1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 17

[ Page 13125 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm really pleased to have 30 grade 5 students with Mrs. Diana Duncan from Tecumseh Elementary School in the Vancouver-Kensington constituency, a school which I could usually see from the window of my law office, as I used to practise law in my younger age. I'm really pleased that they are here. It's a wonderful school. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: It's a pleasure today to make an introduction on behalf of the member for Saanich South. I wish to introduce to the gallery today members of Mr. Stinson's grade 5 class from Cordova Bay Elementary School and their accompanying parents. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome to these chambers.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE IN KITIMAT

C. Hansen: Over 600 people recently turned out at a rally in Kitimat to express concern over the loss of the town's general surgeon, a doctor who has served that community for over 31 years and who announced that he was leaving for Ontario. The leading citizens of that community have put together a letter to the Premier. I want to read a quick quote from this letter. It says: "The citizens of this community have, over the past eight years, witnessed a progressive deterioration in the level of health care available within this community." It goes on to say: "The citizens of Kitimat have been denied care . . . .

" This is a letter that is signed by 12 leading citizens, including a representative of the Canadian Automobile Workers, the HEU, the B.C. Nurses Union and the Health Sciences Association.

[1410]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

C. Hansen: Will the minister tell us why she has allowed health care in Kitimat to deteriorate to the point that the only way they can get the attention of this government is to hold protest rallies?

Hon. P. Priddy: I have seen the letter, and I must admit that one of the other quotes from it says that the situation is Kitimat is not in any way as a result of a lack of funding or a lack of resources in that community. Nor is it about wait-lists. So while there's no question there are issues in Kitimat that my ministry and I and the MLA from Kitimat are working closely on . . . . We've spoken with people on that list, by the way, who don't necessarily represent the union which they've signed for.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: Kitimat received $35 million for a new health care centre. Kitimat received an increase in their operating budget. There are dynamics going on . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . in the community about concerns about the system. We're working hard to address that. We've put an acting director of medical services in there. We will also be putting an acting CEO in there, and we're working very hard with the community health council to resolve these issues.

The other option, which is the one the letter asks for -- and I assume the opposition would be up saying that we shouldn't -- is to put in a public trustee. That is a step that you take very, very carefully.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will not do that until all options are exhausted.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: I think that epitomizes what's wrong with health care -- throwing money at a problem without a plan, without a vision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The member has the floor. He will not put his question until there's quiet in the chamber.

C. Hansen: Kitimat's NDP MLA, the member for Skeena, has been quoted as saying . . . .

An Hon. Member: That's a lie.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon? Hon. members will come to order. There will be no more of that.

C. Hansen: I think, hon. Speaker, we've maybe hit a sensitive point.

Kitimat's NDP MLA, the member for Skeena, has been quoted as saying: "Do you realize that you people are going nowhere with this?" Well, the "you people" that he was referring to are the 600 citizens that attended that protest rally. Will the minister tell us why the citizens of Kitimat, who have already lost one doctor and are threatened with losing two more in the near future, are being denied the right to quality health care?

[ Page 13126 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: With some order in the chamber, I will be happy to recognize the Minister of Health.

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue being raised in Kitimat is indeed about regionalization, and there are some challenges there. But where the member comes from and where many of us come from, regionalization is working extraordinarily well. There are communities where, in point of fact, it is still having challenges, and Kitimat happens to be one of them. But I really object to the comment that that's an example of what's wrong with health care. Maybe I can call the people in Kitimat and say: "We're accused of throwing money at it, so we won't give you the $35 million for your health centre, or we're not going to give you an increase in your operating budget."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. P. Priddy: If the example the member uses is that putting money into a new health centre for Kitimat is throwing money at a problem, then I think the people of Kitimat might take a very different view on what that would do to the quality of their health care.

HEALTH MINISTRY STRATEGIC PLAN

G. Plant: Let's talk about vision; let's talk about a plan. It's no wonder that the people of Kitimat have to hold a rally when the Minister of Health keeps making promises that she won't keep. In July of 1998 the Health minister said that the ministry's strategic vision document -- this is July 1998 -- had just been finished, and she would release it "as soon as it's printed and ready for release." Well, the minister's staff must be printing it all by hand. My question for the minister is: will she tell us why, after ten months of waiting, we still haven't seen the minister's strategic vision document?

[1415]

Hon. P. Priddy: The strategic plan or document is in the hands of the health authorities. They are being asked for comment back. They've had it for some time now.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The question will not be posed until there is order in the chamber.

G. Plant: The Health minister didn't promise to release it to the health authorities. She promised to release it to the people of British Columbia.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Vancouver and Victoria have fallen far behind Edmonton and Toronto in providing quality health care. No wonder the minister is afraid to release her so-called strategic vision to the public. Will the minister confirm that the reason she won't release the document is because she has no strategic vision for health care in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: The strategic document went to health authorities for comment before being released to the public, because that would seem logical. Those are the primary constituency groups that will be affected -- and are affected -- by a strategic plan. So giving it to them first for comment . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . does not seem to me an unwillingness to release it. Given that it's in 150 places around the province, it's hardly about keeping it from the public.

Secondly, I would suggest that if the strategic vision of the opposition is that we are throwing money at health care and that $35 million for a new health centre in Kitimat is not a good part of a vision, I would really hesitate to know what their vision would mean for quality health care in this province.

CARDIAC CARE PLAN FOR B.C.

I. Chong: It's about this Health minister and this government breaking promises time and time again.

It was just one year ago that this Minister of Health promised -- she promised -- to release her provincial advisory panel on cardiac care's five-year plan to lay out standards and acceptable wait times for surgery. That plan was supposed to come out last fall, and we're still waiting. Would the Minister of Health tell us why she hasn't kept her promise?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members. Order, members. I won't recognize the minister until there is order in the chamber.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't think there's any question that there is a five-year plan for cardiac care in this province, or we wouldn't have seen an announcement, not three weeks ago, that provided significant new dollars for cardiac surgeons, for cardiac facilities and for money in the riding of the member who asked the question. Additional dollars for cardiac care and cardiac facilities in that member's riding are part of looking at the strategic plan for cardiac care. There is still . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: The cardiac surgeons and the cardiologists who make up that panel have more recommendations to give us. It is a plan which you add to, and therefore we will put more resources in. We've listened to their recommendations. We've looked at what will be needed in the future.

Interjections.

[ Page 13127 ]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: That's the reason that people saw additional dollars for cardiac surgery and cardiac care in the member's own riding. Perhaps she didn't notice.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

I. Chong: What I see is this Health minister breaking more promises. This Health minister made a specific promise to release a specific plan in May of 1998. The Health minister promised us a plan for cardiac care no later than the fall. It's now a whole year later. Fall has come and fall has gone, and still there is no plan. When will the minister . . .

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

I. Chong: . . . start doing what she promised she would do?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Chair will recognize the minister when there is order in the chamber. Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: We can have the debate about whether a report was released on time, and I'm happy to do that with people. But let me tell you, the promises that this government does keep may be more important to children and families in this province than whether a report was out on a particular date. Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, we kept a promise to give B.C.'s Children's Hospital $28.5 million to improve quality care for children and families. We kept a promise . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . for 700 more . . .

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, complete your answer quickly, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . cardiac procedures. We kept a promise for 1,000 more hip and knee surgeries.

REPORT ON HEALTH AUTHORITIES'PERFORMANCE

S. Hawkins: This minister's legacy is one of promises made and promises broken. That's all it's been. Two years ago, while they were all busy firing volunteer boards, this government announced their Better Teamwork, Better Care plan for health care. Last year this minister promised to release a report card -- another one -- on the performance of her appointed health care authorities, and she said "at the end of the calendar year." Well, guess what: I think we've been waiting almost six months for that. I want to know when this Health minister . . . . Will she tell us why she even bothers making promises that she knows she isn't going to keep?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Reporting on Better Teamwork, Better Care will be done as part of . . . . That's why the strategic plan is out to Health authorities. We're going to be measuring that. I mean, there are reports from the auditor general. There are overall reports on Better Teamwork, Better Care that are available to anybody who wants to see them. Part of the real accountability is making sure . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . that health authorities are accountable for how it's working, because that's what patients and taxpayers expect to know. They expect to open it up and see a report card -- which they will -- about how many surgeries and what the outcome was in their own region.

I'm sorry, the government does not . . . . I'm not making promises all over the place that cannot be kept. Again I would say . . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . that we have fulfilled our promise . . .

The Speaker: Answers are getting a little long.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . to hire 1,000 new nurses.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess just the opposition gets to be that long, then, hon. Speaker.

HEALTH CARE IN KITIMAT

C. Hansen: What we have is a legacy of broken promises from the Ministry of Health. We have the promise of a strategic vision. After nine years in government, the NDP have the promise of a strategic vision that is now in discussion. We have a promise of a five-year cardiac plan. What we find out today is that it's going to be added to for five years. We were promised accountability, a report card for the health authorities, and the minister has failed to deliver.

Why should the residents of Kitimat have any faith in this minister delivering on her promise to assist them in their plight of better health care in Kitimat, if she fails to deliver on the very things that she has promised during her tenure as the Health minister of this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Speaker, I would suggest that the people of Kitimat will see that this government delivered on $35 million for a new health care centre, which it promised. They will see that this government and this minister . . .

[ Page 13128 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . and this ministry delivered an increase in the operating budget this year, which we promised. This government delivered on not moving orthopedic care out of Kitimat, which we promised. Those three promises have been kept, and so will this one.

[1425]

The Speaker: Thank you, members. Question period is now over.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. We're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, and Transit. In Committee B, I call second reading of Bill 70.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. C. Evans: Madam Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

This bill amends the Agricultural Land Commission Act to clarify and improve the operation of the provincial interest sections of the act. The provincial interest sections of the act establish a process whereby the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may remove a matter from the Agricultural Land Commission and decide the matter itself. That process is a recognition that there may be, in time, rare cases where a matter involves interests that are important to the province as a whole, and those interests are broader than that which the commission is capable of addressing within its specific mandate of protecting agricultural land.

The process was added to the act in 1993 as part of the legislative initiative that did away with appeals to cabinet when it was added to the act. It was fully expected at that time that it would be rarely used. That has indeed turned out to be the case, as the process was not used until last year, in the case of the Six Mile Ranch, when it was invoked for the first time.

David Perry, in his report on the Six Mile Ranch proposal, recommended that the provincial interest process needed to be clarified. He also said that we needed to be clear about how we should balance the conflicting values that might exist once the provincial interest clause of the act was invoked.

To that end, in May 1998 I asked Moura Quayle, who is the dean of agriculture at UBC, to review the provincial interest provisions and then to provide me and, through me, us with recommendations on how they might be improved. Dean Quayle carried out a broad, provincewide series of public consultations involving a great number of people and sectors. They provided Dean Quayle with many invaluable insights.

The single strongest message that came back to me from the Quayle report was that we need to make sure that the government always knows exactly when and how it can make decisions on the use of the land in the ALR in place of the Agricultural Land Commission. That is why today we are acting on Dean Quayle's recommendation to clearly define the provincial interest.

[1430]

These amendments will set out the conditions that must be present before government removes a matter from the Agricultural Land Commission and refers it to an inquiry. Before deciding whether or not to refer a matter, government will have to take into account the following: (1) the public interest that all British Columbians have in the preservation of agricultural land as a scarce and important provincial asset; (2) the potential long-term consequences of failing to preserve agricultural land; and (3) the provincewide context of the matter it is considering. These are important and significant criteria.

They recognize that despite the vast size of British Columbia, the province in actual fact has very little land that is suitable for agriculture. It is a scarce and irreplaceable asset that is important to all British Columbians. If, and only if, those criteria are satisfied, will it be acceptable for government to make agricultural land use decisions.

The second key recommendation made by Dean Quayle was to make the inquiry process itself more informed and open and accountable, if and when cabinet does use the provincial interest clause. The people Dean Quayle heard from made it very clear that they want to be able to participate meaningfully in an inquiry, and then they want to ensure that cabinet has the best information it can possibly have before it considers making a decision on a particular matter.

These amendments will do both of those things.

They will ensure that (1) the Agricultural Land Commission itself is involved in all stages of a provincial interest referral; (2) the public is provided, before they are expected to give their thoughts, a discussion paper including all of the facts of the matter before them; (3) public hearings are held, not simply in the region that is being considered and where the particular application is but in all six regions of the province, regardless of the region initiating the review; and (4) the board's report is then available for public review before cabinet makes any decision on the matter.

These amendments will ensure that people have good information on what is at stake and, more than that, that they get the information in a timely way. At the end of the day it is the public's capacity to participate, and some assurance that cabinet consider the information that they have to offer . . . . That is what the public process is intended to do. It is supposed to give cabinet the information that it requires to help make the best possible decision.

Now, the third key recommendation Dean Quayle made was to improve the provincial interest process by changing the balancing test -- the issues that cabinet values when it comes to deciding upon a matter. As I've already said, the provincial interest process is a recognition that there may in fact be rare cases where a matter involves interests that are important to the province as a whole and that concern things other than agriculture. The process is there to allow cabinet to take a closer look at the matter and consider whether or not those values -- other than agriculture -- should prevail in a particular case.

However, we have to remember that the process takes place within a system that has as its primary objective the preservation of the scarce and valuable agricultural land in the province. These amendments are going to reflect that fact and will confirm that agriculture remains the primary priority whenever these sections are considered or invoked in the use of agricultural land.

The balancing test will apply the following values -- and I want to make it clear that I am expressing these values in order of priority: (1) the preservation of agricultural lands and

[ Page 13129 ]

then the promotion of agricultural uses of those lands; (2) environmental and heritage factors, if they cannot be replaced or relocated to a non-agricultural site or if they result in a no-net-loss situation to the agricultural capabilities of the area; and (3) economic, social and cultural factors. This balancing test will be applied both by the board, when it makes it report and recommendations to cabinet at the end of the public hearings, and also by cabinet itself, when it ultimately decides on a matter. I believe that these amendments show the government's commitment to the agricultural land reserve itself and to the B.C. agrifood industry.

[1435]

I came to this job as a big fan of the agricultural land reserve. I believe that the agricultural land reserve is zoning for doing the work of agriculture. Our goal, and the goal of the people who worked in this room before us, is to secure a land base for doing the work of agriculture and to secure for all time the agricultural land reserve's innate capacity for doing work, generating wealth and producing food in the farming industry.

Regardless of what position you take on this debate, I hope all members are respectful and even, as I am, a little bit in awe of the fact that we in British Columbia have the oldest and best farmland protection system in the nation -- Canada -- and perhaps the most enviable system on this continent. We inherit from the people who worked here before us the incredible foresight that has protected the food-producing and wealth-producing capacity of the land that so many other jurisdictions elsewhere on this continent and in the world have lost.

In doing the things that we're doing today, I hope that all hon. members will share with me the perception that we are providing clarity here both for the farming community and for developers. What has worked for nobody is those parts of the province where the intentions of the reserve have been unclear -- whether or not those lands might some day be possibly used for development or whether in fact they are farmlands in the long term.

In making these amendments, I believe that we are clarifying for developers as well as for the farm community the intentions of government forever to maintain, sustain and, if need be, periodically come back to this room and strengthen the provisions of the agricultural land reserve.

That concludes the technical content of what I have to say. That needs to be on the record so everybody understands what we're about to debate. But I have a few personal remarks which I would like to add.

Twenty-five years ago in this town, the people who worked here had the incredible foresight -- genius, I think -- to create the agricultural land reserve. But it was a contentious act, as contentious as it was brave. A perception was created at that time that created a myth. The myth was that the agricultural land reserve was imposed over the wishes of the agricultural community themselves -- not a recognition that it is zoning for work and protection for the farm community to make a living within the tiny little bit of land that is capable of growing food, but that it was imposed upon the farm community.

I came into this room last year and had some of the most unpleasant experiences of my life as members opposite accused me of being in conflict. I went to my party's convention and had some of the most unpleasant experiences of my life, as my party was torn up over the issues of Six Mile Ranch.

But standing here a year later I would like to say that what happened during the course of that year, I believe to be a wonderful thing. On January 27 of this year, some members opposite and I, members of the environmental community, members of agricultural support groups like Farm Folk-City Folk and representatives of the B.C. Agriculture Council went downstairs to the press gallery and announced together the changes that we are now debating in this Legislature. For the first time ever, hon. Speaker, I hope to bury the mythology that the agricultural land reserve is anything but supported by the leadership in the industry of agriculture.

[1440]

I want to read a couple of quotes to make my point. At the time that we proposed these changes on January 27, the following people joined us in our press announcements in the press theatre: Moura Quayle, the dean who had done the review; Marcus Jensen, a director for the B.C.

Agriculture Council; Bill Hartley, the chair of the legislative select standing committee; Herb Barbolet, the chair of Farm Folk-City Folk; David Perry, the commissioner who wrote the original report; Judy Galey, a potato producer from here on the Island; Alan Chambers, the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission itself; and Kirk Miller, the general manager. Russell Husch, the spokesperson who chairs the B.C.

Agriculture Council, which encompasses all the commodities in British Columbia, said the following: "This is a welcome announcement today, because it ends the uncertainty around the provincial interest clause and the agricultural land reserve. These initiatives show that the B.C. government understands the need to support agriculture and food production as they continue to evolve to meet changing distribution patterns, consumer choices and competition."

Another producer-leader in the farm community, Marcus Jensen, a hog producer from Abbotsford -- and again, a member of the B.C. Ag Council -- said the B.C. Agriculture Council supported the government's decisions, but reminded everyone that the key issue for farmers remains "being able to make a living farming," which brings me to my last comment.

In their press release welcoming the changes we're bringing into the Legislature today, the B.C. Agriculture Council pointed out that they "celebrate the zoning for agriculture that is the agricultural land reserve," and then reminded all of us in this building that it is "a two-part deal: the zoning for agriculture that is the ALR and the promotion and assistance and research work for agriculture and safety nets provided by government." They advised us that the work of the select standing committee this year to consider these issues in terms of the support for agriculture, was an absolute necessity to the farm community, in exchange for their support for the agricultural land reserve.

So I consider this, personally, the closing of the book on some real hard work for myself. I consider it -- for all people in British Columbia -- an opportunity to celebrate the ending of the previous 25 years, where it was perceived that the reserve was not embraced by the agricultural community -- because it's over now. But I also consider it to be a challenge. The farm community is saying to us: "Yes, protect the land. We do not want developers . . . . We do not want someone because they're richer than we are to develop the land that we need to farm on. We want this land protected.

But we also want you, as legislators, to remember that you have another job" -- the job that the co-Chairs of the standing committee are engaged in this year in this province.

[ Page 13130 ]

Now, that was a non-partisan, fairly technical, historical introduction of this debate. I will close debate and will be pleased to respond in a political way later to whatever might be said in the room. I wouldn't be surprised if everybody who opens their mouth here today will speak for themselves and for their party for the next 25 years. In a perfect world we won't have to debate this law too often.

I know that when we invoked the provincial interest, and David Perry went around and held hearings on what should happen at Six Mile Ranch, people who went to those hearings read into the record the words that had come out of the mouths of ministers and MLAs in the debates that created the agricultural land reserve and made the changes in 1993.

So I would like to charge all members who might stand up and speak, to speak not only for themselves and their party, but on the record for all the citizens for the next 25 years, because this is what they're going to look to, to understand what we intended when we made these changes.

[1445]

I wouldn't even be surprised if when we got to the end of second reading, some member in this room might ask for a division, because I think everybody's going to want to know where everybody stands before this day is complete.

B. Barisoff: I take to heart the words from the hon. minister.

There are a number of issues that we are unable to cover in committee stage of Bill 70, as a significant portion of the recommendations in Moura Quayle's report, "Stakes in the Ground," were not addressed in this bill. Altogether, Moura Quayle put forth four major recommendations in her report: defining provincial interest in the act; protection of the agricultural lands is in the provincial interest; establishing an open, accountable decision-making process; and promoting integrated land management and agriculture innovation.

Under Moura Quayle's third major recommendation -- to establish an open, accountable decision-making process -- there were several smaller recommendations for improving informed decision-making. One was to establish the position of a provincial agrologist, similar to the provincial forester or provincial health officer. Another was to establish an environmental assessment board and to add the provincial agrologist to the board when dealing with provincial interest referral.

Another one of Moura Quayle's recommendations under this heading for ensuring accountability was to hold landowners accountable for exclusions by requiring specialized contracts to make sure that the projects proceeded as promised.

In her report, Moura Quayle's fourth major recommendation is to promote integrated land management and agriculture innovation. She states: " . . . there is also the need to address the broader context of agriculture and its future. Preservation in isolation will not be enough." We need to move forward in support of agriculture and general resource management in the province.

In terms of promoting integrated land management, Ms. Quayle makes three recommendations: (1) "establish a B.C. lands trust with an umbrella trust for agriculture . . .

"; (2) combine the ALC and the Forest Land Commission and generally broaden the commission's mandate to incorporate the management of resource lands generally, in order to improve integration of land-planning functions; (3) "request that the ALC and municipalities in B.C. initiate a review of . . . marginal agricultural lands -- classes 4 and 5 -- through first developing agricultural and open-space plans and then evaluating the potential changes on the basis of agricultural capability, no net loss and a no negative effects to adjacent agricultural lands."

In terms of promoting agriculture reparation and innovation, Ms. Quayle recommends a comprehensive agrifood policy that includes creating an agriculture infrastructure fund under the proposed B.C. lands trust. It will help provide a reasonable return on land investment and growth opportunities through the innovation of agriculture, support education and basic research partnerships and encourage the next generation of farmers with the possibility of land leases and capital loans through agriculture and infrastructure funds.

[1450]

A lot of these items were not addressed in Bill 70, and I'm just wondering why some of these . . . . Getting off some of these items that I wanted to put in, as the minister went on possibly a political aside, I'd like to comment that in 1972, when the agricultural land reserve was established, I lived on a farm where it happened. There was another half of that equation that we as society and everybody else have to look at: when that part of the agricultural land reserve was put into place, there was also a commitment to agriculture in British Columbia that society would help sustain agriculture in the province.

Now, we've established a Select Standing Committee on Agriculture which hasn't sat in many years, and it's something that, I think, will move forward in a non-partisan fashion. I think the select standing committee can move the profile of agriculture to new levels. As the minister, in his flamboyant way, indicated last night when we were closing debate on the Agriculture estimates, normally agriculture doesn't get on in the afternoon session. Well, today we're here at ten to three in the afternoon, and agriculture is on the forefront of everybody's mind.

This weekend I had the opportunity to speak to an agriculture group in Prince George. From what I can see, the select standing committee and such non-partisan groups . . . what's taking place is bringing agriculture in this province to a new high. I hope, along with the minister, that we get opportunities to speak at 2:30 in the afternoon, when there are people watching and paying attention to what's happening. There are a number of things that we will be addressing on an individual basis -- individual sections of Bill 70. We'll be looking at those in committee stage and hoping that we get positive answers from the ministers in making this bill the best possible.

W. Hartley: It's a pleasure to stand in support of this legislation, and I know that the minister has worked hard to get us to this point today. He's done a number of things which I'll try to include in a short talk at this time.

It's important to me, as an individual MLA who represents an area -- Pitt Meadows -- which is some 85 percent agricultural . . . . We know that legislation that's good for agriculture is also good for the community of Pitt Meadows.

There's a lot of pressure on farmland in my constituency, and I've certainly had to live with trying to deal with that over the past several months. This type of legislation gives me some sense of confidence that the kinds of problems that we saw coming forward in the community are less likely to raise

[ Page 13131 ]

the fears and concerns that we've seen in the recent past. The pressures on family farms, the pressures on the general area of agriculture, really do raise the hackles of the majority of the members of my community. They not only see agriculture as an important factor in B.C. life, and food production as being a critical element of our present and future, they also value very highly the quality of life. They see agriculture as being an important part of that quality of life -- providing the green space and all of the farm culture that's available through farming.

There have been residential developments that have put great amounts of pressure on the farming community -- not only in my community, but certainly throughout the lower mainland -- for several years. This legislation is going to make it possible not to fear large resort developments -- Disneyland-type developments -- going into agricultural areas. That just won't happen without the support of the farming community. What I've always looked for in my community, since we are 85 percent agricultural, is that any development that's good for the community also has to be good for agriculture.

The amendments that we see in this act clearly remove matters that are under the Agricultural Land Commission, or clearly ensure that those matters are dealt with by the Agricultural Land Commission, and that the public interest is purely what it says -- that all British Columbians will have a better and greater opportunity to ensure that they have an understanding of what is at stake in any development that might come forward, and also a means by which to voice their opinion, not only their personal opinion but an opinion that's based on facts and gathered evidence.

That is built into the criteria for this process. That's what people want. They want to be able to come to public meetings and speak in a meaningful way, having the facts before them to consider, and then to give their opinion on that before it's just left to provincial cabinet to make some sort of a decision on the matter.

[1455]

I have the opportunity, along with the opposition critic, to co-chair a select standing committee of this Legislature. We will be coming forward next spring with recommendations, after having listened to the industry, the farming community and the people of British Columbia, having gone out amongst the towns and cities and villages and rural and urban areas of British Columbia, hearing what changes people want to make to the agricultural community, to the process and to the industry itself. We'll be able to make recommendations to this Legislature based on solid information that we'll gather throughout that process.

The minister mentioned a lot of information in regard to how important agriculture is to the community or to the province. His obvious goal is to ensure that we can get the most agricultural value from our agricultural land. Essentially, we only farm half of our land in the agricultural land reserve and produce the equivalent of 50 percent of the total food purchased by the B.C. population. That means that we have 100 percent growth potential in both the land availability and in the domestic market potential.

It shows how important the agrifood industry is. It's certainly the most dynamic growth sector we have in the province, employing some 33,000 people directly. Farm cash receipts last year were about $1.7 billion. Food- and beverage-processing industry shipments totalled just over $4.6 billion. So the B.C. agrifood and beverage industry has a tremendous value to the province -- some $17 billion in total, employing altogether about 250,000 people. That's one in seven British Columbians.

The agricultural land reserve is, of course, the key factor in the continued growth of that industry. I believe, as the minister has said, that these changes are going to provide certainty and clarity for the farmers and the development community. The farmers obviously will know that the ALR is for agriculture and agricultural development. The developers will know that the ALR lands are not available for non-agricultural use. There is a new land commissioner that will be in place to work with those developers and with municipalities to find other land for that sort of development.

What we see from this is a strengthening of our ability to increase our economic development both inside and outside of that agricultural land reserve. We make sure that everyone understands that the agricultural land reserve is a way of planning their communities around agriculture and ensuring that the best land use zoning takes place in those areas.

[1500]

I think that we've got a tremendous opportunity. I look forward to working with the opposition critic and the other members of the select standing committee on the many issues that are outside of this act, some of which were mentioned by the critic. I think the process that we have in place will certainly allow us to cover those areas as well.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to join in this second reading debate of Bill 70, the Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act. I'm pleased to speak on this bill, and I'll say at the outset that I support it. However, there can be no doubt that this bill is a direct result of the political controversy surrounding the application by a developer to remove major portions of the Six Mile Ranch from the agricultural land reserve and use it for tourist, commercial and residential purposes.

On June 10, 1998, the Minister of Agriculture announced that under the provincial interest clause of the existing act, cabinet had decided to proceed on the developer's request to convert this land to non-agricultural uses. The deal is a complex one that includes consolidation of existing titles; it includes the swap of Crown land for water rights of questionable value, and it includes other government commitments, also of dubious merit. I don't think it was a happy time for the minister, as he struggled with the political pressures from the Premier's Office and his personal commitment to the maintenance of agricultural land for farming purposes.

Just prior to the June 10 announcement, the minister announced that he was asking Moura Quayle, the dean of agriculture at UBC, to review and report on the provincial interest clause in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The Six Mile application was the first test of this

section of the legislation, which was part of the amendments introduced by the government in 1992. The public discussion generated by Moura Quayle's review served to provide a more positive outlet for all the political damage that was done to the government and to many individuals as a result of the Six Mile controversy. It also served, from a political perspective, to reinforce the notion that there must be a deficiency in the act and that's why the controversy surrounding Six Mile happened.

I just want to say, for the record, that all of the problems and controversy around the Six Mile Ranch situation were not

[ Page 13132 ]

a product of deficiencies in the legislation. They were a direct result of a high-level political decision initially made in the Premier's Office: that granting the green light to the Pagbrook proposal was considered essential for the government to win one or possibly two seats in Kamloops in the next provincial election. When the Agricultural Land Commission did not cave in to the variety of pressures put on it by the government, the government was forced to make the decision themselves.

We saw, for example, the unprecedented situation where the Ministry of Agriculture was paying significant consulting fees to a lawyer and two consultants to help an applicant get their land out of the ALR. This was at a time when the ministry was facing significant budget cuts. I think it is important to remember this background to Moura Quayle's report.

Secondly, I want to proudly say that I am a supporter of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. I am a supporter of provincial legislation to ensure a stable, predictable and protected land base on which our diverse agricultural industry can flourish. I say that, knowing full well that there are many other legitimate uses for rural land. However, I believe that the Land Commission has on many occasions demonstrated appropriate sensitivity and flexibility to accommodate legitimate competitive interests in the use of rural land and ALR land.

I believe it is entirely fair to expect the commission to take into account local and regional interests and to do so in a way that varies from region to region as local concerns require. In doing so, I believe that the commission should be more active in publicly explaining its rationale, so that everyone has the opportunity for a fuller understanding of the reasons for the commission's decisions.

[1505]

It is critical to the needs of agriculture that the stability of the legislation over the last 27 years be considered. Any instability from an expectation of significant changes will cause further speculation on farmland, which will simply increase pressures and the costs for agriculture.

I have reviewed the Quayle report and, like the minister, feel there were a lot of things in the report that I agreed with, and there were some things that I disagreed with. For example, there is no question that agriculture is in the provincial interest. It is a $2 billion-a-year industry at the farm gate for the province, but more importantly, it is also a mainstay in many local rural economies. It is a stabilizing influence in these local economies. Agriculture is there, running seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, feeding a local economy through its farming, marketing and service sectors.

I agree that the issue of what is a matter of provincial interest of sufficient significance to override the needs of agriculture could be and probably should be better defined. The Quayle report attempts to do that. Having said that, however, I was somewhat surprised when the minister tabled the bill without including a specific definition of provincial interest -- not Quayle's definition or any other definition -- even though on January 27 the government indicated that it would do so. I'm sure the minister will explain to us what considerations he made on this issue.

Also, the January 1999 press release indicated that a new commissioner of lands would be appointed to assist project proponents to identify alternative sites outside the ALR for non-agricultural development. Again, I'm sure the minister has considered this issue and possibly will introduce it outside of the legislation.

There is no question that the improvements in this bill, compared to the existing wording of the act, are under the general heading of openness and public accountability and in the involvement of the Agricultural Land Commission in the overall process. The specific features that I believe are constructive and helpful to an improved process are, firstly, that public hearings must be held in six locations in the province in order to reinforce the notion that only matters of a truly provincial interest should be able to override the commitment of farmland to agriculture.

Secondly, the participation of the Agricultural Land Commission through the submission of their views at both the beginning and end of the process, before the report goes to cabinet, is also a distinct improvement. Thirdly, I support the clause that will allow a municipality or a regional district to request cabinet to consider an initiative under the provincial interest clause. This is a good improvement in that it does give local and regional governments more influence in the consideration of whether or not a non-agricultural project should be able to go ahead on agricultural land.

In the final analysis, given the history behind this bill, it is relevant to ask: will this amendment prevent another Six Mile debacle? My short answer to the question is no. If a cabinet -- any cabinet, be it an NDP cabinet, Liberal or something else -- is determined to override the legislation, they probably can do so by simply ignoring the provisions of the so-called balancing test.

While the provisions in the act are a reasonable effort to describe the appropriate test, I believe they are still subject to a wide range of

interpretations. Creative politicians will find a way around it if they really want to do so, and maybe that is as it should be.

I believe this legislation will be an improvement. However, given the background to this bill, I would like to mention two current issues that involve agricultural land interests. And given the minister's strong commitment to agriculture, I ask that he address his attention to these two situations that are clear examples of the kind of political problems that this legislation is designed to address.

[1510]

The recently announced expansion of the Western Star Trucks plant is being enabled by a high-profile financial contribution from the province. The indications are that the plant may want to expand onto ALR land, at least in part. It is my understanding that Western Star also has a backup alternative on non-ALR land if plan A does not proceed. I'm not saying that there is a problem here, but given the high-profile nature of the government's involvement, I am hopeful that whatever happens, the minister will be vigilant to ensure more integrity in the process than we saw with the Six Mile project.

Secondly, the Minister of Transportation and Highways is currently promoting a project to widen to four lanes the current two-lane

section of the highway from Aspen Grove to Merritt -- I think it's Highway 97C. The documents show that this is not a road-widening project. It is, in fact, a new four-lane highway which will further alienate significant acreage of ALR land and cause further detrimental impacts to the ranches involved. I do not believe that the Highways minister's proposal stands up to proper scrutiny, and on behalf of agriculture -- and for many other reasons -- I believe it should not proceed.

In closing, this bill is no guarantee against the partisan aspirations of creative politicians, again, whether they be NDP

[ Page 13133 ]

or B.C. Liberals. But I am happy to support the bill because it represents an improvement to the existing Agricultural Land Commission Act, and I commend the minister for bringing it forward.

B. Goodacre: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery we have some visiting students from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers, B.C., who have taken time out of their busy

schedule to witness the activities of this House. I told them that the piece of legislation that is being debated is one of particular importance to the province of British Columbia, and they're looking forward to hearing the debate. Could you please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Thank you, and welcome to the young people who are here.

J. Sawicki: I am very pleased to stand in support of Bill 70. It is perhaps one of the bills, one of the amendments, that I will remember, when I leave this place, as being something that was extremely and personally important to me. I think all speakers have brought up some very important points. There's another point that I want to bring up. It's unusual, when we debate legislation in this House, that we have four members of the House, two from each side, stand up and collectively bring up the points that really do represent the complexity and the importance of this issue.

When you're dealing with a program that is 27 years old -- I hate to mention it, hon. Speaker, to all of us here -- we're talking about a whole new generation who don't remember what it was like in British Columbia before we had agricultural land preservation legislation. I perhaps have the longest personal history of involvement with this issue. That doesn't mean that I'm old today -- only that I was very young when I got involved in this issue. But as the minister said, in 1972, when British Columbia took the unprecedented action to zone agricultural land, it was a very courageous action.

Land was disappearing at an alarming rate, and it was clear to everyone that without some action to ensure that farmers would have land to farm and food to produce for this and future generations, today, all of that land would be gone.

[1515]

It's also been mentioned that it was a very controversial decision. I was certainly there on the front lines at that time. Clearly there were many people at that time who owned farmland who perhaps had bought farmland for the very purpose of making the most profitable use of it. If we allow that to happen with agriculture, then agriculture never wins. Food producers can never compete with developers in terms of buying the essential ingredient to their livelihood -- and that is the land.

I think mention has also been made, however, that over the years, with all of the ebbs and flows and controversies around the agricultural land reserve . . . . It now enjoys unprecedented support across this province. I know that there was a poll done a couple of years ago that suggested that fully 85 percent of British Columbians believe it should be very difficult to remove land from the agricultural land reserve.

This is not only farmers -- who clearly have said that they need the reserve to protect the area on which they carry out their livelihood -- but certainly many local governments, who have understood that in order to plan better communities -- compact, complete communities that don't have the huge costs of urban sprawl . . . . The agricultural land reserve also supports their community goals.

Many developers who have long since sold lands they owned in the ALR and begun to develop on slopes and non-agricultural lands have come to support the agricultural land reserve as a companion to livable and attractive communities that they are building on non-agricultural land.

I believe there are few other programs that our predecessors in this chamber brought in that have been so phenomenally successful through 27 years, despite a few sore thumbs along the way and despite the fact that perhaps every government since 1972 has made decisions that have perhaps been out of sync with the initial intent of this legislation. But Bill 70 is really only the most recent of the fine-tunings of the legislation to protect farmland.

Certainly in 1975, changes were made that created the appeal to the elected arm, and through the next decade we saw a veritable superhighway of applications that bypassed the independent body called the Agricultural Land Commission and came to this chamber. Indeed, it was sort of household names, almost, like Gloucester and Spetifore that prompted this government, when it was elected in 1991, as one of its first acts, to remove and abolish the appeals to cabinet and instead put in place what we have come to know as the provincial interest clause.

In addition, because I think we all recognize that this is not an easy journey that we are on in terms of regarding agricultural land as a provincial resource, not only in the purview and interest of local governments, in 1994 this Legislature, our government, again brought in amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act that actually did create further flexibility for the Land Commission to work with local governments and regional districts to meet community goals as well as provincial goals in terms of land use planning.

I think those were extremely important amendments that we made to that act to try to address some of the issues that local governments face in terms of other demands on their farmland.

But, as has been mentioned, I think we all recognize that Bill 70 is here today because of our collective experience around the Six Mile Ranch issue. I want to reiterate some of the minister's comments that this was not a comfortable time for him or for me or for members on this side of the House. It was not a comfortable time for me to be at odds with the minister, who I know works extremely hard. We work very closely together on issues in support of agriculture.

[1520]

So, while not the first, I want to stand here in this House and say that while I may have disagreed with the decision on Six Mile Ranch, I want to commend the minister and all of my colleagues in government on this side of the House for bringing forward Bill 70 and for fixing something that perhaps resulted in something unintended in terms of the provincial interest and for clarifying and refining exactly what we mean by provincial interest.

I won't actually go through again what is in the bill. I think members on both sides of the House have clarified it quite well. There will be set stages which all of us collectively -- communities, the Agricultural Land Commission and elected members of a government -- will need to go through in terms of considering another case under provincial interest. I

[ Page 13134 ]

think that what this bill does is ensure that there will be an open, accountable process and that should there be the rare situation in the future when another proposal would come forward that might qualify, there is in place the public process to ensure that it is a provincial interest, not merely a regional interest. Call it the silver lining around the cloud, from my personal perspective, but I believe that the minister and certainly Moura Quayle and, I know, many other people have worked very hard to make this a much more functional and practical

section of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I want to close with just a couple of comments, because certainly I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Okanagan-Boundary and the member for Abbotsford -- particularly the member for Abbotsford, who I know has been a longtime supporter of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

While I appreciate the members on the opposite side supporting this bill, I would have hoped to have heard perhaps the commitment from that side of the House on the larger question of where they stand on the provincial program, because I know that in the last election the official opposition had as one of their policies a much greater devolution to regional decision-making. I am hoping today that the vote on this bill and the comments of the two members opposite would clarify once and for all and put to rest where the official opposition stands on this issue.

British Columbians need to know that the provincial program is safe, regardless of who sits on this side of the House, if we are to truly protect the limited amount of agricultural land we have left.

With that, I will conclude with just a short local comment. I, of course, represent an urban riding. Sometimes on this issue of agricultural land preservation there is perhaps a little bit of animosity between those who live in rural communities and those who live in urban communities. But I live in an urban community that recognizes very clearly that the places where we live, the places where we work and the places where we shop were once farmland. So we live in areas where that farmland has been lost.

Far from being a dividing point between those who continue to steward and farm the land in rural areas and those who live in urban areas, I believe that we have an opportunity through the select standing committee and through the agriculture and food policy process to marry those two interests and to deliver finally on the commitment that society, in protecting the agricultural land resource, is also prepared to ensure that farmers can make a living on that land and that we -- all of us British Columbians -- will support their effort to do that for the benefit of food security for this generation and for all future generations.

That is what this bill is about. It's about reaffirming our commitment that the foundation for growing food is the land base. Without it, we do not have that security of food production. With that, hon. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and support Bill 70.

[1525]

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Food for closing remarks on second reading of Bill 70.

Hon. C. Evans: In closing debate here today . . . . I know we'll get to the committee stage later, but this is the part of the debate where people actually say the guts or the politics of what they think about an issue. I want to talk about what I think is happening here, outside this room, in the larger sense of public policy.

In the last 25 years, there have been something like 30,000 applications for exclusion from the agricultural land reserve. The job of the Agricultural Land Commission has been to sort through all of those applications and decide, based on soil type or planning sensibilities or regulatory regime, what pieces of property should come out.

I think that job is over now. We are deciding here today that the provincial interest is the agriculture interest. I don't think we need the Agricultural Land Commission to spend another 25 years sifting through another 30,000 applications and, one by one, in a sort of a one-at-a-time way, trying to figure out what is farmland. From now on, I think what is in, is in. And I think that in future what is added in or comes out should happen in consultation, in planning processes, between the Agricultural Land Commission and municipalities about what makes sense for agriculture.

I think we can wind down the sort of one-off history of the agricultural land reserve. We can end here today the notion that the farmers don't like it.

The hon. member said that he was living on farmland when it was frozen. Me too, hon. member -- the land I live on, because I never move, is the land I was on then. It was brought into the agricultural land reserve, and it's the same for a whole lot of other people. But the hon. member and I are old. I submit that at least I am half a century old. When people come and stand before me and say, "Woe is me, my land is frozen," I notice that lots of them are 30 or 40 years old. They bought it frozen.

The time when we can talk about expropriated wealth or the nasty changes brought in by the NDP in 1973 is over. It's over -- the decades of support systems and ALDA and ARDSA and FII and all the programs that were put in place because the Minister of Agriculture of the day, in 1973, said: "We'll freeze your land, and for a while, there will be cost-of-production subsidies." We paid it for decades. It's over.

In just a couple of minutes this debate is going to be over. We're going to go and call the question. The room is going to fill up with people, and I submit, hon. Speaker, that I will be stunned if anybody in this room votes against this bill. I want to say that there's only a few people here -- God bless you. Thanks for coming. You are watching a moment in history. When this debate is over, the fight over the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia is also over. I think both parties in this House are going to sign on and say that from now on, it's the law. It will be there forever.

Developers, you want to build something? Go somewhere else. After all, there's only four million of us here. If we can't find empty land in British Columbia to build a factory on or a resort on or an airfield on, who else could? We have the emptiest province in the emptiest country on the globe. If we can't lead here today, what other society could we expect to live up to our ideals? The days when you have to pay for this zoning end today.

The people who stand up and vote yes for the terms of the provincial interest sign on, for themselves and for their political party -- listen up, hon. members -- through the next election out on the hustings and for all time. If you want to work in here on this side of the House, you vote for this piece of legislation and you're signed on.

[1530]

[ Page 13135 ]

With that, and with real expectation of what these folks are going to get to watch happen in just a minute, I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 70 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

[1535]

Bill 70, Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call committee on Bill 69.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in committee on Bill 69; W. Hartley in the chair.

[1540]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We had a brief and very collegial discussion of the principles of the amendments in this bill in second reading. I'm here today to do the detailed discussion. I have with me staff from the Ministry of Education: Mr. Peter Owen, who's director of the governance and legislation branch in the Ministry of Education; from the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, Stella Bailey, who's manager of legislation, policy planning and legislation; and Jim Soles, who's director of the universities and institute branch.

section 1.

J. Weisbeck: I first of all want to thank the minister again. I think the second reading speech last night was very informative and probably answered a lot of our questions, but we do have just a couple of things that we'd like to ask.

I'm noticing here, under "Objects," that there basically is an addition of a new object of the society: " . . . to nurture and further the professional application of landscape architectural knowledge and technique as it relates to the planning, design, development, preservation, protection, restoration, reclamation, rehabilitation, enhancement and management of the environment." I just would like to know whether this is something that's internal -- something related to the society -- or if there is some other intent in this. For example, are we looking at, somewhere down the road, making it mandatory for landscape architecture having input into various projects?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The shorter answer is no. There's no intent that this become some sort of external requirement. This is simply an amendment reflecting the desire of the landscape architects to have the act reflect what they believe are the true objects of their society.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

G. Hogg: With respect to the Independent School Act, there is a modification in terms of process. I'm wondering whether the criteria in terms of the guidelines which are being developed have been developed, and if the criteria will remain the same for the independent school teacher certification or whether or not there will be a change in criteria.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The criteria will remain the same. They could, of course, change at some future time, but that is not the intent of this amendment.

G. Hogg: The independent school teacher certification committee will have set those criteria, or the criteria are already set as in guidelines. The process will now be that an application will be reviewed directly by the inspector. The inspector will give that approval, consistent with the guidelines set by the independent school teacher certification committee. Is that the correct process? Or is that the process as it will be followed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, you've summarized the process accurately. The only thing I would add is that after the inspector does the certification, that will then be ratified at the next meeting of the committee.

G. Hogg: That was the point I was looking at. So the standards will then be maintained by the committee, by having the process to review the actions as taken by the inspector.

Are there any options for the teachers challenging this certification process if they're not satisfied with it? I see the inclusion process with respect to the committee having the ability to check what the inspector may have determined, based on their criteria and approval of that. Does there exist or should there exist within the act some recourse for a teacher who may have applied for certification and been denied and is unhappy with that? What recourse would they have?

[1545]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Good question. I'm not aware of the provisions for appeal of an unfavourable decision by the independent school inspector or the committee. I've asked staff to check the act and regulations to see what the avenue of appeal is. I will say this to the member: there's no change to that process, whatever it is, by these amendments. We can get that information for you either now or at a later date.

G. Hogg: Thank you.

My final question would just be with respect to how we, as the state, are assured that the standards are going to be at particular levels within the independent schools. I'm assuming that we . . . . The agent for the state in this matter is the inspector. The inspector has, I'm assuming, some type of guidelines given to him or her, based on the standards which the state wishes to be maintained through all of the educational facilities which exist.

So could you just advise me as to how those standards are maintained and therefore how the state is assured that, generally, independent schools have the quality of education necessary -- not just through their internal committee, not just through the actions as the inspector may put them forward, but how the state ensures those within a broader framework or a broader set of principles.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, on the appeal issue, we actually have located it.

Section 5(4) of the Independent School Act provides that if a teacher has been refused certification, the teacher may appeal within 60 calendar days to the minister, whose decision is final. So there is an avenue of appeal.

[ Page 13136 ]

More broadly, the questions that the member raises about standards for certification of teachers under the Independent School Act or the qualifications of teachers in independent schools are really matters way beyond the scope of this amendment. I will respond briefly, however.

Teachers in independent schools have two avenues for obtaining certification. One is as public school teachers do through the College of Teachers, and the great majority of independent school teachers choose that avenue. They may also apply for certification under the provisions of the Independent School Act. The qualifications or the specifications are actually set out by the teacher certification committee, which is composed of people from the ministry and from the independent school community. Then those qualifications and guidelines are applied by the inspector and that committee under the provisions of the act which we're now modifying.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Weisbeck: In sub-subsection (i), "program advisory committees with substantial industry representation . . . . " I was wondering if you could just clarify that? It seems to be rather vague. Is there some sort of form that you might suggest to committees for representation from private business?

[1550]

Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, the intent of this amendment, I think, is clear to the member, and we discussed it last night. The current provisions in the act for one advisory committee on technical and one on vocational isn't actually what's in place at BCIT. Right now they have in place program advisory committees for specific technologies that they instruct on, or groups of them. One of their principles is that those committees are not just internal committees -- i.e., composed of deans or instructors or students -- but include substantial participation by the industry that hires the graduates of these programs.

I'm reluctant to say substantial means 30 percent, 50 percent or 70 percent. This is at the discretion of the board and BCIT to set that. But they did want to make sure that the principle that industry has a loud and clear voice on the committees advising the institution on program content was incorporated in the act.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Weisbeck: This particular

section is, under the

section of

definitions, "post-secondary education." In this case, it has excluded public post-secondary institutions. Does this amendment make it easier for public post-secondary to move into training? In other words, does this complement the training accord?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I just want to confirm my understanding with staff here. Right now, public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia that are established under provisions of legislation passed by this chamber are not required to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. So there's a clear division right now in the province. What this technical amendment does is extend that exclusion from the requirement to register to other Canadian public post-secondary institutions.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

[1555]

G. Hogg: So I can be perfectly clear with respect to what this amendment provides, it's my understanding that it provides protection and confidentiality for those students who may be at risk -- in the broad sense of "at risk" -- from emotional, psychological or physical abuse or risk that may have been recorded in some records of the Ministry for Children and Families or any other ministry. Is that the specific intent of this section?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The significant part of this

section is clause (d); I think the member has picked that up. The intent here is quite clear.

Section 14(1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act requires -- and I want to emphasize that it requires -- that any person who has reason to believe that a child is being physically neglected or abused has to report his or her concerns to the director of child protection, at which point a file is opened under an investigation subsequent to that section.

What we're saying or doing by this amendment is saying: "Look, there's much that's in a student's record, but this stuff is not. Access to that material is covered not by the School Act but by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." That's what this amendment does.

G. Hogg: Would current records now include any provisions where the police may have been called to be involved in some activity at the school or an offence which would have taken place at the school? Do the current records now reflect that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The current provisions of the School Act would enable a broad variety of documents to be made part of a student's record, including perhaps, as the member hypothesizes, a report by police. There are a wide range of things that could be in a student's record aside from records of academic performance, participation in school activities and the like.

The specific concern of this one is that there is one set of information that we think should not be accessible under the provisions of the School Act, and that's the set of information that would relate to an investigation of an allegation of physical neglect or abuse under

section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. It's my impression that, by and large,

[ Page 13137 ]

schools right now are seeking to, obviously, protect children from unintended release of information that might result from a

section 14 investigation. This makes it absolutely clear about the confidentiality of that and measures to access it.

G. Hogg: Was there any consideration with respect to broadening this

section to include things which may be under the Young Offenders Act, or may have some type of problems associated with that, which may be recorded in the record? So we're just broadening the sense of the protection. You're eliminating it at this point through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but there are other areas which could arguably be confidential or could arguably be to the detriment of a youth even finding out about them, as has been determined in a number of proceedings. I just wonder whether or not the line was drawn at one point in this and why that line was chosen.

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a wide range of material that could be included in a student record. I think the member is right that this is an area that . . . . Frankly, it's often the topic of discussion among school counsellors, and others who are concerned about what goes into a record: what's really relevant to go in there, how to weed stuff out, what should be there and the like. Those are all good topics for discussion, but that's not really the topic of this amendment -- okay?

This amendment is really quite restricted. It says only that there are two routes, really, for getting information from a school board. One is through the School Act; one is through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. What this act says is -- unlike other information in a child's record in a school, which you can get through the School Act -- that if you want information from a record that relates to

section 14(1) investigations, you've got to go through FOI. That provides a measure of confidentiality for those records beyond that which is afforded to other documents in a child's record under the School Act.

[1600]

G. Plant: I've been trying to follow the minister's explanations. To start with this point, I take it that nothing in

section 11 of this bill is intended to alter rights of access to records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is accurate.

G. Plant: Given what the minister expresses as the public policy rationale for the introduction of this new subparagraph (d), perhaps he could explain how it is that the amendment will create this additional level of comfort, given that the FOI route of access is still there. In other words, could the minister explain what it is about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that he sees as being, in a way, I suppose, less public than the processes that would have existed under the School Act before this amendment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The amendment here deals with a minor but significant issue. Let me try to give it just a bit more background. Under the School Act, student records are held fairly tightly. However, parents and the students themselves have an unfettered right of access to those records, and I feel that's appropriate. However, in the case of material that relates to an allegation of abuse or neglect, there is the additional safeguard under the freedom-of-information access provisions that if the safety of the child is an issue, the material may be withheld. So that is the additional protection that is being incorporated through this amendment.

[1605]

G. Plant: That's helpful, because I was trying to sort it out, given what I think I know about who has a right of access to these records in the first place. I didn't see the answer there, but the minister's explanation is helpful.

The other issue I want to pursue here in terms of the reach of this amendment has to do with a situation that the minister will recall. I haven't sat down to get all the facts back into my head, so I may get this story slightly wrong, but basically the minister will recall a situation where provincewide assessment exams recently included questions . . . . I think we're talking about exams that were or are taken by grades 4, 7 and 10 students for the purpose of assessing the curriculum, and there were questions that encouraged students to write rather personal essays.

There was an indication in a number of cases that the contents of those essays had caused officials in the ministry alarm. Therefore there were reports made under

section 14 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act to Children and Families protection officers, and there was some public concern around different aspects of that process.

I think that as a result of that, the Ministry of Education has made some changes. As I recall, it may be in the kinds of questions that are going to be asked in these exams. But none of that would undercut the basic obligation which a teacher or any other education official still has under

section 14 to report a child in need of protection. That now brings me to the amendment proposed here in

section 11(d). I think I know the answer to the question, but I'll ask it nonetheless. Does anything in this proposed amendment take away from that obligation to report in circumstances where that obligation would now arise?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No. The obligation remains as set out under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Sections 11 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

G. Hogg: With respect to the process by which this can come about, allowing school calendars to apply to particular groups of students, as the minister referred to last night -- just different cohorts starting and having different cohorts within a school -- is there any anticipation of size of cohorts? Or is that strictly at the discretion of the school board and/or the school with respect to what size? I'm wondering whether or not there can be small groups that may choose to operate on a different calendar and whether they have discretion to do that or the school has discretion to make some decisions with respect to that.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That matter would be left at the discretion of the school board, obviously in consultation with parents and staff at the school.

G. Hogg: I understand that it's more than just consultation. In fact, there has to be agreement. My understanding is

[ Page 13138 ]

that there has to be agreement between the school board, and there has to be agreement amongst the BCTF and amongst the parents.

I'm just wanting to get a grasp of what that agreement means. Does that mean there has to be 100 percent agreement from all of the parents? Or does there have to be . . . ? This is why I'm struggling with the definition of the cohorts. What does agreement mean? What is the size of a cohort?

So if a cohort is 30 students -- they're in a particular grade, and this is for the management of a district -- and the school board makes a determination, "This is the best use of our teaching staff and our facilities, and the best way that we can manage and provide services," yet we don't get agreement from the parents, for whatever that reason may be, what constitutes agreement amongst the BCTF, the parents and, indeed, the school board? I think the school board is fairly apparent, but the BCTF is not as apparent, and certainly agreement from the parents is far from apparent.

[1610]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member was right that the word I should have used was "agreement," not consultation with those groups. Agreement would not necessarily mean unanimity. In the case of staff or the teachers' union, I think we were fairly clear when agreement was forthcoming and when it was not.

I would think it very unlikely that a school board would impose this sort of year-round cohort-based calendar on a school where there was less than overwhelming parental support for the concept. In the areas where year-round schooling has now been put in -- I referenced the two we have operating in British Columbia last evening -- there has been strong parental support for moving in this direction.

G. Hogg: So what I hear you saying is that you don't think a school board will implement it without overwhelming support of the parents. Can I then interpret that to mean that the minister is delegating full authority and responsibility for this decision-making to the school board to make that decision? In fact, if a school board should make a decision with less than overwhelming support . . . . I'm trying to discern what in fact is the authority of a parent in this matter, and "less than overwhelming" in the school board doesn't help me discern what that might be. So I'm assuming . . . .

Let me test this. The school board has the authority to make the decision, and you will allow that to happen. If the school board should make a decision with less than overwhelming support -- maybe underwhelming support -- then that will be allowed to proceed, because they've been granted the discretion to make a decision with respect to this matter.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's questioning, but I must say again that we're straying far from what the actual amendment is. School calendars are now set by school boards, within the parameters established by the ministry. They choose when they want to have a professional development day or whatever and how they wish to structure the school days. They don't ask me or anybody for that authority. That's within their purview. This amendment says that if they wish to move to a year-round school calendar for a single cohort or multiple cohorts, they have the ability to do that.

As with other provisions around school calendars, they are required to get the approval of parents and teachers in doing so.

G. Hogg: The practice which is currently in place with respect to decisions involving parents -- the precedent which has been set by that practice -- is the practice which will then be rolled over and employed in decisions in such matters as going to different calendar years or calendar months. Is that a correct

interpretation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll read the "School Calendar Regulation." It says: "A board must not make available a local school calendar . . . unless the local school calendar has been approved . . . by (

a) the parents of the students enrolled in that school. and (

b) the employees of the board assigned to that school, through their union, where applicable, or, in any other case, through the persons chosen by those employees as their representatives." Those provisions remain unchanged.

G. Plant: The short answer to my colleague's concern is that the legal constraints that currently apply in respect to school calendar decisions will continue to apply to the school calendar provisions that are being proposed in this amendment. Is that correct?

The Chair: Members, while we're waiting for the minister to respond, perhaps I could ask leave to make an introduction. Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The Chair: It's appropriate that we're having this discussion about school calendars, because we have a group of some 50 young visitors -- grade 6 students -- five adults and their teacher, Mr. D. Mills, from Arrowhead Elementary School in Kenmore, Washington. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Our visitors might be shocked to learn that we're discussing whether schools should be in session year-round, with breaks at slightly different times than the summer vacation that they're soon going to be on. I don't think they would be quite as supportive as us on the floor.

[1615]

The answer is that all the provisions that are set out in the provincial guidelines for a school calendar would have to be incorporated in a locally developed calendar, in terms of number of days of school, hours of instruction and other provisions.

G. Plant: That would include, in addition to the examples the minister gives, the issues around the role of parents and other groups in making those decisions. They will be the same after these amendments, in respect of these issues, as they were before the amendments. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that is correct.

J. Dalton: I just want to get on the record. Firstly, I applaud this initiative. As a parent, I'm certainly encouraged to see that the ministry is taking such initiatives. But my colleague pointed out, through the questioning, that the minister better be ready for perhaps a lot of parents knocking on the door and asking for the implementation of such initiatives. I'm thinking of the school uniform issue that is all over the front page of the paper as we speak.

[ Page 13139 ]

My question would be: if a majority of parents and teachers in a school . . . ? I presume the local teachers association would have to be in agreement . . . . But if the board chooses to turn it down, is there any avenue of appeal for teachers and the parents within a particular school to put pressure on the ministry to implement such a thing? I'm thinking, again, more from the perspective of the parent. I think people are more and more demanding some initiative and change. I think this is inviting it, but I think the minister may be opening up a can of worms, accordingly.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The technical answer to the member's question is that there is not an avenue of appeal. If the parents and staff in a school wanted to go to a year-round calendar and the board was not willing to move in that direction, that would be the end of the matter. There is the avenue of appeal, of course, of school board elections every three years.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

G. Hogg: I need some clarity with respect to the Francophone Education Authority and how you become a member of the authority and the votes that are granted to you as a result of that. I understand the votes will take place by way of a mail-in. I'd just like some clarity with respect to all of that process and how I qualify to become a voter within the confines of the Francophone Education Authority and how the vote process will take place, be enumerated and be announced.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I really don't want to revisit all our discussions we've had in this chamber in the past couple of years about the Francophone Education Authority, other than to say this. As I said last night, the reason for these amendments is that as of the fall of 1999, the Francophone Education Authority's geographic mandate will extend to the entire province. Therefore they'll be conducting elections pretty much the same way as the school boards do, in November of every third year, starting in 1999. Who gets to vote in a Francophone Education Authority election would be anyone with

section 23 rights under the Constitution Act of Canada. That's the same group of people that have access to a francophone education or who would have access to a francophone education if they had children.

[1620]

The votes will be held, as I said, every three years. Right now, in consultation with the Francophone Education Authority, the ministry is working on regulations that will be brought forward for cabinet consideration and approval, which will specify all the details of when ballots are distributed, what the time lines are, what the scrutineering provisions are and the like. I'd be pleased to have staff provide the member with a briefing on current and contemplated future provisions, if he wishes to pursue this further.

Sections 21 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

G. Hogg: I just want to be sure that the provisions of this with respect to the Francophone Education Authority and the protection of records are analogous with those that we discussed previously in

section 11 -- that it's just a matter of ensuring that the same types of protections are extended to the Francophone Education Authority, as we previously discussed and clarified in

section 11, and that there are no differences and it is exactly consistent and analogous.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The intent is absolutely congruent with the intent of the previous amendment that we discussed. The goal here is to again work on ensuring safety -- whether it's the school board or the Francophone Education Authority is quite irrelevant -- and make sure that we have the power to ensure that we're not jeopardizing children in cases where allegations of abuse have been made.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

[1625]

Bill 69, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 61.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in committee on Bill 61; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: The minister explained the purposes of this act last night during second reading debate and did so with enough detail that it's not going to be necessary to go through too much of this. Of course, we could have a legal dialogue, but I think we're here to do public policy.

The bill before us amends the Consumer Protection Act. That is

an act which encompasses a wide variety of consumer transactions, including mortgage transactions, negative-option offers and a variety of credit transactions. It also deals with direct sellers and direct-sales contracts and what are called executory contracts, which I think is a type of contract for future services. These amendments, as I understand it, deal primarily with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in relation to direct sales and executory contracts only.

There is, of course, the one amendment to the tax that eliminates the provision because of federal statutes dealing with tax rebate discounting. But otherwise, in general terms, what we're on about here is changes to that part of the Consumer Protection Act that deals primarily with direct sales and contracts for future services. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Right.

G. Plant: One of the stated public policy objectives of the act is to achieve harmonization -- that is, a standardization

[ Page 13140 ]

across Canada -- of the provisions that exist for the protection of consumers with respect to direct sales contracts and contracts for future services in a variety of different pieces of legislation across Canada. I understand that one of the . . . . The information that I've been given is that as a matter of principle in approaching the issue of standardization, the governments across Canada -- including British Columbia -- have committed to harmonizing at the highest standard that exists across Canada. Can the minister confirm that that is his understanding both of the national objective here and also of the province's own objectives?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct, and that's based on the agreement on internal trade.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. There is the general question of harmonizing standards -- for example, when we are talking about the right which a consumer has to rescind a direct sales contract. We're looking at the issue of a time period to be attached to that right. Should the consumer have a two-day cooling-off period, a seven-day cooling-off period or a ten-day cooling-off period? As I read this bill, the answer to that specific question here, in terms of the policy objective, is a ten-day rescission period.

I assume that at the least, when British Columbia and the other provinces are attempting to harmonize, they are harmonizing standards. The additional step, though, is the question of whether the provinces have committed to use virtually the same language -- which is to say, to preclude arguments that, based on a strict

interpretation of provisions, might ultimately lead to different

interpretations in different provinces.

[1630]

An example, to sort of put the question in context. I could look at the three

definitions in

section 1 of this bill for the terms "buyer," "direct sale" and "trade-in allowance" and ask the minister if his expectation is that the language of these

definitions will ultimately be virtually exactly the same across Canada or if what is really sought to be achieved here is standardization at the level of principle, rather than at the level of word-for-word.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the standards are uniform, but I think the devices that we use to arrive at those standards may not be. The

definitions and the like obviously are devices. I haven't looked at the entire act, but it might be that in our act we may be covering something larger than they cover. Therefore we may have to have a definition that is more inclusive than other provinces.

G. Plant: The purpose of this exercise might therefore be described somewhat more narrowly. On a certain range of subjects, the provinces have agreed on a certain set of common standards. The way in which each province chooses to give effect to those standards will be a matter for each province to consider in the context of its own specific legislation. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the answer to the question is yes, because what we want to do is have the same cancellation periods and the like, and the same standard contacts and the like. I think that perhaps explains the position.

G. Plant: It's helpful. In fact, I think the last example is one that I do need to pick up on, because one of the things this bill does is permit regulations to be made, including regulations about the form of such contracts. There it does seem to me that one could argue, perhaps more strongly, that if harmonization is to be achieved in a way that will achieve some of the cost efficiencies for businesses that we spoke about in second reading debate, it would be useful for the forms of the contracts to be virtually the same. Can the minister say if that is the objective? Or are we still in this area where the basic issue is harmonization on substance rather than conformity to the details?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the answer would be virtually or exactly the same. The attempt would be made to be exactly the same, but they might be virtually the same.

G. Plant: With the objective in mind of allowing, for example, those businesses that do undertake direct sales business in more than one province to use the same form of agreement in each of the provinces in which they do business, rather than have to design new contracts in each province -- is that correct?

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I want to put on the record, I suppose, my admission that I am not as familiar with the provisions of the agreement on internal trade as I should be for the purpose of this debate.

I already pointed out, as did the minister in second reading debate, that

section 12 of this bill deals with a different subject altogether; it deals with tax rebate discounting. Am I correct? Let me put it this way. I have been led to believe that all of the changes in this bill, with possibly the exception of

section 12, are made under the rubric of this exercise in harmonization. That is, the government hasn't added some other things in here that we need to identify and pay special attention to. I ask the minister to confirm whether my understanding is correct.

The Chair: Members, while we're waiting for the Attorney General to respond, I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Visiting us today is a second group from Kenmore, Washington -- a number of grade 6 students and some adults. They're here with their teacher, Mr. D. Mills, from Arrowhead Elementary School. Would members please make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's understanding is correct.

Section 9 may be slightly different from the general thrust, but that is to cut red tape. The registrar can change the forms without the forms having to come to cabinet for change.

G. Plant: That's helpful.

I want to ask a relatively small question about the definition of "direct sale," which is in

section 1. Perhaps I'll begin by pointing out that there is a new definition for the term "buyer." The explanatory notes in the copy of the bill that I've been provided with indicate that the new definition "provides

[ Page 13141 ]

a broader definition of 'buyer' for purposes of all types of direct sales." It then says that the definition of "direct sale" has been simplified. This is an awfully technical question, but when I try and compare the new definition of "direct sale" to the old one . . . . I think it could be suggested that the definition has not simply been simplified but has, in some respects, perhaps also been expanded. It's not a big a point, but if the minister agrees with me, then we could probably move on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member is generally correct. The definition is amended to, of course, clarify and simplify the definition. The exemptions would now be provided in the regulations, but there might be more exemptions or fewer exemptions. That's the ability now in the regulations for us to provide that.

G. Plant: With respect to the definition of "trade-in allowance," the change there has the effect of giving the consumer the option of choosing whichever of the two calculations is most beneficial to them. I think that is a slightly different approach to that taken in the current act. Is that correct?

[1640]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's not an option to the consumer. It is in fact stated that it means the greater of the two calculations. The allowance would be the greater of the two calculations. So it really clarifies what is to be done.

G. Plant: I think my error, then, was in describing it as an option. There are really a couple of different calculations that could be performed. In some cases, if you chose only one calculation, the consumer might be better off not trading in. Here it seems to me that the net effect of the new definition is, if you will, to enhance the position of consumers. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

G. Plant: I guess what I want to do here is to not go through all of the details. But it looks to me like the first six subsections of the new

section 11 deal with the buyer's right to cancel a direct-sales contract. Then, when we get down to subsection 7, we get the buyer's right to cancel a contract for future services. Those are distinct types of contracts, and the circumstances in which the right to cancel arises are different, but in each case the starting point, I suppose, is a ten-day right of cancellation. I guess that's not a completely accurate reading of the section, because then we get down to

section 11 -- and 12 and 13, I suppose -- which apply to both types of contracts.

I'm trying to sort of unpack the way this relatively long provision works. It looks like the first part of it deals with direct-sales contracts and the various ways in which a direct-sale contract can be cancelled, and then the second part of it deals with the various way in which a contract for future services could be cancelled. Then at the end there are some provisions that are common to both types of contracts, which speak to the way in which someone is to give notice of cancellation. Is that a relatively accurate description?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: It's not perfectly straightforward to sort out the difference between the term "contract for future services" and the term "executory contract." I gather that the two terms are really interchangeable except in one limited situation, which is that a contract for future services also is a term that will include contracts for dance lessons or health studio services. But otherwise the terms are generally interchangeable, it appears.

[1645]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that while the "contract for services" is a defined term, the "executory contract" isn't a defined term in the legislation. I would stand to be corrected. Is it defined? Okay, let me correct myself. It is defined, but you cannot declare any contracts to be executory contracts while you can actually design particular kinds of contracts as contracts for certain future service. I think that's the distinction between the two. But other than that, the hon. member's statement is correct.

G. Plant: Something might be an executory contract, absent an express declaration one way or the other. It will arise more or less by operation of law and application of the definition. I think that makes some sense.

I thought that the question I was about to ask arose in one of these provisions. It may not. I'll ask it anyway. My recollection is that if not in this act at least in some statutes across Canada dealing with direct-sales contracts and contracts for future services, there's a minimum threshold -- a dollar value for the contract before some of the regulatory provisions kick in. It's a relatively low figure according to the textbooks I had a look at yesterday. Is there such a threshold in place in British Columbia? If so, what is it? And would it be changed not by just the act but by the regulations that will come into force in due course?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The threshold in British Columbia is $50, by regulation. There's no intention to change it at this time.

Sections 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; W. Hartley in the chair.

Bill 61, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1999, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 66.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The House in committee on Bill 66; T. Stevenson in the chair.

[ Page 13142 ]

[1650]

section 1.

G. Plant:

Section 1 of this act will amend the Court of Appeal Act by adding a

section which will give judges of the Court of Appeal certain powers after leaving office. In general terms, I think that those powers are the power to continue with the hearing of a proceeding and the jurisdiction to give judgment as though the judge continued to hold office for a period of six months after a judge resigns or is appointed to another court or ceases to hold office under

section 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Perhaps the Attorney General could just confirm my understanding that ceasing to hold office under

section 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, means that the judge has turned 75.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Plant: This amendment will give a single justice of the Court of Appeal the power to dismiss as abandoned the appeal of an appellant who fails to comply with an order made under

section 18(1). My recollection is that orders under that subsection tend to be in relation to procedural and other matters relating to the appeal. My question is this: would an order of dismissal under this new subsection be subject to review by a panel of the Court of Appeal in the same way that other orders of a single judge of the court are subject to review?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's nothing in this that changes the understanding of the hon. member.

G. Plant: That's partly helpful. Is the Attorney General able to indicate whether in fact an order made under this subsection will be subject to review by a panel, in keeping with whatever rules the court has that regulate its ability or its process around those reviews?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Plant:

Section 3 re-enacts the provision of the Court of Appeal with respect to costs. I actually don't have the old provision in front of me, but when I looked at it and then I looked at this one, it occurred to me that the basic objective here was to try and say something a little more simply and clearly than the old

section said. It also, though, occurred to me that the new provision may not be as clear as it should be about the costs of an application made when there ultimately is no appeal.

[1655]

I'll read the proposed new section: "Unless the court or a justice otherwise orders, the party who is successful on an appeal is entitled to costs of the appeal including the costs of all applications made in the appeal." Well, that's a good restatement of the basic entitlement to costs. If you win, ordinarily you get the costs.

There are provisions in the Court of Appeal Act, however, where someone may seek leave to appeal a decision of a Supreme Court of British Columbia judge, and that is an application made under the Court of Appeal Act. The application for leave to appeal may be refused, in which case one could argue there was no appeal. The question then arises whether this provision would give the successful applicant in such a case an entitlement to costs or whether there is some other provision in the Court of Appeal Act that would give such a person an entitlement to costs.

I raise the point because when we're doing something that's supposed to make things simpler, I think we should also try to protect the interests of people to the extent that we can, and not make a change which incidentally might deprive people of a right.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that in that kind of situation anybody would be entitled to any costs, unless the court had ordered costs in the example that the hon. member mentions -- or any other applications. For instance, if there were ten applications before the appeal was heard . . . . If there had been no costs awarded either way and the appeal was never concluded, the appeal would be deemed to have been abandoned.

Or if there is a consent dismissal of the appeal, parties may argue about costs with each other and make a settlement or may go back to court and say: "We want to deal with the issue of costs, while we're abandoning the appeal." Those are issues that would be clear in the sense that the party would have to seek order with respect to costs each time they appear, just in case the appeal is never concluded. Or they might have to reapply to the court for an order if they can't reach an agreement.

G. Plant: I appreciate the Attorney's answer; I don't know that it deals with the problem completely. But let me try it this way. I suppose at one level the question is whether

section 23 -- this proposed new

section 23 -- is a jurisdiction-conferring provision or whether it's a provision which takes the existence of the jurisdiction for granted and then purports to express how, in the ordinary case, the power will be exercised.

When we're talking about the Court of Appeal . . . . Well, the minister says it's the latter. That gets to my problem, because -- as I'm sure the minister knows -- when we're talking about the Court of Appeal as opposed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, my recollection, anyway, is that we're talking about a tribunal which is statutory in nature rather than having inherent jurisdiction. The consequence of that is that you have to find the authority in the Court of Appeal Act -- if this reasoning is correct -- for the Court of Appeal to have the authority to do something. That would extend, arguably, to the question of costs.

If the Attorney General says that this is the latter kind of provision -- that is, it's a provision that says that this is how the jurisdiction to award costs will generally be exercised -- then the question arises whether there is any other independent place where the jurisdiction exists that will ensure that someone who applies for leave to appeal, but is refused, will be able to say to the judge, in any of the ways that the

[ Page 13143 ]

Attorney General talked about earlier: "You have authority. You have the jurisdiction to make an award of costs, and I ask you to do that." What I don't want is to pass an amendment which would then cause the Court of Appeal judge to say: "Oops, I no longer have the jurisdiction to make an award of costs."

[1700]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that this restated

section 23 does not interfere with the jurisdiction of the court. It simply says that if the court has not . . . . It's in the absence of the court exercising its jurisdiction with respect to costs that certain results follow. Therefore it doesn't interfere with the jurisdiction. By implication, it restates that the court has jurisdiction. Unless the court exercises the jurisdiction, this result follows.

G. Plant: In effect, it's a default provision. I understand the argument. We're not going to resolve the potential question here. I did just want to repeat the point that the way this provision is worded, it speaks of "the party who is successful on an appeal . . . . " An appeal is not the same as an application made in the appeal. So the question arises: how would this provision apply in the case of an application for leave to appeal which was dismissed, which means that there was never any appeal?

My understanding is that the Attorney General is comfortable that the jurisdiction exists in the court to make an award of costs in such a case, in which case the question I raise is, hopefully, answered.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is the Attorney General's position.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

G. Plant: Could the Attorney General explain the rationale behind repealing

section 47 of the Estate Administration Act, which is what we are being asked to do here? This is a provision which obliges the official administrator to keep accounts.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that

section 47 essentially duplicates the requirement that all administrators and executors account to estate beneficiaries under

section 99 of the Trustee Act. It is in fact a duplication, and therefore it's being repealed, because it's

section 99 of the Trustee Act that people use.

G. Plant: So

section 99 of the Trustee Act being the

section that is used, there is therefore no need for the duplication in

section 47, at least not today. There may have been at some point in the past when the position of official administrator was perhaps differently understood than it is now. So we have a simple question of duplication, and hence the repeal.

Interjection.

G. Plant: Yeah, I'm tempted to ask the Clerk, who has been at the bar far longer than the Attorney General and I put together. But I'm sure the Attorney General can confirm that, again, this is simply a matter of pure duplication.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Mr. Clerk has been nodding with approval as we've talked about this, since he's much more of an expert. It is . . . . That's the understanding.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

G. Plant: There are some provisions in this act which change the identification of persons who are commissioners for taking affidavits. I have to admit at this point that I'm not certain which of the provisions leads to the question I have. But one of them has the effect, as I recall, of deleting government agents from the category of persons who would be commissioners for taking affidavits. I wonder -- if the Attorney General confirms that I've got that right -- if there is some rationale behind that, and . . . . Well, that's my question, and I'll certainly see if I can find the provision in question.

[1705]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that this

section at all changes the position of the government agents. This is to do with police officers being able to take affidavits.

G. Plant: I know we are at

section 12, and I have not had an opportunity in the last few seconds to look at

section 60(

k) of the Evidence Act. I assume that that is not . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: Perhaps the minister could help me. He was about to say something, and it might be helpful.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to

section 60(

k) of the Evidence Act, that currently makes provincial constables, and municipal constables holding a rank of sergeant or higher, commissioners for taking affidavits because of their office or employment. The amendment eliminates the distinction of rank among constables for the purpose of taking affidavits and extends the power to all officers carrying out police duties. Therefore it makes it easier for police to conduct their business. That's all that I'm told it does.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

G. Plant: This provision makes two changes to

section 11 of the

Interpretation Act. The first one, according to the explanatory note, is intended to allow cross-reference descriptions to be added editorially so that British Columbia laws will be more understandable for readers. That is what will become

section 11(2). I take it what the government intends here is that there might be a provision of the Municipal Act which makes reference to some other act, and the intention is to allow the authors of statutes to put something in italics in square brackets to help the reader of the statute find the other reference. Is that what the government has in mind here?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I think that that would go a long way for those laypersons who don't regularly deal with laws and don't know how sometimes various laws interact and arrive at a different conclusion from the one that may be given

[ Page 13144 ]

on the face of one piece of legislation. That's the intent: to make these kinds of interactive connections more comprehensible to laypersons.

G. Plant: Could the minister give a specific example of how this might work?

[1710]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that we already have that under the Municipal Act.

Section 23 of the Municipal Act . . . . My apologies. It's

section 6 of the Municipal Act, and we will eliminate that because we're going to put this in the

Interpretation Act. So that already exists, but theoretically, in terms of a reference . . . . For instance, the Municipal Act is

an act of general application, and the Vancouver Charter is a specific charter for the city of Vancouver. Now, they might interact at some level, and one may have an impact on how the other is interpreted in the case of Vancouver, although I can't think of any different sections that might not . . . . Those are the kinds of possibilities that one needs to take a look at.

G. Plant: I can imagine this could go a long way in maybe ultimately . . . . Almost too far. For instance, lots of statutes make provision for disclosure of information, and different statutes deal differently with provisions like that in relation to the Freedom of Information Act.

It may be that, for example, in order to override the Freedom of Information Act you have to do so expressly, but that might be an invitation for someone drafting a statute that made provision for data-sharing agreements to put a little parenthetic, italicized statement that says: "This must be read subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." That would, it seems to me, require a pretty wholesale revision of the statutes. I take it that this is a much more confined idea.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's example would be an amendment, actually, to how the legislation should be read. What this is intended to do is just alert an individual that before you fully understand the meaning of this, maybe you should look at another piece of legislation that might have some impact on this area.

G. Plant: Subsection (3) is also to be added to

section 11, which says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations amending an enactment for the purpose of changing a reference to a specific minister or ministry in a provision of the enactment . . . . " Are we talking about a subset of subsection (2)? Are we talking about giving cabinet, essentially, the power to rewrite statutes to change ministry assignments? An example is that the Attorney General Act contains some specific assignments of responsibility to the Ministry of Attorney General. I take it that this is not intended to change those.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't think the regulations could override a specific piece of legislation, such as the Attorney General Act. This is simply intended to update a reference to a particular minister with respect to a particular responsibility. For instance, let's say that immigration matters are dealt with by the Minister Responsible for Immigration. But if a particular issue was to be dealt with by the Intergovernmental Relations minister, the reference would have to be changed through regulation. It doesn't have to be done by legislation.

G. Plant: When I read this, it looks like cabinet is getting the power to make regulations amending an enactment -- that is, regulations would amend the statute. I see a difference between a regulation which says, "For the purpose of

section 4 of the Immigration Act, the minister shall be the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations," and a situation where the act itself specified the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I guess I'm concerned that this is doing exactly what the minister said, a minute ago, it wasn't doing.

[1715]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is correct to express some concern. But this is a practice that's already followed, in the sense that cabinet can assign responsibility for different things to different ministers. This would be under the

Interpretation Act, and it would be a regulatory change in terms of . . . . For instance, if you don't have the Minister of International Trade anymore, where do certain acts reside? Which ministry do they reside with? Which is the minister responsible? That kind of change can be made through regulations.

I am cognizant of the problem that the hon. member is worried about, but nobody is going to try and take the responsibilities of the Attorney General away by regulation. I think tha