1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4855 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Loan to Manco Home Systems Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 4855

Referendum system on education costs. Mr. Jones –– 4856

Police Act (Bill 21). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4858

Mr. Sihota –– 4859

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4862

Land Title Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 24). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4863

Mr. Sihota –– 4865

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 4865

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 9: minister's office –– 4866

Mr. Rose

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Williams

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We have visiting with us today the consul-general for West Germany. Mr.

Reinhard Marks, who will be visiting my office later on. He has been

with us since 1984 and has certainly established a great rapport with

the German-Canadian community as well as with the balance of the

community, including those in business and those who trade with West

Germany. He will, unfortunately, be leaving us for another posting: we

will certainly miss him, because we have established a good friendship

and a close relationship. I would ask the House to bid him welcome

today and to extend our very best wishes for him in future.

also have with us, seated right next to Mr. Reinhard Marks, a good

friend who is visiting from the constituency of Saltspring. He has

served the government in a variety of capacities, and we certainly want

to bid him welcome as well: Mr. Peter Bazowski.

MS. MARZARI :

I have the honour to introduce grade 7 students from St. Augustine's

School, sitting in the gallery with their teacher, Mrs. Brown. It is a

real pleasure to have them in the House today and I would ask the House

to welcome them.

HON. MR. PARKER : I would like the House to welcome today a good friend, my executive assistant, Chris Shaffer, of Terrace, B.C.

MS. CAMPBELL :

I have two introductions to make. First of all, I would like to add a

welcome to the students from St. Augustine's School and advise the

House that these grade 7 students were asked to stand outside prior to

coming in to get ready for question period because they were "so

rambunctious." I told them they had nothing on the deportment of this

House during question period, so I hope we won't disappoint them.

the gallery today is my constituency assistant, Miss Nancy Peck.

Probably somebody else from our caucus will welcome all of our

constituency assistants who are here today, but I would like to make a

special welcome to Nancy Peck and her guests from Brisbane, Australia,

Mr. and Mrs. Bill Mathews. Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm sure the House would like to join me in recognizing an honour to a

sometime member of my constituency and a personal friend, Sherri Selby,

who has been awarded the Terry Fox medal and humanitarian award. Sherri

has waged a long battle with her physical capabilities. She is a cystic

fibrosis victim and has pushed herself to do many of the community and

support things that led to the awarding of this medal. I can't think of

a better person to have received it, and I ask you to join me in

recognizing her for this honour.

MR. WEISGERBER : It's my pleasure to introduce three lovely ladies

in the members' gallery who are relatives of the former member for South

Peace River, Mr. Don Phillips. In the gallery are Joan Phillips; Don's sister,

Mrs. Evelyn DeLong, from Woodstock, New Brunswick~ and her daughter, Ruth Tedone,

from Connecticut. Would the House please bid them a very warm welcome.

MR. MILLER : In the gallery today is a gentleman from Prince Rupert, Mr. Ezekiel Damaso. I would ask the House to welcome him to Victoria.

MR. PELTON :

In the gallery today, visiting from Maple Ridge, are Roy and Dian Lind

and their son Sean. Not only are Roy and Dian neighbours of mine, but

Roy is the vice-president of marketing of Metro Valley Newspaper Group,

one of the fastest-growing groups of weekly newspapers in B.C. and

perhaps in western Canada. On behalf of the second member for Dewdney

(Mr. Jacobsen) and myself I would ask you to make them welcome here

today.

MR. WILLIAMS : I hope the House will also

welcome the former minister, Mr. Don Phillips. the province's most

successful lobbyist and the man who made a $25 million interest-free

loan to Louisiana-Pacific. and who's quietly skulking around the

chambers today.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'd like to ask the

House to join me in welcoming friends from White Rock who sailed into

Victoria this weekend: Ellen and Hal Sinclair and their friends Barbara

and Guy Weston.

MRS. GRAN : Visiting the precincts

today are 35 constituency assistants for Social Credit members. Will

the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

LOAN TO MANCO HOME SYSTEMS LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier. Regarding the loan to Manco Home Systems Ltd., a

housing company in Chilliwack, could the Premier advise the House why

that loan was at first turned down by cabinet?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Whatever takes place within cabinet is for cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the Premier advise the House why once Mr. Phillip's lobbying

group, Phillips Bailey, were involved. it was reconsidered by cabinet

and approved? Could the Premier advise why the loan was approved?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Any approval certainly would be to the benefit of British Columbia. and

we're now seeing jobs having again been created in the province, and

we're seeing it throughout all parts of the province. We're seeing

great progress in the area of manufacturing. As a matter of fact, as

has been recognized by people in Ottawa, British Columbia is leading

the whole of this nation in creating new manufacturing opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to see such growth. We're going to

continue to create jobs for British Columbians in a good, free

enterprise manner.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, maybe

the Premier doesn't realize the company went bankrupt March 2. Could

the Premier advise the House why the loan was approved

[ Page 4856 ]

when there was $1.3 million already owing unsecured creditors and they went bankrupt two months later?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I don't have the details. With respect to the question

asked, I will certainly take it as notice or perhaps defer to the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. WILLIAMS :

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is around the question of guidelines with

respect to former cabinet ministers operating as lobbyists. Can the

Premier advise the House when there will be conflict guidelines with

respect to former ministers carrying out work as lobbyists?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, guidelines are in place and have been in place for several

years, and all are abiding by those guidelines. I might say, though,

that contrary to what is obviously the approach used by or popular with

socialists, we would encourage as many people as possible — business

people — to get out there and promote British Columbia throughout

the whole of the continent and elsewhere in the world. Again, it means

jobs for British Columbians, and that's why we're seeing such progress

in this province.

MR. WILLIAMS : To the Minister of

Economic Development. One of the partners of Mr. Phillips, who was an

employee of the minister's ministry, Mr. Castling, said: "We're just

dealing at the ministerial level" — i.e. in arranging these loans

and other access to government. "We don't jack around with programs or

the bureaucratic level. There's just too many hoops to jump through."

Can the minister advise the House when she will require that these

lobbyists go through all the procedures that other citizens have to go

through?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I want to

make reference to something that was said about the industry which the

member for Vancouver East suggested there were some problems with, in

terms of lobbying. Manco Homes was an account which the Ministry of

Economic Development has handled very well. There was not an ability to

make a contract with them in terms of loan guarantees, because they

were not able to prove up their financing. Therefore, as with any other

group not able to prove up their financing, it did not go through. If

you want any further details, I can always give them to you

individually. If you would like to put it on the order paper or address

your question to me, I will bring it back to the House later.

terms of the second question from the hon. member for Vancouver East,

the Ministry of Economic Development's approach to receiving those

proposals from any business is that we will receive them, and they will

be well looked after in terms of study. Proposals will be given by the

ministry and through the ministry to government with all the

information needed to have government make a good judgment. Everyone is

looked after in the same, even-handed way by my ministry, and it will

continue to be so in my ministry.

REFERENDUM SYSTEM ON EDUCATION COSTS

MR. JONES :

I have a question for the Premier, who is actively encouraging his

party to start a campaign to introduce a referendum for school tax

purposes. Given that his party was responsible for shifting the burden

of taxation responsibility on to the residential taxpayer and away from

his friends in the corporations, is it not hypocritical for the Premier

to now scapegoat locally elected school boards that are responsible to

their voters in their districts?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I think it's always good to give democracy the opportunity to work. If,

in fact, there are those who through the process of referenda would

like to make a decision with respect to other proposals put forth by a

school district, then I certainly think we ought to consider giving

them that opportunity.

We on this side certainly feel that

the democratic process is a healthy one. If there is a way by which we

can expand upon it and give more people an opportunity to say what they

would like to have in their own school district over and above that

which would normally be provided, I for one see nothing wrong with

giving them the opportunity to make the democratic process work even

better. That's fair. We're all for fairness. We're certainly all for

having the democratic process work as effectively as possible.

I'm

surprised that they would again question this from the other side,

because I certainly think British Columbians want to be reassured that

all people in the House want to see the democratic process strengthened

by whatever means we can use. For us, if there's sufficient support for

this type of approach in the province, we would be very supportive of

it and would consider that additional opportunity in our democracy.

MR. JONES :

The Premier clearly has one standard for school districts in this

province and another for the rest of the government operation. A

supplementary to the Premier. Less than a month ago the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) stated clearly in this House: "I, and most

of government, agree that a referendum is not generally or necessarily

based on a rational vote.... We don't want to see a referendum." Mr.

Premier, don't you realize you are contradicting your Minister of

Education again? When are you going to start listening to your

ministers?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I do not argue with

that statement. I think it should be a decision by the people, if in

fact they wish to see such changes made in the process. I understand

there are a number of questionnaires that have been put to people in

various constituencies in order to see the opinions in those

constituencies. If in fact that is the wish of people, then I think we

should address it, and address it fairly.

We have, as the

member knows, an opportunity to discuss this here; we have an

opportunity to discuss it in committee, and we can discuss such matters

in cabinet as well. We have a good understanding of what people want,

and we're fostering this sort of input from the public at all times. I

know that the hon. member would never understand that, because I am

sure that while we have had the opportunity in British Columbia when an

NDP cabinet was in place and tried to make decisions on a number of

issues.... They only had that opportunity once, and they'll never get

it again.

MR. HARCOURT : A supplementary to the

Premier, who when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs took a

municipality to court for holding a referendum. Why has he changed his

mind now? It was against that socialist stronghold Oak Bay, as a matter

of fact.

[ Page

4857 ]

The homeowner grant hasn't increased from $380 since 1981 — seven years — but the minimum tax payable before the grant applies has risen by $300. Instead

of raising new controversies — which you don't need more of, and neither

do we — why don't you do something positive and raise the homeowner grant

to at least cover inflation?

MR. WILLIAMS : Where's W.A.C. Bennett when we need him?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The program the member is referring to was another good Social Credit

program. It was, as was mentioned by the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams), introduced by W.A.C. Bennett. He introduced many

good programs, which is why this government was elected in 1954, 1957,

1961, '65, '69, and only missed out in 1972, heaven forbid. We paid the

price, and the province paid it so dearly that it re-elected Social

Credit in '75, '79, '83 and '86. They'll continue to do that, because

we have introduced many positive programs. This province is leading

economically in this country. We're making great progress. There's no

room for socialism in this country. That's why the socialists were

kicked out of B.C. and Saskatchewan and, recently, Manitoba.

MR. HARCOURT :

Because of that auto-rant we just had once again.... I know the Premier

likes simple answers and has trouble with simple questions. I will try

the question again. Are you prepared to raise the homeowner grant to

help our homeowners with the unfair school financing formula you put in

place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I only have problems with simple people. I'll defer to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I appreciate the opportunity to deal with this heavy subject. It raises

a number of issues. The hon. member is quite correct. One option would

have been for any government of the day to have increased homeowner

grants versus increasing appropriations to school boards. Good point,

Mr. Speaker, and I am indebted to the hon. member for pointing it out.

It's true that every government has that choice. This government

decided, in its wisdom, that it would have been a less-than-fair

treatment to have merely increased homeowner grants without at the same

time looking seriously at the basic question of funding for school

boards. That's a choice that can be made each budget year and it is one

that is addressed each budget year.

I take it from the hon.

member's question that he would have preferred, rather than increase

the appropriations to school boards by 8 percent this year, to have

kept the appropriations to school boards at last year's level and

raised homeowner grants by a commensurate sum of money. If I understand

that that is the thrust

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Oh, I see. The hon. member wants it both ways. He wants both increases

of 8 percent in school board allocations and an increase in homeowner

grants. I take it that that's the choice.

Unfortunately I don't know of any person who is able to grow money on trees.

The fact of the matter is that we had a philosophical question when we designed

the budget this year, which was: do we want to treat school boards properly

and adequately or not? This government said that we will treat school boards

fairly and equitably. We will increase their allotment by 8 percent. We will

ensure that the quality of education in this province is unmatched anywhere

else in Canada. The funding appropriation we provided this year ensures that.

MR. SPEAKER : The government House Leader on a point of order.... Opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE : Well, maybe you were right the first time. I hope you were.

really must protest. Mr. Speaker. We have seen today a deplorable

misuse of the question period in terms of responses by the government

side. We ask a very simple question and we get a tirade, an auto-rant,

a big speech. We were treated to that last week. I think we've got to

be far more disciplined here. Both the Premier and the Minister of

Finance abuse this House. and they abuse it regularly. I have to

protest this, because it's just not good enough. We want to avoid

having points of order during question period. I'm quite willing to

abide by that, but not when this House is abused day after day in this

manner.

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I think the member may have a point, which we will consider. But I want

to advise the House that members of the cabinet benches are operating

under a new factor that was just developed. It's called the Strachan

factor, and it's this: first, the time of the

preamble, not the

question, is normally squared. and the answer is given using those

numbers; secondly, the House must consider that when asking a question

about extensive finance policy such as the homeowner's grant, one

should expect — particularly from a minister who can really put the flesh on the bones of a serious question — an extensive answer, because you're dealing with major, significant financial policy.

MR. D'ARCY : With leave, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER :

If the member could take a seat for just a moment, I'd like to comment

on what both the government House leader and the opposition House

Leader have said.

The Speaker is just a servant of this

House. As you know, we allow leeway on both sides. If members were to

look at the questions, I think they could find as many questions that

lead people on or incite a lengthy answer. If both sides want to see a

change in that policy, they only have to shorten the questions and the

answers. The Speaker is a servant of both sides, and I hope that both

sides, when they listen to the advice of both House Leaders, will make

the questions less exciting and the answers not quite as long.

MR. D'ARCY :

I would just like to comment to the House that on Thursday last, I

believe it was, I think the Attorney-General.... I didn't see the

announcement, but a new Provincial Court chief judge was named: Bruce

Josephson of Castlegar. I want to commend the government and the A-G

for making that choice. Judge Josephson had a relatively brief but

distinguished career as a lawyer in the West

[ Page 4858 ]

Kootenay,

and I think he's had a 12- or 13-year career as a Provincial Court

judge, in which once again he has distinguished himself. I commend the

Attorney-General for his appointment. I think he'll be an outstanding

chief judge in the province of British Columbia.

HON. B.R. SMITH : May I have leave to respond to the member's statement?

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm very obliged to the member for making that statement, which came as

a very pleasant surprise after a somewhat discursive question period.

That appointment — I agree with you —

is an impeccable appointment. Judge Josephson sat in Castlegar and was

an excellent judge. He was associate chief judge and president of the

Provincial Judges' Association. The chief judge of this province has to

be the tender of a flock of judges who are separated by distance and

many other concerns across the province. It's a very compelling

full-time job. The last chief judge was Gerald Coultas, who is now on

the Supreme Court. Judge Josephson is very well equipped in terms of

fairness, temperament, decency and persistence to fill those shoes. I

really thank the member for making those statements.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 21.

POLICE ACT

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Just very briefly on this bill: it was originally tabled as an exposure

bill in the last session in June. We brought in major amendments to the

current Police Act with respect to the procedure for handling citizens'

complaints against police behaviour and a number of minor amendments

designed to improve the structure and clarify the language.

Since

that time, we've entered into a fairly full process of consultation.

We've had briefs from the police boards of the 12 municipalities that

have independent municipal forces. We've had briefs from the British

Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federation of Peace

Officers, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and a number of other

interested parties. We have not, of course, been able to carry out the

wishes of all these groups. But we have endeavoured to listen, respond

and bring in some changes that certainly improve the original bill,

particularly in relation to the proposed office of the complaint

commissioner to handle citizens' complaints against police behaviour.

There

was a feeling that perhaps that office was not sufficiently

independent. Therefore we have strengthened that independence. We have

not gone as far as the Civil Liberties Association and others would

have urged us to go. We have maintained an independent office under the

aegis of the B.C. Police Commission. We happen to think that the B.C.

Police Commission has carried out a very good function since its

formation. It has built up a great deal of credibility with the police

community. The police community, unlike other communities, is very much

concerned about its integrity and the necessity to maintain a certain

standard of esprit de corps, and I think that community has to receive

recognition.

On the other hand, I believe the public is

entitled to be assured that if there are complaints against the police,

they are not only handled promptly and fairly, but there will also be

some process whereby other than police will look at the conduct of

police. The office of the complaint commissioner will ensure that takes

place. The main reasons for introducing this new Police Act are to deal

with the citizen complaint procedure and to strengthen the

investigative and inquiry power of the B.C. Police Commission.

also had some difficulty in dismissing police constables for cause

because of the uncertainty in the current Police Act as to whether you

should go by way of discipline regulations under the act or under the

Labour Code procedure. That has been a vexing dilemma for some time,

and that is now clarified. The current Police Act has certain

weaknesses, both in organization and draftsmanship, which need to be

rectified.

The drafting of the new bill is a considerable

improvement. It establishes that the Attorney-General has the

constitutional authority to superintend police delivery in the province

and to ensure that adequate and effective levels of policing are

maintained; that the new act contains sufficient authority for the

Attorney-General to take action with respect to performance and

organization of municipal and provincial police; that chief constables

of municipal forces must continue to be held accountable for the

conduct of the members of their force — we have not taken that authority away from chief constables; we have left it with them in the field —

and that municipal and provincial police forces exist as extensions of

the authority bestowed on them by local citizens and their local

communities.

They are not an extension of the authority of

the provincial government. Where you have a local force, and the

citizens have decided to pay 100 percent of the cost of it, then they

have a board with the mayor as the chairman, and there is local

accountability. We have also ensured that public confidence will be

enhanced with respect to the process for handling complaints made by

citizens.

The citizen complaint procedure follows changes

that were made to the federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. It was

amended by Parliament in 1986 to provide — among other things —

for the establishment of a public complaints commission and a procedure

for the receipt and handling of complaints against RCMP members. In

British Columbia the new RCMP Act procedure will apply to all those

members who serve with the RCMP, but will not apply to special

constables or auxiliary members who are appointed under the Police Act.

For these members, as well as for members of the 12 independent

municipal police forces, the B.C. Police Act procedure which is under

debate here will still apply. In November 1986, in light of the

amendments to the federal RCMP Act and in the wake of the bill we

were preparing for handling complaints against the police, we directed

that the B.C. Police Act be amended in accordance with a number of

guidelines, which were that we would have some uniformity and

interaction with the RCMP Act procedures, so that provincial RCMP and

local police under our Police Act would be dealt with as uniformly and

as similarly as possible.

We also strove to make the

process more open for all parties. The need to have greater public

involvement in resolving complaints was considered, as was the need for

some mechanism for independent investigation of complaints and

monitoring of the complaint process and the need

[ Page 4859 ]

to improve public confidence in the police and in the handling of complaints against the police.

Bill

21 is really based on the following premises: that the Police

Commission will remain as an independent authority; that the police are

responsible to resolve and investigate complaints against the conduct

of municipal constables in the first instance; that the complaint

process should be open and subject to monitoring by an independent

authority, which is assured by this bill; that the informal resolution

of complaints is appropriate in some circumstances, but that the

disciplinary authorities should have discretion as to whether to

proceed informally or by investigation; that the complainant and the

constable complained against are entitled to know how the process works

and the status and results of an investigation or hearing in respect of

a complaint; that police boards are the employers of municipal police

forces and are responsible to adjudicate matters of dispute between the

force and members of the public which cannot be resolved in any other

way; that the public should be more involved in the hearing and

resolution of complaints; and that complaints, if necessary, may be

investigated by the B.C. Police Commission.

To give effect

to those principles, we have changed the citizen complaint procedure to

provide for the appointment of a complaint commissioner. We have

changed the authority of the B.C. Police Commission in that regard. It

will be expanded under this bill to not less than three members

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. There's a new

provision to provide for the appointment of people to the commission

who will serve on panels established to hear appeals from decisions of

local police boards in citizen complaint matters. The commission is

empowered to order special investigations into police action or

conduct, while it retains its powers of inquiry, study and inspection

under the present Police Act. The independence of the commission has

been reinforced by other amendments to the act which redefine its

responsibilities.

The complaint commissioner's office which

we've established provides that the commissioner will be a member of

the Police Commission appointed to monitor the handling of complaints

against the police and to oversee the operation of the complaint

procedure. He will hear complaints from the public. He will receive

notice of all complaints made under the act. I think it's terribly

important that he's going to be plugged into every single complaint, so

that he won't just hear about matters when they're brought to him by

way of some kind of appeal. He'll be able to monitor any complaint he's

concerned about throughout. He will establish a record of complaints

and how they are resolved, or otherwise dealt with, in accordance with

the provisions of the complaint procedure.

His job will

also be to assist and advise all parties to a complaint, and the

disciplinary authorities, with respect to any problems which may be

encountered when processing a complaint. He will inspect the police

records and systems of administering the complaint process. He will

ensure that the public is informed about the complaint process. If

warranted, he will request the commission to initiate a special

investigation with respect to police handling of complaints. He will

have investigative means at his disposal, separate from the local

police force and under the auspices of the B.C. Police Commission. The

complaint commissioner will function as a resource to all parties. He

will be able to monitor the handling of all complaints. He will

therefore be able to ensure that complainants get satisfaction and that

justice is not just done, but seen to be done as well.

Additionally,

he can receive complaints directly from the public. So if you get a

complainant who feels he just does not want to go through the process

of going to the local chief and having the local force look the matter

over — if he has some problem dealing with the local force —

then that citizen can go directly to the complaint commissioner as an

alternative process. Some people are intimidated by direct contact with

the local police force, or they may have had some other experience

which was not happy.

In carrying out all these duties, the

complaint commissioner will have access to all files related to

complaints, and can request the chief constable to reinvestigate a

complaint if he's not satisfied with how the complaint was handled.

There will be very strict procedures under the act for complaints.

Those will be certain and laid out in a definite way.

[2:45]

The

dismissal of police constables, which I dealt with earlier, is one of

the important changes to this bill. The current Police Act allows for

the dismissal of police constables using either the Labour Code — or the Industrial Relations Act, as it has now become —

or the Police Act disciplinary regulations. In Bill 21 the uncertainty

is removed by providing only one process, that using the Police Act and

the disciplinary regulations. This is consistent with recent court

decisions which have criticized attempts to dismiss constables under

the late Labour Code. The police are going to be dealt with differently

and separately. They are not just employees under the labour code; they

are in a very special and sensitive position. They will be dealt with

under their own code. I think that's most important.

have done some restructuring of the act. I don't think it's of major

importance. It can he referred to in committee. There is a new

section

on personal liability, paralleling the new

section in the Municipal

Act, which limits actions against police officers in the same way

municipal employees are now protected while performing their duties.

conclusion, this bill is a large step forward not only in ensuring that

citizens' rights are better protected, but also in respecting the

principle that policing is a local responsibility, that the chief

constable continues to have an important role, that local police boards

are of importance, and that we value our police. Just as we wish to

have sunlight come into the way they conduct their investigations, we

value their service.

MR. SIHOTA : I listened to that

partisan applause when the Attorney-General finished. As I see it, the

purpose of this exercise in debate is to try and bring about

improvements to the Police Act, and changes that serve both the

interests of the police — in other words, the body being investigated —

and also the interests of the citizen who raises the complaint. I'm

going to be making my comments with that objective in mind. I'll talk a

bit in broad philosophical terms, or perhaps lay out some broad

principles, and then proceed with some suggestions for appropriate

change. It's my view that the act falls short in some instances.

want to say, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I've had the opportunity

to work under what I would call the old Police Act, which is the

current Police Act subject, of course, to the passage of Bill 21; I'll

keep calling it the old Police Act. I've had occasion as a lawyer to

work with the old Police Act, and in that process I've worked with

those who are the recipients of complaints — in other words, the

police officer in question; I've represented the police officer

involved. I've also represented citizens who are making complaints, one

way or

[ Page 4860 ]

the

other, under the provisions of the Police Act. I haven't engaged in

that exercise on an ongoing basis, just from time to time. I think that

that experience serves me well in commenting on the debate that's about

to take place on the Police Act.

The Attorney-General

started by making comments with respect to recognition of the value of

police and the onerous obligations of those who are asked to serve, and

choose to serve, in that capacity. We recognize that as well on this

side of the House. I know that my predecessor in the Legislature from

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was a member of a police force and spent a fair

time representing policemen in panels and throughout the complaint

procedure, and knew their point of view. Philosophically we come from

the perspective that the police are, as a whole, honest, reliable,

competent and trustworthy. Society has a high perception of people

involved in that field of endeavour. They are held in high esteem, and

that should be the case. That type of public confidence ought not to be

eroded in any fashion whatsoever, and the purpose of legislation ought

to be to maintain the high standing of police not only in the public's

mind but in my mind as well.

One has to ask whether or not, when we're dealing with the sticky issue of complaints —

which I know, from my experience, vary from totally frivolous

complaints on one hand to legitimate complaints on the other.... We

have to maintain, first of all, that justice is both done and seen to

be done, and secondly, that the integrity of the individuals under the

microscope is protected. I have had nothing but positive experiences

with people involved in various police forces throughout this province.

seems to me that legislation of this sort has to walk a bit of a

tightrope. It has to be sensitive, first of all, to the concerns of

police; that's what my experience has taught me. Let me put it this

way. There's a view among the police that there are certain elements in

society that take some pleasure in triggering unwarranted allegations

against police officers; hence a feeling among police that they're

always under the gun and more susceptible to vexatious claims than

others. There is a feeling that the process currently in place is

frustrating and stressful on police officers, and in an underlying way,

although never stated, appears to question their loyalty to the law and

the process of upholding the law.

On the other side of the

equation there are citizens who are frustrated by interminable delays

in a process and a procedure that they don't quite understand, and a

feeling, as I said before, from the citizens that justice must both be

done and seen to be done, and a feeling that any piece of legislation

that deals with police complaints ought not to be slanted or biased in

favour of one group or the other.

The test, then, for any

legislation of this nature is to ask yourself whether or not the act

balances those competing interests: the citizen on the one hand, who

wants a fair and expeditious process; the police on the other hand, who

do not want any abuses; and a process which, from the police

perspective, does not undermine the disciplinary authority of local

police chiefs. Having said all that, there is of course not only the

interest of the police and the complainant involved, but the public

interest as well, which expects a system that ensures justice is done

at the end of the day. That is what must be taken into account in

assessing whether or not the legislation before us today meets all the

concerns of all the constituent groups, and particularly the public

interest.

It is my submission that this legislation falls

short of what is required, and that what is required here is a truly

independent dent complaint process. That's what is missing from the

legislation before us. It's important that there be a truly independent

system of people who make these determinations with respect to police

complaints — a system that is easy to follow and understand for

the person who is dealing with the legislation, whether it be the

citizen involved or the police officer.

I should say at the

outset that it is just not my own view that the legislation before us

fails to adequately walk the tightrope which I am sure both I and the

Attorney-General are very sensitive about. In its editorial of May 9,

the Vancouver Sun said: "...

Bill 21 would perpetuate the present system under which the police

investigate themselves. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, such a

system neither satisfies the public interest nor encourages respect for

the police." That's not my view, but the view of the Vancouver Sun .

I guess it represents the philosophical point of view that police

officials and members are often very sure of their integrity and

diligent in carrying out their duties. If that diligence and surety is

there, they have little to worry about, it would seem to me, in a truly

independent system that moves away from being one wherein the police

are invited to investigate themselves.

On the topic of that process, in an editorial on May 9 as well, the Vancouver Province

stated: "Its hallmarks were delays, complainant confusion, frustration

and dissatisfaction, and a generally unsatisfactory attitude by police

toward the complaint process." I guess the concern among many is

whether or not that will be equally true of the new process. I think

the new process is an improvement, a step in the right direction, and

it endeavours to eliminate some of the frustration and dissatisfaction.

However, in my view that process falls short of what is really required

to minimize the confusion, the frustration, the dissatisfaction and the

attitude referred to in both of those editorials. It's not sufficient,

in my view, for me to simply say that it falls short. It's imperative

that I give some reasons as to why I think the system falls short and

say where I think it suffers.

I want to deal with some of

the specific matters that fall within the purview of this legislation:

what are the failings and what needs to be bolstered? Before I do that,

I should say — and I've commented on this publicly — that the

legislation tries to walk a tightrope. The Attorney-General appreciates

the need to balance those competing interests. The legislation is an

improvement over what we have had before, but it falls short — and in some ways significantly short — of what is required to make sure that full public confidence is maintained with respect to police complaints.

What

are the failings? First of all, they relate to the complaint

commissioner. The Attorney-General, in his opening comments, went to

some length to talk about the complaint commissioner and the powers

accorded to him. As I listened to those points — albeit that it was a little noisy in here while I was trying to listen to what he was saying —

their thrust, if I can put it this way, really seemed to be to try to

attach additional trappings of independence to the powers and abilities

of the commissioner by highlighting the indicia of independence, to try

to create the impression that the position is significantly

independent. I would say that's not the case.

I'm not going

to go out of my way to deal with each of the indicia of independence

the Attorney-General indicated, but if you look at the legislation — I know we will get to clause by-clause debate —

the duties of the commissioner are defined under

section 50 as being to

receive complaints; to record complaints; to establish and maintain a

record of

[ Page 4861 ]

complaints;

to inform, advise and assist complainants; to monitor the handling of

complaints; and to inspect annually the records, operations and systems

of administration. They go on to say that he may advise disciplinary

authorities and request a reinvestigation of a complaint. So the

operative words throughout the legislation are passive words.

"Receive," "record," "maintain," "monitor," "advise," "recommend" and

"advise" are the critical words that accompany the trappings of power

provided to the complaint commissioner under

part 9,

section 50 of the

legislation.

[3:00]

The complaint

commissioner does not have the authority to order his own

investigation. I think that's the crux here. The power that's accorded

to the complaint commissioner is no more than simply a monitoring,

overseeing power. It's a little bit like standing at a desk and making

sure that all the paper passes over in the appropriate fashion. It's a

little bit like a trial coordinator in a courthouse, who simply makes

sure that everything's filed properly and has the right stamps and

seals on it and that the time lines are being obliged; there is little

more than that. That's not to demean the people who do trial

coordinators' work. It's simply to use an example of the work that's

being provided here to the complaint commissioner, The trial

coordinator, for example, cannot go into court and actually handle the

case. The trial coordinator cannot look beyond the paperwork and do his

own investigation. The same applies here with respect to the complaint

commissioner.

It is an astonishingly passive set of

responsibilities, when one considers that the purpose of this

legislation was to establish some type of independence in the process

and to remedy the problems that we saw under the old legislation — as

I referred to it. There is little or no power, in the real sense of the

word. There is only a monitoring of activities. The complaint

commissioner can't even formally request an investigation of a

complaint. There's no power to make his own recommendations under the

legislation.

The thrust of my submission — and I stand to be corrected on any of those, and I certainly invite the Attorney-General's response —

is that the powers of the commissioner have little teeth. I think that

the bite ought to be strengthened to provide additional powers,

specifically the power to the commissioner to order his own

investigation.

That's just one complaint about the

provisions of the legislation, when I say that it's failing in several

regards. It's also failing because the process referred to here is

long, cumbersome and in some ways complicated. I was reviewing the

legislation again today and looking at sections 50 to 66, which lay out

the procedure, and it really is a somewhat long and complicated

procedure. I don't think that serves anybody's interest. It doesn't

serve the interest of the police officer who's under the gun and the

stress and who is wanting to know the outcome. Nor is it expeditious

and in the interest of the citizen to go through an internal system and

then to a board and then to a commission and then on from there. I

think that this multifaceted approach is just a little bit too

cumbersome and not necessarily in the interests of all parties.

With

respect to failings, there is another reason as to why that process

causes some difficulty. The process has an ascending hierarchy of

rigidity to it, if you look at it. It is a process which starts at the

internal investigation by the police and then goes on to a board and

then to the commission. It gets far more difficult to overturn

decisions as you move up the scale of hierarchy with respect to each of

these avenues.

Let's take a case of a legitimate complaint.

I won't get into in any depth now, but I think that the Fullerton case,

which the Attorney-General is aware of, is a legitimate case. If the

Attorney-General is not aware of it, he will be aware of it by the time

we finish this debate. What happens is that through an internal

investigation — which, I would submit, has a tendency to work in

favour of the officer.... I think the perception of it, from the

position of the complainant, is that an internal investigation. because

it's internal, does not allow for a full hearing, full representation

and cross-examination, etc. The feeling of complainants.... As I said

earlier, I've represented both police and complainants in the old

process, if you can call it that, and the perception of complainants is

that at that point they lose round 1. When you move to round 2. which

is a board, it's fairly difficult to overturn the decision at round 1.

because it's been made by the chief or someone in the department. and

the board has, I think, a psychological disposition towards the people

that administer its own board. It's not until it leaves that point in

the journey that the system opens up a bit. What I’m saying is that by

the time it reaches round 3 there's the perception that if you lost at

round 1 and round 2 . there is again a psychological disposition to

reinforce what happened at rounds 1 and 2.

I think it was

Mr. Justice Dickson, now of the Supreme Court, in the Harelkin vs.

University of Regina decision.... It involved a university student

challenging the administrative hierarchy under natural justice rules, a

senate decision not to allow him into social work, I believe — if

I remember the case right. In any event, it's an oft-quoted

administrative law case. Mr. Justice Dickson went to some length in

that case to refer to this ascending rigidity in the system that makes

it far more difficult to put aside a case. I can't put it across with

the eloquence that the court did in the Harelkin decision. I believe it

was Mr. Justice Dickson, but I'm really functioning from memory here. I

think his point is well taken when one considers the process here in

the Police Act, and that it's really later on that the process opens up

for the complainant. I think that's a legitimate point, and a point

that reinforces the need to have a truly independent commission.

the third feeling is this sort of ascending hierarchy of rigidity, as I

call it, which means that the further up you go, the road you're

traveling crystallizes to the point that it's very difficult to

overturn lower decisions.

To summarize the feelings to

date: the complaint commissioner has little or no power: the process is

too long; the process has an ascending hierarchy of rigidity; and

fourth, it has a review mechanism which is not truly independent. I

made that comment in my first submission. The fifth caught me somewhat

off guard. and I'd like to hear the Attorney-General's comments with

respect to this.

I was surprised when I looked at the

legislation to note that the ombudsman is excluded from investigations

under the act. If I recollect correctly, that's in the later portion of

the legislation, where it says: "The Ombudsman Act does not apply to

this Act or the regulations." Again, I would submit that if one wants

to maintain a system that has some semblance of independence and gives

the public a degree of comfort with respect to independence and knowing

that it's not a truly internal system. then I see little reason to

exclude the ombudsman. I'm at a loss to understand what public policy

reason would allow for the exclusion of the ombudsman from the

complaint process.

So we have a situation where police boards are still involved in the complaint process, the complaint commissioner

[ Page 4862 ]

does

not have the authority to trigger his own investigations and the

ombudsman is excluded. Accordingly, I don't think this legislation will

satisfy those who have had unhappy experiences. Arguably it shouldn't

be trying to satisfy them all; but it should be able to satisfy the

legitimate one".

I've followed the Fullerton case with some

interest and have talked to Mr. Fullerton on several occasions. I tried

to run the Fullerton case through this piece of legislation as a test,

to see how it would be dealt with. I tried to do it as fairly as

possible before I concluded one way or the other where this legislation

stood. My conclusion was that even if you took that case, the

frustration and the concerns articulated by that person would not be

remedied by the provisions of the Police Act.

It's not sufficient for me simply to complain and state what's wrong with the legislation, without stating some alternatives.

see the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is signaling to me for a

time-out and wanting me to wrap up. I should tell him that I was in his

riding this weekend, and they're asking for a time-out from this

government everywhere I went in Merritt. I talked to all 500 of my

relatives there, and I know how they're going to vote next time. We've

got the problem licked in Yale-Lillooet for the next....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

He probably got about half the votes from those people last time, and

that was his margin of victory, but a little visit to the temple on

Sunday morning remedied all those problems. I think Merritt is going to

be good NDP territory come the next provincial election.

HON. B.R. SMITH : They like our policy on the Coquihalla there.

MR. SIHOTA :

Oh, they loved our policy on the Coquihalla. I told them very simply

that we loved the road; we just didn't like the coverup, and they

concurred in that.

Anyhow, to appease the member for

Yale-Lillooet, who I'm sure is now worrying about his political

future.... Perhaps he isn't. I'm just about finished here anyway. I'd

interceded to use this speech to mail out to all these constituent

groups I'm talking about, but now that you people have managed to

interrupt me, I guess I can't do that — at least without editing.

It's

not good enough simply to criticize the legislation without talking

about some appropriate remedies and some things that can be done in

this regard, Mr. Speaker. I think there are some alternatives, and

we've seen those alternatives in place in other jurisdictions. We've

seen that in Ontario, and even at the federal level, they have a far

greater independence with respect to the investigation of police and

police complaints. That legislation provides British Columbia with an

alternative, and it would also mean that in this area British Columbia

would not be heading into uncharted waters but would be in areas that

other jurisdictions have waded into and found not to be a major

problem. I must confess that there were some problems in Ontario this

year with respect to one discipline action, but on the whole I

understand the system has worked quite well.

There are

alternatives, and what we will be doing as this debate progresses into

committee stage is moving a series of amendments with a view to doing

what I said at the outset of my comments — improving the

legislation. I would suspect that some of those amendments are going to

be accepted, because they're just a matter of housecleaning and

catching up on some of the rough edges of the legislation. Others, I

think, will represent the difference of opinion between the two

political parties with reference to this legislation.

I'm

sure all that has been noted by the Attorney-General and his officials

who are in the House now. I look forward to debate at third reading as

we focus more and more on some of the sections with a view to putting

forward amendments to remedy what I see as some of the flaws in this

act, so that we can come out with legislation that British Columbians

can be happy with and is an improvement over what's before the House.

I'm

sensitive to the fact that my comments have been somewhat critical of

the act. I must say that there are certain provisions of the act which

we also welcome — and it isn't just the title.

[3:15]

I think the requirement in

section 55 for status reports to be given

a complainant 45 days after an initial complaint is laid and 30 days

thereafter is a good provision. The provision in

section 52 to allow

citizens to direct their complaint to the senior constable on duty at

the time the complaint is made is good. I think the requirement in

section 59 that a

summary of formal investigation and its results be

forwarded to the complainant is welcomed, and that support should be

provided for the remission of $500 in costs that may be awarded by a

police board inquiry against a complainant or a police officer.

Those

are all things in this legislation that one would welcome as well, Mr.

Speaker. There certainly is a foundation here upon which to build a

better piece of legislation.

I see that the government House Leader has left. Are you going to speak some more?

AN HON. MEMBER : The other leader left.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm sorry, the opposition House Leader has left. I'll terminate my

comments there, under the expectation that we won't get into

Agriculture estimates right way because I don't think I could hold the

fort for that.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I know that the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew likes this bill. He really has been

very complimentary in his own dry, discerning way. He's brought

together his Socratic talents, which he learned so well in his

profession, and he's given us a speech here about the bill, which has

really, if you look at it, been quite constructive.

He's

absolutely correct that it is walking the tightrope, that you do have

to balance the interests of the public to know and make sure that

things are done in the open and that sunlight gets into investigations

into police, with the necessity of providing a structure and protection

for a community that is very constantly under assault and performs very

difficult functions. That's precisely what we've tried to do.

What

I want to just say to him by way of closing is that our approach, I

think, has gone far enough. I think that this member, if he has a

little more faith and patience in this process, will be very pleased

with the result because we've gone further than the RCMP national bill

has gone, considerably further. The RCMP procedures are now coming into

force. As soon as they have their committee in place and

[ Page 4863 ]

choose their complaint commissioner, we hope — and I'll say in this House, because I think it's important —

that the complaint commissioner under our act and the RCMP complaint

commissioners will be one and the same person so we will have

uniformity of treatment for police in terms of personnel and in terms

of procedure in this province.

In this province, two-thirds

or 60 percent or more of the police will be dealt with under the RCMP

rules, and the rest, the 12 municipalities that have their local

forces — the largest of which is Vancouver — will be dealt

with under ours. I think it would be a very positive start if we had

the same individual administering both functions under the federal act

and under the provincial act. That's the view that I've taken with my

counterpart, Mr. Kelleher, and I've urged him that we have a

cooperative joint appointee carrying out the two.

MR. ROSE : With two sets of rules?

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Yes, two sets of rules, but they're very similar. The difference

between the national process and ours is not great, but the national

RCMP procedure is that they have a national public complaints committee

which is struck nationally. Then they have an RCMP complaint

commissioner in this province who they will appoint. If there's a

complaint against an RCMP constable under the new national procedure,

what happens is exactly the same as here.

In the first

instance, the RCMP investigate that complaint themselves, just as they

do now. Under the new bill they investigate it themselves, but at the

same time, the national committee has the power to institute an

investigation at any time. They can do so after the RCMP have

investigated, or they can do so in lieu of one, or even during, which

is exactly the same power that our B.C. Police Commission has on the

advice of the complaint commissioner.

If the complaint

commissioner, under our procedure, decides that he doesn't like the

course of the local police investigation — it's not getting anywhere; it seems to be in a dead-end —

then he can just say at a given time: "B.C. Police Commission, I think

that you should step right in and have a full independent

investigation." He can recommend and direct that. That's the same thing

that happens under the national act.

Our B.C. Police

Commission has greater statutory power than the national committee does

because all the national committee can do after their investigation is

make recommendations to the RCMP. Our B.C. Police Commission can step

right in and take disciplinary action. I think we've got a slightly

tighter and better process, but we have modelled the procedure as best

as possible to dovetail with the RCMP procedure. The two of them are

going to be on trial together in tandem. They're going to have to work

together, so I say let's have the same body being the complaint

commissioner for both. I hope that the member will support me in that.

I think this is good policy.

This system, I think, is going

to work well. It's true that this complaint commissioner that we're

appointing isn't going to be able to go out with his own army of

investigators and de nouveau start investigations. There are some who

would like us to go that far, but we're not going that far. It is also

true that that complaint commissioner, by getting a copy of every

complaint, by having access to the police files as he will do and never

has done before on a case-by-case basis, by being able to order the

reinvestigation of a complaint, which he will be able to do to the

local police force, he will be able to request a full inquiry by the

Police Commission. which will have independent resources available to

them under staff contract or seconded at any time to launch a full,

separate investigation at any stage — even before, if they wish

to, a local police investigation.... If, for some extraordinary reason,

there was absolutely no purpose in that force launching an

investigation. the complaint commissioner would make that

recommendation.

I really believe that the fears about this

bill that have been expressed in a few editorials.... I remember that

when I introduced the changes to the bill, I also had some very

positive and favourable comments. Understandably, those who write

editorials and whose job it is to comment on what we do look at what we

do in the light of the few horror stories that have happened. There is

no doubt the Jacobsen case was a horror story of what can happen in the

justice system. We just have to have a few like that and people begin

to lose confidence in the system. It's up to us to ensure that

confidence is restored.

I went to the Supreme Court of Canada a year ago in person and argued before that court — as Attorney-General —

that the province had to have the power to launch investigations into

police. We won that power in Jacobsen. We preserved that power. and

that investigation having been stalled for a couple of years by lawyers

finally went forward. Now we are going to have a report on the Jacobsen

inquiry. It may not get to the bottom of it. but at least we had a full

independent inquiry before the B.C. Police Commission.

The

Jacobsen case, as everybody knows, was the case of the fellow who was

alleged to have been beaten up while in custody in the Vancouver cells,

and nobody could come forward and say who did it. There seemed to be

strong evidence that it happened when he was in custody, but nobody

would say who did it. "It wasn’t me; it wasn't him; it wasn't somebody

else." It went through the whole route. It went through a local

investigation, and it went through a hearing before a local board. It

had court cases involved in it, and it took far too long.

Under

this process, there is going to be a marked improvement. I believe that

this bill has balanced the tightrope, and the member will find that it

will work as well as — and probably better than — the national procedure under the RCMP. I have great pride in moving second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

21, Police Act, 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. MR. STRACHAN : Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. B.R. SMITH :

The Land Title Amendment Act is really part of the Sechelt Indian band

self-government initiative. The band now owns its reserve lands as a

result of federal legislation passed in 1986, and it now wishes to

register its lands under the provincial Torrens system to afford the

band and the third parties dealing with it all the benefits and

protections that the Land Title Act can convey in connection with real

estate transactions. The legislation is

[ Page 4864 ]

designed

to accommodate the Sechelt aspirations specifically and can be made

applicable to other bands who elect to follow the Sechelt model of

title registration.

This legislation adds a new part to the

Land Title Act, rather than being cast in the new enactment specific to

the Sechelt. This legislation represents the general policy of the

government concerning the registration of title to Indian reserve

lands. The major provisions of this bill focus on the constitutional

law issues relating to the application of provincial law to the

ownership and possession of Indian reserve land and the entry of that

land into the Torrens system for the purposes of title registration.

Both

involve the application of complex legal principles to achieve the

ultimate goal of certainty, security and facility of ownership of

Indian reserve lands. Decisions of the courts have in recent years

raised significant doubt as to the extent to which provincial law can

apply to the ownership and possession of lands reserved for Indians.

These lands fall within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the

federal government by virtue of

section 91(24) of the British North

America Act.

The division of legislative powers embodied in

the Canadian constitution makes it impossible for the provincial

government acting alone to address the uncertainty to the extent

required for a clear application of provincial land title registration

to Indian land. These complex issues became more apparent to us during

the discussions with the Sechelt band and the federal government,

preparatory to enacting the self-government legislation in 1986.

Another obstacle was the fact that an Indian band, in the eyes of the

common law, is not a legal entity. Again, the problem was beyond the

legislative power of the province to resolve. So the bill has to have

its footing in federal legislation, which, firstly, constitutes a

specifically named band as a legal entity: the Sechelt Indian band.

Secondly,

the federal legislation delegates legislative power to the band to pass

a law adopting as its own the laws of the province respecting land

title registration. If you hear native leaders saying that this bill

somehow abandons other Indian bands, or casts them in a certain way, or

makes them do something that's detrimental to their concept of

self-government.... It doesn't at all, because before you can invoke

this land registration system, you not only have to have federal

legislation but the band itself has to pass autonomously a bylaw that

invokes the provincial land registration scheme.

The

province isn't saying to every native band in this province: "This is

the way you've got to go or you're not going to get anywhere." Other

bands may have another process they want to follow. They can set the

course of their own destiny, but the Sechelt band, an autonomous band

that has development plans of its own and specific things it wants to

do with the waterfront.... They have ideas as to how to provide housing

and benefits for their own citizens and things they want to do with

that land which require registration, because they cannot sell strata

interests or leasehold interests — whatever it is they're going to do with that land —

unless they can offer certainty of title, unless they can have the

benefits of mortgage financing.... What we're saying is that native

bands and the members of those bands are citizens of Canada and British

Columbia, and they're entitled to those rights.

[3:30]

The whole objective of this process of allowing a band to enter into

the land registration scheme of the province is to ensure that the

existing fee simple estate of the band, together with all existing

lesser interests such as leaseholds, mortgages and so on, will enter

the provincial system in accordance with the Torrens principles that

govern all land in this province. As such, the entry process is

critical to the establishment of a clear route of title to these

estates and interests and the securement of public acceptance of and

reliance upon the integrity of the title register.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Owing

to the fact that some Indian land entered the system before the

constitutional law problems were identified and articulated by the

Supreme Court of Canada, the entry process described in the bill is of

necessity more precise than was first thought necessary. But the

process is similar to that by which provincial Crown land enters the

Torrens system for the first time. The bill offers greater flexibility

to the band by allowing it to subject to the Torrens system only those

parts of its land for which the registration is necessary for business

reasons. They can keep the rest out if they want.

The key steps in the entry process are as follows: firstly, the patent — that is, the federal Crown grant by which the band acquires a fee simple estate —

is filed in the land registry office. This filing does not constitute

actual registration, but allows the band to register all or part of its

reserve lands thereafter.

Secondly, the band itself

identifies an area of the reserve that it wishes to register and passes

a law authorizing the registration to occur.

Thirdly, the

band makes application to the land title office for a registered fee

simple title. That application will be supported by the appropriate

survey plans and Indian land registry certifications necessary to

identify the area covered by the title and to preserve existing

interests in accordance with Torrens principles.

Fourthly, on registration the title is subject to the Torrens system for all purposes of provincial law.

The

result of this unique legislative procedure is that it preserves the

federal constitutional character of Indian reserve land on the one hand

while subjecting it to provincial land title registration on the other.

It does so by consent of the band — not by action of the

provincial or federal government, but by consent and at the wish of the

band. That's what's so important. It satisfies the concerns of native

Canadians to whom existing constitutional immunities attaching to their

land is a vital instance of their ownership. It also allows the precise

legal conveyancing rules that underlie the Land Title Act and related

provincial statutes to operate as effectively for natives as they do

for other Canadians.

Of further greater significance, a

registered title to Indian land will now carry with it all of the

statutory assurances and guarantees applicable to other registered

titles. There are only three exceptions to this. The first relates to

existing trust or fiduciary obligations attaching to Indian land that

by their nature are not capable of registration under the land title

scheme. This trust interest will not be registered or guaranteed. The

second relates to the continuance of the adoptive legislation passed by

the band itself, which cannot be guaranteed by the province because the

band might change its mind later and has the right to do so. The third

only applies to those interests which during the entry process may be

found to be unregisterable. This includes some forms of traditional

Indian tenure, such as rights of occupation that are held by

[ Page 4865 ]

band members. These tenures are not intended to be registered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

summary, the full benefits of the B.C. land registry Torrens system

will now apply to Indian land that becomes registered in the land title

office at the instance of the band. The ingredients of the bill, while

highly technical, are absolutely showpiece legislation in this country,

I think, to establish the right of a band to take this kind of move

forward if it wishes to do so, and this process is a model of total

cooperation federally, provincially and band-wise.

Despite

the complexities of legal principles involved, we have come up with a

clean and simple procedure to register Indian land in this province.

This in large

part is due to the assistance given by the Sechelt people

themselves to the realization of this process. The day the bill was

introduced, the chief and a number of the band elders came down here

and were in the gallery. There has been tremendous cooperation and a

great feeling of pride on the part of the Sechelt people. On behalf of

the government and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who has given

us a good deal of assistance as well, I have great privilege in

recommending this bill to the House for passage.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General described this as showpiece legislation, and it

will be the centrepiece, I would suspect, of a constitutional challenge

somewhere along the line. When the Attorney-General introduced the bill

in the House — whenever it was — the first thought that

flickered across my mind was that someone was going to challenge it

somewhere along the line constitutionally. I don't know. I'm certainly

not going to pretend I am Ron Cheffins and can talk all day about the

constitutionality of this piece of legislation. Knowing Professor

Cheffins, I'm sure he will probably get some student somewhere — if he is still teaching — to write a paper on it, and it will probably be the background of someone's argument one day in court.

will be very short in my comments about this legislation, because I am

still thinking about it and I haven't had a chance to talk to our

critic in this area, who is not here today and whose advice I would

look to before committing myself one way or the other on this piece of

legislation.

I understand what the legislation is trying to

do. I fully understand what is being planned here and I fully

appreciate the fact that the triggering action here is a decision of

the band. If you don't have the band as a party, then the whole matter

of patent and registration of the Torrens system is not triggered.

That's where the control valve should be, obviously. Given the

historical nature of Indian lands in this country, if bands want to

move away from the special privileges that they have now with respect

to land, then it really ought to be a band decision first and foremost.

Secondly,

let me say this about the legislation. I would suspect that if someone

is going to challenge it constitutionally, that would come only after

the following scenario: a band would default on a mortgage and action

would be taken on the covenant to pay; there would be a judgment and

the financial institution would then try to secure an interest in land

or take ownership of land upon the issuance of an order absolute. I can

just see an issue arising at that time about the authority of the band

in the first place to enter into it and the constitutionality of the

legislation which allowed the band to do that. I suspect that it would

be at that point that one would see a litigation on it. Let's hope that

that doesn't happen. but that was my first thought when I heard this

legislation being introduced.

On the other hand. there is

an advantage to this as well. I talked on the previous legislation

about my experience; I can certainly say that in terms of my own

experience as a solicitor — which is limited — I can remember

being involved and I have met with others who have been involved in

situations where they were acting for bands and a band wanted to engage

in housing construction or upgrading on a parcel of land it owned and

made an application for financial assistance from a financial

institution, be it a bank or a credit union, and was turned down

because the nature of the lands in question were not such that a

financial institution, for obvious reasons. would be interested in

advancing sums of money, without some type of greater security than

land. In some ways that inhibited the ability of bands to engage in

economic renewal or economic development on their property. The thought

behind the legislation which allows for parcels of land to be

registered would in a practical way deal with that very practical

problem that I saw and others have seen during the course of acting for

bands.

This bill really has two sides to it — like any

other coin, I guess. I can immediately see some advantages in the

legislation; I can also immediately see some downsides in the

legislation with respect to its constitutionality. I'm sure it fits in

nicely with all of the jurisprudence right now on the matter, and none

of us can crystal-ball it into the future.

That's all I

would care to say at this stage of debate on it. After further dialogue

with my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), I will be making

submissions again, probably at committee stage, with respect to

improvements if necessary, and maybe even a comment at third reading.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Those comments are certainly fair comments, because no minister today

can give guarantees that some febrile constitutional legal mind, in the

current era of Charter cases, will not be able to make an argument that

will go the distance of the court system in this country. I must say

that the courts will no doubt have regard for the good utility and

common sense of the process.

Since it rests on delegated

legislation and it rests on the power of the province to legislate for

property and civil rights and to provide a registration system, as we

do for all other citizens, it would seem very impractical if the

federal government cannot delegate the authority to do this kind of

thing, this entry into the scheme. It has often been argued that

natives are creatures only of federal law and that they are covered

only by federal law: that they live somehow in some kind of federal

enclave and are not citizens of the province. Yet there are lots of

court decisions that have held that they are citizens of the province,

that they do....

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

That's right, but they need licences to get married; they want

certifications; they want to take benefit of provincial legislation and

provincial schemes of social assistance and education. All these things

should be available to natives, who may be federal citizens in another

right.

[ Page 4866 ]

think there's very good common sense, as well as very good

jurisprudence, for saying to a band: "You can enter the twentieth

century, and indeed the twenty-first century, and develop your land in

a leasehold way, the way you want to." We're talking only about reserve

land. I emphasize that; we are not talking about native land claims. We

are not talking about any process that in any way undercuts or

undermines arguments that native leaders may want to make in the

political arena or in the courts about their land claims. We are

talking about reserve land, land that belongs to the band, in a way,

but under the old law has only belonged to them under the permission of

the superintendent of Indian affairs in Ottawa — a remote

functionary, disembowelled from the band, somebody they had to go

through to get his permission for the smallest transaction. The

bureaucracy involved for bands to deal with their land through that

official was incredible, and the member knows that, if he's done law in

that area. Dealing with Indian Affairs on minor matters involving the

superintendents of band lands was often an impossibility.

They're

going to be freed from that by federal legislation. By their choice

they opt into this scheme, and then they can register their land and

sell leasehold interest — as I understand what the Sechelt band

want to do. They want to keep the fee, and more power to them; I think

that makes a lot of sense. It will be their development choice. They're

going to sell leasehold interests. They'll be able to give security of

registration. That should be their choice.

I have great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

24, Land Title Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

[3:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $254,982.

MR. ROSE :

I'd like the government House Leader to stay a second if he could,

because I'm going to have something to say that I tried to get on

question period. That's why I was so nettled when we only got two

questions; it accounted for some of my acrimonious tone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Speak for two minutes, and I'll be right back.

MR. ROSE : All right. I'll do this. Your ears can burn wherever you're going.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Tell me about marketing boards.

MR. ROSE :

No, I'm not going on to marketing boards right away. No, it concerns a

story about the minister saying he was cool to a migratory site down on

Boundary Bay or Mud Bay in the minister's riding. This has to do with

the removal of greenbelt lands established by W.A.C. Bennett — in advance, by the way, of the Land Commission — and transfer of them to the Ministry of Lands and Forests, presumably to sell to farmers for farming.

know what happens to farmland in that neck of the woods. We know about

Terra Nova. On the one hand we exclude 800 acres, then we remove from

greenbelt almost 400 acres — in that general area — for farming. Come on! This is absolutely contradictory, in my view.

have some questions to ask the minister. The Minister of Environment

and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says: "Maybe this kind of Ramsar

convention for waterfowl is not something cabinet is taking to."

Cabinet hasn't said no, but the minister says that cabinet is cool to

the migratory site request. While the minister was out, I was saying

that this will add presumably to the stock of farmland to be sold for

fee simple.

What worries us is that that's exactly what

Terra Nova was. It was a site of about 800 acres that has gone to one

of the Premier's friends at a tremendous windfall gain. It was bought

for about four million bucks, and it's going to sell for 40 million

bucks. What assurance do we have from the Minister of Agriculture that

the same thing isn't going to happen once we pry these lands loose?

Remember, greenbelt was an invention of the late W.A.C. Bennett. It

doesn't just apply down in the lower Delta area; it also applies in

Aldergrove and places like that. That's the first question I want

answered.

The second question I have is: does the Minister

of Agriculture, under whose authority those lands lie...? This sudden

transfer was done in April when nobody was looking. Did he approve of

this land being removed from the protection of greenbelt, and does he

support it? That's question number two.

Question number

three is: does the Ministry of Agriculture have any studies to show

that this land is economically viable for farming? I'm going to go on

and talk about farm income in a little while. I know our friend from

Okanagan South talked about farm income last Friday. I want to know if

there's any study on whether it is needed for fanning in that area.

mean, we just yanked Spetifore out. We had the Spetifore amendment a

little while ago. This whole attack on farmland in that comer of

British Columbia, I think, is pernicious. They want to create what is

needed to preserve, really, a kind of.... It's on a flyway. It's

important for I don't know how many species of waterfowl and migratory

birds. I could name some of them, but I won't bore you with that. You

know them as well as I do. That is not important; that isn't the issue.

Those three questions, I think, are worth considering, and I'm waiting here with bated breath for the answer.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To my hon. critic, the first one was relative to the greenbelt. You

referred to the former Premier W.A.C. Bennett's era, when a lot of

those farms were bought up by the government of the day. They varied

throughout the constituency, if you can just use our own constituency

as an example. In fact, there were a number of locations.

You asked if they were dedicated for migratory birds or whatever. That wouldn't change, because what we have

[ Page 4867 ]

here....

I could name several farmers in the community who have been there for

years and years and who decided to leave the land. In one case, for

example, their son is now back wanting to be a farmer. He would like to

have the opportunity to purchase that farm so that he in turn can pass

it on to his family. That's what we're talking about here: turning it

over to the Ministry of Lands to sell back to the farmers. It is not to

be taken out of the ALR; it's still within that zoning. It's not in

jeopardy, as far as I'm concerned, relative to an application for

removal. It's designed in the community plan, and it's right near the

Mud Bay mudflats which are, as you quite accurately quote, so sensitive

to the migratory bird system of the Pacific flyway. I really believe

there is no jeopardy to that. If I can use our own farm, the 800 acres

that we farm on is all used by migratory birds, but it varies

throughout the whole area.

I think the other question you

asked was whether I supported the transfer. Yes, I do, if farmers can

have access to ownership of their own land, and I believe they should

have. When some of those families left there and the government bought

it.... If other farm families come along and request that they have an

opportunity to purchase that farm back, I think they should be given

that opportunity.

MR. ROSE : Is the minister telling us then that sales to previous owners are the only ones that will be considered?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Well, that doesn't quite say the same thing. It says it is to be used

for farming, but the point of the minister's answer — or at least the emphasis that he seemed to indicate to us —

was that it's some dispossessed son who is back now and wants to farm.

You could lease back under greenbelt anyway and continue farming. Is

the minister aware of that?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Sure.

MR. ROSE :

Then what is the purpose of transferring it out again, because I think

it leaves it at risk. Will it go beyond that particular corner? Does it

apply to all greenbelt operations now — the ones in Aldergrove, Langley, the lower Fraser Valley? So all the greenbelt stuff is now up for sale?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That's the policy issue that we discussed: most or all of the greenbelt land if a farmer wishes to purchase it.

You

mention "lease." I don't think there's anything wrong with a farmer

having a right to purchase his own farm, quite frankly. It doesn't

matter whether he is leasing it or he was the previous owner, or his

parents were the previous owners. The issue here is that it's still in

the agricultural land reserve and will be used for farm purposes. In

some cases farmers left the land, and other families decided to come on

and try farming. Should they not have the same right to purchase that

land?

MR. ROSE : I'm not objecting at all, except

that they once sold their land to the greenbelt and left farming.

That's how it occurred. Nobody came in and confiscated that land in the

first place; they freely gave it up. Now they want it back because it's

worth megabucks.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

It must be, because $20,000 an acre was what the Ilich family paid for

the Terra Nova land. Is that a viable price for farming? You're

charging about $10,000 an acre for Colony Farm. It's not going as

farmland for that price.

We want to make sure what's going

on here, because we don't have any confidence in ELUC. As the minister

well knows, this is a method where you can take a parcel of land that's

been designated agriculture. get a council to go to cabinet, and 75

times out of 100 cabinet approves. What's to prevent those lands from

being sold to a farmer? Ultimately in private hold, they can now be

subdividable. The ALR isn't any protection anymore. Just ask the folks

around Terra Nova. It's no protection at all. Seventy-five percent of

the cases that have gone through ELUC in the last three years have

passed. I don't know what the minister's stand is on it, but every time

I ask him he says: "Well, I wasn't at ELUC when that happened. I was

somewhere else. I was travelling."

I don't see what's wrong

with making it a bird sanctuary. That doesn't mean it can't be used for

farming. Lots of birds use other places that are used for farming. I

understand that. This is an international convention by the United

Nations. The Minister of Environment and Parks has a Ducks Unlimited

motion on the order paper, and we're going to debate it on Wednesday

afternoon. But we want to make sure those things are protected. Once

they're in greenbelt they're in greenbelt, but once they're in farming

there are all kinds of buildings, they're subdividable, and ELUC is no

protection at all to us. The general public is extremely worried about

this, and the record of the Government and the ministry, while the

minister has been minister, is not good on this subject.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I didn't want to have to remind the member opposite that in 1973 my

grandfather's farm was expropriated by the NDP government, and he lost

365 acres of perfectly good farmland to Tilbury industrial park. I

believe that logic has to fall back as to why it was done that way. You

have to ask yourself.

To say I haven't said my piece as

part of ELUC.... Let me assure you that I, knowing the value of food

production and its base in this province, have represented the farming

community very well, I believe, in what is supposed to be good

farmland. I can tell you that there's an awful lot of land in the ALR

zoning that maybe should not be in there. It should be fine-tuned and

looked at again.

I can tell my opposition critic another

thing. The fact of the matter is that over 90 percent of the

applications for the zoning changes — and that's what I call ALR: a zoning within the province — are dealt with by the Land Commission itself. Very few ever come to ELUC.

MR. ROSE :

I know that members of the government are always quick to point out the

Tilbury Island case. Is that the only one you've got where the wicked

socialists confiscated land? Since 1974 there has been a net loss of

27,000 hectares of agricultural land. That's as big as the city of

Vancouver. So I don't think your record is all that great.

The

wetlands habitat committee and the provincial wildlife branch talked

about protecting these lands. Who's in charge? Is Environment in

charge? Is it now turned over and no longer part of the Ministry of

Agriculture? Who's in charge here? Environment said they were going to

protect it. I'd like to know who's protecting it.

[ Page 4868 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : If Environment, through Ducks Unlimited, finds it necessary to dedicate an area for wetlands reserve — or whatever they wish to call it —

that's fair enough. That does not change the agricultural zoning. The

ALR still stays in place, and the farms are still being farmed.

MR. ROSE :

I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat any more that we don't

think the ALR is much protection. Once it becomes fee simple ownership,

it can be subdivided; it can be chopped up. Right next door to it

there's a great big subdivision down at Boundary Bay. The area all

along Mud Bay could be up for grabs for another Terra Nova, a

Superport, or whatever. There are tremendous pressures on that part of

the country, and I recognize them; they are economic pressures and

social pressures.

What I want is a commitment from the

minister that he is going to fight and that we've got some protection

for those things. I don't think the record has been very good, and I

don't mean to be personal or mean or unfair. We've lost a lot of good

land in Richmond, and we're afraid that we're going to lose some more.

In addition to losing the land, we lose habitat protection, saltwater

flats and all this stuff that is probably the only Mediterranean area

we have in Canada. It's very important. In other words, greenbelt is

gone. Goodbye greenbelt. Kaput, finished.

AN HON. MEMBER : I don't know about that.

MR. ROSE : Well, I know about it.

When the minister gets up, will he clarify whether these things can be sold to anyone who cares to bid on them — I know where there are lots of them — or just family members? Should we all rush out there right away?

[4:00]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

No, the policy is that if the former owner does not wish to purchase

the property, the existing leaseholder will be given the first option.

I think that's only fair, and I think it says from a policy point of

view that we're still trying to keep it in agriculture, and that's the

important thing. Whether a farmer makes a living under that enterprise

remains to be seen. That's a management decision he has to make.

I'd

like to inform the hon. member that on a number of issues, as

they're dealing with ALR applications, when the application comes

forward it has to be dealt with on the basis.... Over 90 percent of

them are dealt with by the Land Commission, not ELUC. That's only the

political appeal.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if the minister

is aware that when these parcels are put into the greenbelt.... Some of

those people are still on those farms. Is that not the case?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Perhaps many of them are. What will the price differential be? Will

they be able to buy back the property for what they paid for it, or

will there be some other local assessment basis for the new price?

The minister shook his head when I said that. What will the price be?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The price will be present market value for farmland as it exists within the ALR.

MR. ROSE :

Perhaps this matter could be revisited at another time. I think it's

fair to say that a lot of people are really alarmed with this

particular one because of its significance for wildlife and migratory

bird habitat and saltwater marshes. We're really concerned about the

wetlands....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : It

won't change as long as it's not subdivided and sent somewhere or put

into another use. That's fine. We said we were not very happy or very

comfortable with the powers of the Land Commission, especially with the

appeals through ELUC. We're not happy about those, because if somebody

well placed, who is a friend of a friend of a friend of the Premier,

gets a little push in there, they will go just like Terra Nova for a

windfall gain of $40,000 or whatever. That's what we're concerned

about; we don't want another Terra Nova or some Superport down there.

I don't know how many Tilbury Islands it takes to make a Terra Nova, but I'm quite sure that the situations are quite different.

the way, I notice the minister is advertising for a public affairs

coordinator. One of his jobs is to "prepare speeches for ministerial

use" and improve communication effectiveness in articulating government

policy. Well, I think you really need it over this one. I was wondering

if perhaps anybody could apply. Here it is: "Graduate from a university

of recognized standing with a degree in agriculture" — I think I could

probably qualify there; "preferably agricultural economics or economics

with an agriculture undergraduate degree" — well, I wouldn't be so good on that one; "extensive experience or training in journalism — I'm pretty good as a journalist; "must be eligible for registration with the B.C. Institute of Agrologists" — I'm a little weak on that one, but I'm strong here: "Smoking restricted." I could probably qualify there.

I was just going to say, though, that you need a little image-buffing. That's one of the 67 vacancies, I take it.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Oh, I see the member for Okanagan South, and I'd like to quote him:

"For some time, certainly longer than I have been a member of this

Legislature...." He's known it's been difficult for apples and grapes.

"But it really came home to me just a week or so ago when, on a

weekend, a local fruit farmer phoned me and asked if he could borrow my

tractor." I don't know what the member for Okanagan South is doing with

a tractor; he should be the Minister of Agriculture if he owns a

tractor. "When talking to him I asked why it was necessary: was his

broken down, was it in the repair shop?" The reason was that he had

sold his tractor to pay some bills. "In fact, that very afternoon he

sold 20 lengths of irrigation pipe to buy groceries."

With

friends like that in agriculture, you will really need a communications

coordinator. You need a flack; you need a Sammy Glick, somebody who can

really put you in business. Look, this is nothing to be joking about,

but when the minister tells us that farm income is up 3 percent when

inflation is 4 percent, that's not a very big record, or a good one.

Here's

a friend of mine who voted for the member for Okanagan South. He said I

could use his name here; his name is Art Day. The Day family has been

in Kelowna for years and

[ Page 4869 ]

years.

He served on the school board and is a supporter of the member for

Okanagan South. He's writing to the Farm Credit Corporation:

"On

June 1, 1988, our mortgage payments in the amount of $16,030.24 are

due, However, I'm not prepared to borrow additional money from the bank

to make these payments. Even at the disgracefully low rate of return

for the 1987 crop, we should be receiving an additional $36,000 later

in 1988. This will pay out our $20,000 bank loan from 1987 and our

mortgage payment of $16,000, due June 1. I have previously written

about the horrible way orchardists are being treated by our

governments, so I won't belabour the point."

Well, I'll

belabour the point, because that's one of your voters. He says how bad

it is in there, and the minister has the audacity to say that things

are great in agriculture, things are looking up. "We've got a few

challenges," he says. You've got some challenges all right. You've got

more than challenges; you've got poor farm income.

The same man wrote me the other day. He said: "We've lived on $9,000 a year" —

his family. "Last year was our most productive year in our 22 years of

growing fruit, since we produced 799 bins of apples." He goes on to say

how great they were; I won't read it all. But what Mr. Day is saying

essentially is: "We had our best year" — in other words, production is no problem — "but the prices were so rotten that we needed an extra 2 cents this spring in order to get going." He's gone away — he's gone mushroom-hunting or something like that —

and he won't be back. He paid $20,000 in labour last year, so he's a

contributor. So I think the minister knows things are very serious here.

Here

are the farmers' requests before the Farm Debt Review Board. It's

staggering: 32 percent are from orchardists, 25 percent from bee

farmers and 24 percent from horticulturalists. Just wait till the

snap-back comes in. What snap-back in free trade? Snapdragon is all

that is.

Anyway, I think that's enough to establish the

fact that, first of all, we're not spending.... It's only $24,000 on

farm income assurance. That was explained because there weren't many

calls, not that the thing had been downgraded and reduced to a point

that that's all it was paying out — $60 million in the budget. It should be at least $40 million.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

No, it will be this year. It isn't just a case of markets. The minister

knows it's return, isn't it? I think it's a declining commitment to

agriculture, higher interest rates which should have put those rates up

under that program, higher fuel costs and very poor prices. In 1986-87

it was a little better because inflation moderated.

There

have been no improvements in the program for ten years. There is a

scaled-down indemnity for costs over $20,000. In other words, you are

chiseling on them. The $20,000 figure was set in the late seventies, so

given inflation, you could increase it to $40,000 to restore

approximately the same coverage that producers used to have when things

were better. Labour rates do not really reflect the actual costs,

although they are a lot cheaper than the Americans. Wait until you try

that level of playing field on labour rates when we get free trade. The

capital cost formula has not changed since my colleague in the NDP

government brought in the scheme in 1973 and 1974. Definitely it's time

for a review. I'd like to know whether or not the minister is

undertaking that kind of a review of this.

Here are the assurance fund indemnities for 1986-87 — $17 million to beef producers. That was supposed to be a good year, I thought —

1986-87. It was better than the year before; it was $20 million the

year before. The year before that it was $24 million. You have to go

back to 1979-80 to get it anywhere under $1 million. Do I need to give

any further reference than that to the members of your staff behind

you? I'm reading from the farm income assurance fund indemnities.

Even berry producers got $3,000 last year, but they got a lot more — up to $2 million — in years before. Blueberries — nothing. Great stuff, going fine; that Colony Farm would make a great blueberry patch — better than a racetrack. Put the racetrack out in Surrey somewhere, as far as I am concerned — or Maple Ridge. You can go through the things and see the real losers here and people who haven't done very well — $1 million for a greenhouse, $6 million for orchardists.

think I've made the point, so I wonder if the minister can.... The

solutions to the pressure on land, the desire to get 3,800 acres out of

the Okanagan that are in grapes and horticultural crops, and the

pressures there really have a lot to do with farm income; as a matter

of fact, everything to do with farm income. When the agricultural land

reserve was brought in, it wasn't designed to freeze the farmers into

peonage. People can't function being land-rich and cash poor, so the

correlative piece of legislation was the farm income assurance — not insurance — based on the assurance principle.

was thought at the time that if you're going to put people into these

boxes. at least they should have the voluntary right to apply to have

their incomes protected. We don't have any income protection-,

naturally there is going to be pressure on people who are broke and

into the banks and going bankrupt. The only asset they have is their

land, but if we chop it all up and blacktop it, it's gone; it's pretty

hard to farm blacktop. I wonder if the minister could talk about the

review process.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, a lot

of things were said about us advertising for a policy analyst and so

on. Sure we are. I was taking heed of what you were saying. Maybe you

would like to have one of the application forms: certainly the job is

open for applicants.

[4:15]

I like

to also remind you that we have some preliminary figures from Stats

Canada as of last Wednesday that show B.C. farmers are estimated to

have total cash receipts at a record $1.072 billion.

MR. ROSE : Is that B.C.?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Yes. In British Columbia, the net farm operating costs have depreciated

by 2 percent to $789.1 million. The net farm income rose by 7.3 percent

over 1986, and it exceeded $300 million for the first time in history

in this province. Additionally, between 1985 and 1986, net income — you can take a look at this figure — rose by an impressive 46.3 percent.

agree with my hon. critic that some sectors are suffering. You quoted

some numbers from the farm income assurance indemnity fund about what

payments are made or not

[ Page 4870 ]

made. That is reflective only of the marketplace. The marketplace sets the market return, nothing else but that.

have an insurance fund that takes up the difference between an

established model operation, no matter what commodity it is, and it's

agreed to between the farmers and the government. It's a model that

they sit down and negotiate every five years, and the operating costs

are adjusted, whether it's interest rates or fuels. No matter what it

is, all operating costs are adjusted.

You asked about

whether we are taking some under review. You talked about the cap at

$20,000. A number of those things are under review, if that is the

answer you are looking for.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr.

Minister, I want to clarify something before I ask any questions. Some

of my constituents have brought to me the issue of brand inspection

fees in B.C. My investigations indicate that that is still under

consideration, but I am not sure whether it is true. I talked to

somebody who had come back from a meeting last week, and she seemed to

indicate that you have now made a decision. Perhaps you could clarify

for me what is happening with brand inspection fees. Are they going to

go up? How much are they going to go up, and for what particular reason?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr., Chairman, to the hon. member, yes. You asked if the fees are going

to go up. We have met with the brand inspection committee of the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association, and they have agreed with us that it will go

from 50 cents to 75 cents effective July 1, 1988.

Whether

it goes up further is a decision that will have to be made. That

represents approximately 75 percent of the cost of the actual

inspection. As I have said, we have met with the committee. I have

discussed it in my office with them, and we have agreement on it.

MS. EDWARDS :

Yes, Mr. Minister, I know that some members of the organization have

accepted that agreement. There are still some other members of the

industry who are not so happy with it. There are even some other

organizations that are not totally happy with that decision — at least they weren't ahead of time.

order to be able to explain, I want to understand the reason you're

increasing these brand inspection fees. It has been put to me that

brand inspection is a policing function. Like any other policing

function, it isn't usually covered totally by the fees, which are

often simply a part of the issue of setting up the system so that it

can be policed.

There are a number of ranchers in my

constituency who are suggesting that with the increased rural taxes and

the indication that grazing fees are going to go up next year, although

they didn't go up this year.... Irrigation rates and water licences

have gone up, fees for installation of irrigation pipes have gone up,

gas taxes and ARDA programs have been dropped and ICBC fees are up, and

so on and so forth. Why in the world does the minister want to raise

the rate for brand inspection, which is a policing function? There is

no increased service, but there is an increase in the rates for

brand inspection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It just reflects

moving towards equating the costs of the service. That's the only

reason that the brand inspection fee is going up. You can argue that

policing for brand inspection is a provincial service, but it is also

protection for the cattle producer as well.

MS. EDWARDS :

Will the ministry then be doing some work to make the RCMP and the

weigh-scale people more conscious of doing more brand inspection? There

is a sense that the actual branding itself is frequently not inspected

at the places where it could be inspected, and that there could be

considerably closer rein on how these brands work if there were some

stronger pressures, which would include education and perhaps some

indication from the minister that he thinks that is a good idea.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

A lot of brand inspections are obviously done at point of sale, but

spot checks are also done at many of the highway scales. You're saying

that if you add more policing and more inspectors, you obviously add

more of a cost. Then do you go back and say you have to have more

return for the inspection? As I understand it from most reports, there

is adequate policing out there. The only thing we are talking about

here is getting more towards the cost recovery of that service.

MS. EDWARDS :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will take that back to my constituents. I

want to bring up another issue, and it is going to go back to the same

issue you were talking about with my colleague the opposition House

Leader, which s the issue of moving land out of the management of the

Agricultural Land Commission and over to Forests and Lands.

I'm

talking about the Steeples Ranch in the Cranbrook area. There are a

number of concerns about that ranch. I know that if you've been

minister for at least a couple of months you will have heard about the

Steeples Ranch, because the people in my area have been wrangling about

this ranch for years and years. I understand, Mr. Minister, that that

ranch has now been moved out of the control of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Fisheries and into Forests and Lands for disposal.

That

piece of land was purchased in order to relieve range, and the range in

the East Kootenay is the centre of considerable conflict, because it's

a very delicate range, it is highly used and there is a great deal of

pressure on it from both domestic and wild animals. The problem with

the Steeples Ranch, as you probably know, is that it has not been close

enough to where the particular pressure is to be appreciated the way it

might have been. In fact, while it is here for farmers to use when they

could be relieving pressure on other range, they usually have to move

cattle some distance to get there.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The

agricultural community, however, wants that land to stay in

agricultural use. Over a number of years it has been found that

operating it as a unit has not so far been an economic possibility. If

it is now to be disposed of, is there any chance at all that this land,

like other agricultural land in he East Kootenay, might be moved out of

the land reserve? In other words, is there any possibility that it

might be sold for something other than agricultural use?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

As you rightly say, the land has been transferred to the Ministry of

Forests and Lands, but no decision has been made at this stage as to

whether we actually sell the Steeples Ranch or not. I believe that

there are a number of discussions going on between our ministry and the

[ Page 4871 ]

Ministry of Environment and Parks relative to wildlife, etc., that graze on that ranch as well.

MS. EDWARDS : Could you give me an idea of who is involved in those discussions and when the decision will be made?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The decision, we're not sure. I can't reveal discussions that go on

within cabinet, obviously, but the decisions have been taken to

cabinet. All I can tell you is that no decision has been made at this

point. But Environment staff and our own have discussed the issue back

and forth on a number of occasions.

MS. EDWARDS : One of the things you're saying is that it is going on at cabinet level.

want to repeat the concern of my colleague that there is not a great

deal of faith that this land would be kept in the agricultural land

reserve if there were more value to be had by taking it out. There's

some fear that that will happen. In my area, where the conflict over

range is so intense, it is a matter of considerable concern, and I

would urge the minister to see that that land stays within the reserve

so that it is available for use as range by either domestic or wild

animals as the coordinator of range management planning can do it.

MS. MARZARI :

In keeping with some of the comments made by the members for Kootenay

and Coquitlam-Moody, I'd like to ask the minister about the lands

around Boundary Bay and Mud Bay that were in greenbelt and which we now

know are no longer in greenbelt and have been handed over to the

Ministry of Forests and Lands.

You claim to the member for

Kootenay that a particular greenbelt piece of land was not yet up for

sale and that no decision had been made. Would you let me know whether

or not the acreage around Boundary Bay and Mud Bay has been put up for

sale, or are there still decisions to be made about that particular

sale?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I believe those particular

sites have been legally listed for proposal call for farmers who may

wish to purchase those or existing leaseholders who may wish to

purchase that farmland back. It does not include anything outside the

dikes that belongs within the provincial system. They're not farmlands

outside of that. That's part of that Ducks Unlimited $25 million

proposal that came forward, as I recollect it.

MS. MARZARI :

The main concern here is how far along in the process we've come. As

you know, there are many people involved with the Fraser River

Coalition and the 50 groups that belong to that coalition who have just

recently been made aware that the order-in-council was passed in the

first place. In fact, it's just come to that community's discovery, as

it has come to mine in the last week, that an order-in-council in early

April put those greenbelt lands up for sale. The concern is very deep;

and I know the minister is going to be receiving many petitions and

requests — phone calls, lobbyists — to remove that land from

sale because no proper consultation has been conducted. As a matter of

fact, the community has many things on its mind: the interconnectedness

of the whole Fraser River estuary. All the proposals, the developments,

the outfalls on that whole estuary concern literally hundreds and

thousands of people in our community. So the discovery that the

greenbelt lands might be under attack or going on the chopping block,

as it were, in the next few weeks came as a surprise to that community.

They are at this very moment mustering support and attempting to pull

together the coalition. Last Thursday night, as a matter of fact, a

meeting of over a hundred people congregated in Point Grey to discuss

techniques that could be used to prevent this sale.

[4:30]

There is a very strong ecological concern around the sale of these

greenbelt lands. The Fraser Valley Wetlands Habitat Committee met with

the provincial wildlife branch not so long ago — my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody referred to this —

and the wildlife branch assured the committee that these lands were

worth protecting and would in fact be protected. So you can imagine

that the Fraser River Coalition and its members have been dealing with

many other issues — almost a hundred right now — concerning

the Fraser River estuary and had put this on the back burner. It has

recently come to their attention. as I said. that these lands are being

sold.

My questions then to the minister: how much

consultation have you had with the provincial wildlife branch? When did

you talk to them about these lands? What did they say when you talked

to them about these lands? And is there not a reason, now that you know

these facts, to suggest that further consultation is required with the

provincial wildlife branch and the citizens concerned?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I attended Fraser River Estuary Day yesterday — the official day —

and I had not one single question relative to that, not one out of some

6,000 or 8,000 people who attended it. What has that to do with whether

a farmer has a right to buy land back? I can't understand your line of

questioning. Whether you designate something in the Ministry of

Environment as an estuary area or a flyway or a wetlands area.... It's

up to the province to make that designation, but I don't see what that

has to do with a farmer having a right to purchase the land.

MS. MARZARI :

In your mind, do you really consider it to be a question of farmers'

rights to buy provincial land out of the greenbelt? From my

understanding, the greenbelt was created in the very early seventies by

your government to provide an environmental buffer around those bays.

It was bought, I gather, as an attempt to pre-empt any later attempts

for an agricultural land reserve. That's my information. In fact, those

lands were bought and labelled "greenbelt" to provide some relief for

the saltwater marsh at the mouth of the Nicomekl and Serpentine Rivers.

The right of the farmer, as far as I'm concerned.... From what I've

heard, the farmers laughed all the way to the bank when the province

bought them out. Now the question is that the land is in the province's

hands, the farmers are leasing those lands back at very reasonable

rates; what's this business about the right of the farmers to buy their

lands back? They're not their lands; they belong to the province. The

province paid market value for those lands at the time. Is that your

concern — the right of the farmer?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's not a question of the right. It's the right of any individual to

own anything if they so desire. The point is, the greenbelt lands — it started, I believe, in 1969 — were bought for the purpose of those farmers who

[ Page 4872 ]

wanted

to get out. It was a decision of the government of the day for...if you

like to call it, similar to ALR. It had nothing particular to do with

the wetlands proposal or a particular flyway for birds. It was a

decision, where farmers wanted to get out of the business, that the

government bought the land. They didn't designate at that stage that

they were for that particular use. They were also bought to be used for

farmland.

MR. STUPICH : The minister has one recollection of what happened starting in 1969; I have another.

AN HON. MEMBER : You were here.

MR. STUPICH : Maybe that makes a difference.

The

greenbelt lands were purchased.... Coincidentally, they were all along

highways, where people would see these signs: "Greenbelt land. " None

of them were purchased to let farmers get out of it who couldn't get

out of farmland any other way. They were purchased for political

purposes: to make the government look as though it were doing something

to preserve agricultural land. The Social Credit Minister of

Agriculture of the day brought in a proposal to establish an

agricultural land reserve in B.C. To his chagrin, if you like, the

Premier thought it was a great idea, great politics, so he set up a

committee of cabinet to look after it, to get it established, and left

the Minister of Agriculture off that committee. That's how much

agriculture was a part of that proposal. That's how much agriculture

belonged to the greenbelt proposals. There were greenbelts for park

purposes, greenbelts for various purposes, but all of it was so that

people could see these nice signs along the highways: "Purchased by the

government as part of the greenbelt of the province of British

Columbia."

MR. ROSE : I think the problem here is one

of trust. The minister says we're going to keep these as farm

properties. Because of our recent experience — not that we don't trust the minister —

somehow we don't find that answer reassuring. We don't suggest for one

moment that he's dishonest in his presentation, but we've just found

that these things have a way of eroding, to use a soil term, and that's

what we're worried....

MR. MILLER : That's not a dirty word, is it?

MR. ROSE : No, it's not unparliamentary. It's just fine.

We're

a little concerned. Last Thursday we heard that farm income had

increased by 3 percent. Over the weekend it's gone up to 7.

AN HON. MEMBER : Gross.

MR. ROSE : Oh, gross. Well, that's quite different, isn't it? We just want to make sure that no one else is grossly misled on it.

I want to talk a little about free trade and agriculture for a while —

like about an hour, so synchronize your watches. I'm concerned about it

because we just finished talking about farm income, and I gave what I

thought was a reasonably impassioned speech, and the minister said:

"Well, yes, it's true. There are winners and losers. Some people are

doing very well, thank you very much, and other people aren't doing

very well, thank you very much."

Well, there are going to

be winners and losers in the free trade thing too. We already know who

at least some of them are. We know that they're the grape growers and

the vegetable growers and the soft fruits. We don't think we have

enough protection through the snap-back provisions. If that sounds like

jargon, it is. It's a little device in the free trade deal to take care

of what we lost, called seasonal tariffs, which I think

applied for the difference between 36 and 52 weeks because of our

seasonal disadvantage. The climate is not going to change under free

trade. The only thing we don't have is, we don't have seasonal tariffs

anymore. If we can get it into gear, which will take about a year, we

might get a snapback in some of them. We might, and it's not the same

kind of protection. A lot of people are very worried.

The

government has sold them out on this. They've said: "Goodbye. You're

terminal." Oh, no: we face a challenge, that's all; that's the

government's attitude. You people are all so gloomy. Well, I think you

have a right. The burden of proof, I think, rests with the government.

Where are the winners? Who are they?

Anyway, there are going to be a lot of losers; at least there are going to

be some loser