2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 29, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 22
[ Page 15867 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce three people from my riding: two students and a teacher from Cowichan Secondary School. These two students have won the provincials and are headed to Edmonton on June 3 to compete in the Canadian finals of the Student Auto Skills Challenge, where I am sure they will be successful, given the track record of Cowichan high school. Daniel Kimmerly, Neil Myhre and their teacher Tom Gavaghan are here to visit the Legislature. I would ask all members of the House to help me congratulate them and welcome them here today.
[1410]
M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I have a request and then an introduction. This week Canadians and Quebeckers are commemorating the passing of an individual whose influence, I think it can be said, extended far beyond the boards of any rink he ever played in, and that is the passing of Maurice "Rocket" Richard. I never saw him play, but I think it's a testament to his reputation as a competitor over 18 years in the NHL and, after his retirement, as an ambassador for Canada's national game that he garnered a reputation that went well beyond the borders of Montreal and Quebec. I wonder if it would be appropriate for this House, via your good offices, to send letters of condolences to his family in Quebec.
The Speaker: Thank you, member; I'd be pleased to take those comments and make an appropriate response.
M. de Jong: There is a delegation in Vancouver -- and my colleague for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain will make some additional introductions -- at a conference studying the Sikh religion. Dr. Pritam Singh, Dr. Gurdashan Dhillon, Dr. Balwant Dhillon, Dr. Sulakhan Singh, Dr. Sangat Singh and Col. Parminder Singh are here in the gallery, along with several others. Also a friend of mine, Sukhminder Cheema, is visiting the precincts today. I hope members will make them feel welcome.
C. Clark: I am happy to add to my colleague's introduction of the members who are visiting from India. They are being hosted by some local folks: Satnam Johal, first among them, Sarbjit Bains, Bahadur Sandhu and Manjit Dhami are all joining us as well. I hope the House will make them all welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to follow up the remarks by the hon. member for Matsqui. Often it is not until someone dies that we Canadians realize the depth of talent we have in this vast country. I'd like the House to recognize and mourn the passing of two Canadians from vastly different parts of Canada and to celebrate their long careers.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Matsqui, Rocket Richard, who is now lying in state in Montreal, was perhaps Canada's greatest hockey player. A couple of years ago, when we took our Olympic bid team from B.C. down to Toronto to compete against Quebec City and Calgary to be Canada's choice for the Winter Games, there was a reception that the former Premier and I went to. We met the Pocket Rocket, Henri Richard, and we were quite talkative when speaking to him. Then behind the Pocket Rocket was the great man himself, Rocket Richard. Everybody around was speechless at seeing the Rocket. The eyes were gentle, and he was very cheerful and great in greeting us. It was like seeing a Canadian icon. But, you know, the eyes were not always gentle, because when he bore down on an NHL goalie with those eyes and those legs and that stick, he really was uniquely Canadian and uniquely Québécois.
Ici en Colombie Britannique, nous disons au Québec et aux Québécois: "Merci pour Richard." As they said in the Forum, the old chant was: "Vas-y Maurice, vas-y Maurice." Thank you so much for a life that was really superb and very Canadian.
While I'm up I also want to mention the passing of E. Davie Fulton, another great Canadian from another part of this vast country. He was an MP for Kamloops for many years, the Attorney General of Canada and a Supreme Court judge. He was a brilliant man who had his tough times -- but he overcame them -- and a wonderful life.
I once saw Judge Fulton at the latter part of his career, at a meeting of the International Joint Commission. There were American Congressmen there and Canadian MPs. An American official got up and gave a kind of stammering speech. They called upon a Canadian to get up, and Mr. Fulton, who was well past 75 then, got up and gave the most brilliant speech. We were all so proud of him, from all parties. One of the Americans said: "You should have made that guy the Prime Minister." And he almost did it; he was almost the prime minister from British Columbia. His was a brilliant career and a sad loss, but mitigated by the fact that he served this province and this country, in his way, very well.
C. Hansen: Just before the House convened this afternoon, I had the pleasure of meeting with 40 grade 4 students from Crofton House School in Vancouver, their teacher Ms. Magrath and some of the parents who are accompanying them. I must say they had great questions, a great day for being here and an excellent tour of the buildings. I hope the House will join me in making them very welcome.
[1415]
Oral Questions
BALANCED-BUDGET LEGISLATION
C. Clark: Well, the Premier had a conversion on the road to Kamloops on the weekend. He's decided he wants to balance the budget in British Columbia. You know, it would be laughable enough, coming from this Premier who has sat and roundly supported nine consecutive deficit budgets. But it is even more preposterous in light of the comments that he made in the most recent BCGEU newsletter, where he says that he's just going to throw out the window any public sector wage negotiating guidelines and that if you go to the table, you'll be able to get whatever you bargain for. How is it the Premier thinks that British Columbians are going to believe he's serious about balancing the budget in British Columbia when he's already opening the vault to his pals in the BCGEU?
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's good to see the opposition's interest in the Premier's speech in Kamloops. I'd say that balanced-
[ Page 15868 ]
budget legislation is entirely consistent with the Budget 2000 as any
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: But we also have to deliver on a balanced approach to maintain services while cutting taxes and while making sure that public sector workers have a chance to bargain freely and collectively. That's the balanced approach we need, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain with a supplemental question.
C. Clark: Well, there's something this government is absolutely consistent about, because they are always consistently misleading British Columbians -- every opportunity that they get. This Premier, when the TV cameras are on, talks about how he wants to balance the budget. But when he goes and talks to the BCGEU, not only does he say he's going to throw out public sector wage guidelines, but he starts speculating about how they might this time get 4-4-and-4. That's 12 percent over three years. How does the Premier think he is going balance a budget in this province when he's already openly speculating about 12 percent wage increases for public sector employees?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Unlike the opposition, we on this side believe in free collective bargaining.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I gave an interview to the BCGEU, and I have said this publicly. I in fact said this on Rafe Mair's show the other day, a week or so ago. I said to people who want free collective bargaining, which we support, that if you are a public sector union, you would bargain hard on behalf of your members. We would bargain hard on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The unions might get 4-4-4; they might get zero-zero-zero. But there would be a hard bargain driven.
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain with a further supplemental.
C. Clark: I can tell you that nothing comes free with this government. The 4-4-4 -- 12 percent over three years for public sector wages -- is going to kill any opportunity for a balanced budget.
But you know, there's a whole other
Sorry about that. Forgive me, hon. Speaker.
[1420]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
C. Clark: He also goes on to say in the interview -- I've found it now -- that he went and looked at the budget for Parks, and he found out that it wasn't quite enough: "I discovered that once the budget was made public, that the Parks area is underfunded." It's sort of like how he discovered that the cuts to independent schools happened after the budget was presented.
So tell me, hon. Premier: how do you expect to balance the budget when you apparently don't even read it before it's introduced to this House?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, it's really a pity that they have to go to my interview with BCGEU to pick out anything to talk about in this House. It really shows that this opposition is becoming lazier by the day. That was before the budget was introduced.
The Speaker: Hon. member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: I guess the question is: how do you really gauge the sincerity of what the Premier and the NDP are now saying around the issue of balanced budgets? I think what you do is go back and see what they've said in the past -- members of the NDP caucus, for example. The member for Kootenay said on May 3 of last year that balanced-budget laws are not only shameful but disgraceful. That's what she said on May 3. Then you go to the cabinet, because the present Minister of Employment and Investment described balanced-budget laws as "a crock." So pity the Premier, who is now caught between a crock and a hard place, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Premier explain why British Columbians should have any faith in his supposed new conversion to the cause of balanced budget, when his own caucus says it's a crock, a disgrace and shameful?
The Speaker: The Premier.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, when I became the Premier, we dealt with many issues. One of the issues we dealt with was the budget transparency issue. We introduced the toughest budget transparency legislation in the country. Hon. Speaker, guess what. We're going to pass it.
After the next election it will continue, because we will be the government. The opposition will have their day, and we will defeat them in the next election. There's no question about that in my mind.
But let me continue. The second part of that has to be that we need to remember, ourselves, that balancing the budget has been a New Democratic value for a long, long time.
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the opposition obviously doesn't want to listen to this.
[ Page 15869 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, question time is expiring. Premier.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Tommy Douglas balanced all his budgets; Allan Blakeney balanced seven budgets; Roy Romanow did it; Gary Doer did it. I no longer want to owe money to the banks. We want to spend money on the people of British Columbia.
[1425]
The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: Well, it's become a practice in this House for the Premier to be blindsided by members of his own caucus; God forbid that it should happen again. We're from the opposition, and we're here to help.
I want to go to the Minister of Employment and Investment, Mr. Speaker. He's in charge of a ministry that commands a multimillion-dollar budget. It sounds to me like the orders from the Premier's Office are changing. I'm wondering if the notion of having to live statutorily within a budget is still a concept that he believes is worthy of the description he gave it, which is "a crock."
Hon. G. Wilson: The members opposite should know that as a member of the executive council, one always lives by the law. If the law is there to provide a balance, then one may do it.
I would point out, however, that there are some pitfalls and dangers to some who have been empowered by that balanced-budget legislation. When the now Leader of the Official Opposition was bound by that very same law as mayor of the city of Vancouver, his response was not to curb spending but to put up taxes. His tax increases at that time to balance his budget were second to none of any mayor that Vancouver has seen. So it's not the panacea that the members opposite might think it is.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I will put the Leader of the Opposition's record up against anyone on that side of the House anytime, anywhere. If the Premier has the guts to do it, we can call an election and start today.
You don't even have to go to the BCGEU to find out about the government's hypocrisy. You can just read their own documents. We've received a chart from PSEC that says -- and I'll show you in a minute -- that the number of deputy ministers in the NDP government has gone to an all-time high. In June of 1997 there were 24 deputy ministers. As of February this year there are 43 people being paid a deputy minister's salary. According to the government's own document, the total number of senior public officials in the government has grown from 83 in April of 1998 to a whopping 124 today.
I know I can't ask the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin or the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca the question, so I'll ask the Premier: how does he intend to balance his budget? How does he expect the public to believe him one iota when he talks about balanced-budget legislation, when he has a record like that to deal with?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, we often hear from this Liberal opposition their denigration of the public service and their desire to really run down those who serve our public well in the province of British Columbia. We also hear from them their view that somehow we have too many people in the public service. We hear that often from them. The reality is this: B.C.'s public service is leaner than the average in Canada. The average in Canada per capita is 51 employees. We are significantly below that and only slightly greater than our neighbours to the east. These are valuable employees; they serve us well.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister must be able to read my mind, because I have a further question to the Premier in response to his BCGEU interview, where he says that British Columbia used to have the leanest civil service in the country, but now "it's not the leanest anymore."
Will the Premier tell us how he intends to balance the budget for the province of British Columbia and how he intends to get balanced-budget legislation through his own caucus and onto the floor of this Legislature when one says it's a crock, the other says it's a disgrace, and one backbencher has a private member's bill to roll back the salary increases for deputy ministers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We intend to balance the budget over time in accordance with the law that we're going to introduce, but not by gutting the public service as the opposition would do.
BURNS BOG THEME PARK LOAN
I. Chong: When the Small Business minister announced this government's ill-fated plan to put a theme park in the middle of Burns Bog last year, he told us that the $25 million loan to the private developers was "fully secured." However, according to FOI documents that we've received, this doesn't appear to be the case. Can the Small Business minister confirm that the $25 million loan is in fact not fully secured?
[1430]
Hon. I. Waddell: I hesitate to get up because it's not under my portfolio now, but I did deal with it, and I know about the loan. It is fully secured.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
The hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale rises.
B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to welcome 56 grade 11 students from Lord Tweedsmuir high school in my riding, and I ask the House to please bid them welcome.
[ Page 15870 ]
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. The estimates that we will be discussing are those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In this chamber, I call committee stage on Bill 10, McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.
[1435]
McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND
TREATY No. 8 ADHESION
AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; J. Cashore in the chair.
The Chair: There has been some question about where best to discuss the general agreement. It is the opinion of the Chair that that would be under section 1. The committee will now proceed.
On section 1.
M. de Jong: I appreciate that direction. I should say at the outset that insofar as both sides of the House have, in second reading, signalled their support in principle for the bill, it occurs to me that the process that you've set out makes sense as the most expeditious way to examine the actual provisions of the agreement.
It is, I suppose, somewhat ironic that the agreement itself is about 55 pages plus another 75-some-odd attachments. The original Treaty 8, the copy I have, is contained on three pages. So we have yet again found a way to create a much lengthier document out of a smaller one. But undoubtedly the issues have become more complicated in the intervening 101 years.
[1440]
If the minister has the copy of the actual agreement, I would propose simply to do this in the order that the articles appear. I don't have any lengthy statements; I'd like to get right to it. Article 2 under the treaty -- 2.2 -- talks about Canada accepting and British Columbia agreeing. I just found the terminology there interesting insofar as the federal government is accepting and British Columbia is agreeing to the adhesion set out in 2.1. Was there any magic in the fairly subtle distinction in terminology?
Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that my colleague the member for Matsqui and I discussed the matter of how we approach this, and we agreed with the judgment you presented in terms of the best way to deal with the bill.
The second point to make is that the member's quite right: I too was struck by that language. Indeed, the federal government, in its role in terms of how it relates to the agreement, uses the verb "to take;" the federal government in fact takes the adhesion. So the concept essentially is that there is an agreement out there. The federal government accepts that this band that has not hitherto been part of the agreement will become part of the agreement -- thus that terminology. The provincial government, not a signatory to the original agreement, therefore simply agrees to that arrangement.
M. de Jong: Section 2.3 -- again, I won't prolong this. I'm not sure I understand what that means and why it was necessary or is necessary.
[1445]
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is more complicated and complex than one would want. Broadly, the issue of what the final boundary ultimately will be or could be is still before the courts; that's still a matter of negotiation. That's an ongoing legal battle that's been around almost from the beginning, I take it.
The issue for the purposes of this agreement is that we have said that the area west of the disputed boundary
I think I may be in danger of not presenting this accurately. But broadly, as I say, the assumption is that because the matter of the boundary is still in debate, in dispute -- and I think we heard that during second reading debate from our friend from the Peace River country -- we therefore have to leave this, and I'm reluctant to use the term, open, in terms of the final adjudication of that boundary.
M. de Jong: I'll take a moment to try and clear my misunderstanding, if I have one. Schedule A, which is the map, shows claimed traditional territory; it extends from the west almost to Takla Landing, right to the Alberta border. It includes Mackenzie, Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Hudson's Hope. So it's a large area, and I understand that from the treaty.
The section
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the member's conclusion is correct: the McLeod Lake Indian band does indeed agree to do that. The question is the boundary. To put it succinctly, the boundary is wherever the boundary is; that's where the debate occurs. B.C. thinks the boundary is to the east; the McLeod Lake Indian band in Canada believes it's to the west. But we accept the proposition that where the boundary is, the agreement would take full effect and force.
M. de Jong: Yeah, okay. Is it incorrect, then, for me to approach this, however, from the perspective that whilst -- as
[ Page 15871 ]
we heard in second reading debate, and I think the minister referred to this, and I think this is provided elsewhere in the agreement -- British Columbia accepts, for the purpose of this agreement only, the argument about where the boundary might be
Maybe what the minister can do to help me through this is to paint a scenario where this clause might come into effect; maybe that's the problem I'm having. What contingency is being contemplated by virtue of this section?
[1450]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm being given maps and so forth, Mr. Chairman. I've always been geographically challenged, so my answer is not as clear as it ought to be.
As I said, Canada and the McLeod Lake Indian band perceived the boundary to be further west than the territory that's stipulated -- okay? The essential argument is that should the boundary in fact be where it is, then the McLeod Lake people in the territory that is earmarked in this document as theirs would still exercise those rights. They would still have those rights as specified, even though the boundary might change.
M. de Jong: So we would then be referring to rights that McLeod Lake band would be exercising beyond those rights they would have on reserve and non-reserve lands, as described in this agreement. I guess now we're talking about three different groups of land: reserve lands, non-reserve lands as a defined term of this agreement, and claimed traditional territory, which is a larger body of land.
If in a subsequent court case the notion of where the Treaty 8 boundary was deemed to be other than as described in this agreement, are we saying that the claimed traditional territory would grow? Therefore the rights that McLeod Lake would have within that claimed traditional territory would grow with it. Is that the contingency?
[1455]
Hon. D. Lovick: Again, my apologies for the delay. Clause 2.3, which is the basis of this discussion, talks about Treaty 8 rights to fish and to trap; that's what it's about. It does not affect rights to reserve. The dispute is still between Canada and McLeod Lake and B.C. -- where that eastern boundary will be. This is to protect B.C. in the event that the boundary is perceived to be what Canada says it is.
Is that correct? I think I've got it mixed up again. I'm embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, but something is not clicking here. Let me clarify; I obviously need to.
The protection is for McLeod Lake in the event that the boundary shifts. If we didn't have it this way, then McLeod Lake reserve -- those areas -- could effectively be lost because of the boundary shift. Therefore we need to protect the existing reserve area of McLeod Lake.
M. de Jong: I think in a moment the member for Peace River South will get into this and talk. We're also dealing with, in the recitals, Nos. 4 and 5. But did I hear the minister correctly that somehow a subsequent court decision around the question of where the Treaty 8 western boundary is could have an impact on the reserve lands that are granted to McLeod Lake by virtue of this agreement?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no. It would only affect where they could exercise their traditional rights to fish and hunt.
M. de Jong: I think we're getting there. So if I look at the map contained at schedule A, what I should be saying to myself is: "This is the claimed traditional territory to which the parties to this agreement agree that McLeod Lake may exercise those traditional rights granted under Treaty 8." Have I got that part correct?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: A subsequent court decision relating to the issue of where the western boundary for Treaty 8 is located might impact the size or the boundaries of the claimed traditional territory as set out in schedule A.
Hon. D. Lovick: No.
M. de Jong: Then I'm unclear about how a subsequent court decision around the issue of the boundary for Treaty 8 impacts on McLeod Lake.
Hon. D. Lovick: The purpose of this section is to protect McLeod Lake Indian band from any impact.
M. de Jong: Okay. But I'm fairly certain I heard the minister say a few moments ago that the claimed traditional territory might change as a result of a subsequent court decision.
Hon. D. Lovick: Let's go back to what treaty rights are and things like the right to fish and hunt. Arguably, whatever the boundary is, within those boundaries the people would have the right to exercise rights to fish and hunt. It doesn't have anything to do with what their specific territory is in terms of the reserve allocation -- reserve status of the land.
M. de Jong: Okay. I may not be being as helpful in this debate as I should be. So maybe I'll just ask this, and the member for Peace River South can have a crack.
If there is going to be -- maybe the minister can verify this -- a subsequent court decision that impacts on the boundaries for Treaty 8, this document that we are debating now in the enabling legislation ensures that it will not be a court decision relating to litigation involving the McLeod Lake band. Is that an accurate statement?
[1500]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the parties can't initiate, but they can in defence raise the issue, should somebody else challenge their treaty right to carry out certain behaviours.
M. de Jong: That may have been the simple answer and the point of the question that the agreement
[ Page 15872 ]
these three parties will reinitiate an action to resolve in the courts that difference of opinion and position that is set out in recital No. 5.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct, assuming he speaks on behalf of McLeod Lake.
M. de Jong: That was why my original question related exclusively to McLeod Lake. So it is litigation by another band or aboriginal individual, presumably, that would give rise to this circumstance we've been describing.
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Thanks. I think I'll let my colleague
J. Weisgerber: Yes. I'd like to go back just briefly and look at this issue surrounding the western boundary and the disagreement that exists between the federal government and McLeod Lake band on one side and the province on the other: perhaps that's not an accurate description. But it would appear that the federal government, at least, is prepared to accept the western boundary of the Treaty 8 territory as the Pacific watershed. That would include the areas claimed by McLeod Lake but could also include territories claimed under other processes by Fort Ware, Ingenika and Lower Post.
[1505]
The province, on the other hand, takes a rather convoluted position, I think -- to be kind to everybody involved -- in suggesting that they disagree that the boundary is the Arctic watershed, but they're prepared for the case of McLeod Lake to accept that it goes somewhere west of the Height of the Rockies. I don't know if that's an accurate description of it. But the province seems to say, "We don't agree with the federal government, but we almost do -- at least, we do as it respects the claim made by McLeod Lake. But we wouldn't honour a claim made by others in similar circumstances -- basically, those three bands in the Rocky Mountain Trench." Is that a fair assessment of the position that's taken by the province today?
Hon. D. Lovick: I think, as far as I heard the member's question and then the premise on which it was based, that it was accurate. Bluntly put, we, the province, rely on the language of the treaty itself. We think the language of the treaty itself leads to the conclusion that we do, in terms of where the boundary ought to be
If the question is ultimately leading to what is the status, then, of those other bands like Fort Ware and Ingenika, and what would happen to them, that's speculation that I don't know if I can really entertain at this point in this discussion. The rendition -- the characterization -- that the member presents in terms of where the boundary is, I think, is accurate.
J. Weisgerber: If my understanding of the current situation is correct, the other bands that might be in a position to make a claim under Treaty 8 in the Rocky Mountain Trench have not at this point indicated any indication to do so, but it raises another question, in my mind at least. It seems to me that because the allocation of land within Treaty 8 was based entirely on a formula per family and per individual and had nothing to do with the size of the traditional territory and the kinds of negotiations that have characterized modern-day treaties, my sense is that there was never any real attempt to quantify traditional territories within Treaty 8. It seems to me, if one looks at recent hunting and fishing cases, that quite the opposite was the case -- that there has been accepted an argument that if an aboriginal person is a signatory to Treaty 8 or holds a Treaty 8 card, then they have with that the right to hunt, fish and trap within traditional Treaty 8 territory.
You see the kind of anomaly of a Treaty 8 member coming from Saskatchewan to exercise their treaty rights in northeastern British Columbia, hunting buffalo. Pretty clearly they couldn't be in their own traditional territory as we think of it in the modern-day context. I therefore assume that the province and the federal government have accepted this kind of universal right to exercise treaty rights within the entire Treaty 8 area. Have I missed something along the way?
Let's talk about the B.C. side of the piece, if you will. With eight Treaty 8 band members historical signatories to Treaty 8, have they defined traditional territories as you might find them in British Columbia under the comprehensive program?
[1510]
Hon. D. Lovick: I hope I understand the member's question correctly. It seems to me that the essential point of differentiation is that when you're talking about an old treaty like Treaty 8, the language of traditional territory is no longer on the table. It's rather what the treaty settlement area is ultimately, where they have constitutionally protected treaty rights. Or it is those other bands in the province which are talking about negotiating treaties that don't have the benefit of any clearly defined or demarcated boundaries, and therefore they talk about traditional territories. I don't think we can mix the two.
J. Weisgerber: I think the question arises in the Rocky Mountain Trench, in this area that is disputed, where the province believes it's not Treaty 8, and the federal government appears to believe it is. Do Treaty 8 members, including the people at McLeod Lake, exercise their treaty rights within that disputed territory? Will you see, as a result of this exercise, people from northern Saskatchewan coming over into the Rocky Mountain Trench to exercise their traditional rights in their treaty area?
Hon. D. Lovick: The member's question invites speculation on my part. All we're talking about here is McLeod Lake and their particular rights. The matter of other people from across British Columbia's borders saying that given that the new border, or the end-of-the-day border, for Treaty 8 territory has yet to be finally determined, they're therefore going to go and test their treaty rights on the basis of the fact that that hasn't been cited
J. Weisgerber: Fair enough; I think that's a fair approach. There may be other venues where we can examine this question. But it leads me, at least, to want to examine this other line of questioning, and that is that within the area now identified as being the traditional territory of McLeod Lake for the purpose of hunting, fishing and pursuing traditional vocations, how does the province differentiate
[ Page 15873 ]
province identify the relationship between other users and Treaty 8 users, as opposed to other resource users in the rest of the province in territories where there are no treaties existing?
The point that I'm trying to get to is: what benefit is there to British Columbians in seeing a treaty signed and a treaty area identified? How has the process of dealing with the resources within the territory and outside of the reserve lands been streamlined? What are the benefits of Treaty 8 to British Columbians, with respect to McLeod Lake or with respect to the eight other bands in the Peace? How do resource ministries, how do resource users, how does everyone in the process deal differently with McLeod Lake -- recognizing that McLeod Lake and Treaty 8 are unique to the northeast of the province? How does the relationship between the government and resource users differ in that traditional territory under Treaty 8 from those where there has not been the benefit of a treaty being signed?
Hon. D. Lovick: We had some discussion of this very issue, as I recall, in the estimates process not too long ago, and the member quite legitimately put pressure on the concept of: "If in fact you have a treaty such as this, and treaty rights are themselves perhaps not absolutely as rigorously defined as they ought to be, therefore have you achieved the certainty you think you have?" As I recall, the examples that he gave were forestry, where they said, "We need very clear guidelines before we can do anything within Treaty 8 areas because we're not quite sure where our rights and our jurisdictions stop and start," and so forth.
I think the broad answer to the question is that
[1515]
I think the member's question, again, if I follow the argument, is rather broader than the specific piece of this, just in terms of what is the ultimate benefit of this particular settlement? I think it's providing some self-sufficiency to the first nations, providing certainty on the land base and obviously resolving the legal matter. And I think, at the end of the day, probably all of those things will accrue to the interests of the so-called third party as well.
J. Weisgerber: I can understand the benefits of resolving a court case. I guess there's always a benefit to that. But I don't see that things are any different today on the traditional territory, other than the fact that the reserve lands have been expanded. I don't see the relationship between any of the other parties having changed a whit as a result of the agreement that was signed.
It's easy to understand the economic benefits to McLeod Lake band members, and that's admirable. But if a treaty is to benefit all parties, then those other users of the land should be able to walk away saying: "Yes, but our situation is now different as a result of this treaty being signed. Our situation on the non-reserve lands has improved as a result of this treaty being signed. No one has yet been able to tell me how or give me any demonstration that things have changed. All of the processes that are in place or were in place prior to the treaty being signed are still in place, to the best of my knowledge.
There's been no streamlining of approvals for resource extraction. If there has, I would be delighted to know about it. Perhaps it's simply my lack of knowledge. But I go to the broader question. I don't see the province dealing differently with Treaty 8 than with the rest of the province where treaties don't exist. The province seems to be entirely blind to the treaties with respect to the administration of their responsibilities, particularly by the resource-based ministries. I see absolutely no difference in the way the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Energy and Mines, etc., deals with questions around consultation, land use and rights of access. I see no difference. And because I see no difference, I conclude that there is little or no benefit, beyond the economic ones to the band that result from the treaty.
Hon. D. Lovick: As I said a few minutes ago, this clearly is a sense of déjà vu all over again. We did have some of this discussion earlier. And I respect the member's right to offer that observation. The essential argument is that what we have done in this and in all treaties is we have moved from the area of undefined aboriginal rights to defined treaty rights. That, notionally certainly, should make a significant difference. In terms of the specifics, I think I undertook in our estimates process to provide for the member, through the various line ministries, some clear enunciation of what they saw the difference is in terms of what that meant, in terms of a specific defined right as opposed to an undefined one. I thought that was underway. If that hasn't happened, I'm disappointed by it.
[1520]
What we have to deal with in the area of undefined aboriginal rights, of course, is that whole large, open question: simply that we know there's something called aboriginal rights and title constitutionally protected, but what those are, how specific, what their extent is, where they stop and start -- all of those things -- we do not know. That, of course, arguably puts us in this terrible predicament in terms of no certainty on the land base and the obvious economic impacts following therefrom.
What we therefore have to do is carry out a very elaborate consultation process. And we've drafted all the guidelines -- the post-Delgamuukw guidelines -- to enable us to function. My assumption is that when we have in fact spelled out the particular rights in the area of Treaty 8 and we know precisely what belongs to the McLeod Lake Indian band versus somebody else, then clearly we're one step along in terms of consultation. We're not starting from the beginning, in other words. We, rather, know whose responsibility begins and ends and where that does. I would assume that, on the ground, that does make a difference in terms of environment, in terms of parks, in terms of forestry, in terms of mining and so forth. Certainly, based on the experience we've had with the oil and gas and mining industry in the Treaty 8 territory, I think we can argue that the certainty of the treaty is indeed preferable to the uncertainty of undefined aboriginal rights.
Again, I think the member can probably offer numerous examples to suggest that that isn't the case. And I suspect that dealing from an individual ministry perspective, we could
[ Page 15874 ]
probably give an equal number to suggest that it is. But I appreciate the point he makes. I've endeavoured to answer it to the best of my ability.
J. Weisgerber: I won't belabour the point, and I won't test the minister's patience. I wonder, though given that this is an adhesion to Treaty 8 and given the fact that, very literally, the land entitlements have applied
We know also that there are other areas where the treaty has been modernized, if you like. I could read off the entitlements of cattle and implements and seeds that were designed to help the bands become agricultural in nature. As I understand it, in this treaty they have simply been replaced with a $25,000 payment, which is in lieu of.
Where I don't see the treaty either confirming or modifying is in the area of the right to hunt, fish and trap as formerly. I go back to the original treaty, and if you'll bear with me, I'll read a small paragraph and then ask the minister if he could comment on that.
Clearly the spirit of that"
. . . Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees" -- this is from the old treaty -- "with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes."
Can the minister tell me how the treaty deals with the right to hunt, fish and trap and pursue their previous vocations? Because it clearly doesn't fall into the area of land allocation, where the treaty was interpreted literally; nor does it appear to fall into the area of other cash benefits under the treaty, which have been modernized. How has this treaty and our legislation dealt with the right to hunt, fish and trap as formerly?
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
[1525]
Hon. D. Lovick: The rights are the same as traditionally, if I can use that term, but essentially as interpreted by the courts.
J. Weisgerber: So the treaty and the agreements around it have not attempted to at all codify
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that it's Treaty 8 that sets out the rights, and then any relevant court decisions that might be taken are made.
J. Weisgerber: I have a sense that the court decisions have come down in British Columbia outside of Treaty 8. There haven't been a myriad of cases in British Columbia dealing with rights as they apply to Treaty 8. There have been cases in Alberta, and they may have application in British Columbia. There have been cases around British Columbia that may or may not have application, given the fact that the decisions were rendered in areas where treaties didn't apply.
Hon. D. Lovick: Only to the extent that those decisions affecting another part of Treaty 8 jurisdiction -- say, Alberta -- are perceived to be relevant to the British Columbia context, would they apply, but that's very much case by case and hypothesis on our part at this point.
J. Weisgerber: Was there any attempt to codify or put into agreement, as has been done with the other elements of the treaty, the notion of an interpretation or codification of hunting, fishing and trapping rights, as opposed to continuing to rely on case law?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no.
M. de Jong: Maybe I can bring the conversation that's just taken place between the member for Peace River South and the minister around to the provisions of the agreement.
I am looking at article 3.3, which refers to the fact that there is no obligation on the part of British Columbia to consult with the McLeod Lake band with respect to any activities that have an impact upon their section 35 rights outside of McLeod Lake's claimed traditional territory. This is article 3.3. Is it implicit in that section that the obligation to consult therefore exists with respect to any activities that would have an impact on their rights -- hunting, fishing or otherwise -- within the claimed traditional territory as set out in schedule A?
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.
M. de Jong: I take it, then, that the discussion the minister was having with my colleague earlier would relate to attempts to codify the consultative obligation that the province has assumed by virtue of the agreement as a whole. The point that escaped me through the discussion that just took place was: what now guides that consultative obligation?
Is it therefore different within the claimed traditional territory set out in Schedule A? Or is it similar to an obligation the province believes it has, or the courts have said the province has, elsewhere in the province where treaties don't exist?
[1530]
Hon. D. Lovick: We did have this discussion, as well, in estimates. I recall saying at the time that "out of an abundance of caution," I think was the phrase that we used, we would take the same approach in terms of consultation and approaches as we do in the general traditional territories, as we have fashioned under our consultation guidelines in what I've referred to as post-Delgamuukw universe.
[ Page 15875 ]
M. de Jong: That would therefore apply
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct, except of course that we would be looking at the rights at first glance, obviously, as specifically defined and set out in the treaty itself.
M. de Jong: Okay, I won't go back over ground that the member for Peace River South covered in attempting to ascertain what those were.
Article 4 refers to the transfer of proposed and additional reserve lands. It indicates that the province will be transferring those lands free and clear of all interests and encumbrances except the two that are listed there in articles 4.1.1 and 4.1.2. That's clear enough. However, are there other interests and encumbrances? To get right to the point, are there licensees, guide-outfitters and other interests against the land involved here that will disappear as a result of the transfer of the lands referred to in the article?
Hon. D. Lovick: At the end of the day, the land will be transferred free and clear of encumbrances. As I think the member knows, that's over a three-year time frame, I believe, to achieve that.
G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Hogg: There are 26 grade 4 and 5 students from Peace Arch Elementary School here with their parents and teacher, Mme. Colette Chalifour. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
M. de Jong: That's helpful. What I'm trying to ascertain is, if there are additional encumbrances -- I am advised that this may involve having an impact on some guide-outfitters and others -- what those interests are. If it's too lengthy a list, or whether there is a list
[1535]
Hon. D. Lovick: The basic rule is that we will compensate those who we conclude need to be compensated. There are a number of different interests, of course -- trappers, guide-outfitters and volume-based licences. All of those are interests in the land base, and we will adjudicate them as the thing progresses.
M. de Jong: Does the ministry have a list of those interests as at today's date? I must confess that I have not done a search of the land title registry or any of the other registries that one would go to, to ascertain the extent of any third-party interests. But perhaps the ministry has, and perhaps that list does exist.
Hon. D. Lovick: We do have a list.
M. de Jong: Is that a list that is in the public domain or that the minister is prepared to place in the public domain?
Hon. D. Lovick: Some of those on the list are public and some are not -- simply because of the categories, I gather. The question of whether one has obligation for all of those interests is a legal one, still to be determined. But clearly there is a list, and clearly we will compensate those interests that we have an obligation to compensate.
M. de Jong: Okay, I would just say this: I have been advised that there is some concern on the part of those, I suppose, most directly impacted. I don't know who they all are, and I don't know that we in this House or we in the opposition will have another opportunity to do our job in ensuring that these licence holders will be properly compensated. So if there are individuals or licensees in a particular category that the government is unprepared to release or list off
I guess I'm guided somewhat by what took place in the Nisga'a debate, where I think we did have actual lists of the individuals, be they corporate or individual interests, impacted by the land. The amount of land was significantly larger in that case. I think what I'm looking for is something beyond an assurance from government that: "Yes, in clearing title, we'll look after these people." I don't want to be accused at the end of this process: "That became a hollow promise from you people in Victoria, and I've now lost my trapline or my access to guide-outfitting lands. All I got was a promise that we'd be looked after, and here we are without our livelihood."
Hon. D. Lovick: I can tell the member that there has indeed been a consultation process from the beginning and through this entire activity of negotiating this agreement. All of those who have interests and whose interests are impacted or to be impacted have indeed been notified. So that's an ongoing set of discussions happening. It's not the case that suddenly somebody will appear and surprise us all by saying: "Oh yeah, and they forgot about me." That discussion is going on as we speak.
M. de Jong: That, of course, is what gave rise to the need for the adhesion agreement in the first place: someone was forgotten. Well, is the minister prepared, then, to provide a list of those individuals that have been contacted, who are impacted, subject only to the limitation that he referred to in a particular category? And if he can indicate what that category is, that would be helpful. And is he suggesting, then, that the ongoing consultation towards settling upon compensation for those interests will take place on an individual basis, on an ad hoc basis, or that there are
[1540]
Hon. D. Lovick: We are certainly prepared to provide the member opposite and his colleagues with a list of all of those with whom we have been consulting, subject only, of course, to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy limitations. But beyond that, yes, we're happy to provide that information.
[ Page 15876 ]
M. de Jong: In the same larger section, article 4 -- only because it's come up elsewhere in this House in debates -- there is reference made to obligations around archaeological sites and archaeological materials. Is the ministry aware of how many such sites exist on the land that it's transferring? The agreement imposes some obligations on the provincial government and the three agencies that maintain rights following transfer of the lands. How many such sites exist? Does an inventory exist around that question?
Hon. D. Lovick: There is no reference in the agreement to archaeological sites, and therefore I would ask for clarification from the member. I'm not sure what he's referring to.
M. de Jong: Actually, in 4.1 my question related to whether the entire article covered archaeological sites. In 4.1.4(j) there is reference made to the discovery and disturbance of archaeological material. So that might
My interest stems from the fact that it is increasingly becoming an issue elsewhere in the province. There have been other debates around the extent to which those sites show up at the land title office and whether there are any such sites involved in the land that will be transferred pursuant to this section of the agreement.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the answer to the member's question is in the remainder of the clause (j) that he refers to -- page 11, article 4.1.4(j) -- namely, that in the event that the site
M. de Jong: Then can I just assume that if, in the lands being transferred pursuant to article 4
[1545]
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Article 4.1.7 speaks to the issue of transferring administration for these proposed reserve lands and the issuance of permitting with the two licensees mentioned there. Has that already taken place?
Hon. D. Lovick: That has not yet happened, but it will happen prior to the transfer.
M. de Jong: Did the minister say prior to the effective date?
Hon. D. Lovick: Prior to the effective time of the transfer is the legal answer I'm given -- the legal transfer of land.
M. de Jong: Lastly in this section, 4.1.8 speaks to the issue of the servicing agreements, referred to in subsections (a) and (b). All I'm looking for here is an indication of the status of the negotiations that I understand are taking place -- whether they are in the process of taking place, whether it's done or, if it's not, when it's likely to be done. What's involved in terms of the provincial obligation, if any, with respect to these servicing agreements?
Hon. D. Lovick: All I can tell the member is that it has to be done before the land is transferred. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been done now.
M. de Jong: Actually, I'm not sure that that's the case. The section does provide McLeod Lake with an option. It may choose to provide its own services. So this doesn't, on the face of it, seem to be a prerequisite to transferring the land. But I may be reading it incorrectly.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the clause is indeed self-explanatory, as the member alludes, that if McLeod Lake chooses to provide its own services, then that will suffice.
M. de Jong: Does the agreement then contemplate a declaration by McLeod Lake, one way or another, insofar as its intention to negotiate those agreements for the 28 hectare site and the 8.1 hectare site in Mackenzie?
Hon. D. Lovick: The agreement doesn't so stipulate. But I think it's fair to conclude that the transferable land would be dependent on that clarification -- that that has indeed happened.
M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour this, but my understanding is that the land in those two cases will be transferred and that presently it's contemplated that an attempt will be made to negotiate servicing agreements for that land. But the alternative for the McLeod Lake band would be, if those negotiations weren't fruitful, to say, "All right, our option is to try to provide services ourselves," although the practicality of that is probably very much in doubt.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.
[1550]
M. de Jong: The section dealing with the environmental audit -- and the article itself deals with when that took place, and this is the case, in 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 -- imposes on British Columbia financial obligation to remediate lands which may have been contaminated after a certain date. Broadly speaking, the question for the minister is: to what extent has the government of British Columbia had an opportunity to examine and quantify the nature of that assumed liability? Do we know how many? Have any sites that fall into the categories listed here been identified, and if they have, what are the estimates around the cost of remediation?
Hon. D. Lovick: As the agreement makes clear, we're released from certain obligations save and except those identified. I gather they are rather narrow, although we haven't quantified them particularly. I can also advise the member that a federal government audit was conducted on the proposed sites on the proposed reserve lands, and no contamination was found. So the conclusion, I think it's safe to say, is that if there is any need for remediation, the areas will be relatively small in number and therefore, I would think, inexpensive.
[ Page 15877 ]
M. de Jong: Here's what I'm hearing: insofar as the audits that have taken place, there have been no identified sites thus far. I guess the other thing I read from this section as a whole is that if there has been any contamination of sites, it has taken place after August 10, '98. That's the provinces responsibility with respect to the cost of remediation.
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct. But again, to reiterate the point, to the best of our knowledge there are no sites of that kind.
M. de Jong: Does the agreement include any sort of limitation, following which -- the identification of such a site or an attempt to or an allegation of the discovery of such a site -- the province would be excused from that liability? Does it exist in perpetuity?
Hon. D. Lovick: The province's responsibility ends after the point or the date of transfer. The province has said that it will remediate if it is determined that reserves became contaminated after the date of Canada's audit but before the date of the reserve to transfer.
M. de Jong: In the section that deals with a circumstance in which a contaminated site is identified -- I'm looking at 4.2.5 -- the option exists either to remediate or to select alternate lands. In this case it involves the province assuming responsibility. That, I take it, is a process that would involve joint negotiations between the province and the band. In the event that there were no agreement, do the dispute resolution provisions of the agreement kick in to resolve that?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes to both questions.
M. de Jong: At the moment the province is relying upon the federal audit to support the contention that there are no such sites as contemplated in article 4. And the province is unaware of any new sites that have been created since August 10, 1998.
[1555]
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
M. de Jong: Under the section 4.4, "Reserve Entitlement," there is a figure of 387, defining the number of members as of May 1, 1998. How many of those members of the McLeod Lake band actually live on the existing reserve?
Hon. D. Lovick: Sorry, I don't know.
M. de Jong: In a moment we will get to the provisions dealing with the lands in severalty. I think I was told in the briefing that there were upwards of 39 or 40 members of the band who have chosen to exercise that option. So presumably we can deduct that right off the top. Is the 387 figure men, women and children?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
M. de Jong: That would refer to any members of the band, whether or not they lived on the existing reserve.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.
M. de Jong: Under 4.6, just a couple of questions: in 4.6.1, does the actual transfer of land, when all of the prerequisite conditions have been met and carried out, occur -- the statutory instrument for that -- in an OIC, an order-in-council, from the province of British Columbia?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Not to jump ahead, but that would be dealt with in section 2 -- which we're not on -- of the actual bill that we're supposedly dealing with today and in section 3, empowering the ministers responsible to sign those OICs.
Hon. D. Lovick: That is also correct.
M. de Jong: At the risk of doing what I did at the outset, I must confess that in 4.6.2 I did not understand the
Hon. D. Lovick: At risk of ruining a wonderful record the member has, of my saying, "Yes, yes, yes, correct, correct, correct," I have to be a little more careful in this one. Let me qualify by first saying yes, it is true. But it is hardly anything to raise the flag on, simply because OIC 1036 is the power of reservation of road and road access; that's the famous highways entitlement. Those 1036s have been challenged in court for a number of years and indeed will continue to be. In the event that the 1036 power of the Crown is ever effectively thrown out by the court, then we're going to have to deal with the entire land base of the province and not just McLeod Lake and Treaty 8 territory.
M. de Jong: All right. So what we're dealing with here is a question of ownership of road sites in the event of a particular ruling by the court as it relates to actual reserve lands, as opposed to traditional territory or anything of that sort.
[1600]
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Not to seem petty, but as I went through the agreement as well, I couldn't help but notice that where there are obligations on the provincial ministry to do things, they tend to impose fairly strict time periods -- 60 days being the standard. But they are mandatory. In the obligations that are imposed on the federal government to designate the lands as reserve lands and to ensure that the proper orders are done federally, the minister is going to have to make only his best effort to do so within six months. Is the minister for the province of British Columbia satisfied that the federal government is going to do what it needs to do in an expeditious way? I found it curious that the deadlines imposed on the province were mandatory ones and that that was not the case insofar as the federal government was concerned.
Hon. D. Lovick: These are negotiated provisions, and we are confident and comfortable that we can meet them.
M. de Jong: Article 5, dealing with the mineral rights
[ Page 15878 ]
days, the Crown in the right of the government of Canada. Is that correct? Is that what's being duplicated or continued here?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Then we get to the question that's laid out in the rest of the section, about where there is an expression of interest in accessing a mineral resource. B.C. and McLeod Lake have to agree to that, and they have to come to an agreement around the division of revenues that derive from that development. It's a 50-50 split, as I understand it, in the document. But there is some discussion, or at least the provisions of the agreement contemplate ongoing discussion, to define what mineral revenues actually are. Is that something that will happen on a case-by-case basis? Or are negotiations taking place now to settle once and for all how to define revenues for the purpose of revenue-sharing?
Hon. D. Lovick: The intention is to get one broad agreement which we will negotiate once for all. That will happen when we find some mineral resource, I guess, that needs to be divided.
M. de Jong: Those are not
If that's correct, the other question
Hon. D. Lovick: To the first question, on which the second one was premised, the answer is yes. The second question's is yes, we are indeed contemplating something similar with other Treaty 8 bands who might be in similar circumstances.
[1605]
B. Goodacre: I'd ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Goodacre: Today we have visiting us in the gallery a group of grade 7 students from St. Joseph's school in Smithers, British Columbia -- a school I attended between 1959 and 1966. I'd like the House to please make them welcome and demonstrate what a wonderful piece of democracy we have here in British Columbia.
M. de Jong: I'm going to push on to article 6 if there's nothing further from other members; that is the forest development plans. The first subsection contemplates the development of a forest development plan along the lines set out, using various defined terms. Is that plan in place now? If it's not, when is it anticipated?
Hon. D. Lovick: That has not yet been done. It will be in place when the lands are transferred.
M. de Jong: Sorry. Is the minister saying that that must be in place prior to the transfer of lands from B.C. to Canada?
Hon. D. Lovick: No, Mr. Chairman.
M. de Jong: Is there a date relevant to the provisions of this agreement by which that plan must be in place?
Hon. D. Lovick: The trigger point is that it has to be done before the harvesting begins.
M. de Jong: That's a plan that under 6.2 -- the criteria set out there -- must be "sealed by a registered professional forester of British Columbia," and the minister will alert his colleague to the existence of that body. But that is a debate for another day.
Here's the general observation that I would make about these sections: 6.3.2 talks about the establishment of a "McLeod Lake Indian band forest practices code," another defined term. It talks about a meet-or-beat provision with the province of British Columbia's Forest Practices Code. I think I understand what is trying to be achieved. But the practicality of asking a band whose members -- men, women and children -- total 387 to develop a code that is detailed, perhaps to a flaw, depending on what one's perspective is
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that the McLeod Lake Indian band wants to do it. They would rather have ownership of the problem, insofar as they have ownership of the resource and therefore would like to hire their own people and their own expertise to do the work.
M. de Jong: You know, that's probably an answer. Well, it is an answer. It's perhaps a more convincing answer if it didn't involve imposing or, dare I say, complicating the lives of others beyond the McLeod Lake band down the road. Presumably, once governments have agreed to that kind of provision -- implicit in that, as we saw, although it's not laid out here as it was in Nisga'a -- there's an obligation if the provincial government presumes to change any of the provisions of the provincial legislation to engage in discussions with McLeod Lake. Depending on what the proposed change is, they might be very short and brief discussions.
On the other hand, something that the province decides to do in its provincial legislation might have a fairly significant impact on the code that McLeod Lake establishes. You begin to wonder about the impact of the province implicitly assuming an obligation to go back to an entity that involves 387 people every time it wants to amend a very complicated piece of legislation. So it has ramifications that extend beyond simply McLeod Lake.
If that's the criterion by which the province is going to agree to these kinds of provisions, that's a bit worrisome. I think that any band, however small, will say: "Well, we'd like to do it ourselves too, and if you want to change your legislation, you'd better come talk to us." So as a matter of principle, I wonder a little bit about the logic behind agreeing to this provision on the basis that the minister says the government was prepared to agree to.
[ Page 15879 ]
[1610]
Hon. D. Lovick: If there's a principle at stake here, surely it's something about self-determination and people who have ownership of the land and accept as part of that the concurrent obligation to manage their resources in a sustainable, effective, sound way -- accepting, moreover, the fact that they are our neighbours and must connect with our society, and therefore both sides recognizing that it is in our interest to have those ongoing discussions and to ensure that we are both living up to the kinds of standards I'm sure we would all, on the face of it, certainly agree to. I think, again, this is a negotiated matter. They wanted it this way. We, the province, agreed that this is an acceptable obligation for us.
The comfort I would offer the member is, I guess, 6.3.7 within the agreement, where the parties, as it says, "may negotiate arrangements from time to time in order to achieve coordination and administrative efficiencies," etc., in respect indeed of all these various things that we're talking about in terms of their own harvesting, the silvicultural prescriptions and plans. I think both parties are recognizing that we don't want to be administratively or bureaucratically bound to the point that it's costing us more money and taking us more time than we all perceive to be desirable.
Therefore I think, to their credit, the parties have recognized that they should in fact have a clause such as the one that I just quoted, which enables them to look for efficiencies and improvements in the process so it won't be overly burdensome. I think that's probably the most comfort I can give the member. I'm not sure it's satisfactory, but given that we are discussing a matter of principle, that's probably about as close as we could get to agreement in any event.
M. de Jong: Well, I think I've made the point. I guess the only feature that I didn't hear in the minister's response was some consideration for the question of financial common sense and the notion of developing such detailed
The mechanism by which this anticipated McLeod Lake forest practices code will achieve its statutory authority is referred to in article 6.3.5, and I'm a little bit curious about this. There seems to be some uncertainty around that. It talks about the federal government passing "a new regulation
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the intention of this particular clause is to simply say that if we can't do it under the aegis or auspices of the Indian Act, then the parties will agree to work together to find an available means to do the job. It's simply an expression of good will and intention on the part of the parties.
[1615]
M. de Jong: Okay. But presumably it requires some manner of federal legislative action, or it doesn't have
Hon. D. Lovick: I think that's correct. All of the parties have committed to make this operational, and the mechanism to do so is left to the discretion of the parties in the event that the statutory authority of the Indian Act isn't deemed to be the appropriate one.
M. de Jong: Article 6.6 refers to fire suppression and an existing agreement. I don't know what's in that agreement. I don't need a detailed description here beyond some understanding of what obligation the province has assumed insofar as fighting forest fires on lands that are being transferred pursuant to this agreement.
Hon. D. Lovick: The agreement is that we, the Forest Service, will fight fires wherever they occur, whether on reserve land or outside that land. Fires that start off the reserve land, we the province will pay for. Fires that start on the reserve land, the McLeod Lake Indian band will pay for -- the cost of fighting the fire, that is.
M. de Jong: I think the minister was going to add something about the obligations that Canada might have, and I'll happily hear him out.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member's correct. It is Canada, not the McLeod Lake Indian band, that would pay for fires that begin on reserve land.
M. de Jong: The silviculture provisions of the agreement are also set out in article 6, starting at 6.7.1. Again, this is simply an attempt to get some indication from the minister to quantify the nature of the obligation that the province has assumed here, in terms of meeting the silviculture and reforestation obligations it has assumed under the agreement.
Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand correctly, the question has to do with costs and who bears those. The costs of silviculture and road deactivation are the responsibility of the licensees of the small business forest enterprise program. Is that the correct term, the SBFEP? The costs are typically amortized out of the revenue from the sale of timber. These are existing obligations of the licensees and the SBFEP and therefore not additional costs to the province.
[1620]
M. de Jong: Actually, I thought the way the agreement worked was that British Columbia assumed the obligation, with the option to pursue the licensees where the licensees have access to the timber. So if the answer is, "We don't know just yet, because we haven't carried out the survey contemplated by article 6.7.5," then maybe that's the answer. "We just don't know how much of this is going to be covered by existing licensees and how much of it will accrue directly to the provincial government" -- maybe that's the answer, but I'm unclear about that.
I'm also unclear about the distinction between pre- and post-October 1, '87, what magic is associated with that date
[ Page 15880 ]
and whether that involves the litigation that was in place in the 1980s. I just don't understand the significance of that date.
Hon. D. Lovick: There are two categories of question. To the first one, the answer is as follows: B.C. does not assume the obligation. Rather, we simply commit ourselves to ensure that the obligation is satisfied -- that it is done. The addendum to that is simply that the licensees will continue to have their obligations. That's the principal position.
To the second question regarding October 1, '87 -- before and after -- let me present the following information. The ongoing silviculture obligations on MLIB lands -- McLeod Lake Indian band lands -- fall within a number of categories. The first category is the pre-1987 silviculture operations, "backlog silviculture." These operations are a ministry responsibility through contacts with industry, funded through Forest Renewal B.C., and they're treated differently because they predate the implementation of the Forest Practices Code. The ministry has approved funding for 2000 in the FRBC budget to complete these activities.
The second category is the post-1987 silviculture operations. These are legal obligations under the Forest Practices Code which apply to both the major licensees and the small business forest enterprise program.
M. de Jong: Just dealing, then, with the status of forestry roads -- 6.8.3 -- am I reading this correctly when I summarize that McLeod Lake will own forest roads not deactivated, pursuant to 6.8.1 and 6.8.2? If that is
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes.
M. de Jong: And in so doing, it assumes all liabilities associated with the use of those roads.
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: I'm at 6.12.2, dealing with the timber supply analysis and the possibility of a catastrophic event. Are we thinking of anything other than, for example, fire or pest infestation?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, that is true.
[1625]
M. de Jong: Yes, those are the two circumstances that the minister can think of that would be captured by the phrase "catastrophic event"?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.
M. de Jong: Section 6.12.4 -- I again want to confirm that I am reading this properly. McLeod Lake can engage in secondary manufacturing, value-added processing of the wood. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.
M. de Jong: It can sell harvested lumber really to anyone it wants within the province of British Columbia.
Hon. D. Lovick: The operative word is offer.
M. de Jong: I'm sorry; that distinction may elude me -- offer for sale harvested timber to anyone within British Columbia?
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct.
M. de Jong: Is it 6.12.5 that operates? Is that the authority for the proposition which was set out in some of the ministry's announcement material, that log exports are prohibited in accordance with provincial laws? Is that where in the agreement the authority for that statement comes from?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: So the ability that McLeod Lake would have to export logs would be tied directly to whatever legislation was in place provincially.
Hon. D. Lovick: That is also correct.
M. de Jong: Let's just deal with the stumpage issue. I'm indebted to some of the ministry staff for providing me with a little bit of this information. I was able to get a little bit more. I wonder if the minister can provide a quick synopsis, on the record, of what the obligation is that the province has assumed with respect to the payment of stumpage, how it operates and from what dates it operates. What I will ultimately get to is the anticipated future liability and how that is going to be settled.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member asked for a short overview, so I will endeavour to do so. Certainly I can elaborate if, as and when the need arises, but let me start with the following.
As of March 31, 2000, the total stumpage bill payable to the McLeod Lake Indian band will be less than $29 million. An initial payment to the MLIB was $25 million. Further payments will be made as stumpage is invoiced. Current harvesting was completed before March 31, 2000. No further harvesting is expected until the fall of 2000. Stumpage payments will be discounted to offset silviculture and infrastructure costs incurred under the small business forest enterprise program. I hope that's helpful.
M. de Jong: It is. It is also, I think, happily consistent with previous information. I'm interested to know the process by which the calculation will be made around the additional moneys owing. I think I was told that some of that relates to additional beetle kill, harvesting that may need to take place and to what extent the minister and his colleagues in the Ministry of Forests have now been able to quantify the extent of that additional logging that will be required and the amount of money that will translate into for stumpage.
[1630]
[T. Nebbeling in the chair.]
Hon. D. Lovick: The provincial liability dates from October 20, 1995, to the transfer of land. To this point -- October of 1995 to the present, that is -- we have spent approximately $26 million. Between today's date, though -- of the $26 million -- and the transfer of land, there may be further beetle kill
[ Page 15881 ]
infestation, and therefore additional harvesting would have to occur. That's what we project forward as a possibility, leading us up to $29 million, I believe, as the figure.
M. de Jong: I tried to make these notes as we were going. I though that what we had established was that since October 1995 there was going to be approximately $29 million owing, of which $25 million has already been transferred around stumpage. I think the additional figure that I got -- not from the minister, but elsewhere -- was that there could be as much as an additional $18 million owing pursuant to these stumpage provisions. So that would be $29 million and $18 million, whatever that works out to be. If I'm way out of the ballpark, then the minister can advise me of that.
Hon. D. Lovick: I will simply quote the member's phrase so that he won't see this as being confrontative or something: he is way out. We are obviously projecting at the moment. But I would just draw him to the last section in terms of the bill before us. He will note in the penultimate paragraph of the document: "The total of amounts paid under subsection (1) must not exceed $12 million". That would be in addition to the $25 million. That figure of $37 million would be, of course, $10 million less than the figure the member read into the record a moment ago.
I would only add this: that additional $12 million is not in any way necessarily going to be the amount. It is rather a prudent cautionary note -- a cap, if you like, on what we would pay. We hope it will be significantly less.
M. de Jong: I think that's helpful. Under these stumpage provisions we've paid $25 million, and under no circumstance would the additional amount for this or any other provision extend beyond $12 million. The authority for that statement is section 10 of the bill.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.
M. de Jong: All right. What happens if McLeod Lake comes along and says: "Hang on, you owe us additional stumpage," or "You have some site remediation costs, and those are amounts that you, the province of British Columbia, owe to us pursuant to this agreement. We really don't care that you passed a bill that says you're capping your payments at $12 million. That's fine. You can cap it at $1 million if you like, but you've signed an agreement that says it could be more"?
Hon. D. Lovick: I can perhaps provide this comfort: the amount is not a negotiated amount; it is, rather, based on particular invoices showing that this work had to be done.
[1635]
M. de Jong: I don't doubt that, and again, I don't mean to be argumentative. It's just that it seems to me that what the minister is saying is: "We are placing a cap on the amount of extra money we are going to pay." For that to be meaningful, it would need to be in the agreement, because one of the parties, if not the two other parties to this -- McLeod Lake -- won't be interested in our enabling bill. They will look to the provisions of the agreement. I guess it's a question of what takes precedence, then. Is it the enabling bill, or is it the provisions of the agreement itself?
Hon. D. Lovick: The bill gives us the authority we, the provincial Crown, require. And we're absolutely confident that we have sufficient money to do what we need to do. I should just point out, though, the matter of how large the amount might be in terms of stumpage. Frankly, I think site remediation is not a factor, based on what we know, but let's say the stumpage issue and beetle infestation.
Obviously the length of time it takes before the transfer is effected would be a significant determinant. Clearly if we were in any way apprehensive that, as time goes by, it would be more and more likely that we were going to be on the hook for more money, I think we would be pushing very hard to get the transfer to happen sooner rather than later. For obvious reasons, the other parties in the agreement also want to see the transfer happen sooner rather than later. So I think we're protected there.
M. de Jong: My last kick at this, I guess: are we protected because of section 10 of the act? I know we're jumping ahead here, and I won't revisit this when we get there. Are we protected because one of the signatories to this agreement has said: "Irrespective of what's in this document, we are legislatively going to cap our obligation under any of the collective provisions of this agreement"? If that's the authority, can we do that?
Hon. D. Lovick: We don't think it's an issue. We have looked at the agreement. We're confident that we can indeed fulfil all our obligations. Therefore, as I say, we don't see this as an issue.
M. de Jong: I'm going to try this one more time. The minister may say, "Wait till you get there" -- that is, section 10. I understand the first part of the section, and that is -- it's a logical section to be there -- that whatever obligations you have assumed under this agreement, the minister responsible for the act is obligated to fulfil those obligations. The Minister of Finance has to pay them out of the consolidated revenue fund.
I am intrigued by the subsequent section, where the provincial government would say, "But in no case are we going to assume responsibility for more than $12 million," and the minister says: "Well, we're confident that that's enough." The other treaty bill we dealt with didn't include a similar capping provision. It seems to me that this is of
[1640]
Hon. D. Lovick: I must apologize to the member. I think my choice of words has probably caused this confusion, and I apologize for that. What we're looking at in section
Section 10 of the bill provides a spending authority and stipulates that $12 million is that spending authority. Insofar as that spending authority has been granted or will be granted to the Crown by this legislation, I call that a cap. That is clearly not a cap, except insofar as that is the authority being granted today. In the event that there were some cataclysmic occurrence, I suppose it is conceivable, albeit terribly remote, that one would need more than $12 million. That's essentially what it is; it's a spending authority. If I caused confusion, my apologies. I was a bit obtuse to figure out why the confusion.
[ Page 15882 ]
M. de Jong: The minister doesn't contemplate then holding up section 10, subsection (2) in support for the proposition that: "Sorry, that's all we have to pay."
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I wonder if we might stand down for a moment, five minutes. He wants a break.
The Chair: A five-minute recess, yes.
The House recessed from 4:42 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.
[T. Nebbeling in the chair.]
The Chair: I call the committee to order.
M. de Jong: I wonder if we can move on to article 8 of the agreement, which relates to the whole notion of lands in severalty. Without presuming to be an expert on this concept, which certainly does appear in the original Treaty 8 document of 101 years ago, I guess it can be best summarized as a process by which individuals are given the option to take property personally, as opposed to deriving whatever benefits the band might choose to transfer to them pursuant to the collectivity and its management of the broader land base.
It's ironic, in a sense, that a provision like this would exist and be available. I think there is no similar provision available under the Treaty Commission process. So it's ironic that 100 years later -- for that, at least, that part of negotiations -- one of those options appears to have been removed. It was a difficult choice historically, and in this chamber we have heard about the price that aboriginal people had to pay to exercise that option. I think the term that is generally applied is "enfranchisement." We're dealing with a derivative of that, in a sense -- an amended version of that.
[1655]
I think the questions that arise, and there are a series of them, are: on the relationship between individuals that choose to exercise this option -- how that changes their relationship with the band, if indeed it changes it at all. What other obligations do they assume pursuant to taking the lands? The process by which they will take those lands
First of all, as I understand it, the date by which members of the McLeod Lake band had to signal their desire to exercise the option contemplated in article 8 has now passed; it was December 31, 1999. If that is the case, the minister can then indicate today with certainty how many band members have chosen to exercise that option.
Hon. D. Lovick: First, the member is correct that that date has now passed. The number we are working with is 30 or less. We heard 29 at one point, but apparently now there is some debate. It is worth noting, however, that people who have been close to the process have said to me that at the end of the day, they anticipate it will indeed be fewer in number than 29 or 30.
M. de Jong: Thanks. So if I understood the process, if you were a member of the McLeod Lake band and you wanted to preserve the option of availing yourself of these provisions, you had to make that declaration. The option exists to opt out. But we're dealing now with a maximum of 29 individuals and/or families who may potentially be seeking the land provided for under this section.
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct. There are 29 individuals, apparently.
M. de Jong: Well, can we just for the moment deal with the other 350 or thereabouts who have chosen not to exercise that option? I'm wondering what the ministry's position would be in the event of a child of an adult member of the McLeod Lake band who now chose to forgo the provisions of article 8 -- what the ministry's position is with respect to a claim that comes along subsequently from such a child upon reaching the age of majority, who says: "Hey, I'm not happy with the fact that my mother, father or guardian didn't provide me with this opportunity. I'd love to have had that section of land and would have been happy to put it to work."
As I go through the agreement, I do note that the provisions dealing with article 18 deal with
Hon. D. Lovick: The government's position essentially is that we believe that parents have the right to make those decisions on behalf of their children.
[1700]
M. de Jong: There is certainly litigation around the issue, if not with respect to an adhesion agreement, I think with respect to treaties, at least, and certainly other legal contexts. I guess the question that flows from that is: is the minister able to offer juridical support for the government's stated opinion?
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, let me say first that we are indeed satisfied with the position that I have enunciated. But because I know the member is inviting a commentary, I'll offer it now. First point: I don't believe there's anything that could have been put into this agreement that would prohibit or bar McLeod Lake Indian band children from bringing future claims that might contest the election that their parents made. Now, I don't think one could ever draft an agreement that said: "You, the children, will never have any comeback." You couldn't do that.
It is theoretically then available for them to go to court, just as it is theoretically quite conceivable for the courts to review decisions that have been made by parents acting on behalf of their children. I am advised by our staff, legal counsel and others that a court would have to be either convinced that parents don't have the authority to make this type of decision or be convinced that the evidence goes against the presumption that parents are indeed in the best position to decide what is in their children's best interests. Needless to say, if the latter were invoked, then obviously a whole bunch of our legal edifice in this country and society would also be in challenge.
M. de Jong: I wasn't questioning the right of anyone to bring any sort of action that we can contemplate. I just wanted to make sure I understood the government's position, the date
[ Page 15883 ]
for election having now passed. It is the government of British Columbia's position that, absent a court decision directing them otherwise, the government will not be entertaining any future attempts to secure land individually pursuant to article 8. Have I correctly stated what the government of British Columbia's position is?
Hon. D. Lovick: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. He has.
M. de Jong: So we've dealt, then, with those 358 members of the band. Let's talk about the 29, potentially, that have signalled that they may wish to engage in or take these lands. They are going to be involved in some negotiations over the next couple of years. Those negotiations will take place on an individual basis, as I understand it, pursuant to the agreement.
Then there will be a land selection process. Does the ministry have a sense of where those lands -- and it could potentially be a sizeable chunk of land -- are going to come from? Are they all contemplated to come from the Carp Lake region? Am I reading the agreement correctly when I draw that conclusion?
Hon. D. Lovick: We believe that it is in the interests of all the parties connected to the agreement to endeavour to locate lands that are representative of the McLeod Lake Indian band traditional territory, rather than go someplace a long way away. Obviously there is no guarantee that one can do that, but that is certainly the intention on the part of our government. Moreover, we think it's something that the other parties would also agree to.
M. de Jong: Is it fair to say that the lands would be within the claimed traditional territory as set out in schedule A?
[1705]
Hon. D. Lovick: That's so.
M. de Jong: Let's go through a couple of things, then. I decide, as a member of the McLeod Lake band, that I'm going to take some land. I have those negotiations; my land is selected; and the transfer takes place. I take that land; I take fee simple title, as I understand it. Let's start there: do I take the land in fee simple?
Hon. D. Lovick: I believe it's safe to say that severalty land by definition is fee simple land.
M. de Jong: I'm aware that there is the overriding caveat
Hon. D. Lovick: Correct.
M. de Jong: I had received information that indicated that there was some disagreement around that latter point -- that that was the provincial position. Maybe the easiest question, or the easiest thing to do, is to ask: is there support for the proposition that the minister has just made in this agreement, or is that simply the provincial government's position subject to subsequent negotiations?
Hon. D. Lovick: I have explained the position that we the provincial government take.
M. de Jong: Has McLeod Lake signalled to the ministry that they take a different position?
Hon. D. Lovick: No.
M. de Jong: Is that what took place with other Treaty 8 lands where individuals took land in severalty? They pay taxes; they are subject to provincial taxation. Is that consistent through the ages?
Hon. D. Lovick: I have to respond by saying, to the best of our knowledge, no. Just to qualify, if I might, why we say that
M. de Jong: I appreciate that, but if the province's position today is that if you choose to take the land individually, as provided for in article 8, and part of the terms that you agree to is that you will be taxed on that land by the province the way other land owners are taxed
Hon. D. Lovick: I guess the best way for me to answer the question is to simply say that we the province take the position that these are the rules, should you choose to acquire your land on the fee simple basis in severalty. We will endeavour to carry out that conclusion, and in the event thereafter that the affected individuals decide that they challenge us, then I guess it would be a matter ultimately left to the courts to determine. Our position, I think, is very clear. Lands in severalty are fee simple lands and therefore subject to the same kind of property and taxation arrangements as other fee simple property owners.
[1710]
M. de Jong: Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Is that set out in attachment B, which I think is a description of the mechanism by which this whole lands in severalty option can be exercised? Maybe if it's set out in attachment B -- I don't recall seeing it -- then that's the end of the issue. My impression was that, in spite of taking that position, the government didn't lay that out clearly in the agreement.
Hon. D. Lovick: What we're talking about is simply a process whereby, if individuals choose land in severalty, then we the Crown would transfer that Crown land to fee simple ownership status, the same way we transfer any other piece of Crown land that we sell to an individual or otherwise transfer or deed to an individual.
M. de Jong: I'll come back to this in a moment. It's nice to describe it in those terms. But there is this overriding limitation on title that the minister and I don't have to contend with when we take land. That is, I can't sell it. I can't sell it without the member of the band who takes this land. I think that provides that individual with a pretty compelling argument that he or she is taking something less than full title and that these lands are still somewhat different.
[ Page 15884 ]
I want to come back to that, and the thing I would say on the point that we're discussing is that if it is that patently obvious, then perhaps it's something that should be
Hon. D. Lovick: That is indeed what we think will happen, and I am advised by staff that that point has been made clear to the individuals who are contemplating taking land in severalty.
M. de Jong: Let's talk about the relationship between the member of the band who chooses to exercise rights under article 8 and the rest of the band. Although I haven't warned him, I listened with interest as today's minister and the former minister talked about this in, I think, the estimates debate -- although it may have been second reading debate.
The former minister described, I think effectively, the trade-off that took place and the notion that the person in 1899 who chose to exercise this option was really forgoing a great deal in terms of his or her relationship with the band -- access to whatever services might be available with the band. That, I am led to believe, doesn't exist in the same way here. It's a bit confusing in the sense that the whole notion of lands in severalty seems to contemplate this idea of individualism and severing, to some extent, the relationship with the band -- with the Indian Act administration. That is how it was proceeded with originally, and this will be somewhat different.
I'll introduce the topic in that way. I must confess I think the former minister will articulate some of these issues much better than I, and I will again listen with interest. The issue that I will want to come back to relates to that which is set out in 8.5 and also, I think, in section 9 of the actual bill, which is the restriction on subsequent transferability of the land. I think the minister knows that I am troubled greatly by that provision. So that's my introduction of the subject.
[1715]
J. Weisgerber: I continue to have an interest in the topic as well. As I believe the minister described in our last round of discussions, while there was still some uncertainty about the relationship between the individual and the band, all of the benefits that flow to an individual under the Indian Act would continue, in this case, to flow to that individual band member, but involvement within the band was questionable. Is that still the situation?
Hon. D. Lovick: I started to leap out of my chair, and I was restrained in answering the question. I wanted to say: "But yes, indeed, the member is absolutely correct." But the caveat and the cautionary note I received is: "except that the bands may decide" -- okay? -- "and has the power to make some determination in that regard." The parallel that I use in trying to get my head around this is essentially that taking your land in severalty is analogous to people who live off-reserve. They are still band members, and as we know, recent court decisions have effectively said that they also have a say in band election.
Beyond that, what they effectively do is that they move into another society, generally speaking, thereby accessing the rights and services and so forth of the different society from the first nation one. I think that analogy still essentially obtains. It's essentially the same thing as living off-reserve, if you take your lands in severalty. With that explanatory sidebar, the member's correct.
J. Weisgerber: Not wanting to tread too much into the territory of the opposition critic, I continue to be curious about the notion of a caveat on the property -- something that would protect it from alienation. I think the reasons for that are quite obvious. Those provisions are rather obliquely referred to in the old, original Treaty 8 document. Yet from my life on the Prairies, I'm not aware of property that continues to be identified as land taken in severalty and still administered by the federal Crown.
Are there in the established Treaty 8 areas -- the Peace or northern Alberta -- examples of land, quarter-sections of land, taken in severalty where they continue to be in some quasi-status -- where they're not fully fee simple lands, and the Crown won't allow them to be transferred? Or does this caveat have some time limit on it?
Again, I say that I lived most of my young life in the Prairies, and I think that one would have been aware of something the equivalent of railway land, if you like, where it had a different title structure. Does anyone have any anecdotal knowledge about land that was taken severally, perhaps 100 years ago, and what the status of that is today?
Hon. D. Lovick: Let me start with the third question, Mr. Chairman. No, I don't think I have any up-to-date anecdotal evidence -- or historic anecdotal evidence, for that matter. We are not aware of any individuals in B.C. at the moment who are pressing for that kind of treatment -- the kind of scenario the member depicted in Alberta.
Secondly, the first question or the second question had to do with time limits, and no, there is no time limit.
J. Weisgerber: That would have been what I would have first assumed. I would assume that the caveat would go on the property and would stay there in perpetuity.
One would have assumed that the same mechanism would have taken place 100 years ago, when undoubtedly people chose enfranchisements and took land. Therefore there must be, across Canada, in other parts of Treaty 8, possibly in northern British Columbia, northeastern British Columbia or in northern Alberta or northwestern Saskatchewan, lands that were taken severally and that continue to have that caveat in place. Yet I've never heard an example of that, and I wonder if in fact there are examples of it.
[1720]
Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised by staff that we just don't know.
J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. I don't know, and I have no reason to expect anybody else would. I just thought perhaps
It moves, I think, into the area that the opposition critic was moving toward. I hesitate to steal his thoughts. But if indeed this land is going to be subject to taxation, and if there
[ Page 15885 ]
is a caveat on it which prevents it from changing ownership, surely the only leverage that governments ultimately have, at municipal and provincial levels, is confiscation. If you don't pay your taxes, somebody confiscates your land. But if there is a caveat that says this land can't be alienated, surely, then, governments, both local and provincial, will be powerless to impose taxes on the land. How would you collect? If indeed the landowner said, "Hey, I'm not paying," what would you do? What remedies do you have? Ultimately you have to have a remedy, if you're going to be able to manage a tax system. I see an impediment here, a kind of serious flaw in the thinking, unless there is some mechanism that says: yeah, the province, after ten years of arrears or something, can in fact seize the land for taxes, as they would with ordinary fee simple title.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm very reluctant to bite on this particular apple, simply because it's truly in the realm of the hypothetical.
I think the only point I would make is that ultimately it's the call of the federal government, in terms of whether or not to alienate the land. They're the ones that will ultimately adjudicate. If it were the circumstance that the member outlines -- namely, that somebody has effectively said, "No, I'm not going to pay taxes. You can't do anything about it" -- I think at that point the federal government could be persuaded to do something about it. But that's as far down the road to hypothesis as I want to travel.
J. Weisgerber: The minister will know that I'm often easily put off by suggestions of hypothetical questions, and I try to avoid them. But I don't think that someone resisting paying taxes is particularly hypothetical. If you're going to tax 30 individuals, given the complexities of this situation, I don't think this should be hypothetical. If government -- either the province or the federal government -- doesn't deal with this issue up front, then it's naïve in the extreme. I just don't at all buy that it's hypothetical, any more than any provision of a treaty would be unnecessary if one said: "It's hypothetical that the issue will arise; therefore we'll deal with it when it arises."
The question of how you collect taxes and what kinds of levers the tax collector has over the property, I would argue, is anything but hypothetical, and it represents a serious oversight if they haven't been dealt with.
Hon. D. Lovick: We negotiated this agreement on the basis of making it very clear to our federal counterparts that if people take the land in severalty, it will be subject to taxation. As far as we were concerned, and are concerned, that ends the matter. If indeed something of the shape and texture of the story that the member describes were then to happen, we would deal with it at that point. But as I say, I think our position has been very clear. Moreover, it's absolutely fair to say that those who have elected to take their land in severalty have certainly been advised of what the rules will be for landholding in that form.
J. Weisgerber: Let me finish by saying that if a person decided not to pay tax, then it would seem to me that there would be only two or three remedies: the province could forgo the taxes, the province could attempt to seize the property for non-payment of taxes, or the federal government could step in and make the payment on their behalf. I don't see a lot of other options.
I am very much surprised that something as obvious as that wouldn't be addressed in the treaty itself. If you're going to tax the land, you've got to have a mechanism to collect taxes. I don't think that at any time we as legislators ever contemplate imposing a tax that we can't collect. Implicit in every taxation bill that comes before this House is the concept that there is a mechanism to collect it.
To simply allow a question to be there and say, "We'll deal with it if there is a failure to pay
[1725]
Hon. D. Lovick: Surprise, surprise -- I'm going to say that I disagree with the member. I don't mean to make light of the point, but the process now will be a negotiation carried out between ourselves, the federal government and those individuals within the McLeod Lake band who choose to take land in severalty. In the process of choosing that land selection, in choosing to do that, they will be part of a negotiation with us, during which we will put on the table something that says: "If you choose to take your land in this form, then you will agree to pay taxes."
We have in effect a contractual arrangement, then, with those individuals. That, it seems to me, provides us as much certainty and security as just about anything else that we can do in terms of society and social contractual obligations. The member may disagree, but that's the clearest enunciation of the position I can present. Personally, I think it settles the matter rather well.
M. de Jong: I think the point raised by the member for Peace River South speaks not to a hypothetical but to a certainty, if we follow through on the likely course of events. Let me try it from a different perspective.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: The minister says: "Let me hear your argument." I'm not sure it's an argument. It is perhaps more an observation. That is that you look at this provision in the year 2000, and the thing that screams out at me is that it remains the ultimate expression of paternalism. Everything I thought this exercise was about -- that first nations people, particularly an aboriginal person who chooses to exercise the option available to them under article 8, are as qualified, as able and should be as free to make decisions about his or her future and the future of their family and the land they have taken as anybody else
I don't think the discussion that the former minister had with this minister about where those lands are, in the prairies or elsewhere, in Treaty 8 where this has happened was entirely academic. If you are taking the land, surely you as a Canadian, as a British Columbian -- regardless of whether you are an aboriginal person or not -- are the owner in fee simple of land. Yet in this case, government is saying: "We don't trust you." How else do we read that provision?
[1730]
Yeah, it was in the original Treaty 8 document. But not only is there no attempt made here to alter or bring the
[ Page 15886 ]
document up to date on that point, as was done on some of the other points, but it's reinforced here. It's reinforced in the agreement, and it's reinforced in section 9 of the bill -- that if you are an individual who chooses to take land pursuant to these provisions, your right to sell that land will be limited in a way that doesn't exist for any other person in the province. I find it -- and I don't mean to be overly dramatic -- offensive. Maybe the minister is going to say: "But you know, McLeod Lake doesn't find it offensive." I don't know.
I rather suspect that the McLeod Lake band is less interested in the affairs of people who choose to take land outside of the collective grant. But I wonder about those people who ultimately negotiate for the transfer of land under this provision. It might not be 29, it might be less than that. But I've got to believe that their preference would be to take that land minus this kind of limitation, this kind of caveat. And they won't have that opportunity. I'm curious to know what possible justification there could be in the year 2000 for including this limitation on the rights of people -- rights that we would otherwise take for granted.
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't for a moment question the sincerity of the member and what he perceives to be a legitimate concern. But having said that, I have to remind him that there's a wondrous irony indeed when he worries about the fact that this is apparently paternalistic and then says: "I've got to believe that their preference would not be what they have chosen." In other words, the presumption being made, with all due deference and respect to my colleague opposite, is: "They didn't know what they were doing, because they aren't doing what I think they would have done if they were given a free choice." That, it seems to me, is pretty close to a classic definition, frankly, of something like paternalism. I say that with all due deference and respect, because I don't mean to in any way be combative.
But if we want to talk about
We are not modifying Treaty 8; it's an old treaty. The member opposite is going to say: "Well, you are, because there aren't any references to suits of clothes and medals and things like that." He's right in that, because those things were perceived to be of less importance to the first nation than land and cash. They said: "Give us the cash and forget all that other stuff that was in the old treaty." But beyond that, it's their choice. They said, "This is the kind of treaty we want. We're happy with the old model of treaty-making. We're happy with cede, release and surrender," which, as I've said before, is anathema to most first nations in the province.
We aren't, in substantive forms, modifying the existing treaty. McLeod Lake chose to adhere to that old treaty; they did that. It's not up to us, then, to decide whether that is paternalistic, whether it's what we would want for ourselves. It's their choice; they freely did it. They chose their representatives; they chose their negotiating committee. Those people made the decision -- consciously, deliberately, well informed of the implications and the substance of the choice before them.
What I think about their choice -- whether I would like to have land that I think of as being fee simple and then discover that it is subject to a caveat by the federal government
[1735]
M. de Jong: Actually, more to the point, what I think is perhaps irrelevant; what the minister thinks is not. Let's test his theory. Did the province of British Columbia in these negotiations give McLeod Lake an option? Did the government say to McLeod Lake: "We won't insist on adhering to and modernizing this treaty. If you don't want that provision there, we won't insist on its presence"?
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't answer this specific question: in terms of this clause, this sentence, did they have a vote on that or something? What I can tell you is that it was negotiated. I can tell you that they had regular reports; it's been going on for years and years. They obviously knew what they were doing. I think we would surely all accept that proposition. And I can also tell the member that the 90 percent plus who turned out to vote, voted in favour of this agreement. They understand what severalty is; they understand what adhesion is. They understand what settlement of the litigation was.
My friend from the Peace and I were both up there in McLeod Lake for the signing ceremony for this thing. They're ecstatic; they think this is wonderful. I have heard no dissenting voices, quite frankly, despite the fact that, as I say, it was a 90-percent-plus vote in favour. There clearly was some dissent, but I have heard none. In talking with the member who most closely represents that constituency, the member from Prince George, I have heard no dissenting voices. So I must again work on the assumption that yes, indeed, this is something entirely acceptable to the people of the McLeod Lake Indian band.
J. Weisgerber: I just have to jump in at this point, because I think it's fair to say that the band and council and the negotiators who were doing this deal on behalf of McLeod Lake had absolutely no interest in anybody taking land severally. So to expect them to go in and negotiate hard on behalf of the people who were going to make that choice
The minister says that this old treaty, this old 1899 treaty, wasn't altered substantially, and I disagree. I disagree not for the reason of the axes and cattle and oxen but for the reason that the people who chose land severally in 1899 were, in effect, disenfranchised or lost their status. That isn't happening today, and that's a pretty fundamental change. So to suggest that the idea of taking land severally -- that the province and the federal government have done that holus-bolus
I think the thing has been changed, and I think that the member's argument with respect to whether or not there should be a caveat on the land is a very legitimate one. It was
[ Page 15887 ]
within the power of the three parties at the negotiating table to change. I will conclude by saying that I don't think the McLeod Lake band, with all due respect to band council, had any interest in negotiating on behalf of those people who were going to take land severally. That was a responsibility for the province and the federal government, if there is responsibility at the table to negotiate for those people.
[1740]
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think I need to say a great deal in response to that, except that again we disagree. I'd just remind the member that why I think it is not a substantive change is that we now have a Charter of Rights in the constitution in this country. We have something called Aboriginal Rights in Title recognized in section 35 of the constitution. That wasn't the case when we had an old treaty. It is also the case that one can indeed take lands in severalty today without losing one's status as an Indian under the act. I think it's a wash, at the very least, to say whether this was as substantive as the member suggests.
I would just point out to the other point briefly, though, that built into the agreement under 8.9 is, I think, some recognition of differences, namely that the agreement -- I'll just quote a small piece of it -- "does not prejudice and will not be interpreted in any manner to prejudice the position that each of the parties may take, or the position that any individual may take, in relation to the form of conveyance of land in severalty or the status of such lands," etc.
I think that is a door-opener, if you will, to the recognition that there may indeed be different points of view and different perceptions of the advisability or the desirability of this particular measure.
M. de Jong: I think that the point regarding the difference of opinion has been made, and there so be it. And I think the minister is wrong.
I wonder if we could get to article 9, which relates to
Let me ask it in a way that might be more meaningful, because the litigation has gone on for many years. How different is this document from what existed just about two years ago, when it sounded as if we had a final agreement that two of the three parties had ratified but the province of British Columbia had not? Litigation was recommenced. I think it's a fair question. If there were dramatic changes, if the government achieved something by digging in and being firm and demanding that something additional be included or that there be some changes, so be it. But if the document is essentially the same as it was then, then the public might ask: "What was the reason for the delay, and how much did that delay cost us?"
Hon. D. Lovick: The member raises a number of particular questions, so I can deal with them.
B.C. agreed to provide $1 million to the McLeod Lake Indian band towards their negotiation costs. We had a litigation team preparing for the court case. The estimated cost was about $200,000. The total figure, the cost of negotiating the treaty, is going to be borne out of our negotiation budget within my ministry.
[1745]
M. de Jong: Sorry, I heard the minister say the cost will be borne out of his ministry. I thought I heard him say out of the portion of his ministry dedicated to negotiations, and I heard the figure $200,000. Is that the amount that accrued over the time from when there was a draft final agreement to today's date, essentially -- to where we are today?
Hon. D. Lovick: The $200,000 figure that I quoted was the cost for the litigation team preparing for the court case. That was borne by the Ministry of the Attorney General. The other costs, our negotiation costs, come from this ministry. I don't have a detailed figure on that. Suffice it to say that the cost will be borne and assumed by this ministry.
M. de Jong: So presumably that $200,000 cost was assumed by government because there was something either in or not in the draft final agreement that this ministry or the Attorney General's ministry was not prepared to consent to. What was that? Why did that litigation team continue to prepare when there was a draft agreement in place? As I say, I think the answer to that is: "Well, we achieved something significant over those two years. We got a change that we were looking for that we felt so strongly about that we were prepared for $200,000 to go to court in order to achieve that change."
Hon. D. Lovick: The memorandum-of-settlement proposal that was two years before the final treaty was apparently contingent on negotiating a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. We were unsuccessful in achieving that; therefore the extra time was spent trying to make it happen.
M. de Jong: So because there was a dispute between two levels of government, the litigation team continued to prepare to fight McLeod Lake in court and spent $200,000 doing that?
Hon. D. Lovick: The litigation team ceased its work in 1997 at an estimated cost of $200,000 to that point. Thereupon, the effort to negotiate the memorandum -- the MOSP agreement -- was presented. As I say, it was signed but was contingent on getting the deal with Canada for a cost-sharing agreement. We didn't get that deal with Canada until 1998. I'm not sure what month. I believe it was March of 1998.
M. de Jong: But this matter was scheduled to go back into court last year. Presumably, that litigation team was up and running.
Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that we were not actively pursuing litigation after that date. I needn't
[1750]
M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I understand. There are the provisions of an agreement. It's contingent upon a
[ Page 15888 ]
cost-sharing agreement with Canada. That doesn't happen. McLeod Lake is waiting. They think they've got a deal and are surprised when it isn't ratified -- two years ago -- and they're angry. They wait, wait and wait some more and finally say: "We're not waiting anymore. We're going to court."
That date is looming, and the minister is saying that no legal work is undertaken. The question that sort of begs asking is: is it the minister's position and the government's position that this two-year delay is attributable entirely to an inability on the part of the provincial and federal government to negotiate a cost-sharing formula? Was McLeod Lake made to wait an additional two years because of that? And if that's the case, is that what they were told?
Hon. D. Lovick: I think these dates have to be put in the context of the pas de deux of negotiation. What I am referring to is the fact that the McLeod Lake band obviously felt it was in their interest to suggest that they would go back to court if they didn't get an agreement. The province thought that it could get an agreement and probably then did the minimal work required to deal with each of the dates that were stipulated as we went along. But ultimately, as I say, we worked on the assumption that we were going to get an agreement and therefore didn't need to do serious work in terms of the litigation. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, the serious attention to the litigation effort ended in '97.
M. de Jong: Did the litigation team involve externally contracted counsel?
Hon. D. Lovick: That's correct.
M. de Jong: Having now concluded a deal, will the minister undertake to release all of the invoices associated with the cost of preparation over the past two years?
Hon. D. Lovick: That is standard practice, yes.
M. de Jong: Not that standard, actually. What I am asking the minister to do is to confirm, with documentation, the amount of money that was spent over the last two years on legal fees associated with the preparation for trial and achievement of this agreement.
Hon. D. Lovick: Subsequent to the constraints of FOI being satisfied, I am pleased to provide that undertaking to the member.
M. de Jong: If the minister is not careful, he'll be Premier next.
Just a couple of things. Under Article 10 -- those are the
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Sorry, article 10 in the agreement. That is the provision dealing with the payment of the lump sum amount. I heard in a previous discussion with the member for Peace River South and believe it to be the case that these financial provisions collectively supersede the old provisions of the original Treaty 8, whereby the chief got a cheque for $32,000 and a headman $22 each year, although I have heard that there are places on the Prairies where that exercise continues to happen. Is there a provision that formally articulates that this is the money that will be paid in lieu of these amounts stipulated in the original Treaty 8?
[1755]
Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize; I may have missed the last piece. If the question is, "Do we do that, or does this agreement supersede?" the answer is no, this agreement supersedes. We don't do those things.
I'm not sure, though, whether other bands in the Treaty 8 area might still have some of that old ceremonial stuff. I just don't know if that's the case or not.
Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Section 9 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 32 | |||
| Doyle | McGregor | Sawicki | |
| Kwan | Lali | Hammell | |
| Pullinger | Bowbrick | Mann Brewin | |
| Boone | Orcherton | Calendino | |
| Zirnhelt | Randall | Robertson | |
| Cashore | Conroy | Smallwood | |
| Miller | MacPhail | Dosanjh | |
| Petter | Lovick | Priddy | |
| Ramsey | G. Wilson | Gillespie | |
| Streifel | Walsh | Kasper | |
| G. Clark | Goodacre | ||
| NAYS -- 27 | |||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark | |
| Farrell-Collins | de Jong | Abbott | |
| L. Reid | Neufeld | Coell | |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Nettleton | |
| Penner | Weisgerber | Weisbeck | |
| Nebbeling | Hogg | Coleman | |
| Stephens | J. Reid | Krueger | |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff | |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi | |
Section 10 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, the committee reports Bill 10 complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported a third time?
[ Page 15889 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: Now, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 10, McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:45 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 6:08 p.m. to 6:49 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.
REGULATORY STREAMLINING
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; T. Stevenson in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Farrell-Collins: I said in second reading of this bill that we canvassed it as thoroughly as we were able and consulted widely on it and have been able to find nothing of any dramatic significance in it at this point. We are prepared to pass the sections. It is truly one of those bills that is a housecleaning bill.
With that, I conclude my comments on the bill in committee.
[1850]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Just in brief response, as I said at second reading, this is one of many pieces of the streamline initiative. I recognize that the individual portions are relatively small, but in total this and other initiatives do add up to a significant impact on regulation and red tape in British Columbia.
I would again, as I did before, offer additional briefing to any member of the House who wants information on specific provisions of the bill.
Sections 1 to 52 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 12 complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; T. Stevenson in the chair.
Bill 12, Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 13.
MOTOR CARRIER AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
Hon. H. Lali: When I was named Minister of Transportation and Highways, one of my first commitments as minister was to review the state of the taxi industry and also to make necessary improvements. My staff and I have had numerous meetings with stakeholders in the last two years. I also asked the respected consultant, Mr. Stan Lanyon, to study the industry and make recommendations to me. Mr. Lanyon consulted extensively with taxi companies, drivers, communities and other stakeholders in preparing this report and 56 recommendations. Indeed, he travelled all over the province to be able to do that.
Some of the recommendations form the basis for Bill 13. I want to commend, first off, Mr. Lanyon and his staff and ministry staff for all of their good work in moving this file forward over the last couple of years. Having said that, I now move that Bill 13, which amends the Motor Carrier Act, be read a second time.
The amendments to the Motor Carrier Act will remove the motor carrier licensee exemption for taxis and for limousines operating strictly within the boundaries of one municipality. They will also establish a new appeal process, modifying the structure of the Motor Carrier Commission and implementing several administrative streamlining measures.
The amendments will also provide enabling authority to the commission to establish provincial or regional taxi associations sometime in the future. Further consultation will be undertaken with the industry before any associations are established.
The amendments were developed based on advice and input from the ministry, input the ministry received from key taxi-industry stakeholders last fall. These included the B.C. Taxi Association, the Vancouver Taxi Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city of Vancouver, ICBC, Vancouver International Airport Authority, B.C. Transit, TransLink, the Motor Carrier Commission and groups representing persons with disabilities. The highest priority to the taxi industry is the amendment that removes the existing motor carrier licensing exemption for taxis operating within one municipality.
Over 90 percent of British Columbia's 2,200 taxi operators are already licensed under the Motor Carrier Act. By removing the exemption, we will increase public safety by ensuring that all taxis meet consistent standards. We will also allow every operator to compete on a level economic playing field.
To establish these changes, the amendments retitled the definition of "limited passenger vehicle," with the new name being "commercial passenger vehicle." This is for the purpose of clarity. Amendments to the definition itself then removed the existing motor carrier licensing exemption for taxis and limousines operating within one municipality. The amendments also establish a new appeal or reconsideration process for commission decisions and also for orders. Industry and the commission identified a need for a quicker, more efficient turnaround of appeals from licensing decisions. A new process achieves this by modifying the commission's structure and implementing administrative streamlining measures.
[1855]
The amendments provide enabling authority to the commission to establish provincial and regional taxi associations
[ Page 15890 ]
sometime in the future. The decision to make this amendment was based on the recognition that a single, unified association would help the industry more easily identify and deal with any issues that affect it. Further consultation needs to be undertaken on this matter.
Lastly, this bill also contains two transitional sections that do not amend any statute. One of these contains the legislation needed to grandparent eligible municipal operators into the provincial licensing system. The other amendment is designed to ensure fairness. We recognize that some applications for reconsideration will be received by the commission before this legislation comes into force. These will be treated in accordance with the legislation that was in effect at the time the application was received.
Hon. Speaker, when I first got elected in 1991 this whole issue with the taxi industry was something that was already there. I know it has been a long time in coming. There's a great deal of anticipation by people in the taxi industry and other stakeholders. Also, there's a need for it. Throughout the last number of years, everywhere I've travelled people have asked to see if we couldn't bring about some changes in there that would make it a little easier on the taxi industry. Right now they go through a number of processes, also to different agencies to try to deal with inspections, licensing or in dealing with municipalities -- ICBC and formerly the motor vehicle branch when it was separate from ICBC, Vancouver Airport Authority, the Motor Carrier Commission and a number of places that they had to go to. Obviously it has been time consuming for them and also fairly costly, as they had to take time out from their working hours to be able to look after all of those kind of things.
Finally, we were able to have the review that was done by Mr. Stan Lanyon, who went out and talked to stakeholders in all parts of the province and then came back with a list of 56 recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, we'll be dealing with some of them. I know there are some members who will be speaking to this. I know the opposition critic has been listening and waiting eagerly, and he is chomping at the bit to get up. So I await comments from my colleagues on both sides of the House. Then I'll have a few more comments to make at the end of second reading.
[1900]
D. Symons: The Minister of Finance suggested that maybe the Minister of Highways and Transportation should have had his meter running when he was speaking, fitting in very well with the taxi industry.
I appreciate this chance to speak on Bill 13, second reading, because there are certainly some concerns that I have about it and also some support that I have for it, and I'd like to sort of hit on both sides of that. Up until recently, the municipalities -- and this is the first item, I think, that this particular bill hits -- have had the right, if you want to call it that, of allowing a taxi to get a municipal plate and operate only within the municipality boundaries. They weren't allowed to pick up passengers outside of the boundaries. I know that in my town of Richmond, it did create some real problems. Often the people who used what we'll refer to as this backdoor route of getting a taxi plate didn't quite follow the rules, and there were some problems with that.
The other thing that the minister mentioned relating to bringing them all under the Motor Carrier Commission authority is the fact that it would help the safety. I'm not too sure whether the fact that we simply put them under Motor Carrier authority will indeed contribute any more to safety. I know of taxi companies in the lower mainland that a year or two ago had Motor Carrier authority plates and were still driving taxis that didn't meet safety standards. When the police in the greater Vancouver area started cracking down, some of these taxi companies -- as many as 30 percent, 40 percent or 50 percent of them -- had serious safety flaws in the vehicles that had to be repaired before they were allowed to continue operating on the road.
I think that a lot of that -- the fact that there has been much more in the way of investigation and checking up on the firms -- has done more to bring about safety than possibly being part of the National Safety Code. Basically that's writing out a document and sending it in. You get a safety certificate, but nobody's actually physically inspected your cab. I think that's one weakness in the thought of saying: "This will promote safety." It won't necessarily do that. Certainly safety should be done, and it should be brought in. We should be sure that we have more safety checks performed on the cabs to ensure that they're safe, rather than having a safety code sticker.
An area that I also have concerns about is the fact that there seems to be no provision in here -- when we get into the reconsideration panel -- that the reconsideration panel has to be different than the panel that first heard the application for the Motor Carrier Commission if somebody wants to get a cab licence. I think that's a bit of a weakness that shouldn't be in here. The reconsideration panel should be a different group of people than the ones who first might have rejected an application.
However, I think the layout in this particular one for the operations of the reconsideration panel will work much better than the current system and therefore shorten the time between the time a person makes an application for a licence and the time that licence application is rejected. When they ask for reconsideration currently, it can be a year or more before they actually have the final disposition of their reconsideration. This will speed up that process to a few months, and that will be a good feature of this particular bill.
I would also like to comment just a little bit about the fact that this particular bill is going to create, or allow us to create, taxi associations. Basically there would be the requirement of anybody operating a taxi in the province of British Columbia to belong to a taxi association. I have some concerns in the fact that what this seems to be doing is bringing in more regulation to one aspect of commercial vehicles in the province of British Columbia, when it seems that only recently we were deregulating commercial vehicles in the province. So this particular bill is bringing in more regulation, in a sense, in that the people who are involved in the taxi industry must first get carrier authority plates through the Motor Carrier Commission and, second, must belong to a taxi association. From what I gather from reading the bill, it would simply be an advisory portion to the Motor Carrier Commission.
However, one part I noted was that in recommendation No. 13 of Mr. Lanyon, who brought in 56 recommendations as the minister mentioned
[ Page 15891 ]
Nowhere in the bill do I see that it sets up what Mr. Lanyon strongly suggested here: a taxi division of the Motor Carrier Commission. Maybe in committee stage the minister will be able to fill me in on the fact that, indeed, it is there or intended to be done, but it doesn't say so in this bill. So I'll be looking to see if they carry forth all of recommendation No. 1 of Mr. Lanyon or indeed if they are just doing the first part of it. I think that might be an important thing that should be there. Somebody who has a better knowledge of the taxi industry and how it works should be in charge of that particular portion of the Motor Carrier Commission.
[1905]
My last concern in relation to setting up an association for the taxi industry is that there is no mention here of the funding of it. I'm sure that if there is going to be an association, then there will end up being some costs to that, which I'm sure the taxi industry will have to cover. I'm not sure if they're thinking of that. I rather suspect that after this is in place, maybe some of the people who are now quite eager for it might find that the regulation and the way that they're going here might not work to their advantage.
One group I'm terribly concerned about in this act as it goes in is indeed the public who use the taxis as a service. I think this seems to leave out service to the public. It works very well for the taxi industry. But it does not cover as much the interests of the drivers who may not be owners or the drivers who are just basically renting the cab to use and paying for the use of the cab, and it doesn't do that much for the travelling public. In fact, it might prevent the public from having more options within the taxi industry, because this may fix the industry in the way it currently operates rather than allowing innovation to be done in the future.
With those reservations that I have on the operation of this particular bill, by and large, I think it will serve the taxi industry fairly well. We will look forward to going into my other concerns as we do the committee stage.
S. Orcherton: I don't want to spend a long time talking about this particular bill, but I do want to pass just a few comments. I think everybody in this House and in this province understands that there are huge challenges in the transportation industry in British Columbia. One of those pieces of the transportation industry that hasn't had a whole lot of attention for a number of years is the taxi industry and, by way of that, the Motor Carrier Act. I'm happy today to see this bill moving forward in dealing with the municipal boundaries issue.
I've had many taxi owners in my office since I was elected in 1996, who have come in and talked to me about putting in place a better system, a better way to manage that facet of transportation in the province. I'm happy that this legislation goes a good way toward addressing those issues.
I think this legislation, as I said, is long overdue. I think it will go toward putting in place a good foundation -- the ability for taxi owners to bond together and form associations to deal with their issues and the ability to operate intermunicipally. I think it's good, good legislation. I commend the minister for bringing it forward. I know there has been a tremendous amount of consultation and discussion on this legislation. It has taken some time to reach this point. So often when we get to this point after very, very long periods of consultation and discussion, it becomes sort of a fait accompli that it finally goes through.
Hon. Speaker, I think you and the members of this chamber should know that there have been many, many people for many years waiting for this change in this legislation to occur, and today's a good day for them. I hope that this will form a new foundation for the taxi and transportation industry in British Columbia. It goes a long ways to addressing many of the concerns and puts in place a firm foundation for that industry to be able to build for the future and to deliver many of the needs of the travelling public in British Columbia.
Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank both speakers, including the hon. critic opposite. I look forward, obviously, to committee stage, when there will be some other concerns that the hon. member across the way raised, and we'll deal with them then.
[1910]
As I wrap up, I just want to point out that Mr. Lanyon's 56 recommendations
As far as municipalities are concerned, the Union of B.C. Municipalities is actually on board with the recommendation to remove the taxi exemption. We've got numerous mayors and councils throughout the province who have supported this and have written in their support regarding that.
Within the taxi industry, by far a majority of the 2,200 operators who are licensed through the Motor Carrier Commission felt that a fair bit of unfair competition had gone on with those that had got their licensing through the municipal exemption, through municipalities. The MCC licensed carriers felt that while they were picking up all of the bills and having to go through all of the regulations -- safety insurance and licensing and all that -- those that were going through the municipalities were actually creating unfair competition, because they didn't have to pay for all those costs.
Also, there have been quite a few instances all across the province where those with municipal exemptions were actually going across the municipal boundaries when they should not have, in terms of picking up customers that the MCC licensed carriers normally would have. So they felt that it was taking their fares away from them. And there was a problem of enforcement of those regulations.
Also, by getting rid of the municipal exemption, now those carriers that are municipally licensed will have to abide by the National Safety Code. That's where the whole issue of safety comes in. They would obviously have to live up to the same standards as the rest of the industry. I think it was the hon. member that
In terms of actual enforcement, perhaps that was lacking in the past. But part of this whole review was to make sure that the drivers and the owner-operators were well aware that in the future they also would have to clean up their act in terms of providing a safe and reliable service for the consumers. In the end, it's the consumers more than anybody else that we would have to take into consideration, because there are so many of them and they are so vital to the economy of British Columbia. With so many tourists from abroad and other provinces who come here, their first point is the airport or the seaports, and obviously many of those use our taxis to get around.
[ Page 15892 ]
Outside of the act amendment that is being proposed here, there would also be attention given to the training and perhaps a modified taxi-host kind of program and other training that the drivers would be required to take. Especially with many of the drivers who are from the community that I'm from, sometimes there's a language barrier, so we would encourage them to also take English training when they first start out in the driving field.
I would beg to differ with the hon. member that this brings in more regulation. It doesn't; it actually
One of the main reasons for doing this was to get rid a lot of the hurdles that were there. Owner-operators had to go through various agencies and departments of federal, provincial and municipal governments to be able to look after their needs -- whether it was inspections or insurance or safety and the like, and also licensing -- so those kinds of things would become more streamlined, and also in terms of the dialogue that would take place between the industry and the Motor Carrier Commission.
Having said that, I'm proud to have been involved in developing this bill. At this time I would like to move second reading of Bill 13.
[1915]
Motion approved.
Bill 13, Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 14.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
Hon. C. McGregor: I move that Bill 14, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, be now read for a second time.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to present Bill 14 for a second reading. I want to begin, in fact, by referring to an initial press release that came out in September of '96, which said: "Protocol Strengthens Partnerships with Local Government." The reason that I want to start there is because this -- in Penticton on September 18, 1996 -- was the place where a protocol of recognition for local government in British Columbia was signed at the annual meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. At that time there was a different Minister of Municipal Affairs -- the member for North Coast -- and UBCM president -- Joanne Monaghan. That protocol was a first step in committing the province to a closer relationship with British Columbia's locally elected representatives.
It was described really as a historic breakthrough. I think the reason it was described that way is because the protocol established some very clear principles that would define all future intergovernmental relations. It included a commitment to partnership, information sharing, and early notice of and consultation on significant legislative change. It also created a joint council composed of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and other ministers from across government, as well as the key officers of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The joint council was designed to review existing legislation, regulations, policies and programs relating to local government.
The protocol, when it was signed, included a large number of statements of importance to the parties. I think it's important to review those statements in the context of this third year in a series of changes to the Municipal Act. There was really a need to clarify and define the jurisdiction and responsibilities of both the province and local governments, and a need, really, to increase the level of trust as well as a commitment to ongoing cooperation.
[1920]
Effective cooperation, as the protocol describes it, between the local and provincial governments will make sure that we have certainty and predictability in terms of governmental performance and will promote public confidence and sound planning. It acknowledges that public policy issues are complex, often transcending political boundaries, and they require coordinated responses from the parties.
The province then recognized, given those principles, that local government is an independent, responsive and accountable order of government. That indeed was a fundamental statement that defined the new relationship between the province of British Columbia and municipal governments across the province. We then crafted a series of principles including a commitment to action, making sure that we're responsive to each other's area of jurisdiction as well as a commitment to partnership, which meant a spirit of cooperation and harmonization between our roles and responsibilities, programs and projects.
It also spoke to the issue of responsibilities and resources, which was a significant concern of local governments of the day and in fact continues to be. It's important that whenever we make decisions about new policies and programs, there is a full evaluation done of the costs as well as possible revenues that might be associated with the proposed change.
New responsibilities would not be assigned until they had been discussed between the parties. I think we've demonstrated over the last several years our commitment to taking that principle forward. One example I can think of is the Fish Protection Act and the streamside directives through which we have consulted extensively with local governments, ensuring that issues related to resources are fully addressed before we move forward with them.
Another principle in the protocol was related to flexibility. That spoke to the need that the Municipal Act and legislation and programs should be fully flexible so that local governments from different parts of the province could respond to issues in different ways. Notification and consulta-
[ Page 15893 ]
tion was another principle, and that spoke to the issue of not only treating local governments with fairness, openness and good faith but that all decisions should be preceded by an appropriate consultation amongst the affected parties -- that we should share and cooperate in terms of the development and distribution of information.
Those are the principles of the protocol that we initially launched in '96, which led to a series of changes through the Municipal Act. Last year in this chamber the former Minister of Municipal Affairs introduced legislation that provided more capacity for local governments to help them govern their communities more effectively. These enhancements were balanced with stronger measures to ensure greater public input into local decision-making.
As I indicated earlier in my beginning remarks, that legislative package was the second in the three-year Municipal Act initiative. This year our challenge was to bring to fruition, in fact, substantial completion of the reform package. This legislation is a product of broad and extensive consultation over the past year, which included local government officials, business representatives and others. That consultation has formed a foundation for this legislative reform package.
As I indicated earlier, the principle of consultation and ongoing consultation was an important one in the protocol. It was very important for us to make sure that we reflected that practice in the approach we took to Municipal Act reform.
The consultation process that we designed ensured that the UBCM was directly involved in developing these proposals. As a result of that direct involvement, we co-hosted -- the ministry and UBCM -- a series of symposiums, three in total, over the last several years to deal with this package of Municipal Act reforms. The UBCM accepted the proposed legislative package as meeting the test of being easily recognizable, substantial and moving forward on the core principles and bringing the initiative to substantial completion.
[1925]
Most recently we had a symposium on March 1 and 2, where the new local government legislation was reviewed by about 260 representatives from municipalities and regional districts across British Columbia. The proposed components of the year 2000 legislative package were discussed, and direction was received. Hon. Speaker, despite having spent considerable time crafting a response as a direct result of a report written by Dr. Bob Bish -- who recommended a series of proposals to go forward and changes to the Municipal Act -- and having taken the principles of those recommendations and crafted them into legislation, we needed to make sure, in a subsequent consultation, that they met the goals that we had jointly in mind as a result of the review by Dr. Bish.
We then took the results from that symposium and correspondingly looked at our legislative package to see that it met all those tests and then once again consulted with UBCM staff, municipal and regional district councillors, directors and administrators as well as regional planners, members of the municipal law section, improvement district associations, dispute resolution professionals, the Urban Development Institute, as well as the B.C. Business Council and various labour unions including the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Finally, as a result of that consultative process, we developed a regulatory impact statement, which I'll spend some time reviewing with the members of the House today to ensure that it meets that test. It's important that whatever legislative change we bring forward, we do a full review of the potential impacts on those affected.
So what is the context of the year 2000 legislative package for this year? First, this legislation provides more flexibility for local government. Again, it speaks to a key principle that was outlined in the protocol that I spoke of earlier. This legislation provides more flexible planning and land use authority for local governments, while enhancing related public consultation. It includes consolidation and clarification, as well, of the counterpetition process. This is a matter that the critic opposite will likely make some comments on during this discussion of this bill, because I think it's an area that we share mutual interest in.
A number of other changes are included in the proposed legislation, including changing the name of the act to the Local Government Act in recognition of all of the local governments in British Columbia -- not just municipalities but regional districts as well.
It is true that the highlights of this year's package include the regional district amendments. The new legislation will provide regional districts with broad service powers so they can have more autonomy over local affairs. Regional districts will also have greater flexibility to enter into innovative service partnerships between member municipalities and electoral areas to meet local needs. This legislation will provide more flexibility, as well, in recovering costs for electoral area administration and will enable regional districts to establish feasibility funds to make sure that costs are covered by the areas that will benefit.
The legislation provides a process for reviewing regional district services and renegotiating the terms and conditions of this service. The emphasis on this process is to find ways of reaching an agreement on outstanding issues, so the minister can appoint a facilitator to help the parties reach an agreement. If the process doesn't reach an agreement, the legislation then provides for arbitration to ensure that disputes do not drag on. This is a fundamental change in the way that the service delivery functions are currently delivered. In fact, there is no process through which a member of a service area can have a service reviewed and then consider the interests of their own region and consider whether they would like to withdraw from that service.
There has been a history of disputes -- not many, but some of them actually fairly rancorous -- around the province as it relates to types of service agreements and partnerships. When those partnerships aren't functioning well, there has to be a tool or a mechanism through which those parties can come together to talk about areas of common agreement and principles of working together to deliver a service that's necessary for a region. I don't want any of the members in the House to come to the conclusion by what I'm saying that I or any member of our ministry actually want to see the dissolution of service agreements. In fact, we would prefer that these partnerships continue. But there does have to be a way of resolving disputes.
[1930]
We consulted with professionals in the area of dispute resolution. We tried to design a process through which the parties will explore together the key principles that brought them together to begin with, the implications for the cost of the service, running it either independently or continuing as a
[ Page 15894 ]
part of the partnership, and all the other issues that are important for the players to discuss prior to reaching an agreement on how that service might be modified or changed in some way or, in the eventuality of an absolute disagreement, to be able to withdraw but still be able to provide that key service to residents in the community.
There were concerns that were raised by some regional districts when we brought this process to the discussion at the symposium. But I think we've done a good job of bringing balance to that service withdrawal process, so that all of the principles and issues that are important from a resident's perspective and the broader community's perspective, and the ministry and the public interest perspectives, are considered prior to decisions being made. We really want to work with regional districts on implementing this over some time, but I think it's a very good tool to address some problems that have existed.
There are a series of other miscellaneous amendments. Another proposed amendment to the bill includes enabling the Islands Trust to encourage the retention of natural area values on private land within the trust area by linking a commitment to maintain significant natural areas to reduced property taxes. This is an area of great interest to me as a former Minister of Environment and someone who cares deeply about the parks and preservation policies we've taken over the years in terms of protecting our unique natural values and ecosystems for both wildlife and plant life.
It's very difficult in some parts of the province to engage in acquisition of park space because of the large number of areas that are owned privately by private citizens. The Gulf Islands happens to be one of those areas. While in other parts of the province we've been able to take steps to preserve Crown land for parks and protected areas, the same opportunities have not necessarily been available to us in the islands area. We do have some special acquisition programs, like the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy fund, which enables us to work with the federal government and other non-profit agencies and local governments to set aside some very significant parts of the Gulf Islands area. But those tools were not viewed to be adequate, particularly from the perspective of the Islands Trust members themselves. So we worked together to come up with a tool through which both the province and the Islands Trust could identify areas of significance and then use tools to reduce taxes -- dependent, of course, on the significance of the area in question.
I think it's a very progressive possibility for a way we can increase protected areas. Of course, it speaks again to one of the principles that I outlined when I talked at first about the protocol of agreement between municipal government and the provincial government, and that is one of cooperation and working together. In this case, this amendment to the Islands Trust Act ensures that there must be the approval of the regional district in question before such an amendment would apply.
Other amendments propose to increase the level of financial accountability to improvement districts and make sure that the annual general meeting is open to the public. Another change includes providing broad authority for local governments to establish any kind of administrative commission they consider necessary to operate services, manage property or provide advice to the local council.
Another piece we are proposing is to repeal a special legislative MEVA that was enacted in 1997 to give the city of Victoria customized authority to enter into a proposed public-private partnership, or what is called a P3, for an arena complex. Since 1997 there has been extensive consultation on the provisions of the act that relate to P3s. These consultations emerged with a set of rules and limits that would be appropriate for such developments.
These rules have now, following on the leadership shown by the city of Victoria, enabled us to provide rules that will work for all such partnerships across British Columbia, so it is appropriate, I believe, for us to repeal the interim rules that were set in place for Victoria. This does not mean, of course, that Victoria cannot engage in public-private partnerships. Of course they can, and I'm certain they will. As I said earlier, they were one of the municipalities that took the lead on developing this approach to major development proposals within a municipal area. We've used what we have learned from their experience to develop appropriate standards to be contained within the act.
[1935]
The amendments to the Municipal Act, as I said earlier, are a reaffirmation of the principles of the 1996 protocol of recognition between the provincial government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They will substantially complete the three-year reform process that was engaged in at the beginning of 1996 with the protocol when it was signed by the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs.
My remarks will not be complete until I take an opportunity to speak to the regulatory impact statement that was developed in response to the specific nature of the amendments. This is a very important tool that government has adopted through which we analyze decisions taken by government to make sure that they reflect on the appropriate questions and principles.
For instance, one of the regulatory impact statements is: is the problem correctly identified? I'll spend some time talking about what those problems are and how appropriately they have been identified. Question No. 2 is: is the government action justified? I think I've spoken consistently and at some length about the consensus that existed between our local governments through UBCM and the provincial government on the need for reform and the need to establish a new and mutually supportive relationship. The third question is: is regulation the best form of government action? The question that many non-profit agencies, businesses and others often ask government before they take the step to amend legislation is: is this really the appropriate tool through which we should take these steps? I'll speak briefly to that as well.
What is the best regulatory approach? Is there a legal basis for provincial regulatory policy? What is the appropriate level of government action? Do the benefits of regulatory policy justify the costs? Will there be an impact on British Columbia's competitiveness? I think that is a very important question to be answered. How will a policy that is clear, consistent, comprehensible and accessible to users be assured? Have all the parties had the opportunity to present their views? What are the views of the staff who work with these issues on a daily basis? So the regulatory statement gives us a chance to examine in some detail the specific nature of the amendments to the act. I'll take a moment or two to go through those.
The Municipal Act reform package has a number of principles that answer the question broadly: is the problem
[ Page 15895 ]
correctly identified? One of the principles was the interests of balance. When we say balance, we mean that balance between the interests of citizens, local governments and the provincial government should all be addressed through changes that are made. The legislation should be clear and simple, written in plain language and easily understandable to all of us. I think most people in this House will have had some experience with reviewing legislation that is fairly old and needs to be updated and to be made clear in a way so that the average person can understand it. We've taken that principle and applied it here.
We've also pursued the principle of broad powers. In other words, we shouldn't be doing our work by putting out a list of specific narrow authorities but rather do business in a new and innovative and more flexible way. There again, the word "flexibility" is also applied to the way in which the legislation is drafted. It should in fact also make sure that there is appropriate provincial involvement. That is to say, provincial involvement in local affairs should be limited to where the government has a clear purpose, a responsibility or an interest. And that speaks to acknowledging the importance of those responsibilities that are clearly those of local government.
[1940]
Accountability is key, and it must be fair and open. Local governments must be accessible and answerable to citizens and ratepayers. This speaks to the principle of counter-petition in particular and some of the open meeting consultation rules around official community planning, which I'll speak to in a moment.
Another principle is matching resources to responsibilities. I believe I spoke to that in terms of the overall protocol -- making sure that local governments are able to obtain the financial resources they need in order to provide the level of service that is expected of them by their citizens.
The principle of consultation is key, as well, not only consultation, from the provincial government to local governments but from local governments to their own citizens. The importance of resolution of interlocal governmental issues again speaks to the legislative framework through which dispute resolution can be approached through the changes to the Municipal Act, which is quite innovative in its approach.
Having asked if the problem is correctly identified, I think those principles and the amendments that I've spoken broadly to have been covered off in my earlier remarks. Some of the specifics that I haven't spoken to include some of the changes that are recommended to official community plans, or OCPs. In this year's round of amendments we are clarifying the purpose of OCPs.
The mandatory content requirements that were included as part of the act are now going to be removed in place of having clear policy guidelines at the provincial level to ensure that those principles are achieved. Currently the consultation that's required for official community plans is that before third reading of a bylaw, a public hearing is held; then amendments will require the local government to initiate an additional consultation with the public beyond that traditional approach.
One of the other areas covered in the amendments is development permits. Now, this is an area that a number of local governments around the province have done some very interesting work on around intensive residential development. What these governments have been trying to achieve is to ensure that community integrity -- the concerns of neighbouring property owners about the particular design or character of a small lot or residential development -- is maintained to their community standards. So giving all governments the same tools to be able to engage in these kind of development permit areas is an enhancement of the role of the community in leading the way in addressing new development options.
As I indicated, a number of municipalities have initiated this kind of development permit area in the past. Those include Sidney, Esquimalt and Victoria. On the basis of the implementation since they were given those powers three years ago, we are extending those same powers broadly to municipal governments across the province.
These series of amendments also clarify the role of the board of variance in development variance permits. They make sure that the application process is intended to assist in eliminating confusion around the role of the board of variance, which is of course empowered to grant variances of some bylaws, such as zoning, on the basis of hardship and the role of local government -- the ones who actually grant the development variance permits. These changes will not actually alter or eliminate either body's jurisdiction, but it will clarifying the timing for making applications where variances could be granted by either one.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
As well, this series of amendments will eliminate rural land use bylaws. Rural land use bylaws are planning and regulatory tools that were created, actually, in the 1980s and intended for rural areas. The removal of rural land use bylaws will actually have no impact on the powers of local government, but it will streamline the system, as regional districts can exercise the power of a rural land use bylaw either through their official community plan, zoning, subdivision servicing bylaw, or some combination of those three.
There is a specific provision which speaks to title of parkland. The title to land dedicated as parkland by subdivision developers will now be able to be vested in the name of the local government instead of the provincial government. The same will also apply to the title of parkland provided in lieu of a development cost charge.
[1945]
Public hearings are a very important topic that's canvassed in this year's amendments. It explicitly authorizes procedural rules to be set for public hearings. Local governments already have that authority, of course, to set procedural rules, and they can address such things as time, order and the type of presentations that are held at public hearings. But I believe, from the province's point of view, the important thing is to achieve a balance between administrative procedure and public access. So the amendments will achieve that outcome.
There's another miscellaneous section to the bill, where currently section 941(5) of the act excepts developers from the requirement to dedicate 5 percent of land being subdivided as parkland when the subdivision consists of three or fewer lots. The proposed amendment will clarify that this exception does not apply to phased developments. It will clarify that local government may set the minimum size of a parcel that may be
[ Page 15896 ]
subdivided for a relative, in relation to land that is in the agricultural land reserve but is not used for farming or is less than two acres in size.
The regulatory impact statement goes on to describe
Is regulation the best form of government action? I suppose we could all ask about the need to take a regulatory or a legislative approach to issues of importance through- out, no matter what public policy question you are turning your mind to. In the nature of legislative reform as it relates to the Municipal Act, that was a very necessary step, because it is indeed the Municipal Act which provides the legal framework through which local governments have authority to act.
What is the appropriate level of government for this action? Again, local governments are the appropriate level of government for certain types of regulatory activity, particularly regulation that addresses issues such as community planning and development or issues of community character. Some forms of regulation do lend themselves to provincewide application, but others are best left to localities to make decisions upon. For instance, the province retains the authority to establish the criteria for and the approval for the incorporation of municipalities. On the other hand, the community impacts of development activities are not something that provincial government could effectively manage from Victoria. So planning and land use regulatory powers are -- and need to be, of course -- delegated to local governments.
Do the benefits of regulatory policy justify the costs? This is an important question for us to consider as we look at Municipal Act reform. The combined package of planning and land use regulatory changes is intended to be of net benefit to all of the affected parties. Depending on the perspective, the costs and benefits can differ. But overall these changes do balance the interests of the province, residents, developers and local government.
Will there be an impact on British Columbia's competitiveness? Hon. Speaker, when we reviewed the regulatory impact statement, one of the things we noted was that there were actually no trade implications that were apparent as a result of our review and the proposed changes. So we do not believe that there will be any impact on British Columbia's competitiveness.
How will a policy that is clear, consistent, comprehensible and accessible to users be assured? I spoke to the principle of transparency and common language in the act. I think that speaks to the way in which the nature of the policy and how it can be interpreted becomes clear to residents around the province as well as local governments. But we will continue to work with the affected parties and to issue bulletins from time to time that clarify the purposes of the bill. Updates will continue to be made on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs web site, and work will continue around the development of the Best Practices Guide and manuals for using the reformed Local Government Act.
[1950]
Have all parties had the opportunity to present their views? I spoke at some length about the nature of the ongoing consultation. That did include not just those who are directly benefiting from the changes to the Municipal Act but, broadly, the general public. We included groups such as the Planning Institute of B.C., the Canadian Bar Association, the Urban Development Institute, the B.C. Business Task Force, CUPE, the Real Estate Foundation, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia and the Canadian Home Builders Association. I think it speaks to the comprehensive nature in which we reviewed these changes. They have been well publicized over time through this symposium process that I outlined earlier.
Finally, I'll speak to the last point in the regulatory impact statement, and that is: what are the views of the front-line staff? From the province's perspective, the front-line staff are the people within Municipal Affairs who assist local governments in understanding the new proposed legislation. They are the ones who will offer the assistance and advice on how to best use the authority. I must assure the members of the House that the ministry staff feel confident that the amendments in relation to planning and land use will contribute to a much more workable legislative framework. As well, the streamlining of the approval process will really ease some of the administrative burdens on the staff.
I'd like to conclude with a few final remarks in summary. Speaking to this third year of legislative reform
During the past year we did survey local governments on their views. We held formal and informal briefings and co-hosted symposiums on legislative reform with the UBCM. We also involved a wide variety of parties outside of government, as I listed earlier -- and including citizens -- by way of discussion papers and accountability forums. The extensive consultation carried out in redesigning the Municipal Act over the past three years has shown clearly that this is what local governments want and need.
I know there are other members of this House who would like to speak to this act, and I'd encourage them to do so. I look forward to the opportunity to debate in some detail, after listening to the members speak to the principle in second reading, to the specific context of the act at a later time.
Thank you very much.
T. Nebbeling: It is my pleasure to make some comments today on the third part of the Municipal Act. I don't know if they're going to be as lengthy as the minister's written remarks were, but there are certainly a number of points that I want to raise that I think should be highlighted tonight.
It is interesting to note that the minister made much of the 1996 UBCM conference in Penticton where the protocol
[ Page 15897 ]
agreement was introduced and ratified by the then-president of the UBCM. It was introduced by the member for North Coast, and it certainly became a historic event. Rather than the protocol being adopted by the UBCM in an accommodating and more than pleasing way, the particular meeting will always be remembered for the incredible outburst that the executive of the UBCM was exposed to by the member for North Coast, who did not accept that some of the conditions in that protocol of agreement were really not acceptable. So yes, it was historic. It was not necessarily historic for reasons that it should have been.
[1955]
Having said that, the minister has made a lot of points, stated a lot of questions and named a lot of principles that were part of the base, the foundation, of this creation of a new municipal act. Of course, it is a known fact that the minister is the third minister in this term, and for that reason I have to give her some slack for having made statements that I do not think are backed up by the first and the second portions of the rewrite of the Municipal Act. As I stated already, the minister works with notes prepared by staff, and she really hasn't been there long enough to question what indeed passed in the past when it came to not only the debate but also what was included in the two previous sections of this redesign of the Municipal Act. I am pleased to see that the previous Ministers of Municipal Affairs are both here -- the previous ministers in the year that has transpired since Bill 88 was introduced. That was the second part of the rewrite.
I'm not going to go and focus much, at this point, on the statements made by the minister; however, I'm going to look a little bit at this time, now that we are seeing the completion of this three-year exercise
It was an outdated and an unworkable municipal act. It was an act comprised of 1,200 sections -- 1,240 sections, I think, to be precise. Many of these sections were amendments of amendments that had prior amendments. In all fairness, any person who aspired to get involved with local government through being elected to a local council and who had intended to get a comprehensive feel of what the Municipal Act really did for them as council members in order to do their jobs in a proper way
However, council members have clearly not been satisfied with that kind of a system. Since 1993 or 1994, stronger voices started to be heard, demanding that something was going to be done to recognize that we were living in the nineties, that we were going towards the new millennium at that time and that people wanted to see a municipal act that truly reflected what the role of a municipal council had to be and how it should be -- the way the local community saw that role being exercised by council members. After all, the provincial government, as governments go, had already lost a fair amount of respect in the eyes of the provincial voters by that time. The provincial voters recognized the local government as the government that was the closest to the people, the government that they could talk to, the government that would listen, the government that they could relate to as voters.
So that was the start of the drive. Yes, as the minister said, the drive was led by the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to get that recognition of the local councils' involvement in making these decisions stronger. On that basis, it truly was a council empowerment, rather than what it is today as a council -- that is, the council is merely a creature of the province and really has no power except delegated power. Of course, delegated powers are powers where, at any time, those who hold the purse strings can pull that power back. That has been the problem with the relationship of the municipal councils to the provincial government.
[2000]
What exacerbated the problem in '94, '95 and '96 was the fact that the government started their drive to really shortchange communities of grant money that they were entitled to through formulas that had been agreed on years ago. It was basically guaranteed that when the provincial government insisted on infrastructure improvement that financially went beyond the capability of the taxpayers of a community
When that $800 million was taken out of the communities and had to be replaced by the traditional tax base of communities -- that being the property tax base, be it residential or commercial -- that additional pressure truly demanded that the government was going to give up some of these powers that they controlled. The voices of discontent from communities became stronger and stronger to the point where in 1995, the government understood that they had to do something to recognize that voice of local government. That's where the protocol agreement was created to somehow pacify the local governments.
I say "pacify." That was certainly not the way local government expected the protocol of understanding to work. But I say "pacify" today. While this guideline document should have given true powers to local government through the UBCM, the experience we have had creating the first two sections of this rewrite of the Municipal Act clearly has shown that the consultation that was ingrained in this protocol agreement was more a lip-service thing than an actual new direction to hear the voices of local communities when it came to a rewrite of the Municipal Act.
For that reason, it culminated last year in a blow-up where the UBCM at one point refused to come to the table to discuss any further changes to the act with the government, primarily because they were not consulted. They were called to meetings, and the UBCM was basically told: "Here it is. This is what we're going to do, and we're going to make the
[ Page 15898 ]
announcement within 24 hours. Do you agree?" That is not the type of consultation that was expected to be a consequence of the protocol agreement with the UBCM and the provincial government.
So the minister puts a lot of value on that protocol agreement and, I think, would like to say that because of that protocol agreement, we have been able to work together as local government and provincial government to come up with this document. Because of that working relationship, I think the minister is trying to say that it has the endorsement of all local governments.
[2005]
Well, I hate to say this, but it ain't so. The local communities have made it very clear that they expected a relationship with this provincial government where communities would truly have the power to regulate a uniqueness of their own communities and, on a local basis, then make decisions that would accommodate that uniqueness of all these different communities throughout British Columbia.
Of course, one of the envies that we've always had in British Columbia when it comes to local government is the Vancouver Charter, because the Vancouver Charter gives the city of Vancouver some additional powers over and above the Municipal Act that clearly give them some advantage when it comes to issues that are specifically related to the city of Vancouver. I remember, when I was the mayor of Whistler and when I was a councillor, how many times, during meetings at the UBCM annual conferences, where speakers from communities all over this province stood up and said: "If only we could have something like a charter of some of these ideas that are engrained in the charter that the city of Vancouver has, how much better we could do as a community. How many more opportunities would we be able to create as a community?"
Where I think the expectation by many was that this rewrite would lead towards that type of an approach, what we have finished up with is truly nothing new. I am just really surprised that today the minister actually dares to introduce this as a new local government act. We started, as I said before, with a Municipal Act -- 1,240 sections. They didn't throw that act away three years ago and start to write a new act. They just took that act and started to amend sections wherever they thought an amendment could be introduced. They started to renumber the sections -- for what reason sometimes has escaped me, because it has certainly confused the reading of the new act even more so. But this is not a new act; this is a rewrite of the old act with some additional sections. I will talk about four or five of these sections. But it is much the same except that if it was No. 500, instead it is now maybe No. 300. If it was a section with the word "may," it may now say "should."
It was just going through an exercise of what I see as nothing more than keeping the existing Municipal Act and thereby keeping the powers that the provincial government today holds over local governments. There's nothing new or forward-looking that can indeed give opportunities to communities to face the reality of the year 2000 and beyond, which is that things are getting more expensive. There is less money in the pockets of the taxpayers to go after, so we have to come up with new ideas. I will speak on some of these ideas, but it should be clear that what the communities wanted was clearly something like the city charter of Vancouver.
If the member remembers, he was here, I believe, in 1995 when the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party introduced in this House a community charter that indeed would have given communities in British Columbia a charter that would allow each community to have within their relationship with the provincial government something that would reflect the uniqueness of these communities. That's missing, and that's the failure of this whole three-year exercise.
I regret to say this, because I know that within the ministry there have been people working very hard trying to do something. But I'm afraid that the people that were in charge, the leaders in rewriting this document, truly did not have the political will to make the necessary changes to allow communities to have their uniqueness recognized in the Municipal Act. And I don't think for a moment that the desire by this government, at least, is to take that burden of being a creature of the province -- which communities are today, by law -- away from communities and make them independent, well-managed cooperative entities within the federal statutes that direct how, to a certain extent, local government has to have input into what happens in their relationship with local government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a little bit further and go to some of the points that the minister has raised. I should first of all say that when the minister talked about the list of regulatory statements, she had for each statement a separate sheet of paper. She read them out, then she had some explanation of what that meant to her. It was very telling that in the statements that she read out, she mentioned one principle that was truly for me the No.1 principle, in a call to achieve, with the rewrite of the Municipal Act. That was the principle of clarity -- a clear and simple written document that local elected officials, local bureaucracy, can understand. That was the second principle on the list of nine principles. It was very telling that the minister talked about balance, broad powers, accountability, consultation and intergovernmental frameworks, but she didn't talk about the principle of a clear and simple written Municipal Act. I wonder why that was kept out of it.
[2010]
I know that had she made that point, I clearly would have made the point today that we are still having exactly the same mess as we had in 1996-97. We still have 1,040 sections. We still have today 600 or 700 pages of the Municipal Act to deal with. There is no clarity. It certainly is not simple, and it will certainly not be understood by people who have to work with this act.
There were five points that the minister raised about the desires that she as the minister had heard communities express, which should be incorporated in the act. I'm going to talk about some of these desires, because I think it is important. The minister took some time to put her few points in front of the House. I will now do the same, because I think some of the things the minister said were clearly nice to hear but do not necessarily come to fruition. The problems that existed in the past because some of these issues were not dealt with continue to be there. I'm going to name the very first one. That was the lack of understanding of the Municipal Act, and I've addressed this one already.
Then the minister talks about accountability and empowerment. I truly believe that any form of government has to be accountable. But when the government imposes on local government a form of accountability that is so onerous
[ Page 15899 ]
that it can actually undermine empowerment of local governments, then I think we have to look at what really is the reason for this empowerment.
If we talk about empowerment of local government, then we should dare to let the people who get elected once every three years -- with votes, in general, by 35 to 40 percent -- do the job that they were elected to do. I know from experience that when local councillors are elected and all-candidates meetings are held, all the candidates come forward. Then they stand in front of the crowd, and they tell people why they are interested in running for council. They share their philosophies and share their ideals, and based on these philosophies and based on these ideals, people vote for councils.
Basically what these people do when they vote for a council is give the council a mandate. They say: "Okay. I like what you said, and as long as you stick to what you said you were going to do, I'm with you." That's how councils should work. Then when councils make interesting or important decisions, there is a whole process that councils have to go through to consult with the public. If there's a zoning issue, the council has to go through a public hearing. They have to create bylaws. They have to advertise bylaws twice in a 14-day period in the local newspaper. Then they have first and second reading; then they advertise the public hearing. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you know the whole process. It's a long process; it's an intense process. But it is a process that gives the people in a community a chance, after they have endorsed a council, to say from time to time: "Okay, here is an issue you're dealing with. Let's have a look at what you're doing."
That's the public hearing process. Nobody during the public hearing process is hampered or stopped from speaking up and giving their impression on whatever is proposed, be it pro or against. That's not the issue. They have the opportunity. The council sits back, and they listen. With that input they get from the community on that particular zoning issue or the issue that is in front of the public hearing, council will deliberate and go to third reading and pass the laws.
[2015]
That's been the way councils have solicited community input. Sometimes we know this. These public hearings can last for weeks. Talk to Delta, when it comes to Burns Bog. Talk to Richmond, when it comes to the Terra Nova land. Weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks
So this government comes in with this new system of accountability. Not only do we have to go through all these steps, but then councils also have to advertise that they're going to make this particular zoning change or introduce a capital project with borrowing. Then they have to say to people: "But if you don't like it, you can start a counterpetition." They're actually ordered to start telling people that they should start a counterpetition process. And a counterpetition process means if 5 percent of the voting population -- not the population as a whole, but the voting population -- doesn't like whatever is being proposed by the council, they can sign a petition -- 5 percent -- and the whole system stops. Council then has to make a decision. Either they're going to go through a process of referendum, which is costly, or they say, "Well, it's not worth it," and they drop the project.
I do not think that what the minister introduces under the term accountability truly is empowering. I think it is extremely undermining of that empowerment. I have debated with the minister to at least put in a percentage that reflects the true voice of opposition to a project. If, for example, Nanaimo or Parksville would have a recreation centre that had some borrowing needs, 300 people in Parksville can stand up and say: "No, we don't want it." They bring the whole project to a halt, and they force the council to go through the whole counterpetition process because of 300 people, while thousands of people -- the silent majority, the 95 percent -- are obviously not opposed to the project. And they force a council to go through administrative work, because now they have to establish what exactly 5 percent of the voting population represents at the time that this is happening. They have to advertise for a referendum; they have to have a referendum -- cost, cost, cost. That's all this accountability is doing in communities in British Columbia.
The minister shared not so long ago a study done by her ministry where she showed that 69 communities in British Columbia had actually
[2020]
I get it from councillors; I get it from clerks; I get it from administrators; I get it from everybody. Why the minister is not listening to the broad voice but chooses to maybe listen to some voices that are very limited as a group is really sad. It's a mystery to me. But again, here is a failure of the rewrite of the Municipal Act that I certainly had not expected. If I had truly been able to go by what the protocol agreement from 1996 stipulated -- input from the communities, input from UBCM, not a meeting where they're told what is going to happen, and if they don't like it, well, 24 hours from now we're going to make it public
I think the government truly failed when it comes to that so-called accountability. No doubt in the future that particular part will have to be revisited again to do justice to those people that have volunteered to sit on a council for three years, that have volunteered to do work for the communities. They're being undermined with this.
The other thing, of course, that I already mentioned is since 1991 the UBCM -- and that is the UBCM the minister is giving much credit for speaking the facts when it comes to local government
[ Page 15900 ]
up to $800 million. So I dare to say that the minister should accept that number. That is $800 million less to local communities, which has to be found somewhere else.
Local communities with this kind of pressure have been forced to make tremendously difficult decisions. They have been forced to lay off staff in certain instances. They have been forced to increase taxes beyond what is reasonable, definitely beyond the 2 percent that the minister said would be the maximum consequence. They have been forced not to hire the extra policing force they truly believed they needed to have because of what was happening in communities.
One of the things over the last two years that communities have said is: "Whatever you do, we have to have a new municipal financial strategy to allow us to find new ways to find funding to fund the administration and take care of the public safety in our communities. But, Madam Minister, we do not automatically want you to translate this as we the local government will go just one more time in the pocket of the voters or the property owners of a community." Be it a property owner or be it a renter, we all pay.
That was the situation: find ways. So far what we have seen is that there is nothing that truly gives the local communities the feeling and the idea that the minister is taking this seriously, that she has come up with some ideas that will indeed help local communities find new ways of financing their needed administration. Again, there's nothing there. Again, local communities are saying: "We feel betrayed, because we were told that it would be part of the rewrite of the Municipal Act."
This is the third portion of that rewrite. This is the final portion of this rewrite. There is nothing in it, nothing that tells the municipality: "Now, here is something I can do something with." The only thing is, they are going to get some grant-in-aid money from Crown corporations, if they behave, but that is a decision that comes on an annual basis. But that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about new tools to find the financial means to support the local administration and the local public safety. Does this rewrite give communities that tool to financially manage their affairs? They failed. During committee stage, we certainly will bring this up again.
One opportunity
The Speaker: You're the designated speaker?
T. Nebbeling: I am the designated speaker, Mr. Speaker. You wouldn't have believed it, but I am.
Mr. Speaker, one opportunity.
Interjection.
T. Nebbeling: No, neither would I. But here I am.
One opportunity this government had
[2025]
As Crown corporations, they occupy properties, and they don't participate in the cost of running that town. For all intents and purposes, other community members have to make up what the Crown corporations are not putting into the kitty to run a town. So I have a made a point to the minister that it's very fair that Crown corporations take their fair share when it comes to property tax, to make them reliable and responsible like every other corporation in every jurisdiction. It is not that it is not done in other provinces. There are a number of other provinces where Crown corporations pay their fair share -- but not in British Columbia.
Here was one, too, where the minister could have talked with her colleagues and said: "Listen, let's assist these communities by allowing them to tax the Crown corporations and the properties that are held or occupied by Crown corporations." The minister didn't do that.
As a consequence, municipalities that were looking for that opportunity this year will just realize that everything is as usual. Crown corporations will use the water; they will use the sewer systems. They won't pay towards it. They will use the amenities of a community; the staff of the Crown corporations will use the amenities of a community. They won't contribute to it. Some Crown corporations give a little bit of cash in lieu, but it is always a privilege rather than a right.
That's not enough. When it comes to, "We are going to do business differently with communities; they are the local government; they are going to have the power
The minister finished off by talking about what I think was actually an interesting portion. That is the portion about the new empowerment of regional districts. The new empowerment of somebody -- I don't know which one -- that can deal with land uses. What I think she's talking about is the regional growth strategies that have been attempted now for a number of years in this province -- with dismal results, of course.
Let's have a quick look at what the empowerment and, beyond empowerment, the handing over of authority to regional districts can do to communities. We have the very best example right now happening in the lower mainland. Here is a regional district that has been given the authority to run a transit system, to run TransLink. They've been given the authority to maintain the roads. That regional district too could go and say: "Oh, this is great; this is power. We are going to be so important."
Well, it's not even a year and a half, and we see the first results of having given that authority to a regional district -- but having given that authority again with underfunding. We all know that, because the president of the GVRD is almost on a weekly basis in Victoria saying: "Listen, you shortchanged us. Unless you give us more money, we have to go to the local population for more money out of the pocket of the property taxpayers, more money out of the pocket of the renters."
So right now, because of the initiative of this government trying to empower the GVRD, to give the GVRD and other
[ Page 15901 ]
regional districts more tools to make them viable or more powerful -- I don't know what drives them -- what we see is that these regional districts are breaking up.
These regional districts are now actually having communities saying: "Listen, we're not going to be part of this any longer. We're going to go our own way." Now, I know that we've heard rumbling about Langley and Surrey and Delta. These are three very prominent, large areas that are saying: "We're not going to take this territorial abuse that we are exposed to. We're not going to pick up the tab for an organization that has missed" -- how do I say it? I don't want to say the wrong word here -- "or that has not made the very best deal."
[2030]
It's not because they didn't want to, but because the provincial government was just not willing to come on board and say: "Okay, if you take that authority, then we will give you the proper funding to exercise that authority." "No," they said. "You take that authority. Here is some cash, and we'll give you some other means that you can then look at but not use. But look at it so that you can use it, really, when the water gets to here. Well, we're a year and a half on our way, and right now every citizen in the GVRD is ours and every house in the GVRD is ours" -- to pay another $75 over and above the charges that they already paid through their property tax to the GVRD.
If empowerment for this government means that kind of impact on the local taxpayers and on the local communities, and if that kind of empowerment leads to communities going away from each other rather than growing together -- as we thought was the whole intent -- then I think this minister should really re-evaluate what she's trying to introduce in this section and trying to entrench through this section as the way the future will be when it comes to regional districts.
The same goes for the growth strategies that have been introduced by the minister. We have seen communities being economically decimated. Look at the growth strategy that was created in the Nanaimo-Parksville-Qualicum area. Nanaimo had, of course, the biggest population and thereby controlled the vote. The decisions that were made under the label of growth strategy had a devastating impact on the rural communities like Parksville and Qualicum, but this is something the minister just doesn't want to recognize. But that's the way it is.
The economic viability of communities like Parksville and Qualicum is totally undermined. There is no economic viability, because the regional growth strategy allows for 20 big malls right outside Nanaimo just before you get to Parksville. That's where people do their shopping, and I would most likely do the same if I lived in that area. But that is not what I call a healthy growth strategy -- that you develop new areas at the cost of others. That is what is happening with the growth strategy that this minister has introduced and is still trying to impose on other communities.
I come from a riding where right now there is much pressure on the communities -- Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton, D'Arcy -- to go with the growth strategy. These communities are saying: "No way." Look at the examples that we see all over the province, be it in the Okanagan or in the Comox-Courtenay area. Everywhere that the growth strategy has been introduced, it has led to failure. Communities today don't want to have anything to do with it, but the government, the minister, is still convinced that that's the route to go: "That's what we want you to do, communities. Don't come to us before you have figured out how you are going to have the growth strategy." I don't think the minister, for a moment, has any understanding of what the devastating impact is of these so-called mandated strategies that the minister presents as: "This is how we bring our communities together."
I am clearly disappointed. I am disappointed for the staff -- that they have worked for three years trying to put something together that should, if it had been done right, have been something that we could all celebrate. This should be a time of celebration. The minister still likes to say: "This is the Local Government Act; we have created a new Local Government Act. This is not the old Municipal Act."
Well, I'm sorry, but just giving it a different name doesn't mean that you have a different animal. There is no change here; there is no difference here. I really regret to say that I also find it shameful that we have spent so much time, money and effort not just in the bureaucracy but in the communities throughout British Columbia, who were enticed once a year to come to Vancouver and participate in a symposium, giving them the idea that they really had a say in how the Municipal Act was going to work. It didn't work. It is sad that, at the end of the day, a change of name, I think, is the legitimizing of this document and the justification for the three-year exercise that the government has gone through.
[2035]
Mr. Speaker, if I can conclude, local governments do not feel that the change that was most necessary, that being the removal of the leash that the local governments have been living with ever since the Municipal Act was created -- the leash that said: "Listen, we'll give you a little bit of space, but if you do anything we don't like, we'll jerk that leash back, and you do it our way
I'm really surprised that the minister still dares to claim that she has broad support. I've spoken to many mayors; I'm meeting many mayors. Many mayors are contacting me; council members are contacting me. In general, they say: "This is in no way better than what we had before."
If I can leave the minister with one piece of advice, it is that once we have gone through committee -- and during committee we will raise many questions on the impact of the changes that have been made to the existing local
During committee debate we're going to have an opportunity to speak to all these sections, and I will be able to highlight maybe 40 or 50 points that clearly are against the interest of local government -- 40 or 50 points that, if the minister is truthful, she will recognize are not fitting in the mandate that the government set out four years ago with the protocol agreement. If the minister is willing to recognize that these 40 or 50 issues truly are counterproductive to the well-being of communities throughout British Columbia and if she is willing to allow me to work with her to put in some changes and some amendments, then maybe we can still save some of it.
Ultimately, whoever is the government will have to do one thing: take these 700 or 800 pages that we finish up with now, throw them in the garbage can and start from square
[ Page 15902 ]
one. Write the Municipal Act. Write an act that is done in the form of a charter so that communities truly have an opportunity to have their own uniqueness recognized in the relationship with the provincial government. If we do that, then soon -- maybe a year, maybe two more years -- we will have a relationship with local governments that not only allows local governments to do the things that they truly have to do for the enhancement of quality of life for the citizens
Hon. J. Sawicki: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to stand up and support Bill 14, which is the third year of a comprehensive review of the Municipal Act. I have to say that I'm quite surprised to hear the member across the way suggest that all of the work that's been done, all of the extensive consultation that's been done with UBCM and local governments across this province, should just be thrown out, and rewrite a new act. I think the people who have worked so hard on this would be rather offended by the hon. member's comments.
[2040]
I have to say that I've followed this for the last few years. I spent a stint as parliamentary secretary to Municipal Affairs quite a few years ago, so I was kind of involved on the ground floor of changing our relationship with local government. The fundamental principles of the revisions to this Municipal Act, now to be called the Local Government Act, are a respect for the independence, the responsibility and the accountability of local governments as an order of government.
I also come from local government, before I came to this House, so I know how really important it is to have that good solid relationship with the provincial government and how important it is to British Columbians. Let's face it: their quality of life on a day-to-day basis is closest touched by the work of local councils that meet every Monday night. I am very pleased at the progress we've made. I know, as the hon. member says, that there have been several Municipal Affairs ministers in the time that it's taken to make this comprehensive revision of the Municipal Act. Every single one of those ministers has worked incredibly hard with local government to ensure that the amendments that are brought forward to this House reflect as much as possible a consensus or at least a collective wisdom to ensure that the relationship between the provincial government and the local order of government is a respectful one.
Many of the changes that have happened over the last couple of years and certainly some of the changes this year do actually introduce a much greater flexibility in land use planning authorities for local government. Of course, from my perspective not only as Minister of Environment now but as somebody who has worked on these kinds of issues while on local council and as a backbencher in this House, many of the changes that have happened have actually increased the flexibility of local councils to address things like sensitive ecosystems and riparian zones and to be able to have the flexibility to change land use planning and development cost charges and proposals that developers might bring to council in such a way as to respect neighbourhood and sensitive ecosystems.
I think that has been a feature. I know that many local governments -- certainly I can speak for my local government in Burnaby -- have really taken advantage and appreciated those additional tools they now have to plan in a way that meets the needs and aspirations of the people of Burnaby. It's because of the changes that we've brought to this Municipal Act that they now have the flexibility and powers to do that.
I would like to address tonight one single change in the act that's before us in this House, because I'm very excited about it. It's something that I've worked on for a few years. I know that the current Minister of Municipal Affairs worked on it when she was Minister of Environment, and I know some of my colleagues that sit on either side of me also worked on it as well. That is the changes that would encourage private land owners to be able to actually retain natural areas within the Islands Trust area. In other words, it's a new way of assessing a tax regime to basically say that if you have some environmentally significant properties in the Gulf Islands -- and this would be done on a pilot basis -- and this is in agreement with the local Islands Trust authority, you can put a conservation covenant on that part of your property and receive some tax credit for that.
I think it's really important, as a leadership initiative, to recognize just how special the Islands Trust is to British Columbia. When the Islands Trust was set up by our predecessor, the NDP government in 1972-75, it was because it was recognized that it was a totally unique ecosystem and a unique part of British Columbia. The Islands Trust also has a unique mandate to preserve and protect that ecological sensitivity. So it's not surprising that this initiative has come from the Islands Trust. I know that they worked very, very hard to get it included in these amendments, and I'm very, very pleased that we have it in front of us today.
[2045]
The trust area actually includes about 450 small islands and about 13 larger islands. As I mentioned, it is an exceptionally beautiful but also very fragile part of British Columbia, and it's under increasing pressure for development and growth. I don't think any of us who have visited the islands can question why that would be, because it is a very high quality of life on those islands.
But we are also very much aware that while we have the broadest range of biodiversity of species in British Columbia, whether plant or animal, we also have some of the habitats that are at greatest risk. We have many tools -- and on this side of the House we've made use of those tools -- to protect some of those ecosystems, whether we put them in parks and protected areas or whether we call them wildlife management areas.
The amendment that we're debating in Bill 14 today provides one more tool for the Islands Trust, on a pilot basis, to be able to accommodate that special ecosystem. Conservation covenants are not new; they were introduced in 1994 as amendments to the Land Title Act. They provide for the registration of covenants on property title, and they can be in favour of governments or in favour of approved conservation groups. But the significance of a conservation covenant is to be able to provide for land or a specified amenity to be preserved, conserved, maintained, enhanced, restored, or kept in its natural or existing state, in accordance with that covenant.
With the change that is in the amendment to this act, this amendment will now allow for a reduction of taxes once that natural area tax-exemption certificate is issued. It will be a
[ Page 15903 ]
pilot project on Gambier. It will allow people who have nationally or provincially or even regionally significant natural areas to apply for that exemption certificate.
By doing this, we are not only increasing the number of tools that the Islands Trust has to carry out its mandate to preserve and protect, but we are also encouraging private land owners to practise responsible stewardship, to take out conservation covenants on some very special areas that may be key for species at risk, or maybe key sensitive areas -- and to be able to receive a tax exemption for that. I think that's an innovative and creative tool that we have introduced into what is now called the Local Government Act. Together with many other creative changes that we have made to this act over the last three years, I think local governments will be very, very happy to receive this last set of amendments.
Hon. J. Sawicki moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FOOD AND FISHERIES AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote 14: ministry operations, $61,097,000 (continued).
B. Barisoff: We'll pick up where we left off on Thursday. I think we left off on the B.C. Chicken Marketing Board. I do have some members who did want to ask some questions on that, but I don't see them here at the moment. So we'll just continue on with objective 3 in the performance plan.
The second objective is to implement the tree fruit replant and revitalization program. The question that I have for the minister, through the Chair, is on behalf of the member for Okanagan-Penticton, where he has
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member didn't say if there's an existing orchard on the property. Assuming there is, the OVTFA, Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, simply sets a standard amount of money that would be available and doesn't make accommodation for more or less money according to the soil type.
However, I'm pleased to inform the hon. member that the federal Farm Credit Corporation has established a replant program as well. Of course, theirs varies according to the business plan of the applicant, and it allows for a deferral of the repayment schedule. I would encourage the hon. member to advise the farmer to consider bringing forward a joint proposal with Farm Credit and the OVTFA. He might find that he was able to tailor the application precisely to the farm involved.
B. Barisoff: Carrying on with that, my concern is that it doesn't address a lot of the farmers. If we look at the next line: "Encourage growers of below-value crops and livestock to diversify into other, higher-value crops
[1445]
Hon. C. Evans: The question of grafting has been raised before, but I haven't personally discussed it with the OVTFA. Now that I understand that it's a soil-type question and a geographic-type question, I'll discuss it with the OVTFA and see whether there's any accommodation.
I was dead serious in my last reference to the Farm Credit people. They didn't used to participate in replant in the way that they do now, and it is now believed by some growers that you can structure a Farm Credit loan to be as advantageous as the OVTFA's situation. I will discuss the grafting question with the OVTFA and see if I can educate myself about whether there are opportunities there.
B. Barisoff: I'm sure the member for Okanagan-Penticton will pass that on to his constituent.
Moving further down that page
Hon. C. Evans: The ministry is trying to work constructively with the greenhouse industry and with the municipality of Delta to come up with some bylaws that are as advantageous for farming as possible.
The minister has a slightly different position, in that he doesn't have the patience and understanding and good attitude of his staff. The minister actually is getting grumpier and grumpier as this thing appears to get more and more difficult to resolve.
[ Page 15904 ]
I was very unhappy to see $200,000 development charges being applied to a greenhouse operator in recent days. The Agricultural Land Commission has now become engaged with this issue, because part of their mandate is to facilitate farming on agricultural land. This week, maybe even this afternoon, they are considering what actions they might take to help to resolve the issue. Ultimately, if the thing doesn't come to some good positive resolution, we may be in the really unfortunate situation of having to fall back on the right-to-farm legislation.
But thus far, the staff have been advising me that, left to the good sense of sensible people, they can resolve this thing without having to use the bludgeon of the Right to Farm Act. I have been believing that good intentions will lead to a positive outcome. As the hon. member knows, the greenhouse sector, especially in the Delta area, is a great good-news story in agriculture. I find it unfathomable that there are interests who want to get in the way.
I also want to say -- I know it's on the record, so I'll try and say it with some civility and reasonableness -- that it sometimes feels to me that there are people who are trying to make the greenhouse issue into an environmental question, when in fact I rather suspect that it's a lifestyle question. I find that very disturbing, because it denigrates the real concern that other people have for the natural environment and for ducks and geese and the like. It's sort of trying to solve a question that urbanites might want to turn out in favour or opposed to farming. They can't really say, "Well, we're opposed to farming," so they say that they are pro-environment. I find that to be the most difficult part of this issue.
Anyway, my staff advise me that if I just remain calm and reasonable and stay out of the way, they'll solve the problem. And if that doesn't work, we'll use the right-to-farm law.
[1450]
B. Barisoff: Further to that point, I was glad to hear those comments by the minister. The question to the minister that I have is: is it true that any bylaws that would affect farming -- it doesn't matter where it is in the province of B.C. -- would have to be signed off by the Minister of Agriculture before they could actually have any of those enforced?
Hon. C. Evans: It's somewhat complicated. It is not true that every municipal bylaw has to go through the Ministry of Agriculture. But we can trigger the municipality having to go through the Ministry of Agriculture, if the Minister of Agriculture feels that a bylaw has the possibility of negatively impacting agriculture and it can't be resolved in some other way. It's that way so that my office isn't full of every zoning change and everything in the province, but only in the cases where Agriculture or staff come and say: "We ask you to pay attention
By way of example, the best example -- the only example -- in the province is the mushroom composting issue a few years ago in the Langley area, where both staff and farm community said to me: "We can't fix this unless you trigger your powers under the Right to Farm Act."
B. Barisoff: My colleague from Cariboo North has just informed me that he heard today on the news that greenhouses would have to post a bond in excess of $200,000. I guess that's what concerns me. If these things are going through, then the minister and the ministry should take an active part in what's taking place. Once you start posting bonds like that, it's going to have a huge effect on what takes place in the agriculture community.
Hon. C. Evans: By way of advice to the critic, I'm advised that the BCAL people will be here in ten minutes, so you might want to let your people know. If you want us to advance it, we'll be happy to.
In terms of the answer to the question, that's exactly the issue I was alluding to when I was trying to say somewhat gently that it is difficult to remain calm and reasonable as the municipality of Delta tries different things to solve its problems -- and in a way that sometimes appears to be opposing agriculture. The case that the hon. member is discussing actually has to do with Delta moving in a brand-new direction, which is to use a provision of the Soil Conservation Act which they interpret as allowing them to allow a developer of a greenhouse to be forced to post a bond, to be held against the day of the theoretical greenhouse removal, that the soil would be left in its original state.
That issue, because it's under the Soil Conservation Act, is the part of this dispute that is being taken up by the Agricultural Land Commission this week, and I will receive a report from them about the legality of what Delta is doing.
[1455]
I want to make an offer on the record here. If the opposition -- any member of the opposition -- would like to go to Delta with me and argue a unified government opposition case that they ought to encourage and celebrate the building of greenhouses, I will go with you, and we'll make a case. I think that the town of Delta would be very surprised to learn that the government and the opposition had a unified position in support of agriculture on this issue, and it might assist us to move them to a more progressive position.
B. Barisoff: I will definitely talk with my colleague from Delta about taking the minister up on that offer. What we do find is that
In all fairness to the minister, sometimes municipalities look at them as developers, because it brings about the large amounts of money that they're putting into the economy. They look at that as being development rather than a better way of farming than we have right now.
I had the opportunity last year to be in Holland and to see what takes place there with farming. Their greenhouse operations are phenomenal there, and I think that we're using a lot of their ideas and methods to enhance what's taking place. I guess my concern is that somehow the municipalities or whatever seem to keep pushing the envelope further and further. Whether it's posting a $200,000 bond or whatever it might be as a means of discouraging this to happen, it just forces these people into a different position.
Further on that, down near the bottom of the page is: "Facilitate agrifood development in northern B.C." If the minister could comment on that portion of it.
[ Page 15905 ]
Hon. C. Evans: I was unaware that my use of the word "developer" suggested a pejorative intent. I guess I thought that anybody who develops something is the developer, and I meant it in a benign way. If it's an inappropriate use of the word, I would withdraw it. Of course the developers are farmers, and I'll think of a different way to say it.
On the subject of the question about northern agriculture, it is my belief that the consolidation of capital investment in agriculture in the Fraser Valley has been exacerbated by changes in freight regulations and cost principles by the federal government. We are approaching a situation where, environmentally because of the aquifer issues, politically because of the interface with human habitation, transportation-wise because of the amount of vehicles on the road
There has been a tendency in recent years, especially since British Columbia joined the western pool, for intensive agriculture to consider the option of investing either in the Fraser Valley or east of the Rockies, in Saskatchewan or Alberta, in order to obtain the benefits of scale of cheaper land, larger lots, flatter land and, most especially, decreased grain costs that exist east of the Rockies.
[1500]
That is an unfortunate situation which I think leaves open the opportunity to celebrate northern British Columbia as having all those opportunities: (a) large amounts of flat land, (b) less interface with large populations and environmental issues and (c) cheap grain. It is the desire of the minister and the ministry to try to find ways, including a northern conference on agriculture, to draw investors north and just show off the opportunities, say, north of Quesnel, so that expansion -- and as the hon. member knows, there's expansion every year in all the supply-managed commodities and many others -- might be aimed to northern British Columbia, which would otherwise go east of the Rockies to get closer to cheap grain.
J. Wilson: To follow up on that, if we go back two or three points, there is a statement that says they would like to "encourage growers of low-value crops and livestock to diversify into other, higher-value crops and livestock." Could the minister give me an example of what it would be referring to here as low-value crops and low-value livestock?
Hon. C. Evans: I guess the best-known example in the province is the low value of Red Delicious apples and the higher value of Gala. In the north, I guess, the best example is the terrible impact of the European and American subsidies on the price of wheat and the investments that the province has been making into trying to encourage forage production, seed production, cow-calf production in places where traditional wheat-growing is becoming less economic.
J. Wilson: So then, if we put wheat into a low-value crop, is that the only crop that we would put there? How about rye, barley and this type of thing?
Hon. C. Evans: I don't think it's really up to the minister or the ministry to answer the question of what is low value for a given person or a given place. We could travel the province from Creston to Fort St. John and identify opportunities that used to work, which don't work anymore. Hogs on Vancou- ver Island would be a really good example. You raise hogs on Vancouver Island; in the last couple of years, for various reasons, it has become a low-value crop, whereas ten years ago it made a good living. You could simulate that example all over the province not just today but all through history. That's the nature of farming. It's that what our parents did -- or it tends to evolve -- doesn't pay, and farmers have to do something different.
J. Wilson: We've dealt with crop production, but livestock is also included in here. Then we drop down to the next point. The ministry would like to encourage beef and hog production in northern and central regions and at the same time lower feed costs and environmental constraints. Could the minister expand on that statement?
[1505]
Hon. C. Evans: Well, I was just alluding to the livestock issues up north. We've assisted with a couple of cooperative associations to try and help producers move towards livestock opportunities in the north. Largely that's in response to an evolving marketplace, where some grains have less value, and an attempt to diversify production so that people aren't so reliant on the grain industry.
In the area of lowering feed costs and environmental constraints, we are trying through what I usually call the ten-point committee, but I'm sure it's got a more proper name. It's the environmental committee between the B.C. Ag Council, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, with participation by the municipal sector and DFO. It's to address a myriad of environmental issues, many of which the hon. member knows about, all the way from ditch questions to predation issues to use of various chemicals and fertilizers and what seasons they're available. Basically it's trying to reduce the difficulties that farmers run into with environmental regulations.
The way I know of that works best is the peer review system. For example, without going into a big long answer, the B.C. Cattlemen's Association has a peer committee. If there is some issue with environment and one of the producers, instead of it going first to some sort of policing or regulatory function of governance, the peer committee is invited to go and meet with that producer and see if they can change cultural practices to meet environmental standards. That way, it's farmer to farmer instead of government to farmer that tries to come up with a solution.
[1510]
J. Wilson: Let's take beef production for an example. We lose roughly $260 million a year in farm-gate receipts because we don't finish our cattle in this province. There's a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is the cost of feed. Since the Crow rate was removed, the cost of feed grains has gone up, the freight has gone up, and we've lost our competitive advantage. At that point we were probably one of the cheapest areas in western Canada to produce beef, but with the loss of that, we are no longer competitive. It's a huge amount of dollars that we don't retain here; it goes into Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, where they finish the cattle.
So we get back to the issue of cheaper feed. The only way that a producer can get cheaper feed is
[ Page 15906 ]
that's finishing livestock then can afford to purchase it. If the cost of the feed grain is high, it reduces his efficiency. He depends on the market. All of these things have balances and checks.
When I read this, I'm wondering if the minister is maybe toying with the idea of somehow subsidizing freight rates again in this province to make some of these producers a little more competitive.
Hon. C. Evans: I'd be pleased to consider that suggestion if the opposition wishes to put it forward.
B. Barisoff: While I've got the critic for Labour here, I just want to touch on an issue that happened in my constituency over the last week while we were at home. The Okanagan agricultural compliance team was in the process of going around to the farming communities to different farmers. Two in particular ended up at my office, one during the week and one on Sunday morning, because of their concerns about what had taken place.
One has about 500 or 600 acres mixed between vegetables, tree fruits and grapes. I want the minister's comments on this labour contractor concept that seems to be out there. They're trying to tag them -- in particular the one with the 500 acres -- saying that they're farm labour contractors, when what they're doing is hiring people to work on their land. The others who are hiring -- doing contract work, actually -- to either prune grapes or manage the
Some of the things that are affecting them
But I want to ask the minister
I know that R&R Management Ltd., who will be looking, told me that they would have to get a bond in excess of $200,000. Now, from every understanding that I have, they're doing a good job. They're managing vineyards; they pay all their workers; they do all the right things. All of a sudden now we have a compliance team that is coming down on them, saying: "We're going to add some more cost to what you do." I asked them where they fall in the category. They don't even fall in the category of $7.15. They said the minimum that anybody gets paid is $8 an hour, and it usually ranges from $8 to $14 an hour.
Could the minister comment on
[1515]
Hon. C. Evans: I would urge the member to raise the technical questions in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. I am well aware of the issue; it's one of those issues I would like the opposition to assist me with, to try and make the federal government understand the difference between life in British Columbia and life in Ontario. When I raised the issue of farm labour with the federal minister, he advised me that I should just get an export permit and bring workers from some other country. When I advised him that in British Columbia we were dealing with an indigenous workforce and often a Canadian workforce out of the Prairies or out of Quebec, and we had no interest in leaving the country to find workers -- we wanted to make the rules in our own country work for people of our own country -- he found that to be somewhat of an anomaly and hasn't, in the 24 months I've been raising it, had any interest in addressing the questions of UIC and farm labour or the suggestion that we return to a labour office with the federal government, or any solutions.
In the absence of an overall fix, as the hon. Chair will know
I really think that maybe what should happen is that the opposition and the government should get together and say to the federal government: "Why don't you guys care about Canada? Why don't you want to help us create a situation where workers can work in Canada, instead of going out of country to get workers?" Then maybe what we ought to do if they won't help is think about recreating the labour pool provincially, if the federal government won't participate.
But here's what we're not going to do. We're not going to duck the issue entirely, because it's no good for farmers, because blueberries fall on the ground and because people like the people the hon. member is talking about struggle with either the regulatory regime or the inability to get farm labour. It is incredibly complicated, but it won't be solved on a farm-by-farm basis or a situation-by-situation basis. It has to be solved by coming up with appropriate government policy in the absence of any federal will whatsoever to address the question.
B. Barisoff: In all fairness to the minister, I know he indicated that this was a federal issue, but we did get the business cards of the four people that came. There were two from HRDC and two from the employment standards branch in British Columbia. I guess my concern with raising it -- and I raise it because I'm from there in the Okanagan -- is that we've had a big enough problem, in particular, in getting help. There have been problems with accommodations and whatever else. We have things working, and all of a sudden last week we have a new regulatory regime moving in to create, in my estimation, more difficulties for these people in making things work.
I guess my object in bringing it forward to the minister was to simply bring it to his attention and hope the people involved would be reading Hansard also and understanding that there has got to be some common sense that prevails in these kinds of issues and that we're all there to make it work for the farmers -- and for the workers too. When I spent the time talking to these people -- an hour with one lady and a
[ Page 15907 ]
couple of hours with the two gentlemen
[1520]
Hon. C. Evans: Thank you for bringing it to my attention, hon. member. It has my attention. I did not mean to suggest that it was a federal issue. I meant to suggest that in the absence of being able to engage the federal government in the legal framework around farm labour, we're going to have labour contractors in British Columbia. And if we have labour contractors in British Columbia, somebody is going to regulate them.
You know what? I'd be willing to endorse almost any position that you could agree with and the member three desks down from you would agree with. The question is: how are you going to create a regulatory regime that works in his constituency and in yours or in his part of the world and in yours? That's what I'm engaged in. Anything you can do to suggest
Now I want to repeat what I said a few minutes ago. The BCAL people are here, and if you would like to have them come up, I'd be happy to
B. Barisoff: I'll note that we're going to move into BCAL. My first comment before I turn it over to other members is
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we think that the first role is to generate well-being in the province. I would like to just ask a question -- the hon. member can nod: should I send the Agriculture people away? What do you want me to do?
B. Barisoff: Oh no, no. We're going to need them for a long time yet.
Hon. C. Evans: Okay.
B. Barisoff: I don't know how long this is likely to take, but we're a long way from finishing with the Agriculture people. It's just that some of the members wanted to touch on some of the BCAL things at this point in time.
Just furthering that, on the second goal: "Undertake business valuations of major government assets to determine opportunities to increase value to the taxpayer." If I could get the minister to comment on that also.
Hon. C. Evans: I've had discussions with the Minister of Finance. The section of BCAL that is engaged in selling government assets that aren't about land or tenure, we both agree, should return to the Minister of Finance. Our officials are having discussions in that regard.
B. Barisoff: I know that the minister had a meeting with a couple of my caucus members dealing with particular issues of tenure. It's almost like people in my riding could tell that I didn't have one, so all of a sudden there are a few that have come forth.
[1525]
Listening to the conversation that the minister and the deputy minister had with my colleague from Kamloops about tenure, I have one here that I just want to put on the record. It's from a Melvin Kilback. He was looking to purchase some cabin sites that he's had as a guide-outfitter for 20-some-odd years. They came to my office to talk to me about this particular issue. I know that when we talked with the minister, we talked about the fact that the tenures that are being given on these lands at five and ten years -- actually, I learned something new that day -- are not bankable. I guess, by the terms that were explained for my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove, that they had to have ways of being able to go to the bank to make loans and do whatever else to make these things work.
In his particular instance, he has had a lease on the land, and he's been paying taxes for almost 20 years. It was the letter from Melvin and Tami Kilback. I guess they ran up against the same brick wall as some of my colleagues have mentioned to you. What they were trying to do was take a portion of that off, where the cabins were, and to purchase that for those assets so that they could improve the assets. When I indicated to them, after our meeting with you, some of the pitfalls of doing that -- of actually selling that or taking it off the overall tenure of the guide-outfitters and to look at maybe a long-term 30- or 40-year lease -- that definitely appealed to them. In fact, they thought that was probably an excellent idea.
That was explained -- the minister might have known at that time -- what the bankable tenure was and that they could use that. I just want to put this on the record for the Kilbacks, the Kettle River Guides and Outfitters, so that the minister could look at this. I will be sending a letter off to BCAL on this particular issue.
I know my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has a few issues on this too. I'll just sit down, and you can make comment on this.
Hon. C. Evans: I'd be pleased to look at the information and would ask the hon. member, when he sends a letter on this file, to kindly send me a copy. We can discuss it in the future.
K. Krueger: In commencing these remarks, I want to acknowledge a briefing meeting that the minister and his staff had with my colleagues and me the week before last. I thought we had a really productive meeting and received some assurances I was looking for with regard to some of my constituents.
I do want to get the general issue on the record. It was my perception in that meeting that the minister is concerned
[ Page 15908 ]
about this issue, as am I. That's the issue of the interior fishing resorts in British Columbia, particularly a number in my region. I understand the issue varies around the province. For example, I'm told there has been a different kind of zoning in the Cariboo, whereby this issue isn't coming up in the same way. What it boils down to in our area is that since the early nineties the fishing resorts have experienced a rapid escalation in the assessed value of the Crown land which they lease for their operations and a correspondingly rapid escalation in the lease prices which they are obliged to pay to maintain their operations and the taxation that they pay.
These people feel -- and the documentation they provide to me tends to substantiate this -- that the costs they are incurring because of these increases by government are completely out of any logical relation to their likely revenue from fishing resorts. They tell me that many operators are turning to other ways of dealing with the problem, such as pursuing ownership of the lands and potentially subdividing them as residential lots -- giving rise to the usual applications for septic fields, and so on, in these areas around what were recreational lakes -- and turning to other land use plans rather than operating fishing resorts.
It seems to me and to many of the people I have spoken with about this -- it's a controversy that's been going on for some years now -- that there are huge benefits both to the economy and to the quality of life for British Columbians in having fishing resorts that people can take their families to, or go to themselves, or that seniors can look forward to enjoying when they have time for fishing -- as many of us don't at this stage of our lives. But the big generation is retiring, and people will be looking for these opportunities to enjoy recreation in British Columbia. I'm told that the number of those opportunities is drying up, because people find they can't remain in the business of operating as a fishing resort. They either lose their business or move on to something else.
[1530]
The minister and I were talking about different situations where this has occurred. He raised the example of the Cariboo where much of the recreational property has been snapped up by European purchasers, and a person finds a gate where he used to find a welcome sign in a little fishing resort. People have asked me -- and they weren't asking rhetorically -- whether it's the government's goal to actually convert the land that has been leased for these fishing resort operations to residential use.
The point has been made to me that in the lease document which the fishing operators sign is this phrase
Given that restraint -- which makes sense if we're charging a particular lease rate on the basis that that will be the use the land's being put to -- people then make the point that nobody anticipated in about 1993 that the B.C. Assessment Authority would begin to assess these properties as if they were fee simple and for what's known as the highest and best use, which probably is recreational property -- privately held subdivisions.
The result for these operators has been that their lease rents have increased between 350 and 1,000 percent in the last eight years. People believe that their lease rates are now probably going to double again under the new commercial recreation policy pricing formula -- all of which is giving rise to a lot of difficulties for a number of these resorts.
The minister and his staff did tell me that a number of these situations have been resolved. Other people tell me that that's by people just getting out of the fishing resort business and doing something else with the land -- which, as I said earlier, I consider to be a loss to British Columbians as a whole.
The two resorts in particular that the minister and I were discussing are Star Lake Resort north of Clearwater, owned by the Kirkbys, and Heffley Lake Fishing Resort near Kamloops, owned by the Millers. These people have really had difficulties with the expenses they're incurring under these arrangements. I've talked more than I meant to, but I wanted to get the situation on the record.
I know the minister doesn't have a goal of seeing fishing resorts that were on leased Crown land converted to private fiefdoms for offshore owners or people who have gotten rich on the high-tech industry in the United States and can afford to snap them up and exclude British Columbians from them. I'd like the minister to comment on the record on how he feels about this whole issue and how he thinks it will be resolved.
Hon. C. Evans: I'll say that the hon. member brought the issue to my attention, acted as an advocate for his constituents and is doing a good job of trying to get the government to address the issue. The hon. member, in those meetings, made the point to me that he's repeated today on the record. He considers it a public good that fishing resorts exist and that they are somewhat threatened by a move to a straight market assessment.
I will say on the record what I said to him in my office, which is that I would be pleased to consider some form of subsidy for the public good if he would simply be prepared to ask for it in those straight-up terms. But unless we are willing to subsidize for the public good, then we have to manage a very difficult situation where -- as the hon. member points out -- an industry is changing and values are increasing. My job, I take it, is to work with the hon. member, with the resort owners and with my staff to try to sort of walk the middle ground. But if it's a public good and if the public should subsidize it, then we should have a different discussion.
[1535]
K. Krueger: Rather than talk about subsidies to business, which is something that I fundamentally oppose, why could we not consider charging a lease rate that relates to the use to which the land is being put? As I read into the record, that is very specific for these particular uses. Currently the rate is charged as a percent of the assessed value of the land. I recognize that it's a lower percentage than is charged for other uses. As the Kirkbys found out, the rate being charged is nonetheless 85 percent, they tell me, of the gross annual revenue of their whole resort. Obviously, if they have to pay 85 percent of their gross revenue as their lease rate, they're not going to continue in business.
I am not interested in advocating for subsidies for any business, but I do think there's merit to this proposition. If we're specifying a use of the land and if the property is being used in that manner, the assessment could have more to do
[ Page 15909 ]
with the revenue the business is generating than with the sales value of the land if the government was willing to sell it off to a private interest.
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member's suggestions have value, and of course I'll consider them. His unwillingness to use the word "subsidize," however, and his desire that the government limit the use forever to a single use might create some difficulty for others in society. It is essentially saying that should the highest and best use evolve, the use of the land will not.
I'm happy to consider that, as long as the hon. member is saying: "For the sense of the public good, in order that this land be available for people to go fishing -- and that's the only thing that should ever be allowed to happen there -- we should bypass the principle of highest and best uses." If that's what the hon. member wants, I'd be happy to consider that.
K. Krueger: I never dreamt that I would have so much opportunity to influence the policy of this government. I think the minister might have his tongue in his cheek a little bit when he says that. The government, as I understand it, is not bound forever -- as the minister put it -- to continue in the present use. Rather, the government has stipulated in the lease that it has contracted with these people that that will be the use. So while it is the use, I would like to see the government adopt the more practical and reasonable approach that I've advocated for that present use. That is, if there's a stipulation that the land will only be used as a fishing resort during the term of that lease, then let's charge the lease rate according to what revenue the people are likely to generate, not according to what we could sell the land for to Bill Gates, if he wanted it, or a wealthy West German or anyone else from around the world.
The fact is that the Crown even owns the buildings and improvements that these people have put on the land. Some of these resorts have been around for a very long time -- up to 70 years. Many times they are one of the few locations on a given lake where people really can get access to the water. So I don't think anybody would argue that it isn't a public good for the public to have that opportunity.
That may be as far as we need to go with this. I think I heard the minister say that he is willing to consider a leasing pricing formula based on the use to which the people are contractually obliged to put the property. I wonder if he would just clarify that on the record.
Hon. C. Evans: We discussed this in my office, and we're discussing it here again today. The member's doing a good job of advocating for his constituents. He's put out the issue quite clearly. He is quite right that the real public policy issue lies between this issue of what is the public good and this question of what is the highest and best use. I am assured by staff that they are trying to consider those lines as we move through it, and I encourage the hon. member to continue to work with me and my staff to try and have a healthy outcome to this question.
K. Krueger: If such a policy does evolve, is it possible that the minister would consider advocating a longer-term lease than the current provisions?
[1540]
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I would.
K. Krueger: There is a theory within the community that has extensively lobbied me about this -- the Kirkbys have been used as something of an example. Other resorts which have been embroiled in the dispute for longer have been unable to pay their leases, and some are outstanding. I recognize and appreciate that the government has been trying to work with them. The Kirkbys are more recently into this whole argument, and BCAL acted very swiftly and served them with a notice that they would be evicted from the land and still have to pay the rate they had incurred. The minister gave me a commitment that they would not be evicted in the short time frame that BCAL had formally advised them of. I'd like the minister's confirmation of whether or not the Kirkbys and Star Lake Resort have been used as an example to others in the situation they found themselves in.
Hon. C. Evans: Oftentimes perception and reality differ, and I can't think of any place where they differ more frequently than in people's views of government at all levels. I am assured by staff that there is no validity to the assumption that any family was being used as an example. Secondly, I am happy to say on the record that I'm advised that the Kirkbys have entered into some kind of payment schedule. I anticipate a happy resolution, and should there be difficulty in future, I am sure the hon. member will bring it to my attention.
Nobody need feel like any single business is being used to set an example. These are broad questions of public policy, and that's how we proceed -- with everybody in the same way.
K. Krueger: My thanks to the minister for those assurances.
I wonder if the government has a ballpark figure as to the amount of economic activity that is generated in B.C.'s economy by the inland sport fishery through the activities of people travelling to do their fishing -- the collection of taxes from them on the various things they purchase, the sale of fishing licences and generally the overall economic activity that's generated by fishing that isn't on the salt chuck.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we do.
K. Krueger: Perhaps the minister would tell us what that number is.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I will.
K. Krueger: What is that number?
Hon. C. Evans: I'll take that question on notice and get back to you tomorrow.
K. Krueger: I would have accepted that answer three questions ago.
Another point that's been made to me
[ Page 15910 ]
[1545]
Hon. C. Evans: The question is, as is everything, sort of correct but tends to be somewhat misleading in how the question was asked. So I'll see if I can set the record straight.
The hon. member implies that BCAL functions as a real estate agency and retains a percentage or something of everything they do and therefore would have an interest in proliferating itself by selling more or leasing more land. It's sort of true, in that the costs of BCAL are deferred by retained earnings on sale and leasing of tenure, but that's from the cost of doing business. It is not intended that BCAL grows to any size bigger than the cost of issuing tenures and doing its job.
As the hon. member interested in shellfish aquaculture knows and the hon. member -- who's not quite here -- who's interested in ranching and grassland issues knows and the hon. member who's interested in finfish aquaculture knows, the tenuring job of BCAL proliferates as does business. To the extent that we make the environment suitable for business, our job gets bigger. But that's the limit of the job; that's the limit of the retained earnings. There is no profit motive in BCAL.
Second, the question was true, in that the board of directors works for the government, but misleading somewhat, in that the hon. member misspoke himself when he used the word "political." These people who make up the board of directors of BCAL are deputy ministers, and there's a very large legal system to ensure that they are doing the job of functioning for the state in a neutral fashion rather than a political fashion. The hon. member, I think, knows that anybody with any questions about that has recourse to any number of systems to prove that they're doing the job for the people and not for any political end.
K. Krueger: The minister anticipated a different line of questioning than what I intended, which was more along the lines of fiduciary responsibility and duty to disclose everything that a potential purchaser or lessee needs to know, given their consideration of what to them is a business opportunity. Realtors, as I understand it, are required to not represent both the buyer and the seller. Lawyers are under the same constraints.
I wonder if it isn't a situation where there's a potential for people to feel, in dealing with BCAL, as though BCAL was acting from a couple of different vantage points in dealing with them. If, for example, they were unaware that there has been this escalation of these assessment rates and taxation, or if they were unaware that the commercial back-country recreation policy was in the process of changing the situation, they might feel that BCAL was in a situation to have taken advantage of them. This is a risk that those other professions try to safeguard against by ensuring that there is a different agent representing seller and purchaser. People feel as though there is a weakness in the system because they may not have full disclosure. It might be for very good reasons, but I'd like the minister to respond to that.
[1550]
Hon. C. Evans: I think there is a danger in that, especially when BCAL was under the Ministry of Finance. The citizens could be forgiven for perceiving that BCAL was using or might have an incentive to use someday in future the people's land or the people's water or the people's foreshore as a fiscal measure rather than a community development opportunity. For that reason, the government has moved BCAL into the Ministry for Rural Development in order to try to tell a different story. I hope the hon. member takes some comfort in that.
On the subject of the perception of neutrality, I think there is some concern there, especially among first nations, who have been expressing their concern that BCAL might be engaged in disposal of tenures or leases or land, fee simple, in contravention or in opposition to the treaty process. We are also trying to make that perception go away by providing them with some comfort that that's not the case.
I hope the hon. member will see the recent changes in government as addressing precisely the issues he raises, making him and his constituents feel some comfort.
K. Krueger: In current negotiations that are underway between BCAL and potential lessees or purchasers, is there full disclosure of the evolving condition of the commercial back-country recreation program and plans as well as any current issues that the parties are embroiled in, such as those between the government and the fishing resort operators?
Hon. C. Evans: To my knowledge, the only thing that BCAL keeps in confidence is the financial situation of the business that we're dealing with. It's not in their interest if we disclose to other people any offers that are made.
Secondly, the member's question used the words "full disclosure" and implies, I think: do we answer everybody's questions if they ask them? I hope that the answer is yes. If the hon. member has evidence to the contrary, I would be pleased to look at it.
K. Krueger: Actually, the question was more: what about the questions people don't know enough to ask? If a private individual is considering leasing property from the government and doesn't have a clue that there is a major change coming with regard to commercial back-country recreation, then they won't ask that question.
I have not intended to suggest at all that people's questions haven't been asked in an honest and forthright way, but government is too complicated for them. They don't know all the questions to ask. This is part of my concern about who represents the little guy that's dealing with government. Who represented the Kirkbys in the negotiations?
There's actually a letter in the Kirkbys' file from the local manager of BCAL, who says to them: "If you would ask the questions, we would have given you the answers." But they didn't know that they should ask those questions. That's why I'm asking for the government and BCAL to focus on making sure people really understand not only the present situation they're getting into but the changes the government is contemplating.
Hon. C. Evans: Those are excellent suggestions. It also highlights a spotlight on the role of the opposition, doesn't it? In a democracy the very reason why these people are represented by the hon. member and that his party has the role that it does is to act as the representative of those people that government might forget to tell all the information to at any given moment. It's a wonderful thing about democracy that there will always be somebody doing it.
[ Page 15911 ]
But I give the member my assurance that the staff, the government and BCAL have no interest in failing to disclose. He just has to accept that we can't be put in a position of always knowing what questions people would ask if they could think of them and then supplying them with the questions so we could give them the answers. We'll do the best we can, and if there's ever a failure, the hon. member or any other member representing an interest can bring the questions forward.
K. Krueger: Wrapping this up, is it possible that the people who even make inquiries of BCAL with regard to leasing property for a commercial back-country operation of some kind could immediately receive a brochure, a handout that tells them about the recent changes and what's coming down the pipe -- so that they know right off the bat?
[1555]
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we'll work on it -- are working on it.
K. Krueger: Switching to a different topic. The Kamloops Indian band purchased the Harper Ranch near Kamloops last year -- purchased it outright, which was a rather unique and gratifying resolution to an ongoing, simmering, long-term dispute about whether or not the Harper Ranch was aboriginal land to begin with. But they have purchased the deeded lands and may not continue using those lands for ranching or even for agricultural purposes. Chief Manny Jules has told me that himself. He's taking at least a year, may take another year, to consult with the members of the Kamloops Indian band and decide what they're going to do with the land. If the Kamloops Indian band decides not to operate Harper Ranch as a ranch any longer, what is the government's intention with regard to the grazing leases that were attached to the operation before it was sold?
Hon. C. Evans: I don't have a specific answer to the hon. member's question, not having addressed it as an individual case. However, traditionally in British Columbia grazing leases that fall into non-use are offered open to other people when the lease runs out, and it's made available to those who might use them.
K. Krueger: Certainly the ranching economy is a big part of the regional economy around Kamloops. That has been the normal course of events in the past, and people have asked me to try and ensure that it will be the course of events. In this case, if the new owners do not wish to continue a ranching operation on those grazing leases, people want to know that they'll have opportunity to pursue leasing those properties themselves. I think the minister has just indicated that that would be what he would expect in the normal course of events. Can he just confirm that that's his intention?
Hon. C. Evans: I can't really. As the hon. member knows, whether or not it is the intention of government would be up to the Minister of Forests. We don't issue grazing leases. What I explained is, I think, historical government practice. I would encourage the hon. member to ask this question of the Minister of Forests, on this specific issue.
B. Barisoff: Further to the comments from my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson, when I started off with BCAL, I read the first two goals. I just want to go to the fourth goal, where it says: "Recognize the social, environmental and aboriginal values in the use of Crown land, resources and assets." Then the fifth goal is: "Ensure that government receives full value for the management and disposition of Crown land, resources and assets." I guess my question to the minister would be whether these goals are in any type of priority and whether, if they were, they'd be recognizing the social and environmental aspects first and then looking at receiving full value for the disposition of Crown land.
Hon. C. Evans: The words "ensure that government receives full value from the management and disposition of Crown land and resources
[1600]
B. Barisoff: I guess that's the answer that I was
I think I want to turn it over to my colleague.
J. Reid: There is a situation in Nanaimo with the Nanaimo Harbour Commission and B.C. Assets and Land. The Nanaimo harbour authority currently manages water lots for both the federal and the provincial government, and it's been doing an excellent job. But there has been a decision that BCAL is going to be taking over the management of those water lots, thus breaking up the job that Nanaimo harbour authority has been doing.
I have a copy of a letter here from the mayor of Nanaimo that was addressed to the minister on May 17. I'm just going to quote from this letter: "The city is on record with BCAL stating its concerns on this action by the government." Further, it says:
"The city of Nanaimo has built a long-lasting and productive relationship with the port of Nanaimo. In my view, this relationship is currently being threatened by actions of the provincial government to duplicate responsibilities and confuse jurisdictions. Since all attempts to convey our concerns to date have failed, could we now please request that you not proceed with your current course prior to undertaking adequate consultation with the affected community."
So my question to the minister would be whether this is still going ahead. And what is the justification for it?
Hon. C. Evans: I was just the tiniest bit dismayed in the wording of the letter. To say having exhausted all aspects
J. Reid: So the question is: what were the reasons? What's the reason behind this move? What was the purpose of it, and what was the objective?
[ Page 15912 ]
Hon. C. Evans: The motivation for the move appears to have come from an independent review which made certain recommendations. I will be reviewing the review with the parties involved when I meet with them and going over the rationale.
J. Reid: I'm very glad that the minister's going to be reviewing the review. For the record, it's very difficult to discuss the issue, the problems and the concerns when I haven't been given any answers as to what the rationale is. The Nanaimo harbour authority has been told that it has somewhat to do with the pricing arrangement that currently exists. The harbour authority has indicated that they're quite willing to renegotiate the current contract and that the issue of having a consistent approach to harbour management is of utmost concern to the community. It has worked. This is a situation where we shouldn't be trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Hon. C. Evans: The member sounds to me just like the Premier, when he said he was going to move BCAL to the Ministry for Rural Development. He was using words just like that; that's the rationale. She may have noticed that as soon as the issue came under this ministry and that people wrote to me, they were getting a meeting. We are interested in making economic development work for people in rural B.C. So we appear to have similar interests.
She's concerned about whether or not their view can be put on the record. It isn't public, but since it sounds like she's interested in rural development, the same as we are, I'd like to offer the hon. member an opportunity for a briefing with staff. Maybe she can come to some understanding of how things were when the report was done and BCAL was under the Minister of Finance.
[1605]
J. Reid: The Nanaimo harbour authority -- the city of Nanaimo -- certainly is going to appreciate the opportunity for further discussions with regard
J. Wilson: I'd like to touch on the issue of agricultural leases and the role BCAL might play in them. Is it the intention of the corporation to perhaps free up land for agricultural use in the province and allow producers more opportunity there?
Hon. C. Evans: The historic policy carries on. It is not the intention of BCAL to ramp up or eliminate leasing of land to agriculture. As the hon. member knows, the situation in British Columbia today is that we're only farming approximately half the land in the ALR that is fee simple already. While there are, of course, specific issues -- and some of them have been around for quite some time -- in the main, in the aggregate, there is not a lot of pressure to release more land to an industry that is not yet using all the land zoned for that use today.
J. Wilson: What I hear the minister saying is that there won't be any movement toward putting up more land until we're utilizing what's out there now. I'm sure the minister is well aware that there are a lot of areas in this province, especially in the northern part, where producers don't have the option of going and acquiring land that is not being used, especially when it's nowhere in the vicinity where they're farming. Yet there is ample Crown land around them where they could expand. To those producers it is critical that they be allowed to expand. If the ministry is not in favour of expansion and we're just going to sit on this land until we're fully utilizing land that is fee simple, that would mean that if you want to expand, you may have to close down the operation in one area and move to another to be able to be viable. So I think we have to look at this; we can't ignore it. It's critical to a lot of people. The present situation that exists with agricultural leases and stumpage rates is unacceptable to most leaseholders, and in some cases they may even lose their leases because of this.
[1610]
Is the ministry going to become an advocate for the leases and work towards a system that would be more tenable to leaseholders -- something that they would they could actually develop a lease and acquire it at a cost that wouldn't be out of line with fee simple land in the area, on the same assessment rate?
Hon. C. Evans: I guess I misunderstood the hon. member's question the first time around. I did not intend for the hon. member to interpret my answer as meaning that there was going to be a change of policy -- and shut down people's ability to acquire Crown land. I thought he was asking if there was a change intended to ramp up distribution of land. I agree with his point that there are areas in British Columbia -- and I even thought I said that -- where leasing makes sense next to an existing operation.
On the subject of the ministry acting as an advocate for producers, I hope that the hon. member will take some comfort in seeing BCAL and agriculture and world development tied together. It is our hope that by eliminating some of the lines in between, we can solve some of these problems.
On the question of the stumpage issue, I believe, hon. member, that that question is being considered by the standing committee. I'm kind of looking forward to any thoughts that they might have, even though they're outside the purview of my ministry's ability to fix. But my job certainly is to be an advocate, and I hope that we can find a resolution.
J. Wilson: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm sure that as one who likes to fight for agriculture, he will come up with something. That's why we pay him the big bucks for the job he does.
I'd like to go to a different area now. Is BCAL currently involved in any Crown land transfers in the province to individuals through the Minister of Environment for fee simple land? Would you like me to expand on this a little bit? Last year, I believe it was, or two years ago an individual bought the Empire Valley Ranch, and the lead agency was the Ministry of Environment. This is before BCAL, I believe, came into being. That was traded for a large tract of timberland in Fort St. John. The fee simple land was then added to a protected area.
What I would like to know is: is the corporation involved now in any other land transactions of this nature in the
[ Page 15913 ]
province where there will be some fee simple land traded for tracts of Crown land? It could be anywhere in the province; it wouldn't necessarily have to be in the same vicinity or in the same region.
Hon. C. Evans: Staff advise me that the function of acquiring private land for protected area or environmental purposes is a function of the Ministry of Lands which, when there was a transfer that created BCAL, remained with the Ministry of Environment.
J. Wilson: Then I take it that any land transactions that are a trade-off of Crown land for fee simple land that is to be used for recreation or protected are not in any way, shape or form part of the responsibility of BCAL.
[1615]
Hon. C. Evans: I am advised that BCAL staff may supply technical support where asked. I am just a little bit leery of a question that says, "in any way, shape or form or never," or something. Let me just say on the record that I am unaware of a case where we are involved. We may supply technical support, and there may be a case in history, in future or at present, which I don't know anything about, where we are involved. But in the main, my answer remains the same: the function remains with the Ministry of Environment. There may be some kind of linkage with BCAL, and I'd be pleased to hear about it if the hon. member knows of a case somewhere. If he could put a specific on the table, I'll have staff go and see if we're involved anywhere. In the main, it's not our job.
J. Wilson: So BCAL is not in charge of all Crown land in the province. Would they not be involved somewhere, through advisory capacity or through technical support to, say, survey off a piece of Crown land -- maybe not deeded in fee simple, but simply to give someone cutting rights on it under the same rules that would apply to fee simple land? Would BCAL be involved in the technical end of this type of land transaction?
Hon. C. Evans: My answer stands. I don't know of a case where
J. Wilson: Then I'm obviously mistaken if I felt that BCAL was in charge of all Crown land in this province when it comes to land transactions. What I'm hearing -- and I do have a case, and I will get to it in due time -- is that the Minister of Environment can take and buy up fee simple land from an individual, turn it into a protected area, whatever, and then delete a piece of Crown land within the province, take it, turn it over as a land trade -- it's a swap -- without BCAL being involved or knowing about it. Is this what I'm hearing?
Hon. C. Evans: No. I keep trying to answer the question, and then the next question, I think, misinterprets my previous answer. It is not our job. There may be cases where technical support is offered. When land is being transferred in the way the hon. member describes, I think it requires direction from the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. I'm on the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet. If the hon. member has a case that was discussed in a meeting that I was at, then the hon. member might see that as some kind of involvement. Or BCAL staff may know of a transfer taking place, and the hon. member might consider that knowledge to be a form of participation. But in the main, the acquisition of land for environmental purposes is the job of the Ministry of Environment. I don't think they can trigger such a transfer without going to ELUC. I would reiterate that the hon. member should tell me what the case is that he knows about, and I'll try and get him the answer.
J. Wilson: If I hear the minister right, he does sit on this group in cabinet that deals with land transfers and environmental land use. Is he aware of any land transactions that are in progress at the moment -- that have come to the attention of cabinet -- to trade Crown land for fee simple land? Is there anything developing at this point that he's aware of?
[1620]
Hon. C. Evans: I can only answer questions having to do with
The Chair: I'd intervene at this point, albeit reluctantly, that the rules of debate would require the minister only to answer questions that are directly under the administration of his office. I've followed this debate question the last little while, and it appears that the member has been directed by the minister to seek the advice of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on those kinds of transfers. Certainly examination of what happens in ELUC is out of order in the examination of these estimates. If the member would be guided by that through the questioning.
B. Barisoff: Further to that I want to ask a question. I was going to bring it up later. I didn't know where, but now might be the appropriate time. I had a constituent come into my office -- in fact, they happened to be Anita and Dale Lehman. They live up in the Bridesville area. They have 500 or 600 acres of land, but they've got 80 acres of old-growth forest. They told me that they have a tree that is 20 feet in circumference, which I want to go and see.
My question, then, would probably be along the lines of what my colleague was just asking. Is there the ability of BCAL, in the ALR
Hon. C. Evans: Keeping in mind that the hon. member is asking this question of a person who believes that logging is close to godliness, I would encourage the hon. member to approach the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment might be interested in acquiring this piece of
[ Page 15914 ]
property, and they might approach ELUC about doing a land exchange. I don't know. I don't have a part of BCAL that's in the job or has the mandate for going out and acquiring environmental protection land.
B. Barisoff: It wasn't meant to put the minister on the spot; it just seemed an appropriate time to raise it. It seemed like we were kind of floundering around in there, in that little puddle there, and I thought, well, this would be a good time to put that on the record. Looking at the deputy minister, I'll definitely contact her on an individual basis and talk to her about that.
Hon. C. Evans: Get around the minister, is that it?
B. Barisoff: I'll get out of the puddle of water that we're in here.
Just moving on, I will be working from the business plan of BCAL, and I just want to start with the economic development. I would just like to read this whole thing: "In many regions of the province, Crown land presents a key opportunity for local economic diversification and development. This is particularly important in the many areas of the province where traditional industries such as forests and fisheries are in decline."
The comment that I'd like to ask the minister is on behalf of BCAL. What are they doing in these particular areas? And what are the areas where we actually recognize that we have such a decline in the traditional industries? We know that there are problems in the province, and I'm just wondering if they've designated those areas and what they doing to enhance that.
[1625]
Hon. C. Evans: I'm sorry for the language; there is no decline in the forest or the fishing industries in British Columbia. As the hon. Chair knows, being the former minister, we actually increased the dollar value of the harvest in fisheries year over year, and I think the same is pretty much true in the forest industry. I'm sorry about the misuse of words.
B. Barisoff: When I read that, I was wondering. I thought maybe the minister or BCAL was taking some points from the opposition's thinking of what was happening in the province. When I read that, I thought it had to be true because it had been written down here. So I definitely had to question the minister on what was happening with the decline in the traditional industries. I think there is some, but we'll get to that later.
In the next paragraph on environmental stewardship there's a line: "This is particularly relevant in the tenuring activities on Crown land in the back country of the province."
The Minister of Environment was in Kamloops at the Premier's Conference last year or a year and a half ago, and at that time made comments on tenuring activities on Crown land and the back country. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what's taking place there and what's happening with the tenuring. I know that there's been a lot of concern about what's happening throughout the province.
Hon. C. Evans: I'll see if this answers the member's question. In June of 1998 the present policy for commercial recreation was announced. As of May, this month, 86 new tenures have been approved, and 34 tenures applied for have been either disallowed or cancelled. The economic impact of the 86 is estimated to be 384 seasonal and 393 full-time jobs and capital investment of $37 million.
B. Barisoff: The minister doesn't have to do this right now, but could I possibly get a copy of the ones that were approved and then the ones that weren't approved -- and the reasoning behind why they weren't approved -- in the back-country tenures?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, hon. Chair, he can; we will supply it.
B. Barisoff: Thank you.
Moving to the next paragraph on the first nations: "BCAL has the responsibility to ensure that the province's fiduciary obligations to first nations are met in determining the disposition of Crown lands." Could the minister explain to me what he is meaning by "fiduciary obligations" in that sentence?
Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure what the question means, but I'm going to give it a theoretical answer. Then maybe the hon. member will move to a more specific question.
Fiduciary obligations I take to mean those legal obligations of the Crown, in terms of first nations, which become my responsibility as minister, or BCAL's as an organization, when we involve ourselves in disposition of the land in places where the Crown has some legal obligation to first nations.
[1630]
B. Barisoff: I guess that starts my question, and the fact that fiduciary obligations
[E. Gillespie in the chair.]
Hon. C. Evans: Thanks, hon. Chair. Hey, your voice has changed. The terms under which BCAL operates, in terms of the fiduciary responsibilities, are called the aboriginal interest assessment procedure. They're available on the web site, or if the hon. member wishes, we'll download it and hand it to him. They are different, whether we are disposing of a piece of land in fee simple, in which case they're quite specific and quite strict, or whether we're simply issuing a lease, in which they are less so.
To the hon. member's more generalized question, "Does BCAL have an obligation to consider first nations interests everywhere in the province whenever they are disposing of land?" I would argue that at some level that's true of all of government and society generally. Where a public good is being transferred to a private good, there's an obligation to consider the legal correctness of that. So it should be. But it doesn't mean that there is such a thing
[ Page 15915 ]
B. Barisoff: I guess my concern is that when I read this, I would think that BCAL has a fiduciary duty to all the citizens of British Columbia also. When I read that, I guess my concern became that that should go both ways. I think that there's the fiduciary duty to all the citizens of British Columbia to make sure that the right thing happens, as is
Being over in Vancouver at one time, listening to the federal government speak at some law thing about the Delgamuukw decision
Hon. C. Evans: Each minister swears an oath which essentially says that. That is the function of the state generally. The fiduciary duties in terms of first nations tend to be spelled out by the courts, because they have interpreted law. But the hon. member is quite right. What reason is there to get up in the morning if you don't have some legal responsibility to the people of British Columbia? It's what we do in this work.
[1635]
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next page with community needs: "Crown lands dominate the geography and the economic potential of many communities across the province and can influence and stimulate economic growth." Where it talks about the plans for new subdivisions, industrial parks and whatever, I'm just wondering whether any of this has happened, where some Crown land has been disposed of, to any municipalities or whatever, for subdivisions or industrial parks or anything in the province?
Hon. C. Evans: The one I'm trying to remember isn't on this list.
Examples of places where BCAL has used Crown land working with local communities to make economic initiatives happen include Port Edward, Terrace, Fort Nelson, Queen Charlotte City, Logan Lake and Blue River.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: The deputy suggests that Valemount is an example. If the member has a question or wants to ask about a particular community, I'll try to answer. But in general what we try to do is if a community comes forward and says, "You know what? We have this economic opportunity" -- either recreational or industrial or what have you -- "and we need some assistance with infrastructure, i.e., land," then it's the role of BCAL to attempt to assist that community to achieve its objectives.
B. Barisoff: I wasn't trying to put the minister on the spot or anything. I was just looking for supporting responsible growth and the fact that I'm sure that
Moving on to operational principles, leadership and innovative business solutions. One of the key reasons BCAL was created was to facilitate economic development and revenue enhancement for government. It has a mandate to innovate. I'll just ask whether the minister can give me some concrete examples of innovation that they've done in this leadership role.
Hon. C. Evans: I guess the changes that we've been trying to make in recent times with shellfish tendering -- opening up a one-stop office specializing in making that tenure available -- would be an example of trying to provide service to a community that was appropriate.
By the way, hon. Chair, I was talking about Cumberland.
B. Barisoff: I think she just remembered at the same time or else she would have told you. You can always tell when she gets that grin on her face.
Moving to No. 2, responsive client service and stakeholder relations. I guess the reason I highlighted this one was probably from that meeting that we had in your office -- through the Chair to the minister -- and the comments from my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson. I'm just wondering about the responsive client service and stakeholder relations. In listening to his comments today, in which he seemed to elaborate quite a bit on this, they seem to be lacking in that in a few areas. I'm just wondering whether the minister can comment on that or enhance on what is going to be done in a better way.
Hon. C. Evans: The Premier of the province agrees with the hon. member and thinks we can do it better -- move BCAL to the Ministry of Rural Development -- and is hoping to give a message that we're a benign, facilitating, friendly organization and that wait times will be reduced, people will be cheered up and everything will work.
B. Barisoff: I won't do it at this point in time, but I was going to ask the minister what the role of Rural Development was. Some of the ministers in the other provinces asked me to ask you that very question -- what the role of Rural Development was. Maybe I'll ask that right now. It's probably a good time, because you did bring it up. Maybe you could enhance and enlighten us about what the role of Rural Development is.
[1640]
Hon. C. Evans: It's basically to change the world. There's a mistake in western civilization that perceives that urban economies drive civilization. In fact, there are some people who extend that mistake to believe that rural economies require some form of assistance or subsidy, or are somehow pastoral or are a lifestyle of another time. There's a confusion. People talk about new economies, and they think they don't mean rural economies. The Ministry Responsible for Rural Development is to turn it around and let everybody understand that it is actually the cities which exist by virtue of the largesse of the rural communities, and to assist the rural communities to earn more money and make more jobs so we can support more cities.
[ Page 15916 ]
B. Barisoff: I'll certainly take that from Hansard and send it off to the other ministers so that they also know what their role is in rural development.
I remember, too, your comment to my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson about the nine-member board. I'll just list the board: the president and chief executive officer of BCAL, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Employment and Investment, the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines, the Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, the Deputy Minister of Forests, the Deputy Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, the president and chief executive officer of the British Columbia Transportation and Financing Authority, and the secretary to the Treasury Board.
The reason I read that into the record and my concern is the fact that I'm just wondering
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I have considered it. It has occurred to me that perhaps there should be somebody from the First Nations Summit on there. But I haven't actually followed that line of thinking. I also thought maybe there should be someone from UBCM on there, but I haven't done anything about that.
I'm quite pleased to have all these land-based ministries at one table, because one of the things we want to do is try and break down the sort of stovepipes of how ministries have behaved in the past and get them all working in one direction and trying to make things happen. I'm sure that the hon. member could probably suggest, I don't know, maybe ten or 20 different public organizations that maybe should sit on the body, and maybe we should enlarge the board of directors to include them all. I'd be happy to receive his thoughts on who should be there.
B. Barisoff: It's not that I'm looking
It's good to see that these people are all here. It's just a suggestion to the minister that when we look at making up some of these things, if it happens to be an issue that's dealing with the Peace River, maybe it would be good to have representation from the Peace. Or if it happens to be the Kootenay area where the minister's from, maybe it'd be good to have representation from that area. I am not saying that you want everybody under the sun being on the board, but it certainly helps when you have local input into some things, because it makes a difference.
Moving on to the financial structure, British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation is funded by revenues generated through business activities on behalf of the provincial government. I listened intently when the minister was responding to my colleague about the operations -- that the company retains 10 percent of the revenues following the deduction of direct project costs from the marketing of Crown lands and 40 percent of the revenues from Crown tenures.
There is a concern about how this proliferates -- the bureaucracy and what takes place. I would ask the minister if he could elaborate a little further on this whole concept of what has taken place. It was one of the issues that, on reading through this, I found was something for the minister to comment on.
[1645]
Hon. C. Evans: It's fairly complicated. The 40 percent of revenues that we derive from Crown tenures don't actually pay for the cost of issuing the tenure. If the hon. member is reading from the financial structure page, which describes the costs of the business plan, he will observe that just above those numbers are all the steps you have to go through in order to issue tenure over Crown land -- or all the things you have to consider. The cost of doing that exceeds 40 percent of the revenue from Crown tenures. There is a negotiating process with Treasury Board about the sale of Crown land and our capacity to retain 10 percent of the income that goes along with those sales in order to defray the cost of issuing tenures.
If there was a really good year and the province disposed of enough assets so that BCAL showed a profit above costs, they would have the capacity to retain those earnings and negotiate capacity with Treasury Board against a year when they perhaps had more costs than income. If the corporation was doing something that made more money than its own expenses above these numbers, then the government has the capacity to pull that income back into consolidated revenue.
B. Barisoff: I guess my concern, then, is if we genuinely look at BCAL as a Crown corporation we value, why would we be entering into any of these kinds of figures at all? Why isn't it financed and run not as some Crown corporations we have, which often spend money without accountability, but with the simple accountability of doing the job that has to be
[ Page 15917 ]
done there in the hope that it would probably save a lot of accounting procedures that are probably to do with this? Possibly, we'd not have people looking at it as my colleague did, when his first response was 10 percent of the revenues, 40 percent of the revenues -- automatically making the assumption that it was becoming a bureaucracy that was growing and growing and would be bloated, simply working on its own means -- but looking back at it and saying: "Listen, it's part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Rural Development, and it's going to be funded accordingly to do the job that has to be done."
[1650]
Hon. C. Evans: One of the reasons that BCAL was created was because the business world was changing and the land base is used for more and more activities. Once upon a time, we went out and logged or dug up ore or something, and there was sort of a perception of the land as providing the resources to a particular industry. Now we have a much more complicated world in which the land -- often the same piece of land -- wants to be used by a whole bunch of users, and all for various good community or business interests.
A Crown corporation -- especially with a board of directors that involves people from all those other ministries -- is a way to try to use the land base to achieve communities' or businesses' objectives even when it's complicated, even when it involves more than one objective on one piece of land. I actually think a Crown corporation is a good way to do that.
The question is: does that automatically mean -- or would people presume -- that it proliferates bureaucracy and that kind of stuff? That's what accountability is for. That's what a business plan is for. That's what estimates are for -- so that the hon. member can assure himself that we're doing the job that we say we're doing.
B. Barisoff: That's exactly what we're trying to do through the business plan: ensure that that is taking place. I always want to be open-minded in looking for new and better ways of doing business, just figuring that there might be a way of enhancing BCAL to do it in a better business fashion.
I'm just looking down on the next page at the land management division, where it has 30,000 active tenures on provincial Crown land and several thousand applications for new tenures and renewals each year through its eight offices. Can the minister indicate how long it takes for a new application to go through?
Hon. C. Evans: The answer is: it depends. If it's simple, three months; if it's complicated, two years. Now, there is a progress report that the corporation develops in order to try to ascertain whether or not we're doing a good job on a month-by-month basis of dealing with applications. Rather than read through it, I'll offer to share this information with the hon. member, and if he has specifics that he wishes to ask, I'll be happy to refer to them.
B. Barisoff: What I would ask the minister is whether he can give me an example of what would be a simple application that would take three months and maybe an example of something
Hon. C. Evans: An example of a short-term application might be a communications tower that somebody wants to put on Crown land, or a kayak or a canoeing tenure on the water -- somewhere where there's not a lot of research that needs to be done.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
An example of a really long-term application process, which probably needs to be somewhat long-term would be helicopter skiing in a place where there isn't biological data. The reason for that is that it might take two field seasons to ascertain the extent of a goat population or caribou population in an area where there is no baseline information. Before they could issue the tenure, you'd have to know what wildlife use was in the area in order that the Ministry of Environment could tell you whether or not any populations were at risk by the issuing of the tenure.
[1655]
B. Barisoff: Have any applications taken longer than two years to get an approval one way or the other?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there are some examples. They are mainly cases like gravel pits or heliskiing or what have you, where there is a complicated referral process because of the number of other agencies involved. Sometimes that referral involves another level of government, such as the federal government or DFO. Two years is sort of the outside limit of what inside-the-province biological research might take. If there are other agencies involved who might disagree, then there are cases that have taken more than two years.
While the corporation has processes and an externally driven study going on right now, trying to make sure that we are doing everything possible to keep the time down, there also needs to be a recognition that all those other values are considered. When we issue the tenure, what the proponent doesn't want is to go to court or go back to square one because somebody missed something. We're trying to ensure that when we issue the piece of paper, you can actually go to work.
B. Barisoff: Just at the bottom of the page there: "Monitoring and enforcement of the Land Act, including trespass provisions, also fall within its jurisdiction." Can the minister give indications within the province where they've actually acted on trespass provisions?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I can. I wonder why the member wants to know. I'll give him one example. I'll choose the one of those options staff gave me that I know most about, and that would be Lake Koocanusa. The hon. member probably knows that we have a situation there -- kind of an artificial reservoir. Because of the artificial reservoir taking up the fee simple land that used to be foreshore, the foreshore is now owned by the Crown. We had a situation, in the creation of BCAL, of 20,000 people camping on Crown land illegally every year.
We have not evicted people. However, we have begun a process of attempting to enforce tenure, trying to find ways to normalize tenure rather than just evict people. If the hon. member wants to know more specifics, I'd be happy to answer how we're doing it. Suffice to say that's an example of a place where it is necessary to enforce rules in order to get people to comply.
[ Page 15918 ]
B. Barisoff: Actually, there was a reason for asking the question; it wasn't simply a matter of just throwing it out there. In my constituency, where I have two examples -- one along Testalinden Creek, which runs down
[1700]
Hon. C. Evans: Public recreation would normally be enforced under the Forest Practices Code, but we would usually enforce commercial trespass. The cases the hon. member cited I think would fall under the former category.
B. Barisoff: Maybe the minister could explain to me why camping on a creek bed would fall under the Forest Practices Code. I don't understand. I could see the other reasoning, when they're riding their motorbikes up in the hills. I understand that fully, but I don't understand why the camping in the creek bottom where there's private property on both sides would fall under the Forest Practices Code.
Hon. C. Evans: I suggested that it would fall under the code because Crown land recreation is a function of the Forest Service, and we're supposed to enforce commercial trespass. In the Lake Koocanusa example, it is a commercial or quasi-commercial question, because we had private campgrounds offering a service which people were bypassing because they could simply squat on the Crown land over a long period of time.
B. Barisoff: Not to belabour the point, but that's exactly the reasoning behind the concern of the farmers. As the minister knows, they have formed kind of a labour camp up in the Seacrest area for the pickers to congregate in. What they are doing is congregating in this other area. They could be at motels; they could be at campgrounds; they could be at a number of other places. It's almost along the same lines. I'm not here to belabour that; it just came to mind. It didn't come to mind when I first read that, but it came to mind when I was doing this now.
Moving on to the next section, the commercial alpine ski policy and the growth in the provincial ski industry, if the minister could comment on the commercial alpine ski policy.
Hon. C. Evans: The way the process works is that when a ski hill is first proposed, it goes to environmental assessment, if it fits the scale. Once it comes out of environmental assessment, if it has a positive answer, it becomes BCAL's responsibility to attempt to deliver it. The best example thus far is the Golden ski hill.
B. Barisoff: Further to that, it says on the next line that they are required for the growth of the provincial ski industry here indicating that this is for new ski hills. I'm wondering: does this pertain to ski hills that are already there?
Hon. C. Evans: Our major business is expansion. I used the Golden example because it's basically new in terms of the size. In terms of expansion on existing ones, we're presently involved in Golden Peaks, Panorama, Kimberley, Fernie, Big White, Silver Star, Saddle Mountain and Whistler.
B. Barisoff: It's good to hear that BCAL is involved in some of these things, to make sure some of the commercial enterprises in the province. I'm sure there are a lot more, when they happen to read the Hansard, that will be looking at trying to create some involvement.
Further down that page there's a general rule that Crown land is sold based on fair market value. Can the minister indicate how fair market value is established for these?
Hon. C. Evans: By independent fee appraisal.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the following page, "Business partnerships division," and the second paragraph: "This division, formerly part of Treasury Board staff, has been responsible for conducting a number of recent initiatives." It lists the sale of the government light vehicle fleet to the private sector, restructuring of the business model and fleet management operations; the final wind-down of B.C. Systems Corporation and disposition of its assets; the conversion of Woss, a company-owned forestry town situated on Crown land, to independent community status with private land ownership; and the successful development and negotiation of B.C. OnLine, a public-private partnership.
Could the minister comment on these on an individual basis just to give me an indication of what's taking place in all of these?
[1705]
Hon. C. Evans: No, hon. Chair, I can't. They all predate my acquiring of the portfolio. I'll just suggest, as I said earlier, that this section of BCAL, the Minister of Finance and I have agreed, will return to the Ministry of Finance, and it will never really be administered under this ministry's jurisdiction.
B. Barisoff: If that's the case, then I think that we've pretty well
Actually, on the second to last page, where it says: "To make our business approaches more responsive and transparent and accessible." Is that part of that same
Hon. C. Evans: Nope, that's us. We're hoping that the Ministry of Finance will be more responsive, transparent and accessible, too, but it's our idea.
B. Barisoff: It's good to hear that we will be more responsive, transparent and accessible, because I'm sure that's part of the major problems.
One of the questions is: "To increase our business capacity, strengthen our management practices and encourage innovation to meet our mandate." Could the minister comment on section 2 there?
[ Page 15919 ]
Hon. C. Evans: Because BCAL is a fairly new organization and we want to make it work for people, we are trying to assess our own behaviour to see that it matches the needs of the client group -- in other words, that we are business-friendly to the businesses that desire to use Crown land for tenuring to make their businesses work. So we're engaged in assessment to make sure that we're meeting those targets. An example would be: are we able to have a turnaround time in issuing tenures or answering applicants within a reasonable time frame?
B. Barisoff: In the next section down, "to support the new delivery models that reflect clear performance and results," has the minister got any examples that he could use where we have a clear performance and results?
Hon. C. Evans: Ski hill development, where we've created a series of protocols and some staff expertise; and shellfish, where we've done the same and created one office. Those would be two examples.
B. Barisoff: On the next page, where the corporation is developing the one-window approach for the shellfish industry -- and I say that because it'll probably come up in my colleague's estimates in Fisheries. But I was just wondering. It says: "
Hon. C. Evans: What we're trying to get at with a business-unit approach
[1710]
B. Barisoff: Section 5 down there: "The corporation has expertise in Crown land tenure management, in the development and marketing of Crown lands
Hon. C. Evans: It's the corporation attempting to assure that we have the expertise to bring to bear, so that if Cumberland or Zeballos or Port Hardy -- and I just listed those off because they come to mind -- says, "We have an objective in mind in trying to use Crown land or Crown water tenure to develop our community," we as a corporation have the wherewithal, the capacity, to take the staff and actually do the job that the people are asking for. All that this is suggesting is that we continue to assess our own capability and develop our skills.
B. Barisoff: I think that short of anybody coming in to ask any other questions on BCAL, that probably covers that. We could either go into the office of the Land Reserve Commission, or we could continue on with agriculture -- whichever the minister prefers.
Interjections.
The Chair: We will just recess the committee for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:19 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering what's taking place in that, because to me that's probably one of our primary concerns. If we can get agriculture into the classroom, we can do a lot to enhance agriculture in the province of British Columbia.
Hon. C. Evans: We just recently
[1720]
B. Barisoff: Yes, I would like the line item.
Also, beyond the line item, I'd like to know what we're actually doing. What kind of courses? What are we offering to enhance agriculture? I know there's a certain amount of money being spent, and that's fine and dandy, but how have we gone down that road to enhance it even farther?
Hon. C. Evans: I think that the funding, because it comes out of Investment Agriculture
As for what it is that they do, I answered that question for myself best by attending their booth at the PNE. They usually have a booth at major fairs, and you can see their course materials produced for most age groups in the public school system. Then they offer training capacity, both in person and at distance, for teachers who wish to offer the curriculum. We don't have the capacity to force a school board to teach the curriculum, so at present we convince teachers who have an interest to offer the curriculum.
B. Barisoff: Does the minister know how many school districts or how many schools in the province are actually taking part in offering the curriculum?
Hon. C. Evans: I'll take that question on notice and try to get it by the end, or as soon as I can, for the member.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next page, where we have: research and technology transfer to maintain British Columbia farmers' ability to stay up to date with the latest developments in research and technology to remain competitive. I notice the first key strategy is to develop Internet-based electronic information for the main agriculture sectors, specifically for farmers.
Now, the question that I have for the minister is
[ Page 15920 ]
way of enhancing this so that farmers, whether they happen to be in the Peace River or the Kootenays or Vancouver Island, all have access to this information?
Hon. C. Evans: Just by way of anecdotal comment, I'll say that I've seen more computer capacity in the homes of agricultural producers than in any other sector in society within my own constituency. My own constituency is one of the most at-distance and mountainous areas of British Columbia. I visit, of course -- as friend or MLA -- the homes of, say, the logging community, the sawmilling community, the tourism community and the farm community, just to give some examples. There's more computer capability in the farm community than in any of the others that I've mentioned. The reason for that I take to be that the information they require in order to remain competitive tends to be available in other countries, through university systems. Perhaps they need to keep track of the market of whatever the commodity is that they're producing. They need to know what other nations are selling for. So actually the computer capability is exceedingly high.
Now, if a producer lives in an area where computer capability is not delivered to the home, or if they are not themselves in possession of the technology, or if they are not comfortable with the use of the technology, the same opportunities are offered at the government agent office close to them or at the Ministry of Agriculture office close to them. We've negotiated access at the chamber of commerce offices around the province and all Community Futures offices.
[1725]
B. Barisoff: It's good to know that they do have access at all those facilities.
Moving down to the directive to support research and development of new enterprises. I'm just wondering about the last bullet down there where it says: "Facilitate leverage of the private sector funding for research and technology transfer." Could the minister comment on that?
Hon. C. Evans: The ministry participates in administration, sits on the board, in an advisory role in the administration of ten development funds. Those funds have a prerequisite requirement of leveraging private sector dollars. Where those dollars have to come from tends to differ fund to fund. In order to get money out of the fund, you have to show where you're going to have private sector partnering, other government partnering and that sort of thing.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next page: "Support more research in pest management to optimize the use of pesticides and herbicides in ways that are economically and environmentally sound." The first bullet is: "Deliver the training and expertise on integrated pest management methods." Can the minister comment on that?
Hon. C. Evans: Generally, I'm incredibly proud of this. I think all British Columbians should be incredibly proud of it. Integrated pest management is a system which starts from the premise that if you understand the pest, you'll have to use less pesticide. Or if you understand more different methods of control, you have less unnatural intervention required. So we teach people how to measure what insects are alive in their area of production, and then we can target use of pesticides only for those moments in time, or those biological moments, that are appropriate to control the pest.
The net result of integrated pest management has been such a great reduction in pesticide use and in reducing the number of different kinds of pesticides required that rumour has it that some areas in the United States are thinking of using our integrated pest management model as their definition of organic, because it is so much reduced from traditional agricultural pest management techniques. I hope that the hon. member and everybody who hears about it will think, correctly, that British Columbians are really leading the world in finding environmentally benign ways to manage crop production.
B. Barisoff: Does the minister know how many acres and how many farmers are actually using the integrated pest management program?
Hon. C. Evans: No, I can't give a specific answer, nor do I really want to commit to being able to get one, because I think that would be a very difficult statistic to come up with. I will speak in some general terms.
It's almost 100 percent of the greenhouse production in British Columbia -- certainly the leading edge of greenhouse production -- almost all of B.C. Hot House greenhouse production and most of the field vegetable production in the province. Most of the soft fruit and apple production in the province are engaged in it. As an example, basically using IPM and SIR, the apple industry, the BCFGA, has now set as a target the elimination of pesticide use altogether, within five years, between blossom set and fruit production. As we move toward meeting that goal, the hon. member could simply figure that the total number of apple production, or we could supply him with the hectares, and that would be the correct answer. So it is rapidly becoming the norm, as opposed to an anomaly.
[1730]
B. Barisoff: That leads us into providing advisory support to the sterile insect release program board of directors for control of codling moth in tree fruits. I understand today that there is -- or was, or is happening or happened -- a meeting between the regional districts of the Okanagan and the regional district in which the member resides. I guess my concern is whether regional districts -- or anybody -- have the ability to pull out of the program at this stage, and what the minister's comments would be to anybody pulling out of the program. What effect would it have on the apple and pear growers in the Creston Valley if they do pull out of the program? What effect will it have on all the Okanagan growers if any piece or part of the original founding members, as you might want to call them, of regional districts have the right or the ability to pull out of the program at this stage?
When we look at the integrated pest management -- and the minister just indicated in his last comments that the sterile insect release program is definitely part of that entire program -- I guess my concern is that we are now in a situation where some might pull out. If some do, others might, if they have the ability to do so. What are the legal ramifications of this happening?
[ Page 15921 ]
Hon. C. Evans: I wanted to take a considerable amount of time to consult with staff, because the meeting that the hon. member refers to actually took place while we were in estimates, so I wasn't able to attend.
Firstly, I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member gives to put some comments on this subject on the record. I'm thoroughly cognizant that they're on the record and may become news by tomorrow.
The sterile insect release program is probably the most successful environmental program engaged in by any part of agriculture anywhere in the province. The only one I can think of that would come close is the elimination of pesticide use inside greenhouses. Sterile insect release is aimed at controlling codling moth, codling moth being the most damaging agent in the apple industry and in the fruit industry generally. For example, our inability to get apples into Japan is largely a function of the Japanese government using codling moth as an excuse to provide a trade barrier.
Codling moth is usually controlled with a poison called Guthion. If you want to understand the toxicity of Guthion, it was orally explained to me this way. The banned pesticide DDT, on a scale of 1 to 35, would be a toxicity level of 35, and Guthion would be a 7 on a similar scale.
[1735]
British Columbians invented sterile insect release many years ago. It was a technology somewhat unique to the province when it was developed here. The attempt is to use sterile insect release in the Okanagan Valley from Vernon south and in the Creston Valley to eliminate the wild codling moth. A population level of zero would be impossible to achieve in a natural environment when our neighbours to the south have codling moth populations and always will. Plus, the program would stop working if you ever reached zero, because the program is dependent on maintenance of the program. If you ever reach zero, people would stop releasing sterile insects and stop controlling for codling moth.
Once before in the history of British Columbia, the program was abandoned, and codling moth returned within a decade to the region. I think it was the hon. member's region, so he knows about that.
For all the reasons I just stated, I am a big fan of the sterile insect release program and am utterly dismayed that the town of Creston wants to pull out. I personally attended there and took staff to make an argument that they reverse their position. There was a public meeting offered by myself. I sent staff, and we facilitated people from Kelowna, from the industry and from the municipalities in the Okanagan to attend in Creston to make an argument the other way.
If the program is killed in the Creston Valley, I would consider it a monumental failure -- a failure of vision on the part of the municipality, an organizational failure on the part of Agriculture and a political failure on the part of the MLA, who is myself. In fact, I can't imagine a worse symbol of British Columbia agriculture than for the Creston Valley or the regional district of Central Kootenay to pull out of SIR at the point where it is 97 percent effective. We have eliminated 97 percent of the codling moth in the valley.
In the meeting today, I am advised that the Minister of Municipal Affairs advised the regional district of Central Kootenay that they had the legal right to pull out of the program. I'm also advised that the OVTFA told them that they would support any municipality that used any tools to oppose the regional district pulling out. The reason for that is that the fruit industry in British Columbia will be threatened if anybody pulls out. You move apple boxes back and forth; you move fruit back and forth. We would distribute egg masses into areas that have eliminated codling moth if any part of British Columbia gets out.
The Creston Valley pulling out might destroy the program in the Okanagan. If the program is destroyed in the Okanagan, integrated pest management won't work, and we'll be spraying Guthion again. Tens of millions of dollars will have been wasted getting us to this place. The science will be lost. The ability to sell the science to other countries in future will be lost. The trade argument to other countries that we don't have codling moth will be lost. The market opportunity of having almost organic, pesticide-free fruit will be lost. It's a total disaster.
What is the minister's opinion? The minister's opinion is that the people of the Creston Valley ought to advise their politicians that this is a jewel and that they want to keep it. I will do whatever I can to tell that story.
I want to make an offer, through the Chair, to the critic for the opposition. It would assist me, since the people who are opposed to this program are not members of my political thinking -- they don't support my point of view. It would assist me if we could do this thing together and issue a statement to those folks and say that anyone who governs here would be supporters of sterile insect release. This is in order for everybody in the Creston Valley to understand that the only way to kill the program, if you want to use the ballot box, is to vote Green. For reasons I cannot fathom, it would appear that the Green candidate is opposed to sterile insect release in the Creston Valley.
[1740]
I'd be willing to answer any other questions that the hon. member has, and I hope I've put on the record my position and also my responsibility to solve this problem. I hope I've put on the record my request that he assist me, because I believe that we have to continue it.
B. Barisoff: I guess my concern is that the minister just indicated that the Creston Valley has the right to pull out. Not being privy to the meeting or not being invited to the meeting or whatever, my concern is: who gives them that right? Why were they given that right? Is it that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has made a decision to say that they have that right? Is it based on law, or is it based on a decision that he or she decides to make? Or does the Minister of Agriculture have the ability to stop that? Does something of this nature have to go before cabinet?
It's been raised in my area because, let's face it, the entire Okanagan and in particular the South Okanagan
My understanding is that there is no packing facility left in the Creston Valley, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. The majority of the apples and pears are brought to the Okanagan to be packed in the South Okanagan or in the North Okanagan or in the Kelowna area or whatever. The
[ Page 15922 ]
possibility of the larvae and whatever else transports these is most likely not as bad in the fruit itself as it is in the bins and whatever else that go back and forth.
My concern is that at this point in time
For the tree fruit industry right now, that money would be better spent on the industry itself rather than on getting into some legal wrangle about whether this is right or wrong. The program has been in existence for a number of years, and I would ask the minister to take it upon himself to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs decide that they don't have the ability to do that. You've got the Minister of Agriculture on one side showing what an effect it can have in the Creston Valley, and it is incumbent on the minister to do everything in his power to stop that from happening.
Hon. C. Evans: This is really interesting. Absolutely -- I will accept the hon. member's suggestion that I lobby the Minister of Municipal Affairs. However, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is dealing with the law. You can't change a law by lobbying. You can express your opinion, and I promise to do that -- and I appreciate his support for that. The inspector of municipalities will decide whether or not the minister's interpretation of the law is correct and would have to approve a bylaw to allow a regional district to exit.
However, lobbying a minister cannot change a law. The law was written in 1988, and it appears on the surface to allow a regional district to withdraw. I will do everything I can to see to it that the government makes it as difficult as possible for that to happen, because everything I've said on the record here is indicative my position. But the council involved tends to be gentlemen, almost exclusively, of the member's political persuasion. There's a person seeking the nomination from the political party that the member belongs to from the Creston Valley who's opposed to the program.
So what I'm saying is that I'll deal with the government, but -- through the Chair -- hon. member, please express your opinion to the people who might take advice about the position of the opposition on the importance of this program to the people of British Columbia. I'm fighting it from my standpoint, and -- I'll speak as gently as I can -- when I speak, it tends to be "the government." If the hon. member spoke, especially representing the opposition, on behalf of this program, I'd endorse him in any way I could. I think it wouldn't be heard as the government but maybe as the position of agriculture or even of logic. Anyway, we agree. The hon. member and I agree, and we're gonna try and keep this program alive.
I would like to rise, report progress and
The Chair: Minister, with all due respect, the Chair would in fact entertain a motion to recess the committee until 6:30.
Interjection.
The Chair: We just had a friendly amendment to 6:45. I have no choice but to accept it.
Hon. C. Evans: I move that we recess until 6:45. Is that what you want?
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 5:48 p.m. to 6:48 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
B. Barisoff: Moving down onto objective 4: "Participate on several federal-provincial 'Canada committees.' " Could the minister indicate which federal-provincial committees are out there?
Hon. C. Evans: We've participated on the Canada Committee on animals, the committee on crops, the committee on integrated pest management, forage crops, natural resources, manure management, the committee on weeds and the expert committee on engineering for crops.
B. Barisoff: Are there any summaries of what has taken place over the last year from those committees that I could get a copy of?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, and we'll take note and supply the member with the summaries that exist.
B. Barisoff: One of the areas that is of global concern is the Summerland Research Station. I am just wondering what the participation is of the provincial government. I know that they conduct a lot of research on new apple varieties and whatever else. What's the provincial participation in the Summerland Research Station?
[1850]
Hon. C. Evans: The basic research is all federal government, but since various organizations that we fund -- like the BCFGA or the OVTFA or the technical subsidiary of the BCFGA, which is called PICO -- are sometimes involved with Summerland in deciding what research projects to participate in. We have a role in that regard.
B. Barisoff: The reason I asked the question is that I had the opportunity last Friday to meet with the Okanagan caucus. Actually, I met with Senator Fitzpatrick. He was looking at different ways of enhancing the Summerland Research Station to create more federal funding. The reason that I bring up the participation between the federal and provincial government is just to ensure that the provincial side is doing everything it can to make sure we enhance that. I know there was some question about some new tree fruit varieties that were being developed there. Actually, it wasn't tree fruit varieties; it was the browning of the centre of the apple, I think, that was taking place there.
There were comments I read in the press -- I don't have copies of them with me -- that were made by the minister, I think, on some of the things that were happening there.
[ Page 15923 ]
I wonder whether the minister would elaborate on what was taking place there, what was happening, and give me a small briefing.
Hon. C. Evans: A small briefing. There were trials applied for by a private company in sponsorship or working with Summerland to experiment with field plantations of genetically modified Braeburn apples, which had been modified, in theory, to produce an apple that would not brown when sliced and left out.
I wrote to the federal minister and asked him, given the ability of bees to travel a couple of miles after pollination, how pollen from the trials would be limited to the site. I asked the federal minister to provide some assurance that pollen would be limited to the site before issuing the permit. The federal government ended the permitting process. To my knowledge, I never received an answer to my letter.
B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me who he thought this impact might affect and where it would affect? Was that a two-mile radius around the research centre? If the apples were planted in Osoyoos, would it affect two miles north, east, west or south? Was that the kind of intent that was there, or was it something that was concentrated around the research centre?
Hon. C. Evans: It wasn't an issue really related to the research centre. It was an issue of myself, as provincial minister, having to answer questions, to give assurance to other producers that the trials would be limited to the trial area. That's the issue I was attempting to address. That's what I wrote to the federal minister, and I haven't yet received an answer. I'll be happy to share it with the hon. member if I do get an answer.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to investment and goal 3: "Attract new investment and ensure that there is sufficient capital available to take advantage of opportunities for growth and development in the agriculture industry." The minister knows that when we went to the Premier's summit in Kamloops and the Premier's summit in Castlegar, venture capital was one of the areas that seemed to be
[1855]
Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure whether the hon. member's interest is primarily in international issues or in local capital questions, but I'll deal with both of them really briefly.
We participate with Canada and other provinces in an international forum. When investors from other countries indicate an interest in making an investment in Canada -- either a processing company in order to obtain market access to Canada and the United States or a primary product investment like ginseng to supply a foreign market -- we as the ministry engage with those investors individually, often with success. We can discuss some of those if the member wishes.
The second question is internal investment. There are several ways that we try to make sure that capital is available.
First, there are ten investment funds that the provincial government participates in which exist with trustees and also management boards. They provide investment mostly for diversification, marketing, product development or research opportunities.
Second, there is simply engagement with the banking industry, which is quite a fun part of my job. Periodically I have the opportunity to meet the agricultural representatives of all the major banks, the federal Farm Credit and the credit unions. Several times in recent years we have offered lending opportunities in conjunction with those banks.
Third, there is the issue of venture capital the hon. member alludes to because it was brought up in Kamloops, Kelowna and elsewhere. That has historically been available only to certain parts of agriculture. The ginseng industry, for example, was built on venture capital. But there is no venture capital fund aimed precisely towards food and food processing. The ministry continues to research (a) whether or not it is required and (b) what steps government would have to take in order to provide a venture capital fund aimed at this sector.
B. Barisoff: "Support initiatives by the Investment Agriculture Foundation that provide funding for industry development" and "Participate in the national agriculture investment initiative." Could the minister elaborate on both of those? I'm certainly not sure of where they're coming from or what it's all about.
Hon. C. Evans: The national agriculture investment initiative is the initiative I just alluded to where we sit with other provinces and Canada and talk to foreign investors or people in search of some economic opportunity in Canada.
The Investment Agriculture Foundation is an initiative that I was involved in setting up -- I believe it was 1996; it could have been 1997. It took a considerable amount of provincial and federal funding that was left over from programs being wound up and turned it over to a board. The board is made up of agriculture leadership from several sectors and a federal government employee and a provincial Ministry of Agriculture person, who act as advisers to Investment Agriculture.
[1900]
It has a mandate and some rules that allow it to trigger funding for certain activities, which tend to be research or market development or field trials. The good news is that Investment Agriculture money is required to be in partnership with somebody else. So an idea that is too loose or not safe enough to attract a private sector partner or another government can't be triggered, because Investment Agriculture won't fund 100 percent of anything. You have a board, they receive proposals, and they dispense money according to sort of an adjudication process. The proposals they get have a prerequisite that they all be partnered.
The fund can be replenished over time by future governments. It is invested. In the main it is the return on the investment that is expended annually; however, the rules do not preclude drawdown of capital.
B. Barisoff: One of the performance measures indicated was the improved information on B.C.'s agrifood business climate. Can the minister indicate what they've done or what they're doing to improve the information on the agrifood business climate?
Hon. C. Evans: What we're going through in this line of questions is this year's business plan. What the hon. member
[ Page 15924 ]
is referring to is our intention in this year to produce hard copy and electronic information which potential investors from away can access to find out the tax regime, the environmental regime, the profitability likelihood, the trade laws, the labour climate, and what have you. So someone in England or China who might wish to make an investment can quickly contact us and evaluate the profitability likelihood of establishment in British Columbia.
B. Barisoff: I guess my question was mainly to find out what was happening and in what direction we were taking this and the fact that it was moving along in that direction.
We'll just move on to goal 4 and the industry's self-reliance: "Help producers become more self-reliant and less dependent on government for services and financial assistance." The second bullet is: "Support an industry-initiated stable funding process." Could the minister elaborate, in particular, on the kinds of support that are out there for the industry for the stable funding?
Hon. C. Evans: At present, almost none. This is the first year that we've announced some form of stable funding for the B.C. Ag Council. We are engaged in a process with the standing committee and with the Ag Council itself, and to some extent in consultation with citizens generally, about some model that might allow stable funding in future. If I was to put one of the models on the record, I'm sure someone would read the Hansard and say: "That was the minister's choice." Since I've done that in previous years and then spent weeks trying to deal with the fallout from that, I hope that the hon. member doesn't ask me for an example.
B. Barisoff: That definitely would have been my next question. I just thought that would save a lot of work for the select standing committee if we at least knew in which direction that you were headed.
The next bullet is: "Implement a renewed tree fruit replant program and establish an industry revitalization fund." The minister knows that I'm a strong supporter of the replant program in my particular constituency in the South Okanagan. It has been extremely successful. I'm wondering whether the minister could indicate the success of the program, whether the same success lies in his region in the Kootenays, how successful it's been in central and North Okanagan, and what the long-term plans and direction of the replant program are.
[1905]
Hon. C. Evans: I think the simplest way to say it is that we have, in loose figures, planted through the replant program 25 percent of the historical hectares that existed before. We are now in phase 2 of the program, and the desire is to replant another 25 percent.
When we have replanted 50 percent of the land, because of the increased density and production per hectare, we will have replanted enough hectares to produce the equivalent of 100 percent of the historical production. Does that make sense?
B. Barisoff: That's all right.
Hon. C. Evans: Yeah? Okay. The hon. member's other two questions were: "Where has it worked well, and where has it failed?" and "Has it worked as well in Creston as it has in his area?" I'd say it has had mixed results in Creston. Those who have engaged in replant are doing very well; in fact, therein lies the weakness of the program. Those people who have replanted tend to make a reasonable living, and they tend then to be farming on a different scale than those people who haven't. If there is a failure in the program, it is to have taken an industry where everyone was making an average income and divided it into those who are making a better income and those who haven't moved. It's even maybe a little bit worse than that. Since the price of traditional varieties over the last ten years has tended to plummet, those people who haven't replanted into new varieties have even lost income.
Economically the program is working incredibly well. The only drawback would be socially. For example, we used to have a co-op packing plant in Creston, and it was dependent on everybody that grew apples participating as a part owner of the processing plant. Now, instead of say 100 people who are part-time producers, you have six or ten who are full-time producers and 90 who are part-time producers. The six or ten who have replanted considerably are making a considerable income. The co-operative nature of the industry is changing to a more professional segment -- especially, as the hon. member knows, in cherries, where the opportunity for income is even higher than in new variety apples.
The only area I would point to where I would say the program has not been a historical success is in some pockets around Kelowna, where for other reasons not related to the replant program but related to municipal planning or what have you, it tended not to catch on. In recent months and years I think even that problem is being solved, and it is being replanted as quickly as other areas.
B. Barisoff: The problem that the growers are having in the tree fruit industry at the present time is that
Has the minister got any ideas for these farmers that are caught in this catch-22? They've had two disastrous years when they've actually lost money. Now they're in a situation where the replant program has been reinstituted, and if the minister could
[1910]
Hon. C. Evans: We had a program that assisted the growers the hon. member is referring to, to deal with the transition period. It was called TPAP; it was cancelled. That was an error. I announced last year that we were reinstating it. That meant that there is $2,200 an acre to assist producers with land in transition. That money now assists them to qualify for whole farm if there's price collapse, and that triggers a safety net program. The federal government has now instituted a Farm Credit loan system that assists people to bridge that five-year period.
[ Page 15925 ]
So there are many sort of structural steps that are provided to deal with that period of time. I want to acknowledge -- not for the first time; I've done it many times -- that killing the transition money was an unfortunate mistake. So we not only reinstated it, we reinstated it retroactively in order to acknowledge to those people that government ought not to have made that decision.
The last thing I want to say is that 25 percent of the cost of any business venture is pretty much the high end of what government ought to consider contributing, in order to not have the program so attractive or sweet that people decide to make an investment based on the government's participation. We want people to participate in the program only if their business plan says it will make money, so they can go get the other 75 percent from the marketplace.
If you can't produce a business plan that says that you're going to make money at a 25-75 percent split, then probably you ought not to be going into that business. And if we raise it to 30 or 40 percent. The hon. member might have constituents who then could access it, but it would be, I would argue, so sweet, so attractive that it would skew the marketplace, the community view of the program. People would get in who don't really have a good handle on how to make money.
B. Barisoff: It's not that I was, if we look at the first
I guess the other question that I want to pose to the minister, and he touched on it briefly, was the fact that the cancellation of the TPAP program
I guess I give them my assurances where I am, and I guess I probably would have to hear from the minister whether the same kind of assurance applies to the present government that, no, it wouldn't happen again -- because it has happened in the past. A lot of growers are very skeptical of saying, "Yeah, I'm going to put in my share of the program, but I want to know if I sign a commitment and a contract for this program, that it's going to be there next year, and the year after it's going to be there," and whatever the process is -- if it's a one-year or two-year or three-year or four-year process. I know that retroactively the minister and the government have gone back and repaid those farmers, but there is quite an element of doubt in whether the program will still be there two years from now or three years from now or four years from now. Could the minister make comment?
[1915]
Hon. C. Evans: It's a legitimate question, and I am absolutely committed to the continuance of the program. But I want to say that the reason I'm committed to the continuance of the program is because, in the absence of TPAP, whole farm insurance doesn't work. I am not committed because I think anybody should replant their land in order to get TPAP. You need the transitional funding in order to make the safety net system work. But I would encourage the hon. member to say to his constituents: "Only replant your land if you can make money. Don't do it because we're going to supply you with TPAP."
B. Barisoff: I'm sure that that's exactly
I think the other issue, and the minister knows full well -- I don't have the letter in front of me -- is the Ackerman case in Kelowna, where they replanted their orchard and continued to work and found that the federal income tax and whoever else came pounding down on them to say, "Well, too bad. This isn't a deduction," and whatever else
I bring it to light because I think it's important for people to understand what's taken place here and whether they fell through the cracks or whatever happened. I think it's important. My perspective as the critic for Agriculture on the opposition side is that I think they did fall through the cracks, and there should be something done. I would just like to listen to what the minister has to say about the Ackerman case in particular.
Hon. C. Evans: The position of the ministry and the minister is that we have to try to resolve this particular case that the hon. member refers to and others like it, because people look at that, and it creates gossip, and everybody talks about it. Then they think: "Well, it's not worth participating, because you get hammered in the end anyway." So we are working, both the OVTFA and the ministry, with Revenue Canada, trying to get them to see things a little differently in order to create a more optimistic environment for people to invest in the replant initiative.
B. Barisoff: I'm sure my colleague from Cariboo North probably knows what this is. I should have asked him. "Deliver feeder and bred heifer loan guarantee program." I have no real idea of what that's all about.
Hon. C. Evans: I have information which would take a considerable amount of time to share orally, so I'm just going to give the gist. The B.C. feeder associations loan guarantee program was created in October '99. It works with the feeder associations loan guarantee program which was introduced in '91. Since the initial creation of the program, it has provided partial loans to member associations, which have allowed 185,000 head of cattle to be purchased through feeder cooperatives. That's in the nine years of that program.
[1920]
The bred heifer program, which is a subgroup, was introduced in '98. It provides loans of up to $100,000 per individual for a cooperative to invest in the program. There are five such cooperatives. The outstanding loans equal $6 million, and there are 1,500 heifers that have been added to herds as a result of the five cooperatives' investment in the program. Additional information can be supplied if the hon. member wants it.
J. Wilson: What is the cap that the government has placed on this loan program?
Hon. C. Evans: The cap is $100,000 per individual.
[ Page 15926 ]
J. Wilson: What I needed was the amount the provincial government is willing to put up to borrow against.
Hon. C. Evans: The ceiling is $39 million for the feeder associations loan guarantee program.
J. Wilson: When the bred heifer program was established, it's my understanding that it was set up as a separate entity from the feeder program. Can the minister explain why this was done and why it was not included along with the feeder program, so that any staff you have to hire
Hon. C. Evans: Well, the one program, the bred heifer program, is -- the word that the ministry uses -- an extension of the feeder associations loan guarantee program. Both are administered by the same individual in my staff. The hon. member may have experienced that the two programs are delivered on the ground by two people, but it has one administration.
J. Wilson: At the ground level, there are two separate organizations basically doing the same job. My question is: why would something like this be designed and not just one organization?
Hon. C. Evans: I'd be pleased to consider any cost-effective reductions or efficiencies that we can find.
B. Barisoff: I'm moving on to the skills and development and training. I'm just wondering if they resolved the future of the University of British Columbia Oyster River Research Farm and explored the potential for development of an agricultural training facility on that site. Could the minister make comment?
Hon. C. Evans: I'll make a comment, but given that it's on the record, I'm going to have to modify what I think. No, I haven't resolved the future of Oyster River. I can't comprehend the behaviour of UBC. The whole thing is unfathomable to me. An institution is created -- UBC. You'd think that their interest was in serving all the people in British Columbia. A farm family on Vancouver Island donates to them for free a thousand acres of the most beautiful real estate in the province and says they can use it as long as they do agricultural research. They do it for 20 years; they lay off all the staff. They sell off all the cows. They transfer the quota, and they end the program, but they keep the property? Then they justify it: well, they're withdrawing to do real research.
I'm afraid, hon. member, I didn't go to their school, so I don't understand the difference between real research and stuff that people do to give them a better life. I find it very difficult to comprehend what UBC is doing. It's not for lack of trying. I have gone to meeting after meeting to deal with this. I'm thrilled with the local community's involvement. North Island College has gone so far as to work with Athabasca in Alberta and bring programs that people want to offer at Oyster River. I went to a meeting, a five-hour drive or whatever, up to North Island College to meet with UBC and North Island and Athabasca. People came all the way from Alberta. The community came. Only one group was absent. That was UBC, who I guess, decided not to attend the meeting.
[1925]
I think that maybe UBC will reconsider. I'm pretty sure that they understand that if the hon. member is worried about it, I'm worried about it and the people in this building are worried about it, it might have some impact on their ability to relate well to government in future. I'm pretty sure that they're rethinking their position on Oyster River and realizing that maybe it's an asset that somehow they should allow the people to use for giving themselves a better life. You could do research in forestry there. There's something like 600 acres of beautiful Douglas fir. There's grassland there, there are dairy barns there and there's foreshore land there. I'm sure UBC is going to figure out a way to give that resource to the local people, even while they carry on their research -- their real research -- somewhere else.
B. Barisoff: I would like to hear
Moving on to objective 3: "Introduce new initiatives to reduce accidents on farms and ranches, and reduce Workers Compensation Board rates for agriculture." This is one of the areas that
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. I talked to people, individuals personally and also representatives of the B.C. Cattlemen. Compensation rates are a big issue. As the hon. member knows, it's related to two things mainly. First is a regulatory change that used to wrap all of agriculture together and now separates them out by sector. The second is a high level of fatalities in the cattlemen sector. The cattlemen appealed to me on Ag Day that the fatalities should be removed from the arithmetic related to compensation rates and informed me that that is done elsewhere. It was the first I'd heard of it. I didn't realize that fatalities in other jurisdictions were not counted. But I just want to assure the hon. member that, like himself, I and the ministry are engaged in trying to drive the price down one way or the other. It is not simplistic, however, because different sectors in agriculture have different opinions about how those rates should be computed. I do not wish my actions to destabilize the excellent work that agriculture has done in recent years to bring the sectors together. I don't want to shatter them apart again.
[1930]
I just want to close by drawing the member's attention to the strategy. The objective is to lower rates, but the strategy is to do it by increasing the amount of safety that people bring to bear in their work. In other words, almost for sure, in order to
[ Page 15927 ]
make an insurance scheme work, the way to drive the price down is to drive down the costs of the program, which means to try to reduce accidents and fatalities.
B. Barisoff: I read the next line: "Support the efforts of the Agriculture Workforce Policy Board and the Ministry of Labour to develop worker safety initiatives." In theory, when you read that
I guess my concern is that when we have this compliance team going around, we don't get ourselves boxed in or going down a path that ultimately gets people kind of veering away from it or denying what's happening. I know that when you get people doing a good job
Hon. C. Evans: The labour group that the hon. member was referring to earlier
I agree with the hon. member that any safety rules and education that are brought in ought to be relatively benign. I'll put a piece of anecdotal information on the floor here. I was engaged in the logging industry when we brought in ROPS canopies in cats and skidders. All the people I worked for said that they would bankrupt the industry and that they should have a ten-year period to bring in ROPS canopies. I agreed with the employers, because, of course, I didn't want to lose my job. The Workers Compensation Board said: "No, actually, the cost of being an employer will go down if you provide the safety equipment, because then when the machinery rolls over, you won't die." And it came true. They brought in ROPS canopies, and the price of compensation went down for the industry.
I have a friend who lives five miles from my house who was driving her tractor and rolled her uncanopied tractor recently and is now on compensation with serious injuries. At some point we have to treat agriculture as a business, an insurable business, and try to drive down the number of accidents, which would be good for people and reduce the cost of being in business.
B. Barisoff: Coming from the equipment industry, I've always known cat machinery that had ROPS cabs on them. You always thank yourself for the protection that it gives you when you're doing it. But the other side of that coin is that if you're in the tree fruit industry, having a ROPS cab on a tractor going underneath the trees is a little impractical. I guess that's the side of it that I was trying to weigh out -- that there's pluses and minuses. Growing up in the tree fruit industry and in the industrial industry, I've worked on both, and when you're
Interjection.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to the next section: "Resolve issues around access to labour for hand-harvested crops." If I didn't mention this I would be in deep trouble. My local community is operating a pilot project to house seasonal workers in the Okanagan. I think that Mayor Larson in Oliver and I think it's the Rotary Club have done a fantastic job, along with the minister. See, I'm giving you a little bit of credit today for a job well done in providing a labour camp and a type of housing for the seasonal workers in the Okanagan.
I guess that part of it went along with the questions that I asked this morning about BCAL, where we talked about some of the seasonal workers who were camped in the creek beds and were not using this pilot project. I know for a fact that it is working extremely well. Maybe the minister could comment on whether anybody else has taken advantage of this project. I know it says a pilot project, and I would hope that there would be more pilot projects in the province.
[1935]
Hon. C. Evans: I agree with the member that what's going on in Oliver is a beacon. Perhaps hon. members will remember a few years ago when there was some real bad publicity in the Okanagan about some farm labour people from Quebec and some local people in the tourist season. It stirred up a lot of enmity, and the mayor and the council of Oliver and the chamber of commerce or the Rotary Club in Oliver and our ministry have created an alternative to talk about, which is excellent community relations between agricultural workers and the community.
The growers in Creston, I know, are trying to replicate the example by finding a site for a camp. It certainly makes my job easier, because when other communities ask about farm labour, I can point to the Oliver example and say: "We will help you to solve the problem if you just get some people together." And, of course, we can use the assets of Crown land and the like and assist.
Because of Mayor Larson's activities, we have appointed her to the Agriculture Workforce Policy Board, and we're hoping that other people will say: "Oh, look at that. She did something, so the government is giving her a position of responsibility." Then other people will want to imitate Oliver's successes. I join the member in celebrating what this community is doing. There was another situation in which this community got sort of a black eye in the media around some guy's Internet activities, and this just proves that they certainly didn't deserve the treatment they got by the urban media on that other issue.
B. Barisoff: Well, I must agree with the minister. You made an excellent choice when you picked Mayor Larson to be part of that workforce policy board, because she's definitely a doer. She'll definitely make things happen.
Moving on to risk management and minimizing financial risk to farmers from uncontrollable weather hazards and disasters. The whole-farm deliverer of the crop insurance and the whole-farm insurance and agricultural income disaster assistance and NISA and all of these programs
[ Page 15928 ]
programs of insurance when it came to the replant. His concerns were that he went through the replant program in planting, say, a five-acre block of cherries or whatever. The TPAP program worked very well now that it's reinstated and will work very well for the second and third year.
[1940]
His concern to me was that in the fourth and fifth years where, if he lost the crop or he would have the blossom, have everything going full well
Hon. C. Evans: We changed the rules around the way whole farm worked just this last year. It used to be a three-year average. Now you can pick three of the last five years. I think it should eliminate the high and the low. You eliminate the high end and the low end of the last five years, and that change may allow that producer to pick the three years most appropriate for him to call his average.
But I don't want to pretend that the situation the hon. member describes will ever be solved. One of the risks of replant is that you don't make enough money, so you're replanting. But just because you replant, we can't automatically say that you're kicked into a higher-income level. The gentleman the hon. member is describing will, by virtue of growing cherries in a replanted orchard, have such a higher level of income on average in future that his whole-farm claim will always be really healthy. We just can't guarantee that in the first three years of business, he can make an average income. There is that risk, and it is covered somewhat by virtue of the fact that we have greatly improved crop insurance. It will assist producers in that business to insure that third year, once they're past TPAP, against weather-related disasters.
B. Barisoff: While you were talking, a question that dawned on me was: if a farmer chose to take out, say, five acres of Red Delicious and he replanted, would he have an established amount of volume or return? Probably poundage would be better for that five acres. Then, in the third year, could he go back to the original portion of the apples that he had taken out to replant?
Hon. C. Evans: If I understand the question, I think the answer is no.
B. Barisoff: I expected that. I just thought it was worth something to throw out there to see what would happen. You never know; you might have said yes. Then you would have had a lot of happy farmers down there saying: "Yes, I've found a way."
Just moving on to objective 2: "Conclude a new national safety net agreement
[1945]
Hon. C. Evans: I don't want to answer the specifics at this time. The deputy is not here today, in part because she is attending a meeting of deputies from around the country trying to work out exactly how that money will be triggered. I expect that I will be at the next ministers' meeting still negotiating what programs the federal government will allow and what they won't allow.
I'll just say that my guess is that the bare minimum that we accomplished in the renegotiations is $8 million a year forever. But it may be considerably more than that.
B. Barisoff: Moving on to objective 3: "Introduce an agriculture environment enhancement fund to mitigate losses or compensate farmers and ranchers for costs associated with protecting the environment and supporting wildlife values." Could the minister make comment on that? I'm sure I have other members here who will want to make comment on that also.
Hon. C. Evans: We announced, I believe a week ago, a $1.5 million annual fund for agriculture environment enhancement to mitigate losses. We are just now in the process of working out internally and in discussions with the National Agriculture Environment Committee, the ten-point committee that I alluded to earlier, and with the wildlife committee of the Ag Council -- how we will roll out the program. So I can't give the specifics of it as yet.
The only other thing I'd like to say is that that's one of the things I'll be pushing for at the next federal-provincial meeting: to get the federal government to match this on a 60-40 basis. If we're successful there, then we'll be able to turn a $1.5 million initiative into a $4 million or $5 million initiative. That is my long-term desire. If it gets to that size, then we can begin to have some kind of crop damage program along the model of the insurance program against weather.
If the federal government refuses and if it stays a $1.5 million program, then my guess is that it will be in the main consumed with mitigation measures -- fencing and lure crops and steps that you would take to avoid damage. If the federal government comes onboard, then I think we can move towards a damages program also.
B. Barisoff: I just want to backtrack for a second. The minister mentioned the 60-40 split when we were talking about this national safety net program. The agreement with the federal government was that when this agreement comes into place, there is that 60-40 split. Is the 40 percent for the new national safety net program going to come from new money, from the Ministry of Agriculture, or is it going to come from the existing budget? Are there going to be additional funds added?
The minister indicated that there was a possibility of getting even more money. So if it happens to be $8 million coming from the federal government, is the 40 percent that's going to be added by the provincial government going to be new money added from outside -- from Treasury Board -- or is it going to be taken from the existing Agriculture budget?
[ Page 15929 ]
[1950]
Hon. C. Evans: No, it's not going to be new money; it's going to be new money. In other words, it all depends on how the hon. member defines the language. We received an increase in this year's budget over last year's budget, so it's new money. But that increase will allow us to provide our 40 percent of any number that the federal government comes up with to match. It's new money if you define that as year 2000 over 1999, but it's not new money if you mean that it will require a Treasury Board agreement of increased funding over this year's blue book.
B. Barisoff: I guess that was the question. A number of different people from the farming community were asking me that very question. What happens if the deal all fell through? It wasn't whether that money would still be part of the Agriculture budget because you weren't getting the other 60 percent from the federal government. So I guess there was a concern that if the federal government was prepared to kick into this new program, the provincial government might be willing to look at adding new money -- not new money but really new money; let's put it this way: additional money -- to go into the safety net program. But I'm sure that people reading Hansard can understand that it's not going to be new money.
Actually, I should check and see whether there are any other questions on the agriculture environment enhancement fund. I know that in our travels throughout the province with the select standing committee, that was one of the big issues all over the province -- whether it was in the Peace River, the Kootenays, over in Cranbrook or the Okanagan or wherever it was. The compensation for damage from predators or from
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it is my intention that, at minimum, it will be $1.5 million, that it will go on in future and that it will leverage additional money from the federal government -- which I can't commit to until we negotiate that with federal officials. If the hon. member wishes me to elaborate on what we might do with it, I don't mind putting on the record my favourite objective -- that is, the stockyard fencing initiative of the Peace River regional district.
The reason I say it's my favourite is because it's such an excellent example of the rod and gun club community, the regional district municipalities, the farm community, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture all working together to try to come up with a mitigation program to avoid losses. Although we haven't managed yet to fund their request, I'm working hard to find a way to make it work. I think we should reward regional government and producers themselves when they sit down and come up with a solution instead of just defining a problem. And they've really done that. I've been there, I think, three times to meet with them to try to get to a solution.
[1955]
Most recently, they've submitted a proposal which would have the regional district administer a program. Wouldn't that be wonderful, if the program to deal with wildlife was administered by local government and then work was done by the farming community themselves, and the provincial government participated to supply hardware? That just seemed like a great partnership. That would be an example of what I would hope this $1.5 million would accomplish.
J. Wilson: I'm glad he brought the issue of elk fencing here. I see that earlier in the performance plan there was mention made of a pilot project for elk farming -- or included in certain species. There were ostriches and emu and elk. Is there anything in progress at the moment to allow for elk farming?
Hon. C. Evans: Only in the discussion stage. We continue to try to work out that question with the Ministry of Environment.
J. Wilson: In my riding we have two elk farms. Some years ago the Minister of Environment dumped a few elk off on a rancher's place, and they have never left -- two different locations. They live there year round. In the wintertime they eat out of the stockyard. In the summertime they graze in the field. There's no season there, and the ministry won't do a thing about it. What would be the sensible thing to do with those two elk farms? It is a very serious issue to these two producers. I'd be willing to listen to any suggestions.
Hon. C. Evans: I think I would like to invite the hon. member to go on his own, or to join me on my next trip to the regional district in the Peace, and just sort of meet and network with the local people there. They had a similar situation
I bring it up because the first time I visited that regional district, the Ministry of Environment was pretty much in the same situation that the hon. member describes. But this year hunting regulations have been changed, so that when a rancher has a homesteading population which they cannot disperse by any other means, the Ministry of Environment, out of season, can issue special permits to people to come and hunt those elk. They have a list of people who apply for the opportunity. They're mostly people from the lower mainland who want to hunt elk and are willing to drive all that way to do it. It's completely managed by the Ministry of Environment, so there's no haywire people. There's nobody shooting cows. There's not a situation where there's more than one hunter but they will hunt the resident population. I would suggest that that might be a solution on those two ranches that the hon. member's talking about.
J. Wilson: Is this project limited to the Peace River area, or is it being looked at elsewhere in the province?
Hon. C. Evans: It's not limited by regulation. It's just the initiative of the local people where the hunters' community
[ Page 15930 ]
and the farmers and the Ministry of Environment are all working together. They've done it. That's why I would encourage the hon. member that he might be able to initiate the initiative in his area if he could get some people interested in looking at what's going on in the Peace.
J. Wilson: In this case, there is no open season on elk in the Cariboo. They're not considered to be a resident species. There is no hunting there; it's strictly enforced too. You cannot get a tag or a licence to kill an elk; they're protected. The Ministry of Environment seems very, very reluctant to do anything to address the problem. It is only two specific ranches that are involved, and they do not encroach on other lands. The public really has no interest there, because there is no season there. There's no opportunity to go out and shoot an elk, so they really have no concern. It's just two specific operators that are affected, and they are affected quite severely.
[2000]
If the minister would approach the Minister of Environment with the suggestion, perhaps he would make some headway. To this point I've had no luck, and the ranchers that are affected have had no luck. They've asked for this kind of thing to happen.
V. Roddick: This is a bit of a combination on the bird environmental situation. The Delta farming community -- well, virtually the community as a whole -- has supported greenhouses and the value-added commodity. With processors leaving in droves, the greenhouses have provided a new opportunity for Delta farmers. As in all business today, huge changes are taking place. Agriculture is no different. You mentioned earlier today about the number of computers in the agriculture business all the way through the province, all the way across the country.
But common sense needs to prevail here. We need to work together -- the Ministry of Ag, the municipality, the Pacific Flyway and the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust. With these greenhouses springing up and creating roadways, if you will, throughout these greenhouses, we can work together. The agricultural land is frozen; farmers don't want to give up that window of opportunity. Our Right to Farm Act, thanks to the minister, is truly supported by the business of agriculture. I would ask the minister to work with the greenhouse growers and work together with the municipality, the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, so that they understand the underlying theme of the Right to Farm Act -- a commonsense theme, if you will. We have the right to do business, but we will undertake to do business as thoughtfully and as neighbourly as possible. Will the minister undertake this commitment?
Hon. C. Evans: Well, yes. I guess I thought I had been doing that. But I hear through the question an undercurrent that maybe I haven't done enough to encourage the greenhouse producers to be constructive in their dialogue. If that's what the hon. member is suggesting, then I'd be happy to go back and try again. I thought that the ministry had been providing a comfortable buffer between the various interests. I thought we hadn't been bringing people along, and I had even thought that it was the municipality that was kind of intransigent. But if the hon. member thinks that I can do more to work with the greenhouse community, I'd be pleased to do so.
V. Roddick: Yes, I think that Delta South would appreciate that help. I think that your input would be welcome on behalf of the Delta farmers and of Delta per se. As well, if the greenhouse growers themselves could understand that they are offering a new opportunity for agriculture, but they are moving into a community
[2005]
B. Barisoff: In moving back into the compensation for farmers, I've got an article here in Country Life in B.C., "Farmers Want Compensation for Feeding Birds." I know we're not supposed to use props. I will show the minister this afterwards, because I know the Chair wouldn't allow me to be showing this across there. It's showing a dairy farmer, Clarence DeBoer, pointing out some of the devastation the wintering birds have left behind in his hay fields in east Delta. DeBoer says that birds' damage cost him and six other Delta farmers $317,000 last year. If I might read from the first part of this article: "Clarence DeBoer says his ten-year battle with the birds is changing his personality, and he threatens that if something isn't done to provide the compensation to him and other Delta farmers for bird damage done to their fields, they'll soon be forced out of farming." DeBoer is a dairy, feedlot and cranberry farmer, and he's in Delta, with 400 acres bordering Boundary Bay.
I will show the minister this picture, because it's a sad commentary on what's taking place in some of the fields. I think that along with the compensation that we were looking at, it's not only in other parts of British Columbia. It's in downtown Delta, where it's creating a problem. Like I said, I will get the minister a copy of this and move on. Or if the minister wants to comment on what's taking place there.
Hon. C. Evans: Briefly, I would recognize the work of the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust and all the good people who've been trying to solve this problem. What I find distressing
But we have to put on the record why this is happening. This a very difficult situation where people concerned about birds and people concerned about farming are trying to sort out the problems created by sticking three million people on a floodplain and then crowding all the birds into the farmland. This isn't a problem that was made by farmers. It's a problem that was made by Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey, Vancouver and Kitsilano, and all those people over there wanting to live where they live and then go out on Sunday and see the birds, which happen to be on somebody's land. So I kind of see it as a societal problem. Sure, I've got to try to solve it, and I've got to work with everybody to try to solve it. But the people who are creating the problem have to pay for it, and that's the citizens of British Columbia.
B. Barisoff: If I just might read one other section here. It says: "DeBoer's frustration with government agencies is matched only by his frustration with environmental groups who continue to lobby enthusiastically for more bird habitat, and who don't have the ways or means to pay for it, or for the
[ Page 15931 ]
crop damage that the birds leave behind." I'm sure Mr. DeBoer would wholeheartedly agree with what you just said. He's probably just one of a few farmers that are affected by this.
Moving on to objective 4, the gypsy moth issue. If the minister wouldn't mind, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head would like to talk on this when we get started tomorrow. She's away
Hon. C. Evans: What side is she on?
B. Barisoff: She's away right now. But I did promise her, because of the fact that she's part of my pod, that I would allow her the time to speak to the minister when we get started tomorrow morning.
Hon. C. Evans: That's fine. That's no problem.
B. Barisoff: That's no problem?
Moving on to the regulatory reform: "Reduce regulations that inhibit industry growth and the safety of workers
[2010]
Hon. C. Evans: The first point that the hon. member talks about -- "Conduct a review of food quality and safety responsibilities
B. Barisoff: Moving on to resource management, goal one is: "Maintain access to land and water in the agricultural land reserve for agricultural purposes." One thing that I think is really important here is the access to land and particularly water. I know that there's a lot of farming done outside of the agricultural land reserve, and I'm just wondering whether the minister would make comment that this resource management goal for access to land and water would hold true for people who are outside the ALR.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I would. But the reason it's written the way it is
The hon. member is asking if I would consider that it apply to agriculture whether or not it's on ALR land. Sure, in theory. But first, I think we really need to make the point
B. Barisoff: I think that the tie was if it was zoned for agriculture also, and you did mention that. A lot of land that's zoned for agriculture isn't necessarily in the agricultural land reserve, so it's actually both. We weren't making the tie to the agricultural land reserve as much as we were making it to the agricultural land reserve and land that was zoned for agriculture. In essence, on the land that's being used for agriculture, there's got to be access to the land and to the water. I think that's with the key strategies: implement the farm practices peer advisory program and support the municipal bylaw reviews. We talked a little bit about the municipal bylaw reviews when we talked about the implications in Delta. Could the minister make comment on implementing the farm practices peer advisory program?
[2015]
Hon. C. Evans: I'm not sure what the hon. member wants. I put my support for it on the record earlier, and I used the cattlemen as an example. There are peer advisory systems in place in other industries. Two that I can think of are tree fruits and dairy; I think there is in chickens. What we try to do
I'll use the example of dairy now, since there's a dairy producer here who can correct me if I'm wrong. An example, hon. member, would be: if it is the Ministry of Environment's desire to get the dairy industry to spread manure during a certain season or in certain soil conditions and it then finds a producer who persists in spreading manure in some other season, what the peer advisory group is supposed to do
R. Neufeld: I have just a couple of questions for the minister. They go a bit off topic but fit into the questions that the critic has been asking. The minister will know that I have had quite a few discussions with him over the bison issue and how we're going to resolve that. The frustration that I and people who want to farm bison in British Columbia feel is getting bigger and bigger. We've asked these questions of a number of ministers of Agriculture over the past number of years and don't seem to get anywhere, other than this pat answer that this is an issue that lies with the Ministry of Environment, that it's not an agricultural issue and that there are leases in place that take care of agricultural land -- but not bison because they're wildlife.
I think that at some point in time we have to start looking at expanding our boundaries a little bit in agriculture, specifically where I come from, or even from the Cariboo region where you could have bison quite easily. People do now, but only on private land, and they're contained to that private land. If there is only Crown land available around them, they
[ Page 15932 ]
cannot grow their operations, because the ministry just absolutely refuses (a) to sell them land, or else (b) to put them through the process of getting Crown land through the agricultural lease program, which means they have to bring it to seedbed condition before they can get title to the land. That's not what you need for bison; you need a little rougher land than that. You don't need something that's to seedbed for wheat or canola or barley.
The minister is well aware of it. I'm putting on the record just a bit of my frustration. I know that the minister is very aware of these issues and has had them brought to him by a number of different people. I think that I would like to know what the ministry is prepared to do to actually get this process moving, so that sometime in the future -- I don't know how many years it takes -- we can actually look at expanding bison farming in the province onto Crown land. What steps is the ministry actually taking today to facilitate that movement and that growth, which would actually add an awful lot of jobs, industry, money to the province of British Columbia if we were just to facilitate it?
[2020]
After all, in the country where I come from, you can stand on a tall tree and as far as you can see, it's Crown land. There's very little that's held privately. There is a ton of Crown land that should not be
Hon. C. Evans: The ministry is attempting to convince the Ministry of Environment that it's in our mutual interest to conduct a review of their policy relating to bison. I think the hon. member knows that, but since we're getting it on the record, it is my hope that
It's my hope that perhaps the addition of some tendering capacity with BCAL to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will help the Ministry of Environment to allow their position to evolve over time to one that would allow such a review. However, on the record, I should say that the hon. member is to be congratulated for his tenacity in bringing forward this issue on behalf of his constituents. I have, as yet, not come up with solutions that would allow people to lease Crown land for raising bison.
His second issue, which he articulated quite well to me some time ago, was the difficulty that some producers have with the agriculture lease provision that land be cleared. Where a lease was already in the hands of a producer who chose to use that land for grazing bison and fenced the land, it was felt that it should be allowed to be proved up on without having to grub and clear and burn and seed. I haven't managed to solve that problem yet either.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's work on this. I certainly don't want him to feel that I'm saying he's not doing enough. What I would like to know, so I can actually tell some of these people
This gentleman is quite willing to put down whatever the ministry wants -- I mean, within reason -- for the raw land and whatever trees that are on it. Whatever the ministry thinks the trees are worth -- charge him and he'll pay for it, put a fence around it and get on with farming bison. He wants to live in British Columbia. I tell you, you've got to respect a person who's got that tenacity to stay in the province of British Columbia for six years, just trying to buy two sections of land, in a part of the world where as far as you can see it's Crown land -- as if we were going to run out of it.
[2025]
In fact, I've got to get on the record that I hope
He absolutely astounded me. It almost seemed as though this group wanted to contain it -- "We can only have X amount of cattle, and we can only have X amount of bison" -- and they were afraid if there was going to be some growth in the province in that part of agriculture. It just blows me away that people know that, in doing that job, that they understand that. There are people out there who would actually go out and invest in cattle; go out and invest in bison, and create jobs and wealth for families in the province. But they're afraid to do it. I would say: "Bring them on." I would rather have them doing that in British Columbia, and specifically in my constituency. As I told the gentleman, if he didn't want them anyplace else in the province, we could have them up north. We'd be quite happy with that investment. We'd be quite happy with those families coming back from Alberta and investing in British Columbia -- buying bison and cattle, and doing it in my region of the province. And they should let it happen.
I would like, maybe, to get documentation from the minister, so I can take it back to this gentleman in Fort St. John, Mr. Clarke -- some documentation that actually shows that the ministries are sitting down together and actually starting to discuss these issues, and where they're at. Do they have a plan? In one year or five years from now
[ Page 15933 ]
To be honest, I don't think he's believing me anymore. As much as I send him Hansard once in a while, I think he's starting to wonder what is going on. But obviously there must be something. If there's a committee put together -- whatever it is -- some names, some addresses, someone else he can talk to or something we can do to show this gentlemen that, yes, if he continues with his patience -- keeps his chequebook in his pocket -- at some point in time he's actually going to be able to buy those two sections of land.
And that's what he wants: two sections of land and to increase his herd. One thing, just so the minister knows -- and he's aware of this, because the letter went to him and was copied to me from the Ministry of Environment -- one of their concerns was the excessive size of the proposed area. Two sections of land is excessive as far as someone at Environment is concerned. I can't believe it, but obviously it's someone that doesn't quite understand the amount of land you need to farm 300 or 400 head of bison. Maybe the minister could tell me, please.
Hon. C. Evans: Just before I answer the question, I want to reverse the process and ask a question.
A Voice: It's not allowed.
Hon. C. Evans: I know. The last time I tried this, a gentleman came running in here
Am I right that the real thing that the Ministry of Environment or BCAL is saying to Mr. Clarke is yes, that they might consider disposal of the land, but only if it was cleared in the old-fashioned home ranch regulatory regime? Or am I wrong, and they are saying they would not under any circumstances allow the land to be sold?
[2030]
R. Neufeld: I would be pleased to answer that question, and we won't have anybody running in here. They're busy in the other House.
Actually, as I understand it, the gentleman would have to get the land under the agricultural lease program and bring it to seedbed condition, purchase the land and actually get it in the farm's name, so it was privately held land. Then he could put bison on it, because he cannot put bison on Crown land -- only on privately held land. So to be able to buy that Crown land from the province, that's what he would have to do -- to bring it to seedbed condition, which is not necessary for the purposes of what he wants to do.
The three reasons that they gave were (1) that Crown land by tenure or direct sale is ineligible for game farming -- I guess that's the part that I just explained, (2) the excessive size of the proposed area, and (3) the concerns regarding wildlife impacts from Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Those are the issues around mixing of different breeds, but I think that's more of an excuse than reality. To be honest, I think it happens. Someone has got their back up someplace, and they're not going to give up until they retire. If it's a young person, we could be 20 or 30 years down the road. If it's an older person, maybe we get lucky and they'll retire soon. I'm not sure, but for some reason somebody is really holding this up.
Hon. C. Evans: We'll wrap this up by me saying that there is no process that I know of, so we will invent one. When these estimates are over in the next week or two, I'll invite the hon. member to my office. The CEO of BCAL and the Deputy of Agriculture and I and he will have a conversation, and he can communicate the outcome of that conversation to his constituent.
R. Neufeld: Thank you very much. I appreciate that very much. Hopefully, we can get on with it.
I have one other question, briefly, from my area. It has to do, again, with BCAL. I don't know whether the minister will be able to
A Voice: Aren't we going to do BCAL again in the morning?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we are.
R. Neufeld: Okay. Thank you. I'll do it tomorrow, as I understand from the minister that BCAL will be here, and we'll deal with it in the morning.
V. Roddick: There's been a great deal of press recently about proposed restrictions on the recreational and cosmetic use of what we in the agricultural trade call input products, including insecticides, pesticides, herbicides and -- dare I say -- rodenticides. We won't get into that one.
However, it is vital to the agricultural industry that it not be jeopardized by any proposed restrictions. The food-producing industry must be treated as a separate entity. The agricultural industry has a well-developed knowledge of integrated pest management for the responsible minimal use of all of these products. It would be gravely wrong to hamstring them with unnecessary, punitive restrictions aimed at recreational and cosmetic uses of these input products. I would like, on behalf of Delta South, to ask the minister: will he work with his provincial and federal environmental and agricultural counterparts to exempt farmers from any proposed restrictions?
[2035]
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. As the hon. member knows, we are engaged in that work all the time. I know of no initiative somewhere to extend the recreational or residential ban that the federal government is talking about to the food industry. So I don't know that the threat exists. In fact, I kind of think that what's happening federally is a good thing, because to me, it was a new idea that non-food producers would aim their guns at themselves for awhile instead of blaming farmers for the residual effect of chemicals in their environment. So sure, I give her our commitment that we will continue in future to do as we have done in the past, which is to try to make sure that the inputs the farmers need are available to them when they need them.
[ Page 15934 ]
V. Roddick: Thank you. I hope that you are right in that they will just concentrate on the recreational and the cosmetic. I fear that it will spill over, and that's why I want your commitment to keep on working for agriculture.
My next question: on page 31 of the Ag and Food performance plan, there is a reference to conducting reviews of food quality and safety responsibilities of B.C. producers. I would like to ask if the minister has commissioned, demanded or considered a similar study of strawberry growers in California, chicken growers in Arkansas, tomato farmers in Mexico or grape growers in Chile. Why, Mr. Chair? Who in our ministry is measuring and tracking the food quality and safety responsibilities of these direct competitors to our B.C. producers? Who in the federal department is?
R. Neufeld: We could send our committee down there. We could check it out.
Hon. C. Evans: On the record, I understand the hon. member is suggesting that we engage in a review of the competitive industries -- competitors to our own sectors -- where they work. I think that's a wonderful idea. I understand, on the record, that in the side talk to the table, there's some interest in having the standing committee do that work. I also think that's a wonderful idea. I'll endorse both of those ideas. I look forward to a report, and I might even ask to go along with the review -- physically, to go along with the review.
V. Roddick: A large part of the marketing strategy of the B.C. Minister of Agriculture is the Buy B.C. program. We are told that the government owns the trademark logo, and there are several restrictions on its usage. I have talked at length with the minister on this, and I'm hoping that you can help me on this, Mr. Minister. For example, farm supply companies are not allowed to display the Buy B.C. logo. Farmers who wish to proudly display it on their farm vehicles must fill out long forms and so simply don't bother -- another example of red tape strangling government initiatives. Will the minister commit to developing a more proactive marketing approach to the use of this logo, which, after all, is promoting the glory of his ministry?
[2040]
Hon. C. Evans: What can I say? The hon. member is right, but then she was right last year. She was right the year before, and she was right the year before that too. She was raising these issues with me from the day we met, when she was talking about them as a producer, not as a representative.
What the hon. member, before she was an hon. member, was trying to say was: "Why can't we put the Buy B.C. logo on farm equipment and stuff like that?" It is, as you know, on big trucks that deliver to the grocery store. I haven't managed to solve that problem yet, but the failure is only my own. The hon. member is to be commended for trying to get it so that you can put the Buy B.C. logo on your farm tractor or your delivery truck.
V. Roddick: I am looking forward to being able to put Buy B.C. out there proudly on everything.
The agriculture industry in B.C. needs to know what rules and what benchmarks are followed by the federal Department of Health -- Allan Rock's office -- when determining the so-called risk cup. Is the minister familiar with the term "risk cup," and does the minister have these rules in hand?
Hon. C. Evans: I'm advised that it's a protection device that Minister Rock uses when he plays hockey.
V. Roddick: I wish all problems were solved so easily, Mr. Minister.
When dealing with the local potato industry and use of Lorsban, the hockey helmet risk cup was referred to constantly. It became extremely apparent that this cup was filled with imports first, and then Canadian products are entered. So we can really get a number on this one. It goes on with the rodenticide. It is absolutely nuts, Mr. Chairman. We can both play at this game -- to subjugate our locally grown products, to import. If they have this so-called risk cups, our products should be entered first -- if the cup runneth over, so to speak.
Is the minister aware of this situation? Our local industry should not be denied input usage because of imported goods -- depending on what kind of goods, of course. Will the minister work with the federal government to change the configuration, and will he ensure that our locally produced Canadian goods are entered first? I will take a very serious answer for this one.
[2045]
Hon. C. Evans: I think I understand the question. The question is: if there's going to be such a thing as a cup, it should have Canadian stuff inside of it, not somebody else's stuff inside of it.
V. Roddick: Well, or Canadian stuff first.
Hon. C. Evans: Yeah, yeah, that's right, and not import players' -- right? Okay. Yeah, sure. I get it, and I will work towards the objective that the hon. member is talking about. Is that good enough?
I move we rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:46 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada