1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 7

[ Page 15667 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to announce, on behalf of all of us here in the Legislature, that the trophy which carries the name of your distinguished office was awarded once again to the victorious Legislative Assembly tennis team on Saturday. I see that some members of the press gallery who are here quite rightly have their heads hung in shame. It really is good for all of us here to see that the forces of good do triumph over evil; it tends to confirm your faith in the order of things.

In keeping with the assembly's rules of full and open disclosure, I wish to announce at this earliest possible opportunity that the final score in this well-contested battle -- and this is politely put by the scripter of this material -- was the press gallery's 83 miserable games to the Legislative Assembly's 142 magnificent games. So, hon. Speaker, the coveted Speaker's trophy remains safe in the right hands for another year, thanks to the coach -- the esteemed Clerk -- and his victorious team. Congratulations to all on this magnificent victory.

M. Sihota: Joining us today here in the chamber is Mr. Lorne Nystrom, who has served as a Member of Parliament for 25 years, representing a constituency in the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Nystrom is visiting with our caucus today. In so doing, he brings to us the enthusiasm and success of the Saskatchewan NDP, which I know -- and I know the opposition is concerned about this -- is highly infectious. I'm sure it will bode well for the NDP here in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us today from Williams Lake is Tom Barr, who's the president of the Neighburhood Pub Owners' Association of B.C. Tom is here for meetings to discuss the relationship between his industry and the evolving gaming policy in this province. Please make Tom welcome.

F. Gingell: In the visitors' gallery today are some visitors from Appleton in the United Kingdom, Dr. and Mrs. Jim Young, and they're here with a very good friend of ours, Jim Rhodes. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: Today in the gallery is Andrea Barry, my niece from Oakville, Ontario, who is visiting British Columbia and Victoria. I ask the House to make her most welcome to our precinct.

J. Sawicki: On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I want to welcome a delegation of Ecuadorian mayors and senior officials. They represent the municipalities of Machala, Rio Bamaba and Pastaza-Puyo. Also with them are representatives of the Association of Ecuadorian Municipalities. Accompanying that delegation are the president of our UBCM, Councillor Joanne Monaghan, Mayor Bill Trewhella of the village of Warfield, Mayor Wayne McGrath from Vernon and Brett McGillivray, director of the Sunshine Coast Regional District. Would the House please make all our guests welcome.

G. Wilson: I would like to ask the House to make welcome those participants in the Ecuadorian exchange to the Sunshine Coast Regional District, in particular -- and I hope I have the names pronounced properly -- Senor Patricio Lopez Cobo and Senora Zoila Guevara, who are accompanied by Larry Jardine, who is the administrator of the Sunshine Coast Regional District; Brett McGillivray, already introduced; Steve Alexander and his wife, Suzanne Alexander, who is acting as an interpreter for the group today. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: In the gallery today are two guests from Squamish, who are here on important business for School District 48, the Howe Sound School District. Would the House please welcome the chair of that school district, Mr. Don Wilson, who is accompanied by the superintendent and chief executive officer of the Howe Sound School District, Mr. Doug Courtice.

L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming today 36 grade 7 students from Walter Lee Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Norm Eyford and Mr. George Nakanishi. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Perry: We are also joined in the gallery today by a future intern whom we'll be seeing a lot of next year, Julie Jackson, and her mother, Diane Jackson. They are originally from Chilliwack.

Before I invite members to make them welcome, I counted, I think, about 14 people who have not yet been introduced -- probably tourists -- and I would like to set a good example for the rest of the week by inviting all members to join me in making welcome anyone else who hasn't been specifically introduced.

Hon. G. Clark: I've just been notified of two visiting parliamentarians -- I gather, husband and wife -- the Hon. Elaine Nile and the Hon. Frederick Nile from New South Wales, Australia. I ask all members to make them most welcome.

Ministerial Statement

RELEASE OF UN PEACEKEEPERS HELD HOSTAGE BY SERB FORCES

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to make a ministerial statement. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the release yesterday of 26 members of the United Nations peacekeeping forces, who were held hostage by the Serb forces in Bosnia during the past three weeks. I am sure I speak for everyone in this House in saying that we share the joy and relief of the families and friends whose loved ones were finally freed unharmed after the last three harrowing weeks.

In particular, we rejoice with the family and friends of Capt. Patrick Rechner, whose parents reside in Coquitlam. We have, as you know, shared the ordeal of seeing Captain Rechner in captivity. I think we are all relieved and commend the personnel for the courage they showed under these very trying circumstances.

[ Page 15668 ]

It reminds us graphically of the very difficult and trying task that they face in an increasingly unclear and uncertain world. Even though our hearts go out to the people of Bosnia, who continue to live in fear of their lives, we are very pleased that our UN personnel are home safe and sound.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: I join the Premier in welcoming home our UN peacekeepers. Obviously, we are all aware of how important a role Canada has played as a peacekeeping nation around the globe in a number of hot spots. I think that often, when we say those words, we forget that there are individuals and their families who are putting themselves on the line to make sure that we here in British Columbia and in Canada can be engaging in the kind of public and democratic debate where we resolve our differences without resorting to violence.

It seems to me that all of those families deserve our thanks, and that those who serve in the Armed Forces continue to deserve our thanks for their peacekeeping efforts. I am pleased to join with the Premier in welcoming them home and encouraging them to continue their pursuits so that we can leave a more peaceful world for all who follow us.

R. Neufeld: The Reform Party, along with the official opposition and the Premier of the province, would also like to send our congratulations to the families that have been released in the last while. All too often we tend to think that these things always happen someplace else and to someone else, until they happen to people that are very close to us -- specifically to the people from Port Coquitlam. We extend our best wishes to everyone also.

Introduction of Bills

ACCESS TO ABORTION SERVICES ACT

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Access to Abortion Services Act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This bill ensures that women have access to reproductive health services in an atmosphere of privacy and dignity. It allows for the creation of access zones around facilities providing abortion, where people using or providing abortion services may not be harassed, neither physically nor verbally, on the issue of abortion. Access zones are also established around the homes and offices of physicians providing abortion services, and may also be established around the homes of other service providers.

Abortion is a legal medical service, and access to medical services is one of the foundations of medicare. We do not tolerate disruption of access in any sphere of the health care system, and we will not tolerate it here.

The bill defines the parameters of access zones and defines behaviours that may not be carried out within those zones. I believe that by creating distance in volatile situations, a great deal of tension will be defused. Our intention is to protect access to this legal medical service and ensure that health care providers work and live in a respectful atmosphere.

In tabling this legislation today, I would like to acknowledge the considerable assistance of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Women's Equality in bringing this bill forward.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Campbell: Earlier this year the NDP was asked to give their internal audit to Ron Parks for his investigation into the NCHS matter. On March 31, 1995, the B.C.

Liberals were denied access to records about NDP gaming activities because those documents were "directly related to the Parks investigation." Further, access to that information was denied because "the ministry could refuse that information because the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm a law enforcement matter." Surely the Minister of Finance sees a grave breach of trust in tipping off the NDP party boss on the contents of the Parks report.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: when she knew the NDP was up to its neck in the Parks investigations, why did she give NDP party boss Brian Gardiner a heads-up on the Parks report?

Hon. E. Cull: Last week the opposition was asking for the earliest possible release of the Parks forensic audit. What I was doing, until the Attorney General's ministry advised me not to release the report, was preparing exactly for that early release.

The Speaker: The supplemental question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I am amazed that the Minister of Finance would think that a briefing to the NDP's party boss constituted a release to the public. This was not a matter for political interest; it was for her to serve the public interest. The Premier demanded the resignation of Mel Couvelier when he tipped off the former Premier on investigations into Fantasy Gardens. At the time, the NDP rightly called the actions of the Minister of Finance of the day grossly inappropriate. The public was appalled then, and the public is appalled now.

To the Premier: when will the Premier put the public interest ahead of his political interest and ask the Minister of Finance for her resignation today, just as he asked for Mr. Couvelier's resignation only five years ago?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to get at the truth of what happened to the funds, and gave assurances to Mr. Parks, when he was appointed as a forensic auditor, that his report would be made public. Mr. Parks sought those assurances last week. The minister gave him that assurance and was preparing to do just that when the Attorney General's ministry officials wrote to and informed Ms. Cull that the report should not be made public. That is where the matter rests right now. A special prosecutor has been appointed to manage this investigation.

[ Page 15669 ]

M. de Jong: On Friday last, the Minister of Social Services said in this House that she was familiar with the contents of the Parks report. She stated: "...nothing in the report recommended a criminal investigation." On the weekend, the Premier stated that the contents of the Parks report were not discussed at the June 6 meeting. My question to the Premier is: who is lying?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand that the Minister of Social Services was quoting directly from Mr. Parks himself, and those are the statements that he made. If the hon. member for Matsqui is casting some aspersions on Mr. Parks, he is not here to defend himself. That is the statement he made.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: In her letter of June 7 to Mr. Quantz, the Finance minister stated that she provided a briefing to a "committee of cabinet." Nowhere in that correspondence did the minister refer to Brian Gardiner being present at that meeting.

My questions to the Minister of Finance are: did she tell Ernie Quantz later, on June 7, that Mr. Gardiner was present at the briefing, and why didn't she provide that information to this House when she provided her briefing on June 14?

Hon. E. Cull: I have had several discussions with Mr. Quantz, and he is fully informed of all my actions up until and including today.

ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MEETINGS BY NON-MEMBERS

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. It has now been confirmed that Brian Gardiner and possibly other senior NDP hacks routinely attend cabinet committee meetings. Can the Premier explain why anyone who is not a member of government -- particularly a senior party official -- would be allowed to attend any cabinet meetings related to matters before government? Why didn't anyone in cabinet committee have the common sense and ethical judgment to kick Brian Gardiner out?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are many people who attend cabinet meetings who are not necessarily members of cabinet...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...and on occasion Mr. Gardiner attends meetings of the government priorities committee.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

R. Neufeld: Presumably the cabinet secretariat or some other entity keeps a record of who has attended cabinet meetings or cabinet committee meetings, apart from the ministers. Will the Premier agree today to table those records for the past year so that all British Columbians can see who else has been given the inside scoop in cabinet, and would he tell us which cabinet meetings Brian Gardiner and Ken Georgetti and other key NDP supporters have been allowed to attend without ever taking the oath of confidentiality?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member is aware of the confidentiality of cabinet committees and cabinet activities. I'm sure he is aware that the minister has already responded that she was preparing to release the report last week, and in that mode, and having given that assurance to Mr. Parks, she said that she was talking about the timing and process for the release of that report and some of the elements. Then the whole matter was then concluded the next day by Mr. Quantz saying that we should not talk about the report any further.

PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH SOCIETY

J. Dalton: Last Friday a special prosecutor was appointed in the matter of the RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I ask the Attorney General: are the RCMP precluded from examining the handling of this report from the moment it was received by the Minister of Finance?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The RCMP will go wherever the investigation takes them.

J. Dalton: My supplemental is to the Minister of Finance. I have consulted with the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General and the acting Deputy Attorney General. They have both said that the handling of the report could well be part of the RCMP investigation. Given that the Minister of Finance said that she would step aside if investigated, and given that any such investigation would not be made public, will the minister admit that it's in the best interests of both her and the public to resign now, rather than wait for that inevitable knock on the door?

Hon. E. Cull: The RCMP have already indicated that if they come across any information in the course of their investigations that would lead them to conclude that any member of this House is unable to perform their duties, they will advise the Attorney General and the Premier.

ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MEETINGS BY NON-MEMBERS

G. Wilson: The matter that was disclosed last week is important with respect to the Parks report. My question to the Premier is: who prepared the agenda for that meeting, who invited Mr. Gardiner to be in attendance and under what pretext was he invited to attend?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, I'll go back to one of my previous answers about cabinet confidentiality. And second, this matter is....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 15670 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a matter that the Attorney General's ministry staff have requested that we not discuss further. A special prosecutor has been appointed who is now managing any investigation.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: In that event, can the Premier tell us what is generally the procedure with respect to the preparation of an agenda? Who generally has the right to invite in partisans to what are, as the Premier correctly suggests, confidential cabinet meetings?

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, I've said that there are a number of instances when officials and others are invited before cabinet committees.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PARKS REPORT

G. Farrell-Collins: Over the weekend the Premier stated quite clearly -- on television, I might add, where everyone could see him -- that this was not a cabinet committee but an ad hoc political committee that he put together. My question, then, is to the Attorney General: can he tell us why he chose to absent himself from that meeting and what advice he gave to his fellow members before leaving that committee?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not a member of the committee.

The Speaker: Supplemental, member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us whether he was present at that meeting? If he was present at that meeting, why did he leave and what advice did he give to members of his cabinet and his colleagues prior to leaving that meeting?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The meeting was discussing the release of the report. I advised the meeting that prior to releasing the report they should run it by the criminal justice branch.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: In the NCHS scandal, one of the villains of the piece has been Dave Stupich, former NDP Minister of Finance and director of the NCHS. He wouldn't cooperate with police. He escaped prosecution in the first case involving his criminal society. He has not paid any of the court-ordered costs or restitution to the charities. He then went to court to block Mr. Parks's subpoena of his business records. It's apparent in the way this government has handled the Parks audit that they've joined Mr. Stupich and his campaign of criminality, deceit and subterfuge in British Columbia.

My question to the Premier is this: will he agree today that a full public inquiry is required into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society? Or does he take the same approach as Mr. Stupich to bringing forward the truth in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: You'll recall that after the criminal proceedings of last year and the appeal process had concluded, I took steps to make sure that the records were preserved and kept whole. It was my initiative to have Mr. Parks, one of the leading forensic accountants in this country, commence a forensic audit in order to get at the truth. It was my assurance to Mr. Parks that this matter would be made public as quickly as possible. The minister gave that assurance to Mr.

Parks last week, and I can assure you that, like my fellow British Columbians, I want to get at the truth of where these illegal funds went. Publicly, I have said as well that Mr. Stupich should cooperate with Mr. Parks, and I would hope that he would still do that.

W. Hurd: Since Mr. Gardiner has been briefed by the Minister of Finance as to the contents of the Parks report, what assurance do the people of the province have that Mr. Gardiner will not get on the phone to Mr. Stupich and advise him of what records he should shred, since he has declined to cooperate with the Parks audit in the first place?

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: First, I call the wrap-up of the Agriculture estimates.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Speaker: First, the independent member for Chilliwack.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. The Agriculture estimates this year were an interesting time. We had a good exchange of ideas, and it was, I have to say, profitable. The only problem we have is that some of the ideas we spoke about.... I do hope the ministry was listening and will put them into effect, especially when it comes down to the area of education.

It seems that we have lacked focus in educating the public in British Columbia as to why we should be in agriculture and as to the value of agriculture to the province. When you take a look at an industry that has a $13 billion infrastructure and a turnover of $1.5 billion a year.... We do seem to pay lip service to it. That is very unfortunate, because when we do that, we are actually chipping away at one of the pillars of society, one of the things that has kept us economically viable over the years.

When there were recessions, when there were hard times, it was agriculture that was always there; it was agriculture that produced jobs. We must educate the population, because when we don't, we have problems with the ALR; we have problems with the conflict of developers or with aboriginal land claims. But if we educate the population as to why we need this industry, we will have less of that conflict and maybe some cooperation to allow it to fulfil its mandate.

We talked about fisheries and agriculture. We do have problems in fisheries. We have problems with the Pacific

[ Page 15671 ]

Salmon Treaty. The minister assured us that his staff will be on top of this situation, because we can ill afford another season like we saw last season. He is going to be in touch with Mr. Tobin, the hon. minister from the federal government, to ensure that this happens, and hopefully we will resolve that.

Again, when we talked about aquaculture.... He realizes that this is a sunrise industry. This is an industry that could be a future pillar of this province, and it has very much in the way of opportunity ahead of it. He has assured us that he will look into it and will ensure that the right rules and regulations are in place to govern this industry as it expands. This industry, like I said, is a backbone of this province. This industry pays the bills for all our social programs -- this is one of the industries. This is an industry that we must ensure survives.

It is a basis of the family -- the basis of the family farm. There are principles in this industry that need to survive. And the minister has assured us that he will endeavour to ensure that does survive.

I'd like to turn my remaining seconds over to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no remaining time. There's a total of three minutes.

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to comment on the Agriculture estimates this year. My first comment is that the Agriculture budget is $70 million -- the third-smallest ministry of all the ministries -- and this is out of a total budget of $20 billion. It's certainly important to keep that in context when you consider that it's primary industries like agriculture, forestry, mining, etc., that provide the wealth in the province that allows us to afford the great social services and educational services that we have.

We talked mainly about a number of programs within the ministry. The budget has been very stable compared to last year. We talked about programs like the ALDA program -- which has been discontinued -- crop insurance and income support programs. We had some extensive discussions and raised a number of concerns about the policies and operations of the Agricultural Land Commission. We also expressed great concern on behalf of farmers, fishermen and ranchers about the high level of uncertainty with respect to their Crown leases, their need for certainty and surety in those areas and the need for longer-term leases.

We talked about the merits of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the efforts that are being made within the fruit industry. We also talked about the fish and aquaculture industries and the balance that's required there between commercial and sport fishing. The B.C. Marketing Board.... We had some concerns that we expressed in those areas.

We talked about human resource management within the ministry and the need to establish objectives and measure performance against those objectives. We expressed a very significant overall concern about the cost and ongoing impediments of the ever-increasing bureaucracy in all of our ministries and in other levels of government. We're concerned that the cumulative effect of these regulations and bureaucracies is making it difficult for our farmers and fishermen to carry on and expand their businesses. I was pleased to hear the minister's commitment to continue his efforts in this area to work with other ministries regarding some of the problem areas.

I would like to express my appreciation to the other members of this Legislature who assisted in questioning the minister. In particular, I would like to thank the minister and his staff for their open dialogue, their dedication to the tasks at hand and their sincere commitment to work for the betterment of the farming and fishing industries.

The Speaker: The minister concludes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite. We did focus on a number of issues that are critical to the future of agriculture, as we see reducing subsidies around the world for agriculture. Certainly in this country it's going to be forced to stand on its own more and more, and therefore the role of government becomes critical.

We discussed trying to be ahead of developments, as governments must, and trying to anticipate and provide for that. I presented considerable evidence with respect to areas in which we are leading -- in particular, the growth of development funds that allow the industry to meet its problems head-on. With some assistance from government that is matched by their own contributions, the industry itself will continue to renew, and it will renew at a faster pace than otherwise might happen.

With respect to issues around the future of the tree fruit industry and how we might arrive at a strategic plan, I assured members that I would put the whole development of the industry and government's role in assisting the industry on the table with a representative group of people in that area. I would take that sort of approach to any sector that finds itself going through inordinate challenges. We delivered with respect to the tree fruit industry, and we will do the same for other areas.

Another example will be the whole development of shellfish aquaculture, where governments need to have their agencies working together, and the various levels of governments also need to work together to try to minimize the frustration for the industry. Some industries are poised for the unprecedented development opportunities at their doorsteps. Faced with that, the opportunity to provide jobs for a changing economy rests upon those industries that can take advantage of challenges. That's the case with aquaculture generally. That is also the case with export-based agriculture and with the agriculture that's providing much-needed food for this province.

Through the development of an agrifood policy, one with which I've taken a hands-on approach, we are moving as quickly as we can; we want to ensure that we develop a vision for the future, so that we will remain self-sufficient in British Columbia. More than that, we will be taking advantage of the export opportunities we have.

[2:45]

I mentioned that we would ask the federal minister whose responsibilities are paramount here with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which remains stalled, to ensure an equitable amount of fish will be available for our fishers. Having retained fish here in the province, we then want to process it as far as we can to ensure the maximum number of jobs. I point to some of the tremendous developments in the processing of groundfish, once we take the fish onto our own shores rather than let them be processed at sea by other countries. Hake in particular is providing hundreds of jobs in Ucluelet that weren't there just a few years ago.

We all spoke about the need to preserve our food land resources and the importance of the agricultural land reserve,

[ Page 15672 ]

but more than that, we spoke about the importance of ensuring that there is continual fine-tuning of the zoning and of activities in the zone to meet the needs of agriculture as it evolves. There are lots of examples around of ancillary businesses that are farm-based, where considerable progress has been made, but it is made easier because we have said that the ALR is here to stay. Its boundaries are firm, but there is a process to look at the interface.

The right-to-farm legislation and the amendments we brought in last year that required official community planning to address the needs of urban growth at the same time address the needs of farmers who are farming on the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve.

We are moving forward in a very innovative fashion with respect to the development of the grazing enhancement fund, where we have three ministries -- Environment, Forests and Agriculture -- working with an industry-driven and community-driven process to find ways to adapt to the Forest Practices Code and the changing requirements for farmers that have been brought about by regional land use planning in the area.

I would like to highlight the salmon farming action plan, which is there to provide environmental stability. That stability is based on policy that is the best it can be with the knowledge we have about the industry, addressing environmental concerns and the need for industry to develop in an orderly fashion. We see it as a pause before the next phase of development of the industry, and it has been met with positive reaction by the environmental community and the industrial community there. We're going to see an environmental review around the Broughton Archipelago, where there has been considerable controversy over the past few years.

With respect to the issues around the need for the public to understand and connect once again with those who produce the food, we have doubled our efforts in respect to agriculture in the classroom, where there is a twofold purpose: to educate people about the opportunities for food production as a career and to recruit people to understand where their food comes from, so they as citizens can support the agricultural base in our province.

I would argue that we are leading the development of accountability through our business planning processes, through the development of strategic plans and through effectiveness reporting, so that it is much easier to audit whether we are achieving the objectives set out for us.

I'd like to say something about the size of the ministry's budget. This ministry took major hits in terms of the number of officials working in it in the eighties. We are down to what we consider a virtual bare minimum. The large decreases in the program come from subsidies that are no longer acceptable, by common agreement across Canada and by international agreements as well. These reductions have also partly been driven by fiscal needs of governments.

In our view there is no direct correlation between the amounts spent on subsidies and the health of the industry. I point to the fact that this industry continues to grow: net incomes have continued to improve in latter years, and we stand with the most paid-up capital of this industry in any province. What we have is innovativeness on the part of the producers and the government officials who serve that industry. With that innovativeness, we have, I think, provided a world-class industry which I'm very positive about.

Let me wrap up with a comment about the Buy B.C. program. We spent $9.5 million over five years on a program that was designed with industry fully in partnership with government. I think that is why the program has been such a success. It feeds into the need to increase awareness. Through advertising around these partnerships between government and particular sectors that are producing food, they are working together, celebrating the good food that we have to offer here. I think people's awareness has increased dramatically about agriculture and about the value of our products. We continue to be strong supporters of that particular program.

Finally, I need to say that we will be keeping the federal government accountable for its activities...

An Hon. Member: That's a challenge!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: ...in the stewardship of the ocean and the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It is a challenge.

With that, let me conclude my comments.

Hon. G. Clark: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. In the House, I call committee on Bill 22, commonly referred to as the Right to Farm Act.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION (RIGHT TO FARM) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 22; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

J. van Dongen: I just want to raise a question and a concern with respect to the

definitions of "farm business," "farm operation" and possibly "farmer." That is, we want to be certain that these

definitions include activities carried out by employees, agents, custom operators and farm labour contractors. I just want to be sure that the minister is satisfied that activities by those groups are covered in these

definitions.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, they are included and therefore are protected under the legislation. We would define a farmworker as a person working on behalf of the farmer. Similarly, a farm contractor is doing things for the farmer, and any persons who are carrying out part of the farmer's farm operation are protected simply as agents of the farmer.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

J. van Dongen: I have a concern about

section 7(5), where we contemplate a closed panel or closed hearing. I'm wondering if that's appropriate, when any sort of action in a court of law is open to the public. What sort of circumstances would justify a closed hearing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since these hearings are not court proceedings, the only.... There is a provision here in case the panel decides that it would be closed to protect business information, say, that might give somebody an advantage. It's the privacy protection that we would be looking at here. But there would be other opportunities for this information to be public if it was necessary to be public.

[ Page 15673 ]

L. Fox: In this section.... I've had an experience around this, so I'm going to ask if it covers it. If you have a farm area that traditionally was just that -- a small farm which operated traditionally by cutting hay, and so on -- yet the farmer decided that he was going to turn it into a feedlot, for instance, which, as the minister will be well aware, has much more of an impact on residents around it than a farm does, would this process here allow residents to make their concerns known?

What authority would this panel have to hear that kind of concern if, indeed, the traditional use of the property, when a development was designed, changed from being a small hay farm to a feedlot, for instance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If this were considered to be the development of farmland, as opposed to a change in normal farm practices, somebody could start an action. They could query it, but what would be operable is whether or not a feedlot was being conducted according to the standards that are available for that. They would be governed by waste management, for example. That is what would be relevant. We would determine a feedlot to be a normal farm practice, and therefore....

It depends on the size; at some point there may be a threshold where it is seen as an industrial activity because of the amount of effluent or whatever. But it would be governed by the Waste Management Act. Does that help? I hope it does.

L. Fox: While I understand that in terms of the environment and those kinds of issues, that would be handled by that, in terms.... I guess what I'm wondering here is if the process before us in

section 6 would circumvent a municipality invoking its noise bylaw, for instance. There was a situation in the municipality where I was mayor for a long time where this actually happened. Nobody in that rural area objected to traditional farm use. But when it changes to a feedlot -- of course you have a substantial change in the odour and in terms of the noise and so on -- does the municipality still have the power to deal with that outside of this act through its other bylaws, such as a noise bylaw, and so on?

Or does it have a chance, through clause 6, of building its case for consideration by that panel on behalf of the taxpayers, of having the panel suggest that that is a change from the traditional values that were practised in that area, and therefore that it is non-compliant? Or is the municipality's hands tied in terms of that significant change of use for that particular farm?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: During the conduct of the hearings -- and I just want to underline for the member that we are on the conduct of hearings,

section 7 -- a municipality might make the argument that a certain practice taking place on this farm is not a normal farm practice. The whole purpose of having an appeal body there is to decide, with the information that's available on the conduct of that farming operation and the standards that are available -- whether they are industry-developed standards or whatever -- that this is a normal farm practice. If it is a normal farm practice and is found to be such, then that activity would be protected from municipal nuisance bylaws.

But this gives an opportunity for the municipality to make their argument at that point. At this point in time a nuisance bylaw action can be taken against a farming operation, and the only recourse is through the courts.

B. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Fox: When we look back at normal farm practices, we see it's pretty open. In fact, I would suggest that a feedlot would be a normal farm practice. If it was a normal practice on that farm, that's totally different, but a normal farm practice would assume that anything that's normal, as it says here.... Indeed some of the requirements can be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council according to the

definitions section. But I would assume that we're going to see that anything to do with farming would be considered a normal farm practice. At least I would hope that was the case.

I'm not speaking against the bill or even this section. My only concern is that there has to be a balance in the process, and that if we have a development around a rural area.... The minister is aware -- especially in my region, where we have ALR land but much of it is rocky and it could be developable -- that when a subdivision has been developed based on the farm practices that are there and there has been a substantial change to that, and where we see.... I think a feedlot is a good example, because they can be very unpopular in a subdivided area.

My concern is: will the municipality have an opportunity and will this established panel have the opportunity of distinguishing and recognizing that change and taking considerable consideration of the views of the leaders of the municipalities around that change? Not only do we have that; we could also see a situation under normal farm practices of the disposal, I suppose, of farm equipment. I've seen that happen from time to time, where farm equipment has been lined up alongside the road. I'm sure it might be considered normal farm practice to sell farm machinery on farmland.

Indeed, that in itself brings some concerns. The minister could alleviate my concerns if he could tell me that there's balance in this process so that all values receive equal consideration. Certainly the wishes of a municipal council or regional district could be given some consideration in the hearing of complaints.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would hope it becomes the normal community planning process to look at the border between ALR and non-ALR lands and provide for a buffer. I would think the place that concerns the municipality about developments on the border of the farm which might not be compatible with previous or future developments.... We would then have the official community plan changed to recognize that.

For example, there may be types of farming operations, like feedlots and hog farms, that might not be desirable right on the border. We're not going to be able to plan all the incompatible things out of existence. Under sections 17 and 20, it does provide for the municipality to bring in bylaws to address that. If the Minister of Agriculture has accepted a bylaw that affects farm operations on the border, it could well be that that bylaw, having gone through due process at the municipal level, has said: "We don't encourage intensive

agri-

[ Page 15674 ]

culture on the border." If I accept that bylaw because I see a fundamental incompatibility between the non-farm usages in the area and existing or planned farm operations.... It would be imprudent to approve such a bylaw. What we're saying now is that there is imbalance in the process, and the municipality can use its nuisance bylaws to give them the legal upper hand against normal farming operations.

For example, if it was a five-acre lot.... It might not be normal to have a feedlot operation on a five-acre lot; it might also be possible. Most feedlots are on larger parcels for waste disposal reasons, and so on.

You have to get back to finding balance during the hearings. The hearings will be balanced, but they will be restricted to assessing things as they are at the time. We're trying to encourage municipalities and regional districts to be proactive in revising their bylaws. We will help them in that process by setting some standards, and we'll offer those standards to the municipality as they revise their bylaws.

L. Fox: Just a brief follow-up. I think I understand where the minister's coming from, and we'll discuss it to some degree a little later in the act --

section 16, I think it is. But, in fact, not all farmland -- certainly in my constituency -- is within the ALR. That's one basic failing. I think

section 16 is the area where I can discuss that issue.

What I'm concerned about is that I want to see this legislation protect the farmer from changing values -- the rural parts being developed around his farm, and then all of a sudden, those folks putting constraints on the farmer that are unrealistic. At the same time, I think we have to also have a balance, where we can be somewhat sure that municipalities are going to have the right to deal with the changing use of that land. I don't envision a feedlot on five acres; that's not what I'm concerned about at all.

What I'm concerned about is where you have a large farm that has rural five-acre lots around it, the pressures of those lots going against that farmer, and the change in the traditional use on that having a substantial impact on the rural development. So I think we have to have a balancing scale here. If the minister can assure me that that balance is contained within this clause, then I'm more than satisfied.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can assure you that the parties to a dispute -- and third parties, like the municipality -- can be heard, and that there will be a balanced hearing. Where we're going to achieve more certainty for people is in revising the bylaws. But just to make it clear, inside the ALR, the farmer is going to be protected; outside the ALR, a municipality can have the upper hand. This legislation only says that we will give protection to farming operations outside the ALR, provided that the municipality zones to cover activities that would protect the farmer.

So if a municipality wants to protect farming operations outside the ALR, they can bring in bylaws, and we will give the force of this act to those bylaws and give the farmer a level, legal playing field. If the municipality doesn't want to do that, it is only within the ALR where we can protect the farmers. So outside the ALR, the municipalities will legally have the upper hand; inside the ALR, the ministry -- the provincial government -- will have the upper hand.

G. Wilson: I'm amazed at the speed with which we got to

section 7. It just shows you that it doesn't pay to leave the House, even for a matter of three....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member says: "You should have been here. Quit complaining." One assumes we're going to have a vigorous debate on all sections.

However,

section 7 is an interesting section, because within it, of course, we include some of the provisions that are in

section 1, and some of the provisions that are in sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, so we can, in fact, explore some of those matters...

The Chair: On

section 7, hon. member.

G. Wilson: ...under

section 7 legitimately within this committee process, without broadening the scope of this debate.

I draw the minister's attention to

section 7(1). It says: "Subject to any regulations under

section 12(2)(c)...."

Section 12(2)(

c) of the bill, of course, talks about the ability for regulations.

Section 12(2) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...(

b) respecting standards for the purpose of definition of 'normal farm practice.' "

What is really at the heart of this whole business is whether or not this is going to be acceptable within the communities, because what is defined as normal farm practice would be provided for under the first

section of this bill, of course -- and that's clear for anybody who wishes to read it. One that we talk about is the applying of fertilizers, manure, pesticides and biological control agents, including by ground and aerial spraying. That's a farm operation. So what the minister is saying, in effect, is that if it is deemed to be a normal farm practice, and that normal farm practice is part of a farm operation in which there is the application of fertilizers, manure, pesticides, biological control agents, including by ground and aerial spraying, under

section 6 of this act, with this particular conduct of hearing -- which is covered under

section 7, which we're debating now; under

section 6, it would say under

section 6(a) -- those complaints must be dismissed. Well, the minister would know full well that the vast majority of complaints in areas where there are residential populations close to farm operations have to do with the aerial application of pesticides and the problems associated with that. This province has a Pesticide Control Act, which has the regulatory authority over the use of that, and has a hearing process that can hear legitimate complaints. What I guess we're confused about under

section 7 is: if you can determine by regulation what is normal and acceptable in the application of pesticides, why would you not simply have that hearing process handled under the existing Pesticide Control Act? It provides a far greater opportunity to ensure some kind of protection for those people with concerns for their children, for drinking water or for those other kinds of problems where the aerial application of pesticides is used.

One other thing that's interesting, in response to the minister's answer to the member for Prince George-Omineca, is that those farming operations adjacent to residential properties that are outside the ALR have no protection whatsoever under this bill. In fact, what this does is provide a two-tier system: one for those in the ALR, and one for those outside the ALR. The application of herbicides and pesticides will be okay for those in the ALR but will be subject to whatever municipal authorities may want to come in for those outside the ALR, and that is a significant number of farmers.

[ Page 15675 ]

Those are our concerns about

section 7 -- at least in part. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on them as I've put them to him.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If I could try to make it simple, the Pesticide Control Act would be predominant and provincewide. There's nothing in this act that would allow you to override the Pesticide Control Act.

[3:15]

The Chair: The Chair is going to recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, but before the Chair does, the Chair would like to make it clear to members that we are dealing with

section 7, which is the conduct of hearings. Debate should be focused on the contents of

section 7 and should not be wide-ranging. With that, the Chair now recognizes the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on

section 7 -- and specifically

section 7.

G. Wilson: I congratulate the Chair on the rigour that he's using to keep this debate to the section, because it makes it far more challenging for those of us that might try to broaden the debate.

Let me deal specifically with conduct, which is under

section 7. It comes back to what the minister has just responded to. Unfortunately, there is a provision with respect to the Pesticide Control Act -- which I've read and have read in cross-reference to this -- for an appeal process. In fact, it may indeed provide for a wide application in a region, an area. The application permit may be made for a relatively broad area and does not necessarily have to be farm-specific. The problem with that is that if you were fighting those applications....

If you look at the history and the record of the Pesticide Control Act, you will find that the application of pesticides is generally considered okay, even though there are many people, especially in residential communities, who don't think it's okay. The success rate of those who are trying not to have noxious pesticides applied aerially has not been very good. In fact, we know that this government condoned a widespread aerial spray to kill a few gypsy moths -- which they didn't find; nevertheless, there you go. We can see that we haven't had a great success rate.

Under

section 7 specifically, which talks about normal farm practice, this act can permit an activity to continue on an individual farm application if there has been a successful application through the Pesticide Control Act. It may be deemed to be noxious or harmful on a lot-specific or farm-specific basis with respect to downstream water users, elementary schools in the proximity and residential communities -- a whole host of reasons. The concern we have is that you've got a second hearing process that can dismiss an applicant outright under

section 7 based on the information in

section 6, if that is deemed to be a normal farm practice, even though the farmer may not have been directly involved in the application for a pesticide application. The use of that pesticide may have been covered in a broader, more regional application. The minister understands my concern. There are a lot of people that live adjacent to farms that have a concern.

The flip side to that coin is that if they're outside the ALR, then the farmer may have no protection, because this act will not apply. So we set up a double standard; we don't have the same law applying equally to both parties, and we've got two separate conduct-of-hearing processes -- one covered by a separate act from this one -- which is going to cause a lot of conflict.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A lot of people have been making their purchase decisions and decisions about development based on the agricultural land reserve that we have said is here to stay. It's there to protect and provide a resource for agriculture. I can't see, under this act, how somebody would get relief from another appeal procedure like that available under the Pesticide Control Act. A farmer can't get relief from a provincial regulation that is of a widespread nature. Nor can people use this act, when dealing with the governance of pesticide application, to harass a farmer because they didn't get what they wanted when they appealed to the proper body.

I say that the proper place to decide on pesticide application is through the Pesticide Control Act hearings. What this body will decide is whether or not the farmer is conducting a practice -- maybe it's spreading fertilizer.... If it's normal, that's fine. But it wouldn't be considered acceptable by virtue of rulings under the Pesticide Control Act.... This isn't going to protect the farmer, and it's not going to give somebody a second chance at harassing a legitimate farming operation if it has been the subject of a hearing under another piece of legislation -- the Waste Management Act or the Pesticide Control Act.

G. Wilson: Okay. I hear what the minister's saying; I don't agree. Perhaps we'll agree to disagree on that point. I think what this does is provide an opportunity for what is considered a normal farm practice to be provided an acceptable review within a committee that isn't necessarily even open to the public.

That becomes my next question under

section 7(5), where it talks about.... Well, let me read it. It says:

"...despite subsection (2)" -- which is where a hearing has to be open to the public and may be conducted in an informal manner -- "a panel of the board may exclude the public from a hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence if the panel considers that the desirability of avoiding disclosure of the evidence in order to protect the interest of any person, or to protect the public interest, outweighs the desirability of public disclosure."

That is mirrored exactly in the confidentiality regulations under the Pesticide Control Act with respect to the restriction of information. The concern is that if you've got a problem in that way, while you can't seize documents and gather evidence under the Pesticide Control Act for reasons that are deemed within this act, you're going to potentially have the same problem in coming at this if it's deemed a normal farm operation.

This hearing body can say: "In the interests of everybody, we're going to keep the public out, and we'll only hear evidence from those who may be applicants directly for the hearing or from the farmer." That gives no comfort to the public, and it won't give comfort to municipalities that may be trying to come up with some reasonable land use bylaws.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you'd find that any act that didn't have this could be challenged. This is a normal

section that goes in for freedom of information and privacy protection. A case will have to be made as to why the subject matter, the evidence, needs to be provided in a closed hearing. There's nothing to be served by protecting information, unless

[ Page 15676 ]

it's necessary. We would only envisage information that happened to be relevant to that business. In any event, relief could be sought by other laws in order to have that kind of protection and prevent the disclosure. I have to tell the member that this is no way around the Pesticide Control Act.

I really am confused by some of the words the member is wrapping this in. He's surmising that somebody who doesn't get their way under the Pesticide Control Act could then come to this one, and this will be closed, and there'll be a different kind of a hearing. Under this section, we will not hear the same subject matter as under the Pesticide Control Act, which that decides on the desirable process for applying pesticides. Here they will look at taking evidence from anybody who wants to argue about a farm practice.

Some farm practices, I have to say, are governed by other legislation -- for example, the Waste Management Act, where they would look at the noise that might be involved in conducting the farm practice if a noisy machine is used.

G. Wilson: I've only got a couple more questions on

section 7, because of the way this Chair is being so rigid in allowing me to go back to canvass sections that have passed at lightning speed.

Let me say that I don't think

section 7(4), the absence of a member, is in dispute. If you've got somebody who hasn't been participating in that discussion, they should be absented from making any kind of recommendation or decision. But I wonder about subsection (5). When it's decided whether a hearing is public or not, is that a decision of the board as a whole? Or is there likely to be some form of prior meeting to determine who can and cannot attend? Or is that a decision that has to be taken by this panel as a whole? Who has the power to decide if it's open to the public?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your question is the panel. The panel of the board will decide.

G. Wilson: Is that just by a simple majority of the vote or is it a unanimous decision or what?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The normal procedures of panels of this type would be by a majority decision.

G. Wilson: The conduct of these hearings under

section 7 of this act also applies to aquaculture operations, if I'm not mistaken. I wonder if the minister might want to tell us who, then, might be eligible to come forward with a complaint with respect to an aquaculture operation. Generally speaking, the hearing of complaints is dealt with under

section 6 and the complainant under

section 3 -- which we've already, I guess, canvassed to a degree; I don't know to what extent, but it's not very much. Given that we've established who can come forward.... Now, most aquaculture operations are in pretty isolated bays, some of them up the coast where there are limited or no residential communities there. But there may be a great many special interests who may have concerns -- commercial fishers, sport fishers and people who are involved in other forms of activity up in that area. Would the minister tell us how he envisages the conduct of hearings under

section 7 applying in respect to applications made by people in the aquaculture industry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because the definition of normal farm practices will require a mature view of the legislation and of what's feasible and desirable with respect to cultural practices, the panels will comprise people who are knowledgeable. This is not environmental legislation, so we're not giving standing to somebody who represents the fishes of the sea, for example. This is for a person who is affected, and this is designed for nuisance-type activities. So if someone is aggrieved, they would have standing. But we are not giving standing to surrogates of....

I don't think it is going to achieve what I think you have in mind. I would say environmental legislation, and things like the Fisheries Act and those other acts, are there to deal with environmental impacts per se.

G. Wilson: As I understand it, then, somebody who may have, say, a long-line oyster operation and who deems that a farm practice in an adjacent farm is detrimental or maybe causing concern to their long-line oyster operation -- that might be legitimate. Or somebody who lives close to a farm where there may be undue odour because of the hanging of nets to dry or because of -- I can think of dozens of different ways -- getting rid of the so-called slow swimmers, otherwise known as dead fish.... Those are kind of legitimate. But somebody who wants to advocate on behalf of seals, orcas and those kinds of things would not be given standing under this legislation. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your

interpretation is generally correct, although if a body or agency has decided there's a policy that governs a standard with respect to environmental impacts, you could conceivably have someone say this operation is not conducting a normal farm practice and therefore call a hearing under this and ask for an order to cease that practice. So as long as it's there.... The difficulty is going to come where we haven't analyzed the impact, and nobody has codified it or written it down.

We're not trying to be all things to all people, though we help if we can. It certainly gives the farmer a hearing if some other agency has interpreted and erred against the farmer in favour of the applicant. So if we keep in mind that it really has to do with people charging operations with nuisance, that's really.... It comes back to that. That's where the municipalities have been given superior powers under the Municipal Act to override normal farming activities.

[3:30]

L. Fox: With your indulgence.... I was actually, in my questioning earlier, on

section 6, because I didn't realize we'd passed it. Anyway, I just wanted to ask the minister to clarify my last question before the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast got up. I was asking the minister if he could provide me with, I guess, some level of comfort that there was some balance in this. The answer that the minister gave me is that if it's outside the ALR, the municipality will have the authority, and if it's inside the ALR, the province will have the ultimate authority.

That wasn't really the balance I was looking for. I was really concerned about the people involved, not the political jurisdictions. For the purposes of this discussion, I was only concerned with that which is covered under this legislation, which, of course, is within the ALR. So if the minister could assure me with a little more certainty that there is balance and

[ Page 15677 ]

fairness in that clause, that all values will be considered and that we will understand that further on in the regulations there will be more

definitions as to farm usage, which will provide municipalities with some clarity around that, then I would be satisfied.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, even outside the ALR we will help, because there are some municipalities that want agriculture to continue outside the ALR, and they have it within their powers to do that. Now, I know your concern is not with the farmers, because this talks about the rights of farmers. The rights of other people have to be exercised through the zoning process. The rights of others will be respected through the hearing process here. This hearing will receive balanced.... It will hear from all the parties affected and can contribute to it.

But I think the issue you raised, the one of a farmer changing his practices by developing a different type of operation -- for example, a feedlot where one didn't exist before.... The only way we can resolve that is by having the municipality initiate some zoning on the farm operations that says it's not acceptable to have certain kinds of intensive farming operations in that area. Then I would have to consider whether it is in the public's interest to have such constrictive zoning. But I'm saying that for existing problems, we won't be able to solve all of them through this legislation.

If this legislation weren't in place, and the municipality said, "We don't think there should be certain kinds of intensive agricultural operations in the ALR," then I would be in a position to say, "Well, I agree with that, because we've gone through a community planning process, and the municipality has agreed not to conduct certain kinds of operations -- for example, intensive housing developments -- right up against the ALR." The Land Commission has agreed with the ministry and the municipality that we will encourage extensive operations as opposed to intensive.

We will not be trying to encourage farmers to develop pig-farming operations, where they don't exist, right up against rural housing, for example.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, because we think that it cuts both ways. We think that the buffer has to go partway into the ALR and partway into the land adjoining the ALR. We expect the respective jurisdictions to zone for appropriate and compatible uses.

So that's my approach. It sounds balanced to me. This hearing process will decide if a particular farming operation is a normal farm practice. If they determine that it is, then the people next door may feel aggrieved. But the way it is now, if people complain through their municipalities about an operation in the ALR, they can have that operation shut down or legal action taken to stop it. What this legislation says is no, if it's a normal farm operation, you can't do that.

L. Fox: Just to follow up, the minister suggests that the municipality will have some authority to control the usages within that farm via zoning. That is somewhat of a concern to me. Firstly, I'm not sure that it's even possible to have different classifications of farming within zoning. Secondly, if that's the case, then we're defeating the purpose of this legislation. I really thought the purpose of this legislation was to give some certainty to a farmer that he's going to be able to carry on his or her traditional practice, even though they have been encroached on by growth.

I'm having difficulty understanding that rationale. But I guess we'll leave it at that. I'm sure that if I'm anywhere close to being right, we're going to find need for amendments here in the very near future to make this work.

I want to ask one specific question around subsection (5) in

section 7, and that is: could the minister give me some indication -- besides what I've heard him say -- about why they would have a need to consider behind closed doors evidence provided to the panel? It seems to me that some way of putting some discipline into the process is that if you're going to lay a charge or complaint or whatever, you do it in an open forum. Then you legitimize yourself, and you make sure of your points and facts and so on before you go before a panel.

But in this case, you would have the opportunity, as I read this clause, to go before a panel of the board in order to give evidence and require that that be done behind closed doors. That is a bit of a concern to me. Could the minister give me an idea as to what kinds of issues the panel would permit to be heard behind closed doors?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've been attempting to find an example here that might illustrate it. The general answer is proprietary issues. If there was a business plan, for example, the panel might be required to look at the person's business plan. That might involve scheduled investments or development of that farm, germane only to that business, with no public interest involved in it, and that might give panel members an idea of the evolution of the business in terms of its practices.

This is a normal kind of provision you'll find in much of the legislation, and it gives the panel the right to hold back information and not to have it disclosed where they could be countersued for allowing proprietary information out into the public domain.

L. Fox: I have problems accepting that as an example. Whether a business is viable or not, land use wouldn't be a consideration, in my view. What would be a consideration is whether that's the traditional use or a farm use -- that would be what's under consideration. As a farmer, whether my perceived usage of my land was profitable or not would have no bearing on the issue, from my perspective. It would be my farming rights on that piece of land that would be under discussion. So I can't accept the minister's rationale for that particular argument. I would have to hear something more specific on land use and farm use that would point out the need for this clause.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member would probably be the first to argue that there ought to be provision in the legislation to protect private information that is not germane to the public process. I could give you an example, and I'll try it, since I haven't considered trying to find any other way to get this information to you.

A business plan for a farm might contain land use information as well as the financial statements of the farm. That might be the chunk of information that is provided to illustrate the land use plan, and it might not be easy to sever the two. If the hearing decides that that's the only form in which they can consider the information because it's the most expeditious, they might take the information in that form and not exclude it, but not provide the evidence. In its findings, I'm sure the panel would say this is the land use information that

[ Page 15678 ]

has been provided, and if it can't be provided any other way, then they'll accept it in any way they can get it. I don't see this as a big problem. But if this provision isn't here, I can see situations where the panel might disclose information and then be subject to some kind of litigation by the party for having revealed private or proprietary information.

L. Fox: I'll make only one final attempt. I would say to the minister that if the entire proceedings were open, there wouldn't be any need for liability on behalf of the panel. It would have been held in an open forum, and that's where the municipality has to hold its discussions around land use. They have to be held in an open forum; they cannot be held behind closed doors. I don't understand the difference between that and this particular panel. Up to this point, the minister hasn't given me a viable argument as to why this panel should be able to hear a presentation behind closed doors.

I would tell the minister on this particular provision that if one of these panel members accidentally says something that he or she has heard in a closed meeting, then they would be open for liability, but if all the meetings were open, there would be no liability.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can make guidelines for regulations, and in considering the guidelines, we will consider the debate that takes place here. I'm just telling you that it is normal practice in legislation like this to provide for this to take place, should it be necessary. Of course, they'll have to justify it when they do this. They'll have to have some terms of reference against which they make a decision. But I go back to the point that I consider justifiable, and that is that if there is information the board needs to receive that is proprietary in nature, then they should have the legal protection not to have to disclose that.

J. van Dongen: Just to comment on something that the member for Prince George-Omineca said, I don't think that all meetings of municipal governments are open to the public -- certainly not in my area. I'd be interested in getting into some of them.

But with respect to

section 7(5), I guess the concern I have is that this

section not be misused, in the sense that it may be used to protect someone who truly is a bad actor. I don't think the public interest is served if -- through this legislation generally, or through this particular

section -- we protect someone who really has done some serious offences in terms of environmental concerns or that sort of thing. So I hope the panels use this

section very judiciously if it stays in the legislation.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just go back to the fact that we can establish procedural guidelines, but that we understand from legislative counsel that this wording is necessary here to protect against disclosure of proprietary information. I just rest on that principle.

M. de Jong: The minister is hearing the concerns of members when you recognize that one of the purposes of the legislation, to divert these matters away from the court toward nuisance actions.... A set of rules regarding disclosure and openness that heretofore existed is now being changed. There is a natural tendency for members to be suspicious of what the repercussions of that might be.

My question, also relating to

section 7.... However, I think we've heard all we're going hear from the minister on the previous issue of subsection (5). But one of things that doesn't exist here and has heretofore existed -- as a means of preventing frivolous or vexatious complaints being brought against the farming community, insofar as now they exist in the courts -- is the whole question of costs and the possibility that a complainant would be saddled at the end of the day with a hefty award against him or her by the courts.

My question is: are there provisions, or does the minister anticipate regulatory provisions being introduced, that would allow for the awarding of costs against complainants in certain circumstance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our purpose is to get around litigious procedures. I guess there can be some debate as to how this will proceed, but our intent is not to award costs. That would have to be in the legislation. We don't intend to put that in regulation.

M. de Jong: Does the minister recognize, though, that when a complaint is brought against a farmer, there will necessarily be costs incurred in, as it were, defending against that complaint? Depending upon the nature of the complaint that is brought, the cost of that defence could be significant.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is intended to be an inexpensive process, so.... It's always possible that somebody brings along an army of lawyers in this kind of procedure. But the panel will look at the fairness to the parties. The intent of the act is to get away from something that becomes quasi-judicial. With respect to that, then, I say that I hope the panel would conduct itself in a way that does not give advantage to someone who wants to incur extraordinary costs.

We're going to attempt to provide information on practices in government, and any other agency that can comment on this, so that the information is there in user-friendly form. There's a fair hearing. At the end of the day a decision is made. It's not an overly complicated process.

M. de Jong: I'm sure that farmers welcome those sorts of comments and presumably will hope that they come true. But one of the sections we're about to get to -- and I relate it to the discussion we're having now -- is the possibility that is created, pursuant to

section 12 of the Offence Act, that as a result of a hearing an order is made, and that subsequent contravention of that order will carry with it the possibility of fines in the range of $2,000, or six months' incarceration. I think the minister has to recognize that the stakes can be quite high for a participant, a member of the farming community, in this process. There is going to be incentive there to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that farmer's point of view carries the day.

With that in his or her mind, I think it's not unrealistic to assume that they are going to incur significant costs -- plus the consideration that they could, in a sense, be fighting to sustain their livelihood. They will be taking these complaints very seriously.

The minister will say: "Well, we want this to be a simple process." I think that's great, that's wonderful. But a person confronted with the complaint is going to ask themselves: "What can I do, what lengths can I go to, to ensure that at the end of this hearing my point of view carries the day?" I think there's going to be costs involved in that, and a farmer confronted with two or three complaints over the span of a year or so is going to have to bear that cost.

[ Page 15679 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is provision for fees to stop against nuisance. There should be a deterrent from frivolous applications.

As it stands now, if somebody complains against the farmer and gets the municipality, for example, to take a nuisance action, the farmer is in the court system defending himself or herself in a very expensive process. This will give a first line of defence that's much cheaper than the court system. I think farmers, on balance, are going to have their interests protected much better because of this legislation.

C. Serwa: It's rather interesting to see a piece of legislation which I think we all agree with the philosophy and principles of. But when we get into the actual section-by-section debate, we see what I believe is considerable weakness in the legislation. While the intent is very good, it doesn't appear to satisfy the job or provide the means toward the end.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions with reference to the minister's comments on this particular section. The first question I want to ask is in relation to buffer zones. The minister was talking about buffer zones and indicated that the agricultural land would have to serve as a portion of the buffer zone. If he said that, then am I to presume that there would be no farming on that agricultural land? Is that correct? On the other part, say the non-agricultural land, which is perhaps subject to development, there would then have to be a buffer zone. It's sort of a no man's land that would be part on agricultural land and part on non-agricultural land. Is that what the minister said?

The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the minister, the Chair would like to remind the hon. member that we are dealing with

section 7, which is the "Conduct of hearings," and nowhere does the Chair read "buffer zones." I would ask the member to bear that in mind in future. With that, I shall go to the minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's only by the Chair allowing latitude for the minister in the previous debate that we're even into this.

Can I just say this: buffer zones ought to be, should be and can be provided for by this legislation -- by getting municipal zoning to provide for buffers. There's a lot of work to be done, but there are lots of ways in which farming activities can be affected -- for example, setbacks of buildings. A municipality might want to set the building back 50 feet from the ALR. Or within the ALR, we might encourage zoning that will allow only certain kinds of farming operations. We can't take away from the substantial use being farming, but you may encourage or discourage certain kinds of activities on the buffer.

You might encourage the pig barn to be at the far side of the property and the hay fields on the buffer side. It's only that kind of thing that we deal with through zoning.

C. Serwa: I don't know of any other

section of the legislation in which I can ask these questions, and the questions that I have are relevant to the act. Unless the Chair can advise me under what subsequent

section I could ask these questions, I would like to pursue these questions for a few minutes.

The Chair: I think

section 17 is the appropriate

section for those questions.

C. Serwa: Thank you, hon. Chair, for that type of latitude. I suppose I'm really concerned with the concept of the buffer zone, either on the ALR side or on the non-ALR side, and I'll tell you why. First of all, if we look at a buffer zone required on the non-ALR side, we already recognize that the developer has to provide 5 percent of that land area for parks. Legislation recently passed in this Legislature demands another 5 percent of land area for school site acquisition. Now we're talking about taking more land for buffer zones.

It seems to me that if an individual buys land adjacent to agricultural land it is really important that they do so with a wide-open understanding and awareness that there are agriculture practices. The standard is "let the buyer beware." It seems to me that if we're talking about buffer zones, perhaps we're not fully appreciating the rights of a purchaser to buy something adjacent, and I don't see that there should be any conflict once that is established. I just make that observation as a concern to the minister, for his acknowledgment.

The other concern I have with this particular

section is some of the complexities that run into this matter. It has to do with the conduct of hearings. In Abbotsford, for example, they derive their water supplies from the groundwater table -- from aquifers. Farm practice standards can be complied with by all farmers, not simply.... The problem is not just some bad actors. The fact is that there is a great deal of high-density farming that goes on in that particular area, and the sum total of all of this amounts to nitrates percolating down into the groundwater and causing a great deal of concern.

There is no legislation from the Ministry of Environment protecting groundwater supplies. The municipality would like to come in with some bylaws....

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, it's a fascinating discussion, but it's not second reading debate. We're on a specific

section which we've belaboured now for over an hour, and the member's comments have nothing whatsoever to do with the particular

section we're debating, as fascinating as they are.

The Chair: I would advise the hon. member for Okanagan West that

section 7 does, as I pointed out, deal with the conduct of hearings. His remarks would probably be more appropriate under

section 17, if the member would bear that in mind.

C. Serwa: Your advice is well taken. In spite of the right philosophy and principles in this act, the intent was to show some of the complexity in trying to bring it forward.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

R. Chisholm: In this section, I would like to hear the minister's view on utilizing the Marketing Board. Considering the workload that these people already have, utilizing them as part of this committee is just adding to that workload. I'm just wondering if they have the time and energy to be able to be responsible for this endeavour.

Another area we have to take a look at with these marketing boards is that not all people on the Marketing Board have agricultural experience. What is going to ensure that the people on the Marketing Board will have experience that sit on

[ Page 15680 ]

this board? Or would it be more advisable to use the staff of the B.C. Marketing Board instead of the Marketing Board itself? I'd just like to hear the minister's thoughts on this particular issue, because I believe they are going to be overtasked. I'm not saying that they're not capable, but they are definitely overtasked. A lot of the people on that board are not necessarily of an agricultural background and may not be able to make the proper or appropriate decisions on farm practices. Maybe we could hear a few of the minister's comments on this particular issue.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is the reason we can provide for up to ten more members of the B.C. Marketing Board, who will then be available as the pool from which we can call panels. A good number of the people on the B.C. Marketing Board have farm backgrounds, but there are considerations other than farming. As I said in previous debate, we need some balance there. The Farm Practices Board will have to consider the needs and interests of the people who are appealing, and they may not be farmers; they probably won't be farmers. It's my intention to appoint people with rounded backgrounds.

For example, I think the municipalities ought to have somebody there who's experienced in zoning that affects agriculture. Similarly, there are sectors that aren't represented on the B.C. Marketing Board that could probably benefit from being appointed. We have to have rounded sectors and interests in this group of people who will comprise the Farm Practices Board.

[4:00]

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I'm very pleased to introduce a class from Ecole Andre Piolat in North Vancouver. In fact, it's very close to my friend the member for North Vancouver-Seymour's home. They're accompanied by several adults and their teacher Mme. Josee Paquet. Would the House please make them welcome. I would add that they asked some very excellent questions outside -- happily, none of them in French, so I was able to at least answer a few of them. Welcome to you all.

R. Chisholm: The second part of that question was the number of tasks this board already has and whether they are being overtasked at this point. After all, if you go down to

section 9(2), for instance, it says: "The chair of the British Columbia Marketing Board is also the chair of the Farm Practices Board," and so on and so forth. This board, as we all know, works very hard, and they all have lives other than the B.C. Marketing Board itself. They are tasked now to their limit, and I'm just wondering if they're not being overtasked with this addition. The minister didn't comment; that was a portion of my previous question. Maybe he could give us his observations on that particular point.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By way of background, let me say that these members on the B.C. Marketing Board are not full-time now. I said that we will appoint up to ten additional members, which means there is a larger pool from which we can draw. To give an example, a board in Ontario that's been functioning for several years holds ten to 15 complaints per year. We don't expect that this is going to be a huge workload.

R. Chisholm: I'm not going to get into a debate on whether these people are fully occupied or not, but I know they do work rather hard and have extended hours, and I think this might be just a bit too much. But you do have this other portion where you can appoint ten other members, and maybe that will help alleviate this particular situation.

Another area, though, with the B.C. Marketing Board -- not so much in the workload area -- is that this board develops policy and it administers and judges. For some strange reason, I find that there may be a bit of conflict of interest here: you have this board that produces policy, administers policy and judges on policy, all within the same group. I think that for some strange reason, this seems to be a conflict of interest in this particular area.

Maybe if they got out of the policy part of it and gave that back to the policy branch in Victoria, for instance, it would be more feasible and we wouldn't have that conflict. But right now, the way it stands, there seems to be a conflict of interest in the duties of this board. They're going to be sitting there as judge and jury on these cases which they have developed policy for, or may have helped develop policy for. Maybe the minister would like to make a comment on that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't anticipate that the Farm Practices Board will develop policy. The policies will be there. Standards will be decided upon by regulation or by some other process outside government. There may be a non-governmental organization that has developed a set of standards that could then be used. I don't see that there's a conflict here. This Farm Practices Board will work as the B.C. Marketing Board does. They deal with appeals all the time. This is about due process. Appeal procedures is their expertise, and that's why they were chosen.

The Marketing Board hears appeals; they're in the business of hearing appeals. That's the main reason we chose them, and they do have a small organization there that can support this without creating a new bureaucracy.

When the Marketing Board people have their Farm Practices Board hats on, they will be acting only on farm practices issues. I don't see any relationship between the farm practices that will come before them as board members and any of the other policy development, adjudication, rule-making, enforcement or appeal functions under the farm marketing act.

J. van Dongen: I wanted to raise a thought and a comment with respect to

section 9(1)(b), and also to connect with

section 5(

b) with respect to that. I want to apologize to the minister and his staff for not raising this sooner, but it seems to me that we're looking at up to ten additional members because the members on the panels have to be members of the board. I'm wondering, given the great diversity of commodities within B.C. -- and, possibly, geographic locations for the panels, because I assume that the panels would be held somewhere close to where the farmer operates.... Certainly, if I look at the B.C. Farm Debt Review Board model, we had a provision whereby members of the board actually chaired the

[ Page 15681 ]

panels but had the discretion to select panel members who had an expertise regarding a commodity or were available. But it gave more flexibility in terms of matching qualified people with a particular panel.

I'm wondering if the minister might consider looking at that approach, because I think it would give flexibility. It would probably enable you to get the best possible person for a particular panel, and it would probably save time and travel costs if you had a panel at a remote location, so I just want to make that suggestion.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is lots of flexibility. If it became germane to any particular hearing that you had to have someone who was familiar with a particular commodity group and that person wasn't available from the pool, then the minister can always name new members, take members off, or whatever; it could be a rolling list. But bear in mind that we would expect the commodity-relevant information to be most germane during the peer review. We always anticipate a peer review as the first step.

The commodity groups would have to be represented there, because it would be a member of that commodity group's peers who would make the first recommendation. So all that information that would be provided then is available for the hearing. What we're concerned about here is making sure that there's a fair hearing for both parties, and that it's not stacked in favour of the commodity interest represented by the defendant, the appellant or whoever.

J. van Dongen: I guess I was just thinking in terms of flexibility for costs of travel, etc. I know what you're trying to do, and I support it fully. But sometimes you may be looking at just a onetime involvement in a panel. You may not consider it necessary to have them on the board in the future. But I think we understand each other on it -- the need for flexibility. Maybe we see getting there in different ways.

Just one other comment with respect to

section 9(2). I understand and support what the minister is trying to do in terms of economizing on bureaucracy, obviously. But I think that 9(3) probably should be somewhat stronger in terms of designating a vice-chair for the farm practices side of the operation. I do agree, under 9(2), that the chair of the Marketing Board, who ultimately has responsibility for administration and the staff of the Marketing Board, should also be the chair of the Farm Practices Board. But I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have a stronger provision. In 9(3) it talks about designating a vice-chair of the Farm Practices Board.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think administrative convenience may here determine what we're going to do. We intend to designate one or two vice-chairs. I would anticipate that it's more efficient to have one chair, since under the legislation the administration of appeals would be done under the purview of the chair. If the chair isn't there, the vice-chair can do it. He may, as a matter of practice, decide that he wants all the appeals handled by a vice-chair and is therefore not available. He may do it that way; we could encourage that.

The key here is that we have some consistency and some ability to move quickly, and that shouldn't be encumbered by the business of the chair, who's handling other things under the Natural Products Marketing Act.

So I anticipate that one or more vice-chairs will handle this issue. Initially, I think we would get at least one vice-chair who would take responsibility for most of the work here. That's how I anticipate it will happen.

C. Serwa: I don't doubt your word, for example, on the adjudication experience of the B.C. Marketing Board. If you indicate that they have that experience, so be it. But why are they also being chosen to establish farm practices? That's my specific concern.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They won't be chosen to establish farm practices; they will be there to interpret the farm practices. If we're looking at standards that need to be provincewide, they'll be developed as policy of the relevant agencies. All that these people are going to do is adjudicate whether or not the practices they see presented match up with the standards that have been set.

C. Serwa: There was an indication -- perhaps it's in further sections -- that part of the duties of the board are with respect to re-evaluating farm practice standards. It appears to me that this was a dual role, and that gives me some concern. If the farm practices are going to be established, for example, in concert with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture or widely spread through diverse agricultural interests in the province and perhaps through the Ministry of Agriculture, then I take a great deal more comfort in this particular section.

But if the B.C. Marketing Board is going to be responsible for setting or establishing farm practices along with their adjudication -- or hearing -- capability, then this

section gives me a great deal of concern. Could the minister just clarify that the farm practices standards will not be set by the B.C. Marketing Board or this Farm Practices Board?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wanted to make sure my understanding was the same as that of my officials. We don't expect them to set the farm practices. It's not their job to establish the farm practices. But it is possible, if farm practices are not standardized in an area, that you could ask them to contribute from their experience; they might want to contribute to the establishment. For example, model bylaws will be developed, as they are now, by the Agricultural Land Commission, the ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs working with municipalities. There will become a standard....

With respect to farm practices, the environmental organizations out there -- the so-called Agricultural Environmental Protection Council, AEPC -- will continue to establish practices; there's no need for this panel to do that. Their job is as a level of appeal. They aren't going to set the standards and then hear appeals about those standards; they'll have to take existing standards. If they don't exist, then they may point to the need for such a standard to be developed by the appropriate authority, but they're not the appropriate authority.

C. Serwa: A final question on this.... If standards are not set, perhaps it should be made clear, perhaps through regulation, that they are to be set in concert with broad consultation or perhaps with the farm group or organization that is fundamentally responsible for that area of agriculture. I sincerely question the wisdom of enabling the Farm Practices Board to fill a vacuum, because I suggest that if it appears, the vacuum will be filled continually by the board, which is not the minister's intent.

[4:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to note the wide range of discussion under this section.

[ Page 15682 ]

We expect that the farm practices they would measure would not be farm practices that they set but would be the normal customs and standards as established and followed by similar farm businesses under similar circumstances. I refer you to the definition

section on that. They will have to take what is available. If there is something wanting in a standard, then it would probably be up to the ministry to try to encourage that to be established so they can carry out their work.

R. Chisholm: My last observation or suggestion to the minister is on the British Columbia marketing boards. They do develop policy. The problem is that there is a conflict of interest; it's a conflict of interest that is seen by the farmers beyond these walls. You can hardly sit in judgment and come up with dispute settlements on policies when you are one of the arms developing them. There is a perceived conflict of interest in the agricultural community. I've heard this over and over again from various organizations within the community; they definitely see this as a conflict of interest.

I'd just like to hear the last observations from the minister on this, and I will drop this particular subject. I do believe that you should be utilizing some other arm for this. You're going to have problems in the future because of that perception.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is probably referring to concerns about administrative policy being developed by the marketing boards under the Natural Products Marketing Act. For the purposes of farm practices, they will not develop that kind of policy. I don't understand the.... They may develop some procedures for appeals. I just don't understand the concern. Not a single farmer has argued about this legislation by saying that they're concerned that the Farm Practices Board will develop policy.

It may be a hangover from the concern they have under the Natural Products Marketing Act and the way in which policy is set under that act. Under that act, the ministry sets policy. You can always make the argument that the

interpretation of policy is policy-making. Well, make that argument, but it's not really germane here. If it becomes a problem, then we'll make sure that the appropriate body establishes a policy.

G. Wilson: Very briefly, the reason the questions from the member for Chilliwack are pertinent is that if you look at the configuration of the board under

section 9(1) and then understand what you're granting it in terms of its responsibilities under

section 11(2), quite clearly, people read this and they say: "If this board, under its own initiative, may make recommendations concerning any matter relating to farm practices, that is a wide empowerment that this board -- largely directed by the B.C. Marketing Board with the ten ministerially appointed members -- can start to make with respect to what constitutes procedures under this act and to how this act may be interpreting what is considered a normal farming practice in British Columbia." Those are matters that I think they would have some legitimate concerns about.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that most of the debate we're talking about here should be conducted under

section 11, where we deal with recommendations. If you tell me you're going to allow

section 7 through, I'll answer the question here, but let me just.... I don't want to avoid the issue, but the people we will appoint under this

section have the power to make recommendations -- but only recommendations -- to the minister about farm practices.

G. Wilson: I guess I'm just a little gun-shy. At the speed we go through them, if you can't ask the question on

section 9, by the time you get in, we've passed it, plus the title. Unfortunately, I had to step out to respond to a couple of phone calls.

Could the minister mention whether the question regarding the selection of the B.C. Marketing Board was asked, and whether he answered the question as to why that was done? If he has, I'll just yield to the answer in Hansard.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: So the minister is saying that it's answered. Is that what I'm hearing?

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

R. Chisholm: I have a bit of a problem with subsection 11(2), and I'll read it to you: "On the board's own initiative or at the request of the municipality or regional district, or of a trust council under the Islands Trust Act, the board may study, report on, and make recommendations concerning, any matter related to farm practices." It seems to me that this would allow the board to go on an awful lot of fishing expeditions. Maybe the minister can elaborate further on this and on what is going to control the board from being out on wild goose chases all over the map.

Maybe he can just elaborate a bit more on this subparagraph. It seems be give wide-ranging powers to the board at this point. What controls are there to ensure that there aren't fishing expeditions going on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They'll be too busy for fishing or wild goose chases. The member knows and has asserted in previous debates that these members are already heavily tasked. I don't expect they'll have the time, the budget or the guidelines to allow them to go on fishing expeditions or wild goose hunts. But I do expect them to comment on anything that is lacking, in terms of them doing their job. If they can't comment because there are no standards in an industry and somebody is appealing these standards, then I fully expect they'll make some recommendations concerning the matters.

If they have information that has been presented and they can wrap up a recommendation to me, then I'll be glad to have it. If they simply state that there must be some standard in this particular area of operation, then we will have to undertake to do it with the resources that we have. This is not asking these people to do the impossible, and we don't expect them to be a wide-ranging, completely unfocused board. They will have to be focused.

R. Chisholm: The industry itself is concerned about this. With the different lobby groups and organizations, it could very well happen that way. The question really is: what checks and balances are there to ensure...? If you go back to

section 9, you've stated you have these ten extra people who will have all sorts of time to be on this board and be able to do these types of tasks. And under

section 9, of course, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can authorize the funding. What is there to stop the fishing expeditions that I'm talking about? That's what the industry is asking. Where are the checks and balances? Right now they could do just about

[ Page 15683 ]

anything, when you take a look at

section 11(2). Those are the assurances that the industry is looking for. What is there in this bill to make sure that the fishing expeditions don't go on?

Section 9 allows it, and you've already stated that of those ten people you can appoint, you've got extra people there who are not busy.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to point out that the legislation is about protecting the right to farm. The minister, under

section 12, can cause the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations concerning the way in which their practices are governed, and I refer to subsections 12(2)(c)(

i) and (ii).

I don't know what you mean by checks and balances. I think right now the point has to be made that farmers are on the downside of any action brought by a municipality or somebody under the Municipal Act. This will allow them to give a line of defence, first of all, at a hearing of peers and then, secondly, at the Farm Practices Board. They can make the argument that they are conducting normal farm practices. I don't see the need for any more checks and balances. Ultimately, if this board conduct themselves in a way that is not intended, somebody can go and have a judicial review of their particular operation.

R. Chisholm: I think you answered the question this time. We're not allowed to talk about

section 12; by you bringing the regulations into it, you've now clarified how you'll do this. That's one of the unfortunate ways in which we govern ourselves. We're only allowed to talk about

section 11. You've now clarified that regulations will take care of the problem.

C. Serwa: Why did the minister not consider some other organization -- for example, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture -- to be involved with the formulation of farm practices, perhaps along with staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, and leave the B.C. Marketing Board out of that particular area? It seems to me that the concerns of the member for Chilliwack and the farming community would be served more readily if the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, which is far more representative of agriculture in the province, had a major role to play in this.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Again, we're straying a bit. If the Chair allows me to stray, I will.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture doesn't represent the cattlemen or members of the horticultural coalition. There are a large number of organizations not represented by the federation. Were it totally representative, we could actually have asked them to contract out this function. But we have to bear in mind that public confidence is required here and that we will, in the public interest, protect normal farming operations. It's the broad public interest that also has to be served. For example, I have committed that somebody nominated by the UBCM could be considered, and they don't represent farmers.

And there's nobody in any of those who represents the aquaculture industry; I don't think the aquaculture industry's members are there. There is a broader interest here that has to be served. This particular marketing board agency was chosen simply because of their experience with appeal procedures and due process, and because we want to try to find ways of keeping these things out of the courts so as not to incur costs for the appellant or the defendant.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

G. Wilson: I think it's unfortunate that.... Well, let me come back and address this in a more positive frame. The business of putting in these regulations really is at the heart and soul of whether or not this is going to work, certainly in the opinion of the Alliance. I would argue that whatever the standards are with respect to normal farm practices, how those farm operations are going to be conducted.... And I note, interestingly enough, in the consequential amendments to this, that it modifies the Municipal Act to that effect. So it's going to start to affect municipal bylaws. It's going to be able to affect the potential operation of what is a normal land use practice for farmers.

The member for Prince George-Omineca raised very valid concerns with respect a normal farm practice on land other than that in the agricultural land reserve. Now, I can tell you that I have some firsthand experience with living in a municipality and running a farm operation that was not in the agricultural land reserve but that was then governed by land use regulation, which was essentially a bylaw affecting a piggery. That was a wonderful training ground, I'd have to say just by way of a digression, for this particular profession I'm now in.

Nevertheless, interestingly enough, that bylaw greatly restricted the operation I was involved in, because it defined the number of sows and the number of hogs you were allowed at any given time, and the age, whether they were weaner hogs, whether they were market weight, and so on.

In these regulations -- and this is my question to you -- a normal farm practice that may be provided for on agricultural land may be deemed by a municipality as not valid under a municipal bylaw. I need to know from the minister whether these regulations are going to specify a normal farm practice on agricultural land, as opposed to a hobby farm operation, which many, many people are involved in, keeping livestock to one degree or another. The minister might argue that it's a matter of scale. I argue, and I think the member for Prince George-Omineca was rightly arguing, that in fact it's more than that.

It's a question of legal jurisdiction over constraints on your operation, whether it's municipal or strictly run within the regulatory authority of this act and therefore the province. It's going to affect a lot of British Columbians who are part-time farmers and who see themselves as having a potential income off that operation.

[4:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can respond by saying that presently it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs who governs the size -- the number of animals, the acreage and so on that's required for the number of head you carry. That doesn't protect the farmers, because it allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by approving a bylaw of the municipality, to intervene with a normal farm practice. It can be so restrictive as to constitute an onerous restriction that won't allow them to farm normally in that area.

I just have to say that it's explicitly for the reason that municipalities can constrict operations that we have given over, through the consequential amendments, the right to the Minister of Agriculture to approve that bylaw or not. But we fully intend that those issues should be decided at the point

[ Page 15684 ]

where the official community plan is adopted and revised, and at such time as the bylaws affecting farming are revised under this act. They have three years from the point that we set some standards. We'll set standards for small piggeries, for example, so that should the municipality want to incorporate those in their bylaw, they'll be able to do that.

Once we've reviewed that, at least we're looking at the purpose. If the intent of the municipality is to exclude farming, then I will know that and be able to judge and make a decision accordingly. If it looks like it's encouraging a good practice in that location, because of the size of the lands in the zoning and the types of soils, etc., then we may allow for restricted farm practices in some areas, especially close to the built-up areas in buffer zones.

G. Wilson: I like what I heard the minister saying.

This is really the last area of concern I have with respect to this committee stage. Under

section 12.2 it says: "Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations...(

b) respecting standards for the purpose of the definition of 'normal farm practice'...." If the regulations of the government are intended to be more consistent provincewide and less piecemeal, based on the whims of any given council at any given time by a bylaw, then I would understand more clearly why

section 15, which is a consequential amendment of the Municipal Act, strikes out "977" -- which essentially deals with the intensive farming

section of the Municipal Act -- and substitutes the farm bylaw section. So what I was reading to be less consistent -- less permissive -- in this instance becomes, in fact, more consistent and indeed more permissive for those existing operations. Is that right?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member is absolutely correct. We expect more consistency across the province by virtue of this act.

J. van Dongen: With respect to

section 12(1) -- "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act" -- we had a lawyer who has an interest in representing farmers look at this. One of the issues he raised was that

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act gives the power to make regulations which are subject to provisions of the Offence Act; that if someone breached those regulations, they may be subject to a fine of up to $2,000 -- this sort of thing. I'm wondering if the minister could clarify whether or not there is any intent that this process could trigger some kind of fine or penalty.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Clearly it's our intent not to have to do that, but if we needed to, there is a provision here. We have to have some enforcement provision in here. But we fully expect that an order from the Farm Practices Board will allow continuation of a practice, or, if somebody is off-board with the practice, an order will be sent out. If somebody doesn't follow the order, my understanding is that we have to have some ability to back it up.

J. van Dongen: I just want to pose a specific example and see if it would be covered by this legislation. I pose the question under 12(3). It was just a couple of weeks ago that I was going down the freeway, and, as the minister probably knows, in Abbotsford the weather had been very dry for a long time. A farmer was out in Sumas Prairie culti-packing a very dry field to the extent that there was a massive amount of dust being generated. This dust was sifting over the freeway. I'm wondering, if there had been an accident on the freeway because of the dust, what would be the implications of this act for that situation? Would the farmer be protected in that situation from a lawsuit?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This act won't stop somebody from being prosecuted under another act. If the Motor Vehicle Act or the Criminal Code prohibits certain kinds of activities, they can't be absolved of responsibility.

But in the case of the dust, I expect that if somebody had challenged that as a practice and felt aggrieved by that -- other than if there was an accident, for example -- and this board said that that's a normal farming practice because that's the best practice, and they have to do it when there's no rain and with that kind of machinery, and it's in the interests of farming and soil conservation, etc., then I would expect that if during some kind of criminal or Motor Vehicle Act prosecution they could offer as a defence that they were only conducting normal farm practices, and they said, "By the way, it isn't just my opinion; the Farm Practices Board has said that is a normal farming practice," then the judge hearing the case would have to take that as some kind of evidence.

I think it should help. I would expect that there's going to be a body of administrative law built up around the Farm Practices Board that would give comfort to farmers.

J. van Dongen: I think the minister is probably correct in his answer, and I hope he's right that it will help in that area. But it was a real, live example, which I think could have some serious implications. When I thought about it, there was really nothing else that farmer could do. He was getting that field ready to plant peas, there was a certain point in the

schedule and there's nothing that I could think of that he could do.

There's another, similar example that occured to me and that we may want to think about. If a farmer is travelling out of a field, onto a road and off the road again, and he drags some mud onto the road and a car comes along, let's say, and has an accident, and someone suggests that the mud on the road had something to do with it, then that's another sort of example where we may have this kind of question. I think it's something to think about when the minister is defining normal farm practice, because I think there are some pretty interesting legal implications there, too.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the Motor Vehicle Act would be predominant in this case, unless -- again -- there was no other way to practise your farming but that you would have mud on the wheels, and there's no other way to move your machinery but on the public highway. I think that could be used as evidence if it has been determined that it was a normal farm practice. Again, the judge would have to weigh that in the balancing of his decision. But we're not protecting farmers here with some protection they can't get some other way, through this legislation. They would still be subject to some of these....

This won't do everything every farmer would like it to do in the cases of other things that are there to govern the public interest. It won't override a public interest.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

section 14.

[ Page 15685 ]

F. Gingell: The extent or location of highways and highway allowances can not only unreasonably or unnecessarily increase access to land in an agricultural land reserve, but also restrict, and I'd like to give you an example. The road that is planned to follow the railway line from Roberts Bank, now that they're building a new terminal at Roberts Bank, goes to the Delta agricultural farmlands. That railway actually bisects some farms, which isn't a problem at the moment, because they've just put in crossings and they're relatively simple.

But when the Roberts Bank road is extended, it's going to cut right through these farms. I appreciate that the province owns all this land, but it is land that is being farmed by the historical owners of the land, from whom you expropriated it and who you should perhaps consider allowing to buy it back. But I appreciate that that's not the issue here.

I was wondering whether the issue of restriction of access should be brought into this

section by adding it after the word "increase" -- "increase or restrict." There are other examples: the farmlands that sit between River Road West and Highway 17, in that triangle of land between the river and Highway 17, on the west side as you come down through the Deas Island Tunnel. The only access is onto a divided highway that's going in the wrong direction for them. I was wondering whether the minister would consider expanding the definition in subparagraph (xi) to include restrictions as well as increased access.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The easy answer is that it isn't in the powers of the approving officer to deal with controlled access. I'm advised that it would be out of line for this particular section. What I propose to do here is move the amendment to

section 14 that's standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 14, by deleting the proposed subparagraphs (

x) and (xi) and substituting the following:

(

x) the anticipated development of the subdivision would unreasonably interfere with farming operations on adjoining or reasonably adjacent properties, due to inadequate buffering or separation of the development from the farm; or

(xi) despite subparagraph (ix), the extent or location of highways and highway allowances shown on the plan is such that it would unreasonably or unnecessarily increase access to land in an agricultural land reserve.]

This amendment is to address concerns raised by municipal and provincial subdivision approving officers that the provision may not be clearly understood by those officers as they fulfil their responsibilities under the Land Title Act. These changes were suggested by them and make the provision clear.

[4:45]

In subparagraph (x), the additional words at the end clarify what the approving officer should be looking for as a means of mitigating adverse impacts of a new subdivision on existing farms. For example, perimeter fencing around acreages and open-range areas will eliminate the potential for complaints about animals wandering into gardens. In more urban areas, landscaping or additional setbacks may be needed.

In subparagraph (xi), the words at the beginning clarify that the approving officer can disregard the practicality of future subdivision of adjacent farmland that is a requirement of subparagraph (ix).

On the amendment.

C. Serwa: I have several questions on the amendment. Perhaps the minister could give me several examples of a situation where the anticipated development of a subdivision would unreasonably interfere with farming operations? It's not clear to me how this development would interfere with farming operations.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One example might be the approval of a subdivision of five-, two- or one-acre lots in an area in open range. It does then create an opportunity for cattle to move onto those lots. It could easily be achieved at the time of subdivision that fencing be required, with cattle guards at the entrance and exit to the subdivision. Once the fence is up, it's easy for the people who have the adjoining lots to keep that chunk of fence up, rather than go through the cost of sorting out the fencing requirements later on. So you have the common area of the subdivision all fenced with one fence.

Another example might be that the requirements of access for lands beyond migh