Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12361 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: Today in the gallery we have a large group of students from Windermere Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. B. Albiston. Approximately 200 students from this outstanding secondary school have come here today to tour the Legislature. While some are still touring the buildings, we have a group -- I think maybe one-third or one-half of them -- in the gallery today. I would ask all members to make them most welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have in the gallery today three chairs and one vice-chair of various parole boards across the country. They are Irene Heese, chair of the B.C. Parole Board; Ken Sandhu, chair of the Ontario Board of Parole; Isabelle Demers of the Quebec parole board; and Renée Collette, vice-chair of the National Parole Board. I want to ask the House to please make them welcome. They are celebrating 100 years of paroling in Canada, and they do a good job, by and large.

K. Krueger: In the precinct today and in the gallery, I believe, is Mr. Ralph Dotzler of the United Association of Injured and Disabled Workers. He's here to give me a briefing this afternoon and to watch question period. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

P. Calendino: Last month this assembly appointed a new ombudsman for the province of British Columbia. Today I'm very pleased to rise to introduce the ombudsman to the assembly. He is sitting in the members' gallery. I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Howard Kushner, the new ombudsman, accompanied by his wife Susan and son Lars and some other family members. They're down here to contribute to the real estate market in Victoria and to find out something about the office.

C. Clark: As Deputy Chair of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsman, I'd like to extend a warm welcome from the official opposition to our new ombudsman. I hope you find life in Victoria as wonderful as all the rest of us do. Welcome to British Columbia.

[1410]

E. Conroy: In the gallery today is Robert Hobbs, the director of regulation and government affairs for West Kootenay Power. He is here from Trail, where West Kootenay has their head office, to view the assembly today. Would the House please make him welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Colin Simmons. Colin works as a cook at the Central City Lodge near Pender and Homer streets in Vancouver. He is a proud member of the HEU and a strong supporter of mine. Mr. Simmons is here visiting family in Sidney and accompanying him today is his father Dennis. Would the House give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Hon. G. Clark: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education, I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be introduced and read for the first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: This act is a great pride to our caucus and of great importance to the future of this province. This act will extend the tuition fee freeze, benefiting over 150,000 students at B.C.'s 28 public colleges, institutes and universities for the fourth consecutive year, to March 31, 2000. By extending the freeze to a fourth year, we are entrenching B.C.'s growing reputation as Canada's education province.

When this government took office, B.C. had the second-highest tuition fees in the country. Today it has the second-lowest. After three years of the freeze in British Columbia, Canada's national news magazine, Maclean's, ranks B.C.'s universities as amongst the finest in the country. In its most recent university ranking, Maclean's ranked all four B.C. universities in the top ten. Three were ranked in the top four, and SFU was ranked number one in its category for the second year in a row. In B.C. we are obviously building a system that is not only accessible but also of high quality.

Sadly, other provinces are choosing to place post-secondary education further out of reach by raising tuition fees. For example, next September students in Ontario and Alberta will be paying a minimum of 10 percent more for their education. This means that students in these provinces will pay hundreds of dollars more for their education. Today B.C.'s average university undergraduate tuition fees are nearly 36 percent less than Ontario's and 30 percent less than Alberta's.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ASSISTANCE FOR MINING INDUSTRY

[ Page 12362 ]

[1415]

We are in active negotiations with Highland Valley Copper -- Cominco. I spoke to my officials before question period. That is going reasonably well. As well, it's clear that there are interests that have to be concluded between the employees through the United Steelworkers and Highland Valley Copper. They know what their responsibilities are in that regard, and I'd suggest that nothing the members opposite say -- or even that I could say -- would assist the Steelworkers and Highland Valley in reaching a successful agreement.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The fact of the matter is that since this government took office, one out of four people has lost their job in the mining industry in British Columbia. That's thousands of people who have lost the paycheques which support their families. Today we sit here on the brink of having to close down Highland Valley. On this side of the House, as well as on that side of the House, we of course hope that that will not come to pass.

My question is to the Premier of the province. With a record of losing one out of four jobs in the mining industry staring this government in the face, can the Premier explain why the government has not brought forward, in its so-called legislative agenda, ways to cut back on the massive taxes, regulation and hydro costs which mines across the province face and which have cost thousands of British Columbia workers their jobs?

Hon. D. Miller: Listening to the Leader of the Opposition, one would think that he was not in the House last year when we passed legislation that made a significant difference for the mining industry. We brought in a major tax relief -- $9 million annually -- for those exploring for minerals. We brought in a mineral exploration code that put all of the approvals under one roof, in my ministry -- a major bill to deregulate and to get rid of red tape. We brought in Power for Jobs legislation. In fact, we are discussing the use of that Power for Jobs legislation with Highland Valley, as we speak.

Is the Leader of the Opposition aware that the current industrial rate for hydroelectricity that Hydro charges its industrial customers is lower than the "market rate" that people have to pay in other jurisdictions? We have a distinct advantage.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: We're using those advantages. We're working with the mining industry, but we do not control the international price of metals. That is beyond our control.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: I appreciate the opportunity to ask the Premier a question with regard to mining in the province of British Columbia. We've lost one out of four jobs in mining in British Columbia. In the last year we have watched as Gibraltar has had to close, as people who were involved with Gibraltar. . . . That's almost 300 jobs. They've now been acquired, but they're on hold. We are facing a crisis with Highland Valley Copper.

My question to the Premier is this: will the Premier not stand today and outline an agenda to make sure that we have a mining industry that is vital and that is vibrant, so that we don't continue to lose jobs in B.C.'s mining sector?

Hon. G. Clark: The Leader of the Opposition repeats exactly the same question time and time again, and I guess he didn't hear the answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. G. Clark: We brought in legislation in the last session of the Legislature to reduce taxes for those exploring for mines in British Columbia. We brought in a mineral exploration code to streamline things to ensure that mining is alive and well in British Columbia and that rewards risk-takers and those who want to invest in mining. We brought in a right-to-mine act in British Columbia -- right here -- to send that message around the world. We brought in Power for Jobs so we can negotiate with each individual mine an even better hydro rate than the best hydro rate in the world.

Right now, we're negotiating with Highland Valley Copper for power rates to try to ensure that notwithstanding record-low copper prices, we are maintaining and increasing jobs in British Columbia. We'll do that with Highland Valley. We'll do that with Gibraltar. We'll do that with every other mining company in British Columbia.

[1420]

The Speaker: Order, please.

THREATENED SHUTDOWN OF
HIGHLAND VALLEY COPPER MINE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 12363 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, just to reiterate, we are in active discussions with Cominco to reach an agreement on a power rate which will allow that operation to continue. I've said that publicly; the member knows that.

I am a bit perplexed. There are two issues. One is that I read the letter that the member wrote -- in his daily paper, I think -- arguing that government should move in, in a massive way, to give concessions to maintain Highland Valley, and I was struck by one point. If you excised every reference to Highland Valley in the member's letter and wrote in Skeena Cellulose, the arguments are fundamentally one and the same. So here we have a party across the way that is prepared to argue for jobs -- there's nothing wrong with that -- when it suits their purpose, but they have taken exactly the opposite position for all of the people in northwestern B.C. It's despicable.

Secondly, that member ran paid ads on the radio, attacking other MLAs in this province, and I hope, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

Hon. D. Miller: I hope that it was not paid for out of his constituency allowance, because that would be an entirely inappropriate use of the funds that are given to an MLA -- to attack another MLA.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: The number of people using the Kamloops food bank has jumped by more than 50 percent in the last year. The number of children accessing this food bank has grown from 550 a month to 900 a month in the last year. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us how many more people the Kamloops food bank is going to have to help if Highland Valley does shut its doors on Friday because of this government's destructive policies?

Hon. D. Miller: This Premier has taken outstanding efforts to try to stimulate economic development in that region. The announcement made with respect to. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .further industrial opportunities, the announcement made with respect to Six Mile. . . . And it's a fact that up until last week the member for. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .Kamloops-North Thompson had not talked to B.C. Hydro, the Job Protection Commission, the Steelworkers or my ministry. Up until last week that member, who is now standing in this House, had not talked to. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: . . .any agency that was working on this file. They would rather play politics. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .than get down to work and work with British Columbians to try to maintain and grow new jobs in this province.

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION JOB LOSS IN B.C.

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, order. It's hard to hear the answer. We heard the question. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And in case the member didn't know, house prices are on the way back up, and housing starts are on the way back up.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

R. Coleman: Maybe the minister would like to look at the statistics and find that his government has lost over 50,000 jobs in the housing sector in the last four years. According to the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia,

[ Page 12364 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: What's decimated confidence in the housing industry in this province has been the developers that donate to that party and that have built leaky condos. That's been the problem. That's why this government took efforts to make sure that consumers have confidence in housing construction in this province. That's why we brought in changes to new-homeowner warranty programs in this province to make them the toughest in North America. It's because their pals, who were building substandard construction, have been the cause of the problem.

HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AND
B.C. LABOUR LAWS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's obvious the member hasn't read the papers, because if she did, she'd know that the housing market is on the rebound in this province. She'd know that prices are on the way up. She'd know that housing sales are on the way up. Read this weekend's Vancouver Sun. Clearly you haven't done that. It's also clear that it's not the government's fault in terms of leaky-condo construction. It's her developer pals that were building shoddy, leaky construction. It's this government that took action to end that. It's this government that has taken action to restore consumer confidence. That's what's taking place.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: It's not just Vancouver and Coquitlam. Housing starts in Nanaimo are down by 55 percent as well. That's the hometown of the same Labour minister responsible for the labour laws that have done so much to decimate the construction industry in British Columbia. If this Labour minister can find the time to stand up and shout down his fellow citizens at rallies in Nanaimo, when will he find the time to stand up for jobs in his community and do something to fix the labour laws in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

[1430]

The Speaker: Minister, just answer the question.

Hon. D. Lovick: We spent considerable hours. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, we heard the question.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can wait.

The Speaker: We can wait. Come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, it's understandable that the members opposite are exercised. They were hoping for the total recall launch in Nanaimo, and it didn't happen.

Madam Speaker, we've spent hours and hours and hours in this chamber demonstrating conclusively that there was no clear connection at all between the amendments to the Labour Code and housing construction in this province. The members opposite can say it again and again and again, but saying so, friends, doesn't make it true.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)

G. Plant: We are in the midst of the public safety and regulatory branch, but I had an across-the-floor discussion with the Attorney General about the children's commissioner and some questions there. We would be ready to proceed with that now, if the relevant staff person was here. Then we could put that area of responsibility behind us.

[1435]

[ Page 12365 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be a board that would be appointed at the recommendation of B.C. chiefs of police, and that board would be reporting directly to the Attorney General.

G. Plant: Who appoints to the board? Is it the minister or cabinet?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's the Attorney General.

G. Plant: I assume there will be annual reports, or something like that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Does the Attorney expect that there will be more ongoing contact than simply the filing of an annual report? Is there going to be a monitoring process? If there is, perhaps the Attorney General could explain how that would be carried out in a way that would ensure that the agency is independent.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The director of policing services for the Attorney General would be the secretary of the board, and the chair of the board is a former Victoria chief of police. I have a letter that has been prepared for me and is awaiting my signature, with respect to the expectations that I have of the board.

[1440]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: CLEU, the predecessor of OCA, had a significant staff component. I had the opportunity, during a briefing on this subject, to ask the assistant deputy a question about how, whether and if people who worked for CLEU may end up working for OCA. We don't need to have a discussion, I suppose, about whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. My recollection of what I was told in the briefing is that the decision of whether to take on anybody from CLEU into the new agency -- and how many of those people -- will be a matter for the head of the agency to determine. Could I get the minister's confirmation that that is so?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I want to move on to the subject of the auxiliary program. This obviously has been a subject that has excited some public interest over the last year, although we covered the subject a year ago in the estimates debate. That debate followed shortly after the Attorney General's decision to disarm the auxiliaries, pending the completion of the review that was then underway. The review concluded with recommendations with respect to two options.

I suppose the larger issue around auxiliaries is: what should we ask volunteer police officers to do? What is the range of tasks and expectations that we should have for them? As I recall, the Attorney General expressed his support for the recommendation in the review that contemplated the possibility that detachment commanders could decide -- in appropriate cases, where concerns and questions about training and supervision had been addressed -- that there was a role for auxiliaries in front-line policing and perhaps even armed in front-line policing.

Notwithstanding the Attorney General's decision to prefer option 2, if you will, senior management in the RCMP have said that the auxiliary program in British Columbia will not include front-line policing duties performed by auxiliaries in circumstances where auxiliaries could carry firearms. My sense is that the Attorney General has essentially accepted that decision by the RCMP, presumably on the theory that it's the RCMP who decide how to deliver the services that they are contractually obliged to deliver in British Columbia. I want to give the Attorney General an opportunity to indicate whether that is the basis upon which he has essentially accepted the RCMP's position with respect to the specific issue of firearms.

[1445]

G. Plant: I understood that. In talking about the contract, I was actually talking about the basis upon which the Attorney General has not had a position on that issue. It was probably not a clear enough question.

The minister points out that it's the RCMP's responsibility to operationalize these kinds of issues, and that's how the RCMP are choosing to operationalize this issue around auxiliaries. I think the question remains, though, given that the Attorney General has a role in funding the program. . . . What is the Attorney General's position with respect to whether or not auxiliary officers -- if properly trained; if accompanied by an officer; if given training not simply in how to use a firearm, but in the issues of judgment that are an important component of that; and if under proper supervision -- are to be armed? Does the Attorney General have his own opinion on this subject?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My opinion has been very clear in that I have been saying that it's quite a serious issue if you have a volunteer being able to use deadly force. And I think that was the basis of our decision to go with option 2, which was to allow each and every detachment and, in the case of the RCMP, E Division to determine whether or not they would allow auxiliaries or reserves to carry guns. Even now, under emergency situations, the auxiliaries or reserves can carry

[ Page 12366 ]

G. Plant: Just to put that last answer into context, what is an emergency in this context? Are we talking about a major riot in downtown Vancouver or a bank robbery out in the suburbs somewhere where things are temporarily a bit tense?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would not want to tie the hands of police by giving the hon. member a view on that. That's their decision, in the context of a particular incident, and if they believe that they require more assistance than they have, obviously they can decide that. A riot may be one of those situations, and the Penticton festival might be one of those situations. But I think that's for them to decide, as and when that happens.

G. Plant: I suppose the question that arises there has to do with the part of the debate around this issue which has emphasized that one of the differences between full-time regular police officers and part-time volunteers is that full-time police officers, by dint of experience, apparently acquire a better sense of judgment as to when and where it would be appropriate to use force, including firearms.

If the decision, or the status quo, in terms of the use of firearms, is that firearms will only be used in the limited circumstances where the RCMP's E detachment is of the view that there is an emergency, then I wonder whether we haven't built in an outcome or a result where it's almost inevitable that RCMP auxiliaries will never be able to acquire some of the on-the-street experience they need to be able to function responsibly and with appropriate judgment even if an emergency arises. So that the net result of that policy approach is virtually as good as saying that RCMP auxiliaries will not be armed.

[1450]

G. Plant: I want to ask one more question about this issue. The question invites the Attorney General to put what has happened here with respect to auxiliaries in the context of his expression of concern about apparent cutbacks in RCMP funding and a concern about the lack of police presence in British Columbia which results from this funding cutback.

It has always seemed to me -- for, I guess, the 12 or 13 months that this issue has been before us -- that there is something very unfortunate in a situation where, on the one hand, the government is strapped for cash and having a difficult time expanding the RCMP -- and in fact, the federal government is apparently making funding decisions which are causing a reduction in the ranks of the RCMP -- yet the Attorney General is also making decisions about the auxiliary program which are having the effect of impairing the ability of communities across British Columbia to use auxiliaries in order to help with front-line policing. It does seem to me that there is something a bit odd about the relationship between those two circumstances. It's difficult to take the Attorney General's protests about RCMP funding cutbacks seriously when he has helped ensure that the auxiliary program has been seriously threatened over the past year. I invite his response to that observation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's argument would be acceptable if we assumed that the auxiliaries were meant to play the role of regular police officers. I would have been happy if the operational decision of the RCMP had been to arm the auxiliaries. But I don't believe that we could seriously rely on auxiliary policy officers to perform the duties of regular police officers. My position on the vacancies would still be the same. I understand the hon. member's argument, but it's not logical.

[1455]

But at the same time, there is a practical challenge in communities across British Columbia. The Attorney General may be right in his contention about what the auxiliary program was intended to do, or what it should be intended to do. But the fact is that in some communities in British Columbia, the auxiliaries have been depended on to do some front-line policing. Even if the Attorney is right in arguing that it was a good time to conduct a review that would get that program back on a sound footing again, I think that nonetheless there is, at the best, unhappy coincidence of two phenomena that have made life difficult, or more challenging, in some communities. I invite the Attorney's comment on that. He acknowledges the force of the observation without, of course, in any way detracting from anything that he has said up to now, I'm sure.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the hon. member's viewpoint, and he understands mine. I don't think there's a satisfactory conclusion to this debate.

G. Plant: But it's always a good thing to ensure that the issues are properly canvassed. I'm told that there is an intention by government to maintain program funding for the auxiliary program for the current fiscal year -- that there are funds set aside in the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General for that purpose and that they are at the same level as they have been historically.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I also understand that there is a policy working group in place within the ministry -- or at least in which the ministry is participating -- and that the policy working group is looking at the implementation of the recommendations made in the review. The question that I'm certain people who have been in the auxiliary program would want to have an answer to is whether there has been or will continue to be a role for the voice of auxiliaries in the ongoing work of this policy working group.

[ Page 12367 ]

G. Plant: I hope that means that we have the Attorney General's commitment to ensure that auxiliaries do have an opportunity to participate in this process.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The auxiliary coordinator of the RCMP is a member of that group, and that would continue to be the case.

G. Abbott: I would like to raise a different public safety issue with the Attorney General. This issue is one that has been raised with me around Shuswap Lake issues, but I'm sure it applies to other inland waterways in the province as well.

The issue on Shuswap Lake came forcefully to me from the RCMP. Over the past couple of years they've revived a marine patrol on Shuswap Lake. They worked very hard at finding the staffing to do that, and they have actually done a good job, to this point, of eliminating fatalities resulting from marine accidents and that sort of thing on Shuswap Lake.

One of the things that frustrates the RCMP as they attempt to achieve public safety on the lakes is that they still face a cumbersome ticketing-and-fine process with respect to minor offences on the lake -- for example, having insufficient life jackets on a boat, or water-skiing without a spotter -- that sort of thing. As the RCMP explained it to me, they not only have to write up the initial ticket, they have to refer it to Crown counsel, and it may involve a court appearance of witnesses from Alberta -- that sort of thing. In the end, the fine that results from that minor offence is invariably disproportionate -- i.e., much smaller than the cost of actually achieving the conviction.

[1500]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We were negotiating with the federal government, and the negotiations have broken off because we established certain principles that we were not prepared to depart from and the federal government was not prepared to accept. Two of them were that (1) there be no off-loading in terms of the costs; and (2) they accept the proposition that at the end of the day the Attorney General -- no matter who it is, whether it's me or someone else -- is the chief law enforcement officer of the province, and that has certain consequences. There are several other positions. The federal government has essentially not accepted them, and we have stepped back from the negotiations. We are prepared to do it; we want to do it. We are mindful of the benefits that can accrue. In fact, I believe it was last year around this time that the negotiations broke off, because we were negotiating. I was hopeful that it would happen, but it hasn't.

G. Abbott: I thank the Attorney General for that explanation. Again, so that I can go back and advise the officers who have spoken to me as to why this is not proceeding. . . . It is a negotiation with the federal government that has been unsuccessful. The nub of the matter is that one particular principle -- that of off-loading -- is at work here, as well as a recognition that the Attorney General is the ultimate figure responsible for these things. I'm sure I'm not doing a fair job of summarizing that. If you could, in lay terms, explain why what appears to be a fairly commonsensical kind of thing has come off the rails, that would be much appreciated.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that I could do a better job than what I've done. There are certain principles involved. We would be happy to have the ministry officials sit with the hon. member and in fact give him a list of all of the issues that are involved. There are actually quite a few; I see about six or seven different principles outlined and two pages of notes on those. I think it would be better that the hon. member get the briefing directly from the officials and then make up his mind. I'll be happy to speak with him then, and if he thinks we need to change our position, I remain to be persuaded.

G. Abbott: A briefing would be fine, or if it is possible to circulate the document to which you make reference, that would make it simpler as well. I don't know the sensitivity of the document. If it's sensitive in a way in which it is not able to be released, that's fine, and perhaps at some point a briefing would be useful.

G. Plant: I have a Vancouver Sun newspaper article which, unfortunately, is undated. The headline reads: "Police Forces Fail to Reflect Cultural Mix of Vancouver Area." There are some statistics in this article about the diversity of various police forces, including the RCMP. The article suggests that as of December -- which I suspect is December of 1998 -- only 3.3 percent of all RCMP officers in B.C. were visible minorities, which contrasts with the percentage in the province as a whole of 21.8 percent.

[1505]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe it has been yet, but it will be. Let me give the hon. member some better news than that. As a result of that article appearing. . . . I might add that in that article, the 3 percent is the national number -- for the country -- for the RCMP. The RCMP were unable at that time to provide a number for the local police, which is much more encouraging than that. In terms of the municipal -- the independent -- police departments, they have gone from 3 percent in 1982 to 20 percent in 1998, so they have made substantial progress over the last many years. In Vancouver itself, about 8.7 percent of the officers are a visible minority. It's a large department, therefore that's a significant number, and they continue to increase.

[ Page 12368 ]

G. Plant: If the Attorney would keep us posted on that, that would be much appreciated.

I have a question about the B.C. Police Commission -- that is to say, the predecessor of the position established in the Police Act last year. I'm told that two individuals who were employees of the Police Commission are still working for it. It may be that there are transition issues here, because there are still some complaints in this system where the complainant, or perhaps the respondent, would have the opportunity to use the old process because of the date of the complaint. Apart from that I'm not sure why the old commission would need to have any employees. It may be that my information is wrong. I invite the Attorney General to respond.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Any current presence of the former commission is a reflection of the need for transition. I'm not aware of any employees other than the commission members, but if there are, I will certainly look into that. They might be needed. But the commission members exist in their current capacities and have been renewed for some time, to deal with the transition.

G. Plant: "Employees" may not be the right term, then; it may be these commission members. Are they paid a salary? How are they paid? I understand that they're paid a per diem, and my guess, then, would be that they would only be paid that per diem in the event that there were any matters actually brought before them as a result of this transition process.

[1510]

G. Plant: I believe I was told by the minister's staff that we're not really talking about work that is coming along sporadically, one or two days a week or a month. We're actually talking about the possibility that something may come forward from the old process. So these people, these commissioners, need to be kept in place and their appointments need to be maintained, as much as anything, as insurance against the possibility that there may actually be something for them to do.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I have a couple of questions about the land title office. That may actually not be for the public safety and regulatory staff. May I ask the questions?

Well, let me deal with one more aspect of public safety and regulatory, and then I'll ask the land title questions.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yes, GAIO. The minister will have seen a press release last week -- May 4 -- the heading of which reads as follows: "New Westminster's Riverboat Casino Approved." It's a news release from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which is the ministry responsible for the business of granting approval for casino licences. The minister has the audit and gaming investigation office within his ministry, which has a role in the casino licence approval process. Could I impose on the minister to walk us through that process -- that is, the GAIO involvement in the casino licence approval process?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: When the Ministry of Employment and Investment gets applications for casinos, they would then obviously forward a copy of that application to GAIO, and GAIO would do the necessary due diligence.

There are several functions they perform at this time: first, to register individuals and companies involved in lawful gaming in British Columbia; second, to investigate any occurrence which may be of a criminal nature, bringing into disrepute lawful gaming under either section 207 of the code or provincial enactments; third, to audit and review gaming operations and organizations against standards established by the provincial legislation and policy.

There are several other finer points, and if the hon. member requires, I can go through them. In another briefing, I'm told, a role of GAIO is that GAIO is authorized to: investigate any occurrence that may be of a criminal nature -- that's a repeat of one of the earlier ones; conduct background investigations to ensure the suitability of all gaming suppliers, gaming management companies, key personnel and gaming workers involved in the conduct and management of gaming activities in the province; maintain a database of persons and companies registered to provide goods and/or services to the gaming industry at its own discretion and in response to requests from the B.C. Gaming Commission and the B.C. Lottery Corporation; conduct investigations into activities emanating from provincially sanctioned gaming events; in addition, provide investigative services for lengthy or complex cases, wherever there is a perception of conflict; conduct proactive audits and reviews of gaming operations; provide assistance to police agencies in gaming-related investigations. Those are some of the roles of GAIO.

[1515]

The functions of this office that the Attorney General described -- were they also performed by the gaming audit and investigation office in connection with the recent RFP processes for the expansion of casino gaming?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That would be my assumption. I have not been advised or informed or briefed of that matter. That's an independent function -- at arm's length -- that GAIO does, and if GAIO has any difficulties, GAIO perhaps advises me. But I have not received any information or briefing from GAIO in this regard.

G. Plant: Clearly we could go far enough down this path where I might be asking questions that amounted to an attempt to uncover the details of a particular investigation; I don't want to do that any more than is appropriate. It does

[ Page 12369 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me read another portion of the note here; it might assist in general terms. I don't get involved, because GAIO has not advised me or informed me. They would advise or inform me if they felt there was some difficulty or problem that I need to deal with, because they're an arm's-length agency. That's why they are in my ministry: it's because that ensures and assures them of that independence. GAIO's role is very much that of a gatekeeper. Through its registration program, it determines the integrity of the individuals, corporations and money seeking to be involved in legal gaming in British Columbia. GAIO does not license individual charitable organizations; that's the B.C. Gaming Commission's responsibility. Nor does it assess the viability of business plans or gaming sites. GAIO provides clearance through registration. On becoming registered, individuals or corporate entities are eligible to provide goods and services to the B.C. Lottery Corporation or to licensees of the B.C. Gaming Commission -- essentially, some of what I've already told the hon. member.

If the hon. member is wondering whether I'm aware of the RFP process and knowledgable about the RFP process, I'm not, because that has not been my responsibility. There are enough responsibilities within my ministry to keep my cranial cavity full of things on a day-to-day basis. The hon. member can obviously ask those questions of the minister responsible -- that's Employment and Investment -- at some point. But if the hon. member requires further specific information from GAIO, I'd be happy to make GAIO officials available to the hon. member. Perhaps they can advise him to the extent that it's possible for them to do so, given the confidentiality constraints and the like.

[1520]

Interjection.

G. Plant: The minister is making his views known to me on something. Would it be possible to. . . ? I'll just yield to him for a moment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just trying to say that the Ministry of Employment and Investment might be able to say what GAIO advised them of in a particular situation, because they are the ministry receiving that advice. Therefore it would be an easier thing for the hon. member to do, because the Ministry of Employment and Investment is a client of GAIO. GAIO is simply somebody that provides a service to that ministry on those issues.

G. Plant: Here's an example of the kind of question. It's a question about the North Burnaby Inn proposal, which at some point was in a grey zone that I think is sometimes described as conditional approval-in-principle. On the basis of the public record, it looks as though the North Burnaby Inn application apparently made it to that stage without the kind of background checks that GAIO would ordinarily be responsible for having been done. Or at least if they were done, they had perhaps not been communicated to the minister responsible for gaming.

There's obviously a public interest in ensuring that the process followed by government to grant casino licences is a process that includes the necessary background checks and the kind of work that GAIO does. That's a question for which I think there is a legitimate public interest in knowing the answer. I also think that it does not cross the line in terms of digging too deeply into whatever it was that GAIO did or did not learn in conducting or not conducting the background checks that they should have for the North Burnaby Inn application. But I gather that the Attorney General would say that he couldn't answer a question like that because it's not something that he is privy to.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's the response -- I'm not privy to that information. If I were briefed and if I sought a briefing, I might be able to answer the questions, within the constraints of confidentiality and privacy considerations. But that information would be easily available to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Obviously he faces the same constraints that I would if I had the information, which are the privacy and confidentiality issues.

G. Plant: I want to just explore the relationship between GAIO and the Attorney General. Let me come at it sideways for a moment. If I had in mind questions about a police investigation that was underway in some part of British Columbia, I could stand up here and ask those questions, and the Attorney General would say: "Well, I don't know about. . . . I'm not told about police investigations."

[1525]

Coming back to GAIO now, I guess the question is: are we talking about something that is analogous to that? If we're not -- and I think we're not. . . . I think we're in a situation where. . . . When the minister says that he hasn't been briefed on this particular issue and when the minister says that I should go and ask the minister responsible for gaming, who would have better knowledge, I wonder about the level of accountability that exists between GAIO and the minister -- if GAIO could undertake this kind of work in circumstances where the minister says: "Well, I don't know anything about it, because I haven't been briefed." I'm a little concerned about that, frankly, but I suspect that the minister will have an explanation that will address my concern. And if we're really lucky, it will alleviate it.

[ Page 12370 ]

No, they're not analogous to police investigations. But it could be, in certain contexts. If they were participating with police in investigations, they could keep me uninformed, as they wished. After being asked as to whether or not I would like to be informed, I may decide that no, I don't particularly want to be informed. You can carry on and do your job. If you need my assistance, please come to me and speak to me. So it's not absolutely analogous to the police, but under certain circumstances the same thing could happen as happens in relation to the police.

G. Plant: One issue that might be closer to the heart of the minister's natural, ongoing responsibilities would be the question of whether or not GAIO was adequately staffed to deal with the demands made upon it by whatever jobs it gets. I understand that in the case of the RFP process, the Attorney General's perspective on how GAIO gets involved is that GAIO becomes a service agency for, in this case, the Ministry of Employment and Investment and presumably the gaming policy secretariat. Maybe I should just pause on this to ask if I've characterized the relationship right -- that GAIO, in the case of something like the RFP process, is there waiting to be called upon to assist the other ministry in its projects.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's assumption is correct, and it is my understanding that they are adequately funded for that purpose. Their budget is currently close to $1.7 million.

[1530]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the resources, I know that a couple of years ago some FTEs were added to GAIO, but the budget has remained the same between '98-99 and '99-2000. I believe that they have adequate resources. They have one director and two deputy directors. Then there are obviously staff, and there are 14 investigators. I believe that was adequate staff. I have not heard any concerns from them that they were not adequately staffed.

G. Plant: Another issue that arises is the kind of interaction that would have taken place between GAIO and the gaming policy secretariat or whatever group it would be in the Ministry of Employment and Investment that's responsible for the approval process. My guess is that the Attorney General doesn't know specifically what level of interaction there was but would be of the view that that, as much as anything, would be really a matter for the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which are in effect retaining GAIO to do this work. I mean, I want to know what level of interaction there was. If the minister knows, then I invite him to tell me.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The interaction between the Ministry of E and I, the gaming secretariat and GAIO would obviously be conducted between those bodies. It would be up to GAIO to determine whether or not the interaction that's being sought is appropriate. If they felt that any interaction or support or work that was being sought was inappropriate for them to do, they would certainly approach me. I've never been approached by them to say that I should intercede on their behalf, which I would have been happy to.

[1535]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: GAIO reports to me through the ADM and the deputy minister; they don't report directly to the Attorney General. Yes, there is a compilation of information with respect to audits, investigations, registrations and other matters that they dealt with. In files completed, year to date up to March 31, 1999, it says 1,587 files, and those have many things included in them. If the hon. member is desirous of having a copy of this information, that should be available to him through the ministry.

G. Plant: I suspect that's similar to the kind of information that would be put in the ministry's annual report. At any rate, since I may not get that for a while, I would be grateful if the minister could provide me with a copy of that information.

Another aspect of this RFP process is that some might say it didn't work very well -- at least on one or two occasions. I understand the government has under consideration the possibility of a new gaming act, and I'm interested in knowing this: does GAIO have a role in making recommendations about how to make the licensing approval process work better, or is GAIO just outside that arena altogether?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that GAIO did have input with respect to the White Paper on gaming, and it made recommendations in that regard.

G. Plant: Earlier in the discussion the minister talked about the possibility of a briefing or some form of information session involving the people in GAIO directly, for questions within the limits of privacy and confidentiality about the RFP process. I take the minister up on that offer, and I have now done so in all the ways that are important to do that.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

I want to give my colleague an opportunity to ask questions with respect to children's commissioner issues. We have finished with public safety regulatory issues -- unless my colleagues have any questions. I have a couple of questions about the land title office, and one of my colleagues wanted to

[ Page 12371 ]

B. Penner: First of all, I have an issue that's not directly under the purview of the Attorney General, but I'd like to explore his reaction to this fairly recent issue. In the last few weeks there's been an increased concern about people escaping -- and that's maybe an inappropriate term -- from the Elbow Lake federal correctional facility near Harrison Hot Springs.

Last Friday, I was in the community of Agassiz, and I met with the local council -- Kent council. I was asked to ask the Attorney General what position his government takes with respect to that institution. There's been a chronic legacy of inmates walking away from that facility, which does not, I believe, have a fence around the perimeter of it. As a result of the most recent escapes, the RCMP believe that two individuals were murdered in the Mission area of the Fraser Valley. I've been asked, on behalf of the people in the communities of Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs, to determine if this government will pressure the federal government to take some action to make the Elbow Lake correctional facility more secure.

[1540]

I am concerned about the fear that exists out there in the community with respect to escapees that do harm. I am concerned about that because I think that if that continues to happen, we lose support amongst the public for institutions being located in particular localities. There is no question about that, and that is a concern to me. But I think that it is appropriate to not address that issue here, because I would be doing so in ignorance of all the details that one really needs before one can make an appropriate decision on an issue.

B. Penner: Perhaps I will just ask the minister to have his staff review the matter or at least raise their awareness of it.

Before concluding on this issue, I would just like to say that I think the ministry needs to be congratulated for some efforts of its own with respect to correctional facilities in the Chilliwack River valley. There was a facility known as the Mount Thurston correctional facility that had a similar legacy to the Elbow Lake facility in terms of walkaways from that institution. It was a minimum security facility. Steps have been taken in recent years that have curtailed the frequency of people walking away from the Mount Thurston correctional facility and also from the Ford Mountain facility, which is just up the road from Mount Thurston. Perhaps the federal government can learn a little bit about what happened in the Chilliwack River valley. I will leave it at that and let the minister's officials look into the matter more closely if they deem that appropriate.

I understand that last Thursday, at the end of the day, the Attorney General made some comments about reviewing with his staff the issue of photo radar vans and the expansion of the fleet of vehicles for the photo radar program. I'm just wondering if the minister is able to provide us with an update today about whether the government still intends to expand the fleet of photo radar vans.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no question that the photo radar program has made a difference on the roads in British Columbia. But I have directed my staff, as I said the other day, to freeze the program expansion until ICBC can provide me with hard data showing that the additional vans will result in further reductions in speeding and crashes. I did express some surprise the other day, and I hold to that view. So that is where it is at right now, pending further discussions.

[1545]

I will leave those comments with the minister and look forward to hearing about what the outcome of the freeze on the expansion of the photo radar fleet is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Fine. And I will certainly look into that. I am not aware of those stats. They are perhaps in the possession of ICBC, and I would be happy to receive them.

One piece of information that the hon. member raised -- last Thursday, I believe -- on the $107, in terms of the fine. . . . I understand that in calculating that figure, or the $112 figure, the officials did not include the surcharge. Those are pure fines, not including the surcharge of $15 -- however many dollars the surcharge is that is involved. Therefore the figure is below $115.

B. Penner: I thank the minister for that explanation. That makes sense. I think the minimum fine was $100 per ticket, plus the $15 surcharge, so that makes some sense.

I'll just read this into the record, to be specific about the stats from Statistics Canada. They indicate that last year in British Columbia there was a 5.4 percent increase in the number of fatal accidents, compared to, for example, Alberta, with an 11.7 percent decrease. That's from January to September of last year, the most recent statistics available. Across Canada on average there was a 12 percent decrease in fatal accidents. So the increase of 5.4 percent in British Columbia -- to 313 fatal

[ Page 12372 ]

I'll leave it to others to speculate on whether it has more to do with road design and inclement weather here in British Columbia, or whatever. But clearly these statistics, from an independent body like Statistics Canada, are cause for concern for all of us, and perhaps they undermine the government's claims that photo radar is a great salvation in terms of reducing accidents on our highways. That's all I have to say on the matter of photo radar.

G. Plant: Perhaps before we move to the Children's Commission, I could ask a question about the land title office, which is closer, I suppose, to the main core of the ministry. There is abroad in the land a proposal for electronic filing at the land title office. I'm not surprised that people who have an interest in land registry business have begun to express some concerns to me about this proposal and what it might mean for their businesses. One concern that was brought to my attention does, I think, warrant at least being raised here on the floor of the House.

Obviously the way in which this kind of proposal is implemented has to ensure that the same level of accuracy that exists now in the system with respect to land title information will continue to exist. And clearly there is in British Columbia an existing infrastructure around registry agents, title agents and the role of lawyers and notaries public in the conveyancing business.

[1550]

I suppose you could say -- if I wasn't a lawyer and the Attorney General wasn't a lawyer -- that land law has always been a bit of a lawyer's business. The non-lawyers always get a bit concerned at the risk that any change will have the effect of keeping the club as small as possible. I'm hoping that the Attorney General can give me some assurance that it is not intended, as a result of this proposal, to make access to the land title office any more restrictive than it is now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My understanding is that it would be a user-friendly system. In fact, in addition to being available electronically, one could continue to do hard copy registration always.

L. Reid: I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by indicating that I have enormous regard for Cynthia Morton, the previous holder of the position of children's commissioner. I trust that the selection process will bring forward an equally talented person. I have always been enormously impressed with Cynthia's commitment and devotion to the care of children in the province. I truly will miss her. I understand that she's returning to government at some point, but I will miss her in this role.

I want to begin by bringing forward a number of concerns from the member for Vancouver-Langara. He had to leave the debate this afternoon but wished me to bring forward his concerns. If I might, he references the annual report of the children's commissioner on page 3. We're talking about administrative fairness. His issue is simply around the supports that are in place for families. That is, the social services ministry has tremendous court access, tremendous availability at their disposal. Families, on the other side of the question, often don't, even to the point where they don't have resources to make the appropriate photocopies when counsel, on behalf of the government, asks for reams of paperwork.

Specifically, his question is: is there any ongoing discussion around putting in place some fairness on the part of the courts as they interact with families who are, frankly, disenfranchised from the court system? Their level of education and their resources don't allow them to make any kind of balanced approach when indeed they come up against a ministry social worker.

[1555]

I know there was a special project underway in Provincial Court dealing with child apprehensions -- to speed up the resolution of those issues. I don't know whether that assisted families that couldn't afford legal aid in any way, shape or form, but I know that there was a push to have these matters resolved earlier rather than later.

I don't have a satisfactory answer. I don't think anybody would be able to find an answer unless we raised the qualifications for legal aid and raised the limit with respect to what you need to qualify to get legal aid.

These are very difficult issues. Having a child apprehended is traumatic at the best of times; but then to have to appear in court is even worse, and we understand that. I won't pretend that there's an easy answer, but I understand the concern, and I share it.

L. Reid: I thank the Attorney for that response. If I can simply put on the record the ongoing desire, both on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Langara and myself, in terms of making the process less confusing for families in the province. . . . Certainly if there's any way we can move into the realm of more arbitration, more mediation, around those issues. . . .

If I can ask the Attorney for a response in terms of the translation questions. Sometimes, and certainly evidenced

[ Page 12373 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that in child protection cases -- and I know in all family court cases -- interpreters are provided in the Provincial Court. If the hon. member says that's not true, I'd be prepared to look into that. But I think they are. They're provided in the Provincial Court on family, child apprehension and child protection matters, the same way that they are provided in the criminal courts -- I believe, if I remember my time in the courts.

L. Reid: I am not disagreeing with the Attorney. My question was specifically. . . . Before someone was actually at the courthouse, the kinds of translation services that were available -- and certainly that is a component of these reports. . . . Again, they end up in a situation that has no balance. They end up, as the Attorney has suggested, in court. But they haven't understood the process that got them to that point. That was my concern.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree with the hon. member that that's a need. If it's not being fulfilled, I would direct the hon. member to ask that question of the Minister for Children and Families, because the matter is not within the Attorney's jurisdiction until it hits the court.

L. Reid: To leave that particular point. . . . If it were possible to move any of these cases into the realm of mediation-arbitration, I'm going to surmise, from the Attorney's comments, that indeed some kind of translation would be folded into that discussion.

Interjection.

L. Reid: He's nodding.

Page 7 of the annual report talks about the lack of effective planning for children. Again, the question on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Langara is simply to know how that commentary, if you will, is being considered at the ministry level. To get a clear understanding of your role as Attorney General -- in that you're the person the commissioner reports to -- what kind of discussion is ongoing around the need for effective planning?

[1600]

L. Reid: The other concern I raise on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Langara is on page 19. "Children in the permanent care of government are vulnerable to 'drifting' through the child welfare system from one placement to another when there is no effective planning for their future."

Given that the Attorney suggested that that's probably something that's in the bailiwick of the Ministry for Children and Families as well, I'm happy to have that discussion in more depth. For the purposes of today's discussion, I simply want to put on the record that so many families have come forward saying: "Why is it that family members are not considered?" So if there are any ongoing discussions, on behalf of the Attorney, with the next children's commissioner. . . . I know there is precedent. . . . I know there is structure and framework in place that allows for family members to be considered when placing a child as a result of an apprehension. It simply is not the practice in lots of cases. Lots of people are not aware that that avenue is open to them. So perhaps, in terms of the next Children's Commission report, some of those avenues could be explored in more detail. I would ask the minister to comment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Understand that that recommendation has been made by the commission to the ministry in its previous reports. I remember that raised in the context of some cases. Therefore that's an appropriate thing to take up with the ministry.

L. Reid: I appreciate the Attorney referencing it, but my question. . . . Perhaps for the parameters of this discussion, once those recommendations have been made, in that it is the office of the Ministry of Attorney General that funds this commission. . . . The recommendations, in terms of being met, realized. . . . Does that come back to the Ministry of Attorney General in any way, shape or form?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The general answer is no. But in specific cases, where a recommendation might be, for instance, directed at the Attorney General ministry, we would be then responsible for implementing that recommendation. But other ministries would be responsible for implementing recommendations that relate to them.

L. Reid: Then the next question simply needs to be: what if indeed those recommendations are not picked up? Is there any recourse for anyone in the system? Back to this Legislature -- back to this Attorney General, I trust, in that his office funds this endeavour. . . . But he's indeed saying the estimates process for the Ministry for Children and Families.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The recommendations are recommendations. They're not mandatory; they're recommendatory. So in that regard, it's up to the ministries to determine whether or not they're going to live up to those recommendations or follow them. In most cases I think they do, if they're doable at all within the fiscal and other constraints that might exist. I know that many of the recommendations have been implemented by the Ministry for Children and Families, and the minister might be able to shed more light on how many of those recommendations have been put in place.

L. Reid: I appreciate the answer. The question that was posed to me -- and I guess perhaps there is no answer -- was: where are the checks and balances for this process?

[ Page 12374 ]

L. Reid: The Legislature -- I will accept that, and we will look for the most appropriate forum.

The other avenue that I want to canvass this afternoon on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Langara is page 33 of the annual report. It references the rights of children in care. Certainly my hon. colleague -- and you will know, because he has referenced this many times in the past -- has asked me to reference the convention on the rights of the child, which I do believe falls into the Attorney's bailiwick. His question, specifically, is: are the children in care today. . . ? Who is following this document on the convention on the rights of the child to ensure that children in care have these rights honoured?

[1605]

L. Reid: Well, I will simply reference, then, the three articles that the member for Vancouver-Langara wished to put on the record today. The first is article 5 of the convention of the rights of the child:

"States parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present convention."

"(1) States parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

"(2) Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, states parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that's a question for the Ministry for Children and Families. The hon. member should address that question to them. That's a very specific question. They have responsibility for adoptions as well as for children generally.

L. Reid: I certainly take the Attorney's guidance. But he will know that the member truly wanted it addressed to the Attorney General in his role as the Minister Responsible for Human Rights.

I will conclude with just one last reference, which is article 9:

"States parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse and neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence."

In terms of the actual commission, is it the intention of the Attorney that the role continue as a deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney General? Or will this role become an officer of the Legislature at some future point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know that the rank of the children's commissioner is that of a deputy minister, essentially. But the commissioner is independent, whereas the deputy isn't, in most cases. Therefore I think that's the distinction. It's my view that that will continue as is. I think we have been well served by that model, and we'll continue in that vein.

L. Reid: One question, if you will, on the complaint process. One of the recommendations that continues to gain some prominence in this report, in the document entitled "The Status of the Child and Family Service System in British Columbia" and in the Children's Commission complaint evaluation report, dated April 1999, talks about expanding that role -- that indeed children in care today, who find some fault with the level of care they're receiving, have an opportunity to use that line.

[1610]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe there is adequate budget in the Children's Commission budget for that purpose. There have been no increases, but obviously if there is need at the end of the next year, that would be looked at. But my information from the acting children's commissioner is that the budget is appropriate at this time and that there aren't any difficulties in handling the workload.

L. Reid: I have simply three more issues to canvass. I appreciate that some of this may be Children and Families, but I think that with the next one, there is definite carryover between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry for Children and Families. I speak of the secure care working group. Certainly the issues they have around young women being at risk for being street workers or being involved in the sex trade -- even in today's paper: "Delta Concerned About At-Risk Girls. . . ." In terms of the status of that report, where does it now sit in terms of who will be responsible for taking it forward to the next step? Will it be your ministry or the Ministry for Children and Families?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember correctly, the consultation on the secure care report was to end on April 30.

[ Page 12375 ]

L. Reid: I certainly will ask that question of the minister, but I think that it will probably be back in your ballpark before very long.

Probably the last item I'll canvass with you this afternoon is the age of children in care. Perhaps the minister can dispel some rumour. There seems to be some consideration being given to reducing the length of time a child would actually be in the care of the province. Currently it is 18 years of age, and there is apparently some discussion about reducing that to 16 years of age. If the Attorney would be so kind as to dispel that rumour.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That, again, is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the Minister for Children and Families, and I would ask the hon. member to raise that issue with her. I am not aware of the issue.

L. Reid: I would hope that the Minister of Health gets to. . . . What I am interested in is if there is any research done on behalf of any of the ministries, whether it is Attorney General, Health or Children and Families, that supports the contention that indeed that's a wise and useful move to take. That would be my question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have not considered the issue; I am not even aware of the issue. So I would obviously take notice of the issue, and the Minister for Children and Families -- if she is dealing with the issue -- will bring it forward, I'm sure, and advise the hon. member.

L. Reid: Well, I will conclude my comments then, and simply say that I think that probably one of the most vulnerable groups we have is adolescents. If that does indeed come before this Legislature, I would simply ask that there be appropriate research to support any kind of discussion or any kind of move in that direction.

B. Penner: As my colleague the member for Richmond-Steveston indicated, I would like to address the issue of the Fraser Valley Regional Justice Committee and the report that they provided to the minister early in October 1998. As the Attorney General will recall, he appointed that committee in late 1997. That committee was struck after the NDP government temporarily suspended its plans to close the Chilliwack courthouse. I won't repeat all the history of the battle that ensued in an effort to save the courthouse in my community, but suffice it to say that we were pleased when the existing facility was allowed to remain open.

The regional justice committee worked very hard and, as stated, presented the Attorney General with its recommendations in October 1998. In essence, the committee recommended that a new courthouse be constructed in Chilliwack to replace the current building that dates back to the early 1950s. The committee proposed that this building house a full range of Provincial Court facilities while retaining a Supreme Court presence. In addition, a Supreme Court would be established in Abbotsford, according to the recommendations of the committee.

[1615]

The concern around adequate court facilities in Chilliwack is not yet diminished. In fact, I have recently been told by RCMP members in my community that in the past year, 27 Criminal Code charges for impaired driving have been reduced by the agreement of Crown counsel to the lesser Motor Vehicle Act offence of driving without due care and attention. This was done in the course of what is commonly referred to as plea bargaining.

The difference in potential penalty is significant, as the Attorney General should know. With a conviction for impaired driving, under the Criminal Code a first-time offender will have his or her driving privileges automatically suspended for a period of not less than one year. In addition, there is a minimum $300 fine called for by the Criminal Code. ICBC levies ten penalty points against that person's driving record, which results in a further additional cost.

In comparison, a conviction for driving without due care and attention results in a $100 minimum fine, no minimum driving prohibition and, I believe, just six points against the individual's driving record. So there is an obvious incentive from a defence counsel perspective to negotiate a plea bargain arrangement, where the client receives a conviction for the motor vehicle infraction rather that a Criminal Code infraction.

I've been told that a major reason why Crown counsel has accepted this number of plea bargains is due to a lack of court time and to the threat that judges will dismiss charges on the basis of the Askov principle -- that is, the case took an unreasonable amount of time to get to trial.

Chilliwack does not have the longest backlog of court delays in the province. As my colleague from Richmond-Steveston pointed out last week, backlogs remain a problem throughout the province. Abbotsford continues to lead the backlog in British Columbia, even though their backlog was reduced from 14 months to 12 months. In Chilliwack, the delay has remained at 11 months for setting a half-day criminal trial in Provincial Court. That delay has remained consistent for the last year and a half or so. Although the situation in Abbotsford has improved somewhat in the last year, there has been no reduction in the amount of delay in setting a half-day criminal trial in Provincial Court in Chilliwack in the past year.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General, in light of the fact that eight months have passed since he received the report from the regional justice committee, whether his government is prepared to make any announcement in the near future regarding the regional justice committee's report and the recommendations contained in it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are almost concluded. We've made the decision with respect to the Chilliwack courthouse renovations. There are some details to be worked out. I would be happy to let the hon. member know once that decision is complete; it's not final as yet.

[ Page 12376 ]

[1620]

Interjection.

G. Plant: The Attorney General wishes to have a brief recess. Who am I to stand in his way?

The Chair: On agreement, we'll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

As I understand it, the province will be receiving just under $47 million in the fiscal year that we are now in for immigrant settlement services. That's money from Canada. I'm told that you could break down that big number into two general numbers. One could be called the funding for direct services, and another category might be appropriately called indirect services. The direct services funding, which is something like $24.5 million, I understand, amounts essentially to the transfer of responsibility for delivering programs in the language and settlement services area from the government of Canada to the province of British Columbia under the terms of this agreement. So what has happened, in effect, is that the province is taking over the delivery of existing language and settlement services programs under this agreement with Canada.

[1625]

G. Plant: The extent to which the province, over time, has powers to perhaps make some changes or not in the delivery of language and settlement services is a matter, ultimately, of interpreting the terms of the memorandum of agreement between the province and Canada. My understanding is that the province is satisfied that it has built into that agreement some flexibility which will allow it to ensure that there is kind of a forward-looking perspective to these issues rather than a sense that the government has trapped itself into a particular model of service delivery in a particular way in this agreement.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The former of the two propositions the hon. member made is the correct one. Therefore we have room to change. We have consulted with the communities, and we may be making some changes in the years to come.

G. Plant: The other half of the $47 million -- it's not exactly half, but it's close to it -- is a portion of funding around which there have been some questions asked in, I guess you could say, the multicultural and immigrant services community in British Columbia. My understanding -- at least as conveyed to me by the minister's staff -- is that this package of $22.4 million is an amount of money that Canada has agreed to provide to British Columbia as a result of a negotiation in which British Columbia said to Canada, in effect: "Look, we have to do a lot of things and deliver a lot of programs across a wide range of government ministries in order to accommodate the presence of an increase in immigrants into British Columbia and to ensure that immigrants have access to the range of social and other services that are necessary to ensure that they become well-adjusted, prosperous, happy Canadians. We think that it would be appropriate, federal government, for you to recognize the contribution which we make by offsetting, in effect, our costs."

While the total amount of those costs, I'm told, can be calculated at about $150 million. . . . That's what the province thinks that it can say is the amount of money it spends in order to deal with the consequences of immigration. Canada has said: "Well, we'll pay you $22.4 million under this agreement as an offset for these costs." Is that analysis -- which I believe is a fairly reasonable summary of what I was told by the minister's staff -- correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: The question that has been raised by people in the immigrant and multiculturalism services community is a question that says: "Well, gee, you've got this $22.4 million. It looks like it's going off into the black hole of consolidated revenue. Why aren't you using it to fund additional programs?" I certainly have a sense that the minister's response to that would be: "Well, that doesn't quite understand what this money is for." But I invite the minister to give his own explanation in answer to that concern.

[1630]

I know there were some concerns in the community that delivers services to immigrants that somehow they should have got this money into additional services, and they were wrong. I said so at that time. The hon. member has repeated that explanation, and so have I.

[ Page 12377 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no, because it is not new money. It's in recognition of the service that's being provided, and we already provide $81.5 million to the Legal Services Society. That includes legal services for refugees.

G. Plant: Having undertaken program responsibilities in the immigrant settlement services and language services areas, the question that arises is the level of comfort that the provincial government has with respect to whether or not the federal government will maintain the existing transfer payments. My question is: what can the Attorney General say about what level of assurance he has from the federal government with respect to continued funding of the memorandum of understanding with respect to the transfer of immigrant settlement services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that for the next three years, this figure is confirmed. At the end of those three years, the figure may change somewhat, based on the formula that's arrived upon. But it would continue to be a significant amount, I'm told.

G. Plant: The province recently had the experience of a reduction in the CHST payment, which had an impact on the province's ability to honour its commitments in certain important areas of social spending. This is a question sort of around the way the agreement works with respect to the transfer of responsibility for immigrant settlement services. Is the province in a situation where it has undertaken the responsibility to deliver language and settlement services even if the federal dollars are not there? Or is there some flexibility in the agreement that will ensure that the province doesn't find itself on the unhappy receiving end of a cutback in federal funding at some point in the years to come?

[1635]

G. Plant: The devolution money is the direct services money. The other money is the $24.2 million for indirect services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: One of my colleagues has some questions about liquor issues. Those are the questions I have on multiculturalism and immigration. I'm just standing here for a moment to see whether there is anything else that I should pursue before leaving the Attorney General in the capable hands of my colleague, on liquor licensing. No, that's it.

R. Thorpe: I just wonder if the minister could advise us what the four or five priorities will be for 1999-2000 for liquor control and licensing, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the ongoing responsibility of enforcement continues. Within the context of that, there might be some changes with respect to legislation and regulations and policy. I know that the branch is perhaps also dealing with some information systems. There might be a new licensing process -- all kinds of possibilities. But that's future policy; I don't know what that would be.

R. Thorpe: If I could just take a second, hon. Chair, and just ask a few questions on enforcement. Interestingly enough, that was the number one priority on the Attorney's list, and that's also industry's number one concern.

In some material I received in a briefing from staff -- which I appreciate very much -- enforcement for the period of May 17 to January 9, 1999, is running at only 26 percent of staff's time. That's up from the previous period, from 19 percent. I'm wondering, given the fact that enforcement is such an issue with society today and that it's such an issue with industry today: is that the appropriate target? Or should we be ratcheting that up? What would be the target number for enforcement -- time of staff?

[1640]

R. Thorpe: With respect to enforcement, I'm wondering what progress has been made in the past year, and what progress do we expect to make in spending almost $6 million in running this branch, with respect to illicit alcohol in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that there were 239 establishments inspected -- 72 from which liquor was seized, 52 from which liquor was sampled and 62 from which liquor was seized and sampled -- and a total of 186 establishments requiring further inquiries and investigations. Liquor was neither seized nor sampled in 53 of those establishments. The results of those were 29 suspensions, 31 warnings and 44 no-further-actions. There are several other details the hon. member can be privy to and get directly from the branch; they're always open to providing that kind of information.

R. Thorpe: I guess the area that I'd just like a little bit of clarification on. . . . I think it was identified last year in estimates, or the year before, that the expectation of the illicit beverage alcohol industry was approximately 350,000 cases of untaxed beverage alcohol sold or distributed in the province of British Columbia. Do we have any way of being able to quantify what kind of progress we've made against that suspected level of 350,000 cases of illicit alcohol?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the figure the hon. member refers to was simply extrapolated from Ontario figures that were available and then used for British Columbia. The federal government had no figures for British Columbia. I am told that our figures would be much lower than Ontario. Ontario has a problem in this regard that is much worse than ours. It is difficult, though, to quantify the progress. Progress has been made in terms of the number of inspections and the

[ Page 12378 ]

R. Thorpe: It's only taken three years to finally have the Attorney tell us that that wasn't a B.C. number. Could the Attorney please tell me what the British Columbia number is, then, for the estimated number of cases of illicit alcohol sold in British Columbia?

[1645]

R. Thorpe: I'm sure that the federal customs people will be encouraged by the kind words from the Attorney General of British Columbia for the job they must be doing at the border points in British Columbia.

With respect, the branch operates on a cost recovery basis and expects to recover just under $6 million this year in fees and licences. One of the things disturbing me and a lot of British Columbians is a paragraph on page 65 of the government's budget report. I just want to quote it: "Other fee and licence changes will be introduced during the year as ministries continue to examine their fees and services to ensure that users pay a fair share of the direct cost of providing services." Could the Attorney advise what fee increases are currently being studied by the liquor licensing branch and contemplated to be put into place during the current fiscal year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that question is actually facing double jeopardy. Obviously the liquor review is out being consulted on with respect to implementation -- we don't know what will happen as a result of that -- and then, depending on those changes, the branch may or may not require more revenue.

So that issue is twice removed from current considerations. We are looking at all of the possibilities, and I can't give the hon. member a certain answer. I am unable to because of the future policy considerations.

R. Thorpe: With respect to future policy, of course, which we can't discuss. . . . Knowing that the Minister of Finance has said that the government is going to move ahead with the recommendations of the Surich report, provided that there are successful municipal consultations. . . . Now, some of those don't require successful municipal consultation.

A year ago we talked about streamlining advertising processes in British Columbia. Could he please advise us of the status of that and when that will be implemented in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Work on streamlining the advertising has been done. Depending on what other decisions are made by government emanating from the liquor review, legislative changes may be required. But the work and the consultation have been completed.

R. Thorpe: So then -- just for some clarification here -- pending some unforeseen things, things are ready to go. As soon as government concludes its review, would we see implementation of those -- whatever they may be -- in a reasonably quick time frame, given that it has been some two years that they have been under discussion?

R. Thorpe: Following up. . . . In the same context is a subject called U-brews and U-vins, which we've been discussing for about three years. I believe the operators of the U-brews and U-vins want some form of regulation. Again, I think the government has said that it's going to put it in place. Has all the work that has to be done -- or can be done -- up to this date been done and put on the shelf, ready to go?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

[1650]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the implementation process contemplates a minister's advisory committee. Of course, the minister's advisory committee, throughout the implementation process, would advise us on those issues -- including the kind of issue the hon. member has talked about.

R. Thorpe: The minister's advisory council or committee, whatever the correct terminology is going to be. . . . Will that be a committee that'll have a cross-section of representation to ensure that all stakeholder groups are represented?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Certainly I understand that all or most of the economic stakeholders would be represented on the committee.

R. Thorpe: I do not know what economic stakeholders they would be referring to. Let me ask the question a different way. As the Attorney knows, the industry is made up of many associations -- different beverage producers, retailers, etc. Would it be the intent to ensure that those industries are represented and to select their representation, which would work on the minister's advisory council? Or would the Attorney General be picking individuals?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They should be the representatives of the organizations that they come from.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much to the Attorney for that answer.

One of the areas that we seem to get quite a few complaints on -- and I'm sure the Attorney's office gets some complaints -- is the amount of time and apparent delays that it takes to have licences processed in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 12379 ]

[1655]

R. Thorpe: One of the things that I hear back from constituents, and also from folks that I have to deal with in my critic role, is that we always hear, in dealing with government, that it's somebody else's fault. No one takes ownership. I guess my real question here to the Attorney is: is there going to be some onus? Never mind what municipalities have to do or somebody else has to do. Is there going to be some clearly identified onus put on the liquor control and licensing branch to live up to establishing some benchmarks and turning around documentation and licences in a timely manner, to meet the spirit of what people are saying in British Columbia today?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

R. Thorpe: That's all of my questions. I want to thank the liquor licensing and control staff for the briefing and for keeping me up to date with what goes on.

G. Plant: We'll have the opportunity, I know, in due course to have a brief exchange in terms of a wrap-up, I suppose -- although maybe we won't, because we're doing it in the big House. There won't be a need to report those things to the people in the big House, because here we are. Maybe that means that it is appropriate that I stand at this point and again express my appreciation to the minister's staff, who helped make this an efficient process. Even if we have somehow managed to avoid intense and fractious debate during the course of this estimates debate, I'm sure that opportunity will arise again. That concludes the questions I have for the Ministry of Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In conclusion, let me thank my staff as well -- all of the staff that were here with me from time to time and all of the staff actually back at the ministry and in the minister's office who assist me throughout the year in doing the job that I need to do, which sometimes is a difficult one. Having said that and thanking my colleague for a civilized debate, I move that. . . . There are only three votes, so I. . . .

The Chair: Attorney General, we could do the question on vote 18, and then I could ask you to do the next one after that.

Vote 18 approved.

Vote 19: statutory services, $49,875.000 -- approved.

Vote 20: judiciary, $43,961,000 -- approved.

[1700]

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1705]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Hon. D. Miller: Before I make some formal remarks, I'm pleased to advise the House that the government has reached an agreement with Highland Valley Copper on a power structure that will see, in its essence, some pretty decent discounts when copper is below a certain price, and should allow for some recoveries when copper is above a certain price. The details of that agreement will be commercially confidential, so I'm not at liberty to disclose them. But it's an important agreement -- one component of a broader agreement that's required to be obtained under the job protection commissioner.

If those other pieces fall into place, I think that we can look forward with some confidence that the operation will continue and that the 1,000 jobs will be maintained and the stability of the communities will be maintained. It's one piece of the total package, but an important one, and I'm very pleased that we were able to reach that kind of agreement.

I just thought I'd make a few remarks to begin the process. They're rather lengthy remarks, but I'll try not to take too much time in outlining. . . .

An Hon. Member: Don't filibuster your own estimates.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I was advised not to. I have been accused of filibustering my own estimates in the past. I don't necessarily subscribe to that view, but. . . .

The ministry's general responsibilities include, as I'm sure the members are aware, the energy and mineral resources management and policies; petroleum and mineral titles; geological studies; health, safety and environmental approvals for exploration and mining; and most importantly, in terms of some of the issues we talked about, the resource revenue collection and audit.

This year's voted appropriations, as I've just indicated under vote 25, are some $35.5 million, with the minister's office being a very modest portion of that -- only $380,000. It's a struggle, but we try to manage to keep abreast of issues. The resource revenue sharing agreements are $1.2 million. Special accounts: the northern development fund is $1.5 million, and the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline is $1 million.

The ministry has a total of 283 full-time-equivalents. This allows us to carry out our mandate of ensuring that the

[ Page 12380 ]

[1710]

There has been a rather dramatic drop and, actually, a recovery in oil prices, which has impacted the industry. Primarily those companies -- most of which are based in Alberta -- that were heavy into oil had a great deal of difficulty with cash flow. In fact, for some of them, there's been a great deal of activity in terms of restructuring and merging in the oil patch. As I indicated, there's been a recovery in oil prices, which has been a very positive contributor to the health, if you like, of some of the companies.

However, despite those conditions in the oil patch, gas has actually done fairly well. Most people in the industry are fairly bullish about the prospects for gas with respect both to its ongoing utilization in domestic uses. . . . The Alliance Pipeline, which will for the first time allow the direct shipment of northeast British Columbia gas into the U.S. midwest market, is generally viewed very positively in terms of the price issue.

As we look ahead and note some of the changes that are taking place in the world -- the concerns about greenhouse gas, for example; recent reports about the environment with respect to thermal plants; the release of mercury into the atmosphere, and those kinds of things -- I think we'll continue to see gas as a very beneficial commodity. People tend to view it very well, I think, both with respect to, as I said, domestic, . . .and increasingly, power generation. Beyond that, with Ballard -- we're very proud of Ballard obviously, having taken a position in that company very early -- and the tremendous technological advances in automobile power. . . . When that is perfected to the point of commercialization, I think that some of the by-products of natural gas will become the favoured fuel. So I think that, all in all, the potential for gas is significant, and certainly some of the statistics I talked about reflect that.

Despite those oil commodity prices in the world market, 1998 was a record-breaking year. In 1998, 650 wells were drilled, which was higher than the 1997 record-breaking year -- an 11 per cent increase over the previous year. Gas production was B.C.'s highest ever -- 25.3 billion cubic metres were produced. Last year the oil and gas sector invested more than $2 billion in British Columbia. We have taken a number of moves, and I'll briefly describe those. Clearly we value that investment. We want to sustain that, and we want to increase it. The oil and gas industry provides more than 37,000 direct and indirect jobs in British Columbia, and obviously those are good jobs.

We have made some significant changes. I had a meeting earlier today with the representatives of CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who were in town to have some discussions around some technical issues involving the commission. Generally, I was very pleased with the discussion. While it has become a bit fashionable, I think -- maybe too fashionable, really -- to compare Alberta and British Columbia, what the producers are telling me is that the model that we have established -- our own Gas Commission, the Fair Share program, the allocation of $113 million to municipal and regional governments, the signing of memorandums of understanding with Treaty 8 bands -- is in fact being viewed by Alberta as a bit of a model.

[1715]

We anticipate about a $25 billion investment in British Columbia over the next ten years as a result of some of the changes we've made: the Oil and Gas Commission, which I talked about; the reduction of natural gas royalty rates on both new and existing wells; and the $113 million in the local communities.

The commission, I think, holds a lot of promise. Obviously it's early days yet. It's too early, in my view, to say that the commission is an unqualified success, but the model is one that people like. Rather than have the regulatory approval rest with the line ministries or line agencies, it's all been put under one roof, with the commission and a commissioner with the power to grant the kind of permits that are required for this activity. As well, it has as some accoutrements such things as the $5 million environmental fund, which will allow, through the advisory board to the commission, some money to be spent looking at some of the problems that are created as a result of this kind of activity.

Certainly, while it's been more of an issue in Alberta, gas flaring clearly is an issue. Alberta, by the way, has taken a very novel approach, which is to allow the gas that would normally be vented and burned. . . . If that gas is used to try to generate power, there's no royalty on it. So there's been some innovation in Alberta, in trying to solve some of those flaring problems. It's a bit more difficult in B.C., because our wells are more widespread. They're deeper, so the ability to collect this flare gas is not quite as good as it is in some parts of Alberta. But notwithstanding that, having a $5 million environmental fund, I think, to look at some research around these kinds of issues is most welcome.

I talked about the advisory committee. Again, having local people, the industry, first nations, etc., involved in an advisory capacity is well worthwhile, I think.

There has been quite a lot of discussion about the offshore potential for oil and gas. It's a topic -- as you might imagine, Mr. Chairman -- that can provoke people to dig in, to entrench, to take positions that "thou shalt never do that" and provoke others to say: "Well, we should do that." It's an important public policy question. I don't think anybody has the absolute answer to it, but we are giving serious consideration to requests for a public consultation process on the issue of offshore oil and gas exploration.

I think British Columbians rightly expect that any activity we undertake in that regard. . . . We must be able to satisfy

[ Page 12381 ]

Enough about oil and gas. Mining -- as was mentioned, I think, in question period today -- has been going through a very difficult period of time. All of our mines are challenged, and I should say that one of the attributes of the British Columbia mining industry is their ability to bring mines into production that have quite a low grade of ore relative to some other jurisdictions in the world. Chile is the obvious example, where the grades of ore tend to be at least twice as rich as the typical grades you find in British Columbia. That's not completely true all the time. The Eskay Creek mine in northeastern British Columbia, I think, is the richest -- if I'm not mistaken -- silver mine in Canada. But, generally, our deposits are a fairly low grade, so you can appreciate the ability of our industry to make these a commercial success.

[1720]

We're also continuing to work with Quinsam Coal -- and, I should say, northeast coal -- which are. . . . Members may be aware that, again, the commodity price, on a world basis, has gone through a significant downturn, and the volumes that we normally ship have also been cut fairly dramatically. Hence, in the northeast, we went from about 6.5 million tonnes last year to an agreement with the Japanese for 4.6 million tonnes. Now they want to reduce that by a further 30 percent. At the same time, northeast coal went from receiving a world price which, I believe, was in the $80 range to a dramatic drop in the new world price to $50 per tonne. Now the world price is $41 per tonne.

So our industries have struggled with these international issues. They will continue, I think, to struggle, but we are doing everything we can to assist them through a very severe downturn. I don't believe -- I think this is true -- that there has been a major mine closure or failure as a result of this international marketplace. That's a testament, really, to the men and women who work in these operations, the management. . . And I would laud the government, my staff and the job protection staff for working very hard to try to put together packages to keep this activity going.

Mining is our second-largest resource industry. It generates $3 billion in economic activity each year. It accounts for about 13 percent of B.C.'s exports, and it supports about 20,000 workers and their families. I think we ought to do more. I continue to try to do more, actually, in terms of positioning mining as a desirable industry for this province. There are many who don't seem to agree. I'm sometimes appalled at what even the mining industry says about the climate in British Columbia, because too much negativity can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I very candidly talk about these things with the industry. I can say that the relationship that we in the ministry have developed with mining companies -- and, indeed, the associations -- really is quite good. I've exhorted them to try to talk occasionally about the positives. Otherwise, they may be hurting their own cause. It's like many topics: you can offer advice, but people are not obliged to take it. So we'll continue to work very hard. I personally believe that mining is an outstanding industry in this province. The employment numbers support that. The total economic numbers support that. Individuals in the industry generally are very high wage earners -- in the $70,000 per annum bracket. We ought to do more to continue to support and promote mining in this province -- which is not to say that we haven't done anything.

As I indicated -- and the Premier indicated -- in question period today, the changes that we made last year were significant. They were lauded by the mining industry. The Mining Rights Amendment Act recognizes the right to mine and actually shows that we do value mining in British Columbia. It provides assurances of access to mineral tenures for claim holders. It guarantees compensation when tenures are expropriated for parks. In fact, we've already settled four claims. It ensures timely permitting for mining projects. The mineral exploration code is much more streamlined. Previous to the code, mining companies were captured by the Forest Practices Code. It was inappropriate. It wasn't specific to their sector -- the exploration sector. Now, with the new code, there's one window; you come to the ministry for all your permits. I think that was appreciated.

[1725]

We've created some new positions. We have a mining advocate position now in the ministry. Mr. Michael Farnsworth -- no relation to the Minister of Employment and Investment -- is the new mining advocate. He's from the private sector. He's from the industry. His job is to assist companies in all aspects related to mining and to promote a positive investment climate. We've also maintained, in these very tough economic times, the prospectors assistance grant program, where we allocate funds for prospectors. We'll continue to support that and provide baseline geological survey data through the work of the geological survey branch.

[ Page 12382 ]

As I mentioned, we've also dealt with, in a fairly unique way I think, the Treaty 8 first nations. I think it's the first time we've signed these kinds of memorandums of understanding that provide for a flow of revenue, so that the capacity can be built in the aboriginal communities so that they can deal more expeditiously and with more knowledge about referrals that come their way for oil and gas activity on their lands. I think that really ought to be a feature of economic or resource development -- that people in the region where that development is taking place ought to ask, "What's in it for us?" and ought to rightfully demand inclusion so that there is an ongoing and lasting economic benefit for their communities.

Land use planning continues. Again, that's been a controversial area. The mining industry, as you're aware, has withdrawn from the land use planning process. I've been urging them publicly, saying: "It doesn't make any sense for an industry of your stature to withdraw. Other industries have not withdrawn. The oil and gas sector has not withdrawn, the forest sector has not withdrawn, and you shouldn't either." So far they haven't paid a lot of attention to what I've had to say, but I don't give up easily, and I'll continue to try to convince them of the wisdom of participation.

[1730]

Finally, we followed through -- again, as part of the $15 million northern development fund between ourselves and Alcan. . . . An estimated $1.5 million has been allocated in this year's estimates for the fund to assist those communities impacted by the Kitimat-Kemano project and the creation of the Nechako reservoir to strengthen and diversify their communities. They seem to be pleased. I've met on several occasions with the advisory group up there. We recently announced that we wanted to create a permanent group, and that has generally been supported. I'm pleased with the way that seems to be going, with those people having access to some funds so that they can have some say in their economic destiny.

That was rather a long speech, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize. But I think it's a fairly decent overview of the activities of the ministry and its agencies. With that, I look forward to responding to the questions of my colleagues opposite.

R. Neufeld: I want to briefly respond to a few of the remarks made by the Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development. I'm pleased that he announced that there is a pending agreement with Highland Valley on a power rate. Whether members are on that side or this side of the House, they are very concerned about the 1,000 jobs that are hanging in the lurch in the Kamloops region with Highland Valley Copper. It's certainly something that we all have to take very seriously, and I know we do. I think about those kind of agreements and reflect on some of the other mines that have had some difficulty in the province. Maybe doing fixes for each one of them isn't the answer; maybe we have to start looking at the broader scope of how we deal with the mining industry in total across the province.

The minister talked about some of the issues that his government has taken forward in dealing with the mining industry. We will be questioning some of those initiatives as we go through our process here.

I was interested in the minister's comment about the Mining Association removing itself from land use planning. The minister makes it a bit simpler than it really is. I think all of us know why the Mining Association. . . . They've been very clear about why they've removed themselves from the land use planning process, and that's the fact that when this government came to office in 1991, they started on a process of putting 12 percent of the land base into protected areas -- at least, I've been given figures by the Minister of Environment that we've reached 11.5 percent or something in that area, almost 12 percent. We have almost that much in special management zones, which seems to be of some concern -- in fact, a big concern -- to the mining industry. They say: "When is enough enough?"

[1735]

[ Page 12383 ]

The Oil and Gas Commission is certainly something that we're going to talk about a bit. I'm totally in support of the Oil and Gas Commission, and I was from the start. I don't have any problems with the concept. I want to deal with a few of the issues around implementation -- what's taking place with the Oil and Gas Commission now.

Also, the minister talked a bit about how Alberta was going to follow along and do some of the things that British Columbia did, but I think it was a bit of the reverse. Alberta put theirs into place about three years ago, and we're following along. No doubt Alberta will take some lead from some of the things that we're doing here in British Columbia, because I do think that in British Columbia we do take the lead in many things, and I'm sure they are looking seriously at some of the things that we do.

The issues around first nations are certainly issues that I want to deal with in the estimate process. I think that the minister is well aware that Alberta and British Columbia, although they're both Treaty 8, are two totally different areas in how they're interpreted and how the treaty is applied.

The minister also commented briefly on Alberta having problems with wells that are drilled -- a bit of shooting and blowing up of some of the wells and those kind of things. I think that we have to put all of that into perspective. In British Columbia the northeast part of the province is the only area -- and not the whole area of the northeast -- where wells are drilled, other than for a few in the Kootenays. Alberta drills thousands of wells a year across the whole province, so they obviously will have a greater exposure. People are starting to feel, I think, a bit hemmed in by the oil and gas industry in Alberta. I might add that some of those issues are arising in the northeast as we continue infield drilling, start drilling more on farmers' land -- closer to their homes -- and those kinds of things.

I'll be interested to go into the north coast oil and gas situations, because I want to briefly talk about those issues and the $5 million environmental fund that's been set up. I had hoped -- and I hope -- that we are looking at issues around the $5 million environmental fund about human health and animal health as it relates to the oil and gas industry in the area where I come from. There is great concern. There have been studies done by the federal government on the Blueberry reserve, for instance, on the issues of flaring of gas and sour gas. There are issues all over the northeast in the areas that I represent that have animal health problems to a certain degree. I think we have to find out what that's all about.

The mining industry certainly is facing some challenges in pricing. There's no doubt about that. Whether it's coal or minerals or whatever, there are some serious problems. I don't think it's all in the commodity prices, although they play a huge part of it. There are a lot of other issues, and the mining industry has made this government very aware of those: regulatory burden and taxation. As we see across the rest of Canada, in some of the provinces the mining industry is coping better than it is in British Columbia.

[1740]

D. Jarvis: I've also got to thank the minister for his department -- I guess it's the Job Protection Commission -- getting together to come to some resolution with the Highland Valley mine. It's not to our advantage to have mines leave B.C. or have to close down. I guess too many people forget about the fact that. . . . And I might say that the minister, too, has sometimes in his past, but now he's becoming more of an advocate. I guess it's because the opposition is getting him moving in favour of mining in British Columbia.

Minerals and metals are a common part of our everyday life. I don't think we go through life at all without using thousands and thousands of tonnes of products that come out of the ground, so we have -- how would I put it? -- a common venture into mining. The minister says that he is an advocate of mining now, and as I said just a minute ago, that's good. I wish he'd become more of an advocate, especially with his own caucus, because it doesn't seem to be getting any results out of the caucus.

We have problems in this province. From listening to him tonight, he feels that everything is fine and hunky-dory in this province, but we're still closing more mines than there are opening. That is a problem that is going to result in the future of this province having some change to it. We are going to be short of revenues as we go down the road -- more and more so.

I have to say to the minister that there is no question that all the things that they are doing or that are purported to have been done in the last two years in the mining industry, it still has not resulted in private industry coming back into British Columbia. What we have here now is pretty well a stable industry, with people who are trying to hold on and grasping to stay in the business.

So my question. . . . I guess we've got another 15 minutes here before we have to close down, so we'll go all the way.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's another thing. I'm thankful that the minister doesn't have ferries in his ministry this year. That's an inside joke. Most people won't get it, but the minister shouldn't be that. . . .

I've got a little article here. The minister wrote a letter a short while ago, saying that he can confirm that his government supports the sustainable development of resources and that he also recognizes the unique hidden nature of mineral resources that is needed for mining access. . . . On the basis of the statement that the minister made just a few days ago, we wonder what is happening with the land use planning for this province. We are sitting with an LMRP situation, with the Mining Association. . . . Indeed, regardless of what you have

[ Page 12384 ]

You know, as anyone knows from your last statement on May 5, that they require access to the land in order to find the minerals in this province. The LMRP is certainly one that. . . . If you look at the figures, back in 1990-91 the government said that they were going to have parks in this province to a total of 12 percent. Well, then you look at what has been happening since that time. We have only covered half of the province, and we are certainly, if not up in the mid-20 percent. . . . We know that parks are all the way up to 12 percent already, or close -- within less than half a percentage point.

[1745]

I wonder if the minister could possibly give us his opinion as to land use planning. In the business summit that they had earlier this year, it was suggested by the B.C. Mining Association that they put forward a land use moratorium on their planning process for a couple of years. I wonder if there has been any consideration whatsoever given by the ministry to putting a moratorium on land use planning as it stands now. As I say, they are worried about what is coming down the line.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I think, from my point of view, at least, that all the moratorium would do -- if one were to consider that -- would be to make it more difficult, when you picked it up, to resume planning. Clearly planning is a very difficult issue. I don't try to diminish the difficulty of land use planning. It's very difficult, with competing interests. We have tried to assure the mining industry, though, that we do value their investment. We've made it clear through the legislation I talked about -- the guaranteed right of access and those kinds of things -- that we want them here.

I suppose we do have a choice. Ontario has embarked on much the same kind of process. I think they've done it in a shorter time frame. But essentially, they've adopted the 12 percent in protected status. The difference between us and Ontario is that Ontario will allow -- as I understand it, at least -- existing claims within parks to be worked. In other words, you can continue to work that claim. In fact, you can develop right up to a mine within a park. That's the difference between us and Ontario. I don't know that this issue has ever been debated that publicly. Surely it would be contentious, I suppose, if we advocated that you could mine within parks. I'm not afraid of any debate. I won't try to get that one going here. I'm just saying that those are the differences.

I think there can be wins in land use planning. I know there's one area where -- it's yet to be announced -- land use planning was taking place where there was a claimholder, and the agreement at the table was not to finalize boundaries until the claimholder had established more appropriate boundaries for the mining claim. So I think there can be those kinds of wins at the land use planning table.

The only other group that advocated withdrawing from land use planning tables was. . . . I was rather startled to see it. Today I read a news release from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee -- something like that -- where they were saying they were going to urge their members to withdraw from the planning process. That just doesn't make sense. I think you're better to stick at the table and get that kind of final certainty.

I would point out, with respect to. . . . Yes, it has been difficult. Yes, there is a climate that we need to work hard to overcome. I've asked the mining industry to consider that in terms of their public comments.

But, you know, in the short time I've been minister, I've participated in the opening of the Huckleberry mine and the Mount Polley mine. I didn't participate in the opening of the Kemess mine, but it opened. We're working very hard and have granted approvals for a significant number of mine developments in the province; we're working very hard. Tulsequa Chief is one that I mentioned. I think people generally judge you over time by your actions. We're going to continue to work very hard. We think mining is a good industry for the province. Hopefully, we can develop more projects, employ more people and deal with some of these questions.

[1750]

You've also got to relate it to the fact of when these mines were first discovered. Most of those, like Mount Polley, were all discovered back in the 1950s. Here again, we're not having these people come into this province and explore. Our grassroots exploration has virtually died. What we see coming down the line is pretty negligible with regards to future production and revenue for this province and jobs for the people that are in that industry.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me some more about land use planning. If the Western Canada Wilderness Committee is saying that they want to withdraw from the land use planning process, it's really quite a shock, because that was probably -- well it wasn't the main reason -- one of the reasons why the Mining Association felt there was no use belonging to it anymore -- because of the overweightedness of the groups that are at the table. Whether it be the CORE table or whatever, you know, there was usually always one miner. If you were in the Kootenays, there was a representative for the metal mines and one for the coal. But if you get to the other areas, there was only the metal-mining aspect, versus a table of 20-odd other people.

It reminds me of the time that I went to the CORE table up in the Cariboo. I talked to one lady who sat at the table there, and she represented "all beings." I said: "Well, what does that have to do with land use?" She said: "Well, I'm here to represent the people who can't talk for themselves, like the bugs and the ants" -- and on and on. How can you get to a situation where you can have a planning effort process in a whole province when you have so many people in there that

[ Page 12385 ]

Has the Energy and Mines ministry given any thought to, say, specifically trying to get the resource planning into an economic. . . ? You've got to have the social impact in there -- I appreciate that -- but it's more the economic end of it.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. And I'm assuming that the woman the member referred to who spoke for those plants -- was it? -- didn't need an interpreter.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just close -- noting the hour -- and say this. Obviously we're just starting here, but my advice -- and I gave it to people in 1992 when we established the CORE process. . . . I recall making a speech at that time, saying that the only risk you run by not participating in the land use planning process is that the issues of concern to you might not be considered well enough. That holds true for everybody. So I really urge them to come back, and I look forward to continuing the discussion.

But noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[1755]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

B. Barisoff: I'd like to rise at the opening of the Agriculture estimates debate to say that I'm pleased to work together with the minister and his staff. I'm looking forward to reviewing the issues.

This time last year I was new to the role of Agriculture critic, and I'm still learning a great deal about the third-most-important industry -- maybe the second-most-important industry, the way we missed Mining Week this day in the House. It's been a very interesting year, and I believe it has been a very worthwhile experience for me. I've had several opportunities to travel around the province and meet with people who are involved in the agriculture industry. From the turkey and berry growers in the Fraser Valley and the fruit growers in the Okanagan to the wheat and cattle farmers in the north, it's been very enlightening.

There are a number of common denominators in terms of issues. I hope to be able to bring some of those concerns to the minister and, hopefully, obtain some meaningful answers in the process, not only for me, as a member of the opposition, but for every British Columbian who wants to understand the role of government in this industry.

There are a number of important issues facing British Columbians in the area of agriculture. One of the most compelling issues is the federal agricultural safety net. The minister himself has said that he wishes to develop an agricultural safety net that works. I hope we will have the benefit of a report regarding a review initiated by the minister last year regarding the whole financial program for farmers, including crop insurance, whole-farm insurance, loan guarantees and NISA. This is a critical component if we're going to continue to sustain agriculture in this province.

Also, the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission, when established, was to support the agriculture community. The minister is aware of the crisis facing apple growers in the Okanagan this year, after two consecutive years of low returns. We certainly need to talk about possible and sustainable solutions for the growers. The replant program is another area that deserves our attention. The minister has referred to a ten-point action plan during the last estimates debate. We are anxious to see the results of this initiative.

Issues relating to the agrifood industry. Last year we discussed some issues surrounding the effects of free trade, GATT and marketing boards, the issue of supply management and the issue of regulations and taxes. The minister has promised a plan to fight back in order to preserve the B.C. processing industry, an industry where we have continued to see an exodus from the province of hundreds and hundreds of jobs. I will be looking forward to discussing what steps have been taken to stop the hemorrhaging in this area.

The issue of the agricultural land reserve. There's no doubt that the only way that pressure on farmland in terms of subdivision will be reduced is if we manage to support and sustain agriculture as a growing and lucrative industry in this province. There's no doubt in my mind that if we're going to continue to control land use, then we have an obligation to the farmer-producers to help them help themselves. I'm looking forward to the results of the industry review, which is supposed to have been completed by now. This issue is critical and deserves our immediate attention.

My colleague John Wilson will assist, as deputy critic, in discussing the B.C. cattle inspection and beef tariff issues.

[1445]

Regarding the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I would like to thank the minister for initiating a working

[ Page 12386 ]

It's very important for British Columbians to understand the problems and pressures that are facing those involved in agriculture and farmland. The issues are not going to go away; they will continue to demand our attention. I agree with the minister and his thinking that many of the solutions have to come from the industry itself. It's also important that the role of government forms part of the solution, not the problem.

I know that there are challenges facing the ministry and the industry at this time. However, it's scary to see further cutbacks of 10 percent to the ministry budget this year. I believe that we have seen the effects of regulation and an inflexible Labour Code on our agrifood industry. Success in any industry is better accomplished when we see the investment climate that fosters growth through free enterprise and that is not overburdened with red tape and regulation.

Unfortunately, we have seen too much fallout in this province from a government that is not listening and that has a habit of acting now and consulting later. There have been times when this government has changed its position, but very often it has been after the fact. The public is losing trust and confidence as a result. It would be helpful if there were more meaningful consultation with all members of this House. I'm happy to work with the minister and his staff in arriving at those workable solutions, ones that will promote and sustain agriculture in B.C.

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you to the hon. member for his initial remarks. Just before I get started in my introductory comments for this year's estimates debate, I'd like to beg your leave to welcome the mayor of Nelson, Gary Exner. . .

The Chair: Shall leave be granted -- is that what you were asking, minister?

Hon. C. Evans: Sort of, sure.

The Chair: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: . . .and Victor Kumar. Thank you very much.

Last year in these debates, I informed you, hon. Chair and members, of our long-term plan to build a vibrant agriculture and food sector. I said then that we were coming through a time of major change for both the industry and the government, and that the measure of our success would be our capacity to manage that change and come out at the end with the industry better for the exercise.

In the year that we will be discussing in these estimates, I believe that we are taking major strides to move from a condition of just simply maintenance and survival of the industry towards one of growth and sustainability. We as a ministry are now consolidating the changes that we've made and those required to move forward, and we are operating in new ways, ways which I don't think we imagined some years ago.

We are working to build public support for the agriculture and food industries and to reduce the invisibility of this sector. We're working to help the sector itself to identify and address emerging opportunities that arise as a consequence of a changed world and a changed marketplace. Last year, in fact, I think we worked more closely with the industry than even I had dared, to address the challenges of the future. The bonds that we forged in the last 12 months will intensify in the coming year.

I said last year that we would work on a number of initiatives. I think there should be some sense of accountability, so I'll run through some of them prior to the opportunity for questions from the members opposite.

[1450]

In the last year, in my opinion, we've vastly improved the way that we deal with agriculture and the environment. The hon. member refers to the ten-point agreement, which last year was simply a memorandum of understanding between this ministry, the Ministry of Environment and the B.C. Agriculture Council. That MOU was actually delivered on the ground, received buy-in by the parties, was expanded during the course of the year to include the federal government and has now moved past the MOU stage to become a permanent cooperative process involving all levels of government, including municipal.

An agreement last year with the Ministry of Labour and the B.C. Horticultural Coalition -- which we discussed a year ago, as the hon. member alludes to -- has now actually resulted in changes to the regulatory regime around labour -- to the benefit of all involved, I think, especially the farm sector. We delivered year two of the B.C. Sharing program, and if we come to that question in the discussion around estimates, I hope to show that the program continues to expand and ought to be continued.

We came to an agreement during the course of the last year, as promised, to make the Roberts Bank backup lands available to the folks who once owned them and those who had aspired to farm them. That agreement is now fact, and the lands are available to be bought by the families involved.

We also succeeded during the course of the last year in obtaining federal support for numerous initiatives, including matching support for SIR, participation by the federal and provincial governments in gypsy moth eradication and a NISA awareness program to deal with the fact that we have this wonderful program for producers and very little understanding on the ground of the availability of that program.

The appointment of the Minister of Agriculture to the Economic Council of Ministers in the course of the last year signalled the elevation of this ministry, with some recognition of its position as driver of the provincial economy, recognition of our role as probably the only primary industry in the whole

[ Page 12387 ]

Now, coming to the specifics that we may debate in terms of our fiscal position. . . . The total budget for this ministry is in fact, as the hon. member alluded to, lower than last year's. However, front-line resources and service to the clients have been protected, and the agricultural safety net is actually increased. So I would argue that if the objective of governance is to deliver the same or an increased service with less demand on the taxpayers' pocket, this ministry comes to these estimates prepared to defend our record and our budget in the hope that it will meet the objectives of the members opposite on fiscal accountability at the same time as service delivery.

The budget reductions were designed to protect several parts of the ministry, and I'll just run through them. Sterile insect release program was protected by dedicating a lump sum to the program, so that over the course of the next five years, the program can be delivered in its entirety without being affected by vagaries in the ministry's budget. The farm distress operating loan guarantee was a one-year program. It had a sunset clause in the program, and it has ended. Therefore it has been eliminated as a line item in this year's budget.

We saved a million bucks, essentially, by contracting out the Ministry of Agriculture's corporate services to another arm of government. We, as the members opposite know, went all by ourselves to offer a whole-farm insurance program in each of the last two years, in order to try to give our producers some way to protect or hedge themselves against either price collapse or weather failure in their industries. I'm very pleased to report, in terms of accountability, that this year we've managed to get Canada to deliver exactly the same program that we offered on our own. We are able to reduce the province's contribution to whole-farm insurance, while at the same time bringing $10 million of the federal government's into the program, so as to increase the global amount available to British Columbia producers from approximately $10 million available in 1998 to $17 million in 1999.

[1455]

Secondly, the Ag Council made the argument that a failure of whole-farm insurance and crop insurance generally -- the whole sort of toolbox that we use to protect ourselves against market or weather failure -- is budgeted in such a way that in a good year, when the weather's good and there are no disasters, the Ministry of Agriculture and the farm community loses the money that had been allocated for an insurance program. It returns to the Ministry of Finance as general revenue. They asked us to construct a trust fund which, in the years when it wasn't triggered by the farm community, would accrue against greater disasters in the future. I'm pleased to report that we've been able to do that.

The farm community and food producers in the small business community benefited as well from the reduction of provincial small business income tax from 8.5 percent to 5.5 percent. We estimate it could benefit 3,528 incorporated farms. I was very pleased to be able to deliver provincial sales tax exemptions to farmers who own greenhouses because of the possible expansion of the greenhouse industry.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Looking ahead now, to the years 1999 and 2000, everybody knows that. . . . Oh, how you've changed, hon. Chair. I just looked up from my paper.

By now it is clear that the government cannot act in isolation, and so I want to talk a little bit about the partnerships that we hope to effect with other governments, industry and the general public. Firstly, in terms of industry development, as all members know, we have worked with the industry to address liquor control regulation, environmental regulation and labour regulation. Recently -- at a meeting in Richmond and then in Ottawa -- we have embarked on consultation with the industry to try and determine a British Columbia trade position prior to the next world discussions around the GATT, scheduled to begin in Seattle this November.

As a partnership, I hope that it serves as a model for other provinces -- and actually for Canada. What Canada needs to do around food is enter the next round of world trade negotiations with a position, with a policy and with buy-in by their industry and the public -- instead of what happened last time, which is that the leadership went off to negotiate agreements that the industry had never agreed upon. I am very pleased by what we've been able to accomplish thus far, and this coming year I hope that all people in the Legislature, regardless of their political affiliation, will participate in the determination of a British Columbia trade policy and assist Canada to do the same.

[1500]

We've heard literally from hundreds of representatives of the food industry: producers, processors, distributors, retailers, unions, municipalities and MLAs. We then took that information and did two things with it. The recommendations that people made that we could deal with immediately we put in the to-deal-with pile. Those that involved long-term policy-making decisions of government we put in the standing committee pile to consider in the development of a provincial policy. The big social policy issues that are outside the scope of my ministry and the industry to fix in isolation from the people of B.C. and the government of British Columbia. . . I believe that the non-partisan legislative Select Standing Committee on Agriculture will bring back to the Legislature of British Columbia during the coming calendar year for consideration and creation of B.C.'s first agrifood policy.

[ Page 12388 ]

Other priorities include our desire to deal in the upcoming session and year with an initiative to modernize and consolidate food safety and food quality legislation. That sounds like a bunch of jargon that wouldn't be interesting to very many people, but I bring your attention to the worldwide controversy about what's in food -- brought to us by the crisis in England with "mad cow disease" and people's concern about additives in food and genetic engineering and hormones and all of the like. We hope to address these questions here in British Columbia this year and to become the first province in Canada to actually show a door of hope out of this morass of confusion.

We hope to create a legislative framework that would allow entrepreneurs who produce food of a specific quality that they wish to sell to the world to label that food in a way that would make people want to buy it. We would be able to avoid the situation that Europe and the United States are in, and everybody's chaos about: "What can you sell? What can't you sell?" We would like to create an environment in British Columbia in the coming year where the market will decide what they want to buy, and the government will facilitate that by making it possible to label what's in the food so that the seller can create a market opportunity out of what might elsewhere in the world be a problem.

In terms of streamlining, this is the year when, I assume, liquor and food sales changes to the winery industry will be finalized. This is the year when, I assume, Employment Standards Act changes will be finalized, and this is the year -- finally, after two years of having this job and answering questions and being somewhat irritated that I haven't fixed it yet -- that we may actually resolve the ditch maintenance issue. I would encourage members opposite to ask me all the questions they can in order to help encourage everybody to try and solve the problem on the ditch question.

[1505]

I will be going in a month to Saskatchewan -- I hope with the Agriculture critic -- to talk with all the other ministers in Canada about changing the way the federal agricultural safety net agreement in our country works. It is my opinion that it works essentially to the benefit of grain -- more than that, that it was invented for grain framers and provinces that produce lots of grain. It is my belief that it doesn't work so well for people who produce grapes, apples, ginseng, tomatoes. In essence, it doesn't work so well for either farms or provinces that are diversified in what they offer the world. One of our objectives for the upcoming year is to fix the historical inequity that the national agriculture safety net constitutes in Canada.

I hope that will suffice as an overview of both where we've recently been and where I hope to go in the near future. I look forward to questions from people of all parties on these issues.

B. Barisoff: What we will do is try to go through this systematically, but I'm sure people will pop in and out, asking different questions.

The first section I want to start on with the minister is the Agricultural Land Commission. Funding for the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission has been cut by $32,000 in terms of operating costs, grants and contributions, and lower recoveries. How will this cut affect the commission's operation and B.C. farmers?

Hon. C. Evans: It is assumed that the $32,000 savings will be delivered by sharing information services with other parts of the ministry, similar to the $1 million that we are trying to save by delivering corporate services differently.

We are also trying to have the Agricultural Land Commission work in a different way, so that when they process the oinformation, they can use the resources of government instead of having to do it by themselves.

B. Barisoff: Will there be any new fees levied for applications that come in to the ALR?

Hon. C. Evans: Not to my knowledge.

B. Barisoff: The mandate of the B.C. marketing boards is to protect small, family-based farms. However, the decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission appear to support the notion that bigger is better. The ALC refuses to allow landowners the option of dividing their holdings into smaller parcels, claiming approval would decrease the range of agricultural options available to the property. Many angry farmers have written to us asking about this issue, and they would like some answers. How does the minister propose that the seemingly incompatible mandates of the B.C. marketing boards and the ALC will be able to coexist?

Hon. C. Evans: I don't think there is any incompatibility at all. In fact, in many cases, I would agree with the position that as technology affects the world market for almost any product from apples to echinecea, it tends to drive the producer to have a larger piece of property under either fee simple or leasehold tenure, because they have to compete with other people elsewhere in the real world who have larger blocks of land. Due to the geography of British Columbia and the tendency to make it difficult, because we have narrow mountain valleys, to assemble a large piece of land, I don't think any marketing board producing any. . . . I have never heard, at least, of a marketing board involved in the production of any commodity arguing for smaller pieces of land on which to do that production. In fact, I have heard from dairy, hog and chicken producers of the need for larger pieces of property, simply in order to deal with manure disposal issues.

[1510]

[ Page 12389 ]

Hon. C. Evans: The market sort of determines how real estate is bought and sold. I think that if a person desires a one- or a two- or a three-acre parcel because they wish to get into a business that only needs one or two or three acres to produce, the market has a myriad of opportunities. The problem comes when you wish to produce a commodity that requires 15 or 1,500 acres. It becomes difficult to assemble that much land. I have never heard of a producer in the one-, two- or three-acre level who can't find a piece of land to buy to produce their product. This is even more significant for greenhouses, being one of the only agricultural industries which is just as easy to do outside of ALR land as inside. In fact, it can be done on land outside the ALR without any top soil and with pavement all over it. So I guess I would argue that there is no evidence that farm production is inhibited in any way by the unavailability on the market of small pieces of ALR property.

B. Barisoff: For landowners who wish to subdivide their land so as to provide homes for each of their children and thereby perpetuate their family farm, what options do they have when their applications are rejected by the ALC and the ministry doesn't offer any assistance either, if they want to maintain a family farm?

Hon. C. Evans: If the hon. member is talking about fee simple, I want to answer that question myself. I had the opportunity to visit Mexico, where that has been the rule. Ever since the Mexican Revolution every campesino had a certain number of hectares that they could farm, and their rule said that they could give it to their children. They have now divided it to the point where one of the economic operating advantages we have over Mexico is that in the main, the producers there are operating on pieces of property which are now too small to compete with us in the marketplace that they used to dominate because of their lower labour rates.

I would argue that if the hon. member wishes to observe the productivity of real farming in places where the government has allowed properties to be subdivided for family members on an infinite basis, not only Mexico but lots of places in Central America -- and, I think, Italy and Sicily and lots of places in Europe -- are excellent examples. The hon. member could go and look and would, I think, come back and say that actually, if farming is the objective, the infinite subdivision down to non-productive, or non-competitive, lot sizes would be the antithesis of good business.

[1515]

In the Okanagan area we have ten-to-20-acre spreads, which are quite common; in contrast, 2,000-acre spreads tend to be the rule in the Peace River area. Despite these differences, the Agricultural Land Commission treats both areas as one-shoe-type-fits-all. A single mandate cannot possibly satisfy the variety of needs for the different regions within the ALR. Would the ministry consider making changes on a regional basis?

Hon. C. Evans: There's a whole bunch of questions in the question. Number one, the hon. member suggests that it's impossible to pass on a family farm. The hon. member knows that the ALC has, since its inception, dealt with that very problem, and that's why you can put a trailer on your land and move into the trailer and give your house to your kids, or vice versa, during the transition period.

The hon. member also knows that we have to compete in the orchard industry, which he refers to, with the state of Washington, where the average farm size is four times what ours is. That means that they start out with an operational advantage -- a competitive advantage -- because they have a larger number of acres to write off the sprayer, the tractor, any expenses they have, the storage facilities, the truck.

If you want them to be profitable, in fact, you would need to increase farm size up to the competition, which means a multiplier of four. Any reduction makes it more difficult to compete. If you make it more difficult to compete, you make it difficult to have the industry exist at all. The hon. member, I think, would be doing a good job for the industry in his constituency if he was beating me up trying to figure out ways to increase lot size up to that of our competition -- if we're actually in business and we're not just there to be pastoral.

B. Barisoff: Carrying on with that is that a lot of family farms, particularly in the Okanagan, have done quite well. The question that I asked the minister was whether he would look at regionalization of the ALR. As I mentioned, 2,000-acre farms in the Peace River are common, whereas ten-to-20-acre farms in the Okanagan are common. It seems like, when the farmers are dealing with the Agricultural Land Commission, they're dealt with on kind of the same type of basis. In the Peace River, if you were to take an extra acre off for a family to build another home -- excluding a trailer or whatever -- it would make quite a difference. . . . I'm just wondering whether the minister would look at that.

Hon. C. Evans: Look, let's cut past some of the nonsense. The average year goes by and the Agricultural Land Commission gets 90 percent of their applications from non-farmers; less than 10 percent come from people actually engaged in the business. This ministry exists to make the business pay. I think that the people in the business know perfectly well that their children's ability to farm is not enhanced by giving them smaller lot sizes to compete with increasingly large lot sizes elsewhere. The hon. member knows that we're having huge difficulty in his community swallowing the Chinese entry in to the market in apples alone. Does the hon. member want to suggest that it would be easier to compete with this giant nation -- huge pieces of land and huge commodity amounts entering the market -- by making smaller lot sizes in that industry? I don't think so.

I think the argument serves the nine-tenths of applications that aren't actually agricultural. If that's what the hon.

[ Page 12390 ]

[1520]

Hon. C. Evans: I seem to be -- even with the assistance of all these wonderful people -- unable to fathom the question. Maybe the hon. member could say it again, and I'll try harder to get it.

B. Barisoff: It's probably a question that, philosophically, we'll have to argue when we have lots of time rather than wasting the estimates debate to get into it.

One of the local issues that I do want to ask while we're here -- I'm sure the minister is well aware of it -- is the David Lusted situation, where the gentleman has created a little log home industry on a piece of property that's been owned since the forties by his family. He employs 12 to 18 people. For whatever reason, the ALC is saying that he can't operate that -- that he's destroying farmland. My contention is that when he is finished, or whatever happens, he can turn it back into farmland. Right now, it's unviable; it's in a frost area, and it's unviable actually to grow hay. He can't make any money at it.

Hon. C. Evans: It sounds to me like an important business that should be encouraged to grow, and that the ALC has allowed the entrepreneur until April of the year 2000 to find a suitable place to be and allowed him to operate in the meantime. So I think it sounds to me like everybody's going to win, and the business will be allowed to comply and remain viable.

B. Barisoff: Further along that line, the regional district of Okanagan-Simalkameen has said it was going to take at least two to three years -- probably three years -- to do an area study so that they can find some industrial land. That's a far cry from April 1, 2000. They also asked for a $75,000 bond to go with that. My contention is that if it's not going to destroy the farmland, why wouldn't Mr. Lusted be allowed to continue operating until such time as the regional district has looked at the area to find suitable industrial land that they would zone accordingly, and be allowed to maintain these 12 to 18 jobs for a period of time, until the regional district has at least done their part of the job?

Hon. C. Evans: The member raises an incredibly important issue, and we've heard it time and again over the last few years -- that is, there is a failure in government, and that is the failure to proactively seek out suitable land for businesses that we could offer them in a problem-solving fashion. It's a real unfortunate thing that issues come up where people have already established something in a place where there's some regulatory reason why it shouldn't be there and then feel like government is in their way instead of government being friendly.

Part of the objective of this ministry is to actually hire a person whose job it is to solve these problems. One of the best things I think we could do for agriculture is to go find somebody to go find land to do non-agricultural activities on, in the places where people want to live.

I will give the hon. member and his constituent my word that this ministry will not wait three years to assist the municipality to find suitable land in the Cawston area.

[1525]

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member is quite right. It's legitimate for the gentleman on my right to talk in my ear, but it's less legitimate for me to talk in his. So speaking somewhat carefully, I would be pleased to try and help solve this problem. I think that all that we would really need is a sense, from the get-go, that all the parties intended to solve the problem as soon as possible. I would say to my staff: "Look, if you find that the ALC has objectives that are compatible with the landowner and the business person and the municipality, and all that everybody needs is a little bit of time to solve the problem, then you should go out and try to convince the ALC to be as gentle as they can with their regulatory regime in the meantime." All anybody really wants is to solve the problem; if that involves discussions around the questions of bonding, my staff would be pleased to be in those discussions as well.

B. Barisoff: I guess that with that, I would take it that the minister will endeavour to make sure that those 12 jobs aren't lost in the Cawston area, in dealing with staff and that $75,000 bond that they asked to be put up, until such time as the regional district has made their decision on where to go, so that we could at least make something work. I guess my feeling is that if he was really, truly damaging the land. . . . Like, the sawdust and stuff that comes off this manufacturing of log homes is actually sold to all the surrounding farms that happen to be in the area. They actually use this.

With that, I'll just pass on to the Quayle report and the provincial interest. Aspects of the Quayle report require legislative changes. Will these changes be coming this year?

Hon. C. Evans: Sure.

B. Barisoff: Sure, they will be coming this year. I guess I'd like to know if they are coming this year.

But carrying on in the same vein. . . . According to the government press releases, the select standing committee -- which I happen to be a member of -- is supposed to address the non-legislative aspects of the Quayle report. I'm just won-

[ Page 12391 ]

The Chair: Members, it's just been brought to my attention that upcoming legislation is not an appropriate subject for estimates debate. Another subject, please.

B. Barisoff: I guess what I could do, then, is ask how you're going to blend the Quayle report with the provincial interest.

[1530]

For example, she suggested that there be an agriculture infrastructure fund established by the province, that there ought to be increased support for education and research partnerships, that the province might wish to apply a recapture charge on land excluded from the ALR and that there should be a use of an agriculture infrastructure fund or a loan fund to make it easier for new or young farmers to get into the industry. The province decided not to do any of those things related to viability and to refer the need for, or the advisability of, those changes to the select standing committee, should they desire to talk about them.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that the Agricultural Land Commission is looking at some kind of a pilot project in working with municipalities. I understand Prince George may, perhaps, be the municipality for that pilot project. Could you give us a definition of what that pilot project's about and what it hopes to accomplish?

Hon. C. Evans: The Agricultural Land Commission is in discussion with the regional district in the Prince George area about the possibility of an agreement with the Agricultural Land Commission and the regional district that would develop a mutual planning structure. They would agree on terms for development and allow for some devolution of decision-making. While I have talked with some of the regional district directors and their staff and with Agricultural Land Commission members and their staff, I have never actually seen the terms of whatever it is they're discussing. So I can't really say what is in the paper, if there is a paper.

[1535]

Hon. C. Evans: They weren't selected; they applied to the commission a year ago, or thereabouts, and the commission decided to enter into discussions with them.

R. Thorpe: As the minister's no doubt aware now, Penticton is also interested in working closer with the Agricultural Land Commission to avoid duplication and to avoid spending a lot of money and a lot of staff time. I'm wondering, would it be the minister's intention to encourage the ALC to have a one-time pilot project? Or if other areas of the province are interested in working on pilot projects, would he also be interested in looking at those participating? Knowing that our province is vast and that many different regions have different needs, it may be an opportunity -- whatever the ALC is trying to learn or work through -- to have a couple of people working on pilot projects so that everyone can benefit.

Hon. C. Evans: When we met at Naramata with producers and MLAs from the standing committee and municipalities, I was surprised to hear from the farm community -- and processors too -- that they considered their regulatory relationship with municipalities to be the most broken of any government with the food industry. In other words, they felt that where relationships were poor between farmers and municipalities or farmers and regional districts, they inhibited income capacity more than their relationships with the province or the federal government. They also gave examples of municipalities -- and Kelowna was singled out -- that have done a good job of changing that broken relationship, usually by developing an advisory committee made up of farmers -- to the municipality.

Personally, I think we need all the good examples we can find of municipalities and/or regional districts working with all levels of agriculture to have a healthy outcome, especially where it affects land use and land use planning. I have expressed that opinion on many occasions to the Agriculture Council in terms of the industry and to the ALC as the regulator of the land, because I think there's everything to gain by increasing the understanding of agriculture at the municipal and regional district level and everything to lose by fostering a climate of ignorance and even working at counterobjectives.

J. Wilson: I'd like to go back to what we were talking about earlier. I had a question for the minister. Acceptable uses by the ALC. . . . Are they strictly commodity production and sale? Can you value-add to that crop if you wish? Is that an acceptable use by the ALC?

[1540]

J. Wilson: Then 50 percent of the commodity that you're value-adding to. . . . Say you were palleting alfalfa hay or something like that. You would only be allowed to purchase 49 percent of your hay that you palleted from other producers? You could not go above that?

Hon. C. Evans: You can only process up to 50 percent if your objective is retail. If your objective is wholesale processing, there is a different set of rules. It is possible to obtain a permit -- which, historically, the ALC has been quite willing to give -- to allow the processing for wholesale of more than 50 percent off-farm product.

J. Wilson: Then is there a set percentage that they could produce if they were wholesaling? Is it 90 percent? Is it 60 percent? Or could it be, say, 98 percent?

[ Page 12392 ]

J. Wilson: That didn't enlighten me too much. I'd like to throw another example out to the minister. Suppose I wanted to go into the business of building log homes and manufacturing these on my property. I have a woodlot. Maybe I can only get 30 percent of my logs off my woodlot, so I have to buy some timber somewhere else. Since silviculture is an acceptable use in the ALR, would I not be perfectly within my right to carry on, build some log homes and sell them through some retail. . .as a wholesaler of these? Would it not be an acceptable use? Could it not go over 50 percent?

[1545]

My simple answer to the hon. member is that anyone he knows who's in the situation of growing and harvesting wood on their own land and who desires to process that wood. . . . I would think the hon. member should encourage them to apply to the ALC for a permit to process that wood on their land.

J. Wilson: Are there any other acceptable uses and commodities in the ALR where you would have to get permission to process your crop?

Hon. C. Evans: It was a wonderful question, and it almost led to my being educated sufficiently to answer the question. However, unfortunately, I can't fathom the difference myself, so I'm going to ask the Agricultural Land Commission to define their policy for me, and I'll respond to the hon. member as soon as it makes sense to me.

[1550]

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, I agree with the hon. member that his point is clearer than the policy. In fact, I'll go further and say how confusing the policy is. Douglas fir trees are not considered a crop. Poplar trees are considered a crop, but if the hon. member decided to dedicate his entire farm to growing poplar and then put up a little mill and made boards, that would not be an acceptable use. I can't fathom how that's any different than squishing apples into juice. To me, it's just as rational.

I think that the problem is the historical line that we in British Columbia have drawn between agriculture and forestry. We think one is one and the other is the other and never the shall twain meet. We've created a tax regime which says that trees are more like a mining product than an agricultural product; ergo, we tax them according to their volume and without any relationship whatsoever to any silvicultural investment that you might put in on private land. Maybe as a civilization we're just beginning to grow up to the recognition that trees are a crop and that you might actually have to grow them. You don't just find them there and process them.

But I come back to all that I could say to the hon. member in the first place: the policy will have to be explained to me sufficiently so that I can defend it before I can explain it to the hon. member. I think he should pull this page out of Hansard and not let any of us go through it again next year without coming up with better answers -- and good on you for identifying the anomaly.

J. Wilson: As far as species go, we have dozens of woodlots in the central interior that grow coniferous trees; they do not grow deciduous trees. Those are established because they are an acceptable use. So the species, I think, is immaterial.

That's the policy that the Minister of Forests has taken, and the ALC has allowed all these things to develop and progress. Perhaps it's another question that the minister should find out about.

Hon. C. Evans: What I was alluding to was the fact that, yes, forestry is an acceptable use on agricultural land. You can have a woodlot and a ranch or a woodlot and a grazing permit -- what have you -- and the definition of a crop applies to the definition of a farmer and allows the tax benefits of being a farmer. The only species of tree that I know of that you can grow and be a farmer -- with definition for a crop -- is poplar. It is acceptable to grow Douglas fir, jack pine, larch, spruce, hemlock, cedar, fir and everything like that; that's an acceptable use. But if you want to grow a crop and be called a farmer, I think the only species of tree is poplar.

[1555]

[ Page 12393 ]

I just want to touch on the Buy B.C. program. The Buy B.C. program is in its fifth year of existence. In 1998 the B.C. government took action with initiatives such as the $1 million injection into new farming technology and agriculture awareness. Another initiative was the B.C. Sharing program. During last year's estimates, the minister referred to the Buy B.C. program as a great victory. How does the ministry evaluate the success of its programs -- Buy B.C., for example? Do we know how it's working?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there is an evaluation program that tracks the program every year, and it took a while. But it would appear that our polls show that, at present, 71 percent of consumers recognize the logo, understand what it means and actually look for it in the marketplace.

B. Barisoff: Can the minister tell us how B.C. products have fared in this?

Hon. C. Evans: We don't have tracking that says how many of the apples in British Columbia that are sold are B.C. apples and how many are from elsewhere -- or B.C. potatoes or something. If the hon. member means, "Can we show that the consumer is consistently increasing the amount of British Columbia product in relationship to other product?" -- yes, we can globally; but no, we can't commodity by commodity.

B. Barisoff: If you don't have it commodity by. . . . If you have it globally, why wouldn't you have it commodity by commodity? I guess my concern is to make sure that the program is working, to see that the B.C. products are faring well. So we must have a way of getting it commodity by commodity.

Hon. C. Evans: We don't have the capacity in the marketplace to bar-code the product and show that this is B.C. and this is non-B.C. What we do have the capacity to do is to figure out the global amount of money that British Columbians spend on food and the amount that our producers export. We can show that our share of the marketplace on a global level continues to increase. We can't answer product by product for you.

B. Barisoff: An additional $1 million is being spent in the Buy B.C. program this year. According to the ministry, this money will be used for such things as TV ads and regional pilots. Could the ministry provide a specific breakdown of how this $1 million is spent?

[1600]

Secondly, the Buy B.C. initiative tends to focus around August-September, so we are quite a way away from the point at which we usually spend this money.

B. Barisoff: I guess, then, that I would ask for the minister's commitment that, when the time comes when we've spent this money, there will be a specific breakdown of how the money has been spent -- that I could get a copy of how this million dollars is spent, whether it is September-October, July-August or whenever it might be. I just would like to see how it's broken down and how it's being spent.

Hon. C. Evans: We make that commitment.

B. Barisoff: Groups such as the Mainland Dairymen's Association have noted many times that while the farmers receive little for their product, many restaurants and grocery stores sell their items at a vastly inflated price. Given the economic hardship facing B.C. farmers, does the minister have any suggestions or incentives in mind that could help out B.C. farmers in this respect? I think we asked this question of the minister in the select standing committee.

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member puts his finger on the conundrum of the day: world commodity prices. In the Legislature today we heard people talking about copper, which I understand has come up a sixth or something. But the hon. member knows that commodity prices generally have been falling since World War II. They go up for a while and then down, but they continue to drop for a period of time that's longer than the lives of most of the people in this room.

So how do producers hedge against getting less return? Well, there's traditionally been technology increasing production, in order to drive down costs, in order to maintain your margin in spite of reducing return at the marketplace. It's my feeling that that strategy is beginning to wear thin, and the strategy of the future, I think, has to be to figure out how to sell people what they are actually willing to pay good money for. Where it is not possible to obtain a decent return from the commodity marketplace -- like the world price for beef, the world price for apples, the world price for grain and the world price for ginseng -- I think that we as a ministry, as a government and as a province have to figure out a way to teach people how to bypass that world price, if need be, to obtain a high enough return to be in business. It is not, by the way, a debate that is limited to British Columbia. In Europe they are having the same debate and deciding that they will deal with the fact that the commodity prices continue to fall and costs continue to go up by subsidizing the farmer -- by, essentially, paying people to farm.

In the United States they look at the same issue that the member raises, and I think it would be fair to say that their strategy is increasing technological inputs and very aggressive farm consolidation. I don't think either of those strategies is appropriate to British Columbia, so I think our solution is to

[ Page 12394 ]

[1605]

Hon. C. Evans: Well, Sun-Rype is an excellent example. We actually haven't managed yet to convince Sun-Rype to put the Buy B.C. logo on their juice boxes. In terms of support, as the hon. member knows, we exempted them from the initial round of recycling legislation in order to give them a break to find an alternative way to use Tetra-Pak. It is my sincere hope that Sun-Rype decides to participate in the Buy B.C. program, put the logo on their product and begin to gain a return here for the fact that they're local -- for the fact that they are a British Columbia producer.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister explain why Sun-Rype products are excluded from the B.C. ferries?

Hon. C. Evans: The short answer is: their bid wasn't accepted when they bid on the contract. However, they are packing concentrate for Minute Maid, which has the contract. It is my understanding that the product that's being sold on the ferries is actually running through their facilities, regardless of the fact that they didn't win the bid.

B. Barisoff: Are there any other B.C. producers who are being excluded from the B.C. ferries?

Hon. C. Evans: On the subject of liquids, I think milk is the only one guaranteed to be a B.C. product -- and water; that's good.

I want to defend B.C. Ferries a little bit. As far as Crown corporations go, they were actually engaged in a voluntary Buy B.C. program before I ever raised it with them. I was very impressed to find out that 80 percent of what they serve comes from British Columbia, when it is available. By saying "when it is available," I mean to exclude such stuff as oranges and the like. When people want to buy something we don't make, B.C. Ferries is somewhat forgiven for not sourcing it from B.C.

[1610]

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Moving onto B.C. Sharing, could the minister give us an update on the B.C. Sharing program and how it's progressed towards its goals?

Hon. C. Evans: The total amount raised since its inception is $1.2 million: $660,000 from the lower mainland, $208,000 from Vancouver Island, $60,000 from the Kootenays, $72,000 from the north and $120,000 from the interior.

B. Barisoff: Consumers would be more willing to support the government program if the government were more willing to support it also.

Hon. C. Evans: Agreed.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to the B.C. Agriculture Council, on April 24, 1998, a presentation by the B.C. Agriculture Council rated the farm-gate value of the B.C. agriculture industry at more than $1.6 billion. The council spoke then of the need for a provincial agrifood policy. A recent study commissioned by the B.C. Agriculture Council showed that B.C. has the lowest support for agriculture in all of western Canada.

The minister has also stressed the need for an agrifood policy in B.C. and has repeatedly asked the question: "What can the government do to help?" The minister asked what the government can do to help, and we cut the budget by $5.6 million. We're trying to focus on some new federal funding that I don't think answers the question. I guess I've got to ask the minister: what is the B.C. government doing to help the agrifood industry?

Hon. C. Evans: My introductory remarks were intended to address that question, and they ran the gamut from environmental issues to labour issues to world trade questions to budgetary issues. I'd be happy to answer questions -- specifics -- on any of it. But the generality that I find disturbing in the hon. member's question is the assumption that the word "help" is synonymous with money. Is it the hon. member's contention that the definition of better is bigger? If so, does he want to tell me where we require more money? Where would bigger be better?

B. Barisoff: First of all, the minister doesn't get to ask the questions; I get to ask the questions.

I think that if we went back to the Agricultural Land Commission. . . . We were having an argument about whether bigger is better. I was saying that bigger is not better. What I'm saying to the minister is that when we stood here last year and saw the budget go up by, I think, 23 percent or whatever, the minister propounded how great it was that we were increasing the budget.

My question to the minister is: when the budget goes down, how is this helping the agrifood industry? I'm not saying that money is necessarily the answer. But what I'm saying is that there have got to be ways -- and the minister must have thought of ways -- that we can help this industry to not leave the province. I guess the question still lies in the fact that I'm not saying you have to dump money in to make things work. I'm asking the minister: what have he or his staff thought of -- things to make it work, not necessarily dumping money in? When you take $5.6 million out, you certainly are going in the opposite direction. You're not only not adding money, you're taking money away.

[1615]

[ Page 12395 ]

On the subject of trying to create an environment so we can make money, that's what the trade discussions are about. That's what the agrifood policy discussions are about. That's what the environmental table is engaged in. That's what the labour table is engaged in. That's what we're doing with the greenhouse industry and the city of Delta. That's why we got municipalities working with the Agricultural Land Commission. That's what we're trying to do with the milk industry and the chicken industry on Vancouver Island and with the grain industry in the north. That's why we're engaged in discussions with the fruit industry in the Okanagan Valley to see how we can change the operating milieu and make replant work -- on and on. What we do here is to try to create a world in which the producer can make money. I would challenge anybody to show me in the estimates where we are delivering less as a result of budget cuts.

B. Barisoff: Then what we'll do is we'll move on to the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. The BCFGA and the packing-house executives have made it abundantly clear that the fruit growers are in need of immediate relief assistance. But the minister continues to disregard that fact in favour of promoting long-term solutions -- which is an admirable way to go, because I think that it's important that we have long-term solutions. But I guess my concern is. . . . My question to the minister is the concern that by adding another disaster with the tree fruit industries and the disaster through weather and whatever else, we're going to deteriorate the industry to such a point that it's too late for long-term solutions. I guess what we're looking at is that we should have been looking at some long-term solutions long ago, and now we're in a state where we're in a crisis situation where long-term solutions aren't going to fit the bill. Has the minister thought of ways of addressing the tree fruit industry on a short-term basis?

[1620]

I think it is, unfortunately, a foregone conclusion that the 50 percent market for apples -- 50 percent of its average value on the world market this year -- mixed with the 10 percent value for juice, mixed with the very large amount of heat-scalded product, mixed with the fact that it follows a year of other weather-related disasters means that there will be many people who will not survive in their present state.

But there's an underlying additional question that the hon. member asked, and that is: "Has the minister thought about, or shouldn't the minister or someone have thought about, a long-term solution some time ago?" I guess I would argue that that's what SIR was. That's what the marketing initiatives are about. That's why the packinghouses separated themselves from the BCFGA. That's what replant was about. That's what restructuring the OVTFA has been about.

The long-term vision, I think, of some elements of the industry has actually allowed them to deal with price failure and come out of it relatively intact. My objective would be to make the whole-farm program work for the industry as a whole and then try to highlight -- say, for 500 or 600 or 700 growers -- the difference in their survivability or the bottom line of those 250 or 300 who have engaged in long-term vision and replanted in the 1990s. That, I hope, would provide enough hope that people who survive this present disaster could justify (a) staying in the industry and (b) reinvesting in the future.

B. Barisoff: The minister emphasizes long-term solutions. Yet there's a distinct possibility that a solution of revitalizing the replant program and relying on crop insurance may not be enough to bail out the B.C. growers. We should keep in mind, also, that the B.C. growing industry provides 7,500 farm-related jobs in the central interior, and the industry then generates $200 million in revenue -- $900 million in economic activity. In fact, the replanting costs of the orchardists can be as much as $15,000 per acre.

The industry needs to protect it before it reaches the point of no return. I guess I've got to ask: are there any additional long-term solutions on the agenda for the coming year for the tree fruit industry? I'm sure we're going to see the tree fruit industry coming here en masse and whatever else. I'm just wondering if there are additional things that we can tell them.

Hon. C. Evans: I do not have a commitment to the replant program beyond this year. It would be a mistake for the hon. member or the industry to assume that even replant is guaranteed in the future. The only guarantee, I think, for the fruit industry in the short term is whole-farm insurance. The hon. member might be interested to know that of all the claims processed thus far, I think only a few dozen of them come from the fruit industry, in spite of the fact that papers have been available since January.

[1625]

B. Barisoff: The BCFGA has made a number of proposals to the minister in order to remedy the serious negative situation facing the B.C. growers. One of these recommendations is that the treatment of crop insurance payments should be left on the basis of how growers file their income tax -- for example, reporting '97 payments in '97 versus deferring '97

[ Page 12396 ]

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, the minister will consider acting on these recommendations.

B. Barisoff: In a positive manner, I hope. We all can consider acting on them.

Currently the whole-farm insurance program makes an adjustment for the change in inventory, making accrual adjustments to match income and expenses during the claim year. The BCFGA has recommended that the current method of valuing inventory under the whole-farm insurance program should be changed to a method which is consistent with generally accepted accounting practices, which indicate that adjusting for inventory is done at the beginning and the end of the year, using the lower costs or fair market value. The BCFGA suggests that this would more accurately relate the actual 1998 revenue to the 1998 expenses. Furthermore, the costs of the program would be small. Would the minister comment on these recommendations?

Hon. C. Evans: On that issue, as well as on all the others, I am in the process of responding in writing to the BCFGA, who I guess had some part in the wording of the hon. member's question. I'd be pleased, as soon as I get permission from the BCFGA to do so, to share my response with the hon. member. That will give him an opportunity to read into the record my answers specifically to this and to all those other changes that they requested.

B. Barisoff: With that, what I will to do is actually read in another couple of questions so that they will be on the record and I can get the answers for them. The next one would be: the existing design of the whole-farm insurance program excludes non-arm's-length labour -- family -- and includes arm's-length labour as an eligible expense or income; the BCFGA has requested that all labour costs be excluded from all years in the calculation of the whole-farm insurance claim. Several factors support this recommendation. First, the BCFGA indicated that in 1998 most tree fruit growers who filed whole-farm insurance claims would be a negative margin; in addition, 46 percent of the whole-farm insurance claims paid in 1997 showed negative margins in the claim year. This illustrates that there would be little cost to the whole-farm insurance program if all labour was excluded. Second, excluding all labour would make the program administration more efficient. Of the seven appeals received, five relate to inclusion or exclusion of labour. I imagine that the minister would answer that one.

[1630]

Hon. C. Evans: Are we done with this thing?

B. Barisoff: Yeah.

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member will get my written response to the BCFGA within a couple of days, so long as they say that it's okay to give it to you.

One thing I want to make clear to anyone listening to these debates is that there is an assumption that. . . . The hon. member used the word "bailout" at some point -- "Why don't we bail them out?"

B. Barisoff: Really?

Hon. C. Evans: You did. There is an assumption that there is a crisis which we need to respond to outside normal risk management processes -- by which I mean NISA, crop insurance and whole-farm insurance. I'm not sure that's true -- I'm not sure it's true in hogs; I'm not sure it's true in grain; I'm not sure it's true in soft fruit. Let me give you an example. We had estimates last year, and the same assumption was on the table. Last year was a big hail year -- some in the hon. member's own constituency. But when the year was over and we added up the crop insurance payments we made last year -- a disaster year -- and the whole-farm insurance payments we made, it turned out that in the Okanagan Valley, the average income per farm exceeded the five-year average.

So it actually could be that the risk management systems that the government has in place at the end of the year will substitute for the market income and that, at least for some producers, the net will be as good as the average. I'm not saying that's true, but last year we had this same debate, and it turned out to be true.

It's correct to look at people raising hogs or growing apples and say: "Gosh, we've got to do stuff for these folks." That's a good thing, but we have to do stuff that doesn't destabilize the industry itself. Some of the recommendations that the hon. member is asking me about would not be acceptable to agriculture generally. If the hon. member took his questions to the B.C. Ag Council and read them out, he might find out that agriculture generally doesn't agree with those changes. We have to deliver programs that work for the 200 commodities. We can't design programs for hogs and then ask everybody else to swallow them.

I hope that we can work through this particular crisis in the fruit industry in the Okanagan Valley in a way that the hon. member will find respectful but which also doesn't destabilize the rest of agriculture or the fruit industry itself by creating one of those bad government responses that in the end destabilizes rather than assists business.

B. Barisoff: I don't think that I'm asking the minister to destabilize the agriculture industry in B.C., because, for whatever reasons, it's gone along that path on its own. It seems nothing new that. . . . What's taking place is that it is destabilized, for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting that we look at bailouts to make the industry work, because I know that short-term solutions are not the answer to making the long-term viability of the industry work.

[1635]

[ Page 12397 ]

But I don't think that anybody's looking to destabilize the industry. What's happening is that we see that just south of the border, in Washington State, they have had quite an infusion of cash to make the industry work, and that's probably one of our main competitors. So in the long term we have to look at ways of making things work. As I said before, we're not looking at bailout programs from this side of the House or for that side of the House. We're all looking for long-term solutions to a short-term problem right now. But it is certainly a major problem in the Okanagan, particularly in the apple industry, that the BCFGA is looking to make work.

There are a number of questions that the vice-president, Mrs. Penny Gambell, brought forward that she wanted asked too. The minister has answered a number of them. There are a couple of them that it would be important to answer.

Will there be a commitment to provide more extension staff? I guess that would be good for staff to hear. They are currently being reduced to paper bureaucrats -- that's their term -- through lack of time, lack of the ability to be out there and do things for all of agriculture in the province.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a good question, hon. member, and I'm sorry to say that the answer to the question is no. There will be no increase in staff in the ministry in the foreseeable future.

B. Barisoff: I guess, probably in a lot of respects, that a lot of people would enjoy hearing the statement that there'll be no increase in staff. But I'm wondering whether there'd be a reallocation of staff, being more directed to dealing with the needs of the farmer. I guess that's probably the easiest way to put it -- that what staff we do have will be directed more to the ground floor kind of thing, where they can deal directly with the farmer so the benefit that's coming out of the staff that we do have is the long-term solution to making things happen.

Hon. C. Evans: I would like to say yes, and of course we work towards yes. Just about everything everybody here does is aimed at trying to free up staff to solve problems or identify opportunities for farmers. However, we are also attempting to restructure the agriculture safety net program, and the primary. . . . I mean, I have said to the people that work for me: "Your first job is to deliver whole-farm -- to put money in people's jeans 14 days after they ask for it." That kind of makes them paper bureaucrats. That means their first priority is to read all these forms and send out cash to farmers.

Secondly, the future of extension itself, as an idea, is somewhat at question. As the hon. member knows, the job of the ministry used to be to teach people to farm. But lots and lots of farmers say to me: "Shoot, that's old hat. That was before universities and libraries and the Internet. We don't need any help from you to find out how to grow apples. We can push buttons and find out how they do it China and Japan and Washington. The world is available to learn how. That extension function -- we don't need that anymore. In fact, the world has too much food. What we need help with is to figure out where to sell it -- how to get money." So I'm not even sure that the extension function of the ministry is doing people a favour. I'm not sure it would be a big favour to the industry for us to continue to teach people to come into the market to overproduce. I kind of think restructuring towards a focus on the marketplace would be the best thing we could do for the existing industry and also for new entrants, because we've got to get a higher price per unit for everything we do in order to be here at all.

[1640]

The minister did touch on this a little bit, and it's another question by the vice-president, Penny Gambell. Will there be consideration to the terrible cuts to the replant program, with a commitment to renew this much-needed program? I know the minister touched on it, but these are some of the specific questions, I guess, that I'd like the minister to answer again.

Hon. C. Evans: There's an assumption in the question that there have been terrible cuts to the OVTFA. The OVTFA has experienced two kinds of cut. One is that there used to be a commitment that would pay a farmer for the years of lost production from year 1 to year 4 if he tore out an orchard and planted a new orchard. That no longer exists.

However, the funding that would assist you to plant that orchard is still there, just not the transition while you wait for it to begin to produce. I'm not sure that's a terrible cut. I'm not sure that if people knew that they were going to make a living in an industry, they would think it was particularly unfair to invest three years to get a return.

We certainly don't have an equivalent program with cattle. We don't say: "We'll pay you while you clear your land, seed your land, develop your pastures." We don't say that we'll pay you for the period of time it takes. Ginseng, I think, is five years to the marketplace. We don't have a program in ginseng that says: "We'll pay you for the five years it takes you to get to the marketplace in ginseng." We don't have a breeding program that says: "You know, we'll pay you to raise the cow that you'll be selling someday in the future." So I'm not sure it's so terrible, hon. member.

Plus, when the program was invented, there was no bank program. OVTFA has been around for how long? You get a shot at it. We're pretty friendly in here. You can say ten years; it's been around for ten years. We now discover that the federal Farm Credit Corporation people have a program that looks like replant. You go and get the money, and it assists you to get to year 4.

Well, what would you say as a member of the opposition if I invent a program from one level of government, and then you found out that another level of government was offering the same program? Would you say I was doing my job? Or would you go into the Legislature and rant that I was doubling services and duplicating programs and . . . ? So I'm not sure that's so terrible.

The other cut to the OVTFA is the fact that it was sunsetted to cease to exist. With all due respect, hon. member, I've

[ Page 12398 ]

[1645]

But if the hon. member is saying that he would like to help me restart a new replant program, maybe eliminating some of the duplication, maybe changing it to fit the needs of the future, let's do it together. I don't necessarily think that what they thought ten years ago is what you'd think today.

These questions are supplied by Penny Gambell. I think Penny Gambell would say that replant needs to continue and to change, because the industry has to continue and change. If that's what you want, I would like to work with you to try to figure out how to make that happen. But I do not think that the fact that replant was designed to end is a bad thing or that it is going to end on the designated date is a bad thing.

B. Barisoff: Well, I think that to have government do what it says it's going to do would be quite a novelty by any stretch of the imagination of what takes place, whether it's now or in the future -- whatever might happen. But you do have my commitment that I will work with the minister to try to make things work, whether it's in the tree fruit industry or in whatever part of agriculture it is. I think that it's incumbent upon both of us, whatever side of the House we're on, to make things work.

I think it's important for. . . . We're probably one of the most non-partisan groups in government right now, and I think it's important that we all understand the fact of how important B.C. farmers are to the overall environment of British Columbia and the overall food supply we have in B.C. But I'm certain that when people like Penny Gambell or whoever, when they face a crisis -- whether it's in the tree fruit industry, whether it's in the hog industry or whether it's in the dairy industry. . . . Desperate times, I guess, require desperate measures, and they're trying to do whatever they can to survive. Some of these questions, I'm sure, are leading in that direction. They're trying to make sure that the industry survives. I've seen, particularly in the south Okanagan, where the replant program is working extremely well. We have all kinds of new varieties of apples -- the Fujis, the Braeburns, the Galas or whatever -- and they've done quite well over the years in what's taken place there.

Carrying on with just a few of the questions that she's put forward to ask, one of the other ones is: will the government recognize that hail is a natural disaster that requires special support? Apparently that was in the Ference Weicker report on crop insurance.

Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure exactly what the hon. member has in mind. We offer a spot loss program under tier 2, specifically for hail. We worked it out after the hail traumas of 1997-98, and it's very well subscribed by the producers themselves. So what recognition the hon. member is talking about. . . . I mean, I'm encouraging him to explain to me what it is that we don't do that he would like us to do.

[1650]

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. C. Evans: We're having a good time here.

The Chair: I'll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

B. Barisoff: I was directing them through the Chair. It's just that I happened to be looking at the minister when I was talking to him through the Chair.

As I was saying, once the minister answers the questions that the BCFGA has asked, I'm sure that we'll both understand exactly what they were asking for. One of the other questions that they asked is: will the B.C. government return the NISA matching dollars to 2 percent from the 1 percent cut in '97? Here again, B.C. ranks among the lowest of any provinces in Canada in the NISA program.

Hon. C. Evans: We require -- and I think I have gone on at some length already -- a reallocation of how the Canadian safety net system works. If British Columbia's share of the national system was increased, British Columbia would consider raising NISA from 1 percent to 2 percent. Is that right?

A Voice: You said it.

Hon. C. Evans: Let the record show that he nodded. But if British Columbia's share remains where it presently is, then I at least would not be recommending that we increase our NISA contribution. I am actually quite pleased with how whole-farm insurance has worked out and with the percentage of our safety net money that we've put into whole-farm. I would like to encourage the hon. member to think about it too.

There are provinces, as you know, that don't participate in NISA, and there are industries, like cattle, that don't participate in NISA. At the present time there is $21 million in NISA accounts from the fruit industry. I wonder how the hon. member expects me to defend NISA to the citizenry if $21 million sits in a NISA account while you and I spend the people's money in here debating the crisis in fruit.

NISA was invented as the hedge against price collapse, just like crop insurance is the hedge against weather collapse. So you create a hedge, and you have it be government-funded. You put a whole bucket of money in the bank, and then you say: "Some day, if there's price collapse, you guys draw down this money." Right now is the day -- the hour cometh, the walrus said. They cut the value of apples in half. I would call that a price collapse. And there is $21 million still in the bucket while you and I are in here at 5 o'clock, talking about the crisis in the fruit industry.

I, at least, think it is just as well that there is nobody here, because if ordinary citizens knew that, they might have some

[ Page 12399 ]

I would not like that. I think it serves all kinds of other functions, like helping people retire and helping people change how they do their business. But it was invented for price collapse. The price has collapsed, and nobody is drawing it down.

[1655]

Moving on to the difficult situation that other growers are facing, a number of blueberry growers in the Fraser Valley are turning to harvesting machines to offset labour costs and problems. Unfortunately, these harvesting machines also pose a threat to the fresh fruit export market. The mechanized process tends to shorten the shelf life, making the fruit unsuitable for export. Considering that 65 percent of the total blueberry output is exported and that the fresh fruit market provides growers with a premium of between 10 and 20 cents a pound over what is sold to processors, the problem can have considerable ramifications.

I'm just asking the minister if he has any ideas on this catch-22 type of problem or any solutions for the problem that the blueberry growers are faced with.

Hon. C. Evans: This is a very excellent debate that the hon. members raises -- all the best questions that keep me up at night. I congratulate him on his research.

Yeah, I have some suggestions. I think the federal government should give its head a shake, change agriculture back and designate it as a seasonal industry, and make sure that people who pick fruit can get EI. I think that we need to continue -- the industry and the provincial government -- to figure out how to make labour standards work for pickers. I think Canada should sometimes visit west of the Rockies to understand that we have an indigenous workforce in soft fruit -- in bush products -- and that their regulatory regime is designed for migrant labour -- Caribbean and Mexican imported labour. Ours needs to be designed for folks who actually live here.

I don't think there's the slightest problem of delivering workers to pick the fruits that the hon. member is concerned with, if we make the laws and rules work for producers and if we assure that legitimate and honest labour contractors are available for farmers to hire. But it is my guess that to get to the place where we can assure that the system will work will take us several years. In the couple years of grappling with this problem, I have yet to come up with a short-term solution that is guaranteed to solve everybody's problem. All I can do is assure the hon. member that we will continue to work with the Ministry of Labour, the producers, the labour contractors and, when they feel like it, the federal government to try to come up with a solution.

B. Barisoff: I guess I would make it incumbent upon the minister and myself or ourselves or all of us together as legislators to ask the minister how, then, we would go about making these things happen. If there is an answer to the problem, I'm wondering whether the minister, along with the rest of us, would make. . . . You know, we are the legislators; we are the ones who make the laws -- or the federal government or whoever. Are there ways that the minister can see that we can make these things happen to make this a reality and make these things work? It's just that we're in a position to do that, and I think that what we're trying to do is make sure that we make things work for the farmers.

[1700]

The next thing we could do is try to assure that all government services are offered in the language that the farm community, the labour contractors and the workers themselves speak, which has historically not necessarily been done. For example, I have in my ministry 250 employees. The fruit industry is primarily Punjabi-speaking. And we have how many Punjabi-speaking people in our ministry? Let the record show that we're unable to come up with any.

Hon. D. Streifel: I know of one.

Hon. C. Evans: According to the Minister of Fisheries, we have one Punjabi-speaking employee in our ministry. I assume there are probably others but understand that that's a terrible record.

I think we need to create a regulatory regime that cleans out unscrupulous operators in the labour contractor community and, at the same time, rewards honest people. I happen to think that the labour contractors are a necessary component of the way our fruit industry works. In other words, in the absence of the contractor, it's difficult for me to comprehend how they would get enough pickers to the blueberry or raspberry field in time to get the crop off, given the weather window involved. Hon. member, we're going to have to struggle with it, because none of these solutions are easy to make happen in a hurry.

For example, should I wish to employ someone, to create an FTE and to find someone speaking the language of my own client group, I have to first have an FTE available to fill. During the period of time I've had this job, we have reduced the number of positions. The only job-filling that we do is bidding into positions by people who are laid off. We have no opportunity to solve the problem by the creation of a new position. That, I hope, doesn't constitute an excuse. It's simply an example of the difficulty of solving the problems that the hon. member raises.

[ Page 12400 ]

In July of 1998 the provincial government provided a $100,000 loan guarantee to Creston Cooperative Packers as part of a financial restructuring package that would provide working capital for the fruit processing cooperative. According to the minister, this loan will carry the cooperative over until a replanting of orchards will have produced mature trees. I guess my question to the minister is: if the replant program is not going to be there, and we've put a $100,000 loan guarantee into Creston Cooperative Packers. . . ? How is this going to work out when they don't have the replant program to get the trees in the ground in the Creston area? The minister is probably well aware of that area. How are they ever going to be able to repay the loan that they've taken out?

[1705]

B. Barisoff: I'm sorry to hear that. I would much sooner have heard that things were going along well and that they had replanted enough that the loan would be repaid. I guess that goes down along the lines of when they lose. . . . I don't know how many other packing facilities they have there, but when they lose the packing facilities or whatever, it's not long before the producers of fruit or whatever else. . . . The economics and the viability of transporting the products, whether it's back into the Okanagan or wherever it might be, becomes uneconomical. Consequently, what takes place is that the farms don't exist anymore, and the whole industry in that particular part of the area goes down. I happen to know friends of mine that are in the cherry business over there, who find that a very good area to grow particular varieties of cherries and have invested quite substantial amounts of money into that area. So I hope, for their sake and everyone else's sake, that something turns around and it starts to work.

Moving on, the B.C. raspberry market has weakened considerably since early 1997, primarily due to increased North American production. On numerous occasions when farmers have asked the ministry for help, the minister has usually pointed to the whole-farm insurance program or the replant program -- both of which, according to farmers, are not nearly enough. In addition, the minister has often informed them that the government will provide no direct assistance and that farmers need long-term planning -- and the industry would become more self-reliant if it is to survive. That's quite ironic, considering that the 1998 agrifood policy was virtually centred around the question: what can the government do to help the raspberry industry?

These are questions that I gleaned from the different industries. I guess my concern is that we're leaving it to the growers' own devices, and they may not work. If the situation continues to deteriorate and there's no direct assistance -- I guess this applies to almost all the industries -- their very survival is probably in jeopardy. I guess it's the same question that applies not only to the tree fruit industry, the raspberry industry. . . . It's the type of question that. . . . What is the minister going to do? I'm sure I've probably heard it over and over -- where we're going with this. So if you want to respond, that's fine. A lot of these questions still deal with the same type of. . . . I'll wait for the minister to get back.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members. Continue, member.

[1710]

The Chair: You can continue.

B. Barisoff: What if he doesn't hear me? It doesn't look like he's paying attention to the question.

The Chair: The hon. member will continue.

B. Barisoff: B.C. marketing boards have been fighting an uphill battle with the provincial government for quite some time, trying to stay economically competitive with the interprovincial and global markets. Even worse, the next round of World Trade Organization talks are scheduled for 1999 -- I think the minister referred to that -- and the U.S. has given notice that the level of tariffs will be on the negotiating agenda. The minister appointed 22 leaders from the B.C. agrifood industry to provide advice to the province. Can the minister give me these appointees and any assurance of the upcoming talks? And what happened. . . ? Most of his budgetary measures for this have already indicated a commitment to helping out the B.C food industry. It's a little convoluted. You were at the WTO talks. I guess what I'm looking for is the people that were with you -- who went to it -- and what exactly happened there.

Hon. C. Evans: I'll get the hon. member a list of the participants, because I don't have that here. As for what happened at it, there weren't resolutions that got voted on or something like that. But the 500 people broke up into workshops and attempted to build a Canadian position prior to the next round of GATT. I guess the gist of the position was that Canada thinks the rest of the world should live up to the rules that already exist before the rest of the world asks Canada to change any more.

B. Barisoff: On July 7, 1998, the chair of the B.C. Council of Marketing Boards wrote a letter to the minister requesting him to address a number of issues. One request involved incentives to encourage the food industry investment. A code of conduct was formally proposed between the provincial ministers but was not officially developed. The B.C. Council of Marketing Boards requested that the code be implemented and effective for B.C. to remain competitive in the agrifood industry. Has the minister followed up on this request?

Hon. C. Evans: It's true. British Columbia does think there should be a code of conduct in how provinces behave.

[ Page 12401 ]

B. Barisoff: The second request was for the minister to address the issue of the agreement on internal trade. Specifically, the vegetable industry requested the need to maintain provisions for ministerial exemptions. What is the minister's position on that?

[1715]

B. Barisoff: A third request revolved around the issue of domestically consumed feed grain under the transportation rate cap. The council described the current discrimination against B.C. livestock and poultry sectors as unacceptable. Can the minister please report on the progress that has been made in respect to this matter?

Hon. C. Evans: I certainly can. I was pleased to berate Canada from the microphone in front of all the people in Ottawa on this very issue, and the hon. Chair will be pleased to know that the producers in the room clapped and the politicians in the room scowled.

B. Barisoff: In February 1999 the B.C. Marketing Board completed a review of the regulated marketing system, entitled "The Evolving Regulated Agriculture System." Can the minister provide an update as to what the results of this review are?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes. The review is complete in draft form. I have received it. I have also talked with representatives of the marketing boards about it. It is presently the subject of thorough consideration by myself and my ministry, and I will advise the hon. member and the industry as soon as I decide what to do about the report.

B. Barisoff: So it could be my assumption, then, that no actions have taken place since the completion of this review, in line with any of the recommendations.

Hon. C. Evans: The deputy reminds me that the answer to that question is yes. There has been one action as a result of the review, and that is that we extended the life of the B.C. Mushroom Marketing Board.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister tell me when the draft policies and that will be acted upon?

Hon. C. Evans: Before fall.

B. Barisoff: We're getting down to the short answers.

During last year's estimates the minister stated that the ministry wanted the family farmers -- the small businesses -- to drive the provincial economy. "To do this," he added, "we need a safety net that would work, an investment policy that would lead towards change and a supply management where it would make sense." Does the minister feel that we've witnessed the progress of these reports over the past year?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I very much do.

B. Barisoff: Moving on here, the need to continue the cranberry marketing scheme has been questioned, since the majority of the product is exported to the United States. In its review, the British Columbia Marketing Board recommends that the B.C. cranberry marketing scheme be continued. The B.C. Marketing Board also recommended that the Cranberry Marketing Board carry out an industry review to determine the necessity of production controls within the industry. Have the British Columbia Marketing Board recommendations regarding the Cranberry Market Board been followed up?

Hon. C. Evans: No. It's part of the report that I haven't responded to yet.

[1720]

Hon. C. Evans: I'm considering it.

B. Barisoff: I'm just touching on all these marketing boards. The Tree Fruit Marketing Board is also currently inactive. In its review, the British Columbia Marketing Board recommended that the Tree Fruit Marketing Board scheme also be continued to March 31, 2000, at which point it be revoked unless it can provide sufficient business and strategic planning. Does the minister have any thoughts on that recommendation?

Hon. C. Evans: The main job, I think, of the Tree Fruit Marketing Board is to keep a list of producers, so that if the province decides to make an ad hoc payment, we'd have everybody's name and address. Since the hon. member wants me to consider making an ad hoc payment, we'd best keep the marketing board, at least, while we consider that, so we'd have everybody's name and address. The short answer is that I'm still considering that recommendation.

B. Barisoff: I think the minister said something about me being in favour of an ad hoc payment. I think what I'm in favour of is making sure that the industry survives.

Hon. C. Evans: So maybe just say into that microphone that you're not in favour of it, then.

The Chair: Order, members.

B. Barisoff: In the grain review final report -- the Estey report -- Judge Estey has made a number of recommenda-

[ Page 12402 ]

Hon. C. Evans: I don't have a position on the Estey report. There is a response in common from the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry Responsible for Northern Development and the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't have it, but I will get it for the hon. member.

B. Barisoff: Are there any benefits that the minister can see that B.C. farmers will gain from the report?

Hon. C. Evans: It's a difficult question, because I would like to say yes. I would like to say that the results of implementation of the Estey report would increase the use of Prince Rupert as a western grain terminal for both British Columbia and prairie production. However, I'm not quite sure that is what's going to happen out of the Estey report. I would like to say, in response to the question, yes, there are possible benefits from Estey -- but not a foregone conclusion that benefits will accrue.

[1725]

Hon. C. Evans: No, actually I can't. The truth is that I have been to a half a dozen meetings on this issue, and I find it exceedingly difficult to understand all of the complexities of grain transportation. The honest answer to the hon. member's question is: I am -- as we are as a government -- continuing to study the situation.

B. Barisoff: I'll ask one more question on this, then. In the report, Justice Estey recommended that the province and the federal government spend more money on upgrading roads and highways impacted by the transfer of grain traffic from rail to road. Saskatchewan has spent almost $1 billion on its highways in the last five years, and it has increased its spending by more than $60 million in the last two years. If that recommendation is acted upon, what would this government's strategic plan be? It is probably a better question asked of the Minister of Highways, but I would pose it to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: It's really apples to oranges. In Saskatchewan there is massive reorganization required as a result of railroad abandonment. As you know, Estey is about grain. Grain, essentially, is just in the Peace for British Columbia -- or, at least, grain produced for export is just produced in the Peace. We don't have the same spur line abandonment issues that they have on the Prairies. So I don't think we're going to respond in the way Saskatchewan responded, nor should we.

But I want to say this: it is my belief that in the last 12 months and in the 12 months to come, British Columbia's budget for road rehabilitation, which is essentially what we call rural road investment, has been higher than its historical average and maybe even higher than historical highs. Last year the region that we devoted most of the increase to was the Peace. So the one area of the province that has grain transportation issues is already receiving the highest percentage of the highest level, to my knowledge, in history.

I think, then, that it would be difficult to comprehend a situation in which the government's acceptance or rejection -- or the federal government's acceptance or rejection -- of Estey's recommendations on grain transportation could possibly result in an increase in rural expenditures in our grain-producing region, because they're already happening at the maximum conceivable.

B. Barisoff: During the estimates briefing, the ministry stated that $38.9 million, including the federal contribution from AIDA, will be available to farmers this year through all the agricultural safety net programs. Last year $32.1 million was available to farmers. Could the minister provide a breakdown of the funding for the agricultural safety net programs for '98 and '99, to show where the extra $6.8 million is coming from?

[1730]

B. Barisoff: It's our understanding that the ministry can move money between the safety net programs -- between the whole-farm insurance program and the NISA program. What constraints are there on these types of transfers?

Hon. C. Evans: I think I understand the question. The answer is a technical accounting answer. I will commit to supplying the hon. member with the answer, but at present I can't help him.

B. Barisoff: I appreciate the fact that you can get that. I do know that, unlike some of the other ministries, the Ministry of Agriculture does get the answers to the critic. I'm receiving some from other ministries that are just arriving now from last year's estimates. So I commend your staff for doing such a good job that they do get it on time, and I would expect that will happen in the future too.

The performance measure target for crop insurance for 1998-99 is $10 million. The 1998-99 forecast is $11.4 million, and the 1999-2000 target is $12 million. How do these figures break down in terms of number of participants, types of coverage -- basic, basic-plus -- and the commodity type?

Hon. C. Evans: If I understand the question, the hon. member is asking what the participation rates by commodity are in the agricultural safety net system. I have figures for 1996 and 1998 in order to show change, because of course, what winning looks like is covering more of the crop, and historically we had very low participation rates. For tree fruits -- in 1996, 54 percent of acreage was covered and in 1998, 95 percent; grapes -- in 1996, 57 percent and in 1998, 84 percent; berries -- in 1996, 17 percent and in 1998, 70 percent; vegetables -- in 1996, 5 percent and in 1998, 37 percent; grain -- in

[ Page 12403 ]

[1735]

Hon. C. Evans: Like many rumours, this one is at least before its time and at worst false.

B. Barisoff: I'm just reading here that the call for private crop insurance was one of the three recommendations made by Ference Weicker in its review of crop insurance last year. I guess if the minister is indicating that it's false, I'll take his word for that, and we'll move on to something else.

According to the summary report for 1996, 22 percent of the producers participated in the old crop insurance program. In 1997, 46 percent of the producers participated in the new crop insurance program. In 1998, 59 percent of the producers participated in the program. Can the minister please share the statistics for participation in the crop insurance program for 1999?

Hon. C. Evans: No, I can't. We aren't finished selling it. The deadlines haven't passed for everybody that's supposed to buy it, so I can't say what the total will be when we finish selling it.

B. Barisoff: During last year's estimates the minister revealed crop insurance enrolment by commodity for '97: blueberries -- 64 in tier 1, 6 in tier 2; cranberries -- 26 in tier 1, 1 in tier 2; raspberries -- 60 in tier 1, 3 in tier 2; forage -- 267 in tier 1, 13 in tier 2; wheat, 85; wine, 67. In terms of blueberry, cranberry, raspberry and forage crops, only 5 percent of the producers who purchased insurance in '97 got the plus package. What are the '98-99 figures for the basic-plus program enrolment?

Hon. C. Evans: Tier 2 coverage in '97 was for $15.8 million worth of crop value. In 1998 tier 2 was for just about $28 million -- so quite a considerable increase of $13 million, almost doubling the tier 2 coverage in 1997.

B. Barisoff: Does the minister feel that the plus program has been a success to this point?

Hon. C. Evans: I wouldn't go so far as to define it as a success. Obviously, increasing numbers of people are buying increasing amounts of coverage. However, we continue to try to improve the product. I think we actually have quite a long way to go before I would say that it was something that we were happy with or want to give anybody the impression that we were done trying to make it better.

J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister. One in particular came from a hog farmer in the Fraser Valley, and I think the critic has talked to staff about it. Apparently he was promised, on April 26. . . . First of all, this particular hog farm was the third claim in on the AIDA program and the first one approved by either our staff or the Alberta staff -- whoever approves them. He was assured on April 26 by Terry Peterson that the cheque would be issued in four or five days. Now, apparently, there's been a rule put in place in Victoria which requires a 20-day wait in Victoria before the cheque is issued. At least, that's what he's been told by Terry Peterson's staff, so the cheque has been delayed. I was wondering if the minister could check with his staff and see if that is indeed the case and what we can do about it.

[1740]

I expect that estimates will carry on tomorrow and that we can go into this at greater length. I can say these things and answer the question quickly: firstly, it is true that the people who applied first -- and the hon. member's question sounds like it has to do with the third person who applied -- were somewhat delayed, because the federal government hadn't built their program yet, and we were delivering a federal-provincial program. When we actually built the program, we built it with a 14-day turnaround -- which is probably the fastest in the country, because we already had a program, and most of the other provinces have to invent one.

Now here's the bad news, hon. Chair. It could be that there actually is a 20-day delay in mailing the cheque. I will get a further answer for you and for me by tomorrow, when estimates carry on.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada