1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7199 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Events in China. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 7199

Mr. Harcourt

Employee Investment Act (Bill 32). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 7200

Oral Questions

New Westminster pool incident. Mr. Rose –– 7200

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Williams –– 7200

Mr. Harcourt

Japanese trip of Education minister. Ms. A. Hagen –– 7201

SAFER program changes. Ms. A. Hagen –– 7202

Supreme Court Act (Bill 23). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) ––

Mr. Sihota

Mr. B.R. Smith

Third reading

Court Rules Act (Bill 24). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. smith) ––

Mr. Lovick

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Small Claims Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) ––

Mr. B.R. Smith

Third reading Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 26). Committee stage

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 7208

Mr. Sihota

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 8: minister's office –– 7214

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

Mr. De Jong

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Jones

Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill PR404). Mr. Rabbitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7229

Appendix –– 7230

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID :

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the House today

Mr. Garrey Carruthers, the Governor of New Mexico. Governor Carruthers

is here with 123 New Mexico roadrunner amigos. They are goodwill

ambassadors representing the non-profit, non-partisan organization of

New Mexico. They are selected as distinguished civic, business,

industrial and professional leaders throughout New Mexico.

It's

certainly been my pleasure to spend a few minutes at lunch with the 123

amigos and see the enthusiasm and dedication that these people have

towards the product called New Mexico. The Governor tells me the second

choice they now have in the world is going to be British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, a proud guest: Gov. Garrey Carruthers.

MR. MILLER :

In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, a former colleague here

as an executive assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and now

an official with IWA Local 1-217. I would ask the House to welcome Mr.

Don Jantzen.

HON. J. JANSEN : Visiting Victoria and

in the precincts today is His Excellency Dr. Kurt Herndl, Ambassador of

Austria to Canada. He is here with his wife and Mr. Harwalik, who is

the Austrian trade commissioner from Vancouver. Would you please make

them welcome.

We also have three legislative interns here

from Oregon State. They have been here since Sunday and will be leaving

on Wednesday. They are accompanied by an academic adviser, Dr. Marko

Haggard. The three interns are: Roman Lupinek, Julie Jacobs and Eva

Seydel. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE :

There are 60 grade 7 students and eight adults from Cedar Drive

Elementary School, with Mr. Foulkes, their teacher. They arrived at 2

o'clock and the other half will be here at 2:30. Would you please

welcome them.

MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, all members in

this House are served in their constituencies by constituency

assistants. They all serve with dedication, they serve on the front

lines, and none of us could do without them. Today in your gallery are

Social Credit constituency assistants from all over this province.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT : Today I have a friend in from the great riding of Yale-Lillooet

and the little gem of Lillooet. Balwant Sanghera is a teacher and a coordinator

for the special services of School District 29, which is the Lillooet School

District. Bal also serves as an alderman on the village council and does an

extremely good job. I would like the House to give him a very warm welcome today.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I'm pleased to welcome to the House, and ask all members to join me in

welcoming, two visitors from Vancouver, Lynn Upton and Ed Kisling.

Ministerial Statement

EVENTS IN CHINA

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The Premier, who cannot be here today, has asked me to speak on an

issue of global importance. It is also an issue which deeply affects

many thousands of residents of British Columbia.

I'm sure

all of us in this chamber today shared the horror as we learned over

the weekend of events in Beijing, China. The violent deaths of many

hundreds of students in Tiananmen Square was shocking, horrible and

beyond the comprehension of those of us who believe in the rights of

individuals to express their desire for greater democracy without

threat of violent repudiation. The direct impact of events in Beijing

is many thousands of miles away. However, the indirect impact touches

many thousands of our Chinese British Columbians who still have both

cultural and family roots in China. There are also many students today

in our universities who feel the implications of the weekend much

deeper.

On behalf of the Premier and this Legislature, I

would like to convey our heartfelt condolences to the people in British

Columbia who may have had relatives or friends affected by the actions

to protest the actions of the government of China in the strongest

possible way and to ensure the safety of Canadian citizens still in

that country.

MR. HARCOURT : On behalf of the New

Democrat members of this Legislature, I would like to say that we

heartily concur with the statements made by the government House

Leader. The brutal murders that have occurred make a sad day for the

world community. These were students expressing their very strongly

held beliefs in the best tradition of peaceful protest. To have

students who were peaceably dissenting from their regime brutally

murdered is indeed a sad day for the world community. The students were

practising in the great tradition of Martin Luther King, of Gandhi.

as democrats, all of us in this Legislature, support that yearning for

democracy, for the very basic rights that we sometimes take for

granted: the right of free speech, the right to assemble, the right to

have freedom of the press, and freedom from corruption of government

officials. Those basic rights we can all agree with.

well, Mr. Speaker, we express our solidarity with and support for the

students who have come to study at our fine educational institutions

here in British Columbia. I think those students can see from

[ Page 7200 ]

the

members of our caucus and of this Legislature who have been there with

them that all British Columbians are democrats. Those very basic

concepts of justice and freedom — again, sometimes they don't seem real

until something like this happens — are real, and they will prevail.

MR. SPEAKER : The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the statements. I want to welcome

to the House, on behalf of all of us, a number of Chinese students from the

University of Victoria who are in the gallery today. I hope I pronounce their

names right: Xing Hua Pu, Shijian Chu, Shuguong Kang, Jinsong Liu, Zhihui Wang,

Ning Shi, Mr. Gao, Jim McNaught, Jie Chen, Jianxun Li and Mr. Li.

behalf of the House, I want to make it clear that they're welcome not

only here but also in British Columbia as long as they wish or need to

stay in our country.

[2:15]

Introduction of Bills

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Veitch presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Employee Investment Act.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The bill before you is a significant milestone on the road to a better

and brighter economy for British Columbia and for Canada as a whole.

This

bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various business,

employee and professional groups. Two central themes emerged from these

discussions: the need for more equity capital and improved

relationships between employer and employee.

The Employee

Investment Act is the combination of two separate initiatives. The

employee share ownership plan component will facilitate direct

investment by British Columbia employees in their employer's company.

The employee venture capital corporation component will allow British

Columbia employees to pool funds in order to invest in a variety of

British Columbia businesses. The incentive to individuals to invest

will be a provincial tax credit equal to 20 percent of the amount

invested, up to a maximum amount of $2,000.

The federal

government has also been asked to support the program, and we expect

their response, in the affirmative, to arrive shortly. In addition, for

both ESOPs and EVCCs, the province will share setup costs to ensure

professional advice is available to employees and employers alike.

Employee

participation in business ownership, which is a component of the act,

seeks to encourage and can also foster an atmosphere of improved labour

relations. Owning a share of an employer's company gives employees a

greater feeling that they and the company share common interests. This

increases motivation, commitment and loyalty to a common goal.

Labour-management conflicts can be reduced if managers and employees

come to see each other as partners rather than adversaries.

Bill

32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NEW WESTMINSTER POOL INCIDENT

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise with the Minister of Health a very

serious matter concerning public safety. I wonder if the Minister of

Health can explain why a resident of Coquitlam's Forensic Psychiatric

Institute, classified as criminally insane, was permitted to visit New

Westminster's Canada Games pool with no visible escort during a public

swimming session last Saturday.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the incident. I will take it on notice and get the information back to the member,

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, will the minister also investigate how it was that the

perpetrator of a vicious sexual attack on a young mother and her two

children a year ago or less was allowed to visit a facility frequented

by women and young children?

HON. MR. DUECK : What

the member opposite refers to are very serious allegations, and I

certainly don't take them lightly. I will certainly investigate, and I

will get back with a full report to him.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Crown Lands. We showed last week that a bid on the

Westwood lands from Westwood Plateau Development Corp. offered 50

percent profit-sharing and a base backup amount. Would the minister

confirm that offers were received that would have provided an even

bigger share of the profits?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Well,

first of all, let me say that there were 18 proposals –– 18 very

different proposals, 18 proposals that do vary in a large degree. All

of these proposals were well prepared; some of them were with

participation. But if you look at present-day values and at the risk

involved, you'll see that we did accept the best possible offer.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the minister confirm that there were at least two offers that indicated 75 percent profit-sharing?

[ Page 7201 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS : I'd like to ask the hon. member opposite: what about the losses?

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister confirms, then, that there were at least

two. Were there more than two, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Let me just repeat it. With the all-cash Wesbild offer — or proposal —

we have absolutely no risk after closing. BCEC or its successor will

not be reliant on the success of the development to receive its full

share. There will be no requirement for Crown Lands to set up any kind

of monitoring device. Newspaper articles that BCEC would receive $68

million plus a bonus are absolutely unfounded.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the minister table with the House all the offers and his present value analyses?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I would remind the member opposite.... I'm sure he doesn't need any

reminding, since he was in the planning department and so on. He's got

a history of development. I don't really have to remind him that those

proposals were paid for by the people who submitted bids and are the

property of the people who submitted the proposals.

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Minister of Crown Lands, who seems to have a

credibility problem on this issue. Doesn't the minister feel that his

government has an obligation to prove to British Columbians that he got

the best deal, by tabling in this House all the bids on Westwood?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

I guess there's a philosophical difference here, which is obvious. I

have to remind the House of what I said the other day. I'm hearing

mixed messages from over there, because basically, I believe, they

would like to see us in the development business. When I listened to

the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the Rafe Mair show — as I said the

other day, and I will repeat again today — he said that he'd make land

available to developers and let them solve the housing situation. So

again, I'm not sure what the problem is.

MR. HARCOURT :

We have the minister admitting that this is another Socred secret deal.

Doesn't the minister understand that the confidentiality requirement

imposed on those bids is inconsistent with open government as practised

everywhere else in this country and this world?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly resent the implication that there was

anything secretive about this whole proposal. The only thing that was

secretive, apparently, was the time from December 14, when we asked for

proposals, until the NDP finally found out about it on January 10 and

asked for a proposal package. We went out to the public; we advertised;

we sent out 70 packages. One, I might add, was free to the NDP caucus

for their research. We received 18 proposals back, and those proposals

are the property of the bidders.

MR. HARCOURT : Isn't

it true that the requirement isn't because you're respecting the

confidentiality of the bidders; the requirement is this government's

privatization plan, which requires that these be kept secret? It's not

the bidders; it's your plan for privatization.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Negative, negative. There is nothing secretive about this whole process

that we've gone through. We went out in public, we asked for proposals,

we got proposals. We are not a secretive government. It's totally

aboveboard and honest.

MR. WILLIAMS : Can the

Minister of Crown Lands advise the House of any other jurisdiction in

Canada which is selling 1,400 acres of highly valuable urban land for

which they would not table all the bids?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I know of no other jurisdiction that would reveal someone else's property.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, having these people manage the Crown lands of British Columbia is like having Dracula manage the blood bank.

JAPANESE TRIP OF EDUCATION MINISTER

MS. A. HAGEN :

I would like to welcome back to this House the Minister of Education,

who has been absent for a couple of weeks on a journey to Japan, a

journey about which there has been no public announcement. As my

welcoming question to the minister, I would like to ask him to advise

this House what public business he was conducting during the time he

was absent from this House.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : We

will be preparing a full report. I can assure the member that any

absences I have from this House are working absences. We were on an

education mission to Japan; we made many contacts. We responded to a

great deal of interest in locating schools and education in this

province, and I think the trip was well worthwhile.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I think I heard the minister say he made a great deal of progress in

locating schools for this province. Could he please clarify.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

If I could perhaps suggest that the member listen louder.... I said

that we had made a great deal of progress in acknowledging or finding

the interest in the Japanese people who want to locate schools, who

want to internationalize their education program, who want to work with

Japanese language teaching in British Columbia schools.

[ Page 7202 ]

MS. A. HAGEN : Is it the intent of the minister to privatize the offering of Japanese in the schools of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : No. We thought we might try and privatize some of the schools in Japan.

SAFER PROGRAM CHANGES

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. In the budget, the

government announced improvements to the SAFER program. Can the

Minister of Social Services and Housing explain why the ministry's own

seniors' counsellors were not provided with a full briefing on the

changes in the SAFER program during their recent annual workshop in

Kamloops?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I spoke to several of

the seniors' counsellors at their conference in Kamloops on that

subject, and they were told that they would have a full set of briefing

notes on the changes to the SAFER program. If they haven't already got

it, they will have very shortly.

MS. A. HAGEN : My

second question was to ask when they might expect that information. As

of Friday, no seniors' counsellor I've been able to locate in the

province has any information.

Let me ask the minister a new

question. The seniors' line in Victoria advises people who will now be

eligible for SAFER that they may expect an application on July 4 if

they call again. They're not taking any names. Is it the minister's

intention to pay interest on back payments to eligible seniors who

should be getting these dollars on July 1, since it will take at least

two months for his ministry to process those new applications?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I'm pleased to inform this member, this House and the people of British

Columbia that we have been able to expand on a marvellous program that

was brought in by this government many years ago — the Shelter Aid for

Elderly Renters program. We have expanded SAFER now to include everyone

60 years of age and over, so the scope has expanded to a tremendous

degree.

[2:30]

As I said to the member just a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, some of

these new programs, when you expand them as widely as we have, take

just a little bit of time to implement. I'm sure the people over 60

years of age in British Columbia will have just a little bit of

patience if it takes a few more days or a couple of weeks longer to

implement than that member thinks it should. Since the budget, many

more people are able to take advantage of the Shelter Aid for Elderly

Renters program.

MS. A. HAGEN : Given that 50

percent of the presently eligible population don't take advantage of

SAFER because they don't know about it.... The minister's habit of

hiding the program under a barrel is a discouraging one.

Could

the minister please advise why, at the same time he told us the age

limit would be lowered and that the ceiling would be raised, he failed

to advise us that there was a major change in how the benefits would be

paid, and why there is no public information at this stage about a

sliding scale of a quite different range of benefits than is presently

being offered? Why is that information being kept secret from the

people of the province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr.

Speaker, we're very proud of the SAFER program. It's one of the leading

programs in the country. When we can expand it to cover many more

people — we've lowered the age from 65 down to 60 — we're the last

people who want to keep it secret. In fact, I don't know of any seniors

who don't know about the program. If the member knows of some, then

would she please furnish us with some names, and we'll make sure we get

the information to them.

We're constantly reviewing the

program, making it better, changing it, and when we do implement

something like an expanded SAFER program, we try as diligently as

possible to make it as good as we possibly can. It is already the

finest program of its kind in the country, and it's getting better all

the time.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order relating back to the statements that the government House Leader

and I made earlier on the events that have occurred in China, I would

like to ask the House to stay the normal rules that apply to motions

and have us place our remarks in a stronger context. To that end, I

have put forward a proposal, which I think both sides of this House can

agree to, that expresses in strong terms our feelings on this matter.

The

motion would be that this House express its condemnation of the Chinese

authorities' massacre of unarmed students and civilians engaged in

peaceable assembly for greater democratic freedoms; further, that this

Canadian universities to extend their stay in our country until such

time as their personal safety can be assured; and that this assembly

recognize the freedom of Chinese students and Canadians to freely

assemble, speak and protest against the brutal action of the Chinese

authorities.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, one, of

course, could not argue with the thoughts of the Leader of the

Opposition. I think they were well conveyed in our opening statement,

government of China in the strongest possible way and to ensure the

safety of Canadians. I think it goes without saying that we all feel

very strongly about this. But we must also remember that international

relations are in the purview of the federal government. So I think it

is strong enough when both

[ Page 7203 ]

MR. SPEAKER :

I thank both hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition knows that

procedurally his motion is out of order, no matter how much merit there

may be to the case.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 23.

SUPREME COURT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have just a quick question here. The

interpretation of this is fairly

short. I'm just wondering what the reason for that was. The stuff that

you would see in the other Supreme Court Act definition of "action" and

"defendant" and so on is not in here. Perhaps the minister could

explain to me why that was done.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The language that the member refers to isn't used anywhere in the act,

so it isn't necessary for it to be in the definition section. But the

meaning of it is in the rules.

MR. SIHOTA : I have

another question. It may be better if I just raise it now in the

interpretation section, instead of raising it later on when we get to

section 12. I'm not too sure if it's within the rules for me to raise

it now.

I have no problem with the word "master" being in

the definition section. I'm wondering if the government had given

consideration to a more neutral term. "Master" certainly has male

connotations to it, and it would seem to me that in this day and age it

might be appropriate for the government to consider a different word to

describe that job. I am not asking for the minister to come up with a

word off the top of his head; something like "officer" had crossed my

mind. I don't know if that's even appropriate, because I know it's used

in some other connotations.

It seems to me that he would be

well guided to consider a different word for that function. I just

wonder what the minister's thoughts are on that and if he would be

prepared to look at some other wording while we go through this and

subsequent pieces of legislation.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, we looked at a whole host of names, not only in that

regard but in regard to the name of the court; there was some

suggestion that it ought to have a different name. We decided in

relation to "masters" that it is a term that is well understood in the

role and the history of our system. As well, it wouldn't import any

confusion in a constitutional or jurisdictional way, so it was decided

that it described the function that's going to be carried out in a

meaningful way and in a way that is understood.

MR. SIHOTA : Am I correct in assuming that the Attorney-General doesn't see it as a sexist term?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

You would have to explain to me how it is that kind of term. I'm

obviously not on the same wavelength as you are. Perhaps if you explain

to me why you think it is, I might....

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm not going to get into trying to educate the Attorney-General on the

floor of the House on this type of matter. It is a concern that has

come to my attention; I think it's appropriate. If the Attorney-General

doesn't consider it to be somewhat of a sexist term, that's fair

enough. We'll get on with it.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'd be happy if you could explain to me in what way you think it takes on that attribute.

MR. ROSE : Masculine term.

MR. SIHOTA :

The House Leader says it's a masculine term. Again, I don't want to get

into a protracted debate, because there's other business here, but it's

a point worthy of note. If the Attorney-General, to use a word someone

else used over the weekend, feels so enlightened as to think that that

be the case, that's fine, we'll just leave it at that.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The term is frequently used not in any gender way, but to describe

someone in charge. It's used in marine matters; it's used in other

matters. I don't quite follow why it imparts some other connotation.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 2.,

(

a) in subsection (2) by deleting the proposed paragraphs (

b) and (

c) and substituting the following:

(

b) an Associate Chief Justice, and

(c) 81 other judges.,

(

b) in the proposed subsection (4) by deleting "the Senior

Associate Chief Justice and", and

(

c) in the proposed subsection (5) by deleting "and both

of the Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "and the Associate

Chief Justice".]

On the amendment.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, you've not been recognizing me, and I want to just speak

on this section, because I wasn't here on second reading. I think that

this

section is correct in keeping the name

[ Page 7204 ]

Supreme

Court of British Columbia. There was a recommendation before the Hughes

commission to put a new name on this court, and various examples were

given of Queen's Bench and High Court and so on. I happen to be pleased

that the name Supreme Court of British Columbia has been kept. It's an

honourable and well-known name.

I also support the

expression "master." No more should we change that expression than

change the name of a noble golf tournament in Augusta. You'll forgive

me for departing on this issue, because you didn't recognize me on the

previous section.

What this

section will do in combining

the two courts is give people clarity that they are going to one

superior court, and not force people to argue that maybe they should be

in Supreme Court instead of the County Court. That clarity, I think, is

long overdue. But it must be remembered that there are already present

in the field all these judges. The judges are all there, the court is

decentralized, and County Court judges will now be called Supreme Court

judges.

I support this

section and support the retention of

the name and the new administrative procedures that are being set up to

run the merged court.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair apologizes for not recognizing the honourable member. It certainly wasn't intentional.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 3., by deleting "Associate Chief Justices"

and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 4.,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "and

Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "and the

Associate Chief Justice", and

(

b) by deleting the proposed subsection (2).]

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Section 5 is apparently to be deleted. We should vote this number down. Does the Attorney want to speak to this?

[2:45]

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would like to move this amendment and ask the House to amend it by deleting it, which means to vote "no."

MR. SIHOTA :

I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell us why he had to delete

this. I'm not sure why it was necessary in the first place, but why was

it deleted?

HON. S.D. SMITH : This

section appeared

in the predecessor legislation and was recommended to be placed in this

legislation by two former chief justices of this court. Subsequent

consultation with the members of that bench drew us to the conclusion

that it was indeed unnecessary, and I agreed to delete it.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Indeed it should be removed, because it's an unnecessary disciplinary

slap in the face which isn't required. You send people to Coventry

without sending them to conferences, and there's ample means for

someone running a court to ensure that upgrading and skills are

maintained without having a

section like this, which is unnecessarily

heavy-handed.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would just like to

place on the record that this

section has nothing to do with

disciplinary matters. In fact, it was placed in the former legislation

at the request of the court, because at one time it was not possible to

get reimbursed for expenses to go to conferences that were put on by

the judiciary without this enabling piece of legislation. It was

necessary to bring that in so that they could be reimbursed. I gather

that it is no longer needed because of the changes that have occurred.

Section 5 negatived.

section 6.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 6., by deleting "Senior Associate Chief Justice,

".]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 7., in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "within

12 weeks".]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved. Sections 8 to 11 inclusive

approved.

[ Page 7205 ]

section 12.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 12., by adding the following subsection:

(1.1) A master shall be a member in good standing of the Law

Society of British Columbia.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm not too sure if this is the time to raise it; there may be another

place in Bill 24 to do so, but because this

section is called

"vexatious proceedings...."

HON. S.D. SMITH : Speak up; I can't hear you.

MR. SIHOTA :

Sorry. I'm not too sure if this is the

section to raise it, Mr.

Chairman; it might be more appropriate to raise it in the context of

Bill 24 later on. I will raise it here, and if there is a problem with

it, I will try raising it later on.

There is a provision,

of course — if a person doesn't have adequate means to pay for costs —

which allows them to waive the costs. Rules for that haven't been

developed with any level of clarity, in my view. I am just wondering

why that matter was not dealt with other than — well, I'll ask it in

this legislation — in this type of section.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I am assuming the question is: why wasn't this issue dealt with by way

of costs, rather than this way? There are, I think, some people to whom

the question of costs really is moot, inasmuch as if they did bring

vexatious actions and proceedings, the cost would not be an impact.

There are instances in the court itself, as in consultation with

them.... They are desirous of this enabling authority, although I

suppose inherently they may have the jurisdiction.

There

are simply instances where they have found that people — very rarely, I

might add — bring copious numbers of actions which seem to have no

merit at all. They may have merit to the person bringing them but do

not appear to have merit to virtually anyone else and certainly not to

the courts This simply enables them to deal with those kinds of

circumstances, rather than to try and do it through costs, when costs

probably would have no impact -particularly if they are impecunious.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

In the interests of expediency, if members would indicate if they have

anything in any one of these sections — there are so many — the Chair

would be pleased to accommodate them.

Sections 20 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper,

[Section 49., in the proposed

section 4. (3) by deleting "Associate

Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

Sections 50 to 194 inclusive approved.

On proposed

section 194.1.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 194.1, by adding the following section: Social Service

Tax Act

194.1

Section 14. (1) of the Social Service Tax Act, R.S.B.C.

1979, c. 388, is amended by striking out "or a County Court".]

Section 194.1 approved.

Sections 195 to 222 inclusive approved,

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Peterson in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 23, Supreme Court Act, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 23, Supreme Court Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I call committee on Bill 24.

COURT RULES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 7206 ]

section 1.

MR. LOVICK :

I note that under

section 1, "Rules of Court," provision is made for

the establishment and payment of fees and allowances. I wanted to refer

specifically, under the aegis of that section, to the payment of

jurors. I raise this matter here because I couldn't, frankly, find

another place where I might raise it, and also because I've had a

number of questions brought to my attention from my constituency

concerning the rate of remuneration for jury duty. I know that the

standard explanation concerning why the rate has not been significantly

increased for a long period of time is that most collective agreements

make provision whereby individuals on jury duty can collect their wages

for the time required to do their public duty However, in cases where

individuals are self-employed, let us say, being appointed to a jury —

having the honour, if you like, of being called to jury duty —

constitutes an onerous burden indeed.

The "Access to

Justice" report that came down apparently makes no reference at all to

changing the rates of compensation to be paid. My question to the

Attorney is whether any thought has been given recently, or is

presently being given, to this whole question of improving compensation

and remuneration for jurors.

HON. S.D. SMITH : The

answer is yes, we are reviewing the compensation for jurors. You're

right that it is an honour. It is also a high responsibility of any

citizen to undertake duty as a juror.

It doesn't directly

apply to fees, but we are looking at the way in which the selection

process carries on; there's evidence of the same names coming up over

and over again, which poses a hardship on those individuals. It

obviously means that the selection process may not be as broadly rooted

as it ought to be.

MR. LOVICK : I appreciate that

answer. I'm wondering, however, whether the Attorney-General might be a

little more specific in terms of how long the review process might

take, and when we might have a recommendation.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

To be frank with you, I can't be overly specific. But it will take

place over this summer, as we're doing the implementation of what is

being passed here.

[3:00]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I have a good deal of reservation about

section 2, and I hope that

justice officials will be slow to proclaim it. While it's well

motivated in trying to have an expeditious and inexpensive system for

dealing with claims under $20,000, the creation of an economic

litigation program may be largely for the benefit of underutilized

practitioners, instead of for the benefit of people who should have

access to decision-making tribunals for matters that don't involve

large sums of money. Had small claims been expanded further in

jurisdiction, together with some resources, I think it would have been

a better approach than economic litigation.

But at least

it's to be done by rules and by proclamation, and there is time in the

scheme of the act to see what kind of format can be proposed. It could

work with a great deal of cooperation, but it's going to require

cooperation by the bar. There has to be a forum where people can get

into court on these minor matters without being harassed by legal

argument and battered by expenses.

This may not be the

route. I think an expanded people's court was a better route, but since

it's in here, I hope there will be caution in the proclamation and a

great deal of care in the rules before the experiment is embarked on.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The implementation committee that has been assisting this process is

comprised of members of the bench and the bar, as well as the CBA and

the Law Society. The rules committee has been doing a very good job and

has moved some ways forward in developing the rules that will assist

the implementation of this.

The small-claims jurisdiction

was moved up a couple of years ago from $2,000 to $3,000. At that time

there was some concern expressed about the possible constitutional

limits, and that is why it did not go to $5,000 at that time. We will

review the limitations in the small-claims jurisdiction over the next

couple of years. We don't want to move rapidly, because we don't want

to change the character of the court. There is, in fact, an access

problem for individuals in this monetary amount. It is something that

properly should be addressed, and this program will go some distance in

addressing it. I strongly support it and its early implementation.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Indeed, it was not constitutional arguments that stopped the expansion

of jurisdiction; it was waiting for the conclusion of the Justice

Reform Committee that held it up. The intention a year ago was to

greatly expand small-claims jurisdiction into a people's court, but to

do that in the face of an inquiry around the province did not seem

appropriate in terms of timing.

Again I say — haste or no

haste — the experiment has to be carefully monitored to ensure that

it's for the benefit of litigants who need ready, inexpensive access

and a simplified procedure. That's going to be the test of the bar, if

that can work. I hope it can.

I still think small-claims

expansion is going to be required and is going to be a better route.

I'll speak briefly on that when we get to the Small Claim Act.

MR. SIHOTA : This

section is a concept that I like. I said that in second reading debate on this piece of legislation.

[ Page 7207 ]

think the Attorney-General is correct that there are a number of cases

whose monetary amounts are around $20,000 and that simply don't get

heard. It's not economical from a cost-benefit point of view for a lot

of people to take them to court. The provision of expeditious rules

will try to keep those court costs down and make it a better

cost-benefit decision on the part of people who take it to court.

Secondly,

it may encourage some people to do it alone. Although that argument

applies as well for small claims, I'm not convinced that people with

$15,000 or $20,000 worth of litigation are going to want to do it

alone. Nor do I think that in a lot of personal injury cases, where the

amount is below $20,000, will economical litigation be looked at as an

appropriate route. I can't see the insurance corporation wanting to

forgo some of the discovery processes; nor do I look at plaintiffs'

counsel wanting to forgo some of the benefits of the mechanisms that

exist now. So in principle I really like what has been recommended here

in terms of economical litigation.

There is one very

serious problem with what's being proposed here in

section 2 of Bill

24. As I said at the outset, it's in many ways a fairly significant —

some would call it almost radical — change in the way we dispense

justice, at least for monetary amounts of $20,000 or less. Everything

in this legislation is deemed to be made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who will then make the rules, and off

we go. I would have preferred some other process which would have

allowed us to consider these matters in this chamber before the

implementation of rules and before the imposition of those rules on the

bar. In other words, leave it up to the consultative process that I'm

sure the Attorney-General has with all members of the bar, draft a set

of rules and bring them to the House in the form of separate

legislation, known as economical litigation legislation, and allow us

to go through the process that we do here to canvass the pros and cons

of what's being proposed and whether or not it can achieve the goal

that the Attorney-General, and all of us, would like to see in this

regard.

As I said during second reading, it's going to

require some very careful drafting of the rules to make it worth one's

while to engage in economical litigation and to bypass the traditional

protections and opportunities that people have with respect to

litigation right now. I really do regret that it is going to be done by

order-in-council and not come before the House for appropriate debate.

We're not just making technical rules when we talk about economical

litigation; we're really changing the way we dispense justice in this

jurisdictional amount. I thought it would have been far more

appropriate if it had been dealt with that way rather than through the

regulatory process as envisioned here in

section 2. That's my only real

reservation: one of process,

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm really functioning from memory here, on rules for money in court. I

believe — and I stand to be corrected on this — that the previous

legislation allowed for money in court to be developed in consultation

with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That doesn't appear to be

here. As I say, I'm functioning from memory, and I could even be wrong

in what I'm saying. Could the Attorney-General just clarify, first of

all, whether I'm right in my recollection; and, if so, explain why we

have gone this route as opposed to that?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I'll have it checked, but it's my recollection that this comes right out of the former act, as is.

Mr. Chairman, maybe we could go on to the next ones, and I could get the answer to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Yes, if everybody is in agreement we'll stand this down and proceed.

section 4.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to say I'm very pleased to see this

section in there. I know

it's going to give fits to some lawyers who are involved in commercial

matters, but I think it's an appropriate role and one that's welcome

and overdue. I think the government must be applauded for having come

through with this provision.

Section 4 approved.

section 3.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Section 3 is virtually identical. There's a little plain language

initiative going on there. I see "keeping of accounts for money in

court" used to be "keeping of books of account for money in court." But

that seems to be the only change to this section.

Section 3 approved.

Sections 5 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report completion of the bill without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 24, Court Rules Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 25.

[ Page 7208 ]

SMALL CLAIMS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a great improvement over what we had before,

in terms of both scheme and language. There is even a shred of purpose

in the bill. Rarely in legislation do you have language such as

"proceedings concluded in a just, speedy, inexpensive and simple

manner." I hope that language will act as a guide and will be the

governing factor that Provincial Court judges sitting in small claims

court will follow when they come to deal with the litigants before them.

Again,

very much will depend on the rules that are drafted under the Court

Rules Act. Those rules have to be kept very simple and understandable,

so that it doesn't require a litigation department to tell you what

they mean. It's got to be possible for people actually to get into this

court; it's got to become a people's court. It's not going to become a

people's court unless we have some really good, streamlined, workable,

simple rules.

It would have been better to have extended

the jurisdiction of this court to $10,000, something that could have

been done constitutionally, I believe, with the abolition of the County

Court. When the province of Quebec eliminated its County Court and

merged it with the Supreme Court many years ago, it then extended the

jurisdiction of its provincial civil court considerably beyond the

bounds of any other province. I think that would be upheld by the

courts. I believe that the jurisdiction of this court will have to be

increased in the years ahead, and it probably should go to $10,000.

may well be that if we're going to make it a true people's court, we’re

going to have to look, in urban centres where's there's heavy volume of

civil court work, at having available some kind of civil court

counsellors to help laymen find their way through these proceedings. I

don't think that would have to be an extensive bureaucracy, but it

would be of assistance. Right now organizations like the People's Law

School and others do a great job of providing guides to people for how

to go through these sorts of proceedings. But if the rules are done

properly and do not simply become some kind of permutation of the old

"white book, " requiring a great deal of legal background to

understand, then we may actually be able to truly move people through a

people's court.

Sections 2 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 17., by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting

the following:

(2) In accordance with the directions of the Chief Judge, a registrar

of the Provincial Court may give a direction respecting the practice or procedure

to be followed by the parties in a proceeding under this Act or the rules.]

[3:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 19., by deleting the proposed subsection (4) and substituting

the following:

(4) The Provincial Court shall not order that one party in a

proceeding under this Act or the rules pay counsel or solicitor's fees to

another party to the proceeding.]

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 46 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Small Claims Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. S.D. SMITH : Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Small Claims Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 26.

JUSTICE REFORM STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7209 ]

section 7.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 7 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 7., in the proposed

section 4.(3) by deleting "Associate

Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 8 standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 8., in the proposed

section 18.(1.1) by adding at the

end "and the justice may make any other order to preserve the rights of

the parties pending further proceedings".]

On the amendment.

MR. SIHOTA : Maybe the Attorney-General can explain here what the effect of the amendment is.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

This enables the Court of Appeal to stay an order where there is an

action required or to take any other proceedings that they might

consider to be appropriate when there is a pending appeal to the

Supreme Court of Canada; in other words, to preserve the position of

the parties if the matter is then going to be appealed.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. SIHOTA :

I just think it's a good

section and I think it's peculiar that we

didn't have this kind of provision in here before. Having practised in

front of tribunals, I think it is very appropriate.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm just wondering what the thinking is here. I can appreciate that —

if I understand the

section correctly — 24 hours before a report is to

be given would always invite an application for an adjournment, but 30

days before a report is to be given seems to me to be quite a lengthy

period of time. I am just wondering what the considerations were in

arriving at 30 days. It would, in some ways, I guess, force people to

wait a little bit longer than one would think necessary for these types

of matters in terms of investigative reports of family matters. I'm

wondering what the consideration was to arrive at 30 days. What was

that based on?

HON. S.D. SMITH : The report of the

Justice Reform Committee actually recommended a substantially longer

time, so this was a compromise — for all of the reasons that the member

articulated. It was considered that this was sufficiently long, not to

provide an opportunity for there to be settlement but it wouldn't

provide the kind of onerous activity that takes place — adjournments

and so on that you are talking about — with 24 hours. It was simply a

compromise off the 60-day proposal. It was a compromise brought about

by all the people involved in the implementation group — the courts and

the bar and particularly the family bar. Their collective wisdom was

that that period of time, on balance, was about the right amount.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm surprised at that. I must confess, I didn't do a lot of family

work, but I have to say that 30 days seems to me still rather long

under the circumstances. We are taking about some fairly critical

matters here and my attitude is: let's get on with it and deal with

these types of matters fairly quickly. I just think that 30 days is too

long. I can't see why you would have set anything longer than 15 days,

and then force the parties to get their reports in, and everyone knows

where they stand, and litigate the thing if it's going to get

litigated. If it's 30 days, people are going to talk serious on days

27, 28 and 29. If it's 15, they might talk serious on days 13 and 14

and force resolution on some of these situations or at least expedite

litigation of it.

I guess I say that for the record,

because I'm sure the Attorney-General — after his consultative process

— is not going to be open to an amendment. But I really do think that

30 days is still too much when you're looking at the types of issues

that are at stake here. I would have liked to have seen that period

halved. Certainly 24 hours doesn't make any sense, but 30 days, I

think, is still too far along the spectrum towards the other side of

this.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to endorse

section 17. It's very proper that this type of

injunctive remedy exists and be provided for. Again, I have limited

experience with family matters, but certainly in dealing with property

and family matters these types of orders are always handy. On the cases

I have dealt with, I would have liked to have had this type of remedy.

It's overdue and welcome.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. SIHOTA : Again, on a positive vein, I think this is a good section. It will be very interesting to see

[ Page 7210 ]

how

this one works out over time and to monitor its

interpretation,

particularly as it relates to the usage of "grossly unfair" together

with the extent of leeway the court gives in terms of the applicant's

explanation. I think it's a good section, and hopefully the courts have

gotten the message with respect to cancellation or reduction of arrears

and how that ought not to be done as lightly as it has been in the

past. By escalating the test, maybe the message will now be clear to

the courts that this is not something that we would like to see as a

Legislature go on in the fashion that it has in the past. I think,

again, the government should be commended for bringing forward this

section.

Sections 18 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm beginning to sound repetitious. Everyone will believe I agree with

the Attorney-General on a lot of these matters, and it's true. Again, I

think this

section is long overdue. I'm certainly glad to see this is

here now.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

MR. SIHOTA :

Again, I think this is a good drafting in terms of this

section and the

articulation of the rules in subsection 71.1(2). The provision in

71.1(3) that deals with the agreement and, I believe, with the matters

of hourly rates is welcome to the consumer of legal services. First of

all, I like the way this is drafted. I'm glad to see it's included. It

opens it up to an area of review that to date has been not open and

should be. People hold themselves out to be specialized in particular

areas, not being as skilled as people have been led to believe and,

hence, it allows for some variation of the hourly rate. I think this

section is commendable.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I would

like at this juncture to point out that this

section is in this bill

with the active participation and consultative concurrence of the Law

Society of British Columbia. I say that because frequently I think it

is the case that there is a kind of cynical view of what lawyers charge

and how they charge it.

I would like to commend the

profession for putting this kind of review process with the goalposts

for review embedded in a piece of legislation and to invite other

professions in this province — accountants, engineers, architects and

physicians to the extent that they provide billable services outside

the medical plan, such as medical-legal reports, and all other

professionals — to incorporate within their own processes an

independent review procedure that sets out in advance what the

goalposts for review are. This is good, progressive stuff, and other

professions ought to stand up to the plate and emulate it.

Sections 26 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. SIHOTA :

Unlike the other sections, I don't think it comes as a big surprise to

the Attorney-General that I'm not enamoured with what's being proposed

here, contingent-fee agreements. Let's make it very clear off the top

that this is an area where I practise and have practised a lot. In

fact, basically the entirety of my practice is personal injury

litigation, and contingency-fee arrangements with clients are par for

the course. I want to put that right up front so people know what my

feelings are or what my biases may be.

[3:30]

Having said that, I don't understand why we have to move into an

area of regulation that. ... The old adage is that if it isn't broken,

don't try to fix it. There are very few, if any, complaints to the Law

Society with respect to contingency-fee arrangements. On the whole, I

think the public is well served by those arrangements. The public has

protections now, and we're all told that we must bring to the

consumer's attention the protections that exist for them now with

respect to review of these types of agreements.

I don't

think that a

section should be injected into legislation that will

allow for the benchers to make rules on contingency agreements, because

there is no problem there. I understand that it is a permissive

section, but I also understand that some dialogue is already ongoing

with respect to the Law Society drafting appropriate rules that are not

that far away from what is in the Hughes report.

I just

think that that's unfortunate. It's not necessary. The record very

clearly indicates that it's not necessary. I know that the former Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court made some comments with respect to the

amount of income that lawyers can earn, but I think it's oblivious to

the fact that they're open to review. The grass always looks greener on

the other side. Until people actually begin to realize how much work is

involved on what may appear on the face of it to be a rather routine

personal injury claim, it's very easy to be critical.

The

arrangements work very, very well. I just don't see any reason

whatsoever to intrude. I'm very annoyed that this provision is injected

into this legislation. It is simply not necessary. The Attorney-General

had representations along those lines — I've seen those representations

— and obviously there has been some type of compromise to reflect it

this way. There isn't a problem there, and I would defy anybody to

produce statistics that would show that it's a problem. As I said at

the outset, I've done a lot of work in this area and not once have I

had a client come back to me. I've had clients come back to me on other

areas and complain, but not once have I had a client come back and

complain about work performed under these types of arrangements where

there's a percentage arrangement between a lawyer and counsel. I've had

a lot of people come to me from

[ Page 7211 ]

other

counsel, and never have I seen a contingency fee or percentage

agreement that has been out of the norm. Most counsel know what the

market will bear and operate within those parameters.

It's

therefore unnecessary for this

section to be in, and although I can

commend other provisions, I simple can't commend this one from being

introduced in the justice reform package.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

My concern here is that we have a provision that enables the Law

Society.... The Law Society, after all, is charged with the

responsibility to regulate the legal profession, and I believe they

should. This is enabling them to do just that. The benchers have agreed

with this provision that it be here so that they can do what it is

they're preparing, which is something that has been a debate for them

for some time, since the Bert Schmitt committee report a number of

years ago which addressed the same problem.

There are very

few problems. Where there are problems is the size of contingent

arrangements in some very large sums where liability is not

particularly, if at all, at issue. This simply provides a mechanism for

the Law Society to deal with matters which are anomalous, and which

always get referred to — and cause concern and difficulty for — the

rest of the overwhelming number of members of the profession including,

I dare say, the member opposite from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, who

conducts himself in a way that doesn't give rise to those problems.

think the Law Society is doing the right thing in providing the rules

they need to deal with issues, and this enabling legislation is

appropriate to give them that authority.

MR. SIHOTA : The Law Society may be doing it because it may not have any choice.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, I don't think they have any other effective choice. The word is

out that either they do it themselves by way of regulation, or it will

be done to them by way of enactment, and that really isn't much of a

choice.

Obviously there are lots of cases where liability

is not at issue, and you're simply dealing with the medical aspects of

an injury. In fact, I would say the vast majority of cases that I have

done on a contingency basis are along those lines. Very few of them are

million dollar cases, and I think the assumption that underlies all

this is that there are a lot of those cases around. That is simply not

true.

Because of some concern that would assume that there

are more million dollar cases around than there really are, we now have

to introduce rules that are going to be imposed upon all the people who

practise in this area, or who practise by way of contingency

agreements. You've got very few — if any — problems; you've got very

few cases that fall into the range that the Attorney-General and the

former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was thinking of, yet we have

rules that are going to apply to everybody.

I just don't

think that's the way you operate. If you've got a problem with those

few cases where there is a large award, then you may want to deal with

that. But the rules, as I understand them as they are being drafted, go

well beyond that and talk about compensation — $100,000 and then up —

and a sliding scale that works as you go from there.

don't think there is any need to regulate those lower-end cases. If you

want to regulate on the upper end, I might have a different attitude

about that. Even then, I don't like it, because the consumer has

protection. The individual who signs a 40 percent — if there is such a

thing — contingency fee agreement on a million dollar case has an

option to have that agreement reviewed. It can be held that the

agreement is not binding.

In fact, we just passed some

rules that would allow a greater examination of those types of

agreements. Those agreements don't exist — not to my knowledge. But

there is an image and a perception that they exist. The

Attorney-General is right: most people who practise in this area and in

this profession do it honourably and provide a very good service, and

they are prepared to have their service reviewed and to account for the

actions that they have taken. That's all that's necessary.

But

the imposition, because of a perception of a few cases involving

inordinately high awards, does not warrant rules imposed upon

everybody. It's a mistake, and it's not going to go over well — nor has

it gone over well — with the people who practise in the area. Everybody

knows that at the end of the day the buck stops here in the Legislature

with the Attorney-General. You know where all the numbers are, so it's

a fait accompli as to whether this

section should pass.

think you're wrong; it's unnecessary and it's peculiar. Here I am

arguing to let the market decide on this one, but it has worked very

well. If it hadn't, I'd be the first person — in terms of some of the

other positions I've taken on consumer-related issues — to stand up and

say: "Yes, this is an area that needs regulation." This is not an area

where the consumer in any way has been victimized. I think that the

bullet that you've bitten on this one is the wrong bullet to bite.

Sections 33 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

MR. SIHOTA :

This provision establishes an adjudicator, who is akin to — or now

replaces — a Provincial Court judge. First of all, am I correct in that

assumption?

HON. S.D. SMITH : This provision is one

which we've had operating experimentally for about ten years in the

city of Kamloops. What will be called the adjudicator has been called a

sitting justice of the peace. It provides another vehicle, a relatively

inex-

[ Page 7212 ]

pensive

vehicle, a very expeditious way in which municipal bylaws — and some

traffic ones, for that matter — can be heard. They're very flexible in

terms of the sitting times and locations. They frequently sit in the

chambers of the municipal hall and so on. It's a very good and sound

way of doing it. I know municipalities in the Okanagan were also

interested in getting this.

So the general answer to your question is yes.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have no problem with what's being suggested here. It expedites the

matter and allows people to deal with the situation. There are some

pros and cons with all of this ticketing stuff that appears here.

I'm

sure you've taken this into consideration, but it seems to me you might

have some difficulty in terms of someone challenging the ability of an

adjudicator to make the types of determinations which, as I understand

from previous sections, will be made by these people. I guess that's

always a risk, but I certainly see that risk here, perhaps more than in

other sections. I guess we'll wait to see whether or not the government

finds itself being litigated on the powers and appointment of these

people.

HON. S.D. SMITH : As I say, we've had this in

the province for ten years now, and it's worked successfully. To my

knowledge it hasn't been challenged, but I dare say that in this

post-Charter era in Canada, when one legislates one simply knows that

any piece of legislation may be challenged, and doubtless at some point

it will.

Sections 40 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 48.,

(

a) in the proposed

section 2.(2) by deleting paragraphs (

b) and (

c) and substituting the following: (

b) an Associate Chief Justice, and

(c) 36 other judges. , and,

(

b) in the proposed

section 2.(2.1) by deleting "the Senior

Associate Chief Justice and", and

(

c) in the proposed

section 2.(2.2.) by deleting "both

of the Associate Chief Justices" and substituting "the Associate Chief Justice".]

Amendment approved.

Section 48 as amended approved.

section 49.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 49.,

(

a) in the proposed

section 4.(1) by deleting "Associate

Chief Justices" and substituting "Associate Chief Justice",

and

(

b) by deleting the proposed

section 4.(2).]

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

section 50.

HON. S.D. SMITH : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 50., in the proposed

section 15. by adding the following

subsection:

(1.1) A master shall be a member in good standing of the Law

Society of British Columbia.]

Amendment approved.

Section 50 as amended approved.

Sections 51 and 52 approved.

section 53.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm really having some difficulty with this one. First of all, can the

Attorney-General generally describe the scheme to me? Am I correct that

you're simply going to be paying a 15 percent surcharge on top of a

fine that exists now under the Offence Act? Is that basically how it

works for provincially regulated matters?

[3:45]

HON. S.D. SMITH : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA : This would be on all offences with the exception of offences committed by young people?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

It's only acts that are prescribed enactments of the province. Any

federal enactment such as the Young Offenders Act would not be included.

MR. SIHOTA :

I understand that. I'm saying that if you're a young person as defined

in the Young Offenders Act, then you don't have to pay a fine. Am I

correct on that understanding of it?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

As I understand it, if you're covered by the Young Offenders Act. But

there are also other acts of Canada where this would not apply.

MR. SIHOTA :

We'll try again.

Section 11(2) says: "Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not

apply to a young person as defined in the Young Offenders (British

Columbia) Act." Does that mean that if you're 17, for example, and

you're hit with a provincial offence, you don't pay the surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Yes. For anyone under that Young Offenders Act of ours, where it

applies — and I believe it applies virtually universally — that would

be the case. There may be some instances where it doesn't apply, but

off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

[ Page 7213 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm just trying to understand the scheme generally. I guess my concern

here is that people who simply can't afford to pay fines in the first

place are going to have to pay a surcharge on top of the fine. Is there

any leeway in the legislation that would allow an individual, because

of financial circumstances, not to pay that surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The question of their ability to pay the fine — and the surcharge, for

that matter — would be raised at the time of sentencing. Beyond that,

once the fine has been levied, the surcharge for victims will apply.

MR. SIHOTA :

Let me clarify that: the ability to pay a fine is something a judge may

or may not consider, but once having determined the ability to pay a

fine, the judge has no discretion as to the ability to pay a surcharge.

Is that correct?

HON. S.D. SMITH : That's right. The

judge's discretion rests with respect to the fine. If he or she orders

the fine, then it will be known to them that the fine will be

surcharged by the amount prescribed.

MR. SIHOTA : I

know I'm jumping to the next section, but it talks about amending

section 15 by adding "not exceeding 15 percent." I take it then that a

judge can't say the fine would be 10 percent or 0 percent as opposed to

15 percent. Once that number is arrived at, that's the amount of the

surcharge?

HON. S.D. SMITH : That's right. The

judge's discretion will rest with the amount of the fine. If the judge

wants to exercise that discretion in the sentencing submission, then

presumably he would make a decision about the size of the fine itself.

Once the judge determines the size of the fine, the surcharge would

apply across the board. If it's a $100 fine, it's a $15 surcharge. If

it's a $50 fine, it's a $7.50 surcharge.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't know how many people end up in jail simply because they can't

pay fines. The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) probably knows better

than I do. You see statistics quoted all the time I'm not mindful of

statistics as they apply to British Columbia. I've seen statistics as

they apply to some of the prairie provinces. I don't know if they

extrapolate in B.C. or not.

I don't think anybody can or

would dare to argue against where the money is intended to go; it's

just the way in which the money is being raised. I think there should

be some ability on the part of courts to direct that the surcharge not

be applied. I guess what the Attorney-General is indirectly telling the

courts is to consider the surcharge when considering the fine — to make

your determination on the basis of that.

I have no idea

whether imposing a surcharge on top of a fine is going to throw more

people over the threshold level and into prison simply because they

can't pay. I don't know what the numbers look like in that regard. I

also have some philosophical considerations that make it difficult for

me to support provision where the fine is going to be automatic. There

are some practical considerations, I guess, in terms of the incentive

now provided to people to make sure there are more prosecutions and,

hence, more money into the fund.

I'm just not comfortable

with what is being proposed here. I think there are other ways to

achieve the goal, and there are other ways in which to raise money.

I've long advocated the establishment of legislation that would allow

the province to attach to funds in bank accounts that are procured by

the drug trade, for example, and to put those funds into a victims'

rights and services type of fund. That's something I think is remiss at

the provincial level, and something we should actually have established

in this province some time ago. That might be a way to provide the

funding necessary for the type of program envisioned here which is

preferable to a surcharge program. I don't know what the province

intends, and I guess it's not for me to ask in this venue what your

intentions are, but I would think such an approach, which could allow

for attachment of those types of funds — drug money, as I guess some

would call it — would be a better way of going.

What comes

to mind most quickly is the case involving a bank here in British

Columbia, in Vancouver — I can't remember the name of the bank off the

top of my head — which was the depository for funds from a Panamanian

drug trade. It was a well-documented case. There was about $180,000

sitting in British Columbia. Legislation which would allow to attach

those funds to set up a victims' fund, in my view, is preferable

to a percentage program where you may really be taxing those who can't

afford it, first of all. Secondly, you may end up forcing someone to

default and end up in jail because they can't afford to pay fines. We

know that happens with great probability. And thirdly, you're

developing a program where ability to pay is not a variable on the

matter of the 15 percent surcharge. For those three reasons, I am not

going to be able to support what's being proposed here. Perhaps more

thought should go into what's being done.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, a number of issues have been raised in relation to this,

and I don't think they're quite as neatly packaged in this

section as

it might be supposed. The issues of whether it's appropriate to levy a

fine and whether people are then being incarcerated because they can't

pay it I think are very important and legitimate ones. I have said many

times that we have far too many people in our jails who ought not to be

there — for example, if it's simply because they can't afford to pay a

fine. I think the way to deal with it is to use diversion much more

creatively and sensibly than we have in the past. In fact, we're

undertaking ways in which we can do so.

The issue of the

surcharge is really about the fine being used as society's way of

imposing punishment for the commission of

an act. Then we're saying

that where that vehicle is being used, it's appropriate to surcharge it

by 15 percent so that the money can be

[ Page 7214 ]

directed

specifically for victims, so that there is a relationship in the

perpetrator's mind between his action and the punishment extracted by

society. In addition to that, there is something specifically targeted

for victims. I don't think there's an inconsistency in that.

the question that the member has raised with respect to the proceeds of

crime, I think the member knows that Canada has passed legislation in

relation to the drug matters, which allows for the proceeds from drugs

to targeted back to police. I, together with my colleague the

Solicitor-General, have previously informed the House — certainly I

have discussed it — that we will be introducing a program to allow us

to get at the bounty of crime so that the rewards that have gone for

criminal behaviour will be extracted and targeted back to police so

that they can catch more criminals with the criminals' own money. To

the extent that there is a surplus, it will be targeted as well to

victims. So what you're really talking about, member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew, is either in process or about to be in process in this session.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm glad to see that it's being considered and, as the

Solicitor-General says, well in hand. If that's the case, it's good; I

didn't realize that. Maybe I wasn't in the House when the government

indicated its intentions in that regard, and if it was in the throne

speech, I guess I missed it. I think it's appropriate. If you're going

to do that and if it can be targeted towards victims as well as

policing, in whatever proportion the government wants, then that's

great; that's fine. The minister says it’s mainly to policing. Again,

it says to me that maybe that's a better way of going than this. I

guess I'm expressing my preference, that I'd rather go that way than

this, and that's why I don't share the same level of comfort as the

Attorney-General does with respect to

section

Section 53 approved on division.

Sections 54 to 57 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S.D. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER : When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

[4:00]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

On vote 8: minister's office, $249,374 (continued).

MR. BARLEE :

Mr. Chairman, a number of members on the government side of the House,

notably the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and the second member

for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), defended the decisions of the Environment

and Land Use Committee and their increasing propensity — which I think

is increasing — to overrule the decisions of the Agricultural Land

Commission. Perhaps I should canvass that matter again, and I think I

will.

I think that no political body should be the final

appeal body, and it seems that I'm not the only individual who thinks

this. The individuals who comprise the ALC are acknowledged experts,

and they are generally seen as such by the public. They are the

defenders of the ALR. But ELUC has a slightly different reputation;

people regard it with some suspicion — and I believe rightly so. Their

decisions — and I mentioned a few the other day — are regarded with

some suspicion. They seem to be curiously affected by political

considerations. There are a number of highly respected individuals who

question the impartiality, or lack of impartiality, of the Environment

and Land Use Committee.

This is rather interesting. Cyril

Shelford, as the minister knows, is a former Social Credit Minister of

Agriculture. In the March 1989 issue of Country Life ,

he commented on this very thing when he said that

section 13 — the

appeal to cabinet — should be repealed. Then he goes on to say that if

this were done, the Land Commission would be able to get away from

charges of political interference. So Cyril Shelford, ex-Minister of

Agriculture, makes the statement that if ELUC were done away with,

these charges of political interference would probably be negated.

Any

appeal body must be regarded as completely impartial; ELUC certainly

doesn't fall into that category. The public regards their interference

with the decisions of the ALC as political interference, and I believe

that in this instance the public is very close to the mark.

Shelford

— and remember that he is and was a highly respected former Social

Credit Minister of Agriculture — went on to say: "So far, it has been

too easy to get land out of the agricultural land reserve, and too many

of the appeals to cabinet have been successful." These aren't my words;

these are the words of a highly respected ex-Minister of Agriculture

from this government.

[ Page 7215 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH : Former minister.

MR. BARLEE : That is correct, but he was a minister.

goes on to say this: "If we are to preserve our ability as a province

to produce food for our own needs 100 to 200 years from now, we as a

society must make a firm decision now to protect our limited land." All

I can say is that I agree with Mr. Shelford.

Mr. Chairman,

I'd like an answer on this. Mr. Minister, are you satisfied with the

present policy of this government of allowing an obviously partisan

political body — ELUC — the right to overrule decisions made by the

Agricultural Land Commission, which generally has the trust of the

public?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : To my hon. critic, I think

we had a lot of dialogue relative to a former Minister of Agriculture

in this government. I'd like to say, with due respect, that I sure

can't speak for him, but he is certainly entitled to give his opinions.

any procedure, no matter what, an appeal process should be allowed.

Even if you deem it to be political, I think the Environment and Land

Use Committee, which is a committee of cabinet, does have the right.

There are several committees that review a number of government

policies. I think that in this particular case, politicians, rightly or

wrongly, have to be able to stand up. If you are going to be

criticized, fair enough. The people vote for you to make decisions, and

whether you call them political decisions, or whatever they are

referred to as, I think you have to, as a politician, pass judgment at

some point.

MR. BARLEE : I couldn't disagree more

vehemently. I don't think a partisan political body has any business

passing judgment on a commission that has a great deal of expertise and

is viewed by the public as a commission with expertise and without

political bias. When the court of appeal becomes a political court,

then it loses the trust of the public. I believe — and I'm not the only

one; there are many people within your own party ranks who believe this

as well — it does not have the trust of the public.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I really feel that the

minister has missed the point here, and I am disappointed in his reply.

However, I will go on to something else.

Last week I

stressed that the difficulties facing the tree-fruit growers in the

Okanagan and Similkameen valleys are almost insurmountable. I would say

that 90 to 95 percent of the growers are in severe economic difficulty;

they have been for almost a decade I also emphasized that I did not

believe the social contract between the growers and the government had

been kept.

Here is where the minister and I differ. The

growers are locked into the land, and they have kept their' part of the

bargain. I do not believe the government has kept its part of the

bargain. Many of these guys simply can't eke out a living. My question

to the minister is this: does the Ministry of Agriculture have

immediate plans to alleviate the economic difficulties facing the

tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan, the Similkameen, Creston, Vancouver

Island and other areas? If so, what are these plans?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

just to go back to the

preamble of the first answer I gave and the

subsequent remarks made by the opposition critic, let me assure you

that in the issue of the mandate of the Land Commission in making

decisions and responding to applications, they basically have to look

at the land itself. Where you have support from communities or regional

districts — for instance, for school properties or whatever; the

required used of that land — the judgment generally comes down on the

basis of what the condition of the land is: CLI 1, 2, 3, or whatever.

The decision might be that it is good soil. It does not necessarily

look into the community requirements, and often those things become an

appeal to ELUC. I think that system still has to prevail.

the other question about the Okanagan fruit growing industry, I guess I

am going to reiterate basically what I said on Friday last in this

assembly: we are prioritizing what has to happen in the food industry.

In fact, it is the number one priority item in our ministry to try and

get on with the issue of identifying how we can make the Okanagan food

industry viable and competitive with the world around it.

suppose the issue of the contract — if you like to call it that, hon.

member — for farm income insurance, which is between the province and

the Federation of Agriculture, and on through to the fruit-growing

sector.... That contract lays out very quickly the ground rules for

participation. If you recollect, in the 1987 apple crop they would have

fallen far short of being able to qualify for maximum eligibility under

the program. We instituted a special payment of nearly $2 million to

help them overcome what would have become a terrifically drastic

situation for them.

I think we did respond very positively,

along with the federal government, to get an answer to the questions

they had relative to whether they could survive for another year. I

agree with the hon. member that we've got to look at how we respond to

try and keep this industry healthy, and at how we can help them as a

ministry.

MR. ROSE : The minister said in response to

the question about an appeal that you pretty well have to do it the way

it's done. That's where I disagree with him, because I don't think it

needs to be done the way it's done forever. There isn't any magic about

it. I think it leads to all kinds of suspicions about political

influence of one kind or another, and I don't think that's healthy.

Whether

they are justified or not, ELUC operates in the dark. They don't give

reasons for their decisions; they don't have any published guidelines

or principles. That's a rather vague term: community

[ Page 7216 ]

interest.

That can mean the interests of a developer or the interests of a

development-minded council, or a group of people or individuals who

don't really care about these matters. I don't think it's a good

procedure at all, and I will give you a suggestion of a better one if

you want to go that route.

Under the veterans'

administration — and your deputy minister will know this as well as I

do — they have a pensions branch. In my time it was under a Mr.

Solomon. In the same industry they have a separate appellate division,

which presumably operates autonomously without any interference by

politicians. We're all politicians; we all have our own biases. It's

the same with unemployment insurance claimants. Even in workers'

compensation you've got umpires. You even have consultants who provide

information to the board or provide a separate appeal assistance and

mechanism. No such system exists in the Land Commission and ELUC, and I

think it should.

The only capital of a province in Canada

without a CBC outlet is Victoria. Do you know why we don't have one?

Because around 1972 it went to cabinet and they killed it, after the

building had been built. Now CHEK 6 occupies that building. There's an

example of an appeal to cabinet and how damaging it was to our

broadcasting system in this capital.

I would heartily

recommend that your ministry look into the possibility of other forms

of appeal. It's not that there shouldn't be an appeal; there has to be

As a matter of fact, I fought for an appeal mechanism in 1972 as a

federal member, because if people are locked in with no appeal, then

that's it. They're trapped. I would like the minister to consider

avenues other than ELUC. I pointed out that it worked reasonably well

for the first three years, when 70 percent of the applications were

turned down There's more pressure now than ever, especially because of

the economic returns to farmers; all the money they have is tied up in

their land.

I think the minister would agree that if it

were let go, we could blacktop the Okanagan. We only use economic

considerations. Higher and better use, of course, is going to be

blacktop, shopping centres, whatever. Now we're looking for a place for

a racetrack. There were two of them out in Richmond, in my memory.

Higher and better use will always be what brings the largest return.

The assessments on Mayfair industrial park, right next to Colony Farm,

are roughly $90,000 to $120,000 per acre. Colony Farm assessments are

probably between $6,000 and $10,000. If you use only the economic

arguments, it makes much more economic sense to make the whole of

Colony Farm an industrial park. There might be a community interest to

do just that in terms of assessments, but woe betide anybody who tried

it.

So there are other interests that I think need to be

protected, and a separate, absolutely clean independent appeal body

should be developed.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I

respect the remarks that were made. I hope the member is aware that the

ministers of state are going through a review process. I think some of

the comments are probably things that have already been presented to

some of them. We'll wait until those review processes are completed to

see what the recommendations are, but I respect what is being said.

[4:15]

MR. ROSE :

That brings to mind something else. If this means decentralizing the

Agricultural Land Commission, splitting up what few people they have

now and putting them into God knows how many regions, I would certainly

regret that recommendation. We'll have to wait until we see them, but I

put that caveat forward at this time.

MR. CLARK : I

just want to make the point that there is another way of dealing with

agricultural land reserve appeals than was suggested by my colleague

the opposition House Leader, and that is the growing gap between the

cost of agricultural land and the value of urban development. The

fundamental question is that if someone can get their land removed from

the land reserve — as the Premier did or as Mr. Ilich did — then the

land is worth millions of dollars more. One can't blame a farmer for

wanting to have his or her land removed from the land reserve. I

certainly don't blame someone for trying to reap that windfall benefit,

particularly in light of the fact that it's more and more difficult to

make a living by farming.

It seems to me that we have to do

several things. One is to improve the lot of farmers in terms of their

financial return. Another way of dealing with it is to toughen up the

appeal procedure. Another is to remove the windfall profit that accrues

to the farmer. Does the minister have any comments in that regard?

The

original proposal of the agricultural land reserve, when it was the

Land Commission, was to tax away the private benefit to the farmer if

he or she was successful in getting their land removed from the land

reserve. In other words, if we taxed it all away, people could still

have their land removed from the land reserve. They could still develop

housing on it, if the Land Commission chose to allow the land to be

removed from the land reserve. They could still make money on housing

as a developer, but they simply would not make the dramatic windfall

profit that is so tempting for farmers today.

A very simple

solution to farmers moving to have their land removed from the land

reserve is to take away that tremendous temptation and that dramatic

windfall profit that they would receive if the land was removed. If

they took that temptation away, some land would still come out —

legitimate land that couldn't be farmed, but could be used for housing

— but we wouldn't see the flood of applications that we are constantly

faced with and the appeals to cabinet, which make it very difficult

politically. We would remove that financial incentive. I wonder if the

minister could comment on that approach.

[ Page 7217 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I find it somewhat appalling that you would suggest taking something

away from farmers. Holy doodle, who in the world toils any harder than

they do? You just said you would reduce the tax if they sold the land,

and you would tax them until....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Well, you wouldn't want that message in the farming community, my

friends. That would be the last thing they would want to hear, and it

would be a mistake if you thought that the farmer should be prevented

from making something. Holy doodle, you don't toil your whole life....

They have a hard enough time making a living as it is. They own a piece

of land to retire with, and you want to take it away. That's not proper

at all. You don't do that anywhere else. That's the last message I

think you would want to get out there.

MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take

part in this debate this afternoon,

because I think it needs some clarification. When the Land Commission

and the land reserve were actually established, they were not

established because of certain needs of land for expansion to

townsites, or because there had been an abuse in that regard. The basic

reason why the land reserve was established was the rapid subdivision

to small five-acre, two-acre, three-acre, ten-acre parcels. Large farms

were cut up into smaller pieces without any reason for the subdivision,

other than making a buck on the land.

I am not saying there

is no room for five- or ten-acre pieces. It depends on what type of

farming you are in, and for what purpose the land is intended. The Land

Commission was established to police that type of thing. But it was not

established to judge whether in fact a town or townsite needed

expansion for growth.

The Land Commission deals with the

applications — whether it is exclusion or subdivision — on the basis of

its soil class, the variety of crops that can be grown, general soil

capability and a number of other things related directly to the farming

aspect of the land. If an application made to the ELUC is much more

widely looked at - not only from an agriculture point of view or the

potential loss to agriculture, but also the economic growth and the

economic situation as it applies to that community.... In fact, they

are consulting with the local governments as to whether the local

government is really in favour of that application as well.

don't think the members of the opposition could suggest that this

government has no business trying to provide a proper economic climate

in this province, which is also good for the farming

community. They need to dispose of their goods and make a living.

The farmers also benefit from the expansion and growth in British

Columbia. From time to time there is a shortage of urban lands. It

happens in our own community; it has happened in communities all

through the Fraser Valley and I am sure through the Okanagan Valley

too. I don't think that the intent of the agricultural land reserve was

ever to stymie the economic growth of the communities in this province.

So much for that.

On the whole, the farmer has no problem

with being in an agricultural land reserve. In fact, the protection

measures introduced in the House the other day will undoubtedly assist

the farmer to better carry out his operations within a community where

there may be a mix of small and large parcels. We know that some

aspects of farming are not a pleasure to the neighbours, but they must

be done from time to time.

I was a little concerned the

other day when the critic from the other side mentioned that he felt —

and he put it this way — that this government sees the agriculture

industry as a sunset industry in this province. I think, if the member

had studied what agriculture has done over the last few years, the many

different crops that are now grown in British Columbia and the greater

variety of fruits and vegetables of many kinds, surely he cannot say

that this is a sunset industry.

I must commend the minister

and the ministry for assisting the agriculture community by providing

the information — and the economic viability — as to how these new

fruits and vegetables can be grown in this province. They are grown

very successfully with that assistance.

There was also a comment made by the critic of the other side. I'll read from Hansard :

"I think the original social contract" — and he refers to the contract

that was made in 1973 when the land reserve was instituted — "should be

honoured. I know that it places a burden upon government. I know it may

not be popular. I know it may not fit the marketplace. I'm saying it's

worth it."

Well, I don't think any farmer within the ALR at

the time of the institution of the agricultural land reserve thought of

being tied into a social contract with the government. That is the last

thing any farmer would want. Farmers are individuals and they're

hard-working people. Surely they are not prepared to be tied into a

social contract with the government.

However, at this time

I would like to ask the minister a question, because it's of importance

and I think the member of the opposition has also touched on this.

While we are entering the free trade era — and over the next ten years

we will undoubtedly see many changes as they come about under this

agreement, Mr. Minister — are you contemplating anything so that the

climate of this new era can be prepared for by the agricultural

community?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I would say that, yes,

we have gone through a number of things. I think my honourable

colleague has identified under free trade that there are some

adjustments that will have to be made. I think the most important thing

is to work with our industry to be able to help them compete in free

trade. Of course, down the road, if we look at the possibilities of

GATT, when we get into the GATT

[ Page 7218 ]

rounds,

which we're doing under the Uruguay round through different stages,

then we globally will have to be able to compete as well. I believe

that under those discussions among all the countries that are

signatories to GATT, they will expect that there will be a reduction at

some point of some of the subsidies.

As the hon. member

also knows, under the industrial milk agreement we have a freeze or a

cap on industrial prices. All that being part of an overall agreement,

we hope to see somewhere down the road that we try to come to grips

with the world subsidy situation. I think Canada well recognizes,

albeit it is a large country geographically.... But in comparison to

some of the countries, from a population point of view.... An area of

very grave concern is the one of revenue generation or taxation

generation. Then we will have a problem competing to match some of the

subsidies that exist on a worldwide basis.

I would say to

my honourable colleague that we all are working towards trying to

identify areas of concern which we see as maybe problematic down the

road. But we are more concerned, absolutely, with the fact of being

able to advise our farmers how to compete on a level playing-field with

our trading partners.

MR. DE JONG : We know that in

every business, no matter which type of business it is, a certain

amount of risk is attendant with that. Every business is subject to the

economy, whether it's strong or weak, and competitive prices. Of

course, to offset that in the farming industry, the best farm practices

— up-to-date on food trends and to serve people's needs — are very

essential. However, comparing the agriculture industry to other

businesses, they are somewhat different. In fact, they are quite

different.

[4:30]

Farming is often very dependent upon weather conditions,

specifically during the growing season' but also during the off-growing

season. Some of the natural causes can be disastrous to the farmer.

Take last winter's freeze-out, the three days of heavy frost. It has

created extreme problems for some of the farming industry, particularly

the strawberry-growers in the valley. While they didn't have too

successful a year last year, even with the good crop, many of the

fields have been completely ruined by the three days of extreme frost

last winter. Think of the raspberries; and I'm sure there may be some

effects on the fruit industry in the Okanagan as well. Many of the hay

fields around the Kamloops area as well as throughout the central

Fraser valley were completely frozen and needed to be totally reseeded,

plowed and what have you. These are additional costs to the farmer.

It's an unexpected cost in addition to the high interest rates which

they have at the present time, and certainly it was a cost nobody had

prepared for.

I'm not saying the farmers should have an

additional pocketful of money to do these things, but there are a

number of farmers, particularly young farmers who have perhaps just

purchased and have high interest payments to make and high mortgages,

who have some real difficulty in obtaining the funds to either replant

or reseed and to carry them over these two years — because it takes two

years to get some crops back to normal.

Has the minister

considered in some way perhaps — not by a direct grant, because we know

that things need to be paid for and farmers know that things need to be

paid for.... But has the minister considered providing a loan guarantee

to those who would have difficulty obtaining such money from the bank

in order to re-establish their crops as they were before?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think three specific crops were mentioned here as to the February

winter kill, which I recognize and will say was disastrous. He

recognized hay, specifically the alfalfa in parts of Nicola, up on

through into Kamloops and a little north. There was drastic kill there

because there was very little snow to cover the land, and the root

system suffered badly and was killed off. As you know, the same problem

arose in '86, I think it was, and at that time we were asked to help.

If you look at the record of crop insurance, there were very few

participants in it, but we encouraged them to become involved. The same

thing with raspberries and strawberries. I believe about 70 percent of

the strawberry crop is ruined and about the same in raspberries. But in

most cases the producers have crop insurance and should be able to

collect on it.

We have tried to encourage the industry....

It's no different than insuring for buildings, homes or whatever you

have as a risk. You obviously should carry insurance. The vast

majority, as I understand it, hon. member, do have crop insurance

coverage.

The specific areas of concern are those around

Abbotsford and on out into the prairie a little way; in fact, down as

far as Aldergrove. But I think the Langley area was not too drastically

hurt in that frost, because the winds weren't near what they were in

the Sumas Prairie area.

I recognize the concern, and we are

looking at it, but what we do with it remains to be seen, because we

have a number of reports to come in yet. I have met with the strawberry

growers and the raspberry growers. They've been in my office in Delta

to express their concerns about the loss. I'm also well aware of a

considerable amount of that crop being covered by insurance.

MR. DE JONG :

I would just like to emphasize to the minister the importance of loan

guarantees, which should be available to farmers in those situations.

For the economic viability not only of the farmer but for the total

industry, it's essential that we assist farmers in those situations in

a special way. If I make any comparison to loan guarantees that are

granted to business through economic development, then surely farmers

who put in 16 to 18 hours a day should be eligible for the same type of

treatment when they happen to get into situations over which they have

had no control.

I'd like to get on to the dairy industry now. For two years the dairy industry has been in a state of

[ Page 7219 ]

uncertainty

in this province, mainly caused by a press release of September 28 or

29, 1987, really opting out of the national system. The release

included a number of commodities. There were the various broiler and

chicken commodities as well as the milk. I'm not sure if there were any

more, but it covered a number of farming commodities.

The

poultry producers have now opted out. They have employed new marketing

strategies, and as a result of those strategies some 20 new producers

will be added in the coming year.

The Milk Board — a

somewhat different board — basically has not been a marketing board;

it's been a board of control. Your deputy minister stated in the back

of the newest Country Life :

"'The Milk Board will change the way we want them to in the next two or

three weeks or we will bring in legislation to make the changes fast,'

he said." This was in a meeting held with the various news

organizations. I'm curious as to what will be done. Perhaps the

minister will elaborate and explain.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

First, on the issue of the notice of September for the opt-out. That is

correct; we made that announcement. Through subsequent negotiations to

the four different sectors — turkey, chicken, eggs, milk — we went

through those and looked at the market share as it related to our share

in British Columbia as opposed to the overall global market across

Canada. We had negotiating strategies; in fact, some of those different

groups did go through normal procedures in negotiating with their

national supply management systems and were successful in getting what

was deemed to be by the industry a fair share in a Canadian market as

it relates to British Columbia's population.

The broiler

sector. I was approached on several occasions that there were

opportunities for greater consumption. In fact, in British Columbia the

British Columbia chicken industry decided to launch — as you rightly

say, hon. member — a program to encourage the consumption of chicken,

and that was part and parcel of the health concern at that time as it

related to red meats and so on.

They had an opportunity to

go ahead and produce more chicken. In so doing, they approached us as

to the opt-out, which is the end of this coming December. But they had

to give notice by February. That notice was given, and I signed off the

notice. It went back to Ottawa, and they were well aware of our

position. That does not mean to say that negotiations stopped. We have

served the notice on the required time-frame, but the negotiating

process continues until such time as either there is a resolve or there

is not; at that point there will be a final decision made, suspect, by

the industry. In the meantime, the industry has continued along and in

my opinion is doing a good job in promoting chicken and its health

aspects in this province.

I'll respond on the milk industry. As you know, the milk industry has conducted

negotiations through the membership of the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee.

This is the only province that has an appointed board; the rest of them are

run by producer boards. And the negotiating process has been carrying on, and

will continue to do so in that instance.

have been given an offer, on which we have not yet made a decision. I

think the member has asked me where we are with that, and I am not sure

that we are finished with that, by a long shot. But we have an offer

which we have to deal with, and I'm not at liberty to reveal those at

this stage until we study them very closely.

MR. DE JONG :

A further question to the minister. Could the minister perhaps explain

whether he would see a similar potential for the dairy industry on the

opting out as is anticipated by the poultry people?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To my hon. colleague, that's something, I think, we would have to

assess as a dairy industry, and as far as I understand, the industry is

looking at it. The dairy industry has launched a very good marketing

program of TV advertisements through the B.C. Dairy Foundation. Any

time that consumption goes up in the province, certainly from a fluid

point of view, I'm sure the member is well aware that adjustments are

made to the fluid consumption.

On the industrial side, it's

tied in on a formula on the basis of the amount of milk that is

consumed, albeit we have had some problems with the amount of milk

coming from the U.S. side. I believe the numbers used were something in

the neighbourhood of — and I stand to be corrected on this — 65 million

litres, and we produce over 300 million litres for consumption in

British Columbia domestically. We have some concerns, obviously, about

how that relates to our ability to produce the industrial side, or the

MSQ share of that. That's the issue we are trying to deal with. How

much more we can produce? If you opted out of anything, I guess you'd

produce any amount. If you looked at opting out — I don't care if it's

agricultural or anything else — if you continue to produce, at some

point people are going to realize that you manage supply.

the case of dairy, as far as I understand the industrial sector,

British Columbia has a 30 percent gain since 1973. I don't believe

there's another province that can show that. We have seven provinces

that have taken a reduction in that time-frame. So British Columbia has

managed to gain something in the national system, albeit there's a lot

of frustration from the point of view of the fact that we know we could

be doing more. Whether opting out is an answer remains to be seen,

because I would suspect that we would be faced possibly with supporting

our dairy industry and being in a head-to-head competitive atmosphere

in competition with other provinces who may wish to ship who knows how

much product. Once you opt out, there is no control.

MR. DE JONG : Further to that, I would like to ask the minister a couple more questions. The minister

[ Page 7220 ]

has

on various occasions stated that he's looking for a more level

playing-field in British Columbia as well as across Canada, but

particularly in British Columbia where we now have three quota areas

and three price areas. I have no problem with the three price areas,

because that's based on the cost of feed, transportation, etc. But I do

have a little problem with the three quota areas while we are one milk

shed. Could the minister perhaps say something at this point about

whether, under this new system, the field would be levelled to truly

represent the one milk shed, and whether the members of the Milk Board

would be elected by the industry and become more of a marketing board

than a board of control — or perhaps equal on both counts?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

On the issue of quota regions, as the hon. member recognizes, with your

pricing structure you have the three zones. When it gets down to

pricing structure, if you have it all at the same price.... There are

some differences — as you recognized — between Vancouver Island, the

interior, the Okanagan areas and the Fraser Valley. They relate an

awful lot to input costs. That's the reason there are those differences.

[4:45]

I think it would be good if we recognized that it's one industry,

and it should be all under one milk shed — as we commonly use that

term. I would hope that the industry had some input into whether in

fact that should go ahead, or whether they wish it to remain as is. I

think we'll get that feedback.

I can't quite remember the

other question the hon member asked; perhaps he could repeat it. I

think that on the milk shed it's important to be certain that the

industry is cognizant of what they themselves want.

MR. DE JONG :

The other part of the question was whether, under your new system, Milk

Board members would be elected by the industry or appointed by

government.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I don't think I can

answer that in detail, because we're looking at legislation, and we're

looking at options. I wouldn't want to respond to that at this stage.

MR. DE JONG :

We've had a problem with the penalties being collected under the MSQ

from a number of producers through a couple of processors over the past

few years. Last year it was stated that the penalties — as far as the

minister knew at the time — were being collected. If they had in fact

been collected, the court ruling having come down in July 1987 — I know

that for a few months the Milk Board had difficulty collecting, but

even if they did for a year and a half, since the beginning of 1988 —

the farmers could not have survived. What is the current status, Mr.

Minister, on the penalties? Are they being collected or not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I hope you're well aware that that is sub judice. I will not comment on It. It's before the courts.

MR. DE JONG : Well, I think that's a cop-out. Anyway, we'll take it as is.

Could the minister perhaps tell me whether the Flamingo plant is a licensed processing plant?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I am not positive at this stage, but if the member so wishes, I will

certainly find that answer for him. I know it is not a licensed fluid

plant.

MR. DE JONG : Has the minister or the Milk

Board ever given any thought to ensuring the collection of penalties

from the processing plants, taken from the producers? I know that 95

percent of the producers run into penalty situations each year, to some

degree because of overshipment, and the penalties are being collected.

But we have a number of shippers, together with their processing plant,

that totally ignore the regulations in place. I just wonder whether the

ministry or the Milk Board has tried to strengthen that process by

obtaining a letter of credit or at least by some measure — either a

bond or a letter of credit, in case of default on the part of the

processing agency — that can be drawn upon to avoid future court costs

that are going on from day to day.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I think the hon. member knows — he may not know — that we have done an

audit. The results of that audit should be before me before very long.

I can't comment on the details at this stage, but I share the concern

of the member. I guess in any system somebody will try to go around it,

or whatever the proper terminology is. I certainly would like to see

the thing be fair for one and all, if that is what the member is really

getting at, and that's what we should address.

MR. DE JONG :

A further question to the minister. Under what conditions is the milk

that is accepted by the Flamingo processing plant accepted by the

government or the Milk Board? What conditions have been laid down by

the Milk Board for Flamingo to accept milk from the four "dissident

producers" and perhaps some others?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I believe that Flamingo Foods has applied for a processing licence.

Again, I would have to research the details of that with the Milk

Board, which is the agent responsible for issuing that licence. I

wouldn't want to jeopardize anything I'd say here, but certainly I will

find out for the hon. member what the details are and who is shipping

to that particular plant.

MR. DE JONG : Is it normal

procedure for a processing plant of that kind to be allowed to accept

produce for a period in excess of three months prior to having been

given a licence?

[ Page 7221 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : There again, I won't comment until I find out the details from the board on the issuance of the licence.

MR. DE JONG :

Back in 1954 the equalization of the dairy industry was introduced by

the Hon. Ken Kiernan, then Minister of Agriculture. The program has

worked very successfully, because before 1954 some of the farmers in

British Columbia were receiving about one-third less for a similar

product than others who were selling a major share on the fluid market.

Equalization was a benefit to the entire dairy industry.

understand that at the present time there is a dairy in Sumas Prairie

named Birchwood Dairies which only carries a 100-litre fluid milk

quota. From what I am told, they sell far in excess of 100 litres of

milk to the fresh milk market, or related products which would qualify

under the fluid milk category. I alluded earlier to whether any

measures have been taken, since it has gone on for nearly two years on

the collection of penalties under the MSQ system.

The plant

has been there for some time, and it was started on the basis of being

allowed to process its milk on its own property — what was produced on

that particular farm. I now understand that a number of other shippers

or farmers are also shipping through that processing plant. Again, the

penalties are not only not being collected on the MSQ part of the milk;

neither is the equalization payment paid by that particular plant to

the Milk Board. What actions have been taken in that regard?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

That one also is before the courts. It is sub judice, and I will not

comment on it, because it is part and parcel of the same considerations

I mentioned earlier.

MR. DE JONG : Does the minister,

while it is before the courts — and I think only what has happened

might be before the courts, not what is going to happen — see any

urgency for taking some measures on the milk to be shipped tomorrow and

the days after?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, could I have the member ask the question again, please.

MR. DE JONG :

Well, I can appreciate that perhaps the minister cannot comment on

things that are before the courts. I believe those things before the

courts are only from the days gone by, like yesterday and before.

However, because of its ongoing nature.... While many other farmers who

are currently producing excess milk, in terms of their MSQ as well as

their fluid quotas — this being the equalization payments not being

paid by Birchwood, which I think is something that hasn't happened with

any dairy during all the 35 years of operation.... Does the minister

see any urgency in having something in place for the milk being shipped

out of or to that plant and being processed there for the days after

today and tomorrow?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, I

would hope that the hon. member realizes that you do not step into

something that's before the courts. It is sub judice, as I've already

mentioned, and the decision of the courts will render future actions.

MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the minister has a lot of faith in the

current system — at least he's said this on many occasions — and in the

system of supply management. He has said on many occasions that we are

working towards a level playing-field and everybody should be equally

treated. However, we have a situation that I cannot find under any of

those points.

Representing a strong dairy community, you

can imagine what I run up against as I walk the streets or visit the

auction market, whenever I go into the public. They're all very unhappy

with what is occurring and has been occurring for quite some time.

Nothing appears to be being done, even though the courts may be dealing

with it. But as I say, they are very unhappy, and the agriculture

industry, particularly dairy people, are losing patience out there.

would also