[ Page 3989 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has advised the Chair that she wishes to make a personal statement.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've had an opportunity to review today's Blues, and I wish to offer a statement and an apology. Yesterday I apologized to members of the House; however, I wish to strongly emphasize that at no time did I intend to mislead the House. If any member believes I misled the House, I unreservedly apologize to both the House and Mr. Hughes.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair considers that in keeping with parliamentary practice and traditions, that apology ends the matter.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members of the chamber, we will be debating the estimate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 23.

CHILDREN'S COMMISSION ACT
(continued)

On section 2 (continued).

V. Anderson: When we broke for recess we were talking about the appointment of the commissioner and how independent that person is as a result. I know the Attorney General has a bias that if judges get appointed they're still independent, so I gather the appointment. . . . It was a good discussion, and I think we need it on the record so that other people out there might understand it, as well.

One of the realties, though, is that we do have the concern in the community at large, as well as among ourselves, about the effectiveness or the independence of the commissioner. Part of that will be seen in how the recommendations are not only made but also acted upon. One of the suggestions that's been made to help that process along -- and I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to comment -- is the use of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. As the minister knows, that committee deals with things when they get referred to them. If it was to be referred to them and the commissioner could report to them on a periodic basis, I think that would go a long way to giving the confidence of independence that everyone is seeking. I wonder if the minister would be willing to comment on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If it's the Gove committee the hon. member is referring to, I understand that the commissioner has been present whenever she has been asked to be present.

With respect to whether or not on an ongoing basis the matter with respect to the commission ought to be in a state of standing referral to a particular committee, I don't believe that is something that is either desirable or appropriate when there are matters that the commissioner would report to me, as well as publicly at the same time. So far, in fact, all the reports that the commissioner has made have come to me at the same time they've been made public. Unless there are difficulties with that process with respect to severance and issues such as that -- with respect to privacy and confidentiality of private information -- the process would continue to be that. I believe that the commission, as it's framed within the legislation, is as it would stand.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response. I wasn't referring to the Gove committee. Let me rephrase it. Perhaps it might come up later, but I'll raise it now and if we want to discuss it later, that would be fine.

Is it within the power of the commissioner -- who can speak to any group she wishes to, if I understand the act properly -- to request a meeting with any of the standing committees of the Legislature that relate to concerns of the commission? The Health and Social Services Committee is the one that would cover a lot of the areas that she deals with, as a report back for information or interaction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The standing committees do not have any jurisdiction to inquire into anything, unless the matter is specifically referred to them by the Legislature. And what the hon. member is asking me to say is that the commissioner and her jurisdiction would be referred to a particular standing committee every year, on an ongoing basis. No, that wouldn't be done, nor is it desirable. The commission is independent. The commission would make recommendations. They would be as public as the recommendations of any officer of the Legislature, and would have the same force and effect in trying to influence a government into action.

R. Neufeld: I was surprised a bit by the minister's earlier comments about officers of the Legislature, and that he feels there is actually no need for that -- that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should be able to appoint people to these positions at will.

We have a child and family advocate that reports to the Legislature, an auditor that reports to the Legislature, and so on and so forth, for some perfectly good, sound reasons. I'm certainly not trying to say that there would be anything untoward done by the children's commissioner or the minister, but I think that what is seen by people when someone is an officer of the Legislature. . . . It's much easier to explain to the public and have the public understand that those reports would be going directly to the Legislature instead of going first through any ministry and then being put out. I'm not saying that the commissioner hasn't given us the same information, as far as I know, that you have received. But I think that it's what is seen that is much better, and I think it probably safeguards the minister and the government more than anyone else if that commissioner reports to the Legislature as a whole.

One of the main concerns I had with the bill was the reporting procedure. I'm certainly not trying to indicate that the present commissioner wouldn't report fairly, but I think it's what's seen to be done rather than what is done.

[6:45]

[ Page 3990 ]

appropriate as an officer of the Legislature in this case. And the government decided to go with this arrangement, as we feel that this arrangement would be satisfactory under these circumstances.

I appreciate the comments the hon. member has made. I have nothing against the officers of the Legislature. They do a wonderful job. I just happen to think that we shouldn't be proliferating officers of the Legislature, because in real, practical terms, they are less accountable to you, hon. members. When was the last time we had any officer of the Legislature in this House answering questions directed at them by you? And that's not to say that they would not do so, if you asked them to come and do it. However, you have the opportunity to ask questions of the Attorney General, to whom this commissioner would report on a constant basis.

I think that we do a disservice -- and I feel very strongly about this -- to ourselves as elected legislators of this province when we begin to say that an independent commissioner appointed within the framework of this legislation would not be seen to be independent. I think it's our job out there to say to people that government that's elected is, at the end of the day, most accountable -- more accountable than anybody else.

I think it's important for us to recognize that within the Ministry of Attorney General, is housed, in fact, the most important independent function that this system ever performs: criminal justice. Nobody ever says that that is not seen to be independent. It functions every day without any interference; it is seen to be independent.

And I think it's important for us to begin to instil some confidence and integrity and dignity back into what we do here, day in and day out. Let's not cast doubt over our own honesty, over our own integrity and over the integrity of those who work for the public of British Columbia.

G. Wilson: I actually thought that we'd canvassed this issue, but I want to respond to the comment that the Attorney General just made: when was the last time that members of the House had a chance to question an officer of the Legislative Assembly? I think the record should show the last time was not long ago, and it was Joyce Preston, who was an officer of this assembly, who came out with a report as a child advocate. I, for one, can tell you that in both the questioning and discussion with her, even though she was not within this chamber -- certainly she didn't come within the chamber, that's for sure. . . . But she certainly has made herself available -- at least to this member and, I would assume, to other members -- and has been exemplary in her reporting of issues that are in place.

I know that the Attorney General was not trying to suggest otherwise. I'm just saying that this is a debate that could be ongoing. And I will use the Attorney General's words to argue, when we deal with such officers as the gold commissioner and some others, motor vehicle authorities and so on, with respect to. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: And the Police Act -- exactly. As the Police Act comes out, we will then come back and revisit this debate. But I have no further questions on this section.

V. Anderson: I thought I was finished, but I want to pick up on the minister's last comment. He made the point that we could question and ask about the commissioner through him, which is the very thing that indicates that the commissioner is not as independent, because the commissioner can then only speak to the Legislature through his voice. If we want to question it, he's indicated we should question the commissioner and ask questions of the commissioner through the Attorney General. And that's the very thing that concerns us: it's a secondhand interaction rather than firsthand. They were his words that triggered again. . . . I was almost willing to settle for his comments, and then his words triggered off a concern that I had to respond to.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the commissioner is meeting with the Liberal caucus next week, at their request. You can ask her any questions without me being present.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Wilson: I'm assuming, of course, that this section 3 doesn't list, in order of importance, what these guiding principles should be. It would strike me that if that's the case, then it is ironic that the responsibility being shared by government, families and communities for the protection of children from abuse and neglect would be at the bottom of the list and not right at the top of the list. I think one could argue a number of them, in that sense.

But I think that the area that causes me some concern -- and that I'd like some response to -- is section 3(d), in particular. Essentially it talks about "the importance of providing children and their families with opportunities to participate in making decisions that affect them." It's not just important for them to be participating and to have some opportunity to do that. Surely to goodness we have learned, if anything -- and that clearly is in Joyce Preston's report -- that when you're making decisions affecting children, the children frequently should be directly involved in that process, especially as they get older in years.

What sits in my mind were her comments when she was giving her press conference. We did have a chance to have some questions and answers, where she invited us -- those of us that were listening to her remarks -- to imagine how it must feel to be sitting in a room outside of a meeting where you had no opportunity to hear what was being said and to know that inside that meeting there were people sitting down and making decisions that affected your personal future. Imagine how it must feel to us. I don't think most of us would like the fact that we'd have somebody sitting there making decisions about our future without our direct involvement.

So I think that as a guiding principle, it shouldn't be a question of whether or not there are opportunities to participate in defining. It would strike me that as a guiding principle, there has to be direct involvement. Even though it suggests. . . . The next one, section 3(e) says: ". . .the importance of giving children, their families and communities opportunities to participate in defining, planning. . . ." They need more than opportunities. The guiding principle of this commission, surely to goodness, must be to put the onus on those who are directly responsible and involved to be directly involved in decisions that affect their lives.

One of the big problems we've got, and I think it was something that was so clearly identified in Joyce Preston's comments and remarks, is that when we have these decisions made in the absence of input from the people we are making decisions about, we run into problems, because resentments 

[ Page 3991 ]

are built in, fears are built in. All kinds of future problems, which were not considered because we didn't know about them, come to the fore.

So I'd like the Attorney General to look at that language and to comment on that, because I think this is a critical issue. It's certainly one that Ms. Preston made front and centre in her remarks to this assembly, as an officer of this assembly.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that what the hon. member is saying is correct, that the families and children have to be involved in making the decisions that affect their lives. That is, in essence, what these principles are supposed to mean. One could have different words to convey the same meaning, but I think the meaning is conveyed: it is an important principle in the commissioner's work that the families and the children have the opportunity to be involved in making decisions that affect them. In essence, that's what it says.

G. Wilson: But I think the minister would agree that the language is weak, in the sense that it doesn't say, as a guiding. . . . Because these are guiding principles, this is presumably what is directing the commission. This is an important section. I think the language says that you have to give these people opportunities. Do they have an opportunity once in the decision-making process, or twice? Or maybe you consult them two or three times? Or are they directly involved in the decision-making issues and discussions? There's a difference; there's a distinction. It's like saying: "Well, we were going to consult with you." But does that mean that we phone you up and say: "By the way, we're talking about what's going to be the future of your life."

So I think the language is weak here. I would go on to say that the language is also weak under 3(b) where it talks about, as a guiding principle, the importance of the child's best interests. Now, I hear this a lot. I've heard it in the courts, where judges sit up there and pontificate about what is in the child's best interest, based on an argument that's presented by two lawyers. They frequently have never even met the child and the judge has never met the child, and yet they're determining what's in this child's best interest. Well, how on earth do they know what's in the child's best interest? They're going strictly on a verbal argument. So it strikes me that this issue of having children, especially as they get into their later years. . . . I mean, I recognize that if we're dealing with infants here, it becomes more problematic. It is critical that these young people are engaged in the discussion and at least hear the arguments so they can fully understand what each party is saying and can fully understand the process.

I don't think we give young people enough credit, frankly. I'll tell you, the biggest fear that young people face is adults making decisions, in what they see to be an arbitrary way, that affect their lives. They feel totally lacking in power or ability. It reminds me, if I may digress into my own situation, of a young man who is now part of my family. He said to me once, in a rather poignant way: "When do I get a chance to talk to the judge so I can tell him what I want?" That's a pretty tough question to answer, because the answer is: "You don't, under this system." The next question was: "Well, how is it that I don't have a right to say what is in my best interest from my perspective?" Unfortunately, the system says: "Because you're too young. Because you're not old enough. We know best."

The discussion and decisions would be very, very different, I can assure you, if children were engaged in this process. Even if it didn't go the way they wanted it to go, they at least would have been participants in the discussion and would fully understand how the decisions were made.

I ask the minister to reflect on this language, because it doesn't say, as a guiding principle, that children and families must be directly involved in those decisions, and I think it's critical that they are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member looks at section 12, there is obviously a notice provision with respect to the complaint -- the commission notifying the child, if he or she is 12 or more years of age, with respect to that complaint -- so the child is involved.

However, there is something else that I want to point out to the hon. member, and that is that these would be the guiding principles by which the commission would judge the decisions made throughout the system with respect to children. Obviously, it would be the commissioner taking guidance from comments made here in this Legislature. The commissioner is not sitting like a judge, basically interpreting a particular word from a particular section; the commissioner would take guidance from both the debate in this House and from the legislation in order to make decisions with respect to the actions, or lack thereof, with respect to the conduct of various agencies and ministries that serve children.

In that regard, although the hon. member's point is well taken and very well made, I believe the fears and concerns are not well founded, in the sense that I believe the commission will not be making direct decisions with respect to an individual child. These would be the guiding principles for making decisions about how the ministries treat children. The commission would keep in mind the importance of the opportunities that the ministries or other agencies need in order to provide for the involvement of children and families in decisions that affect them. There is that certain distinction, although the member's point is extremely well made and taken.

[7:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission obviously would take that as one of the guiding principles for assessing any service that's provided to children or a child and would, of course, openly state whether or not that service is, appropriately, regionally accessible or what changes should be made to make it accessible. Obviously, ministries would be guided by those recommendations of the commission. So in a sense, the commission would be a watchdog to make sure that designated services provided to children, where the commissioner has something to say, are regionally accessible.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. If, for instance, I was having some difficulty with the range of services in the north, how would I access the commissioner to deal with those issues? Would I do it through your office or through the commissioner's office?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, there is the complaints section, and there are persons indicated who can make a 

[ Page 3992 ]

complaint. Above and beyond the complaint process, the commissioner, on her own initiative, can investigate any service or services with respect to a child or children anywhere in British Columbia that it is appropriate, in the commissioner's mind, to investigate.

Let me just read section 9(2):

"In addition, the Children's Commissioner may present a special report to the minister or comment publicly about a matter relating generally to the work of the commission, if the Children's Commissioner considers it necessary to do so."

B. McKinnon: Could you just expound a little bit on "the need to provide services to children in a consistent and timely manner," and just exactly what you mean by that? Is there a certain time frame within which you want to deal with the child? I just want you to expound a little and give me a little more information. That's section 3(f) of the guiding principles.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That simply means -- in addition, maybe, to other things -- that if, for instance, the ministry is obliged to provide a particular service to a child or children within 30 days and isn't providing that service, the commissioner would make comment on that and say that it should be provided. Or if the commissioner felt that 30 days was too long a period and that it should be done within 15 days, the commissioner would say so.

M. Coell: A comment has been made on item (d): ". . .the importance of providing children and their families with opportunities to participate in making decisions that affect them." I wonder if the minister could expand on the type of opportunities that this bill is expecting out of ministries.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is difficult to give a concrete example, but the commissioner has a wide mandate. Within that broad mandate, the commissioner could, of course, look at whether or not. . . . Let's say, for instance, with respect to health or education, that if there are decisions being made with respect to a particular child, and there isn't the involvement or sufficient involvement of the child or the family in making those decisions, the commissioner could come in, make a public comment and say that should be rectified -- that there should be a different level of participation, a higher level of involvement than existed at that particular time. It's very difficult to concretize the examples, but that's the direction that I think it would happen in.

G. Plant: I'm about to ask a question that may already have been asked, and I apologize if it has been. I'm looking at the list of principles. There's no statutory priority accorded to them; there's just a list. Is there intended to be any priority? Or is it just intended to be a list?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A list.

G. Plant: I was interested in and mindful of the comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the phrase "the child's best interests." I listened with interest to his expression of concern about that. This is the principle in subsection (b). It is, though, perhaps the oldest principle that we have in the area of evaluating the role of the state in relation to children. It's usually stated as "the best interests of the child." It is here. That means there will be, for the commissioner, continuity of that principle.

It is or could be interesting that it's put second as opposed to first in the list. Should I or the readers of this list take anything of significance from that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. All of these are equally important or as important as the commission may think, in its wisdom, in a given situation.

G. Plant: Looking at the list and being mindful of the many duties that the commissioner and the commission have, I take it that one of the expectations here is that over time, on a case-by-case basis, we'll see these principles work themselves out in a way that will start to develop a bit of a sense of what they actually mean, at least from the perspective of the first commission. Is that a reasonable expectation on my part, that we will sort of over time get a bit more help?

Yes, it is very true that these words are in some ways not terribly precise. They are, many of them, just general statements, and over time I think people will want to know what they mean. But it does seem to me that one place we will get that is in seeing them work out in particular cases. So my question again is: is that a reasonable expectation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a pleasure to answer yes.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering if the minister. . . . In (d) and (e) under section 3, they both talk about the importance of children and families participating. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate for me the significance of (e) as over against (d). What is the difference between those two? There's two statements, (d) and (e), talking about participation of children and families. I'm wondering what is the difference in meaning or implication of those two statements.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are fine lawyerly distinctions, but they are important. In section 3(d), this would be a case-specific factor. The other one would be a factor related to an investigation with respect to a system, or systemic investigation.

V. Anderson: I just have one more question. It has to do with section 3(g): ". . .the importance of cultural and kinship ties in a child's development." A real concern has been raised by extended families about their participation, and involvement of the children particularly. There has been a strong movement to get more recognition.

What I'm trying to ask is: does kinship here refer to the extended family? What is the implication of that reference? Does it indicate that kinship family will be given some priority and consideration in the care and well-being of children? That has not always been the case in the past, as has been referred to earlier by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Actually, the involvement of kinship has been prevented by the legislation. Are we suggesting -- and I would approve if we are -- that there is more concern and opportunity for kinship to be involved because of this statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there would be. That's the hope, as a result of this clause being included.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. McKinnon: One of the statements here on section 4(1)(h) is: ". . .at the request of a minister of the government or 

[ Page 3993 ]

on the commissioner's own initiative, conduct special investigations. . . ." Does that mean that any minister of the government can request the commissioner to do an investigation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

B. McKinnon: Does the commissioner have to be instructed by a minister before any investigations are done? Can she on her own decide that an investigation of a child should be done? The reason I ask that question is because sometimes during question period when we questioned the Minister for Children and Families about a child, she had to wait until the minister asked for an investigation. So I'm wondering if that's the same or if it has been changed by this bill.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be forever changed. The commissioner would be able to do the investigation on her own.

[7:15]

The second is with respect to its accountability in the process, in the decisions it has taken. For example, it says, within the commissioner's jurisdiction: "The commission may do. . . ." It doesn't say it must or shall do. It says it may do, so it clearly has some discretion. Section 4(1)(a) says: ". . .collect information about the deaths of all children and investigate the death of any child if the commission considers an investigation is necessary to determine the adequacy of services to the child or to examine public health and policy matters."

Now, in light of the difficulties that may be encountered with respect to internal problems in terms of staff issues that may relate around the custody question and the services that are being provided to children in custody who are receiving some form of designated services, and in light of the public opinion which is clearly out there now with a public that is obviously quite agitated and concerned about what they're hearing and what they read in the popular press -- whether it's accurate or not -- the fact is that public opinion out there is becoming well established.

I wonder what the Attorney General's thinking is with respect to providing that level of discretion, and to what extent there may be some obligatory requirement of the commission with respect to these investigations. That's the first part of my question. Maybe we can get an answer to that, and then we could talk a little bit about the accountability of that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, obviously this has been very deliberately drafted in this fashion to give the broadest possible discretion to the commissioner for two reasons: one, broad discretion means independence and not necessarily all direction; it also means that the commissioner could choose to investigate certain things and not choose to investigate other things. But I am told by the commissioner that the commissioner intends to continue to investigate all of the suspicious deaths, all of the fatalities generally, and critical injuries, as she's been doing for the last nine months.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that answer and the frankness of the answer. I can understand that discretion would obviously work to the advantage of the commission, in terms of its decisions on how it should proceed.

However, there is a second concern, and that is the extent to which the commission may, for whatever reasons it deems necessary, decide not to proceed in an area where other agencies who are equally involved in the process -- because remember, we have several agencies that get involved around suspicious deaths -- may in fact deem or even require or suggest that additional investigation be undertaken.

I guess the fear that some who read this may have -- and I don't want to get too hypothetical here -- is that this may be used as a means by which investigations will not proceed, and that in fact internally, within ministries of government, this commission may essentially act as a dead end, and therefore investigative issues may not come forward.

I think that was part of the reason that members on this side of the House wanted to have the commissioner as a function of the assembly, as opposed to the minister. Ultimately, the commissioner is appointed by government; the agencies of government are directly involved. Whenever one has an agency of government investigating another agency of government, clearly there are problems involved with how those investigations can or will proceed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the hon. member's concern. That problem, if it is a problem, is quite curable through the catch-all regulatory power that exists in the legislation so that you list all of the various things the commission must do in addition to the broad discretion. But I don't believe that that would be a problem.

I haven't, in the last few moments, looked at the complaint section, but if one felt that the commission wasn't doing what it was supposed to do and was ignoring the problem, one could actually go through the complaint process. It seems to me that there is not a broad discretion to refuse a complaint, except under certain circumstances. So there is a way of getting around it.

G. Wilson: Unfortunately, we don't get to debate the regulation section, so I guess we have to wait and see how that's going to apply.

Under section 4(c) it suggests that this commission may "make recommendations regarding any deaths or critical injuries investigated under paragraph (a) or (b). . . ." I guess my question is: make recommendations to whom? What is the weight of those recommendations with respect to whatever they might contain, in terms of whether it's obligatory on those who receive them? To whom are they making the recommendations -- to the minister or to the agencies that they've investigated?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Attorney General would always get a copy of all of the reports that the commission would make. Plus, all of the agencies that need to do the appropriate work to enhance the safety and protection of children would get copies of those recommendations. Of course, those recommendations would be directed to the specific agencies or institutions within government to make sure that they're implemented.

The commission has recommendatory power. It does not have power beyond that. But since it's in the public domain, I'm certain that it would carry some weight.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to bring up Joyce Preston, section 9, at this point. That's in the public domain, and those recommendations are there, but we haven't quite got there yet; we haven't quite acted on that yet.

[ Page 3994 ]

I'm assuming, then, that under 4(d), where it says to "set standards," that would also fall under exactly the same category. Unless that's different, I'll just assume that to be the case and move on.

Under 4(f)(i) it talks about "breaches of the rights of the children in care." I'm assuming that if one looks at the definition of "rights," it's talking to section 70 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Reading section 70, it gives a whole list of what those rights may be, one of which is a right of privacy.

I think that we could be running into some complications here with respect to language that follows in the act with respect to the commission's access to information in the next section. If that's the more appropriate place to deal with it, I will. I'm assuming that "in the rights of the child" applies to all of what is included in section 70 as per the definition of this act -- which says that's what it means. If that's the case, then either now or perhaps when we get to section 6, we might want to talk about the extent to which privacy of the child as a right of that child is protected from this commission. Whenever we want to do it -- we could do it now, or we could do it later.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Just as a general observation, the privacy of a child under this legislation would be protected as it is protected, for instance, with respect to the ombudsman's legislation. It would have the same protection.

V. Anderson: For clarification, when we're talking about the accountability of the commissioners themselves. . . . If I remember, in the ombudsman's report, the ombudsman indicated that because the commissioner is appointed in the way she is, she's in the ministry in the sense that the commissioner comes under the supervision of the ombudsman, and that gives some security to those who might be concerned about accountability. Is that true? If so, that would be helpful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is true.

V. Anderson: On section 4(d), "set standards." I'm interested in this because if I read it rightly, it's not that it recommends standards to prescribed ministries, but actually directs "prescribed ministries or agencies" as to the kinds of standards that they must use in their operational processes. It may be a very healthy one, but I'm wondering if the other ministers are aware that those set standards are there in the way it's written.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They are quite aware of this.

G. Plant: There are two or three points I want to raise about section 4. I was going to raise the same issue about the use of the permissive word "may," and I understand that the point here, I suppose, from the other side is that this is intended to empower the commissioner. I'm not sure that it is. . . . I've never been particularly happy with the use of the term "may" in that sense. I think if we're deciding by statute to give somebody a job, we should probably oblige them to do it, but on the other hand, I suppose we'll find out soon enough if these jobs are in fact being done. We have the Attorney General's assurance that we can always fix the problem when it arises.

So I'll move from that to another issue, which is: the commission has a fair amount of power to do things of its own motion, as it were, and to act as an educator, as an informant and in some respects as an advocate for children's issues. The commissioner is also the sharer of the tribunal, which is the part of the complaint process that we'll get to later. This is as good a time as any, perhaps, to raise the issue.

In many contexts, those two roles would be seen as roles that ought not to be discharged by the same person. For example, in the human rights context, the human rights legislation now has an officer who is essentially the public advocate for human rights issues in British Columbia, and that person is not a member of the tribunal which is charged with the task of adjudicating complaints. Now clearly, the Human Rights Tribunal is much more like a quasi-judicial body than the tribunal established by this act. But I am interested, nonetheless, in knowing whether the minister has perceived a potential conflict there and has a response to my questions. There is, I think, a risk, at least a public-perception risk, that if an issue is placed before the tribunal, that it not be there as sort of part of a cause or a campaign by the commissioner.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Firstly, you have the child and youth advocate, who has the advocacy function in general terms, and I think we are all secure in the knowledge that she is there. Secondly, the advocacy function with respect to the commissioner is with respect to systemic change. The need for systemic change may be sparked or arise from a particular case that she may investigate or make recommendations with respect to, but she would be an advocate for systemic change. So there isn't necessarily that kind of conflict.

[7:30]

G. Plant: I am hearing the answer. I guess it occurred to me that perhaps in some respects the commissioner has a role analogous to coroners in that respect. I'll watch how that role gets discharged.

The other question that I wanted to ask -- and this is one that may have been asked already, so I apologize for repetition. . . . Looking at (d), when we are talking about "standards to be applied by prescribed ministries" in relation to "the provision of designated services to children," I take it that presumably the commissioner, if the regulations permitted, could make decisions about the way the public school system works under the School Act in respect of some of the services that essentially the public school system provides to children -- if the Ministry of Education were a prescribed ministry and if some of the services under the School Act were designated. Is that understanding correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer, of course, is yes, if that was a prescribed service under the School Act. Obviously the School Act would rule in that situation, as well.

G. Plant: Yes. I mean, the example wasn't all that deliberately chosen, but yes, there are in the School Act statutory procedures and review processes that are supposed to be responsive to complaints concerning the provision of education services to children. So I was just trying to see whether or not the Attorney General had a plan in mind to set up the children's commissioner in competition with the Minister of Education. I was going to be interested in watching that happen.

[ Page 3995 ]

I have to apologize one more time if this is repetitious. If the answer appears somewhere, the minister can just say so. Do we know now, in a general sense, which ministries will be prescribed and which services will be designated? Or is this something that we're going to learn about in due course?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All I can tell the hon. member is that we are starting right away with the Ministry for Children and Families, and beyond that, obviously these are decisions that cabinet would make.

G. Wilson: I just have a couple more questions under section 4. Section 4(1)(f) talks about "review and resolve complaints," and yet there is clearly a process for making complaints and resolutions of complaints under part 3.

If that's what's intended here, then it would render, given the language -- because this is all completely discretionary -- part 3 purely discretionary on the part of the commission as to whether or not they intend to hear or resolve those complaints. I don't know if we mean two different things here. Is that what that's intended as saying?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The word "resolve" is, I believe, the problem for the hon. member. That refers to the ability, in part 3, of the commission to resolve matters before they end up at the tribunal, through mediation and the like.

G. Wilson: But the language says that they may "review and resolve complaints made under section 10." Well, section 10 gives the commission the discretion to stand that complaint down, to defer, but it doesn't give -- I don't think -- the commission the right to simply decide whether it will or won't hear the complaint or deal with it. Yet the language under this section says that it "may do any or all of the following." So it seems to me that the use of the words "resolve those complaints," in reference to section 10 is not discretionary. The commission has to deal with it. So it just seems to me that on the one hand in this section you're saying it may do it, but as I read section 10, that's a pretty defined process. So you can't under this section say that they may or may not do it, but under the next section say that they have to do it -- I don't think.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the commission is obliged to take the complaints under section 10 and deal with those complaints as section 10 and other subsequent sections indicate. Section 13 specifically goes on to say: "The commission may review the complaint and may attempt to settle it by any process the commission considers appropriate. . . ." That's what it refers to. But then if it can't be resolved, there is a process -- which is mandatory -- that it then goes to the tribunal.

G. Wilson: Well, okay. I guess I'll accept that explanation. Because what I'm understanding, just so the record's clear, is that it is not discretionary as to whether or not the commission is going to hear that complaint. When that complaint comes forward under section 10, it's going to hear it and it's going to attempt to resolve it and find some means to do that. Through the somewhat more permissive language of section 4, it simply isn't able to say: "But we choose not to involve ourselves in that." This is what I understand the Attorney General to be saying.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That section 4 would not entitle, over and above what's given in the subsequent sections, the commission to refuse a complaint. The only way the commission could refuse a complaint would be under section 11, and there are specific grounds.

G. Wilson: I just had a couple of other small items -- I think they will be reasonably small items. Under subsection (h) it says: ". . .at the request of a minister of the government or on the commissioner's own initiative, conduct special investigations and prepare special reports concerning matters affecting children." It also says under subsection (e) that this commission is going to "monitor other ministries and agencies. . . ." So I'm curious to know to what extent it's anticipated that this commission is going to be an investigative agency for other government agencies. If they're monitoring, and if they can set up special reports, do special investigations and prepare special reports, is it anticipated that this commission would then have investigative powers that would allow them to go in and to basically check out all the other ministries of government? Is that what's intended?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the obligations of the commission, that is in fact the bulk of the work that the commission would be doing: keeping all the ministries on their toes to protect and assist the children.

G. Wilson: That was my understanding, and that's fine.

Now, with respect to the material that comes from those reports -- this comes back to a question that I think was asked by the member for Vancouver-Langara a few minutes ago -- does that information then. . . ? If those investigative reports are done, those reports are presumably going to be made public. Or to what extent are those reports going to remain internal, dealt with at an assistant deputy minister or deputy minister level, or dealt with strictly through an internal adjudication process? Because this is really the crux of the argument we were trying to make earlier about the transparency of the work that's being done.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As per section 9, all of the reports must come to me. There is an annual report and then other reports pursuant to that section. I must make those reports public within 30 days of the receipt of the report.

G. Wilson: We'll talk more about that under section 9. I think that would be more appropriate than getting into it now.

V. Anderson: I just want to make sure I understand subsection (f), that when the complaint. . . . Let me get a scenario. Someone has gone to one of the ministries with a complaint. They have dealt with that internally and worked it through and come up with a decision within the given ministry that is the designated ministry. They have been unhappy with the decision made by that ministry. If I understand right, they could then complain to the commissioner, who under subsection (f) could review and resolve that by, if they felt it were necessary, overturning the decision made by that ministry. They could either affirm it or overturn it under this "decisions concerning the provision of designated services. . . ." So they would have a chance to review whether a ministry had made a wrong decision and they could rectify it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commission can order a particular ministry to reconsider the decision. The commission can also make a recommendation as to what the commission thinks the ministry should do in addition to simply reconsidering it.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this point, but we also don't want this commission to become a babysitting 

[ Page 3996 ]

service for the ministries associated with children -- no pun intended. We don't want to have an internal watchdog that is going to look at what's going on, find out where those reports are, internalize those reports and not have those reports come forward for review.

I just read section 9 again, and we'll get to this in section 9, but what's really important here with respect to the commission's work is that, first, it has to be independent. And I understand what the minister is saying -- that it is going to be or is intended to be. We'll see how well that works. But secondly, that the work it does is transparent -- it's open, it's public, it's for review -- so that the public is confident that now we are actually going to have a commission that will do more than simply go in and try to keep the lid on some difficulties within family and children's services and the provision of that. We don't want an internal watchdog that never barks nor bites.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe a simple guarantee or undertaking given by me in the Legislature would suffice. I would suggest that the hon. members read the reports issued so far and the work done so far by the commissioner. If they did that, they would come to the conclusion on their own that the commission makes those reports public promptly and that the ministries are obviously paying attention to those reports.

With respect to the earlier question from the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, in the case that the hon. member raised, for instance, if a ministry does not reconsider the decision that the commission might want it to reconsider, does not follow the recommendation otherwise made by the commission, the commission then reports to the Attorney General that a particular ministry has not done as she has recommended. So obviously, you have all of these processes and all of this process is public.

[7:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are rights, of course, of children who are in care. Children in confinement would have the right to complain to the commissioner with respect to a designated service such as corrections. So you have that avenue open to children who are in confinement.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

B. McKinnon: Section 5(2) says: "In an investigation or review under this Act, the Children's Commissioner and each deputy commissioner may consult with any person, including a multi-disciplinary team of advisors." Who makes up this multidisciplinary team, and who decides who's going to be on it? Basically, where does it come from?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The members of the team are listed in appendix B to the January 31, 1997, report of the children's commissioner, with the exception of one person, Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate, who believes there might be a conflict. She has left the team for that reason. Otherwise, all those names are mentioned there. And it's an impressive list. There's an associate professor; there is a director of child protection; there is a regional coroner; there's the child care expert, Penny Parry, who I believe used to be the child advocate for the city of Vancouver; and there are several other people.

[F. Randall in the chair.]

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, welcome to the Chair. An invigorating debate underway here.

Under this section 5. . . . I'm a little bit concerned about the language, given that we're talking about privileges and protections that are given under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act. It says: "In an investigation or review under this Act, the Children's Commissioner, each deputy commissioner and each member of a panel has the power, privileges and protections. . . ."

Under section 12 of the Inquiry Act, it says: "A commissioner appointed under this Part has the same protection and privileges, in case of an action brought for an act done or omitted to be done in the execution of the commissioner's duties, as are by law given to the judges of the Supreme Court."

And I'm assuming, then, that the language reads that each member of the panel will be deemed a commissioner as is defined in the Inquiry Act. Or does that power or protection only pertain to the commissioner and deputy commissioner?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are the same powers that exist in section 83 of the current legislation for the Child and Family Review Board -- exactly the same powers and privileges that are needed to effectively do the job.

I don't understand the hon. member's concern. If he has a concern, maybe I can address it.

G. Wilson: I'm not concerned about the fact they have the powers. What I'm trying to do is define whether or not. . . . The reason I'm asking the Attorney General is because the question has been asked of me, and I want to give them an informed answer. Under section 12 of the Inquiry Act, it says: "A commissioner appointed. . . ." It uses the word "commissioner." We're dealing with a commission in which we define, in this language, "the children's commissioner, each deputy commissioner," and then it says "each member of a panel." So the question I'm asking is: is each member of a panel considered a commissioner as defined under the Inquiry Act, and will they have those powers as defined or given to a commissioner under section 12?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Each member of a panel, including the commissioner and the deputy commissioner, would 

[ Page 3997 ]

have those specified powers for the purposes of the task at hand -- for the hearing or investigation or whatever they're doing, but not beyond that.

G. Wilson: If that's the case, my next question is on the extent to which each member of the panel will have the powers of subpoena. Does that power rest only with the panel as a collective -- as a whole -- or can each member request and act on a power of subpoena as provided for under section 16(1) of the Inquiry Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The panel would consist of either one person or three people, with the commissioner being the chair. It is the chair in each case that would have the power to subpoena.

G. Wilson: That actually answers my question.

So the act says that the investigative powers and privileges will be provided under sections 12, 15 and 16. Sections 15 and 16 are the power to summon witnesses, and section 16 deals with the enforcement of summons and being able to mete out punishment for those that don't abide. The Attorney General is telling me that sections 15 and 16 rest with the chair, not with each individual member of the panel, whether it's one, two or three, as I understand it. In other words, if we have somebody who is involved in the panel, are they able to effect that subpoena independent of the majority will of the panel?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the case of a three-member panel, obviously the chair alone could not issue a subpoena; obviously, the majority would rule in those cases. That's part of administrative law, and it is also part of administrative law that the chair issues the subpoena, at the end of the day.

G. Wilson: I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm really trying to understand this, because the language in this act says. . . . The way it has been explained to me. . . . Believe me, I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one, but every time I sit down and talk to one and then talk to a second, I get two different opinions. What I'm hearing is that the language doesn't say that in an investigation or review under this act, the commission has the powers. What it says is: ". . .each deputy commissioner and each member of a panel has the powers, privileges and protections. . . ." So it writes it in the singular, not in the plural. Given that those powers are pretty extensive, because they've got the power to subpoena and punish for contempt and so on, the question is: does that power rest with each individual member? Or is it intended that it rest with the panel itself -- and thereby the chair, I would assume?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, by administrative law as well as by regulation, of course, that we will make sure that power to subpoena and the like is exercised by the chair only, although for administrative purposes, in this legislation it is given to each one of them.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Plant: The first part of section 6 gives the commission the right to any information that is in the custody or control of a director or of a public body as defined in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Is that provision intended to override the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act which would otherwise apply to the release or disclosure of information in the custody or control of public bodies? That is, is this a general override of the protections of the act, or is it a power to obtain information that is subject to all of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This simply defines who the commission has the power to get information from. There is an override in the legislation subsequent to this.

G. Wilson: This may be a foolish question, and the Attorney General can tell me so, but it seems to me that subsection (3) suggests that the only person who is able to protect information from claim of disclosure is a lawyer who may be arguing on behalf of their client. Is that the way I read this section? It says: "This section applies despite any other enactment, but is subject to a claim of confidentiality based upon a solicitor-client relationship." So it sounds to me like everybody else has to cough up the info, but if you're a lawyer who has a client, you can duck behind the old client-lawyer relationship. Is that what it reads?

[8:00]

G. Wilson: It's one of the reasons we pay lawyers such big bucks, eh?

The other question I have is with respect to. . . . It says: "A director or public body that has custody or control of information. . . ." I'm curious to know how we define "control of information to which the commissioner is entitled." Clearly, it's custody if you have the information on premises, but if you have control of information -- and that may involve third-party disclosure -- is it intended that a person has to disclose that third-party involvement? Is that what's meant by that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, this is with respect to information that may be within the control of an entity or a body, but it is in the physical possession of a third party that may be doing some work for the entity under contract and the like.

G. Plant: I looked for the provision that the Attorney General suggested I might find earlier in answer to the question I asked earlier, and I didn't find it. I found something that doesn't have anything to do with that subject.

I guess I just want to say again. . . . I think this is consistent with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast's thrusts here, although I don't necessarily agree with his construction of the solicitor-client relationship. The way this is worded is that the commission has the right to any information. That doesn't simply define people; that gives the commission the right to information that is in the custody or control of a public body.

So I guess I want to be sure again: is the intention here that the commission has a right that overrides the protections that exist, generally speaking, in relation to things like the disclosure of third-party financial information? It's the kind of stuff that's dealt with in sections 21 and 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which would 

[ Page 3998 ]

ordinarily allow someone to say to a head of a public body: "You shall not release this information, because I am entitled to the benefit of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

It looks to me, on reading section 6, that the commission has a higher power. The commission has the power to go in and say: "Notwithstanding all of what's in the Freedom of Information Act, it's necessary. . . ." I mean, it has to pass the second test. It has to pass the test of being necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties or exercise its powers. But if it does that -- if it passes that second test -- then subject to the section 14 report exemption, the commission has the right to it, notwithstanding the Freedom of Information Act. Am I right in that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the override. Yes, you're correct.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

B. McKinnon: I'm probably going to ask the question that these two gentlemen are going to ask, too. "After completing an investigation into a child's death or critical injuries, the commission may report its findings and recommendations. . . ." Does that mean that the commissioner does not have to report anything? What do you mean by the word "may" in there?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is simply an enumeration of who the report could be made to, provided to. In some cases it may not be appropriate to provide a report to the parent, for instance, who may have committed the homicide. So the commission has the discretion to choose to provide a report or not to a particular entity or individual under those circum stances.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Plant: I think I do want to pick up on the theme of the question that was just asked. I understand that there are circumstances where the commission may not wish to make a report on a particular case to some of the individuals who are enumerated in the subparagraphs there. But the original question, the prior question, is whether an obligation exists to actually make a report, or whether this just becomes a kind of internal process that doesn't actually result in a document or a report.

I guess I have to say -- and I'm sure this is a fault I have; I can't help but read these things the way I'm trained to -- that I don't see any obligation here on the commission to in fact make a report after completing an investigation into a child's death or critical injuries.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think, at the end of the day, the protection is in section 9, where there is an annual report and the reports or summaries of reports made by the commission on various items. Then, I have to make that report public within 30 days. There is a provision -- if I can find it -- which says that if I don't make it public, the commission will make it public after 30 days.

G. Plant: I understand that. The interesting thing, though, is that when you look at section 9(1), the obligation on the part of the commissioner is to present reports or summaries of reports which the commission has made. That obligation only has content if in fact there are reports or summaries.

So now that we've returned again to the question, where do I find, or where does one find, the obligation to make a report? I don't think it exists in section 9, at least not on the strict wording. I respect the fact that the minister will stand up and say: "Well, this is the whole way the scheme is intended to work. The commissioner is supposed to make reports after doing investigations." The idea here is that the commissioner doesn't have to make a report known to all of the players in the case and that there may be good reasons for that.

But, you know, at some point the bill and its provisions only mean what they say. So I'm looking with interest to find in this act any obligation on the commission to make a report. We know what happens if they do. It goes, among other places, eventually to the Attorney General. But I don't see the obligation to make a report. I mean, I'm not asking the question just in the abstract. I'm asking it because I care about whether or not the commission should have that obligation -- because I think the commission should have that obligation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that there is no obligation on the commission to make a report. If you look at 4(l)(a), that the commission may collect information and, of course, investigate if it considers necessary and "make recommendations concerning any deaths or critical injuries investigated under. . .(a) or (b) if the commission considers this will enhance the safety and protection of other children. . . ."

If there is nothing to learn from a particular report. . . . I would rather let the commission decide whether or not we have something to learn from a particular report. If there is nothing to learn, nothing critical to be said of any agency or ministry or someone, I don't particularly want the commission to be churning out reports that have nothing to say. I think that's the balance here.

The commission, at the end of the day, does perform quasi-judicial functions, in a sense. I've just been advised by the commission that every report they've made so far has been made public. In fact, they have made reports on all of the issues that you looked at, generally -- major issues.

But there may be issues which the commission looks at that do not require or warrant a report. I would not want a bureaucratic obligation on the commission to produce a report about everything that comes the commission's way. I think it's an important balance. It's an important discretion, which also engenders independence. In a sense, I'm not the only one accountable; at the end of the day, the commission is also accountable by the fact that it makes reports or it chooses not to make a report on a particular issue.

G. Plant: I thank the Attorney General for his statements. I think there's a debate that could be had here. I'm not going to propose going very far down the road of that debate, but I can't resist pointing out this: I think the reason we're looking at this bill tonight is in large measure a result of failures on the part of the past apparatus to act in a way which demonstrated accountability, which demonstrated integrity, which demonstrated openness, which demonstrated that the system in fact was working in the way that it should work.

I have even less desire than the Attorney General to create unnecessary bureaucratic apparatuses, but I think it's important that when we talk about that in this particular context, we recognize how sensitive this particular context is. 

[ Page 3999 ]

I think, for example, that's one reason why the Attorney General has heard so much in the context of this bill about the independence issue, because we have a history of independence not working. So all we have now, of course, are the institutional structures created by the statute and the promise that they will work well, and we were looking forward to that.

Here again, there is an issue. I agree, there is no need for unnecessary bureaucracy, but I must say that I am slightly concerned when I hear the Attorney General say that if the commissioner doesn't think there's anything particularly interesting or significant, or a point raised by an investigation requires criticism, then the Attorney General doesn't really want to hear from the commissioner about that.

That may well be the case, that some day down the road, when public confidence is restored in this whole process and all these institutions, we could be happier about that. At the moment, I'm afraid that that doesn't provide me with the assurance that I would like to have.

Really, all I've done, if I may say so, is simply put my point on record, as it were. I don't see the obligation in the act. I understand the Attorney General's point, and I'm sure he understands mine, although that may be giving too much credit to my ability to express myself.

In this context, though, I do want to make the only other point that I want to make about section 8 -- others may choose to debate the issue that I've just talked about. Section 8 speaks about reporting findings and recommendations to "(a) the parent." When I turn the page over to section 10(2)(b), now dealing with the complaint process: "The complaint may be made by any of the following: (a) the child; (b) the child's parent. . . ." Now, it's not clear to me that any difference is intended. In fact, I've looked at the two sections; I've thought about it.

I hope the people who are responsible for writing the act will forgive me for saying this, but I think this is an instance where there has been less than careful attention to draftsmanship. Frankly, I think the author of the statute means "a parent of the child" in both cases. But anytime you have these two terms used -- and they're two different terms -- then unfortunately you create problems for people who eventually come along, who don't care much what we say in committee stage debate, who wonder just exactly what it is the statute is all about.

So anytime I see a problem that I think exists in relation to the wording of a bill, my antennae get a little more sensitive, and I start to worry about the other more fundamental issues. Those are issues that I've already dealt with in the context of section 8.

[8:15]

V. Anderson: When we're considering the amendment -- because I think it's very important. . . . One of the realities of what's happened lately is that the families who are concerned, whose children have died or been critically injured, have heard again and again from the newspaper, rather than directly, reports and results that came out, and usually it was not a fair and accurate reporting. I think that following up the discussion here, it's very important. . . .

The kind of wording that was running through my mind was something like: "The commissioner should report the findings and recommendations to the following if they are directly involved." It seems to me that if a person who has responsibility for a child. . . . It's the same as getting a doctor's report directly from the doctor, not indirectly from someone else. If it's your child, you're waiting to hear the correct and accurate statement, rather than somebody's summary of it.

I think that as a parent, if something happened to my child and somebody did a report on it, and I'd had input to that report -- because I probably would have, as part of the discussion -- then I would expect to get a direct report back immediately, not down the line someplace, after it went through a bureaucratic structure. Then it may or may not come back to me, and it may come back only partially and out of context.

It may be necessary to step this part down. I'd be happy to do that in order to have it reworded to meet that demand.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, the amendment the hon. member is suggesting is not appropriate. The current practice of the commission is to send letters to all parents of the children with respect to whom the commission may have conducted an investigation unless the parent or parents are implicated directly in injuring or harming the child. The practice is what the hon. member wants it to be. You can't have that in the legislation, because we want the commission to have the discretion to not send a report to, for instance, a parent if that parent is involved in harming the child. I think you have to have a balance in what you must do and what you can do.

G. Wilson: Just by way of trying to deal with the matter of provision of reports to the Attorney General, I would offer what I hope would be considered an amendment that would be in order and would speak to that issue.

Section 8(1) would read (a) through (e) as currently drafted. It would add a subsection (2) that would read: "All matters contained in the findings of investigation into a child's death or critical injuries that are relevant to the matter under investigation must be included in the commissioner's report to the Attorney General under section 9(1)."

I apologize for the handwritten nature of this, but I hadn't anticipated we'd be in committee stage today.

What that essentially will do is suggest that where matters of investigation take place under section 8 with respect to a child's death or critical injury, the findings of that investigation must be included in the report that goes to the Attorney General under section 9(1).

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've looked at the amendment. If the hon. member looks at section 9(1)(b)(i), that in fact does exactly what the hon. member wishes to have happen under section 8.

G. Wilson: With respect, I don't think it does. It says under section 9. . . . This gets a bit complicated, because we're really under section 8. Anyway, section 8 says: ". . .completing an investigation into a child's death or critical injuries, the commission may" -- it says "may"; we've discussed that and dealt with that -- "report its findings. . . ." Under 9(1)(b), it says: ". . .reports or summaries of reports made by the commission on (i) the commission's findings and recommendations under section 4 (1). . . ." Well, under 4(1), once again we get back to the fact that the commission may do. . . . It's again a discretionary issue, and I raised that at the time under section 4. Or, it goes on to say: ". . .(a) to (c) concerning children's deaths or critical injuries, and (ii) any responses made by ministries or agencies. . . ."

[ Page 4000 ]

What the amendment essentially speaks to. . . . It says that where an investigation has taken place, all matters that are relevant to those findings. . . . We're not talking about summaries or discretion or some oblique reference in the report. What it says is that all the matters that are relevant to those issues must be included in that report, so that we're not likely to be subject to some oblique reference or some summary of what took place. I think what's important here is that the public is aware that through this process, not only is the work done in investigation thorough but that the report to the minister, which will ultimately be made public, will include all of the findings in detail of that report. I think that's a critical distinction between what the amendment suggests and what the minister suggests is in section 9(1)(b).

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The amendment is obviously misplaced. If it is to be, it should be in section 9. I just want to say, rather than playing around with it, that it is really unnecessary; it's unwarranted. So far the commission has made reports, both public and to me. In fact, if the hon. member has seen the summaries of the reports put out yesterday, those summaries contain all of the important details that can be provided, subject to FOI. The reports' summaries contain all of the findings of the commission.

I believe that there has to be a measure of discretion vested in the commission to do its job, and if there are problems at the end of the day, we'll be here in six to eight months, and we can deal with those. I just think that we need to have -- while we try and inject a measure of confidence in the way we deal with children -- a certain measure and trust and confidence in the ability of the commission, under the legislation, to do its work within its broad discretion and mandate. I think we should leave it at that at this point.

The Chair: Hon. members, on the strength of the point made by the minister, I'm going to rule that that amendment is out of order in this section.

V. Anderson: I was just wanting clarity. Is the minister bringing in an amendment himself or not? Just so we know.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I move that section 8(a) be amended by striking out "the parent" and substituting "the child's parent" in its place.

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: The amendment is changing "the parent" to "the child's parent." Could the minister explain the significance of that change?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is simply for consistency in drafting, which we are trying to achieve. Section 10(2)(b) refers to the child's parent, and the intention is the same in section 8(a). It refers to "the parent," and we simply want to say that it should refer to "the child's parent."

V. Anderson: Either way, I would ask the same kind of question, which has to deal with the definition of "parent" in the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Parent is defined as: ". . .(a) the mother of a child, (b) the father of a child, (c) a person to whom custody of a child has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction or by an agreement, or (d) a person with whom a child resides and who stands in place of the child's mother or father. . . ." So what I'm asking, first of all, is: does that definition of parent (a), (b), (c) and (d) still apply as whichever one of those is relevant? So it's the child's "parent," which might be any one of these four.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

V. Anderson: If that implies. . . . Just to give an illustration of the implication, if a child is in the custody of a foster care home, which has been granted by a court or by an agreement of the ministry, or if a child resides with a person who stands in place of the child's mother or father during the time they're in foster care, is the foster parent who's looking after the child -- say for a year or two years or five years, whatever the case may be -- included as the child's parent under one of either of these (c) or (d) definitions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That definition in the Child, Family and Community Service Act makes it very clear that a caregiver is not a parent within that definition, and the caregiver will not get that report.

[8:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In 8(c). . . . Obviously the director means "a director designated under the Child, Family and Community Service Act or the Adoption Act," so that has a very specific meaning.

The foster parents -- if that's what the hon. member is concerned about -- may in fact get that report through 8(d), which says: ". . .the ministry, agency or person that is the subject of the recommendations." The foster parents, or parent, may be the subject of the recommendations and may get a copy of that report. Otherwise, it wouldn't go to the foster parent.

V. Anderson: I can appreciate the minister's comment, but I'm still curious to know: what kind of persons would (c) or (d) apply to? Who would (c) or (d) apply to, and what is the distinction between them? If they're not living with a caregiver, who are the kinds of people that (c) or (d) applies to? What's the meaning of (c) or (d)?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Is the hon. member talking about 8(c) in Bill 23 or (c) and (d) in some section of the Child, Family and Community Service Act?

V. Anderson: I'm asking about the definition of "parent," which is in the Child, Family and Community Service Act under "Definitions." The definition of "parent" is: . . ."(a) the mother of a child, (b) the father of a child, (c) a person to whom custody of a child has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction or by an agreement, or (d) a person with whom the child resides and who stands in place of the child's mother or father. . . ." The minister has indicated that that's not a foster parent and it's not a caregiver. So I'm asking: who does (c) and (d) apply to as a parent?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It could obviously apply to the directors that I have indicated. It could apply to XYZ, who may 

[ Page 4001 ]

have custody of the child. It could be an aunt, uncle, grandmother. It could be anyone who has legal custody of the child at that given time.

Let me just clarify -- and I understand this correctly -- that foster parents, when they are providing care for children, are not the legal custodians, legal guardians of the children. They do not get legal custody. Custody vests and resides with the director.

The Chair: The first amendment was ruled out of order; the second amendment proposed by the Attorney General is before us now.

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

G. Wilson: We slipped by very quickly as to. . . . The Chair ruled that the amendment was out of order. I didn't understand why it was out of order, other than the fact that the Attorney General wasn't going to vote for it. That doesn't make it out of order. He's certainly prepared to vote against it.

The Chair: Hon. member, if you wish an explanation, I ruled it out of order because the Attorney, who knows about these things, said it was in the wrong section. On the strength of that point, I ruled it out of order for section 8.

G. Wilson: Just let me get over my mystification on that ruling for a moment. Let me say that the only other question I have with respect to these reports and where these reports are going to be filed is that it suggests under 8(e) that this report may be available to "the child, if the investigation was into injuries sustained by a child who was 12 or more years of age when the investigation was completed."

I wonder if the Attorney General might tell me whether or not 12 has a legal significance in this, or whether it is something that is more consistent with other policies within the child and family relations act. There is considerable debate now with respect to when the child has the legal right to information. There is not a consistent age throughout the legislation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As we discussed earlier with respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, age 12 has a certain significance. At age 12 you're able to enter into agreements and you're considered to be of certain wisdom -- if I can use usual terms -- and to be able to receive information and to make some decisions. That's why if there is a report, and if you are 12 and over, that report may be made available to you by the commissioner.

G. Wilson: Just one last question on that: can a 12-year-old child then make a request? I know that with respect to a complaint procedure -- "Notice of complaints," under section 12 -- there is a proposition for complaint. But with respect to a request, is it anticipated, then, that a request can be made? There doesn't seem to be anywhere in this section where a child may actually request information with respect to such a report. It seems discretionary to the commission.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no section in this legislation whereby you could so-called officially request a report, but anybody could ask for the report, and the commissioner would then make a decision as to whether or not it should be made available.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

G. Wilson: I'm tempted to move my amendment, which would clearly be in order in section 9, but I'm not going to, because I think that we can maybe get the minister on record here, and hopefully that will suffice.

I am concerned with respect to what is included in the reports. I have had an opportunity to review the reports that the Attorney General made reference to earlier on, and I agree: they are fairly thorough, and I think they are fairly detailed.

I'm more specifically interested in section 9(2) and section 9(3) and what that might entail. Section 9(2) says:

"In addition, the Children's Commissioner may present a special report to the minister or comment publicly about a matter relating generally to the work of the commission, if the Children's Commissioner considers it necessary to do so."

It then goes on to say that a report or summary under subsection (1) or (2) may include recommendations respecting various measures of principles and legislation and so on. I'm curious about that, because under section 9(5) it says: "A report or summary presented to the minister under subsection (1)(b) or (c) must be made public within 30 days. . . ." I wonder if it's intended that the same latitude be extended to reports that may come under section 9(2) or 9(3) -- if these special reports are made to the minister, whether or not they also will be made public, or if it's intended. The language is quite specific here that the 30-day presentation to the public makes very clear reference to subsections (1)(b) and (c). It's actually "(1)(b) or (c)," which I'm assuming is inclusive. But it doesn't make reference to special reports, particularly those that may advocate a legislative amendment to protect children.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, the legislation reflects the intent quite correctly. Of course, when the children's commissioner may do special reports, they may be done of the commissioner's own volition. The commissioner may, in fact, provide advice to cabinet on what amendments to make to a particular piece of legislation. That advice may have been sought in the first place by a minister, as well. That's why there is no provision for mandatory publication of those reports.

However, if the commissioner chooses to make those reports public, I don't believe anyone who says she couldn't do it. Obviously the Attorney General could choose to make those reports public as well. But I think there is that discretion just in case there is some advice that's being sought by a minister -- not with respect to a particular matter that has been investigated but with respect to a general issue. It's relating to general issues. That's why I think it's important that this discretion be there.

G. Wilson: Just to make this absolutely clear, my understanding of the reading -- and the minister can tell me if I've read this correctly -- is that any report with respect to untimely death or injury or matters relating to an incident affecting a child's death or injury will be included in the reports that are obliged to come to the Attorney General under sections 9(1)(b) and (c). That's my understanding.

The special reports that we're talking about, where there is no obligation for public disclosure, deal more specifically 

[ Page 4002 ]

with special reports that may be done with respect to internal administration changes, the kinds of things we talked about in an earlier section, where the commission in fact could -- I think I used this word -- "watchdog" what's going on inside. So it's not intended in this section. This has caused some concern among a few people who read it. It's not intended here that there could be an opportunity for the use of subsection (2) or subsection (3) under section 9 to simply hide these reports from the public. All matters relating to a death or injury are included in the reports that must be public.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's view is correct. The reports that are described by the hon. member must be made public. There is no question whatsoever. The reports that may not have to be made public are reports, for instance, about a matter relating generally to the work of the commission. That's the subsection 9(2). That's important to remember. But the reports about critical injuries or fatalities or a report sought by a minister about a specific matter would have to be made public.

[8:45]

On section 10.

G. Wilson: Just a couple of quick questions on 10. It talks about the breach of the rights of the child under section 10(1)(a). Then it says: "The complaint may be made by. . .the child." It says here, in the definitions that " 'child' means a person under 19 years of age." Does the 12-year-old cutoff apply to the right of the child to file a complaint? Or can a child nine years old, for example, file a complaint -- or younger?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Any child who has the capacity to make a complaint may make a complaint, and the commission would consider that complaint as it would any other complaint.

V. Anderson: In 10(1)(b) it says a person may make a complaint "subject to the regulations and any enactment respecting appeals, about a decision concerning the provision of a designated service to a specific child." I find it difficult to understand that meaning in the first place. Then, when we turn over to 29(2)(e), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may specify types of decisions that may be the subject of a complaint under section 10(1)(b). So I find it difficult to understand the meaning of section 10(1)(b), and doubly so when I refer it to section 29(2)(e). So I'd be helped with an explanation of first the one and then the other.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 29(2)(e) simply indicates that there would be, by regulation, enumeration of designated services or designated decisions with respect to which complaints could be made. So that's pretty simple.

With respect to section 10(1)(b), "A person referred to in subsection (2) may make a complaint to the commission subject to the regulations and any enactment respecting appeals. . ." and, of course, subject to the regulations made under either this legislation or any other legislation, or subject to appeals with respect to any other legislation, as well. There may be appeals available under that legislation.

If I am correct, what it means with respect to appeals is that before a complaint could be heard, one needs to exhaust one's remedies of review and possibly other issues under those pieces of legislation under which the particular institution may be operating.

V. Anderson: I'm not entirely clear, but I'll leave it at that. I'm not sure I can get it any clearer at this point.

I would ask, too, about section 10(2)(c): ". . .any other person representing the child." What's the meaning of the word "representing"?

Let me give a number of illustrations and see if any of these apply. Does that apply to a school teacher whose complaint is on behalf of a child in her class? Does it apply to a neighbour who is concerned that nobody else is speaking up for the child? Does it apply to a caregiver who's concerned about the well-being of a child or to any other person representing the child? Do any or all of these categories apply?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, that is the subsection that gives me the most amount of comfort. That simply means that anyone who knows about a difficulty with respect to a child can come to the commission and make a complaint. And of course the commission will then decide, on the merits, whether or not to accept the complaint and proceed with the investigation.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

V. Anderson: Maybe the minister referred to this a few minutes ago with respect to the previous question. Section 11(1)(a) says: "The commission must refuse to accept a complaint. . .if, in the commission's opinion, an internal review process of a ministry or agency is available to deal with the complaint and that process has not been exhausted."

I can understand that an internal review might want to go on first, before the ministry got involved. But in cases that we've had in the past, internal reviews have gone on month after month and year after year, and they've not been exhausted. Does this prevent the commissioner from stepping in and saying that the internal review is not getting done appropriately and properly, or must they wait until that internal review is complete no matter what?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 11(1)(a) says: "The commission must refuse to accept a complaint. . .if, in the commission's opinion" -- those are the important words -- "an internal review process of a ministry or agency is available to deal with the complaint and that process has not been exhausted." So if you bring a complaint to the commission and there is an internal process going on. . . . It may not have been exhausted theoretically, but you may come to the commission, and the commissioner may look at that complaint and say: "No, I'm not going to give this agency any more time. They are effectively not dealing with this issue, and I'm going to investigate." So at the end of the day, that mandatory refusal is based on the commissioner's opinion, and that opinion has to be an informed opinion. It's not an automatic refusal if there is another process available.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment. I would ask for the distinction between (a) and (b), where an investigation is going on through a court or tribunal, and then under subsection (2), the commission has the option to hold the complaint until the other investigation is completed. Why would the same option not be available in (a) as it is in (b)?

[ Page 4003 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The same option is available. With respect to (b), it's very clear that that's a process that may be before the court. Therefore that is treated differently. I think that at the end of the day, the commissioner could in fact. . . . As a lawyer, let me just tell you that in (b), theoretically, the commission could investigate even if the matter is before the court -- I beg to differ with the advice that I'm getting -- or the court has made a decision with respect to it. But it may also defer, obviously. So the commission has the option of looking at that and saying, "We're going to investigate," or "We will defer," depending on how well the matter is being dealt with.

V. Anderson: I would have no problem if 11(2) read, "Instead of refusing to accept a complaint under section 1(a) or (b), the commission may defer," because then it would say it could defer in either case. When it only refers to (b), the implication is that it can refer under one but it can't under the other.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is somewhat of a complex matter, so let me just try to be as simple as I can.

The argument is being made that if the matter is being dealt with or has been dealt with by a court or if the investigation or dispute resolution is in progress under another law, someone may argue that the commission no longer has the jurisdiction. By putting section 11(2) in, it clarifies that even if the matter is deferred, the commission doesn't only have the option of refusing under those circumstances, it has the option of deferring the matter and preserving the jurisdiction to deal with the issue even after it may have been dealt with under another law, before another tribunal or before a court.

G. Wilson: I agree with the Attorney General because he knows about these things, and I'm sure he's right.

My concern is under section 11(1)(b). The wording actually is "or a decision has been given by a court" -- i.e., a court has given a decision. Now, I'm hoping that what I'm hearing from the Attorney General is that such a decision, if it's a matter, and the complaint surrounds a custody issue, and therefore a court has ruled, and it's deemed that the decision by the court has been a bad decision -- as rare as I'm sure that would be, and I'm being just a little facetious here. . . . In a sense, a poor decision has been taken and a complaint is filed. Now, what I'm hearing the Attorney General say -- and I hope he's correct -- is that this section would not preclude the commission from hearing a complaint on that matter with respect to a custody issue, if it's deemed that the interest of the child is affected by what the court has decided to do.

[9:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the commission cannot overrule a court decision. However, the commission can and may consider the information or matter that may have been considered by the court in the process of arriving at a decision, and deal with the issues.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

V. Anderson: In section 12, I have a concern out of our past history of dealing with complaints. Let me just set the circumstances. A complaint is laid concerning a child with regard to treatment by their parents or whatever, and the child is taken and placed in the care of the ministry, and then we get caught up in the court trying to deal with this. One of the results is that there is no direct representative for the child in between the two systems. That's been an ongoing concern.

What I'm asking about is. . . . If a complaint is about a breach of rights of a child in care, the director caring for the child, which is one side of the issue. . . . In the case of a child that's over 12 years of age or even under, there's no provision for somebody that's speaking directly for the child -- a legal representative or someone who's speaking for the child and who will stand up for the child's benefit at this point.

That's been a major concern which we hope might have been resolved by the advocate having the ability for legal counsel when needed for the child. But there's a major concern here. When a complaint comes, the child is caught in the middle, between the different functions of the ministry trying to do what's right or the family trying to do what's right. Nobody's speaking directly on behalf of and with and to and for the child. That's a complaint here that I sure hope can be covered.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The regulations have already been developed, in the hope that this legislation would pass, and those regulations would enshrine in them a process whereby the child advocate would be advised with respect to every complaint that is accepted by the commission. The child advocate could then decide on her own as to whether she would participate in the process, or she may believe that there is someone else who is a more natural advocate who could be present and represent the child in the investigation.

V. Anderson: I'm very pleased to hear that, because that's been a major concern.

Does the child advocate have available legal representation on behalf of the child when it's needed in those cases?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the question of legal representation is somewhat complex. For purposes of investigations by the commission, one would not, I hope, require a legal advocate for the child. In a sense, the commission, in addition to being an investigatory body, is also an advocate for the children as a whole. But the question of legal representation is more complex, and of course the child advocate may have her views on that, as well.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

V. Anderson: I'm just wondering, when the tribunal or the panel -- I'm not clear which -- has made its decision, is that decision final? Does it go anywhere else from there, or is it a final decision once that decision has been reviewed and dealt with? Is that a final decision, or is any other review possible?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, the process is listed in section 16 and, as I've indicated earlier, is essentially as follows. Subsequent to the investigation, the commission makes its recommendations with respect to a particular ministry. The ministry has 30 days to respond. If the ministry isn't following 

[ Page 4004 ]

the recommendations and has not made an appropriate and adequate response, the commission then makes a report to the Attorney General, indicating that that's happening, and all of that is made public. That's the essence of what happens.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

V. Anderson: Under 18(1)(a). . . . I indicated to the minister earlier, in second reading, that I couldn't help but ask about the children's commissioner's remuneration being "at a level that equals or exceeds the amount to a deputy minister." I could understand the "equals," but I was curious about the "exceeds" -- why it's there and where the upper limit is. Maybe they need it -- and I think the work they do should be equivalent at least to the Premier's -- but I'm just curious to know about this wording.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's about 9 o'clock. I don't want to talk about people's salaries, but it is tempting. The remuneration is established at that level, or exceeding that level, as mentioned, to make sure that this position is seen as equivalent to an officer of the Legislature. That's why the remuneration may exceed that of a deputy minister.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

B. McKinnon: I just want to ask the minister about subsection (4) and the Public Service Act. It says that ". . .the Children's Commissioner may set their remuneration and the other terms and conditions of their retainers." That implies their deputy commissioners. What guidelines are there for the amount of money that the deputy commissioners have? What guidelines does she work with in setting wages? In (4) it says: "The Public Service Act does not apply to persons retained under subsection (3) and the Children's Commissioner may set their remuneration and the other terms and conditions of their retainers." I was wondering what guidelines she had to work with.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those are guidelines established by PSERC with respect to consultants, which the commissioner will be following.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 20 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 20, in the proposed section 20(1)(a) by deleting "section 29(2)(h)," and substituting "section 29(2)(g),".]

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

G. Wilson: We were on a bit of a roll there.

This section is with respect to reprisals. I'm aware that a regulation is presumably going to be introduced, which would have some relevance, I'm assuming, to this section. With the minister suggesting a few minutes ago that the regulations were already written, it tempts me to wonder if you'd like share that with this side so we could read them at this point. That would be kind of useful.

My concern is that this is easier said than done. Basically, what it says is that you can't seek reprisals against people who lay complaints, especially children. This really is a critical issue. A lot of children who are in bad situations are intimidated beyond their ability to actually come forward and lay a complaint. Simply having wording that says that you're not allowed to seek reprisal if they should lay a complaint is not going to be enough, I don't think, unless the minister can tell us that there is, by regulation, some penalty that can be exacted.

I'm looking at what it suggests here. It says a person mustn't do it, and it says: ". . .makes, or is the subject of, a complaint. . .gives information. . . ." and so on. The issue of the actual penalty is something that we want to hear from the minister on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's the next section -- section 28(1)(c) -- which refers to section 27(1) or (2). There would be a maximum of six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine. It would be an offence, as is indicated in section 28.

[9:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Under the Offence Act.

G. Wilson: Oh, I'm with you. Essentially what you're saying is that section 5 of the Offence Act applies, and that provides the level of penalty. Is that what I'm hearing? I have the Offence Act somewhere in here. Maybe what I need to do is review that. I'm assuming that section 5 of the Offence Act stipulates the penalty. I don't actually have that section in front of me. I've got just about everything else, but not that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 2 of the Offence Act, which of course is not reprinted here, indicates that if you are guilty of a specific offence under a statute, then you face a penalty of six months and/or a $2,000 fine. Section 5 is a section that talks about general breaches of various statutes, and we don't want that to apply, because we created a specific offence or offences under this legislation to which the Offence Act would apply automatically, as per section 2 of the Offence Act.

G. Wilson: Maybe it's just getting late, and I can't read. I don't see anywhere where it makes reference to section 2 of the Offence Act, and if you can just point out where it is, I'll sit down.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The reference is not needed. Section 2 of the Offence Act speaks to all the specific offences that are created by statute. That's section 2 of the Offence Act.

D. Symons: Somewhat along the same lines, I had some concerns. I did notice the connection between section 27, which we're now discussing, and section 28. I felt that there might be somewhat of a contradiction there, because in section 28

[ Page 4005 ]

it provides. . . . It's section 28(1)(b), and I know I'm talking to that, but let's just come back to section 27 if you don't mind. It refers to providing false or misleading information, but certainly section 27(1)(a) would imply that if it's a child, there is no provision for anything if a child provides any false, misleading or malicious information.

My concern is the way that 27(1) is worded -- that, indeed, you must not in any way discipline. Teachers are particularly at risk -- having been one for years -- of a student, who they might tick off for one reason or another, laying a false charge against the teacher. What it basically says here is that you can't do anything -- coerce, intimidate or discipline. Can you at least correct their behaviour somehow? I'm just wondering if that is an intentional part of this particular act or if I'm misreading it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 28(1) says that a person who does any of the following commits an offence, and obviously (a), (b) and (c) then enumerate those offences. A person would include a child, so if you are 16 years old, you're under 19 and are a child in the definition of this legislation. Obviously, if you provide false or misleading information, you could be charged. A child who knowingly makes false representation and causes an investigation to happen would face similar penalties.

D. Symons: Not to press a point, but doesn't section 28(1)(c) then negate what you've just said? Section 28(1)(c) says that anybody who commits an offence contravenes section 27(1), which says you must not "discharge, suspend, expel, intimidate, coerce, discipline or impose a financial or other penalty on or otherwise discriminate against a child because the child" lays a complaint under the act. There seems to be the possibility, I think, that there can be some misinterpretation from what you said a moment ago. No?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no possibility of any misinterpretation. Sections 27(1) and 27(2) are directed at individuals who might try and intimidate children or interfere with children lodging complaints. What I have indicated to you is covered by section 28(1)(b). The other two offences, 27(1) and 27(2), are covered in section 28(1)(c), and they are separate and apart. I don't know how one could argue that when we punish someone for impeding an investigation, interfering with an investigation or coercing a child. . . . How that would ever be a problem in terms of this particular section, I don't see.

D. Symons: I'll just try it one more time, and then I will give up on it. Section 27, towards the end of (1), says: ". . .otherwise discriminate against a child because the child" -- we're talking about a child, not an adult, committing an offence here -- "(a) makes, or is the subject of, a complaint under this Act." And we'll take the "makes" aside for a moment. The child makes a complaint. My concern is that this child makes an intentionally false complaint. I'm not too sure whether, by the wording of 27(1), there is absolutely anything at all that can be done to correct the behaviour of that child by what follows in 28. You're saying it's somebody doing it to a child. I'm saying it's a child doing it here, because it says: ". . .the child (a) makes. . .a complaint under this Act." Part (1), then, says that this child must not be in any way disciplined.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sections 27(1) and (2) simply protect a child from being disciplined, suspended, expelled and the like if the child chooses to make a complaint to the commission. So 27(1) and (2) are for the protection of the child. Section 28(1)(b) is to penalize the child, possibly, for misleading or improperly causing an investigation to happen. Those two are separate and apart from each other.

G. Wilson: Really quickly, I've now had a chance to read section 2 of the Offence Act, which basically says that if you're guilty, you pay. It doesn't stipulate what "pay" is. These probably aren't the consolidated statues, and maybe there's an amendment. Could the minister just restate what the penalty is? I heard six months and I heard a fine. Could the minister just tell us what the penalty is for anybody who is seeking reprisal against a young person who lodges a complaint? Under section 2 of the Offence Act, it just says that if you're guilty, you pay. At least that's what it said in the book I just read.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member will read some further sections, he will find what you pay. I believe that what you pay is a maximum of six months in jail and/or $2,000 in fines. That's all in the Offence Act.

V. Anderson: I must follow up on my colleague's question. I recognize that teachers, for instance, are having trouble in school at the moment. Say a youngster in grade 6 lays a complaint against another youngster or against a teacher, as the case may be. One of the struggles of the police in many court cases at the moment is that they lay a complaint or they do something, and they're out as quickly as they're in. But in school, in the class, the teachers have some way of discipline. They have some way of saying: "If you continue to say these things to your fellow classmates, there will be some discipline for it. You may be expelled from school for a week or a month." I think the concern here is that if we're not careful, we'll give the children an out which they can misuse.

On the other hand, if they're honestly laying a complaint, they should not be punished for that honest complaint. But if they're mischievous or doing harm with the complaint on purpose because they know they won't be punished for it, that's the concern that we want to make sure is covered.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the confusion is arising in the minds of the hon. members because the hon. members believe that the teachers and the parents should be able to discipline a child who may, in simple language, lie to the commission.

What I suggest to the hon. members is that there is a process in this legislation which says section 27(1) protects a child who makes a complaint from being expelled or disciplined because the child makes that complaint. So there has to be that connection. Section 27(2) protects another person who is not a child, who may make a complaint about a child having problems.

Section 28(1)(b), obviously, is the one that deals with a child providing false information and the like to the commission. The child would, of course, then face the consequences.

Now, what you're confusing all of this with is that you want to have this separate authority as parents, as school teachers, to discipline a child for dealing with the commission. I suggest that this ought not to be done, because the commission is like a court for a child. A child ought to be able to independently, without any fear of reprisals from anyone, go to the commission and only face the consequences if the child is falsely causing the commission to investigate. I think that's very clear. I don't see a problem.

[ Page 4006 ]

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

D. Symons: Just one more question on the very issue we were discussing up to the moment. That is, when we get down to 28(1)(c), it talks about. . . . You're committing an offence if you contravene section 27(1).

I have to ask, then, what takes precedence: what you just said a moment ago, about 28(1)(b) allowing the punishment to take place by the authority, or 27(1) that says there cannot be any punishment? Once you put 28(1)(c) there, you've now negated, in a sense, what you said for 28(1)(b) just a moment ago, because it goes back to 27(1) that says you cannot punish a child in any way, whether the complaint is true or false.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sorry if I caused further confusion. Section 28(1)(b) does not allow anyone, including the commission, to penalize a child for falsehood. Only a court of law would be able to do that.

D. Symons: Does 28(1)(c) allow that, as you're saying, the commission can do it, then? Section 28(1)(c) says: "A person who does any of the following commits an offence. . ." by contravening the section 27(1) we were talking about. So does that exclude, then, the commission from following through with the discipline you were saying that they can do under 28(1)(b)? In 28(1)(b), you're saying they can do it. But I'm just concerned that 28(1)(c) says nobody can do it. You're telling us that 28(1)(b) says the commission can, and I have no problem with that.

[9:30]

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the amendment to section 29 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 29, in the proposed section 29(2)(f) by adding "or dismiss" after "terminate".]

On section 29 as amended.

G. Wilson: Since this is the power to make regulations, and it stipulates a whole host of regulations which the minister tells me are already written, I just wonder when those of us on this side of the House might get a chance to read them. Not that we would want to debate them tonight, although there is time, but I'm just wondering if we might get a chance to review them at some point.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can tell the House that some of those have been written. I'm told that even the cabinet hasn't seen them; I haven't seen them. I was just advised of the one that there was some concern. . . . And I indicated that there would be regulations with respect to the child advocate being informed on a regular basis with respect to complaints as they originate. So all of the regulations have not been drafted, and, of course, I haven't seen them, either.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

G. Wilson: I guess the simple question is: why? I look at section 3(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and I see that essentially it suggests that the act "applies to all records in the custody or under the control of a public body, including court administration records, but does not apply to the following. . . ." And you're adding that it doesn't apply to these records that are created. . . . I'm curious to know why.

When I look at the nature of what is excluded under the information and privacy act, it looks pretty straightforward as to why this wouldn't be included -- what's in the act. But then when you look at what you're excluding here also, you're saying: ". . .a record that is created by or for, or is in the custody or control of, the Children's Commission and that relates to the exercise of the commission's functions under the Children's Commission Act." Well, it would strike me that that should be subject to an information request. I don't understand why that would be included. Why include it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Children's Commission's administrative records, of course, will be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There's no question about that. This provision, if enacted, will afford the same protections as the officers of the Legislature for the Children's Commission's operational records. The security of records was a major concern for the Ministry for Children and Families, as the child protection files would otherwise be susceptible to third-party reviews beyond the Children's Commission's determination of appropriate inclusion of case-specific information in the public reports.

The third parties who could not get this information under the Child, Family and Community Service Act would attempt to get it from the Children's Commission. This is to protect and preserve the privacy and the rights of children, essentially, and families. So you have the same disclosure requirements as an officer of the Legislature and the same protections available to the information that is in the possession of the commissioner as a result of the investigations and the work it does.

G. Wilson: So does the language mean. . . ? I mean, I would agree with that. I don't take issue with what the minister has said; it just didn't read that way to me. When it says "exercise of the commission's functions under the Children's Commission Act," does that also imply. . . ? Are we talking about functions inclusive of the individual records bank, then, that they would have -- the individual records that they would have? It seems to me that "the exercise of the commission's functions under the Children's Commission Act," in terms of the operation of the commission. . . . I think maybe the confusion is around the word "functions." What exactly is meant by that word?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that this is the wording that the legislative counsel has drafted to make sure that the 

[ Page 4007 ]

administrative records are disclosable, but their operational records are not. This is what this language is supposed to accomplish. I'm not an expert on FOIPPA, either.

G. Wilson: If I look at the current act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, under section 31, which is the reference here, and I look at all that is included in that list from (a) to (i), most of it deals specifically with written records in one form or another -- whether it's archival records, teaching materials -- and it talks about personal notes from a justice or someone in a quasi-judicial capacity, all of those sorts of things. Yet what we're dealing with here is a record that's created for the commission, which relates to the exercise of the commission's functions. So essentially this is not a record on the basis of an individual account nor a record of any specific data that relate to individuals, as I understand it. But rather, this is a record of the performance of the commission, as I read this, and I don't understand why we would not want that to be open to public scrutiny.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If one used words such as "management" and "educational work" and "advocacy work," and if all of that came under the administrative records, I think that's disclosable. But all of the records that are created in relation to the exercise of the functions, such as investigations, reviews, and all of the information and data that are collected with respect to the individual files -- that is not disclosable. I understand, and I'm led to believe by the legislative counsel sitting next to me, that this is the language that accomplishes that so that privacy is protected.

G. Wilson: Okay, so we can take comfort in the fact that if we want to find out about matters with respect to general administration, function and operation of the commission itself, excluding individual case files and those sorts of things, all of that will be available. The only thing protected here is the specifics of individual cases, and I can understand why you'd want to do that. Clearly there is a need to protect the rights of children and families. If that's what I'm understanding, then I guess my objections are satisfied.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is exactly the case.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

B. McKinnon: I just want to thank the minister for answering our questions and to wish the commissioner all the best in the task that is before her. I do not envy her, but I do wish her well, and I thank the staff for their indulgence tonight.

Section 37 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Children's Commission Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read, minister?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Children's Commission Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading on Bill 27.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1997
(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This bill amends the Offence Act to improve the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions of environmental offences and provincial statute offences.

The amendments will allow a court to authorize the continued detention of evidence seized under a search warrant or otherwise by peace officers in the execution of their duties during an investigation. At present the Offence Act allows items seized under warrant to be detained for a three-month period only with no possibility for an extension should the proceedings not have been commenced within the three-month period.

These amendments will permit a justice or a judge to grant an extension if persuaded that the nature of the investigation and evidence require it. The amendments would also expand the authority for the court to order the disposition of things seized, whether under warrant or otherwise, including a process for returning exhibits to the rightful owner once they're no longer needed.

These amendments are similar in substance to parallel provisions in the Criminal Code. They will allow adequate time for the proper and orderly investigation of provincial statute offences, particularly where the issues involved are complicated and the evidence is voluminous, rather than necessitating the undue allocation of resources to investigations in order to meet the present three-month time period. They also respect the rights of the citizens of the province to the return of their rightful property if no longer needed for the purposes of the investigation. These amendments constitute a much-needed modernization to the provisions of the act governing detention of evidence.

This bill will also amend the Offence Act to allow courts to issue appearance notices for ticketable offences. At present, when a violation ticket is disputed, the only option open to a court is to issue a notice of hearing, which requires the Crown to be ready to proceed for a hearing of the matter on the date set out in the notice, with all witnesses present and with court time already assigned. However, it is not uncommon that the disputant either does not appear or requests an adjournment of the hearing to a future date. This results in undue court costs and inconvenience to witnesses.

This amendment will allow the court to issue a notice requiring the disputant to appear before the court, at which time a pretrial conference may occur confirming the disputant's intention to proceed, issues to be raised and admissions. The appropriate amount of time and the witnesses required for the hearing could then be determined. This will enable a 

[ Page 4008 ]

more accurate allocation of provincial court time. The amendments in this bill will significantly assist a fair and efficient administration of justice under the Offence Act.

[9:45]

I do think, however, that we need a better process for bringing laws like this forward. Laws like this are the kind of thing that could be done effectively by legislative committees like the Select Standing Committee on Justice, which could keep a standard watching brief, as it were, on the way in which provincial quasi-criminal law works or doesn't work.

If the government were to consider doing its legislative work like that from time to time, or perhaps use the Law Reform Commission that used to exist in the B.C. Law Institute that now exists, or White Papers, I think there would be an increased likelihood of developing initiatives which are truly non-partisan and would achieve the support of all members.

I appreciate the fact that the Attorney General has referred to the extent to which this act essentially mirrors processes in the Criminal Code. I think there is a virtue in that particular form of efficiency, the efficiency created by consistency, so long as the rules themselves are fair and are also efficient. I think that in this case, this bill will achieve the objectives that the Attorney General has stated for it -- at least I hope they do. We will lend our support to the bill, recognizing that there are some questions and details that will arise in committee stage debate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, could I have a brief moment?

The Speaker: I will declare a very brief recess.

The House recessed from 9:48 p.m. to 9:49 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Bill 27, Offence Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 6:37 p.m.

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

J. van Dongen: I just want to try and remember where we were at on crop insurance and try to finish off that issue. The growers talk in terms of a doughnut or a hole-in-one aspect of that tier 1 coverage, and I think that deals with that issue of the quality yield offset. But I think what we were talking about at the time we adjourned was participation rates in the original program versus the current program, or the proposed program.

If we could just revisit that for a minute, it seems to me that one of the growing problems with the old program was the gradually reducing level of participation by growers, and that the new program was intended to try and rectify that. I guess what we were talking about was that the tier 2 is still considered fairly expensive. I know the minister used a figure of 30 percent participation, but I wasn't clear what he meant by that. So maybe we could pick it up there in terms of the participation in tier 2.

Hon. C. Evans: The participation rate in tier 2 is approximately 30 percent of all the growers.

J. van Dongen: Would I be correct in understanding that those 30 percent of the growers had selected various options, a variety of options, as opposed to all of them having one option?

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct. And the others have until the end of June to buy in if they want coverage this year.

J. van Dongen: What was the participation rate in the old crop insurance plan -- percentage of the industry?

Hon. C. Evans: The average before the changes was 70 percent of the growers. The present situation is just about 100 percent into tier 1 and 30 percent into tier 2.

J. van Dongen: Does the minister know, in terms of the ones who have opted for tier 2, if most of those are dealing with this hail package that has been proposed?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I'm hoping there's still room for discussion by the minister on this issue that the growers are concerned about. And further to that, I have a copy of a letter that B.C. Fruit Growers had sent to the deputy, indicating that in certain commodities -- grain and vegetable -- there appeared to have been an undersubscription in tier 1. Is that the case? Has the deadline already expired for subscription to tier 1 in those programs?

[ Page 4009 ]

Hon. C. Evans: I don't know. The deadline for grain is only now running out. I don't know if it has run out for vegetables, so it would be premature for me to say if I know there's an undersubscription.

J. van Dongen: That's probably a valid answer, although the letter does indicate that they've talked to industry representatives, and they understand that there is a budget surplus due to the underselling of the basic crop insurance, particularly in the grain and vegetable sectors. I think that the growers are trying to find some funding within the existing budget to deal with their ongoing concern about this deficiency in the tier 1 design. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on his willingness to try and negotiate something in that area.

Hon. C. Evans: I understand your comment, but I missed the question. Exactly what is it that you want to know?

J. van Dongen: I guess I'm just looking for some indication from the minister as to his willingness to try and engage in further discussions and consultations, to try to accommodate the concerns of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association on this offset issue.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm pleased to have staff carry on a conversation with fruit growers and to keep on talking until we get this thing fixed. In fact, as the hon. member knows, we sent crop insurance as a function of government to Kelowna, to ensure that the dialogue didn't have to be over the mountains anymore. But I'm not very likely to interject myself into that discussion, because I do not wish to create a situation where I as government have a vested interest in an undersubscription in grain, for example.

The government needs, for the obvious reasons you heard before, every sector to buy into crop insurance. If we adjust a sector for a year or a period of time based on an undersubscription, that becomes the norm -- and then government begins to have an interest in an undersubscription in some sector. Then if there is a disaster in that sector, those people aren't in the program.

I would like staff to be in a position where they are selling an insurance policy. They're actually selling it to people because government wants them to have it. The entire restructuring philosophy isn't going to work unless the farming industry is operated like a business and the business people insure their businesses, which means that there has to be an onus on staff to sell the package to every sector and to keep working on fixing it until it's desirable in that sector.

I do not want a political fix that requires an undersubscription in vegetables and/or grain, or in any sector, to fix somebody else's problem. That's the kind of thing politicians always do. We did the same thing with the stumpage rates for years. Somebody had a problem over here, so we squished the waterbed and increased somebody else's taxes to solve the problem -- and created an imbalance. I don't think that's an appropriate job for politicians. So the answer to your question on whether the dialogue can keep going is that it has to. Will I instruct staff? I will. Do I want to fix it? The answer is no.

[6:45]

I genuinely feel that there's a need to continually try and work on this crop insurance program. If the goal of government is to get out of any sort of ad hoc disaster assistance program -- and I think that's part of the goal here -- then I think we have some way to go on it yet. We'll get a year or two down the road, and some of those 30 percent who have taken the hail option may decide, for perfectly legitimate cash flow reasons: "Jeez, I can't really afford this." Just as we've seen a deterioration in the participation rate under the original program, I think we would inevitably be faced again with some sort of ad hoc situation. I just give you that as my sort of overall observation that it needs more work.

I want to mention that the crop insurance program, as the minister and his staff know, has been singled out as one of four sort of test projects for the improved accountability program. I'm not as technically knowledgable about crop insurance as other people are, but when I read the enclosure with the documents that were provided and compared that, for example, with the performance-based and outcome-based planning and the projections that were done in the tree fruit five-year business plan, then I think there's probably an indication that we need to do a bit more work on what we're trying to do with crop insurance. What is the goal, and what are the proper measures to see if we've achieved the goal? What are the targets we're looking for? I'm wondering if the minister has any further comment from that perspective.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, my comment would be that the goal of the government is precisely as the hon. member describes. It won't work for government to get out of the ad hoc business. It's no fun to be in this job when you're out of the ad hoc business and there isn't an in-place and functioning crop insurance program. Yes, the government wants to be out of the ad hoc aid business.

It's very difficult to budget and run government if you are periodically paying out money to various commodities without warning and without some kind of standard or policy about how, why or when. Some people get money; some people don't get money. It's mostly dependent on their political abilities or the power that their MLA has at a given moment. So yes, we want to be out of the ad hoc business. To get out of the ad hoc business, crop insurance has to work. So yes, there needs to be an outcome -- a definable outcome -- that we can measure, and I would argue that that definable outcome is that people are buying into the program.

I did not mean in my comments to suggest that it wasn't my job to keep on working on the program until there was a majority of producers buying the insurance. It certainly is my job, and you can measure it in that way. I just meant that I did not wish to see the problem solved for any particular commodity in such a way as it assumed a low takeup in some other commodity, because I think that simply transfers the problem to some other part of the province or to some different group of growers.

J. van Dongen: I now want to get into a few questions about the agricultural land reserve, starting with the annual report. A lot of the annual report is based on some of the recommendations that had been made by the auditor general a year or two ago, when a review was done.

[ Page 4010 ]

I don't have a lot of questions about the Agricultural Land Commission this year. I want to focus mainly on issues raised on pages 16 and 17 of the annual report -- in particular, starting with the statistics on page 17, which give a fairly comprehensive summary of the applications that had been reviewed by the Land Commission. I note, in particular, that despite the perception that a lot of -- well, virtually all -- applications get turned down, it appears to me there was a fair number of approvals when you look at the total percentage. In looking at code 2 -- exclusion requests from a landowner -- there was a total of 143 requests under that code, and 45 of them were approved.

I'm wondering if the minister could give us a little bit of detail on the nature of those requests. In general terms -- I'm not looking for all of the specifics -- what kinds of applications were approved for exclusion?

Hon. C. Evans: The exclusions run the gamut from exclusion for a corner store to various exclusions, for personal reasons, for large businesses. It's impossible to generalize. The reasons would be identification of inappropriate soil type, to the commission responding in concert with the regional district plan with an agricultural sector to it. In other words, if regional government and the Land Commission do a land use analysis and they're willing to plan for agriculture, and there are some anomalies that the two groups can agree are inappropriate, then an exclusion might be granted.

J. van Dongen: I have a copy of an article from Kelowna, talking about a fairly significant amount of land coming out of the agricultural land reserve. It quotes Martin Collins talking about it being a tidying-up exercise. Maybe the minister could comment on that. Would those exclusions that come as a result of that process be under this code, too?

Hon. C. Evans: I think the article -- I don't have it -- refers to a block application for exclusions in the Joe Rich area. That would be just east of Kelowna, leaving Kelowna and going towards my house -- Rock Creek.

An Hon. Member: Joe Rich.

Hon. C. Evans: Yeah. That area that has been under discussion with municipal government, between the Agricultural Land Commission and the local regional district for ten years. What the Land Commission has decided to do is take some land that is felt to be appropriate for exclusion to public hearing and hear what people have to say. It's a very narrow mountain valley between. . . . You're out of Kelowna. You're actually out of the orchard area. You've gone through some hobby farm areas, and you're on your way to a ski hill.

J. van Dongen: The minister says that this has been going on for ten years. Why has it taken this long, if it was appropriate for that land to go out?

Hon. C. Evans: It's taken that long because the Land Commission has not had the resources to apply a significant number of bodies to all the issues. It's taken ten years for this particular one to come up high enough in the pile to actually apply the human beings, figure it out and take it through the process.

J. van Dongen: I know that on page 16 it talks about shared responsibility between local governments and the Land Commission, so it's a joint decision that this package goes to public hearing. I note that it involves about 70 property owners.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, local government has been involved, and yes, local government has recommended to the Land Commission that they take some of the properties out in the block application. No, local government doesn't have the power to go to hearing, so it isn't like they're going jointly to hearing. The Land Commission talks to the regional district, they figure out what they agree upon and then they go to hearing. However, although it's not the case in this case, it would be possible for the Land Commission to actually go to hearing on some properties the regional district was opposed to letting out. But they would then go to the hearing and make that case.

[7:00]

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, and one person has been chosen and assigned the job of actually travelling around the province to hold hearings on applications that the board has decided to hold hearings on. They haven't gone to hearing yet. They will be going to Williams Lake and Cranbrook -- and there is this one -- and will be basically dealing with the regional issues.

J. van Dongen: In terms of code 21, there are 468 applications -- 153 approved. These are subdivision and non-farm-use applications. What would be included in that category?

Hon. C. Evans: Usually they are applications to create another dwelling on the farm -- an application to sever a piece of land and create another dwelling or put a mobile home on the land.

J. van Dongen: Where a farmer wants to apply for a second dwelling on an existing farm operation on an existing title where there's already one house, does that have to happen under the authority of the Land Commission? I know that local governments can approve it. Is that under authority delegated by the Land Commission?

Hon. C. Evans: This is my guess of what the hon. member is getting at. The act allows a farmer to have as many dwellings as necessary for farm help. So if you need to hire ten people, you don't need to apply to the Land Commission at all to put up ten dwellings; you can go to your municipal government and do so. However, if you desire to have a spare house on your land that is not required for farm help, you need the permission of the Land Commission. That's a case where the commission would get involved.

J. van Dongen: The basis on which local governments. . . . My own understanding is that it's local governments that make the decision when someone applies for a building permit in a farm situation. Are local governments operating on a standard set of rules, criteria, in terms of what constitutes a sufficient scale of farm operation to warrant another house? I'm wondering if those rules emanate from the Land Commission.

[ Page 4011 ]

Hon. C. Evans: No to the first question and no to the second one. No, they're not all operating on the same set of rules, and obviously, no, those rules don't come from the Land Commission.

J. van Dongen: I just want to raise an issue now. I don't know the extent of the concern, but I've had another example of a case come to me where I think there is a legitimate concern. I'll mention the name of the farmer: Keith Maddocks in Cloverdale. He is faced with a huge drainage canal being routed through his place. While it's said by the municipality that that drainage canal is required to drain that farmland, I think I agree with the view that most of the water coming through that drainage canal is coming from development in the uplands both east and west of that farm.

It gives rise to a concern that I've had some personal experience with, also. We have various types of utilities -- in this case a drainage ditch or a pipeline or a whole range of different possibilities -- which are required by local government and which can be pretty damaging to the agricultural land that they're going through. I haven't had a chance to investigate all the details, and I'm not as concerned about the individual application as I am about the issue.

By way of example, in this particular case I understand there were eight different options for local government to exercise in terms of the routing of this ditch. The farmer had already been successful in negotiating himself out of the original option. In this particular case he is a vegetable grower, and he has 100 acres. He's had an arrangement with the adjoining railway where he uses the headland, and he feel he's losing, in effect, about 15 acres of good useable farmland, very high-quality Cloverdale muck soil. I have no doubt that a big part of the reason -- the main reason, if you will -- that that service corridor is going through his land is because that is the cheapest route.

As I said, I've seen other examples of it, and I'm concerned about how widespread this problem may be -- where we say that private interests or private industry can't go on and use farmland for a whole range of issues, but when local government is involved, you know, we're prepared to accommodate. I'm wondering if the minister could make any comments about the extent of the problem, for starters, and secondly about the response of the Land Commission in terms of my concerns.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a quasi-legal question. The Agricultural Land Commission is aware of the issue and has consulted counsel.

Here are the answers I get back. The Agricultural Land Commission does not treat municipal governments any different than private business. Your analysis there is incorrect. They have as much power and will to control municipal use as private business use. However, in this case the opinion of the lawyer is that you're right. The water comes from the uplands, but the law says that if the water's on farmland, the flood. . . . The law says that dealing with water, drainage ditches on farmland is a compatible use in order to drain the farmland. Once the water comes down off the hill, it's a flood on the farmland, so the municipality's case is that it's a compatible use. The law doesn't make any special case for where in fact the water comes from and if it comes from development.

Now, on the question of whether or not I can intervene under the Right to Farm Act, that would appear to depend on whether or not the municipality has to use a bylaw to raise the funds to dig the drainage ditch. I can't intervene unless there is in fact a bylaw, which is appealed to the minister under the Right to Farm Act.

J. van Dongen: I don't know that I'm asking the minister to intervene, but I am concerned about it. And I am concerned about a law, if that's the case, that says that farmers are responsible or can in some way end up carrying either some or all of the cost, in whatever manner, of water that is basically rainwater which has come down on urban developments. You have situations where as you get more and more development, the water that does come down comes down faster. I think that's probably the biggest problem.

I would like to ask how common the situation is, where we have these types of utilities, generally, going across farmland. Do they involve an application to the Agricultural Land Commission in terms of the requirements to get approval to put them in?

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is that it's fairly frequent. Yes, utilities have to go to the Land Commission. If you want to build a road, a power line or a drainage ditch, you have to go to the Agricultural Land Commission. What are we doing about it? The Land Commission is working with the municipalities, trying to encourage the municipalities that the onus for the cost of runoff from urban development has to be borne by the urban community and not delivered to the farm community at the bottom of the hill. The reason why -- or at least this is my answer -- intervention in the specific case you raise might not be helpful to other farmers is that drainage ditches are an exempted use precisely for the benefit of agriculture. If we were to intervene somehow and make this particular case an unexempted use, then other farmers might have a harder time digging drainage ditches when they need to drain their land.

J. van Dongen: I guess, then, I want to ask: what are the powers of the Land Commission when they get these applications? I gather from what you've said that every one of these installations has to be approved by them. What are the powers of the Land Commission in those cases, and how are they used?

Hon. C. Evans: They have powers, and the power to say yes or no. They have said yes and they have said no in the past, and they learn by experience. What they try to do, of course, is get the utility to act in such a way that their activity is compatible with agriculture. When they think the utility is unwilling to do so, the tendency is to say no. If they think the utility is trying to accommodate agriculture use, then the tendency is to say yes. Over time they get better at deciding which is which, and hopefully the utility has become educated. And yes, they have the absolute right to say: "No, you can't put your power line here or your sewer there." As the hon. member knows, the Land Commission tries to work with the municipalities or regional governments or businesses through a sort of negotiating-to-yes objective rather than a straight yes or no.

[7:15]

[ Page 4012 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Yes in cases where the law says that the Land Commission has to rule, but no in the case of the drainage ditch which is an allowed use, so they don't have the right to rule on.

J. van Dongen: I just want to ask one more question on that before I wrap this up. Would all of the utilities be allowable uses -- whether they're power lines or pipelines? Or is it just the drainage ditch that's an allowable use, because it services farmland?

Hon. C. Evans: It would appear that the only excluded use is drainage ditches. Power lines and pipelines and the like all have to apply.

J. van Dongen: I just want to raise one more issue that's kind of land-related. This deals with land that's held by the Crown and administered by Crown Lands. First of all, on agricultural lands held by Crown Lands, I want to ask: what is the involvement by the ministry and/or Land Commission staff in terms of the administration of leases and the management of those lands?

Hon. C. Evans: With the exception of Roberts Bank, the Agricultural Land Commission has no say in who acquires Crown land. They have the same say as everyone else in what use the land is put to. So if a piece of Crown land is put up for sale and you bid and your neighbour bids, and you own a gas station and your neighbour is a farmer, the Land Commission has no say in who gets the bid. However, if you then wish to take that piece of land and put a gas station on it, the Land Commission will treat you the same as everybody else.

J. van Dongen: Where land is being leased out by Crown Lands, is there any involvement or discussion there in terms of the terms of the lease being appropriate to agriculture and that sort of thing? I know that historically there was, and I'm just wondering if it's like that today. When the Crown decides to lease out land for farm purposes, do they discuss the lease conditions with qualified ministry staff?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

J. van Dongen: Well, that's probably something I'd like to see reviewed. I think one of the real serious examples -- and one we're all aware of -- is the Delta farmland. I know that the minister is making that a priority, and we'll look forward to working with him on that. In addition to those lands, I think there are other situations where agricultural land being held by the Crown is leased out. I think we can improve the conditions under which those lands are leased out, and I just wonder if the minister has any closing comments on that issue -- whether he would see it the same way.

Hon. C. Evans: John, you don't want an answer, do you?

J. van Dongen: No.

J. Weisbeck: I had the opportunity this afternoon to speak to one of my constituents; he's an orchardist who has an orchard in Rutland. And, you know, there's the usual greeting, "How are you?" and he said: "I'm really depressed." So I asked him to tell me about it. He had attended a meeting last night, and the president of the Fruit Growers Association had said that the ministry was no longer in existence and that the minister was gone. This is one of those first-year college philosophy questions: do you really exist, and how long do you intend to be around?

Interjections.

J. Weisbeck: The question I'm asking is that he'd heard that the ministry was disbanding, and I'd like to know whether or not that's actually fact. Where did they get this information from?

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

Hon. C. Evans: The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is: I have no idea.

J. Weisbeck: He said that he was depressed on a couple of points, and the second point is that they've had a fairly disastrous year. I guess they're getting some of their returns now, and it looks like it's 11 cents a pound, which is only about 60 percent of their production costs. So the question always comes out: who picks up the shortfall? And where do they go from here? I mean, this particular individual asked me to ask this question: what about an independent review of the ALR? What's the future of their industry if they start getting this sort of return on their product?

Hon. C. Evans: Was the hon. member here when we were talking about replant before? This question relates to the whole discussion we had prior to dinner. It's not possible to farm without changing with the times, the market, the technology and the competition. Eleven cents a pound is almost for sure a Mac or a Golden Delicious price. The hon. member's constituent is probably growing apples which the society out there has decided are only worth 11 cents a pound, because consumers change.

That's not a new problem; that's a problem that governments and growers recognized quite a while ago. That's why the OVTFA was created; it's why the replant program was created. Our discussion prior to dinner was about whether or not it would work, what was the impact of government's clawback and whether the sense of energy and hope is still there.

All those questions and answers are in Hansard. I would encourage the hon. member to encourage his constituent to answer this question first for himself: "Why did I get 11 cents?" If the answer is that that's all there is to get, then I would suggest that there probably isn't a future for farming on that spot. If the answer is, "I got 11 cents because that's what I grow," then there are great opportunities for that individual. Perhaps that individual would want to research growing something else or growing the same thing at a different density in order to drive up either the price per pound or the pounds per acre.

R. Thorpe: My brief question pertains to the Agricultural Land Commission. My question is: what services does the commission offer to municipal or regional governments to help develop growth strategy plans for particular areas of the province?

Hon. C. Evans: Whenever there's a growth management strategy in place in a region, the Land Commission appoints a member of its staff to go and work with that region -- wherever it is -- to assist in the project and make sure that the concerns of agriculture and the commission are looked after.

[ Page 4013 ]

R. Thorpe: Could the minister, then, clarify for me: if there's not a plan being developed -- things are operating now -- and if there are special unique circumstances to a community or to an area, does the commission have staff that can come in and look at unique situations to advise regional governments on particular situations?

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is yes. It's a whole lot easier if there is a growth management strategy in place, because then we're all planning for the same direction. However, we will attempt to deal with anomalies where required. My advice is that by dealing with things by anomaly, we'll never get through the list. I far prefer that the regional government and the Land Commission create a strategy to make everybody happy.

J. Wilson: On the same issue here, regional governments tend to follow the same general guidelines that the Land Commission follows in regards to rezoning things like this or acceptable uses on land in the ALR. In the case of the Cariboo regional district, they will approve an application that comes in, and then it goes to the Land Commission. Less than 25 percent of the time the Land Commission will approve what the regional district has approved initially.

What I would like to know is: is there any way that you can speed up some liaison or cooperation between the Land Commission and the regional districts? This thing has been ongoing for years. It seems like the Land Commission is sitting there with its head in the sand. They don't know what's up there. They don't know anything about the area, yet they pass judgment on everything that the regional district has already approved.

Hon. C. Evans: I was a regional district director. Were you ever? It's like setting chokers before you learn to be a faller. You start out there before you come to work here.

My experience out there was that I had exactly the same feelings about agriculture that I have here, but I never stopped an application at the regional district level -- never once. Dozens of them. I said, "Sure, I'll help you," and sent it on. Why is that? Because they're your neighbours. Because you're dealing with people who are right there. Even if you think that it's an inappropriate use of the land, you can pass the buck on to the Land Commission. You'll do the same thing, if you ever try it. You come down here, and it's a different story. There's nobody to pass the buck to.

Twenty-five percent? I'm impressed that it's that high. I actually set chokers before I came to work here, and I would advise you to go talk to your regional district directors out there before you come and talk to me. Find out how many they actually object to.

The second thing is that you ignore the fact that you actually have people from the Cariboo on the board and always have. You ignore the fact that they hold meetings there. They've got block applications for exclusion up there coming right up. You ignore the fact that you've got regional districts involved in strategies with the Land Commission. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that there is no substance whatsoever to any of the comments in your question.

[7:30]

Now, I don't need to stand here and get a lecture from the minister on not having participated in a regional district form of government. So my statement is -- and I will say it again -- that there needs to be something put together that will allow these two bodies to work in more unison than what exists today.

Hon. C. Evans: You're absolutely right. People need to work better together all the time. I'm sure that there are regional district directors who came to you and said, "Raise a question," and you've got every right to raise it. It's your job to raise it; I was objecting to the way you raised it. I was thinking that maybe a little homework, a little understanding before you got here and stood up would be appropriate. But you're bang-on. My job is to make it work, and your job is to make it work, and I'm sure the regional district directors want to make it work.

I got a little grumpy because the implication there was that it wasn't intended to work or that people weren't working to make it work. I kind of thought -- incorrectly, of course -- that you might have asked him out there: "Well, how does it go before it gets to the Land Commission?" My experience is that except in the cases the hon. members over here were talking about, where there's a growth management strategy, the regional districts aren't preparing the way for the question before it gets to the Land Commission. There tends to be a bit of simply passing through.

But you're bang-on about what my job is. My job is to make it work, and I appreciate that you're trying to make it work. We'll try to do this in a more collegial fashion.

J. Wilson: I have just a point I would like to draw to the minister's attention, and this has nothing to do with the regional district or government. It was an individual who approached the regional district. He is being forced to go to a different area, a different land base, because he's running a scrap yard. It's becoming an unsightly mess. He approached the regional district. He had a property that he could use; it's agricultural land. Part of it is terrain that is not really suitable for anything. It had a big ravine in it, out of sight of everything. He wanted to buy this property so that he could move his business.

This employs two people plus himself. He takes in old equipment, cuts it up and ships it out -- cleans the country up, in other words. He phoned up the Land Commission to ask them how to approach or how to put in an application so that they could rezone part of this property for commercial or industrial use -- whatever it required -- so that he could carry on his business and not have to lay off his employees. He was told directly by the staff there: "Forget it; it won't happen. You're wasting your time if you even apply." So he never did apply; he just dropped that, and he brought it to my attention. A lot of it goes back to attitude on someone's part, and I don't know whose part it's on, but there is a problem.

Hon. C. Evans: Okay, for the record, the gentleman has the right to apply. Send him Hansard; tell him I said so. However, I also think the gentleman has the right to know the truth. If the gentleman said, "How do I do it, and what are my chances?" it seems to me that staff should be told to tell the truth over the phone. If she said: "Your chances aren't very good. We don't usually allow scrap yards on agricultural 

[ Page 4014 ]

land. . . ." I am not sure whether the hon. member would like me to tell staff, "Don't answer their questions about their chances," or if you would like me to have staff tell the truth so that they save the $100 for applying. It would seem really wrong. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Save the $700 in applying.

It would seem to me really wrong to not give people advice about the history of their chances, like with a lot of applications in the past. Anyway, here it is in Hansard. I'll say it again: the gentleman has the right to apply. There is, however, money at risk.

J. van Dongen: I just want to inform the minister that I think that concludes the questions about the agricultural land reserve. I just want to get into some discussion of right-to-farm issues. I'm going to ask the member for Delta North, who has one concern from his constituency, and then the member for Langley to introduce some of those issues.

R. Masi: As my colleague pointed out, I have a specific situation. It's probably under the Right to Farm Act or maybe under wildlife damage control, I'm not sure. I'm not an expert in this area, but I am conveying certain concerns from my constituents in Delta North, essentially around the area of Sunshine Hills. I happen to be a resident there, too, so I'm undergoing the same concerns.

We have a problem with cannon fire there. It's loud, it's repetitive, it's disturbing and it's relentless. It's like being in a besieged city, especially on the weekends when we're all home.

I think I'd like to point out that many people in this area have made a major investment in their homes. These are homes of a fair value. I think they do expect a reasonable lifestyle. I guess it's common knowledge that noise is stressful, it's unhealthy, and in some areas it is considered an environmental problem. Believe me, during the weekends during the spring and summer -- especially the weekends, because I assume we're all home on the weekends. . . . Through the week the birds go wherever they go. I understand the birds; I wouldn't give you the birds. But it is intolerable for a large component of the residents there.

I understand that farmers have to farm; I also understand that birds like to eat berries. We can't get away from those facts. I think there has to be a sort of coming-together here. We're talking about a dense residential area that overlooks fields of berries, and we have this problem. There is more and more concern about this all the time.

I know there are regulations about this. I was looking them up, and they're quite interesting. Under wildlife damage control, scare tactics and noisemakers are one of the common methods: propane-fired cannon or exploders; electronic warblers; bird distress call recordings; firearms with various shells; compressors and motorcycles. I hesitate to think what would happen if all this took place at one time. We think we had problems with Burns Bog.

I do understand that there are regulations. What I would like to ask the minister, in all seriousness now, is: is there any way that we can work out the regulations, or work out some of the advice to the farmers, that can alleviate or possibly mitigate the situation we're in?

Hon. C. Evans: There is a peer process in the berry industry, and the hon. member probably knows that. I would suggest step one would be if we could help the hon. member -- if he doesn't know that -- find out the names of the people in the industry that the residents could talk to and see if it could be worked out between citizens.

The next step is, if it can't be worked out between citizens, then it goes to the municipalities. There are not regulations, by the way. The list that you read out is. . . . I'm not sure where the list comes from, but municipalities can pass regulations for or against all of those things. We don't have regulations.

When the municipality passes a bylaw, it may actually come to me. If the farmers say the bylaw is oppressive, then it might come to me, the Right to Farm Act might kick in and we would actually have to review the thing. But it seems to me that your question was really sort of cooperative, like: "Is there a way we can work it out?" I would think there ought to be a way to work it out, especially in Delta, which has the best reputation in British Columbia for agriculture and residential development cooperating. I would think there would be a way to work it out.

I've got to tell you my own bias. To every single person who ever came to me when I was part of municipal government and every single person who has ever come to me since I got elected to the provincial government -- objecting to the running of chain saws, pig manure, the running of tractors, the sound of the sawmill, the sound of the tie mill, any kind of travelling equipment -- I have always said: "That's what we do to make a living, and if we can't do it out here where the living is here to be made, we'll all have to leave." So I'm right behind you in solving the problem properly, but I thought I'd be as honest as I could about my bias.

R. Masi: I was under the impression that the Right to Farm Act took precedence over any municipal act.

A Voice: But they've got to pass it first.

R. Masi: I understand now. They have to pass it first. I guess what I'm asking here, then, is if the first move should be made by the municipality.

[7:45]

I would like to suggest that you call the regional director in Abbotsford, Dave Sands, and tell him -- no, you probably won't have to tell him because somebody will probably have told him already -- that we've had this discussion and that I have said he will introduce you, or citizens that you represent, to a group of farmers to see if it could be worked out at that level, with him participating. If it can't, then the next step is actually for the municipality to use the heavy hand of legislation.

R. Masi: I would just like to comment on your bias. I have a particular point of view on this, too. Having lived both in the interior and on the coast, when you live in an area with. . . . You know, if you combine Surrey and North Delta, you're talking about 350,000 people. Also, you're running farms in Surrey and in Delta. I realize that evolution has taken place and that without farmers we don't eat, but without the people there, there's no market for the farmers, either. It's a two-way street. I think we have to look at working together to 

[ Page 4015 ]

solve these problems. I agree with you that there are certain smells and odours that take place in Surrey that you have to deal with and that developments take place -- but people have to live somewhere. I appreciate your advice, and I'll carry that out.

L. Stephens: I want to talk about a subject that I've spoken to the minister about before, and that's mushroom composting, specifically Money's Mushrooms in South Surrey. They are currently in court in Surrey with the GVRD action. I will have to assess how that turns out and what can possibly be done as a result of the decision of that particular action whenever it comes forward. This is an ongoing problem, as the minister knows. Summer after summer, year after year, it tends to get worse. There is more traffic; there are more people; there are more demonstrations. This particular summer looks like it's going to be a very long and very hot one.

The company has a couple of options available. In the last discussion I had with the company, they had decided to move rather than to subdivide or try to get rezoning. They were hopeful that the ministry would be able to assist them in some way. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee what has been transpiring and what stage negotiations are at at present.

Hon. C. Evans: We are working with Money's Mushrooms on an almost daily basis. In fact, I don't think there's any more famous word in my office than Money's in terms of the number of times it gets repeated.

F. Gingell: How about Roberts Bank?

Hon. C. Evans: No, Money's is way. . . . Unfortunately, I think people are actually more concerned with smell than they are with. . .

F. Gingell: Justice.

Hon. C. Evans:. . .justice. Yes, that's the word I was looking for. I had a hard time finding it. We don't often use it here.

The options for Money's Mushrooms include technological change -- in other words, don't make a smell anymore. They include moving -- in other words, go where the people aren't offended. They include some combination of the two -- move somewhere and then try to lessen the problem. The process, as it moves through my office, is -- or it was -- a two-parallel process. One was the quasi-legal process of people appealing that it was an incompatible use, and Money's was appealing that it was a compatible use. The citizens have apparently withdrawn their case -- that it was an unacceptable farm practice -- at the Farm Practices Board. Is that right?

However, the other line -- that of attempting to work with Money's to have them solve the problem -- carries on apace. I can't promise the hon. member how soon it will be solved, because we are only one-third of the solution -- one-third being the citizens, one-third being the company. "The citizens," of course, includes their municipalities, both the one that they live in and any that Money's might move to.

I just want to conclude by saying I am seized of the issue, and I understand that it is a problem. I understand that I am required to solve it, and I appreciate any help you can bring to solving the problem.

L. Stephens: Well, I was hoping the minister could help me solve the problem. This is a situation that everyone agrees is a serious problem, but there doesn't seem to be any movement anywhere to solve it.

This particular company has been at that location for 25 years. It seems to me that there are environmental concerns here, and I will be taking up those concerns with the Minister of Environment. With the kinds of farm practices that we talk about today, if you've ever been to the Money's Mushrooms composting facility, it is absolutely primitive. It would appear to me that a company that is carrying on a practice such as they are in a very rapidly growing part of a municipality where numbers of citizens, particularly those in the surrounding areas and those in the city of Langley, are severely affected by this. . . . It just appears that there should be something that someone can do.

Mr. Minister, with all due respect, the buck stops on your desk, and I would like some advice on how to move this forward. The company has made a statement that they are in the process of moving, and yet there's no concrete evidence of that happening. They have declined to appeal to the municipality for rezoning, and if we are going to resolve these kinds of farm practice and land use issues, there has to be a way to do that. And with the Right to Farm Act, it appeared that there were those mechanisms in place. Perhaps I'll ask you that question, as well.

There are parts of the Farm Practices Act that are not proclaimed; my understanding is that that is the case. What is it that we're not able to do? And why are we not able to affect some change there with Money's Mushrooms?

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: No, I don't think there are parts that aren't proclaimed. We haven't created regulations that say what processing is. Both Money's and the community have decided that they don't want to go to the Farm Practices Board and ask the question: "What is processing?" They don't want to know the answer, because both of them are afraid they would lose. That is a fair supposition on my part. That is what I imagine, based on the best advice I get.

No, I don't think there's part of the law that we're ducking. You're saying that the buck stops at me and asking what I can do to help you solve the problem. I can do a lot to help you solve the problem. I don't know if I can do any more than I am doing. With all due respect, some of the solutions we are working on might actually be hindered if I were to tell the world what they were before the. . . . Because, you know, some of these people have some pretty strong feelings about one another.

Without appearing to duck it, I'll say that I don't really want to discuss, for the record, all the possible solutions. But I'll tell you what. The hon. member can come to my office next week, we'll sit down and I'll tell you everything I know in the office. And you can suggest whether I'm doing the right thing or not. And then if you don't like the answer, go to question period, stand up and say: "Why the heck hasn't the minister solved the problem yet? There's this big problem in Surrey." And force me to do it in public. Those are two suggestions I could make -- the cooperative one and the less cooperative one.

L. Stephens: I will take the first option at this point. I thank you for the offer.

[ Page 4016 ]

I would like to ask a couple of questions, though, about the Farm Practices Board and the process there. If the citizens group appeared before the board with their position, could you explain to me what kind of force, in effect, a ruling of the Farm Practices Board would have?

Hon. C. Evans: That's a good question. I didn't know the answer. If the citizens group went to the Farm Practices Board and the Farm Practices Board ruled, that ruling would essentially have the force of law. If the Farm Practices Board said that mushroom growing in Surrey was compatible farm use, the only appeal would be to the Supreme Court -- and only on a point of law, whether or not they had followed due process and not whether or not they were correct.

L. Stephens: The other question I want to address is mushroom composting in Langley township and the moratorium that the municipality has imposed. Again, my understanding is that because of the Right to Farm Act, the municipalities need the explicit approval of the minister for any zoning bylaw affecting farming land use. Is this part of the act that has not been proclaimed or regulations written around it? Could the minister clarify that for me?

Hon. C. Evans: Firstly, we may not actually have to get to the place of intervention by my office because staff are working with Langley to see if we can't come up with something we can agree upon before it gets into contention -- in other words, to see if we can help Langley pass a bylaw which the Ministry of Agriculture feels properly describes agriculture. Secondly, I think that what the member is asking, about something that's unproclaimed is in an amendment presently going through the House, which would then allow us to apply the Right to Farm Act to a regional district or a section of a regional district rather than a universal act. That will be done when we get it through the Legislature.

[8:00]

Hon. C. Evans: The amendment allows me to intervene in bylaws that affect farming. Now, whether or not that's going to ameliorate to the positive, from the standpoint of the member, or to the negative, I personally don't know. I already explained my personal bias to the previous person.

L. Stephens: Well, time will tell, I guess, how it's negative or positive. From the perspective of Langley township, I think we'll be happy if we can have an understanding and an arrangement with the ministry before the bill is enacted.

So on that note, I would just ask if the minister is contemplating doing a provincial review of policy and technical options, in particular around mushroom composting? Because we're going to see more of these kinds of issues arise as we have urban and agricultural areas coming smack up against one another in urbanized districts such as mine, where we're struggling with these issues of agricultural use and residential use. I think the more we can work them through in a non-contentious way, the better it is for all of us. I wonder if the minister is trying to come up with some provincial policy or a way to facilitate and make that happen.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

L. Stephens: I appreciate the answers from the minister. I thank him, and I look forward to our discussions next week.

J. van Dongen: I just want to try and wrap up the discussion of this area. I know that I always find it quite confusing as to who does what with respect to these issues.

I want to start out by saying that certainly there seem to be a lot of agricultural applications in Abbotsford and in Langley for building permits of one kind or another that have been negatively affected by what's happened on the mushroom composting thing. It's my understanding that the ministry had made some policy decisions in terms of mushroom composting which, I assume, are now under review. I guess I understand from the minister, and I would like him to confirm, that the ministry is more or less relying on the consultative process, which is taking place with the city of Abbotsford right now and involving a number of stakeholders. Would it be correct to say that the ministry is looking to that group and to that process to establish some recommendations in terms of standards for mushroom composting and mushroom farming?

Hon. C. Evans: The process that we're going through with Langley is important, because if we can come up with a bylaw that Langley township and the ministry can agree upon, then everybody can use that as a model. The process that the hon. member is talking about is important, because if they can work out some answers there, as the hon. member says, that is an acceptable non-legal model. So no, the hon. member wouldn't be correct in guessing that the ministry was only dealing with this in one place. The Farm Practices Board are also gearing up to understand the thing and are preparing themselves for mediation, assuming that they are going to be hearing it. It's an issue we're engaged with in several areas at once.

I would encourage all those people out there in the Fraser Valley to figure out a way to make it work, because personally -- I'll say it again -- I think it's okay to do whatever you have to do to make a living. As long as it doesn't hurt people, it's okay. I don't really think that style should be added after life in order to make a noun. I don't think there's such a thing as a lifestyle. You have a life and then if you choose to have a style, that's something you go and buy, like a shirt. So I think the people better figure out a way to make it work, so it doesn't come to my office.

J. van Dongen: So if I'm understanding the minister, for an appropriate approach in terms of setbacks, technology and process for composting, the staff of the ministry is in discussions with Langley. They're obviously also involved in Abbotsford, and they may be involved in other places. But out of all of those processes, the ministry will arrive, hopefully, at a new position in terms of how we handle composting. I know that there are some real complications to this issue. I guess I'm wanting to find out: is it the intent of the ministry to arrive at a standardized approach in terms of bylaws and everything else with respect to mushroom composting for, say, the Fraser Valley or for all of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes.

[ Page 4017 ]

J. van Dongen: In terms of the role of the Farm Practices Board, my understanding would be that simply hearing appeals from individuals, say, people living in the areas around a couple of the new installations, the two mushroom-composting operations that have gone in. . . . The Farm Practices Board's role would be to hear those complaints as nuisance complaints.

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct.

J. van Dongen: To follow up on an earlier comment the minister made. If we use these mushroom-composting appeals as an example, would the decisions of the Farm Practices Board -- I know the minister said that they have the impact of law -- over time influence what is considered to be normal farm practice? I understand that the ministry is involved in defining normal farm practice, and I want the minister to confirm that, first of all. And then would rulings by the Farm Practices Board influence the definition of normal farm practice?

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct. We are engaged not so much in defining as in assisting people to work out what normal farm practice is. If you actually take an appeal to the board, they will state what farm practice is, and then it's not an evolving answer, it's a stated fact: this is a farm practice or it isn't. I see some confusion on the member's face. I hope it's not all that confusing. I said to the gentleman who asked the question before that the first step is to take it to the peer review. Well, a group of farmers are going to say, "This is what we think is reasonable," and that's the best way to go, because you're actually talking to farmers.

The second thing is the ministry. We try to figure out in the discussions with Langley township what is reasonable. But if somebody wishes to appeal and get an actual decision on what farming is and what an acceptable practice is, that's the function of the board. Its decision is not appealable or discussable -- it stops there.

J. van Dongen: I think I've started to catch on a bit to the distinction and to why I was confused. I think there's a separation between all of the bylaw issues and the building permit issues -- when a farm building or a composting operation goes in, if we use that example -- and the whole issue of nuisance, which is what the appeal board is hearing. Would I be correct in assuming that there is a separation? To clarify that, would the appeal board be hearing complaints on issues involving bylaw issues, as opposed to farming practice issues? I think that's the distinction.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm going to say this, and then as I sometimes do, I'm going to ask these folks to nod their heads and say if I got it right. If there is a bylaw issue, and Langley township or Abbotsford decides to write a bylaw saying something is or isn't acceptable use, and if the farmers object to the bylaw because it infringes on their ability to farm, that kind of issue goes first to the ministry to try to work it out and then to the minister, who the Right to Farm Act says has the power to strike down the bylaw if it infringes on the legitimate right to farm.

If citizens think that a farmer with a noise cannon or a farmer with a smelly processing facility is not behaving in a way legitimate for farming, they can complain first to staff -- and there have been 340 such complaints in the last year. If they don't work it out at the staff level, it goes to the Farm Practices Board. But the staff are so good at working it out -- calming the people down, gentling everything through and coming up with a solution -- that there have only been eight appeals. And the people are so afraid of hearing what the minister has to say about what is legitimate farming that there has never been an appeal to me about whether or not a bylaw is legit -- because the municipalities all know what I'd say if they tried.

J. van Dongen: It seems to me that the original intent when the right-to-farm legislation was tabled was for the ministry to establish a set of guidelines, rules, policies -- whatever -- for all of the issues involved in siting and establishing farm operations on farmland. Now, is it the intent of the minister to continue to approach this issue in that manner when this new piece of legislation is passed?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure I heard the specifics of your question because of the conversation. Would I be right in saying that you want to know whether or not your understanding that the ministry was going to describe what is acceptable farm use and siting and all like that. . . ? You're asking me: "Is it?"

J. van Dongen: Yes.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, and it's pretty much done. We've been reviewing the bylaws that affect farming all over the province prior to kicking in this next step, which is us actually saying what a reasonable bylaw is in terms of agriculture.

The one area in which our review of what is acceptable is not yet finished is the composting question, because it is the most contentious and involves the most complicated issues.

[8:15]

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, the gist of what the member understands is in fact the gist of what is happening. There is a review going on, to use the member's example, of all the setback guidelines of all the municipalities in B.C. that relate to greenhouses. And no, we are not going to attempt to define which one rule fits all -- sort of: what is a bylaw? What should a bylaw be? But we are trying to figure out what a reasonable range of rules is so that someone attempting to adjudicate an issue in Delta would look at the range and then look at Delta and ask: "Where should Delta fit in this range?" Of course, if it were me looking at it, I would look at the range and say: "Delta should let greenhouses sprout like a thousand dandelions in the spring."

J. van Dongen: I'm sure the wildlife people in Delta would be very pleased to hear that.

Interjection.

[ Page 4018 ]

J. van Dongen: So the minister is saying that depending on the commodity, depending on the issue, there would be somewhat of a range in the setbacks and other guidelines, and then it would be ministry staff that would be involved in negotiating those issues with individual municipalities on a one-time basis. Would it be fair to say that once that range is established on greenhouses, one of your staff would sit down with the staff of the corporation of Delta and establish on a one-time basis the setback rules, for example, in Delta from there on in? Is that how it would work?

Hon. C. Evans: It has never been our intention, and certainly not our hope -- and we couldn't afford it -- that every time anybody built a greenhouse we were actually on the referral. We don't want any part of it. We don't even really want every municipality to take every bylaw and bring it to our staff and say: "What do you think about greenhouses? What do you think about barns? What do you think about road access?" Although that will be way more possible when we finish this process, because we'll be able to say: "All right. You want to talk about greenhouses. Here's our range of what we think is reasonable."

But what we really want is more like what we discussed with the agricultural land reserve, too. We want to sit down with municipalities and go through a kind of growth and bylaw strategy for what they want and what agriculture wants, and go through all their bylaws and say: "How do you want to design this region so that it's compatible for agriculture?" That would be the perfect world, and not one that I imagine we'll get to for a while. But we want to create a situation where we don't have to deal with every individual applicant who wants to build a greenhouse in Delta, which is sort of where I'm at right now. I mean, I get letters from individuals, and then I have to say: "Well, there are all these processes. We've got to clean up these processes so you can build your individual. . . ." That's a lot of letters. So we want the municipality to get. . . . But I'd way rather work with Delta to cover the whole issue of land use for agriculture.

J. van Dongen: I probably get a lot of the same letters and phone calls that the minister does. I'm curious: is it just in Langley and Abbotsford and Delta where the problems are? Or are those just the ones that I hear about? Are those the. . . ?

Hon. C. Evans: That's it.

J. van Dongen: I understand the minister to say that probably what will happen, then, is that a staff member will sit down with the corporation of Delta and review all of the stuff in Delta, and Delta's unique situation, and then move on to another section of the Fraser Valley and look at that, in terms of all of the range of agricultural uses and applications. That would probably be the most logical way to do it.

I just wanted to ask how many staff within the ministry are involved in carrying out this process.

Hon. C. Evans: While they're counting, just let me say that I didn't mean to be facetious about your earlier question. Of course there are land use issues in every region of British Columbia. But as we both know, the municipalities that you named are those where the interface between the heaviest population and the largest agricultural investment create the most serious number of issues.

About ten or 11 people are assigned to do this kind of work.

J. van Dongen: Has that pretty much stayed the same? I know that one of the strategic priorities was resource management, etc. So is that number that have been involved in this similar to what we have had in the last couple of years?

Hon. C. Evans: The answer is mostly yes. We didn't lay off any people who were assigned to work in this area of land use, but there's a larger answer as well. The time spent by full-time-equivalent workers in the regions -- that used to be maybe largely extension, or something; working with some particular commodity -- has been shifting more and more to training and upgrading themselves to deal with land use questions. In every region of the province, people representing our ministry have to be able to work with municipalities, regional districts or regions to answer these kinds of questions, basically in order to allow agriculture to function.

J. van Dongen: I think that the staffing is an issue. I ask the question because I'm concerned that we've lost a lot of ground just because of the various events that have happened in the past year, particularly those precipitated by the mushroom situation. We've got applications for enterprises that are anxious to get going. If we hadn't had the composting thing, they would have been going now, and there are some really good enterprises looking to get going. Some of them, especially mushrooms. . . . One farmer wants to put in his own on-farm feed mill -- this sort of thing -- so I'm hoping that we can get on top of this thing. To me, that's pretty critical.

I want to ask the minister a couple of questions on the whole area of manure management. I know that the minister met with the Minister of Environment and some producers not too long ago, and I think that in the meeting the agreement was to come up with some kind of memorandum of understanding involving the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment and producers. Is that the correct understanding?

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct. That wasn't the purpose of the meeting; that's what we wound up agreeing to at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was the farmers -- in fact, the members of the peer review committee and people who had created the peer review situation -- wanting to say to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment: "Hey, the thing is broken. Your governments aren't living up to your part of the deal, which is to refer stuff to us." As it turned out, I think they had a really good argument -- we weren't. There was a bit of a problem in getting it back on track. We created this MOU situation.

J. van Dongen: Is that MOU intended to serve as a guide? Will it be a meaningful, useful guide, particularly for Ministry of Environment staff? I think part of the problem has been -- and I think we discussed this a little bit in estimates last year -- the genuine lack of understanding of agriculture by Ministry of Environment staff.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I think it is going to work, and I think the Ministry of Environment staff are going to take it seriously. I'm advised that upper-level officials in the Ministry of Environment have been engaged in trying to make this thing work and will instruct their staff to work within the context of it.

Do you have a copy, or do you want to share mine?

[ Page 4019 ]

J. van Dongen: I think in that whole area. . . . And having hauled a lot of loads of manure myself, I can tell you that it's very difficult to get into a completely prescriptive approach to manure management, because so much of it depends on the weather, and there are considerations all over the place in terms of smell and a lot of things. So we have to try and find a way to do it that is not fully prescriptive, because otherwise, I just don't think it's going to work.

Along those lines, I just want to. . . . I notice, in the communications plan, a brochure on living in the country. I guess this has been developed by the ministry to provide to the real estate industry, etc. I'm wondering if there has ever been some attempt to. . . . I guess this is an approach at educating the real estate industry, but I'm wondering if any thought has been given to trying to do something a bit more definitive in terms of where you have residential properties bordering agricultural land.

[8:30]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. C. Evans: Two springs ago, when the high water came and everybody started whining that their driveways were washing away and everything -- because they had just moved there -- I actually wrote a letter that was just like what the hon. member said, basically telling everybody that it's very lovely in the summertime when you come from Toronto or someplace to look at your property, but you should know that: (1) we log the view; (2) when springtime comes, the snow melts and everything is wet; (3) we'll shoot your dog if it runs deer; and by the way, when it snows, we don't necessarily run the school bus -- and all those kinds of things. I'll bring the letter and share it with you, and maybe you'd want to send it out to your constituents. I have to admit, however, I never quite had the guts to send it to mine.

The deputy tells me that the ALR wrote such a brochure, but we don't know if they actually ever put it out. So I think you've put your finger on a really dynamite project for this year, to see if we could. . . . But maybe it's futile. There's an assumption in what you say, which is that people in condos are actually educable. I'm not sure -- maybe you'd want to work that one out before we spend any money on this.

J. van Dongen: I think there's some truth in what the minister says, in that sometimes you can't fix every problem, no matter what you do. But in terms of the kind of letter that he talked about, I think he'd have some difficulty selling that to the council in the city of Abbotsford, because they still like to build houses.

On a slightly related note, the sustainable farming groups, particularly the poultry and dairy groups. . . . I think one in the hog industry has historically done a lot of good work with very low budgets to try and find solutions, and they have found some practical solutions in terms of manure management. They have been in a perpetual funding crisis. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what the status of their funding is, first of all, because I honestly don't know, but I wanted to raise the issue.

Hon. C. Evans: Traditionally, the funding was coming for those groups from the federal Green Plan, and it has wrapped up -- ended with the federal cuts. However, it's our expectation that those groups will apply to continue their research by asking for funding through Investment Agriculture. Inasmuch as it's a serious provincial issue, I at least would support such an application.

J. van Dongen: I gather you have some influence in that process, because your deputy minister sits on Investment Agriculture.

If we talk about cost-effective solutions, sustainable farm groups have been very cost-effective. I was looking for a note, here, with respect to some studies that have been done by the Ministry of Environment. Again, I ask the minister to confirm whether or not he or his staff. . . . There were some studies done at significant cost. Are those studies complete, and are they being used? I haven't seen or heard of them.

Hon. C. Evans: We're going to see if we can figure out what it is you're referring to, find it and send it to you.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that, because the ministry will probably find those studies useful also. I know the study was done in two phases. It involved Gary Runka and Pat Brisbin as consultants, and in total there was an expenditure of approximately $100,000 on studies. The reason I remember that is because I thought it was a significant sum of money just for studies, but it may be useful stuff, so we should try to find it.

While we're on environmental issues, I want to mention my favourite problem, if you can put it that way, and that is on-site sewage. I feel that's probably why I have so many phone calls from farmers and people from rural areas in Langley and Abbotsford: a lot of those calls involve on-site sewage applications. For a while it appeared they had slowed down, but they haven't slowed down, and the management of that regulatory agency still leaves a lot to be desired. There are a couple of things happening, and I just want to put them on the record and mention them to the minister.

When the recent bill was tabled by the Minister of Environment -- I think it was Bill 14, various amendments to a whole lot of appeal processes in legislation under the Ministry of Environment -- there was one amendment that was notably absent. That was an amendment to the Health Act that would broaden the scope of decisions by environmental health officers that were appealable.

I've approached the Minister of Health, and I'm working with her staff to try to get that amendment. I'm hoping that we can get that amendment tabled at some point during this sitting of the House, because there are situations -- a relatively small number, but ones which have very serious implications for people -- that are not currently appealable. Quite frankly, some of the decisions are so insane that I have no doubt they will be overturned on appeal.

Now, when the appeal mechanism was put in place a couple of years ago for active applications to put in on-site sewage systems, there were a whole lot of decisions overturned. 

[ Page 4020 ]

I have no doubt that this expanded appeal process would result in some of these really dumb decisions being overturned. I just mention that. I think I copied the letter to the minister, and I would hope for his support on that.

Secondly, there was a fair bit of work done within the ministry on expanding the scope of situations where the code of practice option could be used by farmers. Originally, when the code of practice amendment was made by the minister's predecessor and the then Minister of Health, as I recall, with the way it was worded, it applied only to second residences. That caused some difficulty and again removed an option for, say, people with a greenhouse who needed to provide facilities for employees in the greenhouse. I know that the minister's staff worked on that. I'm just not aware, at this point, what the status is of the amendment that's being made with respect to the code of practice. I think it's going to cabinet, but I wonder if the minister could clarify that.

Hon. C. Evans: I knew that this member would work overtime to embarrass me and ruin my life if I hadn't got it done by the time estimates came, so last week we passed the amendment, and I'll pass it to the member. For the interest of his constituents, it's only because I knew that I couldn't possibly face him here that I managed to get it done before today.

J. van Dongen: Just so I'm clear, hon. Chair -- I didn't hear the full answer because I was distracted here -- could the minister confirm: is this going to cabinet, or has it gone to cabinet? It's been passed. Thank you very much. I'm sure that the people involved will be pleased.

Having said all of that, on this other process, having reviewed far too many cases and getting probably three calls a week, I've written a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- with copies to the minister and copies to two or three other ministers that are involved -- recommending a complete overhaul of this whole regulatory area. I make that recommendation. I went through a lot of the problems that I see in the way that whole area of the law is administered. Again, I seek the minister's support on that.

That's a little bit of a longer term project but a very, very necessary one. It is one that has great paybacks, probably on three fronts: paybacks in terms of service to clients, to applicants; paybacks in terms of some potentially very good savings in terms of staffing, mainly within the provincial government; and some very significant paybacks in terms of better environmental results. It's incredible to me that this bureaucracy is so entrenched, absolutely resisting change, resisting the adoption of new technology, etc. So I ask for the minister's support in that area.

I should mention that there are some very initial steps in starting that process involving the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health. I don't think it was moved along very far. I'd like to get the minister's commitment that we put our heads together and suggest some outside agency that's fresh, or some outside process comes in. I was looking at Partners in Progress or something. I thought that maybe we could form a partnership and get a grant from your ministry to hire somebody to review this whole regulatory system. So I ask the minister if he would be amenable to looking at something like that.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm just trying to imagine: one morning I get the money and I come to work, and right in front of all your colleagues and everything, I walk across the floor and hand you a cheque. Is that what you had in mind? Would that be really good for your career? Sure.

The hon. member is suggesting that we work together to get the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment to work in a way to create a more useful regulatory regime so people can be allowed to do the things that they want to do, with common sense. I think that's a good idea.

I fight with them all the time, but I don't want to just leave the impression that they're a bunch of dunderheads and that they are in the way because they think it's fun to be in the way. My understanding about Health is that all the money we spend on cowboy medicine -- you know, trying to fix you after you're broken -- pales. . . . The most effective investment people have ever made in human health was stopping us from having wastewater in our drinking water and stopping us from letting our own waste run through our communities.

We've created a ministry that takes its job very seriously in order to keep us well. You and I and a whole lot of other people have to work really hard to allow them to do their job really well, but in a more sensible environment. We shouldn't start by saying that they're a bunch of entrenched bureaucrats and that they make people's lives miserable on purpose, because I'm pretty sure that then they won't work with us very well. And it might also. . . . Well, never mind.

[8:45]

I think we're actually working relatively quickly on all four fronts. I think you can see that, and I actually think some of the greenhouse industry can see that. So try to be cheerful about our ability to change a regulatory regime when we work at it -- with good cheer.

J. van Dongen: While I want to assure the minister that I do try to be of good cheer, I also don't buy into the stereotype that all bureaucrats are bums.

I wanted to say earlier -- I forgot to mention it -- that I was pleased to see the appointment of Dave Sands. At least, I heard Dave Sands had been appointed as regional director, if that's the name of the position. I think Dave has a credibly good record as an agrologist, as a people person and as one that can deal with farm conflicts and local governments and everything else. So I think that's a good appointment.

I suggest to the minister, with all due respect, that those sorts of people issues are a part of the problem, and probably the biggest part of the problem, in the Ministry of Health. I say that very, very seriously. I could name three names, but I won't.

[ Page 4021 ]

I can assure the minister that I've spent two and a half years intensively studying this whole operation, working in detail on countless cases. We were one of the first to appeal. I was involved in the stuff even prior to being elected. I know these people. I know their history. They will never be part of the solution. I say that with the greatest of respect. So that's partly where I'm coming from.

Many other people, like Dave Sands or Earl Jenson or a lot of people who work for the Ministry of Agriculture, wouldn't get themselves and other people into the kind of problems that these people do -- on a regular, ongoing basis. I just wanted to say that in response, so that it wasn't. . . . That's part of the problem. It's a very real part of it.

I want to just talk for a few minutes about the food-processing sector. The minister knows I've been very concerned about it in terms of the significant losses of jobs and economic activity that we've seen in that sector. The minister -- for my benefit, I suspect -- made some comments about that. He said in his opening remarks: "The food-processing industry. . .has lost 1,200 traditional jobs in the last four years. . . ." I'm just wondering if the minister could tell us what the source of those statistics are.

Hon. C. Evans: Statistics Canada.

J. van Dongen: I'll be interested in those figures, if we can get them.

I think that, later on, the minister said: ". . .over the same four years we lost those 1,200 jobs, B.C.'s primary and food-processing industries actually had a net increase of 3,600 jobs. . . ." I just want to be clear: when it says primary and food-processing industries, are we talking primary agriculture and agrifood processing? Are they both included in that statistic?

Hon. C. Evans: That was my assumption. The staff person who supplied that particular number isn't here, so I can't say. But that's what I took the words to mean.

J. van Dongen: The minister made some comments about numbers of farms. I think I saw it in the annual report, too. There were comments about the number of farms -- something like 20,000 -- in British Columbia. I'm wondering if the minister has any information in terms of the kind of split that I talked about earlier when I talked about the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, where you separate, say, commercial enterprises from hobby farms, part-time small farms. Would the minister have it handy? If he doesn't, fine. But I'm curious as to how many of those farms have sales over $100,000 a year.

Hon. C. Evans: About 3,000 operations sell more than $100,000 a year.

J. van Dongen: Does the minister have any indication of trends from 1991 on, on commercial enterprises, or, say, those over $100,000 a year?

Hon. C. Evans: Actually, that's an easier question. I was 500 off. It's 3,500. In terms of trends, the farms with sales of more than $100,000 have increased by 13.3 percent in the last five years. Farms with annual sales of less than $10,000 increased by 15 percent. So the very small or hobby farm appears to be growing 1.7 percent faster than the very large or business farm.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that information. I can probably take a look at the statistics myself, in more detail.

I want to just follow up on the food-processing issue. I guess I'm wondering if, in the past two years -- and I have a long list of processing plants that have shut down -- we've seen the extent of it for a while. I remain concerned about it. We still have vegetable- and fruit-processing plants that I think are at considerable risk. We had another milk plant that was nearly shut down recently, but it's still operating. I'm wondering if the minister has at any point considered possibly having the job protection commissioner review all these job losses from the perspective of British Columbia's interest, as we've done, say, in the fishing sector. I'm wondering if the minister would consider something like that.

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I have considered it. In fact, we considered legislative change at one time, just as a discussion in our office, to accommodate such a process.

I'm going to ask the next question so you don't have to stand up and go through it: "Why didn't you?" Well, I'm not sure it's in order, and I'm not sure it's useful. The job protection commissioner came into being following a period of incredible tech change in the forest industry, and 20,000 people went home, essentially, because of the invention of the computer. In the food industry, the hon. member and I -- and the citizens out there -- discuss all the time the closing of a plant or the moving of an entire commodity out of British Columbia. In fact, the numbers suggest that what we're looking at is change -- and painful change -- but we are not looking at a trend. Those jobs are replaced by other jobs, not in the same commodity but in the same sector.

The figures that staff have here on employment in the food- and beverage-processing industries per thousand people are: 19,600 jobs in 1992, 19,600 in 1993, 21,000 in '94, 21,600 in '95 and 21,100 in '96. So it would be hard for me to say that we are in fact in crisis mode. I don't wish to deny the fact that some industries are, but to say that the job protection commissioner should take on agriculture when the number of family farms and total employment continues to grow. . . . Anyway, it's an open-ended question, and one that I didn't answer.

I just want to say one other thing. The same figures show that we have one of the lowest -- if not the lowest -- after-cost profit margins in Canada, so I don't want to suggest that just because the number of family farms continues to grow, they're all making buckets of money.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the latest comment by the minister, because I think that's probably true both at the farm level and at the processing level. Our operators are probably more competitive than anywhere else in Canada, and despite having higher costs, they operate successfully with smaller margins. I think that's a fairly common occurrence across a lot of commodities. I'm not going to argue about numbers or what the numbers show. The numbers may well be correct.

I guess I view it as. . . . If it isn't a crisis -- and certainly, in some commodities there has been very rapid change -- it's certainly a lost opportunity. I think it's fair to say that it's a significant lost opportunity that applies not only in the agricultural side of the food-processing sector, but also, as I understand it, on the fish-processing side. There are situations where fish are being processed in the United States rather than in Canada. As the minister said earlier, we're subject to all the trade negotiations and trade rules, etc., that force us to be competitive. So I would ask that the minister, if he's not prepared to look at it as a crisis -- and that may be appropriate -- consider looking at it as lost opportunities. I think there's still merit in us reviewing the issue from that perspective, asking why we are losing so many of these jobs.

[ Page 4022 ]

You know, one of the comments that was made recently by the CEO of one of these companies was that in B.C., Workers Compensation Board rates are three times as high -- and they're going up -- as in Alberta, where they're going down. I just raise that as an example of the kinds of things that I've been told are triggering these decisions.

[9:00]

I'll also mention that the chamber of commerce in my area -- and it's a very active chamber generally; it also has probably one of the most active agricultural committees -- is very concerned about it. They're going to be making an effort to try and get a meeting with David Brown, this business liaison officer that the Premier has appointed, to try and generate some interest into reviewing this problem. So I'm just passing that on for your information.

I think I'm now going to ask the member for Cariboo North if he has some questions for the minister.

J. Wilson: I believe that in January a group was set up to make some recommendations on ways of stabilizing funding for range development. I ask the minister if he would be willing to give me a rundown on what has happened or on any of the issues that have been identified there and worked on.

Hon. C. Evans: The issues raised by the cattlemen involved three ministries: Environment; Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and Forests. The way we decided to address it was to create a committee, a working group with a representative of each ministry on it representing the ministers, and discuss the following issues: implementation of the Forest Practices Code and whether or not it's fair or could be operated better, range improvement funds, grazing fees and grazing tenures, the grazing enhancement fund, and fencing and the maintenance of range improvements. I think the first meeting of this committee is scheduled for June 18.

J. Wilson: According to my notes, it says that some results should be available by the end of March. I assume that has not happened, so it will be June before we can expect any results.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure what the origin of the hon. member's notes is, but I have a suspicion. I think I have a letter here from Sam Martin that might address the member's concerns, so I would like to share it with him instead of reading it into the record.

J. Wilson: Actually, these are priority issues for the Minister of Forests in the upcoming year, and it identified the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as being part of this project. This is why I'm pursuing this line of questioning, because I assume you had some input here and may have some answers. It says: "In the process, it expected to identify other livestock industry stability issues. . . ." Could you elaborate on that for me?

Hon. C. Evans: Some of the subjects that we considered to be involved were range planning and grazing tenures. People raised with us the fact that the code and its requirement for planning got in the way of common sense, because they were given target dates for times that they could turn out on grass. If it was an early spring, they still had to meet the target date, because they had a quasicontractual arrangement rather than a commonsense one.

Grazing tenures. It's actually possible that we have people operating on leased land which might be available to sell, allowing them more permanent tenure on the land. The issue of overwintering on the land and the issue of the length of tenure -- are people able to have enough assurance -- and fees. . . . Where does the money go? We had some discussions with the cattlemen that the question of range maintenance, especially fence maintenance, needed a fund. Government didn't have money for the fund, but there's pressure within government to raise grazing leases. So at one point there were discussions about the next time the market came back, capturing a higher fee and then taking that portion and assigning it to range enhancement or fencing funds.

Then the cattlemen were saying that there are lots of non-money ways that we could increase their profitability. For example, we could find ways to regulate people's use of off-road vehicles -- people who cut their fences, people who spread weed seeds on their range. They would like us to find ways to make the Forest Practices Code more opportunity-based and less regulatory-based. They would like us to find ways to make the riparian zone legislation and the Fish Protection Act and the existing environmental regulations less onerous, because, of course, if we say literally that you can't use riparian zones for grazing, then we will have to increase by a great deal the amount of fencing required. So that's a long answer, but those are things that people have said either to me or to other ministers, or that were carried in the correspondence that we hope this group will address.

J. Wilson: Are these being considered? Are you working on something to address these or change them? Or are you simply looking at them?

There's been a bit of interest in people being able to purchase some grazing leases, especially the long-term grazing leases such as 21-year leases that now exist, but nothing has happened that they know of. I have been asked this question several times: is anything in progress to allow this land to be purchased?

Hon. C. Evans: I have nothing to offer the member as a positive development. I don't want to say, "Trust me," because that would be silly. But I would like to say that discussions have been ongoing between my ministry and the Ministry of Environment, which manages leasing and sale of Crown land. It's my hope that when we meet with the cattlemen those discussions will be focused on exactly what it is that people would like to have happen and exactly what it is that the Ministry of Environment's lands branch is willing to entertain, either in terms of changes in timing of tenure or sale of tenure, and what would be most useful to the cattlemen.

So the bad news is that no, you can't tell your constituents that the fix is in. But yes, you should tell them that the 

[ Page 4023 ]

discussions are at least serious enough that they will be straight with the cattlemen rather than internal to government.

J. Wilson: The minister said they are looking at changes to overwintering. I'm not familiar with what he means by overwintering. Is that overwintering livestock on Crown land, or what exactly does it entail?

Hon. C. Evans: Overwintering is the requirement put in place by the Ministry of Forests to say that if you want to get a grazing lease from Forests, you have to be able to overwinter on your own land. And you cannot apply to use their land for overwintering purposes.

[9:15]

The minister has mentioned a possible change to the range fee formula. Could he elaborate on the changes that are being contemplated here?

Hon. C. Evans: Not very much. Just that when the cattlemen met with me and with the Minister of Forests, and we talked about where we would go to begin to assemble a fund -- say for the maintenance of fences -- one of the suggestions put forward was that when there was a better market, cattlemen might be willing to pay a greater range fee if they had some assurance that that money went back to the range rather than being captured by general revenue. That's as far as the discussion went -- you know, how people feel about it.

J. Wilson: That pretty well covers any questions I had there. There's no doubt the formula that is in place now works; however, it seems it's usually two years behind. When the market goes down, the producer ends up paying more, and when the market goes up, he is usually coming out of a cycle, so he ends up paying less. But once in a while, it's nice to have a dollar in your pocket.

I'd like to bounce around a little here and kind of keep your staff awake, if that's okay. I've got several issues I want to address, but there's nothing specific. Earlier today you referred to strategic planning for various commodity groups within the agriculture sector. Would the minister be able to outline what strategic planning is developing for the beef industry?

Hon. C. Evans: It actually does keep everybody awake.

At the present time, there is not a strategic plan for the beef industry. It is our objective for this year. And we will share it with the member when there is one, or will advise him who is expected to create one, if he wishes.

J. Wilson: Yes. I would appreciate any information that the minister is willing to share with me.

Something was mentioned today that indirectly has to do with the reduction in field staff, I guess. It's my understanding that the minister has made the comment that it's probably cheaper to access whatever information you need from sources out there than to provide it through an office with staff. I get this question all the time: where do we go for advice? Where do we go for information that we need in relation to whatever aspect of the industry we're dealing with? Would the minister be willing to detail what outlets there are and how we make contact with them?

Hon. C. Evans: Sure. If the hon. member will give us a list of the commodity groups that his constituents have asked him about, I'll get staff to give the member back a list of sources that are appropriate to those commodities. I can't do it right now. But if you give me the list, I'll give you back the sources.

J. Wilson: The minister may have a bit of a list. I don't have a list, but I do know that there was a considerable pile of paper sent to his office upon the closure of the agricultural office in Quesnel. It was quite a volume, actually. And in that were letters from all the commodity groups that use that office, including the schools, who got a lot of their information to teach some of their students various aspects of the agriculture industry. They relied quite heavily upon the services there. That's an example. I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but there are probably 15 or 20 groups within that pile of paper that have an interest. Where they run into a problem is how they access the necessary information. If we have a list as to where we can access it, we'll be able to do that. There are other people that I don't think will have the ability to access a lot of this stuff because of the geographic location they're in, their access to faxes or phones, or whatever. It is a fairly major concern that they have.

At the time of the closure, when these offices were shut down, we had one of the minister's staff come up to try and smooth things over a bit and settle the local people down a little. Whether it was worth the effort or not, I wouldn't really want to comment. It didn't seem to have a great deal of soothing effect. One of the indications that we were given was: "Yes, this office is closed. Yes, the one in Vanderhoof is closed. But we have an office in Prince George, and should you require anything, we will provide the service from there." Now, is this the case? Could the minister maybe elaborate on this so that I would know what kind of service they can now expect in relation to what they had previously?

Hon. C. Evans: The service everywhere in the province is approximately 20 percent less. Or if the service is 100 percent available, it's approximately 20 percent less accessible. That's because we laid off about 90 people. Recognizing that in some communities the 20 percent less accessible would be startling on account of the fact that they were used to direct, personal access, we attempted to make contact with the staff free, at least, by installing 1-800 numbers -- which we had not had before -- in the communities to both the north and the south of yours. Since the majority of the clients of the offices that we closed lived some distance away from the offices anyway, it's my assumption that the initial contact tended to be by phone. So the accessibility was actually increased, if you assume that the phone call, the initial contact, is now free.

If you make that phone call and say, "I would like your staff to visit me on my farm," access will be less, because you are more distant, and I only have four-fifths as many employees. But if you say, "I would like you to mail me information on X," I expect the service today to be 100 percent of what it was one year ago -- in fact, to be cheaper, because your phone call is free. There may be cases where -- a member raised a horticulture question earlier and a milk specialist on Vancouver island earlier than that -- a segment of knowledge useful to your community is not there, because the worker that used to fill that gap isn't there anymore. In those cases, 

[ Page 4024 ]

your access will be less. However, we are attempting, as you've been hearing for a day and a half now, to organize the ministry in such a way that we can deliver that service from wherever it's available in the province in the most efficient way possible.

J. Wilson: The 20 percent less is provincewide -- am I correct?

In the three areas in the northern interior that are affected, which are Quesnel, Vanderhoof and Prince George, we now have one office. What percentage reduction in service will occur?

Hon. C. Evans: There are myriad ways to answer the question. There's the question of mileage. People who used to live closer to an office have less accessibility. I can't express that in terms of a percent, because it depends on how close they live to Prince George. There's the accessibility of expense. If they're attempting to access the office by telephone, they have more accessibility, because it's now free. If they're attempting to access the office by car, there is less accessibility, because it's more distant. But if you want me to express it in some quantum that we can actually measure, the only one I know is FTEs. How many people -- how many bodies, workers -- did we take out of your region? That would be five out of 25, or 20 percent.

[9:30]

Hon. C. Evans: No, he won't. Firstly, we have 20 percent fewer bodies to deliver the service; but secondly, we don't have the critical mass available to do the work anymore. Even if you lived in a town where there was an office down the block and you phoned him up and said, "Come over here and test my soil with me," we would be less inclined to do it now than we were last year, and less inclined last year than ten years before that. Because more and more and more, the way the ministry is doing its job -- and I'm sure you must have noticed it in the last ten years -- is withdrawing from providing on-site advice to each person.

What do I think about that? I think it's a lousy deal. I think you probably think it's a lousy deal. For one thing, it's a lousy deal because people don't have as much contact with government as being something useful. They've got just as much contact with the tax collector and less contact with government as their friend. So when I meet them as an elected person, they're less likely to be cheerful, because they don't have the experience where the forest ranger is their friend, the fireman is their friend, the ag worker is their friend. So please don't take, in anything I say, an attempt to defend it. It just happens to be the way of the state in the late twentieth century.

J. Wilson: I can't help but agree with the minister on one point here -- that probably the only friend the producer ever had out there was the Minister of Agriculture's staff people. They were the one bright spot in their day that actually made them feel good about their government; that's gone. That's why you don't see too many people smiling today who have to deal with government on a continual daily basis. The Ministry of Agriculture is a support service; that's all it was. There's nothing mandatory, no regulatory aspect to it. And it was an excellent service, and it was probably one of the best public relations ministries that this government or any government could ever imagine putting in place and running.

That being said, if the ministry is not prepared to come out and work for the producer when the producer runs into a problem, then the next question is: are they willing to provide the producer with the necessary information as to who to contact, how to contact them, where to send their samples, how to take their samples -- all of this information that is necessary to operate and manage a working ranch? Now, this is critical to this individual's livelihood. He needs the stuff. He cannot be an expert in every single field out there. If he has a problem, he has to be able to get hold of someone, somewhere; even if it costs him some money, he has to know how to access that.

This goes back to the question I previously asked: is this information that the minister has referred to, which is available and much cheaper than maintaining a field person in certain areas? Is the ministry going to provide people with a list of contacts for each area they might need expertise in?

Hon. C. Evans: Generally, I want to say sure, but I don't think the ministry knows what all the questions of all the people might be on all the commodities. So let me say: tell your constituents to phone the office and ask the question, and then phone you every time they don't get an acceptable answer, and you'll discuss it with me. I will ask that the offices compile the ten most oft-asked questions, and then we'll disseminate that information -- those answers. You tell me whenever it doesn't work, and then I'll try to fix it.

But one thing I want to fix right away is what I think I heard you say as an interpretation of what I said. I didn't mean to say the ministry isn't willing to go out there and work on the ranch. I actually think the staff are more than willing; I think that's why they went to college. I think that's what they want to do -- just like I think you want to actually represent the people, as I want to do a good job, too. I'm talking about what is. A whole bunch of people who would really like to go help people farm -- because that's what they want to do with their life -- are operating in an environment in which you and I can't pay them to do what they did ten years ago. Neither one of us knows how. So we attempt to evolve to deliver the service as best we can. I would like the benefit of any advice you have about how to do it better.

Please don't misinterpret anything I said to suggest that those people don't want to do the job the best they can. They would actually be way happier on the ranch than in the office; you know that. Those people don't want to go work in a cement building in Prince George any more than I want to work here.

J. Wilson: I've got a better idea. I'll give my constituents the minister's phone number, and they can talk directly to him; it would save going through it secondhand.

I just have one more question here, and that's to do with the elimination of the weed control program. Is there any funding in place through the Ministry of Environment or the 

[ Page 4025 ]

Ministry of Transportation for weed control? Do they have anything set up that can handle a problem situation, should it arise?

Hon. C. Evans: It's my understanding that every ministry engaged in land use in the government has a line item for weed control. Now, does that mean that it's going to work? I don't know. My guess is that it's going to take the MLA leaning on me and on whatever ministry is involved to make it work.

So my answer to your question is yes -- and please let me know if there is a problem in your constituency. And if your constituents or your regional district attempt to get the Ministry of Transportation, for example, to do what they're supposed to do and they can't, then my job is to go talk to my colleague and try to get them to do their job differently.

J. Wilson: I appreciate that. I hope we don't have to lean on anyone too hard if the problem arises.

I had a comment I wanted to make with regard to the first question I asked the minister. I'm not asking him a question, but I would like to make a statement, as I see things may be unfolding. It has to do with this group that has been formed: the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests. They're going to address the concerns of the range users with regard to riparian areas -- how much fencing is maybe necessary, this type of thing.

When these discussions come about. . . . There was a statement made by the Minister of Environment that they would like to see the game levels re-established at traditional levels, which takes you back 50 years. In the central interior that means a moose population of roughly four to five moose for every square kilometre of land out there. I would ask that your ministry to keep them advised that should this happen, there will be a tremendous impact on all riparian areas out there. When you travel through the bush today, you can still see all of the old game trails that were cut into the ground, inches deep. They still exist. That was from a very high ungulate population years ago.

If that goes back to traditional levels, which they're aiming at -- and I've been told this by more than one person within the ministry -- then there won't be a drift fence, or a fence of any description left standing from year to year because of the concentration in these areas, both over winter and during the summer. During the summer they are high-use areas. They go in and live in the little swamps and little potholes, and they eat the vegetation off the bottom.

It's something that I just want to make people in your ministry aware of. If things start to look a little lopsided, maybe bring that up and remind them of the damage and the possibility of the havoc that could be wreaked.

Hon. C. Evans: I want to move that we rise and report progress.

The Chair: And ask leave?

Hon. C. Evans: And ask leave to sit again, because we're having such fun.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:44 p.m.

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