Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 1

Part 1

[ Page 5909 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Today there are some people visiting from beyond Hope and from another country. I would like the House to welcome some of my friends and constituents from Cariboo South who are here. They are Trapper and Debbie Craig and their daughter Mickey from Williams Lake; Wendy McPhee, who is my executive assistant, and her daughter Jen from Williams Lake -- she may want to be introduced as Jenny, but to me she's Jen; Pat Murphy and her son J.P. from Williams Lake, and some of their family from Newcastle, England, are with them. Please give a special welcome to Mary Liddell, Kathleen Wilkinson, Christine Sellars, Tom Sellars and Jane Sellars.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to introduce two officials of the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. They are Mr. Stan Nicol, the secretary-treasurer, and Mr. Ken Sherk, the vice-president. Please welcome them both.

Hon. C. Evans: In the gallery joining us today are the mayor of Kaslo, Al Beix, who the Premier will remember as the tow-truck driver who can actually get elected because he helps people; and Aaron Jones, who is a forester from Meadow Creek Cedar. They are both here to talk about wetbelt stumpage and the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan and a whole lot of other good stuff. So would the House please welcome these gentlemen.

B. Penner: I have the pleasure today of introducing a number of guests in the gallery. First of all, there's Bob Munroe, who is the owner of Duffey's Restaurant in Chilliwack, and Gary Bizzo. Duffey's Restaurant has the theme of a cow, which, I suppose, is suitable in an agricultural community like Chilliwack. People may have seen Mr. Munroe today dressed as a cow, as he's here trying to get the attention of the Attorney General, I think, because his restaurant has had some licensing difficulties with the liquor control branch. Also present today are Bernie and Elaine Klop from Chilliwack and their daughter Marlene and son Hendrick. Would the House please make these people welcome.

D. Symons: It is indeed a pleasure for me today to introduce to the House Dave and Alice Martens. Dave is my brother-in-law, actually. They are visiting from the fair province of Ontario and really discovering today what a beautiful province British Columbia is, although they have been here before. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Oral Questions

CONSULTATION ON LABOUR CODE CHANGES

AND STATUS OF BILL 44

G. Campbell: Yesterday at around 6 o'clock, Bill 44 was withdrawn from this year's legislative agenda. [Applause.] There is a problem, however. Right after withdrawing the bill, the Premier said that the bill -- this job-killing bill -- was near and dear to his heart. At 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, the Premier said it was a good bill, and he said that certainly, at this point, it was going to go ahead. Unfortunately, what this Premier doesn't seem to understand is that that sends a very confusing message to potential job creators in British Columbia, and the message is this: "Stay out of B.C. until you find out what really is going to take place."

To rectify that problem, hon. Speaker, which is important -- and I know you think it's important, as well -- I have a question for the Premier. Will he confirm today that all the job-killing potential of Bill 44 will be removed, that those policies will not be reintroduced into the Legislature and that in fact that bill and those ideas are dead, buried and gone forever?

Hon. G. Clark: Clearly, if we brought in legislation, we believe that it's fair and balanced legislation. I believe that. Clearly lots of other people don't agree with that. My view is that the legislation is fair and balanced, and I've said that all along. I said that at 3 o'clock; I said it at 6 o'clock; I say it right now. Many people in British Columbia don't agree with that, but it's important that labour legislation has a balance between labour and management rights.

Given that there's a lot of concern about the legislation -- and given that I believe it's unfounded concern, as well -- it's important that we have discussion with the business community and others about legislation before we proceed with it in the House.

I've acknowledged clearly that consultation should have taken . . . . Clearly that consultation was not broad enough before we brought it into this chamber, and we have . . . . I know you're very disappointed, hon. members over there. You're very disappointed. I try to be serious, but you're very disappointed. It's hard, I know. It's very hard, but don't worry. Over the course of the next few months, we'll go through a process. We intend to bring legislation back in the spring. It may not have a consensus, but we hope it has broad support. I hope that at that time opposition members will support the legislation.

G. Campbell: Far from being disappointed, this side of the House is very pleased that we were able to stop this government from introducing this bill. [Applause.]

You know, the difficulty here is that far from actually listening and -- imagine! -- actually learning from the voices that were opposed to this bill, the Premier is still trying to sell it. The fact of the matter is that the bill was going to kill jobs and investment in this province.

On Tuesday night the Premier had a meeting with his big union boss friends and told them that he was going to withdraw the bill, but we also know that the Premier said at the time that they weren't supposed to worry because he would take care of those backers in other ways. That kind of backroom deal sends an incredible investment chill across this province. My question to the Premier is: will he state unequivocally, will he state categorically, that the policies contained in Bill 44 will not see the light of day in British Columbia's Legislature again?

Hon. G. Clark: I thought the member opposite believed in consultation. Now he wants to prejudge that consultation for the members. I urge the members opposite to make representation to the review panel if they feel very strongly about this legislation.

I know that these questions were scripted for another time and another place, but we have withdrawn the legislation, and we're going through a process engaging British Columbians in it. I urge the members opposite, instead of constantly just being negative and sticking to the script, to go and be constructive for a change. Be involved in the reform of the Labour Code. Have your input into it. I'll make sure you have a place on the agenda so you can make your presentation.

[ Page 5910 ]

[2:15]

G. Campbell: There was nothing more constructive we could have done than to kill Bill 44, and that's what we did.

I will give this Premier some constructive advice: start being clear with people about where his government is going. He told people prior to the last election that he was opposed to sectoral bargaining. Mr. Georgetti says: "No, no, no. We need sectoral bargaining." So what happens? We get sectoral bargaining.

The question to the Premier is: who is running this show? Is he going to be consistent? Is he going to be straightforward? Is he going to give people the benefit of actually coming up and saying to them, "This is what's going to happen in British Columbia," or is he going to let Mr. Georgetti continue to run the province and damage job creation?

Hon. G. Clark: If it will help the member, I'll give him full credit for us withdrawing this legislation.

Last time I looked, Mr. Georgetti wasn't very pleased with us pulling this legislation. It's pretty clear that this government represents all of British Columbia. That's what we intend to do. That's what I said after the election, and that's what we're doing. Labour law must represent a balance between labour and management, and that's what we intend to do.

Look at the record of what's happening in British Columbia: retail sales up 4.9 percent in 1997; manufacturing shipments up 9 percent; exports up 13.6 percent; housing starts up and sales up 6 percent. That's more jobs. Instead of sitting here and trying to play out your ideological wars, why don't you join with the government and work to create jobs in this province?

C. Hansen: You know, it sounds like the same kind of rhetoric we heard from the Deputy Premier yesterday, this rhetoric about how well they think this province is doing, when the facts don't hold that up. We've got a standard of living that's down by 5 percent in this province since 1989.

This morning on a Vancouver radio program, the Minister of Labour said: "We didn't know the perspective of the various parties before we proceeded with Bill 44." Yet on June 26 in this very House, the Minister of Labour said: " . . . very early in the year I met with the small business community. I listened to what they had to say. They said very clearly what their position was on a number of these issues." Can the Minister of Labour tell us why anyone should believe anything he says when his story this week is totally different from the story a couple of weeks ago?

Hon. J. Cashore: The official opposition talks about rhetoric, when the fact is that they manage to spread rhetoric very well. To take a statement out of context in a lengthy broadcast and take that position is absolutely ridiculous.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. My apologies, member for Vancouver-Quilchena, for making you wait for your question. Please proceed.

C. Hansen: I find it ironic that the minister would be concerned because we quote him. "What I said was not what I think you heard me say" -- is that what I hear the minister saying now? Let me get this straight.

Yesterday we saw the Minister of Labour admit that they had made a mistake. He said: "I did not handle the consultation on this bill very well." When he was asked about this a few weeks ago, he said he didn't consult with the small business community in British Columbia on the specifics of Bill 44, because he knew they would not like it. Why should anyone believe that the NDP will handle this new round of consultation any differently than the joke of a consultation process that preceded Bill 44?

Hon. J. Cashore: That's the problem with this opposition. They don't understand . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: . . . that the value of good governance is in prospectively learning from experience and coming forward . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm very proud of the service that I have provided in this Legislature. I'm proud of my role as a member of cabinet, and I can teach you a thing or two about how to do opposition well -- which you don't do very well. You don't seem to understand, hon. member, that prospectively you have an opportunity to have a role in crafting something that will be good for the future of British Columbia. Instead, you choose to look to the past, as you always have, because somehow you believe that the Liberals have a right to rule in this province. But the people don't agree with that. [Applause.]

The Speaker: Thank you, members. Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's okay, Peace River South. You and I are patient people.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION OF

FREE VOTE ON TREATIES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the same minister. If he has the courage to run again, he may again have an opportunity to show us how well he does.

The minister has now had a full two weeks to review the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We know that he wasn't too distracted with the labour bill, because the Premier was looking after that. We heard on day one that the minister had no intention of adopting the minority report findings. But can he at least answer one simple question around the recommendation of his own party members? Does the minister, or does he not, support the recommendation by his own caucus colleagues and, indeed, all members of the committee to allow a free vote in this Legislature on treaties?

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for the question and say how interesting I find it that the party that has 32 members in the House moved towards a party that holds its meetings in a telephone booth, in joining them on that minority report.

[ Page 5911 ]

With regard to the free vote, I . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, order! Order, member for Matsqui!

Members, whether we like it or not, this place must be animated in debate, but this is becoming a travesty, quite frankly, when we can't even hear questions and answers. It's simply not acceptable. My apology to all of those members who tried to ask questions and to answer today, because we have not behaved well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I will not tolerate those kinds of interruptions from you again.

Minister, please continue and wrap up your answer.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the minority report, I have not had the opportunity to review the report with cabinet or with caucus, which I intend to do. I can tell the hon. member, though, that I do not have any personal problem with that recommendation.

The Speaker: I'm going to allow the question because we lost so much time.

J. Weisgerber: For the information of the minister, we've been having a lot of trouble getting telephone booths. I understand that the minister has booked them all up for his consultations on labour practice. [Laughter.]

The Speaker: Order, members. I know we're all glad we extended the time.

J. Weisgerber: The select standing committee unanimously agreed that, as a minimum, treaties should be ratified by a free vote in this Legislature. The opposition believe that there should be a referendum either on the mandate for treaties or on the precedent-setting Nis g a'a deal. But we all agree -- NDP, Reform, Liberal members -- that there should be a free vote on any treaty that comes to this Legislature. Will the minister recommend to his cabinet colleagues the adoption of a free vote as a method and mechanism for ratifying treaties in this House?

Hon. J. Cashore: I've gone far enough with telling the hon. member my personal position on that, so I'll leave it at that.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to table the 1994-95 annual report of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and the preliminary report of Dr. Mark Jaccard of the British Columbia Inquiry into Gasoline Pricing.

Petitions

J. Dalton: I am presenting a petition to the House, and it's a good thing I'm near the Clerks' table. The petition is signed by 37,019 British Columbians supporting changes to the Notaries Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that in addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the committee be empowered to sit during any sitting of the House.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Education, Skills and Training ministry. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 35.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING (No. 2)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. M. Farnworth: I am pleased to be able to present Bill 35 for its second reading. Bill 35 is

an act under the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act that will put in place a number of potential resolutions to what all in this House are aware is a very serious situation in the community of Naramata. The amendments in this particular act come about as a request of the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen. I'll just briefly review the situation in Naramata for the members of the House, how this act came to be, and then we can proceed further into second reading debate.

[2:30]

As most members are aware, this act comes out of a conflict between a developer and a regional district in the community of Naramata that has evolved over the last two or three years, with a potential for a very large settlement that could have a serious impact on the citizens of Naramata. It has become clear through the arbitration process that is currently underway -- and in fact will be finishing soon -- that if certain amendments were to be put in place regarding the status of particular lands, that would have an impact on the potential settlement that the citizens of Naramata may or may not have to bear.

We have to move, and we have to move quickly, to put these amendments in place before the arbitrator makes his final decision, so that he may take these into account.

The other key

section of this bill deals with the ability to pay. Currently, if we did nothing, the citizens of Naramata would be responsible for legal fees and any potential settlement to be paid out in one full shot. Clearly that is unacceptable to the citizens of Naramata and it is unacceptable to the government, and I believe it is unacceptable to all members of this House. What is required is legislation that will allow any legal costs and settlement to be spread out over a period of years, so that people are not faced with undue hardship, not faced with uncertainty of where they are going to get the money. These amendments will address that problem.

There's a lot more that I would like to discuss; there are a lot more possible solutions out there. These amendments don't resolve all of them. They don't deal with all the issues. One of the problems right now is that the arbitration process is still underway. These amendments don't preclude

govern-

[ Page 5912 ]

ment taking further action in the future. What they do is offer a first part of a solution, to say: "Look, we are aware of the situation. We are aware of the problem. We have not forgotten you."

These are amendments that have come out of the regional district, which is directly involved with the arbitration process. It's designed to assist the people of Naramata, to ensure that they don't face undue financial hardship and to let them know that government is working on a solution, that government is concerned and that we don't intend to let them down.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd like to close by saying that I expect that over the next few months there will be more work done. We are following very closely the situation in Naramata. We're watching with great interest what happens with the arbitration process. I've done the best I can to keep my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton involved. I've made a commitment in estimates that I would do that. We've established a good working relationship. I'm extremely pleased with the cooperation that I've had from both sides of the House, within the government and with members opposite. I expect that to continue.

I don't see this as the final solution or the final resolution to the issue in Naramata. As I said, I see it as a first stage, and I expect to be working closely with members on the other side of the House to achieve a complete resolution. With that, I'll close my remarks.

The Speaker: In response, in second reading debate, I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that. And thank you to the minister for his opening comments.

This House and this government have a very, very serious issue before them. This particular enabling legislation addresses Naramata. It addresses only a very small part of the significant concern the people in Naramata have unfortunately experienced for a number of years. I trust that out of the difficulties of the people of Naramata, this government will embark upon a very proactive approach to looking at other irrigation districts in the province of British Columbia and ascertaining whether in fact other people, other families -- this is about families -- have potentially the same type of difficulties as the unfortunate people of Naramata have experienced.

There's one thing about the people of Naramata: they will rebound. They have worked hard, and they will build their future. But they would want other British Columbians not to have to go through what they have gone through. From the kids at the school, who have had great difficulty, to the orchardists, the farmers, those who operate vineyards, and the senior citizens, this has taken a tremendous toll on the community of Naramata. Often when we think of these issues, we only think in dollar terms. But the most serious issue in this situation is the human damage, the human stress. Some people may not ever recover from this terrible experience.

Yes, hon. Speaker, this minister has to date worked very hard on this issue. He has worked in cooperation with myself and other members of the opposition, and we do appreciate that. The minister has committed to continue to work that way. It will be my responsibility, on behalf of the residents of Naramata, to ensure that this continues to receive a principal share of mine for the people of Naramata. This issue must be resolved as soon as possible. As difficult as it is, while it is in arbitration -- and now the arbitrator is working through his award -- people can accept that there will be a delay.

They don't like it, but they accept it. By the nodding of the minister's head, he also doesn't like that there is a delay.

Where I have a concern -- I want to re-emphasize it -- is not with the minister and it's not with his staff. Quite frankly, to date they have done everything that they said they would do or what they could do. But I would be remiss if I did not reflect, on behalf of the citizens of Naramata, some of the difficulties that they have experienced based on promises of this government. On May 6, during an election campaign, the Premier promised a full public inquiry. He promised that it would be done promptly. Well, hon. Speaker, what do you think happened? It hasn't taken place -- another broken promise. That's unfortunate.

The Premier then, after some 25 or 26 representations from my office, finally commissioned the study. That study was completed on December 17 but not released for some two months after the fact. That, too, was unfortunate. But now we see that in late June -- June 24 to be exact -- the Premier said: "The province does have a role to play." He said that it is not fair to expect the Naramata ratepayers to bear the entire brunt of this award damage. These people have been fighting this for 15 to 16 months. As the head of the Naramata Citizens Association recently said, they are taking the attitude: "We'll believe it when we see it."

So this minister has brought forward, in cooperation with the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, enabling legislation. Let us remember that that's all it is. It enables; it is not a cure, as some people would have liked. I believe some people think that it may be a cure. It's a band-aid; it's a tool to help solve a very drastic problem.

The other things that I want to say . . . . I want to be brief on this because we do want to move forward on it. There are a number of recommendations in the December 17 report that have been quite critical of areas of the government. As I said earlier, I believe it's important for this government to take these recommendations, to work with them and to show the people of Naramata that their pain and their stress and their sorrow are not being wasted, that at least some other British Columbians can accrue some benefit and avoid these potential and very, very serious problems.

Naramata -- for those who haven't had the opportunity to visit -- is a wonderful, wonderful place located on Okanagan Lake, and I am honoured to represent it. We have attended many community meetings -- and I do thank the minister for attending a very large community meeting on March 10 and for being as open and as frank as he was in that situation. Those things do help. I am pleased, and we will obviously support this bill today.

But I want and I need, and the people of Naramata need, the full commitment of this minister -- not only after we get the legislation done but once the arbitration award is out -- to aggressively develop a timetable to meet with the residents so that this province and this Premier can at least keep one promise to British Columbians and especially to the people of Naramata, because promises have been broken to date on that.

Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I do look forward to working with this minister to make sure that the people of Naramata are treated fairly and equitably by the government of British Columbia.

G. Abbott: As the Municipal Affairs critic on the opposition side, I would just like to make a few brief comments today with respect to Bill 35. The situation at Naramata is obviously a very troubling and very complex one. What Bill 35 does -- and it's certainly the reason why we will be supporting it here -- is create a toolkit with which to resolve, hopefully, the problems which surround the very difficult and troubling situation at Naramata.

[ Page 5913 ]

It's important to note -- and both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member for Okanagan-Penticton have noted it -- that the MEVA or this Bill 35 itself doesn't solve the problems. But it does put in place, I think very importantly, a set of tools which will provide the basis, hopefully, for the prompt resolution of the situation that exists in Naramata.

[2:45]

Again, as the member for Okanagan-Penticton noted -- and I think noted very passionately -- lives have been turned upside down in Naramata, and hopefully this bill represents an important step toward turning things right side up again in the community. This is going to take some time. It's going to take, I think, a lot of effort on the part of several parties, particularly the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Naramata irrigation district and, first and foremost, the people of Naramata.

These parties and others will have to work very hard to try to reach the difficult compromises that are going to be necessary to find a final resolution to the unfortunate situation that exists at Naramata.

Bill 35 -- and, again, the minister has mentioned this himself -- may not be everything that everyone is looking for in terms of resolution of this situation. I'm sure it's not. Much remains to be done before the situation in Naramata is resolved. It's a situation that has literally made some people in the community sick from the stress and upset associated with what could possibly happen because of the situation. I know that we all hope, and I'm sure we all pray, that we will find in the foreseeable future a resolution which is acceptable to all parties.

I haven't been as close to this situation as the previous two speakers have, but I have been close enough to it to know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member for Okanagan-Penticton both deserve to be commended for the roles that they have played in moving forward towards a resolution of this situation. I don't expect that either gentleman would welcome congratulations; congratulations are something that are extended when something is brought to closure or successfully resolved.

That hasn't happened yet, but nevertheless, I think that both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member for Okanagan-Penticton deserve to be commended in the most positive way possible for their efforts in bringing about what we see here today -- an important step on the road to resolution.

I think both the minister and the member have worked in a constructive fashion to advance the issue, and I think they have advanced the issue in what I'll term here as the good, old-fashioned way of actually talking to people and seeing what can be done. This isn't always as easy as one would think, and I have seen more than a few situations where the temperature rises so high in a situation that politicians are scared to talk to people anymore.

I know that in this situation -- particularly the member for Okanagan-Penticton has had many high-temperature calls -- rather than try to run from the issue or say, "Sorry, I don't have a solution for you," he went the extra mile and met with many of his constituents in Naramata and said: "I'm listening. Do you have any ideas about how we might move forward and solve this problem?"

Similarly -- and I'll say this to both the minister and the member -- I know that it takes a lot of courage to stand in front of a room full of angry people and listen to their concerns. Again, I commend the minister and the member for having the courage not to try to run from the situation but to meet . . . . I think the largest meeting was about 800 people, all of them angry, unhappy, upset.

One of the most difficult things we can ever do as politicians is go and meet people in that kind of situation and say: "We're hear to listen and to talk about possible solutions to your situation." What one frequently hears in that situation are not pleasant words. You need to have courage to stand and listen to that, and I commend both the member and the minister for having the courage to do that.

I think we also have to remember the broader context in which the Naramata situation occurred, and the member for Okanagan-Penticton mentioned this, as well. The minister and I had a very good discussion in estimates about the kind of situation that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I suppose the province, has with respect to what may be alternately termed water districts, irrigation districts, improvement districts that exist across the province. I think we were both a little surprised to learn that there were 286 of these districts across the province.

Hopefully, not all 286 will be fraught with difficulties. Hopefully, a great many of them are functioning very well and efficiently, and I'm sure this is the case.

This is not a situation -- the 286 improvement districts -- that was created in the last five years. This is a situation that has historically developed over many decades. The issues surrounding the continued existence of improvement, water and irrigation districts are certainly not going to be resolved overnight. That much is clear. This is a big problem, and as I told the minister in estimates, I'm kind of glad that he's the one that has to deal with it at this point. It's going to be a difficult one to resolve.

But I think what Bill 35 does is serve as a timely reminder that there is a form of government out there that perhaps doesn't have the same kind of level of control, the same kind of statutory regulation that we see in more widely known forms of municipal governments -- municipalities, regional districts and so on. This bill serves as a timely reminder that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs needs to work diligently with the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, with the water, irrigation and improvement districts themselves and, indeed, with other British Columbians to ensure that we do not find ourselves in a year or two -- or ever, hopefully -- in another situation like the most unfortunate situation that has occurred in Naramata, which this Bill 35 aims to address.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize again that this bill provides the basis or the toolkit to begin to address this very difficult situation which exists in Naramata. I know that the resolution of this situation cannot come quickly enough for the people of Naramata. It's tragic in many ways, the situation that they face. I know that all parties will be working to see an expeditious resolution of this. Again, I want to commend the work that has been done by the minister and the member for Okanagan-Penticton. On behalf of the official opposition, I want to extend our hopes and our best wishes to all parties toward a resolution of this unfortunate situation in Naramata.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister's comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd just like to conclude by thanking the hon. members for their comments. I will just go over a couple of points and address some of the issues that were raised.

I guess the first is that we are acutely aware -- not just the ministry, but the government -- of the feelings of helplessness, the feelings of anger, the feelings of frustration and

[ Page 5914 ]

uncertainty that exist in Naramata. It is our greatest desire to be able to bring resolution to this problem and to ensure as much as we can that people feel that the issue of Naramata is resolved in a way that can bring satisfaction to as many people as possible. I recognize that that's not going to be easy. I also recognize that it's going to be some months yet before we see a conclusion to this whole issue.

For the people of Naramata, I want to say these things. First, in terms of an inquiry, it's my desire to do that, and I indicated at the meeting in Naramata that I thought we needed to do that. There was an initial inquiry done for the Premier, who asked for one. It came back with a series of recommendations. Those recommendations are being worked on within this ministry and within other affected ministries. The arbitration process is currently ongoing. I expect that it will end probably by the end of October or the beginning of November -- that is the latest information I have.

I've also indicated publicly to the people of Naramata that I will go up to Naramata, and I fully intend to do that. Hopefully, at that time we will be able to answer as many questions as we can.

I've been asked publicly if I would conduct a public inquiry. I'm looking at how an inquiry can be constituted and what mechanisms are required to institute an inquiry. I think an inquiry is needed not just in terms of Naramata but on the fundamental issue that both members opposite have raised. It's one which I see as being critically important and one which we addressed in the estimates debate, and that is around the role of improvement districts, water districts, irrigation districts. There are 286 of them. They have not, as the member for Shuswap said, appeared in the last five years. They have evolved and have been in place for some 60 or 70 years or perhaps even longer.

I think it's time that we review the legislation that governs them and see what is working, what isn't working and how isolated an incident Naramata is. Is there the potential for what happened in Naramata to happen in other places? We need to see if legislative changes or complete structural changes are required to ensure that if these forms of governance are to remain in place, they are able to do so. If perhaps the time has come to restructure them, how do we do it? I think that should take place in as wide-open a discussion as possible, with a full understanding of Naramata as certainly one of the key guideposts, signposts or parameters you look at in terms of how we address the issue.

I just want to say to the hon. members that I appreciate their comments. I think we worked well together on this issue so far. I don't see that changing. The government is committed. It has taken actions responsibly, I think, and has done so in a manner that has been open and forthright. We continue to do that. It is my fervent desire, because it is the highest priority in the ministry as far as I'm concerned, to bring a resolution to this issue and to bring closure for the people of Naramata so that they can get on with their lives and with rebuilding their dreams and we can move forward. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 35, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING (No. 2)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 35; G. Brewin in the chair.

[3:00]

section 1.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name in the order paper.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 36(11) of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), by adding "June 13, 1997, being" before "the date on which this

section received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly."]

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

R. Thorpe: The only concern I have with the whole

section is . . . . I would like a very quick clarification. I believe I know the answer, but I'm not too sure and would just like the minister to clarify. One of the concerns some people have expressed to me is that this is dealing with boundaries and

definitions. Do any of the

definitions in

section 1 bring back in the people who have been outside the irrigation district to date and therefore subject them to any liabilities that may or may not be awarded?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer to the hon. member's question is no. In fact, there is a specific subsection (7) that references that issue.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read?

Hon. M. Farnworth: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 35, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 5915 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 26.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is my pleasure to move this bill, which is a companion act to Bill 25. This is the local government planning practices and development approval process in terms of fish and habitat protection.

One of the greatest challenges in terms of protecting urban streams in this province is the fact that so many of our urban streams occur within high-growth areas. This is especially true on southern Vancouver Island and in particular on the lower mainland, where in some areas we have already lost considerable numbers of streams through development at the turn of the century and in subsequent decades. The fact is that we didn't give much consideration at that time to fish and habitat protection. They were sort of relegated down the list, and we lost a great deal of the resource in the lower mainland.

There is a significant amount of the resource left, however. There are significant streams on the lower mainland. I know that in my own particular area, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam, there are numerous salmon-bearing streams that contain significant wild stocks of salmon. There are streams that have significant work being done on them by community volunteers to ensure that wild stocks remain or where stocks have been depleted, that enhanced stocks -- hatchery-raised fish -- can survive.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

There has already been a lot of work done at the local government level. In the near future, I will be helping to open a new well on one of the streams in my own community, a well that is going to restore flow that has been blocked off by urban development. It is that issue I think this act helps to address.

As growth takes place and as new subdivisions are built up, what happens is that runoff takes place. After the rain, it drains fast into the storm drains and out to the rivers. The land that used to hold the water back and soak it up like a sponge -- to release it slowly and gradually over time and thereby provide a steady stream of water for these urban streams -- is no longer able to do that, because a great deal of land is covered over by blacktop.

Planning practices have a great impact on streams. It used to be that you would go out and subdivide the land by sections and quarter-acres down to standard square-sized lots, and it didn't really matter about the topography. It didn't matter what streams were in place, and we didn't worry about setbacks. We can't continue to do that.

In my own area of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, there is a tremendous growth opportunity over the next 20 to 25 years. There will be a huge influx of people. It is already happening. Planning practices are currently in place, and they are identifying streams. That's what we've got to start doing: identifying the important environmental habitat and how we go about protecting it.

How do we go about ensuring that those streams are not only able to have the stocks in them identified but also able to have what is required to make them viable over the long term? What is required to make them sustainable over the long term? How much development impact can they in fact sustain before they are irrevocably damaged, before the stocks are threatened and before special enhancement measures have to be taken?

There is a role for all three levels of government. We have signed an agreement with the federal government that recognizes the province's vital jurisdiction within the fisheries of this province, and now there is joint work taking place. It is not just the province, because so much depends on the local government level. That's where the land use planning decisions are made that affect small, local urban streams, and that's where there is a vital role for communities -- an extremely important role.

That's what this legislation does. It's an enabling piece of legislation that gives municipalities the powers and tools to ensure that we protect fish habitat in this province. It is not done through a coercive top-down approach; it is being done jointly with consultation. It is building on what already exists at the local level, and there are some excellent examples of communities currently working to ensure that we do the proper planning processes.

We need to do long-term environmental studies before development takes place to ensure that developers are doing the right practices, whether it be setbacks, building, densification or being innovative in how we look at developing in particular zones, whether it be old established neighbourhoods or new neighbourhoods. Three communities I can think of right off the top of my head, for example, are North Vancouver, which has taken a very proactive role, the community of Burnaby and the communities of Port Coquitlam and Port Moody in my own particular area. They have all been extremely supportive.

What this legislation does is give further tools to these communities to ensure that proper practices can be put in place -- for example, the ability to regulate how much of a particular lot is covered, blacktopped or made impervious to rainfall, and things like setbacks that are taking place in existing land use planning processes, but over the long term. These are all extremely important.

This legislation, as I say, is a companion piece to work being done with municipalities in terms of trying to get a general broad agreement on what the protocol in Bill 25 is about. My understanding is that it is just about complete, that there's considerable agreement on it. With that, I will close my remarks. I look forward to the remarks from my colleagues opposite. Then we'll conclude with remarks later on.

G. Abbott: I'd like to rise and join in the second reading debate with respect to Bill 26 and the statutory provisions contained in it. I will be continuing the disturbing trend of today of actually being complimentary on a piece of legislation. This is a pattern which I set with regret but have some difficulty in not continuing with respect to Bill 26.

The bill does a number of things; it does get involved in a number of areas. Most of them, I think, are commendable, and perhaps all are commendable. There are a few questions I have with respect to some of the elements, and we'll deal with that in committee stage. But the purpose of this bill, the direction in which it's going and the way in which the direction is being implemented are all things that we can support very readily on the opposition side of the House.

The most important thing from my reading of the bill, and I suspect, given the comments of the minister, he shares this view as well . . . . The most important feature of the bill is that it establishes a system of municipal or local government tax exemptions for riparian areas that have been committed, by covenant, to preservation. One of the most important features of this bill is that it is voluntary to both the local government and the landowner. If one or the other does not feel it's

[ Page 5916 ]

appropriate to enter into a covenant for riparian protection, then as I understand it -- and I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong -- neither is obliged to enter into the covenant. I think this is in the right direction.

Some may argue that this kind of protection should or must be extended. I guess the argument can be made persuasively in some instances. But the philosophy of government on this side -- and I think even the government on the other side is coming to embrace this -- is that we need to empower local government, make them more autonomous, more in charge of their own destiny. This is the philosophy behind this bill that, again, we put in place the tools with which local government can help to build better communities. I think it's the right way to go, and I certainly support that.

The value of this Bill 26 -- and the minister has certainly explained it, as well -- is that it will encourage better environmental management of areas adjacent to watercourses. The minister has enumerated the many reasons why we should do that. It adds a new tool for use by municipalities and regional districts to better manage their riparian areas, and the benefits of this are clear. It should be good for water quality, for fish and wildlife, for prevention of erosion and for prevention of flood damage, because preservation of natural riparian areas is a thing which helps in a very substantial way in all of those areas.

[3:15]

It's important to note, as well, that local governments already have the opportunity, and in some cases the obligation, to require certain setbacks from watercourses. This varies across the province as a result of the circumstances that exist there. There is much variation across the province in regard to setbacks, but a setback of 15 metres is probably among the most common. Under Bill 26, local governments can now add a very substantial carrot to the stick of setbacks which they already wield. It will provide greater certainty and continuity with respect to land use on riparian areas by the use of covenants.

As well, under the provisions of Bill 26, local governments will be able to provide a tangible financial benefit for property owners along watercourses. If the local government and the landowner feel that a natural riparian area is worth preserving in perpetuity, this provides the tool to do that and to provide a tangible financial benefit to the property owner at the same time. This should produce a win-win situation for both the landowner and local government.

Local government, obviously, secures better protection of riparian areas throughout the community, or at least those parts of the community where covenants are put in place. Landowners will see a reduction of some size to their annual tax bill, as well as the satisfaction of enjoying the continued protection of an area which is undoubtedly important to the landowner as well.

As well, Bill 26 allows local government the opportunity to pursue conservation projects or plans, which are modeled on earlier efforts in this regard by private societies. We have in my riding of Shuswap a couple of very good examples of where private societies over the past decade have attempted to do on a private basis what is now being sanctioned in Bill 35 for local governments. For several years in Shuswap, groups like the Salmon River round table and the Turtle Island conservancy society have worked very hard for the restoration of a watercourse, the Salmon River, which runs through the Shuswap region.

These groups have concluded that the key to restoring water quality, to restoring riverbank stability and to restoring fish and wildlife values was and is the protection of riparian areas.

They have worked very hard, commendably so, to put voluntary covenants in place with landowners along the Salmon River to achieve this purpose. Some landowners have embraced these voluntary covenants out of concern for the environmental health of the Salmon River. This now will put a new tool in the hands of, in some instances, the district of Salmon Arm and, in other instances, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district to contribute to this as well.

The efforts of the past by these groups will be greatly enhanced by the additional mechanism of the tax exemption as provided by Bill 26. Again, the obvious tool that will now exist, quite apart from landowners being concerned about the future of a watercourse and the preservation of the riparian areas they own, is that they will have a tangible benefit that they can look to as well.

Section 2 of Bill 26 sets out the process to be followed by local government in granting tax exemption under the act. As the bill notes, a one-year exemption can be provided through a bylaw supported by at least a two-thirds vote of the council or regional board. An exemption for a longer period of time, up to ten years, can be achieved subject to petition or counterpetition approval by local electors.

As well -- and I'll just briefly note them -- there are some other additions to the bill.

Section 10 obviously provides for additional authority with respect to runoff disposal; another section, landscaping for environmental purposes, and so on . . . . In committee stage I'll want to discuss some of those and how Bill 26 alters the situation or alters the powers which already currently exist for municipalities in the province in regard to those things.

I just want to say again that we on the opposition side will be supporting this bill. There are indeed many commendable features to it, and I commend the government on proceeding with it. With that, thank you.

J. Sawicki: I too want to rise and just say a few words on this bill. I really appreciate the comments from the member for Shuswap. Clearly I think those of us in this House who previously served on municipal councils -- and especially those of us who perhaps worked on environmental issues on councils, just as we may be working on environmental issues here -- really can see the value of this bill and the extra tools that it will give to municipalities to assist not only in protecting fish but in protecting natural habitats, greenways, riparian zones that go through our communities.

I'll try to keep my comments succinct, but I did want to add to the comments of my colleague the hon. minister and the member for Shuswap on a couple of other parts of the bill that I think will be tremendously helpful to councils.

Already mentioned is the tax incentive to landowners. Local councils have already had that kind of ability in terms of heritage properties and other features, but particularly when we are in the position of new lands being developed, along with some of the other tools that have been provided by this government in the Municipal Act, in terms of density bonusing, development permits, etc . . . . This will do a great deal to be able to preserve those corridors of riparian zones adjacent to fish habitat, which not only provide for habitat but also provide for recreational green spaces and linkages between municipalities within a region. I think that is tremendously positive.

The other area that I was particularly interested in is the explicit authority that this bill gives to include policies respecting natural environments -- and that includes ecosystem and

[ Page 5917 ]

biological diversity in urban areas -- in the official community plan. It might come as a surprise that here, in 1997, we are passing legislation that only now gives that express authority. Many municipalities -- and as the minister has mentioned, I think my community of Burnaby is one of the more progressive ones -- have certainly done that in the past. I think that's really important, because official community plans at the local government planning level are the documents that set out the vision of the kinds of communities that people want to build.

Again, thinking in terms of fish and the habitat and riparian zones and greenways, surely all of those things are desirable features that we would want to see in our official community plans.

There are some, quite frankly, who think that this bill should go further, and that could be a matter of debate. There are some who think that some of the provisions are self-evident. When I think of some of the things that Burnaby has already done . . . . Burnaby is a community that long ago passed policy to keep their streams open, long ago did things like having state-of-the-environment reports and integrated pest management and watercourse bylaws. When I think of the things that they have already done, what this bill does is put into legislation not only the enabling aspects but also a clear message from us in this House to local governments that habitat is important.

Our government has given as one of its top priorities during this session the broad aspect of protecting fish and the fish strategy. While we often think that endangered fish habitats tend to occur out in the forested areas or as a result of other threats, the fact that the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board identified urban streams as the number one endangered stream category -- if you want to call it that -- in terms of habitat gives extra significance to this legislation now before us.

Finally, I would just say that while this bill has several individual provisions that I think are very exciting for local governments, to me it's the collective -- taken altogether -- that I think is extremely positive. It will help local governments keep connections between providing for residential, industrial, commercial uses, as they must do in their official community plans. It will help us keep connected at the very basic level of a neighbourhood, connected to the natural environments that make our communities much more livable.

I would like to commend the minister for bringing this bill forward and express my strong support here at second reading stage.

M. Coell: I would like to add my voice of support, along the same lines as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. This is a very positive piece of legislation for municipalities. I am pleased to see that the government worked with the UBCM in bringing this legislation forward.

One of the areas of this bill that I'm pleased to see is the Islands Trust Act and the changes to that which will allow the islands to continue to be a beautiful and desirable place to live and to visit. I think the change to

section 1 allows that, and I'm pleased to see it there. As some of the other members have mentioned, the quality of life that this legislation will lend to neighbourhoods . . . . I think it's important to emphasize that. There have been many areas in the Saanich Peninsula that have done just this when developing. I think that this will continue to give municipalities the ability to develop in a sensitive way, keeping nature at your doorstep and also allowing streams and those things that are natural in our community to be part of our living community.

So I would congratulate the minister on this bill, and I look forward to comments during committee stage.

Hon. M. Farnworth: To offer my concluding remarks, I thank the hon. members for their comments. I think it is a pleasure, and I would have a slight disagreement . . . . But it is nice -- the fact that we do agree on some fundamental legislation, especially when it is two bills in a row. I think it speaks to the public that despite what they sometimes do see or hear about this place, there is a great deal of constructive work that does get done here, and oftentimes there is considerable agreement between us.

This piece of legislation is an important tool for local government.

We've talked and discussed a number of the aspects of the bill: riparian preservation and some of the tools enabling that to take place; the tax exemption; the importance of proper planning; the importance of being able to recognize that there are differences between areas which are currently built up and do need a slightly different approach to or slightly different tools for dealing with them, as opposed to areas which are slated for development, where we're able to start right at the very beginning, right at the base -- before streets have gone in, before lots have been surveyed, before houses have been constructed -- and ensure that what's required to ensure that those streams remain viable, productive, healthy salmon streams is in place.

So with those few remarks, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 26.

[3:30]

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 26; E. Walsh in the chair.

section 1.

G. Abbott: On

section 1, because I lack the encyclopedic knowledge of the Islands Trust and its workings -- unlike the member for Saanich North and the Islands -- I was just looking forward to an explanation of this

section by the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Basically, this amends the portions of the act that relate to the Islands Trust and ensures that they have the same opportunities as other municipalities and regional districts in other parts of the act.

G. Abbott: The source of my confusion is in the terminology that says: " . . . the trust council rather than the local trust committee . . . . " Could the minister explain what that means?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The trust council sets the overall policy,

whereas the committees do the island-by-island policy and implementation.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

G. Abbott: My first question relates to subsection (1)(a): " . . . the property must be riparian land . . . . " Is there, in this

[ Page 5918 ]

bill or elsewhere, a definition of when riparian lands start and stop? I suspect the minister can easily explain where they start; I'm curious where they stop.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can, indeed, easily answer where they start. It's usually where your gumboots start to fill with water.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, except in floods. Anyway, where they stop is to be determined by local government. And in fact, what you might see is . . . . For example, let's say you have an existing subdivision where someone wants to take maybe 20 feet . . . . Twenty feet may be feasible,

whereas in a new subdivision coming on stream where there is no development, the council may decide that they want a 50-, 100- or 150-foot setback.

G. Abbott: I understand the minister's response, and I'll take it one step further. Does that answer indicate -- and I'll try to put this as succinctly as I can -- that what the local government determines to be the appropriate distance from the water's edge to the riparian setback edge will also be the same or contiguous with what the local government decides is an appropriate setback under the companion bill to this?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is possible, but not necessarily. The local government will in fact be consulting with Environment staff to determine what exactly are specific environmental concerns on a particular piece of property and then making a local decision.

G. Abbott: I understand from that rather Mackenzie King-ish description, that it's contiguous if necessary but not necessarily contiguous. Is that right? Thank you. On to . . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I always suspected that this minister was a Liberal at heart, as is the Attorney General, but I'm pleased to have a quote like that to really confirm it.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: We won't want to go too far on that one, given the experience of last . . . .

Okay, we're on

section 2,

section 343.1(1)(a), under "eligible value": " . . . the area of the eligible riparian property that is exempted under subsection (2)(a) . . . . " The reference is to the tax relief for the area of land which has been set aside in a covenant. What I'm asking the minister now is, I think, a very practical question. When the landowner and the local government agree that here is the piece that is going to be set aside from Mr. Brown's farm, how in practice will it be determined what the saving in taxation is going to be? How is that going to be arrived at?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just so that I can clarify: by that you're referring to how big the tax exemption -- the potential financial saving -- is to the property owner?

G. Abbott: I'll back up just a bit. Mr. Brown has a farm in a community, and he has several hundred feet of riverfront. He and the council decide that it is appropriate to have a riparian area covenant 50 metres wide. Given that this is just a portion of Mr. Brown's farm, how will the local government and/or Mr. Brown and/or the Assessment Authority -- and/or whoever -- set about to determine what the saving in terms of taxation will be to Mr. Brown?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be done on a straight percentage basis. Let's say Farmer Brown's riparian zone takes up 10 percent of his total property; then he will see a 10 percent reduction in his taxes.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. And because Farmer Brown is obviously going into this arrangement in a public-spirited way, because it is a voluntary covenant, I know he's not going to quibble about the value of his riparian area being more valuable than other parts of the farm. Clearly people go into these kinds of arrangements with some community intentions in mind, and I don't think it would be a big deal. I appreciate the clarification by the minister with respect to that.

If I could proceed, then, to the provisions with respect to local assent, particularly under . . . . It's dealt with in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5). I would like the minister to explain the wording in subsection (5). It reads: "Approval of the electors to a bylaw under subsection (2) is deemed to have been given if all the following requirements are met . . . . " The third one of those is: " . . . (

a) at least 30 days before adopting the bylaw, a notice is published in at least 2 issues of a newspaper . . . (iii) stating that the bylaw may be adopted by the council after 30 days unless more than 5% of the electors petition the council to obtain the assent of the electors to the bylaw."

I know that what this provision in the bill is attempting to do is have a counterpetition process for the longer period, and clearly the 5 percent is the threshold of people opposing that bylaw. If more than 5 percent oppose, it's not clear to me, in the statute, whether the municipality or the local government is then obliged to go to a referendum to achieve that assent. The municipality can already get the shorter-term, one-year assent by a two-thirds vote. So is it a referendum issue that's contemplated, or is it simply a matter of forcing the local government to do it on a year-by-year basis?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it would not be on a year-by-year basis but on a referendum.

G. Abbott: Subsection (6): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish additional requirements for property to be considered eligible riparian property." It is not clear to me from the bill what is envisioned there, and I would like some clarification with respect to what the government means by that subsection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We have the ability, for example, to put some limits on how much the exemption would be, in terms of developmental rights being given up. Let's say you're creating a riparian zone but that may impinge upon development rights. So the question is: what is the value of those rights that you are technically or potentially giving up? It could vary. You might have standard zoning, and you might be able to claim that if this were commercial, it would be much more valuable. So there is the ability there to limit the amount that an exemption may potentially be.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure if I completely understand the minister's explanation. I'm a bit puzzled by it. I think I have come a little bit of the way towards understanding it. I'm sure

[ Page 5919 ]

it is more a reflection on my ability to comprehend than his ability to explain, but perhaps the minister could take another run at it from this perspective. He can perhaps re-dress it up in Farmer Brown terms or whatever so the message gets through. Why not just put the tools in place, rather than putting in a provision which provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council provisions?

[3:45]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let's see if we can take a run at it this way. Farmer Brown has his piece of property and Farmer Andrews has his above that. There's a stream going through it that in fact may not have fish-bearing potential. Let's say you're in the interior and it's an alkaline stream. You know the alkaline lakes: not much lives there except a bunch of sandflies. Let's say a local community is giving tax relief, saying there are riparian zones that protect fish when in fact there aren't, and it's just a way of giving tax relief to give tax relief.

This would be a provision that the province could use to step in and limit that. It's not anticipated that it would be used on a regular basis, but there are always exceptions. You and I are working on a problem that has arisen around one of those exceptions, and that's what it's there for.

G. Abbott: Thank you for that explanation, and in fact, I think I understand now. While I understand the reason for the inclusion of this section, I suspect -- at least in relation to municipalities and regional districts, which have a very clear line of responsibility back to their electors and a very regular basis on which they're judged on their performance and their errors and omissions -- that this is a provision which the minister may come to regret having included in here.

I think that if the municipality, contrary to the provisions of this bill, gave tax relief because they were trying to deal with sandflies, why not leave that in the hands of the local government and the electors of the local government to determine whether the local council or local government had abused their position?

I think the practical consequence of this is that the ministry will be pulled into disputes which are essentially local disputes. I guess that's my point here, as much as anything. The minister can respond if he wishes.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying, and I don't disagree with some of it. At the same time there is also a provincial interest, because whenever an exemption is made there is a lowering, if you like, of potential provincial tax revenue. So that sort of covers the provincial interest in that regard.

As I say, I don't anticipate it being a big problem. It's there to deal more with an exception, should one arise, and that's all it is. It's not intended to be used to override local governments or regional districts, and I don't anticipate that happening.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

R. Thorpe: When this bill came out, I made sure that I circulated it to my various municipal governments. The corporation of the district of Summerland agrees to support the amendment to

section 551(

a) of this act. But what they'd like to know . . . . I'll just quote: "We would inquire as to how a municipality would enforce this section, as it would also apply to damage caused to adjacent properties due to the restriction of the flow and/or the lack of maintenance thereof."

Hon. M. Farnworth: They'd be able to issue a standard municipal ticket and to ticket an offender.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry, can you . . . ?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They could issue a standard municipal bylaw enforcement ticket. That would be the mechanism they could use.

G. Abbott: I have, again, an explanatory question here. What puzzles me about the inclusion of

section 4 is that it would appear to me that the issue it's addressing is the pollution and obstruction of a stream, creek, waterway, etc. I wonder why this provision is in this bylaw, because it's patently obvious that, I'm sure, this has already been done in other statutes. I'm wondering whether in fact its inclusion in this statute is going to lead to some confusion on whose responsibility it is -- whether it's the responsibility of the provincial government, through its agencies, or of the local government to deal with pollution when it occurs.

While it may be in here with the best of intentions, it may in fact serve to confuse the issue about whose responsibility it is to address a pollution problem.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is saying. Basically, what it comes down to is being an issue almost of practicality, in that quite often a municipal bylaw enforcement person may in fact be the first person at the scene or who comes in contact and then can take the first steps in terms of some sort of enforcement process.

Let's say, for example . . . . Actually, I can give an example in my own neighbourhood. I'm not a bylaw officer, but had I been . . . . I was walking home one day down Shaughnessy Street in Port Coquitlam, and there's this guy. I'm noticing this stream of white in the open ditch, and it flows into the storm sewer, where there's a clearly marked salmon -- painted on there by the Boy Scouts -- saying this storm sewer runs into a fish-bearing stream. I'm wondering what this white is. I look, and I realize it's paint. It's coming down the full length of the ditch on his property.

As you turn and go up the lane, there's the guy busy washing out his paint cans and turpentine, just dumping it into the open ditch.

That would allow . . . . This would give authority . . . . The bylaw enforcement officer would see this taking place and would be able to take action at that particular point. In this particular case, I happened to ask the guy why he was doing this, and did whether he knew it was going into a fish-bearing stream. He replied: "No." Quite often it's just ignorance on the part of people. But this allows a bylaw officer to take immediate action.

G. Abbott: This, again, may be something which, in a short period of time after a problem has emerged, the government will want to reconsider. Perhaps the minister will want to reconsider it, even at this point, although that's up to the minister.

But to make my point clear, if a scenario occurs as you've mentioned -- a bylaw enforcement officer for a municipality happens along on what appears to be a case of someone polluting -- it's perfectly reasonable that the local bylaw enforcement officer documents, in every way he can, the specifics of the situation that has occurred and passes that along to the appropriate provincial or federal regulatory

auth-

[ Page 5920 ]

ority that determines that . . . . I think that's fair, reasonable and expected.

The problem I'm having with this bill is that it appears to -- but I don't think really does -- give local government (

a) the technical ability to determine what is pollution and what is not. That clearly is something, at least in my view, which senior governments have over time developed a kind of monopoly on, with respect to the expertise. And (b), do they possess the statutory authority? Even if they're able to technically determine that something is pollution, do they have the statutory authority to proceed from there to deal with it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this is going to mean is that it's going to give the authority the ability for you, as a municipal bylaw officer, to take immediate action. The municipality may not decide to. They may, in fact, feel that what would be an appropriate policy for them is to document the case and then forward it on to a higher level of authority for them to take action. That may very well be what happens.

But I think it's also fair to recognize that, quite often, other levels aren't able to take action on small -- or what are perceived to be small -- cases or smaller infractions, and that quite often they may be involved in trying to document and deal with a problem of much larger scale and a larger-scale issue. So the municipality may say: "Okay, look, we've documented this once before. This is the second time I've seen this individual doing that. Clearly something has to be done."

Quite frankly, the most effective deterrent or most effective sort of notice that you're doing something wrong comes if you're caught, you're being told you're committing an offence, and then you're given a $100 fine. That has an immediate reaction. It doesn't involve court costs, court time or other expensive law enforcement procedures. So it gives the ability to the municipality to take immediate action. They may choose that as the process they want to take, or they may choose to follow some different process. But it's up to them.

R. Thorpe: I won't belabour the argument. I think the ministry will in the short fullness of time develop some view as to whether this provision is working or not working. Again, just to make my point clear, I'm one who is very clean -- or very keen -- on having clear . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: And clean -- all of the above.

I'm very keen on having clear lines of authority and not having overlapping areas of jurisdiction, where it's not clear who should be doing what and where, and people start getting into finger-pointing exercises that become unproductive.

Will municipalities respond to this by developing their own kind of mechanism or organization to begin to determine when and where someone is polluting? Perhaps they will. But I suspect it will become one of these situations where, because this exists in Bill 26, the province will say: "Oh no, we're too busy to deal with that. It's not of sufficient gravity. You guys deal with it, under the authority that you have under

section 4 of Bill 26." On the other hand, I suspect some municipalities will respond by saying: "Oh no, we're not dealing with that. That's your baby."

[4:00]

Again, I don't want to argue all day about it, because experience will show whether the concern is valid or not. But my concern is that we will get into an area of overlapping authority, where it's not clear who should be acting, and we will get finger-pointing of an unconstructive nature.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the point the member is making, and it is potentially a valid point. I guess what I'd say in response is that with what I've seen so far in terms of cooperation with municipalities on this legislation, the response I've got is that they're quite comfortable with it.

I think it would be unfortunate if we got into the type of situation where either the province or the municipalities are finger-pointing and saying: "It's your responsibility." My own sense of what is going to happen is that where you have minor local problems coming up, the municipality will deal with them, for the simple reason that those types of small problems are quite often brought to the attention of the municipality by local residents who want to see action. They will recognize that the municipality does have the ability to do something.

What you will then see happening is that the municipality recognizes that this takes place. But where there are repeat offenders involved -- for example, where they're documented through systematic documentation by a bylaw enforcement office that may not have ticketing or where there has been a series of tickets issued and an offence is clearly continuing -- they'll say the province needs to be involved. They need a more thorough investigation, because there may be something much greater happening than what appears to be taking place, and that would be the process that takes place.

I would expect and hope that there would be a measure of cooperation taking place. Down the road, if we or the municipalities find that there are changes that need to be made, I'm not averse to making them.

G. Abbott: I was going to let the minister have the last word, and what I have to say is not controversial. It's just that I suspect what will be necessary is some definition about local minor things versus larger provincial-scale things, because that won't be clear, and as there always is in these situations, there will always be a rather fuzzy area about where the jurisdiction of the municipality begins and ends and where the jurisdiction of the province begins and ends. Based on experience, I'm sure the minister will be able to deal with that successfully -- hopefully.

J. van Dongen: I'm very interested in the discussion on this section. I'm certainly not familiar with the act that's being amended here, the local government statutes act. I think I understand the intent of what the minister is trying to do, and I guess in a way I support it, subject to the comments that the member for Shuswap made about a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities.

I think there are situations where it is possible to rely on and utilize local government staff who are on the ground and are out and about. They may see things that need attention, and I think it's an area we can probably explore and work with in future. I guess I'm also concerned about how open-ended this authority is, and it strikes me that it's permissive. It allows local governments to act in certain circumstances, but it strikes me as pretty discretionary.

I'd like to ask the minister about subsection (a.1), I guess it is, where it talks about the authority to impose penalties for

[ Page 5921 ]

contravention of a prohibition under paragraph (a). I'm wondering if the minister could tell if there is some kind of

schedule or code with respect to those penalties. Is the discretion as to what the penalty may be completely up to local government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's no set

schedule in the legislation. It would be up to the municipalities, on a standard

schedule that they have in their municipalities regarding bylaw offences.

J. van Dongen: So the expectation is that they would follow that schedule, and the penalties would be comparable to similar offences that could take place under existing bylaws they're enforcing. Also, from my perspective as Agriculture critic, could the minister confirm if this

section applies to all lands within the responsibility of a local government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

J. van Dongen: I have just one last question to the minister on this section. Where someone could possibly feel that they've been aggrieved by the use of power under this section, would their only course of action or appeal be to the local council, or is there some form of appeal mechanism in the act right now with respect to bylaw offences?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The standard procedure would be in the regular way you would fight a ticket you got that you felt was unjust -- either through a bylaw court, Provincial Court or judicial recourse.

Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

G. Abbott: I want to look briefly at this section. Could the minister explain to me, initially, how this provision is different than the authority that I understand municipalities currently enjoy under the Municipal Act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently you can build on your property at the time your property is constructed. Let's say you cover 50 percent, and that's fine -- okay? What you have to do is maintain the ongoing integrity of that disposal, so that a year down the road, you can't go and pave, say, 100 percent of the property.

G. Abbott: I guess that's the source of my confusion. From municipal days, I recall legal action on the part of a local government against a landowner who had decided to cement in a significant portion of his land area. Am I to presume that the action was a part of his violation of a building permit or something like that -- because the statutory authority does not exist at this point, apart from this bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's correct.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

G. Abbott: Just like on

section 10, my question is along the "why" line, and I would like some clarification. On the explanatory side of the bill, it says

section 11 allows local governments to require landscaping for environmental purposes. I would like some clarification of what that means and of how it might differ from the ability of municipalities currently to require landscaping under development permits or zoning requirements.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Previous to this act, basically the authority was to deal with masking landscapings -- between a residential and a commercial development, for example, leaving a strip and planting in a few cedar trees or what have you. This deals more with allowing the ability to designate specific types of environmental plantings and environmental riparian landscapes, ensuring that you have the appropriate mix of vegetation and the appropriate type of plants -- that sort of thing.

G. Abbott: Again, I try to throw this into a real-life kind of situation. Mr. Brown decides that he wants to put in a motel, appropriately set back from the lake or the river. Under the provisions of this, the council can say: "Fine, you can do that -- provided that you put in 30 metres of trees to ensure that there's not unnecessary wear and tear on the riparian area." Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct, hon. member.

Sections 11 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; G. Brewin in the chair.

Bill 26, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 14.

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 14; E. Walsh in the chair.

section 1.

[4:15]

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 1 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 1, in the proposed

section 6(2) of the Commercial River Rafting Act, by deleting "Section 38" and substituting "Section 40".]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

C. Clark: As we consider this bill, I'll preface my comments by saying that I certainly support the intent of this bill,

[ Page 5922 ]

which would be to streamline the appeals process. Anything that can reduce the time it takes for an appeal to be worked through the process, and as a result, add to the certainty for the appellants in that process, is something that we certainly support. I'll preface it with those comments, but I do have some questions that I know the minister would like to take the opportunity to clarify for us as we get into the body of this bill.

My first question relates to the ability of the board to require the deposit of an amount of money which it considers sufficient to cover all or part of the anticipated costs. I note that that

section doesn't include a requirement that those costs be fair and reasonable, nor does it include any limits on how the board might interpret that. I wonder if the minister can tell us why that wasn't included, and maybe just respond to my comments. Perhaps they have given it some thought.

Hon. C. McGregor: The principles of natural law are at play, and we did in fact consider what the member said in terms of "fair and reasonable," because all of us would agree that's an appropriate thing for members of the board to use. If they were not fair and reasonable, then they could be subject to judicial review.

C. Clark: Of course, it's essential that in the process of streamlining the way the appeal system works, we don't scare away or otherwise deter individuals who might not have access to the kinds of resources as individuals that, say, a large corporation or a large interest group might. The minister told me that she has considered . . . . They did consider including "fair and reasonable." Did they throw out that idea because the ministry recognized that those principles were already enshrined, I guess, in other legislation or in judicial precedent? Or were there other reasons that they didn't consider including that?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those principles are enshrined in the law of our province and indeed, of the nation, I would suggest. I take what the member says seriously in terms of not requiring someone who might be in financial need to pay up-front costs; but the legislation makes it clear that it is a discretionary power. It says "may"; it does not say "must." So obviously, those kinds of financial considerations can be taken into account by the board.

C. Clark: Just for the purposes of future reference, there are no explicit hardship provisions in the act for this particular section. I wonder if the minister could just clarify for us that part of the discretion of the board includes allowing for specific hardship cases, in cases where people might not have the resources and might otherwise be deterred from launching an appeal that might otherwise be quite worthy.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is the duty of members of the board to give due and proper consideration to any submission that's made to them, and they would, then, have to consider what was laid before them in terms of any particular hardship, including the financial impacts on the individual who might be making an appeal.

J. van Dongen: Just to follow up with the minister on this

section . . . . I'm also curious about the motivation for putting this

section in, where you have, as in subsequent subsections, the ability to award costs. I'm curious if there is a specific reason or an instance that caused the minister to propose subsection (14.1) in this legislation. Is there a particular type of circumstance that would motivate this amendment?

Hon. C. McGregor: This is a principle that's widely held in other administrative tribunals. It is also consistent with other legislation within our ministry, including the Pesticide Control Act and the Water Act. The Water Act has been in place since 1924, and in that time, that provision has been used only once. However, it is -- as I said earlier -- a principle that's consistent with other legislation, and it also can act as a deterrent to frivolous appeals.

J. van Dongen: Well, that was really my next question. I don't think we want to belabour this section, but it is a very onerous section, and if it was only used once in that many years, then maybe it doesn't need to be here. But does the board have the ability to reject an application at the front end on the basis of it being a frivolous application? I know that in subsequent sections there is the ability to award costs for a frivolous hearing, but does the board have the authority to reject a frivolous application at the start of it?

Hon. C. McGregor: No.

J. van Dongen: So if there was a frivolous application, then subsection (14.1) would be one way that the board could deal with it -- and that's what you're saying?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, I confirm the member's understanding.

C. Clark: My colleague referred to the lack of a leave test in this legislation. And I note that in other jurisdictions with similar legislation, there is explicit authority given to the board to strain out frivolous applications at the very beginning of the process, before anybody has to hire a lawyer or anybody has to start calling around for outside experts and incurring a lot of cost. That leave test . . . . I'll just read to the minister one of them that I've collected. It's from the Ontario legislation and their Environmental Bill of Rights. It was introduced in 1994 by the NDP government there. It says that:

"Leave to appeal a decision shall not be granted unless it appears to the appellate body that, (

a) there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person, having regard to the relevant law and to any government policies developed to guide decisions of that kind, could have made the decision; and (

b) the decision in respect of which an appeal is sought could result in significant harm to the environment."

There is one example of a leave test where it appears that the government has attempted to protect both sides of the debate, so that appeals don't go forward that might have the effect of watering down or harming the government's ability to protect environmental standards significantly while, on the other hand, ensuring that individuals aren't unduly harassed by vexatious and frivolous appeals. I wonder why the minister has expressly decided -- if she has -- not to include a leave test. Would she perhaps consider including such a test at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, the member brings up a very good point. I recall in her opening remarks on this legislation her concern that people not be shut out of the appeal process. That's exactly what this . . . . The mechanism that is envisaged here -- and that is used with the Environmental Appeal Board currently -- is to ensure that that doesn't happen.

The member opposite can, I'm sure, imagine what would happen in the eventuality of an individual making an appeal and having it ruled frivolous or vexatious when they view it to be something much more serious than that. So in an effort

[ Page 5923 ]

to achieve balance and fairness and, frankly, openness, I think what we've put in place instead is what the EAB calls a sort of premediation, prehearing process, where they have the appellant talk with them about the nature of their appeal and resolve it in that manner first, as an alternative.

Then it moves into an appeal -- gives them a right to an appeal -- but, as a safeguard, puts in place a provision which says: "In the eventuality that after we've heard all the basis on which you wish to appeal this matter, we view it to be frivolous or vexatious, then you can be open for charges for the cost." So that's the way we've tried to achieve the balance and fairness that I know the member would also support.

C. Clark: Is the requirement for the mediation process going to be included in the regulations?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, it is a practice within the EAB at this time. There's also an ability for the appellant to request a prehearing conference -- but it will not be part of the regulation.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us why her ministry decided not to include that in this legislation so that it would be explicit? I understand that it's the practice and not already a regulation and that it's not anticipated that it will be included in a regulation. Is there a particular reason that it hasn't been made more explicit?

Hon. C. McGregor: Again, it's a mechanism designed to not have the appeal process bog down or slow down. If we put in a regulation that required a premediation or prehearing process when that indeed would not be productive -- the appellant and the licensee were clearly at loggerheads and couldn't reach any sort of an agreement -- then it would be a waste of time to require that.

[4:30]

C. Clark: I may not have made myself clear. I wasn't suggesting that, in any way, the ministry should have a definite requirement that everybody go through a mediation process. The legislation would be, in many respects, rather pointless, because we wouldn't really be streamlining the appeals process. But the minister did mention -- and I was curious about her comments -- that the practice of the board is that the mediation process might or can be available at the request of one or other of the parties. It's a voluntary process, I understand. I wonder why that particular practice, the one that currently exists, hasn't been codified and made more explicit.

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe I've answered the member's question, but I'll try again. What we've done, through policy and practice, is try to resolve the matter outside of the appeal mechanism that's described in the act. There's not a requirement for it to be in the act for us to engage, as policy, in trying to resolve the matter before it goes to appeal. Again, I would point out that we don't want an automatic mediation provision; we want to give the Environmental Appeal Board the opportunity and the flexibility to resolve disputes prior to coming to the formal appeal mechanism.

C. Clark: I'll just clarify that I was not suggesting, nor have I suggested at all in this debate, that there should be an automatic requirement for mediation in the legislation. I haven't said that, and I'm not saying it now. I want to just be very clear about that in the course of this debate. I'm simply exploring this possibility, given that it's already policy. I was curious about the minister's reasoning for not including it in the legislation. If she's chosen not to do that, we'll certainly see how it works out in practice, when and if the legislation comes into force.

This

section also says: "An order . . . may include directions respecting the disposition of money . . . . " That's

section 2,

section 11(14.3). Is that intended to allow for, say, a large company or a large non-profit group or some large group that might lose an appeal to be able to disburse money to members of a community or affected citizens? Is that the purpose of that section?

Hon. C. McGregor: No. It does mean that if the board has taken a bond in, then they can order a disposition towards the costs that might have been awarded.

C. Clark: On the same section, I have some questions regarding the use of technical experts on the board. I know this is a question that's been raised with the minister by interested parties in the past. I want to explore it in this committee process so that it's on the record.

There is a concern that the board is not composed of people who have technical expertise in the areas where they're deciding an appeal. We can see in the newspapers these days the result of one such process, where there weren't necessarily any experts on the board and the confusion that resulted from the failure to consult technical experts in that case.

I know that the board has the ability to include a technical expert as a member of the board and replace a member of the board with someone with that expertise. Can the minister just tell us if that power has ever been used and how often it's been used?

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I seek your direction. I don't believe the member's question has anything to do with

section 2.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'll seek your direction or the minister's direction on where we might be able to deal with that issue in the course of committee deliberations on this bill.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd certainly offer a meeting with the member if she wants to discuss the makeup of the Environmental Appeal Board.

C. Clark: The reason I am asking this question is obviously because, in streamlining the board, there will no longer be the process of speaking to the ministry first and dealing . . . . It certainly won't be required, and people might go directly to the board.

There's a great deal of technical expertise within the ministry, and I imagine that frequently people who go through the appeals process and go to the ministry first are able to resolve some of those technical issues with the ministry before they ever get to the Environmental Appeal Board. In the streamlining of the board, what may happen is that if people don't go to the ministry first, they may not have the benefit of that technical expertise.

So I'd suggest that as a result, it may be even more important that there be an avenue through which people can access that expertise at the board level once they get there, because they may be skipping the first part of this process, which is what the bill is intended to do and is certainly something we support. There have been

[ Page 5924 ]

occasions in the past where the board has probably suffered because of a lack of technical expertise, and the parties who have appeared before the board have suffered for it.

I would ask the minister if indeed . . . . I'll restate my question: if technical expertise has been called on, as is already allowed for under the bill, have any of the existing members of the board -- who are ministerial appointments, and they don't require any technical expertise to sit on the board -- ever made that switch to ensure that a technical expert is on the board?

Hon. C. McGregor: The ministry will still . . . . The mediation process that exists currently, where we try and resolve issues prior to having them go forward to a formal appeal, will obviously continue. But I would also point out to the member that under

section 11(10) the appellant can invite anyone to attend as an expert witness as part of the hearing.

C. Clark: I appreciate that comment from the minister. My first point would be just to repeat what the minister told us earlier, which is that the premediation process is a voluntary process that the parties may or may not choose to enter into. That, of course, is the point of this bill. In cases where people don't enter into that premediation process, they will not have the benefit of that technical expertise at the board level or before, because they're not going to that earlier stage.

I note and appreciate the minister's comment about parties being able to bring in outside experts, but of course that is an option that will only be available to people or to parties that have the resources to be able to perhaps fly those experts in, maybe put them up in accommodations or a whole myriad of things. If we're talking about an individual citizen who has a legitimate appeal that deserves to be heard but requires some technical expertise to be able to ensure that the appeal is heard in a fair and knowledgable manner, they may not be able to have access to that expertise. I wonder if the minister could respond to my comments.

Hon. C. McGregor: As I indicated to the member in my earlier answer, members who are engaged in an appeal can invite anyone to attend as an expert witness. They can invite someone from our ministry or some other person of their choosing that can support their opinion in a technical way. The board is also in a position where they can ask for technical expertise if they believe they do not have the ability to adjudicate the process fairly or knowledgably.

I just point out to the member that it's been my experience that people who are generally not prepared to engage in a mediation process, in a conflict where the matter is at issue, are not likely to want to engage in a premediation process again through another agency. We are trying through this act to actually streamline the appeal process, not to create new levels and new automatic opportunities for people to meet again and meet again. That's been one of the concerns that's been raised by staff, in terms of how the previous appeal process has been handled. It has been very lengthy, and it has taken too long to have the appeal finally heard.

Again I go back to what we talked about earlier. We're trying to achieve a balance here. We're giving people access to a fair and judicious process. But on the other hand, we want it to be done in a timely way.

C. Clark: I'll preface my comments again with the statement that I certainly agree that we should streamline the process and that I don't believe we should have an automatic premediation process. Otherwise, there is no point in this bill. I support the purposes of this bill. So I'll keep making that point in response to everything the minister says, because I think I'll have to, to ensure that my comments aren't misinterpreted.

My comments, though -- and I hope the minister takes them to be constructive -- are with respect to technical expertise on the board. This is particularly true for a board of this type, if we are talking about the complicated matters that might flow from a case where someone is alleging a company is polluting. Both that company and the individual would benefit from technical expertise being on the board. Those are very complicated scientific matters. I can't imagine how it would do anything but improve the board.

Without the initial process of discussion with the ministry being required anymore, I think it's essential that the ministry guarantee that there be technical expertise available on the board.

It is my understanding that while the ministry does have that power, they have never, ever used it. They've never used it to replace someone on the board with someone who has technical expertise, even though I know some very complicated cases have gone before the board. In some cases, those decisions have later had to be overruled by cabinet. It leads to a very complicated and difficult process. So I'll offer those comments again to the minister. I know she is undertaking some discussion with her officials, so I'd maybe ask her to respond.

Hon. C. McGregor: The deputy minister who is charged with the responsibility of managing the Environmental Assessment Board takes her responsibility very seriously. When she puts together panels to hear an appeal, she makes sure that each one of those panels reflects the technical expertise that's necessary to be able to deal judiciously and fairly with the matter before them.

In addition to that, I've indicated to the member, I think at least twice, that the members may call witnesses of a technical nature, so that they can hear the specific information if they are not aware of the technicalities of the issue before them. In fact, it is incumbent upon the members to do so, because if they were not to, they are subject to judicial review by the courts.

[4:45]

C. Clark: I'll leave my comments on this

section at that. I really just want to register my concerns and the concerns of many people who've contacted me, particularly from industry, about this bill and about the fact that, in the past . . . . They do not believe the appeal board adequately utilizes the technical expertise that should be available to it. As a result, a full benefit isn't available to both parties to appeals. I want to make that point again to the minister. It is very important, because the board is full of political appointments. Many of those appointments to the board may be very good, just, honest people.

But in certain cases there will be a requirement for technical expertise, particularly with regard to environmental issues.

To simply say that parties to the board can go out, fly in their own expert witnesses and put them up for the night at a hotel, if they need to, really doesn't address the concern that I've raised very fully. It's expensive. It's not necessarily, you know, the most efficient way for people to be spending money. That money may not be available to some of the people who go before the board. I know the minister will be

[ Page 5925 ]

aware that there are many cases of individual citizens who go before the board who do not have a great deal of resources available to them.

I'll leave my comments about this at that, but I certainly want to register those concerns. Perhaps the minister will at some time see fit to take them into account and perhaps to act on some of these concerns, which aren't just my concerns. They're the concerns of many people out there who appear before the board, some of them on a regular basis. Rather than just letting the issue sit and slide by, I hope the minister will eventually deal with some of these concerns that have been brought to her. My colleagues may have a few comments to offer, as well.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

J. Wilson: I see in here that the definition of pesticide has been broadened to include plant growth regulators, plant defoliators or dessicants -- herbicides, I believe. Why would herbicides be included in a definition of pesticide?

Hon. C. McGregor: The definition of pesticide as it existed prior to this amendment is exactly as is printed. The only addition has been the addition of the word "micro-organism."

J. Wilson: I see. Then, since the definition hasn't changed, could the minister explain to me why herbicides are included as a pesticide?

Hon. C. McGregor: Because weeds are pests.

J. Wilson: Could the minister name a few pesty weeds?

Hon. C. McGregor: Actually, the member opposite, during the estimates, brought to our attention the orange hawk-weed, which is an example of a noxious weed.

J. Wilson: It's somewhat of a relief to find out that we can consider a weed or plant a pest. Maybe there will be a way of getting around this problem that we encounter with the lack of funding to control some of the pests out there. I believe that that is all I have on that section.

Restrictive use goes into integrated pest management, which is part of

section 5. I believe it was indicated earlier that integrated pest management plans were designed to be put in a place not on private land but on public land. Is this the case?

Hon. C. McGregor: This will apply on public land or on private land that's used for forestry, transportation or public utility purposes, or in the case of commercial transmission of electricity, natural gas, soil or water for the public or a corporation.

J. Wilson: Then the target for this integrated pest management planning is some of our public works like Hydro, gas pipelines, and other companies out there that are working on Crown land. Is this correct?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, and forest companies as well.

J. Wilson: Does the Ministry of Environment have any program where they would have a pest management plan brought in to address some of these situations?

Hon. C. McGregor: The integrated pest management plan is a process which is outlined under paragraph (c). There are a number of techniques, and combinations of techniques, that are listed there. The integrated pest management process will have the applicants going through those to determine what is the best way to achieve their goals in pest management.

J. Wilson: I think what I am looking for is this: if a forest company has to file a pest management plan, does this include a ministry as well -- say the Ministry of Forests? If they have some type of program or work out there as part of the small business forest enterprise program -- which could happen, because maybe there needs to be some spraying done or something that is the responsibility of the ministry -- will they be required to submit a plan like this?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. It will apply to ministries that are engaged in pest management, including the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We have done consultation with those ministries, and they're supportive of this.

J. Wilson: Since we have two ministers involved here, does the Minister of Environment have any agenda to develop pest management plans to control some of the pests they encounter?

Hon. C. McGregor: The Ministry of Environment is not actively engaged in any pest management.

G. Abbott: I'm rising to discuss the concerns I have with the definition of integrated pest management contained in

section 5. I outlined my concerns with respect to this in second reading debate, and perhaps the minister has had an opportunity to think about those. The problem I have, initially at least, is with the definition of integrated pest management, which means "a decision making process that uses a combination of techniques to suppress pests and that must include but is not limited to the following elements . . . . " It goes on to list them. My object here is not to be quarrelsome but rather to save a generation of farmers from a pain-in-the-neck process that may not be entirely necessary.

I think it would be more appropriate to use the term "may." With integrated pest management, some have argued -- including some personnel from the Ministry of Agriculture -- that the farmer faces a variety of situations, a variety of pests and a variety of climatic conditions, and it may not be appropriate in every instance to have a requirement to deal with all these elements. I think the purposes -- perhaps they're laudable purposes -- of the Ministry of Environment could be met here by using the term "may." That may at the same time help ease what I think will be quite an onerous and weighty paper requirement associated with all this. I'd like the minister's comments on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'm sure the member has just forgotten that we had this discussion earlier. It isn't going to apply to farmers. It is going to apply on public lands, as I pointed out, and then those other commercial purposes: Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Transportation, pipeline rights-of-way and that kind of thing. It isn't being applied to individual farmers.

I would also point to the meaning of integrated pest management in the act. It is making reference to a decision-making process. It is the process of thinking through the pest management plan, which must include consideration of all

[ Page 5926 ]

these items, so there must be due consideration given to each of the points there. It doesn't mean that the plan will have to contain provisions that cover each.

G. Abbott: I was in fact reasonably alert when the minister announced the areas or sectors that would be subject to this, but what I have in mind here -- and perhaps the minister can advise me if this is not the case -- are the farmers who are operating whatever kind of agricultural operations on leased lands from the provincial government, for example. Those are the farmers I have in mind. Am I to understand that they are exempt from this as well?

Hon. C. McGregor: Those lands are specifically excluded.

G. Abbott: Farmers will not be affected by this -- period -- whether they are on private land or publicly leased land from the provincial government.

Hon. C. McGregor: That is correct.

J. Wilson: Once we put this in place -- and I don't see any wording in here that says agricultural operations are exempt -- is there anything to prevent this thing from carrying on and applying to private property at any point in the future, should the minister decide that it would be to someone's benefit to do that?

Hon. C. McGregor: There is an amendment to this bill under my name on the order paper,

section 29.1, which will make clear the exemption.

[5:00]

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

G. Abbott:

Section 8, on first reading, appears to be quite a strong response to a contravention of the requirements. Could the minister explain the scope of the provincial response to a contravention here -- just explain a little more fully what's involved in

section 8?

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: It's the same powers that existed prior to this amendment. The only difference is that we've added in the wording "or approved pest management plan."

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

J. van Dongen: Just a question to the minister for clarification for me. If you look at

section 10,

section 13(2), it appears there's fairly open-ended power to the administrator. I want to ask: with the addition of the option, I guess, for people in a position to file pest management plans, are the provisions with respect to the administrator's authority here the same under the amended legislation as under the previous legislation?

I'm thinking of situations where the administrator revokes a licence or a permit or whatever, possibly for a good and valid reason. But in a situation where there is a problem that needs to be attended to, is this legislation any different? Is there any sort of direction other than the professional goodwill of the administrator to work with the permit holder, to deal with whatever problem they're facing at that time?

Hon. C. McGregor: As in the previous section, there are no changes in the act as it exists, other than to add in the words "or pest management plans."

Sections 10 to 21 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall sections 22 through 25 pass?

Hon. member, on which section?

J. van Dongen: Well, I'm not sure, hon. Chair. You're moving so quickly now that I'm losing track, but I want to raise a question that applies to a number of these amendments. There may not be a place where it applies directly. For example, under

section 20 it may apply, particularly when we're looking at page 11, at sections 44 and 45 of the legislation. I'm concerned, and certainly in a lot of the appeal situations that I've looked at . . . . This is an issue that I raised in second reading. There isn't clear direction given anywhere that I'm aware of in the act, and possibly in regulations under these various acts, such as the Pesticide Control Act or the Waste Management Act, etc.

I'm concerned that in some of the legislation I've seen there aren't clear instructions or policies for decision-makers as to the process of notifying the applicant of the decision and at the same time clearly notifying the applicant about their right of appeal. I don't think it is dealt with directly anywhere in this act, other than possibly under the powers in a previous section.

I wonder if the minister could comment, from her experience and her staff's experience with these appeal processes. With a lot of the cases I've been involved in, people are not clear, first of all, what the decision was that was made. I think there needs to be a concise format established by regulation or by policy, so that decision-makers set out clearly what the decision is, the rationale for the decision, and then set out clearly again by policy -- in that same letter -- what that person's right of appeal is. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I certainly take the member's concern seriously. What we are doing in this part of the act is trying to ensure that the notification provisions are consistent with other notification provisions in other acts, although I understand what the member is saying. We are taking actions to try and make sure that people are aware of what their rights are to appeal. There will be appropriate time lines. One of the things we're doing is giving out a pamphlet on the EAB, when people are talking about the potential of an appeal, so that they understand what their rights are and what the time limitations are.

I can give the member an example of something that happened in my own constituency, where someone appealed a pesticide application permit of the local regional district and went past the 30 days. The Environmental Appeal Board did agree to accept the appeal and consider the reasons why it had not made the 30-day time limit. In the case that I'm aware of, they made a decision not to hear the appeal because they believed the appellant had adequate information to understand that he had the 30 days in which to register his appeal. Based on that decision -- having read the correspondence -- I

[ Page 5927 ]

would assume the Environmental Appeal Board would also consider appeals that might come somewhat after the 30 days, considering the particular circumstance of the case.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that the minister is obviously aware of the concern, even from her own experience, and I think it's good to have the pamphlet. But also, as I say, in the letter that sets out the decision, I think it's good to clearly set out the appeal. I thank the minister for her comments.

section 22.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 22(b), by adding "in subsection (3)" before "by adding the following paragraph:".]

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 29 inclusive approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 29.1, by adding the following section:

Consequential Amendment

29.1

Section 44 of the Pesticide Control Act Regulation, B.C. Reg. 319/81, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1)(a)(

i) and (ii) by striking out "licences and permits" and substituting "licences, permits and pest management plans",

(

b) in subsection (1)(

b) by striking out "permit requirements" and substituting "permit and pest management plan requirements", and

(

c) in subsections (3) and (4) by striking out "certification, licensing and permit requirements" and substituting "certification, licensing, permit and pest management plan requirements".]

Amendment approved.

Section 30 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. McGregor: With leave of the House now.

Leave granted.

Bill 14, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading on Bill 18.

PENSION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

This bill sets out a number of amendments to the following public sector pension statutes: the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act. These pension plans represent an important part of the public sector compensation arrangements with employees. The plans are used by more than 700 public sector employers in British Columbia and cover 285,000 plan members, of whom 60,000 are pensioners. The plans are well funded and have invested assets in excess of $28 billion.

It is important to note that these amendments have been reviewed and recommended by the respective pension boards to implement the pension portions of these important government structuring initiatives. The boards have equal representation from government as plan sponsor and employees as plan members, and are independently chaired by the superannuation commissioner.

The first purpose of this bill is to provide public sector employers affected by amalgamation, restructuring and downsizing initiatives with an opportunity to use pension-based early retirement options to ensure orderly and financially sound transition. One of the early retirement initiatives is to provide public sector employers with the ability to create a special retirement incentive plan. This plan allows a public sector employer to apply to the superannuation commissioner to have the early retirement reduction percentage waived or altered for a specified period for a specified class of employees.

These rule changes comply with the requirements for registered pension plans established under the federal Income Tax Act. They require that the employer fund the increase in the pension benefit provided under the early retirement initiatives by making a direct contribution to the pension fund.

[5:15]

A second component of the pension-based early retirement initiatives is a phased early retirement program in the college pension plan. This initiative, which is similar to one already in place in the