't get to say that your side would do it differently when in fact the evidence is utterly to the contrary -- what they actually stand up and say with people watching.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I will take them to heart. I want to ask the minister, in terms of the ongoing support for the ministry, and having gone through this cut
[11:00]
Hon. C. Evans: I've got two kinds of answers, hon. member. One is, "It wasn't me," and the other one is that we know of no source for the story that you're putting forward.J. van Dongen: I guess I'm concerned about the cut that has been done, because it was done very suddenly and very drastically. I think that when you're reorganizing and repositioning, a little long-term planning and doing things gradually, using attrition rather than even voluntary retirement programs, is a better way of dealing with change. I'm just asking the minister to confirm that there will be a greater effort made in the future to make change gradually and on a planned basis.
Hon. C. Evans: What can I do but concur with the member's statements, when he says that planned change is better than quick, imposed change? But my answer to his real question about my commitment that in the future it will be different would be that, no, I won't give you that commitment under this or any other government. You and I and all other hon. members struggle within the context of a larger workplace, environment and fiscal reality. In fact, my observation of the political world is that money appears and disappears on a timetable which is not always in the best interests of good planning and even human kindness. The member and I would like to impose more reason on that system, and I think that that is our life's work. But the commitment that he asks for implies that anybody in this room or anybody in this building has the ability to supersede the realpolitik context in which we live, and that would be silly.
J. van Dongen: I want to just ask the minister specifically if he would be agreeable to providing me with a listing, by division, of all the FTEs in the ministry today. I'll reference a letter of July 14, 1995, which provided similar information two years ago. It would be an interesting comparison. Could the minister confirm that that information could be available?
Hon. C. Evans: Agreed.
J. van Dongen: I just want to ask a few more questions in terms of the downsizing. Are all of the positions, particularly the senior positions within the ministry, now filled? Or are there still some open? Maybe the minister could also comment on the position of deputy.
[ Page 3949 ]
Hon. C. Evans: No, they're not all filled. The deputy is a good person and does good work and will do good work wherever he goes.
J. van Dongen: Well, I wasn't really asking for the minister's opinion about the deputy's work. We all have our own views of that. I want to find out what the minister has in mind in terms of a replacement, and when we can expect to have a new deputy in place.
Hon. C. Evans: Before he leaves. Or more or less as the present deputy leaves, there will be another deputy.
J. van Dongen: I guess the question then is: when is he leaving?
Hon. C. Evans: And the answer is: what's it to you?
J. van Dongen: Well, I'm coming to that. I think that everyone involved -- farmers, the industry and staff alike -- have been through a period of a great deal of uncertainty, and probably the sooner that decision can be made the better, in terms of stability and focus on ongoing progress. I'm not trying to pin the minister down, but it would be useful to know roughly how long it will take to find a replacement.
Hon. C. Evans: It won't take very long to find a replacement, and the departure of the current deputy is largely up to members opposite, because it was my wish that he stick at his job until we finish this process. So if you want him to leave at 1 o'clock this afternoon, I would suggest that you stop asking questions.
J. van Dongen: I guess you'll find out how much we really do like your deputy over on this side of the House. You made the wrong assumption last time.
Anyway, I guess there's a view -- and the minister knows this -- within staff and within the industry that having someone with agrologist experience -- experience working with farmers -- is an asset. And that is no reflection on the current deputy, because I think he has done a good job of what he was asked to do. I just want to put that on the record for the minister -- that ideally we have someone with some experience with the industry and with some of those small communities that I know the minister is concerned about.
Just a couple of quick questions on the future of 4-H and the funding for 4-H. Are there any comments that the minister could make about that? There's a lot of concern by volunteers in this program that the program is being wound down. Again, I think it's an example of good value for money where the funding that is provided is somewhat of a catalyst and provides some support for volunteers. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the future of the program.
Hon. C. Evans: It's one of the areas that we tried to hold away from the cuts process. I think the budget is relatively stable, and the budget for this year will be announced in a short while.
I'll comment a bit about the previous question, too -- about the people in the industry who would wish that the deputy might be an agrologist. I wasn't going to, but I think for the sake of the record, since the member asked, I'll just try to give a bit of an answer. Most of what we talk about in here and in our daily lives is the way that one part of government impacts on another. Everywhere that I go, every commodity group that I talk to talks to me about the impact on their lives of the Ministry of Environment or Aboriginal Affairs or Municipal Affairs or urban growth or international trade. These are areas in which one area of government has to work with other areas of government in order to solve a problem. I would encourage you, when you talk to people, to give a little bit of credit to those people who actually have some skill at making government work -- just like fixing a Ford. I actually can't make the truck go as well as somebody who's good at fixing a Ford.
Government is a pretty complicated truck. What you ask me to do is solve problems outside the area of field trials or pesticide recommendations or something; you ask me to solve problems that involve understanding how the Ministry of Environment works and the Ministry of Finance works. I need to be able to ask somebody to help me do that. Then I need to have people talking to the producer groups who actually understand the chicken industry or the hog industry or Peace River grain. But right here, this is a complex institution. We ought to get people here who are really good at making it go.
Now, does anybody want to tell me anything else about 4-H?
J. van Dongen: In response to the comments that the minister just made about qualifications for a deputy, I would make a personal request for him to find someone who understands the Ministry of Health. They have some problems over there which we'll talk about a little bit later.
A couple of other areas that are similar to 4-H. Is there anything in this year's budget for agriculture in the classroom, and is that a program that the minister considers important and that will continue? I know the previous minister had a fair commitment to it, and I was wondering if that is going to be continued.
Hon. C. Evans: My thoughts about agriculture in the classroom: I think it's imperative. Since you can't get the cultural experience -- because most of the kids live in Surrey -- how else are you going to get the knowledge? The technical answer to the budget situation is that there's not much change from last year.
Where do I think it's going to go? Since you guys want to have lots of funding for education, I think that we should go rob and pillage their budget, and spend it on agriculture and education. So help me.
J. van Dongen: Similarly, could the minister tell us what the change has been in funding for fairs throughout the province from last year to this year? What comments would he make on that?
[11:15]
Hon. C. Evans: I had a discussion with my deputy about fairs just about a year ago. There isn't any change in the budget. There are some changes in how it gets delivered. We got a bunch of people, and we said: "Okay, now we can't give you any more money, so we're going to let you make different decisions about how you spent it." Maybe individual fairs may experience a change in their budget, but the global amount that government is spending is stable.There's one other thing. When we were making the decision last year about what we were going to do with the budget, I met with the people from fairs and exhibitions, and I said to them: "I want to protect your budget, but I don't want
[ Page 3950 ]
you to be in the entertainment business so much, because" -- I forget the number, a huge number -- "two million people a year or something are going through fairs and exhibitions, some of the funding of which is provided by us." I asked them to see themselves as in the education business, because it's those urban people who move through the Cobble Hill fair, the Saanich fair, the Blossom Festival in Creston, the PNE. Those are the people we capture -- right? They're not in a classroom; they're not watching TV. They're out there at an agricultural event, and I think we should educate them about the agricultural land reserve, about agriculture's impact on the economy and about why they should support it in their day-to-day life. I thought they were hugely supportive of doing that. You know, they got kind of excited and said: "Okay, we'll try to do that." So I hope that's how it turns out.
J. van Dongen: I agree with the minister that the purpose of having the ministry involved in funding fairs is to use them as a vehicle to promote awareness of agriculture and the issues surrounding agriculture. I'm pleased to see that there's been no change in that area from year to year.
I'm wondering if, from that perspective, the ministry is taking an interest in the discussions surrounding the PNE.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we are taking an interest. It would be hard to have my job and not. Last year when I went to the PNE and gave out the Young Farmer of the Year awards, I think every single person at the dinner -- and there were hundreds of them -- came up to me and said: "We don't want to lose the PNE either physically on this site or as an idea in general."
But I also want to say to the hon. member that we are not the lead agency. The PNE is changing, and I would like to enlist his assistance and everybody else's assistance in trying to maintain agriculture as a component of the PNE. I'll tell you straight up; I can't stop the change; I can't get in the way of the change. It would appear that the people of Vancouver, through their council, have some pretty strong opinions -- and I think some pretty retrograde opinions, for the sake of agriculture -- about what they want inside their town. And I can't make that disappear.
J. van Dongen: Well, I certainly have some views on that and have had discussions with people about it, and I'll be pleased to put them forward, specifically from the perspective of agriculture. I don't pretend to get involved in the overall aspects of the PNE, but I agree that it's important to use every avenue possible like that to develop exposure and interaction between urban people and agriculture. So I'll speak to the minister about that.
My colleague from Okanagan-Boundary has one or two comments or questions with respect to the district horticulturist in Oliver, and then we'll go on to B.C. Marketing Board issues.
B. Barisoff: I think we all agree that we're looking for a balanced budget, and downsizing is probably one of the ways it would have to take place. When I use the analogy of the hon. minister talking about somebody fixing the Ford or doing whatever, I think that comes home to roost with the people from the South Okanagan. When downsizing takes place in the South Okanagan in an area of fruit growing and whatever else, what happens is that we get rid of the district horticulturist, probably one of the most important people there. I think my concern is that I'd like to know -- when we created the downsizing, and we knew that this had to happen -- why it was the district horticulturist that had to go when it's probably the most important position in the South Okanagan for the fruit-growing industry.
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member is correct. The gentleman he's referring to as an individual and the job that he was doing as a function were vital. The guy did good work. I think he's one of four people who farmers had come to me about and said that so-and-so was actually a wonderful person. In every one of those four cases, when I've followed it through and asked where that person went, those people made individual choices.
In the case you're referring to, I believe the gentleman took retirement from this ministry and then went to work for a packinghouse. There was a case in the Peace -- the case you're talking about is an older person -- where the farmers were quite enamoured of a younger worker who, before the downsizing ever happened, got wind of it, applied for a job elsewhere and voluntarily left. Downsizing means that I, the ministry or the government get blamed for his decision.
I think the critic referred by name to a dairy specialist on the Island that people talked to me about. I don't want to pretend that those aren't big losses to farmers in British Columbia, to have those people not working in their previous job. However, I also think that as we evolve to a more commodity-driven, producer-driven system, those people will find work. Over time, they will also be replaced by younger people who find work largely for the producers themselves.
I've spent a heck of a lot of time in orchards, and you know what? Orchardists say two different things to me. Half the time, or in the morning, they'll say: "Gee, I sure like Fred. Fred came and told me just what I needed to know." Then in the afternoon they'll say: "Actually, I really like talking to Fred, but when I want to know something technical about what I'm doing, I go on line to an expert somewhere in France, Japan, at UBC or Guelph or anywhere in the world." They're wired to the world more so than any other group of people that I've ever worked with -- certainly more than the logging industry or any industry I've ever worked in.
I want to respect your question in terms of: was this person valuable? Absolutely. Do I appreciate what that person did for the industry and for the state? Absolutely. Do I think it's too bad we laid him off? Absolutely. Do I think that it's going to generate a crisis? The answer is no, because I actually think that the producers and the industry, like the packinghouses, will pick up the slack and find the answers to the questions that might historically have been provided by the state.
B. Barisoff: A couple of questions. Initially, when you started the statement, you made the suggestion that a district horticulturist left on his own accord, that it was his choice to leave. I happen to know that it wasn't his choice to leave. He wanted to stay in the position that he was in. He has gone into private business to create some of the services that have been lost. I think it's twofold here.
I think the industry in the Okanagan, the fruit industry in particular, has almost split. In the packinghouse you have the people that ship to the packinghouse and you have the independents, which is probably equal to if not more than just the people that ship to the packinghouse.
I think what we've done is left off a huge segment of the farming community when we took that position away. The fact is that if he went and got a job at the packinghouse and serviced those growers, he would service only those growers.
[ Page 3951 ]
We're doing an injustice in service to the farming industry, because they are only serving part of the growers. You know what it is to be a district horticulturist. What he was doing created a benefit to all. Even if they weren't using his services, he was actually creating benefit to the entire region because of the advice he was giving. The other thing is that we have a lot of new farmers coming into the industry who need somebody outside the packinghouse industry. So from that perspective
Hon. C. Evans: I created the wrong impression. I actually didn't mean to suggest that the gentleman woke up one morning and said: "Gee, I think I've had this job long enough; I'll leave now." I'm saying that when the crisis was created by the naming of the global budget of this ministry and workers all over the province observed that we were going to change how we do what we do, some people made different individual decisions. It was the budgetary situation which generated the decision-making process. This is one individual who chose to leave because he wanted to stay in his own position, not seek a different position. That's all I meant.
Your second point -- what good does it do if he's working at a packinghouse for those people who don't ship to a packinghouse -- is a good point. The point, though, was analogous to one that farmers raise all the time. Historically, we have put a lot of energy into having people on staff to teach the orchard industry how to do its job, and somebody growing potatoes down the road will ask: "How come there aren't as many services for a guy who wants to grow potatoes as there are for the orchard industry?" Just now the organic sector is saying to me: "How come there isn't a specialist? We've got the fastest-growing part of agribusiness" -- according to some kind of chart -- "but you aren't staffing expertise to service us." And they're right. Independent orchardists are right. There are always people for whom we don't, inside the state, provide a service, or the guy isn't available.
The good news is that increasingly in agriculture, information as a commodity is becoming easily accessible and purchasable. You can find someone willing to sell you what you need to know for a price you can afford if you can learn to ask the question. I don't mean to suggest that's a panacea, but that is, I believe, the way of the future.
B. Barisoff: The minister suggested that farmers could get some of the information off the Internet. Has he got any figures or facts that state how many farmers actually are on the Internet and could have access to that kind of information?
Hon. C. Evans: Actually, I didn't say anything about the Internet, because I don't know anything about the Internet.
I did talk about computers. The deputy thinks that there's a national census that suggests that about a quarter of farmers are computerized. In my personal experience, the number is much higher than that. I have no specific answer for you in British Columbia. But let's take the technology question right out. I personally have no technological skills. If I need to know an answer to a question involving information exchange, it is increasingly easier for me to go to other people and ask them to help me answer the question, even if I don't have the technological skill to do it myself.
B. Barisoff: I'm sorry I made the assumption that they could go to the Internet. It seems like that's the direction everybody takes. Leading back to the district horticulturists and back to the question, when you suggest that people can go somewhere to get the information, I think that's totally what was taking place. When you eliminate the small offices in the rural areas
In some of these rural offices
[11:30]
J. van Dongen: We could go to vote 14 for a minute, the B.C. Marketing Board. If we compare the budget for the 1997-98 estimates to last year, the figures are fairly similar. From the information that's been provided, my understanding is that the number of appeals is down somewhat. I suspect that there's more mediation taking place. Are we basically looking at a situation where the level of activity involves a reduction in the B.C. Marketing Board activity and an increase in activity under the farm practices legislation?Hon. C. Evans: We do expect more activity under the Farm Practices Board, but I don't want to suggest that that situation is already happening. I met with them a couple of days ago, and I think they said they'd only actually had
Your other point is quite accurate. As the Marketing Board increases its use of mediation as opposed to hearings, the price per issue goes down. We expect the Farm Practices Board to have the same experience, and they're all going through mediation training to prepare for that.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the complaints under the right-to-farm legislation, I'm personally not clear what the channels are. I know that a formal appeal is sort of the last stage of it, but I wonder if the minister could just describe the various stages when someone is making a complaint under that right-to-farm legislation.
Hon. C. Evans: If a person has a complaint, the first step is to go to a member of the staff. Where possible, the staff will attempt to solve the problem with peer review -- go to a group of farmers in the area and ask for a review of what's reasonable, and meet with the complainants on the other side and see if they can come up with some kind of internal solution. If that isn't possible because the people don't want to work together or can't come up with a solution, or a peer review doesn't exist in that particular community, then it will in fact go to the board, or staff will recommend to the individuals that they take it to the board. But the board doesn't actually go to appeal.
[ Page 3952 ]
They also will, as a first step, send a board member and a staff member to meet with the complainant and the person who is being complained against and see if they can come up with a solution. If that doesn't work, a mediator is appointed to see if they can have a formal mediation process. Only if six gentler steps don't work do they actually hold an appeal.
J. van Dongen: So the 340 figure the minister mentioned: were those phone calls to the B.C. Marketing Board or the appeal board?
Hon. C. Evans: To the ministry.
J. van Dongen: So those were just calls that went to the ministry because people didn't know where else to phone. What was the volume of initial inquiries and complaints to the appeal board?
Hon. C. Evans: I don't know the specific answer to the member's question -- like, did 40 people phone the board? But it's a moot point, because what happens is that even if you phoned straight to the board
J. van Dongen: The minister did kind of answer my next question, because it wasn't clear to me that the appeal board was getting involved in right-to-farm issues that involved farmers and local bylaws. You've answered my question that they direct it to ministry staff. I intend to talk about those issues a little bit later; I have a question about that.
I see a note on one of the documents with respect to the budget for the B.C. Marketing Board. Under "Operating Costs" it says: "To cover legal fees no longer covered by the Attorney General, $29,960." Could the minister tell us about the relationship between the B.C. Marketing Board and the Ministry of Attorney General?
Hon. C. Evans: Let me preface this by saying that my answer to the previous question was wrong. I'm advised that the board doesn't actually get involved in municipality issues with farmers.
The answer to this question is that the Attorney General no longer supplies legal counsel, and the board has counsel on retainer.
J. van Dongen: So that counsel is a private lawyer, is he?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: That gives rise to a couple of questions that I had thought about in terms of the ministry operations. Are the services of the Attorney General to the Ministry of Agriculture going on a user fee basis?
Hon. C. Evans: We get one and a quarter FTEs' free services. If our litigation costs exceed that limit, then we have to pay for them. It's kind of an incentive to not get in a jam.
J. van Dongen: The one and a quarter FTEs: is the first call on that any kind of legal work that the ministry does, including preparation of bills and that sort of thing?
Hon. C. Evans: It's everything -- preparation of bills, legal services, advice if we're asking them for questions ahead of time.
J. van Dongen: I just wanted to clarify the minister's clarification. Is my understanding correct that under the Farm Practices Act -- the Right to Farm Act -- the appeal board does not get involved on a formal appeal basis with difficulties that farmers have with local bylaws?
Hon. C. Evans: The board gets involved if there is a complaint -- citizen against farmer, farmer against citizen or between two farmers. However, if the complaint is between a municipality bylaw and the farm community or an individual farmer, it goes first to staff and then to my office.
J. van Dongen: I just want to question the minister specifically on the hog scheme. Last year there was a sunset clause which was up, and there was a decision made to extend the scheme by one year. The hog industry has seen a long series of extensions and sunset clauses and is again concerned about the upcoming deadline, which I think is October 31. Could the minister tell us whether there's any work taking place in his ministry in terms of that issue, that decision?
[11:45]
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member's actually getting things done here; good for you. The answer to his question is yes, conversations are going on. By virtue of him asking the question, all the hog producers should know he's beating up the minister and he's going to elicit a commitment for one more year -- right here, and good on you.Having said that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.