1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, APRIL 27, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5225 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Environment Management Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading –– 5225

Oral Questions

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 5225

Health of Minister of Tourism. Mr. Hall –– 5225

Ocean Falls Corporation. Mr. Lockstead –– 5225

Mr. Barrett –– 5226

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 13: field operations –– 5227

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 14: economics and marketing services –– 5229

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 15: financial assistance program –– 5230

Mrs. Wallace

Division on an amendment

On vote [6: information services –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

Division on an amendment

On vote 17: Milk Board –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 18: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission –– 5232

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 19: ICBC-senior citizens' grant –– 5234

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

On vote 20: building occupancy charges –– 5237

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 20 –– 5237

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 21: computer and consulting charges –– 5238

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 21 –– 5238

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Lea

Division on the amendment

Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act (Bill 9). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5241

Mr. Hall –– 5241

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5242

Second reading –– 5242

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 2). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5242

Mr. Macdonald –– 5242

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5243

Second reading –– 5243

Company Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 3). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5243

Mr. Levi –– 5243

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5244

Second reading –– 5244

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5244

Mr. Levi –– 5245

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 5246

Second reading –– 5246

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we

have in the gallery today Mr. Jerry Kebe of Radium Hot Springs, B.C.

I'd like the members to join me in welcoming him to the Legislature.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today another group of school

children from beautiful North Vancouver–Capilano. They are 25 students

from Hamilton Junior Secondary School. With them are 25 students from

la belle province de Quebec, from Cardinal Roy School in Quebec City.

The students from North Vancouver are under the guidance of Mr. Evan

Stephens and Mrs. Alma McDougall. The students from Quebec are under

the guidance of Mr. R. Robichaud and Mr. J. Maleux. I would ask this

House to welcome them to Victoria and to British Columbia.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Betty Ann Haglund from

Cranbrook, along with her friend Shastin Hellberg, who is visiting from

Sweden. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

Also

in the gallery this afternoon is Ruth Mitchell-Banks from the Creston

Arts Council and Alderman Meta Beduz of Creston. I'd like the House to

give them a warm welcome this afternoon also.

MR. GABELMANN:

In the Legislature today visiting with us is a group from Campbell

River representing sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, the council

of Campbell River, the Comox-Strathcona Regional District, the chamber

of commerce, and just about every group in Campbell River. They are

down here today to attempt to meet with the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Rogers) about the Quinsam coal project.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr.

Ford Warner, accompanied by Mrs. John Alexander of Santa Barbara,

California.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to ask the House to recognize a visitor and also to recognize a very

special week. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell you that in

your gallery today is Professor Gayle Gilchrist James, the

vice-president of the International Federation of Social Workers. Mrs.

James is from Edmonton, Alberta, and I would like to ask the House to

give her a very warm welcome.

I would also like to draw the

House's attention to a very special week that recognizes some very

special people, and that is the volunteers of British Columbia. This is

Volunteer Recognition Week, recognizing that one out of every four

British Columbians give themselves in volunteer service.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT

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

a bill intituled Environment Management Act.

Bill

22 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

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Minister of Labour. The National Council of

Welfare report entitled "The Working Poor" reveals that families cannot

earn enough at the minimum wage in order to escape poverty. For

example, the poverty gap for a couple with one child and only one

earner working at the minimum wage in Vancouver in 1980 was $3,434.

That's the gap between what they are able to earn at the minimum wage

and what the poverty level is. For a couple with two children it is

$4,990. Given that in 1977 there were 50,500 young family units in the

category of working poor in British Columbia — 12 percent of the

national total — and that today the situation is far worse, can the

minister advise the House whether he has decided to increase the

minimum wage?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer as of

right now is no, I have not entertained that proposal. When you look at

the minimum wage established across the country, I think you will find

that British Columbia ranks fairly close to the top, with the exception

of Saskatchewan, which is something like 15 or 20 cents higher than

British Columbia; I believe the highest is in Quebec, which is

something like 25 cents. I'm not sure about those figures.

MS. SANFORD:

In view of the fact that the cost of living in British Columbia,

particularly because of the outrageous cost of housing, is much higher

than in most parts of Canada, including Saskatchewan, where the minimum

wage is higher than in British Columbia — S3.80 rather than $3.65 —

would the minister consider raising the minimum wage at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: That is future activity.

HEALTH OF MINISTER OF TOURISM

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Deputy Premier. I wonder if the

Deputy Premier could advise the House as to the health of the Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). The Minister of Tourism has missed the

last three question periods in a row. I'm wondering indeed if we should

send sympathy or get-well cards or something like that, as we miss her

very badly in the chamber.

The point is that I've had a

question awaiting the Minister of Tourism's arrival in the chamber for

other than voting since we got back from our extended Easter break. I'm

wondering if we should send out a Canadian Armed Forces plane or

something to look for her.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. On April 24

the minister issued a news release stating it would require only a

modest investment to establish a plant using the new manufacturing

process for wood pulp and wood panelling at Ocean Falls. The minister

also said that there is lots of raw material available. Has the

minister decided to recommend to his colleagues that this modest

investment be undertaken by the Ocean Falls Corporation to revive that

corporation and that community from the doldrums imposed by the Social

Credit government?

[ Page 5226 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. On April 13 the minister wrote to the Canadian

Paperworkers Union refusing a request for a meeting to discuss Ocean

Falls on the grounds that there is no information readily available on

what we're trying to do in the forest or with this low-grade timber.

Has

the minister found out what he is trying to do, and can the minister

advise the House whether he has decided to open up the process to the

people of Ocean Falls for their input?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I can certainly appreciate the member's interest in Ocean Falls. About

all I can tell him at this time is that we are indeed making great

progress.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister decided to sell the Ocean Falls Corporation, all its assets and the town of Ocean Falls to a private buyer?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to the member's question at this time would have to be no.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Has the minister instructed the British Columbia Development

Corporation to loan money to a private buyer to purchase Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, I would have to advise him that I

don't instruct the British Columbia Development Corporation to do

anything. The British Columbia Development Corporation is very well

run, and is managed by an independent board of directors. It's not

within my capacity to instruct them to do anything. They work

independently. Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, they make their

own decisions.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Is there an application before BCDC to borrow government money to purchase government assets at Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question — how am I doing, anyway? — I would

have to inform him through you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not see all of

the applications for financial assistance that come to the B.C.

Development Corporation. However, I would be most happy to inquire if

such an application has been made to the B.C. Development Corporation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: has the minister established any

criteria for the sale of Ocean Falls in terms of the price, foreign

ownership, new investment plans and that kind of thing?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member, I would have to say that I

sincerely feel that last question has really been answered by the

previous set of answers.

MR. BARRETT: I'd like to ask this question of the new minister.

Could the minister tell us if British Columbia Development Corporation has been

instructed that the policy of the government would allow them to loan money

to a private group to buy a government Crown agency?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition,

I would have to inform him, through you, that the policy of the

Development Corporation is to assist the economic development and

industry where it's economically feasible and good for the province.

The rest of the question I'll take on notice.

MR. BARRETT: That's a pretty good job for fourteen grand. It's cheap at half the price.

Through

you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister: has a decision been

made that money would be available from the British Columbia

Development Corporation for a private company if they were to purchase

a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to

the member's question, I'd have to say that he has posed a hypothetical

question. If such a case came, we'd certainly look at it in view of the

overall benefits and what it would do for the economy and the forest

sector and all the other ramifications. We would look at it at that

time.

MR. BARRETT: Has the minister advertised the

policy that, project by project, government money might be made

available for private corporations to buy companies from the government?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to be perfectly clear and not mislead the House, so I will have to answer the question this way: not to my knowledge.

MR. BARRETT:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After saying it had not been

advertised, but admitting today that the possibility is there, does the

minister have any knowledge whether or not discussions have taken place

between a private corporation and BCDC for the purpose of that private

corporation borrowing money from BCDC to buy Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I think I will have to say, not to my knowledge.

think the opposition, with respect, might be building certain things

into the fact that Mr. Williston had a meeting with the Development

Corporation on Friday while they were having their meeting here. I

wouldn't mind telling the opposition what was up in that meeting if

they were desirous of knowing and would ask me the question.

MR. BARRETT:

Since the minister has told the House that he is aware the meeting took

place and is aware of the contents of that meeting, does the minister

know whether or not, during that meeting, there was a discussion of an

application to BCDC from private sources to buy Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at that meeting.

MR. BARRETT:

Now that the minister has said there was no discussion at that meeting

as to whether or not BCDC would loan money to a private corporation to

buy Ocean Falls, can the minister tell the House at what meeting an

application by a private corporation to buy Ocean Falls with BCDC money

was discussed?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no.

[ Page 5227 ]

MR. BARRETT:

My last question. To the minister's knowledge, at what meeting did a

discussion take place — or was there a letter or a phone call — about

BCDC considering the application to loan money to a private corporation

to buy Ocean Falls?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I'd have to say none that I know of.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under standing order 35 to ask leave to move

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter or urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you briefly state the matter.

MR. GABELMANN:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. In a matter of days the Environment and Land Use

Committee will make a decision on the stage 2 report concerning a

proposed coalmine at Campbell River. The proposed mine is located at

the centre of the river systems which surround Campbell River. Such a

mine in this location would be harmful to the salmon fishery. In fact,

the evidence suggests that a coal-mine would destroy a vital spawning

habitat and the Quinsam fish hatchery. The salmon fishery is a vital

economic enterprise in my riding. It depends on a clean natural

habitat, which could be eroded beyond repair by the proposed coal-mine.

It is crucial that these matters be debated openly before ELUC arrives

at its stage 2 decision.

I would like to offer a word

concerning the urgency of this debate. The Speaker's role under

standing order 35 is to provide guidance for the assembly on the

priority of this matter over others proposed for debate by the

government. In this case the urgency stems from an impending decision

by the government, most likely prior to the Environment estimates,

which lacks the benefit of open public debate by members of the

assembly. This is a crucial failing and one which can be remedied only

by an urgent debate this afternoon. Therefore I request leave to move

as follows: that the House do now adjourn to debate the advisability of

permitting the development of a coal-mine in the middle of the Campbell

River area.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate very much the

hon. member's advising of his intent to ask leave to have the House

adjourn for this urgent debate. I would like to reflect upon the matter

that is included in this statement, without prejudice at all to the

member, and on tile possibility of a further debate this afternoon. I

would reserve decision until such time.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 13: field operations, $10,809,073.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I note that the minister doesn't have his advisers with

him today. I have some detailed questions that I wish.... Oh, they're

just coming in, fine.

Vote 13 relates to field operations. I

note that there were 315 employees last year and there are 322 this

year. I wonder if the minister could tell me, if I'm not asking for too

much detail, how many vacancies there are presently in this particular

vote and what those positions are.

I have a second question

relative to staffing under this vote. How many female employees are

covered by this vote and what are their positions? I realize that's a

fairly detailed question. I don't know whether or not the minister will

have that at hand. The remarks that I want to make about this

particular vote are to quite a degree dependent upon the answer to that

question.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the

questions put by the member are quite detailed, as she mentioned. My

staff will attempt to get a response for her as quickly as possible. We

don't have that detail with us.

The only point I would make

refers to a question that was put on the order paper some time ago

about the number of vacancies and the positions related thereto. We did

discuss the fact that the normal attrition or turnover-the hirings and

leavings — of staff people allows for the number of ongoing and always

changing vacancies, which is usually 5 percent or so at one time. I'll

endeavour to have the answer for that member as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE:

The reason that I'm asking under this specific vote, Mr. Chairman, is

that on the list that the minister so kindly provided in answer to my

order paper question there were a great many vacancies that appeared to

be related to this vote.

Let's just deal with a couple of

them while we're waiting for the specific answer. Two laboratory

technician positions at Abbotsford were vacant back when the freeze

went on and came off and they were still vacant at the latest date when

that question was answered. I understand that they are still vacant,

unless they've been filled very recently.

Of course there's

the question of the selenium testing, which I know has been a very

exaggerated problem because of the great amount of specimens that have

been coming in. The point that I'm making is that we've had vacancies

there. The minister indicated that he was trying to resolve the

selenium thin by hiring a temporary assistant. But if we have vacancies

in those trained laboratory types, either there's a terrific problem

with keeping staff on or there's delay in hiring when we have those

same vacancies hanging around for so long. It's a continuing problem

and to try to resolve that with temporary assistance.... That's one

problem that concerns me very much.

The other problem

relates to the sheep specialist. I know that vacancy has been around

for quite a long time. My concern there is that originally it was also

advertised as a vacancy for the Kamloops area. I would hope that in the

additions to staff the minister is including a second sheep specialist.

If he's been looking at the figures at all, he will realize that the

growth of the sheep population in the Cariboo and Thompson area is such

that there are as many sheep in that area as there are in the lower

mainland. There's a very definite problem for the people in that area

who require assistance from the ministry relative to their sheep

problems. The only assistance they can get is to get that sheep

specialist from the lower mainland to come up to judge for fairs, and

then they have to pay his way. What they need is a continuing person

located in the Kamloops area who is prepared to come in, stay there and

do the job.

[ Page 5228 ]

was bulletined and then the bulletin was withdrawn, I understand. There

was a problem, I know, in bulletining the sheep specialist in the lower

mainland because originally it had one category and then after

negotiations it was upgraded to a higher category and was rebulletined.

Even so, that's been vacant for a long time.

Those are two

of the questions that I have regarding specific things. The reason I

was asking about the number of women that are covered under this

particular vote and what their positions are is that there seems to be

a great reluctance to hire women in positions closely related to

agriculture. Women are still getting hired as secretaries and clerks in

the ministry. They're really reluctant to take women agrologists —

women graduates in agriculture — into the system full speed ahead. We

have seen a tremendous change in the enrolment in the agricultural

class at UBC, which is now almost 50 percent women. Yet when women

graduate, their placements, particularly in the Ministry of

Agriculture, are a very, very low percentage. This is the area that

those people would basically fit into, Mr. Chairman. That's why I was

asking the minister for the number of women that are employed in this

particular vote and what kind of jobs they are working at. I think that

the time has come when we have to recognize that some affirmative

action programs have to be taken by government to ensure that women,

who are moving into this broader field of endeavour, have the

opportunity once they have the knowledge and the skills. Certainly my

information is that women graduating in agriculture come out with very

good marks — they are very high on the list of graduates — and should

be very acceptable to this ministry to take on the kinds of jobs that

they're trained for. I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that that's not

happening, that there is a real reluctance to hire women in those kinds

of jobs in the Ministry of Agriculture. I don't know whether or not the

minister is prepared to answer those questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, the member mentioned a second sheep specialist because of

the increased activity in production in that sector of agriculture. I

recognize her concern; we have a number of other commodity groups

looking for additional specialists. We have people who are required for

marketing — market development officers, research economists, etc. The

member can see that we've increased our vote from a total of 315

employed in field operations to 322, so we've got a few additional ones

going in there.

With regard to women, right now — I believe this year 60 percent plus of the

first-year students in agriculture at UBC are women. That means that the student

body is getting a greater percentage. I believe the breakdown now, if we took

the whole student population, is about a 50-50 split. Some, of course, are in

food sciences, economics, etc. I can just say to the member that the government,

as she well knows, is an equal opportunity employer, and that applications are

based on qualifications. If we have applicants come forward, then they will

be judged on their qualifications. and whether they are male or female, the

best one to do the job will be the one hired.

MRS. WALLACE:

Unfortunately the minister doesn't have the statistics available, but I

think that that's just not happening, It's a nice ideal, but it's not

happening, because the women who graduate are not getting the jobs —

and those women are qualified and their grades are good.

Now

there may be some reasons or excuses being found not to hire the women;

that's why I wanted those statistics, because I think that would prove

my point that it just isn't happening. Certainly when 60 percent,

including the undergrads — it's not that high at the graduating level,

but it's getting higher and higher, and it's going to get up to the

point where we will have 60 percent of that class being women.... As

long as we find that out of the, say, 84 who are in the extension

services out in the field 80 are men and 4 are women, then that's not a

very good application of the affirmative action program. I can't say

that that is the statistic, but I don't think it's going to be too good.

thought about phoning the minister this morning and warning him that I

was going to ask that question — I should have done that, but other

things got in the way — so he could have had that material. I

appreciate that he is trying to get it for me. I wonder if he would

tell me exactly what the seven new positions are under the assistant

deputy — regional extension, the specialists in regulatory and

production.... I think there are one and two additions.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch briefly on the women employed in the

Ministry of Agriculture. As the member knows, 20 or 30 years ago the

ratio of males to females in the faculty of agriculture at UBC was 75

percent to 25 percent. It's now shifted to where the new students come

in at 60 percent female and 40 percent male. That's a trend, and I'm

just saying that that trend is also existing in employment

opportunities.

I'm sure the member doesn't want us to fire

half a dozen existing staff members and hire females in their place.

I'm just telling her that the government is an equal opportunity

employer, and if over a period of time more of those professional

people graduating are women, then you'll have more women in the

workforce working for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the

province of British Columbia.

If she has evidence, Mr.

Chairman, that there is abuse with regard to equal opportunity for

women in the Ministry of Agriculture regarding job applications — she

knows what rights the applicant has — and if a situation has developed

in which there isn't equal opportunity, I as Minister of Agriculture

and Food would certainly like to hear about it and would be concerned

if we weren't following the practices and policies of this government.

Regarding

the number of women in the professional workforce, Madam Member, I hope

that maybe, before we finish my vote — if we do so later — I will have

the information on how many are employed in a professional capacity.

Taking

the new employees from 315 last year to 322, I can give her some

response. We have one office assistant to supply clerical support for

the assistant deputy minister of field operations, one licensed science

officer, one research officer, one commodity coordinator and two office

assistants that I have listed here. I believe that's six.

MRS. WALLACE:

I don't want to delay unduly here. I think that the minister has

assured me that he will make the statistics on vote 13 available to me

as soon as he has them. I don't want to hold up the vote waiting for

that, because I think I have had at least some answers to my questions.

In those titles that he has given me, he did talk about the sheep

specialist, but he hasn't indicated whether or not a second sheep

specialist is included in those extra ones. I can't really

[ Page 5229 ]

tell from the titles. Is there going to be a sheep specialist stationed in Kamloops in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 13 approved.

On vote 14: economics and marketing services, $1,348,293.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, this vote appears to be the only vote that really

indicates that there is any change in the ministry since it has become

the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There is some upgrading of this

for marketing purposes, I would like to point out, as has been pointed

out previously, that providing extra funding for marketing and

extending the marketing facilities is not the total answer to the

responsibility that a minister must meet if he is to be responsible for

food in this province.

Recently I've been reading a book entitled The Hidden Persuaders

by Vance Packard. I'm sure that the minister has read it. This is the

updated version. It talks about the kind of concerted corporate effort

that goes into persuading people of what they should buy, based not on

its nutritive value or its economic value, but on its profit margin —

not whether or not to put an egg in the cake mix but colours, shapes

and sizes of boxes of food. It's really manipulating the purchaser to

make a decision based on all of the wrong things, not based on economic

or nutritive buys. The kind of advertising that the ministry is

undertaking is a similar type of advertising except that I would say it

is based a little more correctly on the nutritive value. Advertising

isn't the entire answer to the food problem.

The minister

will remember, as will the Chairman, the days when we sat on the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture which toured this province looking at

the cost of food. This report on food distribution in British Columbia

points very definitely to the problems that occur with concentration.

While it didn't come up with any valid recommendations, it did point

out that Canada Safeway, for example, has a definite edge because of

its investments in processing facilities in Alberta. It talked about

Kelly Douglas as the wholesaler for foodstuffs for Super-Valu being

geared in as the area where the profit was made: at the wholesale level

rather than the retail level. It described the way the market was

manipulated by those large chains and the growth of the chains. A chart

on page 7 of this report shows that supermarkets in B.C. — this was

dated 1976 — handled 72 percent of the volume in 33 percent of the

stores. That's the kind of concentration that's taking place and the

kind of concentration that occurred in 1976. It certainly has grown

since then, I'm sure.

What, if anything, is the minister

doing about that type of thing? There seems to be nothing except this

marketing aspect. I submit that the whole business of food deserves a

lot more attention than simply a few market promotions for B.C.

product, because food relates to all food and not just that which we

can presently grow in B.C. It relates to the ability of the community

to purchase food. We had a question in question period today, Mr.

Chairman, relative to the lowincome groups in British Columbia — the

number of families that live below the poverty level. This minister, as

the minister responsible for food, certainly has a responsibility to

ensure that we do something more than just advertising and marketing

B.C. product. I would like to hear what he has to say relative to that

particular aspect of his responsibility under this vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman. the member has touched on The Hidden Persuaders

and has dealt with some of the — implied, I guess — corporate abuse of

the consumer. I think those things would he handled under the Ministry

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

In regard to my ministry and the expansion of our man date, we

wanted to promote consumption of B.C. homegrown and home-processed

products, and we're working on that. Even without the mandate being

changed, I think the member will recall what we did in the hog industry

in this province after a very critical time. Now we have, I think, a

pretty exciting hog processor taking a tremendous number of hogs — far

more than two years ago. As I mentioned the other day, they couldn't

even get 500 hogs a week; now they're getting almost 5,000. That is

home-processed B.C. pork going on the market. It is getting a

tremendous response from the B.C. consumer. because they can identify

with it. They can say that that is something which will help our

primary producer, the farmer, and also all the labour involved in

processing that primary product. That's a big plus in the economy of

the province of British Columbia. We may not stack up to the Ministry

of Forests, or Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, or Tourism, but

that's our contribution to the economic well-being of this province. I

think it's working well. So that's the promotion aspect.

We're also attempting to give out information

with regard to the market research and the analysis of the marketplace.

We put out the Agri-market Reporter ,

a weekly produce report. We put out the food-basket information, and

all those things are geared to help better identify where our

potentials are. You can grow all of the product you want to, but if you

don't have a market for it it's not worth too much. Or you can have a

tremendous market for a product or produce, but you don't have any

supply, because the farmers or the processors aren't aware of the need.

If we can play a small part, we'll assist in identifying that need, and

therefore the British Columbia agriculture and food industry will

prosper and so will the economy of British Columbia.

Those

are some of the things we're doing, Madam Member. I guess we're all

frustrated with how slow we go at times; but at the same time. we've

made those moves. We've attempted to develop a strategy and an

organizational chart in our ministry to identify where the

opportunities and the pitfalls are and to provide support to the

agriculture and food industry in this province. I'm hoping that in time

you will come to say: "Job well done."

MRS. WALLACE:

Sure, the minister is doing or attempting to do a job on marketing. But

he is telling us that his responsibility for food — that added

responsibility — relates just to that. If I want to talk about

corporate concentration, I should talk to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. I assume if I want to talk about nutrition, I should

talk to the Minister of Health. I say, Mr. Chairman, that that is not

an adequate concept for a minister charged with the responsibility for

food. It relates to a lot more than just marketing, and if he's

responsible for food, then he had better be responsible also for seeing

that the consumers in this province have access to a nutritious diet

and not just push for the highest price possible.

[ Page 5230 ]

Vote 14 approved.

On vote 15: financial assistance program, $46,458,103.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is the program I've been so concerned about in discussing the

estimates. This is the vote that has chopped off $10 million from the

farm community. It's even worse than that. In fact, a great deal of the

money allocated for farm income assurance in this vote is going to be

utilized to supplement the unpaid programs that should have come out of

last year's budget. Apparently this minister never heard of a special

warrant. Nearly every other cabinet minister has brought in special

warrants to meet extended expenses for which they didn't have

sufficient funds, but not this minister. He expected the farmer to

carry those costs. He made funds available out of this year's budget to

pay off things that should have been paid out of last year's budget.

According to my calculations, we're down something like $5 million out

of the Farm Income Assurance Fund, which isn't that great already. I

admit it's a couple of million more than it was last year, but last

year was really a disaster. We have had to take some moneys out of this

year's payments to meet last year's.

The minister denies

that he drags his feet on these programs. But when I talk to the people

who grow greenhouse vegetables, apples, beef and other commodities

under this program about the difficulties they are having in trying to

get farm income assurance contracts finalized, it indicates to me that

there is a deliberate delay to ensure that those funds are not

utilized. So I certainly have some concerns about the reducation in the

farm income assurance program. It is in effect a reduction. As I said,

at least $5 million will have to come out of this to meet what should

have been paid out of last year's estimates.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

know that there was some money that suddenly miraculously appeared on

March 31. I guess he was holding too light a purse string. But even

that was nowhere near enough to meet the total outstanding payments.

Interest reimbursement on agricultural credit. That is the one that's down so drastically by $10 million on just that one vote.

mentioned earlier that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture at its

convention passed a resolution requesting that the interest rebate be

maintained at 2 percent below prime. The National Farmers Union was

here very recently and met with the minister and ourselves. Their brief

contained the same request — 2 percent below prime. I have a letter

here addressed to the minister, copy to all MLAs, from the Vancouver

Island Dairymen's Association requesting that the interest rate be

maintained at 2 percent below prime. I have a letter to the minister

from the Cowichan Agricultural Society and Farmers Institute requesting

that the interest rate be maintained at 2 percent below prime. I have a

letter from the British Columbia Broiler Hatching Egg Producers

Association requesting that the interest rate on reimbursement be kept

at 2 percent below prime.

The minister indicated that he is being inundated with these requests. I hope

the minister is reconsidering. I would like the minister to assure the House

today that he is reconsidering changing that, and that instead of 1 percent

below prime rate this year he will continue the rate of last year, which was

2 percent below prime. At today's escalating interest rates, that is little

enough to give the farmer. He is caught in a financial bind; he cannot get that

rate in the marketplace. As long as this minister maintains a hard line on farm

income assurance, the farmer is not going to get it from farm income assurance.

Without some kind of change in that program, he is not going to be able to continue

to function. Two percent below prime is all that the farmers are asking. I think

that is little enough. Certainly there should be a change in the limits as well,

because at today's high capital costs the limits on that program are not

adequate to meet the requirement to keep that farmer viable and in business.

I would certainly suggest that the minister change his avowed intent to go to

I percent, and retain the 2 percent.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I don't want to delay the House from moving on to other votes; I just

want to respond to some of the issues raised by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat and first of all to say to her, as I've said publicly,

not just to the agricultural industry but to many sectors of it, that

in this province we do not judge the success of the agricultural

industry based on the number of dollars placed in a budget.

regard to the slowness of farm income assurance, no, Madam Member, we

are not dragging our feet. We consult with and discuss the input costs

into the Farm Income Assurance Fund; we reach a consensus; the

documents are signed and the program is put into effect. If there is

retroactivity in there it is taken into consideration. We have done

that with a number of programs. Other programs haven't been resolved

yet. There are two parties to that discussion. I can assure you and the

farm community that we are not dragging our feet. It takes my staff

plus representatives of the commodity group to come together to discuss

the issues. Those will be resolved as soon as possible. If there's

payment required I'd just as soon have the payments made on farm income

assurance as quickly as possible, rather than have long-outstanding

commitments.

In regard to interest rebate, I can tell, Madam

Member just to give you the history, because you're so concerned about

the $10 million reduction — in 1975-76 the NDP government budgeted $2.5

million and paid out $1.5 million. They shorted the growers of this

province approximately $1 million, or to turn it another way, about 40

percent. You underspent your budget by 40 percent. If you're going to

argue with me that I have shorted the growers of the province, then

you'd better look at some of your own history. You know as well as I do

that you had your percentage set, and you didn't adjust it down when

the interest rate dropped in those years.

In 1978-79 we

budgeted for $4.5 million, and because interest rates started to rise

we spent $6.9 million. We had that commitment and we lived up to it. We

overspent our budget by $2.4 million. Sometimes the opposition gets mad

when we over spend; here we did. We're prepared to accept any objection

to that, but because of politics I don't think the member would dare

say that we shouldn't have paid that money out. We budgeted $7.7

million in 1979-80 and we spent $7.7 million — right on target. That

was for the interest paid by the farmers in 1978; we reimbursed them in

1979. In 1979 we made a commitment — and I've told this story before —

to the agricultural community that we would pay interest reimbursement

down to 9 percent. We caught the rising interest rates, but we lived up

to that commitment. As I mentioned, our budget for 1979-80 was $7.7

million. Our

[ Page 5231 ]

budget,

because we made that commitment in our expenditures in 1980, for the

year 1979, was $23 million. In other words, we contributed another $16

million to take some of the load off the farm community.

can't treat agriculture in isolation in this province, because if we do

there are other sectors of our economy that are going to say: "Why this

large discrepancy between the interest rate charged and what you're

refunding to the agricultural community?" So when the member says our

budget has dropped $10 million, there is a difference between the year

before and last year — 1980. There's a difference of $16 million. So I

could turn your argument around and say we've expanded our budget in

interest reimbursement considerably, because we've only reduced it by

the $10 million that you talk about, although the year before it was

$16 million higher than we anticipated.

I just say, yes,

we've had letters, because I guess the agricultural community would

like to keep the program as it is, but they knew two years ago that our

policy was 1 percent below prime. We phased it in at 2 percent, and

then 1 percent. I told them at that time it was an ongoing program and

it would be at 1 percent below prime. It is just now that we're

starting to get the letters coming in from the various commodity groups

saying they'd like us to leave it at 2 percent below prime. I've got no

argument with that; that's good business technique on their part. But I

can say that we have to look at these programs and ensure they are

credible with economists and other provinces of Canada. Otherwise, if

we are too far out of step in the agricultural community we can be

criticized.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister hasn't really

answered. Would he tell me definitely if he is going to change from 1

to 2 percent or if he is sticking with his commitment to 1 percent

below prime?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I can only respond to the member by saying that the existing policy as of this date is 1 percent below prime.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, he had a lot to say about the interest reimbursement.

Somehow he seems to think that because he is spending more dollars than

were spent a few years ago, he's doing a better job on that particular

program. But, you know, when interest rates are low they don't need

that kind of assistance. It's the escalating interest rates that have

caught the farmer in the bind, and that's been occurring in the last

few years, not back in 1974 and 1975,

This vote, as bad as

it is in its reductions to farmers, carries something in it that one

would scarcely believe. It carries some fairly extensive increases in

programs for travel, advertising and publicity, and professional

services, The travel budget has increased. The staff is down by one in

this particular vote. The actual grants and subsidies paid to farmers

are down by $8 million net. Yet we find an increase of $4,500 in travel

for one less person. That particular budget has gone from $150,000 up

to $155,000. Advertising and publicity: you've got less money going out

and fewer programs — established programs, nothing new — yet we're

finding that advertising and publicity has gone up by 95 percent, from

$17,000 to $33,000.

Most startling of all is that

professional and special services, a vote that is being decreased as

far as services to farmers and ranchers, is being upped by 250 percent

from $400,000 to $1.2 million. I'm sure the minister is going to get up

and talk about this being for training and so on. I'm wondering how

much of this particular professional and special services budget. which

has gone up by 250 percent.... Isn't there a good possibility, in view

of the kinds of things that we've been hearing lately about the

policies of this particular government, that some or all of that fund

could find its way into the hands of our would-be Hollywood North Cecil

B. de Heal for directing some kind of a show? Maybe we're talking to

the Minister of Agriculture and Food and maybe we're talking to the

would-be Yul Brynner of the next generation.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's my new image.

MRS. WALLACE: I liked you the way you were, Jim.

object to this kind of an increase going into this vote for those kinds

of operations where we don't know what's going on and where it could

well be directed into political propaganda. That's the concern that we

have in this Legislature. We have professional services and advertising

going up while services to the people that that minister is supposed to

be serving are going down. We have taxes placed on the backs of the

taxpayers, as I said when I moved an amendment previously, to the tune

of $625 million, and yet we have these kinds of excesses appearing. We

have a 95 percent increase in advertising and publicity and a 250

percent increase in professional and special services in a vote that

has reduced the return to the farmer and reduced the amount of money

that's going out to assist the farmer and rancher in this province.

I therefore move that vote 15 be reduced by $867,965.

believe I have made my case that those particular funds in that budget

should not be there in a year of belt tightening. The government should

be prepared to hold the line on things like professional and special

services, publicity and advertising, and travel, when we have one less

person on the staff and when we have asked the taxpayers to cough up

dollars to meet the commitments to provide Hollywood theatre and

political propaganda. I am pleased to move this amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Lorimer

Levi Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

[ Page 5232 ]

MR. HALL: Did I hear the name Jordan?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is yes.

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 15 approved.

On vote 16: information services, $258,097.

MRS. WALLACE:

This vote, again, has a 30 percent increase in advertising and

publications. That particular item has jumped from $19,000 to $24,600,

on a relatively small vote.

I therefore move that vote 16 be

reduced by $5,600. That's simply taking it down to the amount that was

expended last year. I think the minister should be prepared to hold the

line.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Mrs. Wallace requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 16 approved.

On vote 17: Milk Board, $267,160.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, on this vote I notice that the staff is reduced and there

is an increase in professional and special services. Obviously this is

intended to shift salaries into professional services rather than doing

the job themselves. I wonder if the minister could explain the

rationale behind this particular change. I notice that in other areas

in other votes the opposite is occurring. This seems to be the only

vote for one of the boards he is responsible for where the staff has

been reduced and there is an increase in professional services.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask the member to repeat the question.

MRS. WALLACE:

What's bothering me — not bothering me particularly; I'd just like an

explanation — is that in this particular board there is a reduction in

staff and an increase in professional and special services. I'm

wondering why the decision to take that type of change was made. Was it

a request from the Milk Board or is it a decision that's been taken by

the minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I

understand from my staff that the reduction in the Milk Board from ten

to nine was because one staff member went on a per diem basis in regard

to the Milk Board operation. Regarding the professional services, the

anticipated increase was in regard to legal expenses, staff training

and education expenses.

MRS. WALLACE: So he's on a

per diem. He doesn't show as an employee, but this additional person is

included in the salary vote. The payment for the tenth person is

included in the salary vote here even though he doesn't show on staff.

Is that what the minister is saying?

Why is there a 300

percent increase in these legal services for the Milk Board? Are you

anticipating some problem under professional services?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Madam Member, I guess there are always a few problems that we

anticipate, but there's nothing particular. Those are the

recommendations put forward by the Milk Board in regard to possible

costs incurred. You'll notice that I said legal plus staff training

plus education expenses. It covers three items.

Vote 17 approved.

On vote 18: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,661,067.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like to give credit to the minister for

upping the amount of money allowed for fine-tuning in this vote. I

would like to see it twice as much as it is this year. At least it's in

there, and it is increased. That's something that I think we have to

get on with. I'm pleased to see him doing that.

My question

relates to a switch in reverse of the Milk Board. Here we have the

professional and special services cut to almost bare bones and a very

sizeable increase — almost the exact amount of difference — added to

temporary salaries. I am wondering what the rationale is for that and

whether or not that was a recommendation of the Land Commission when

they submitted their budget. I would also like to know whether the Land

Commission's budget was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and in

turn simply turned over as part of his estimate. Or did his ministry,

in fact, make any revisions to the original submission from the Land

Commission? And I would like to know what the $250,000 worth of "other"

is.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, as you can

appreciate, some of these questions are somewhat detailed, and in order

to respond in a reasonable fashion I have to get some comments from my

staff. The member is quite right in regard to item (04) — salaries,

temporary — it's gone up from $116,000 to $393,000, and professional

special services has dropped from $334,000 down to $66,000 — it is a

reallocation of jobs being done under temporary salaries, as opposed

[ Page 5233 ]

professional and special services, and, I think, an attempt to get

better coordination and better results for our dollars expended.

regard to the "other" — item (90), the $250,000 — it deals basically

with maintenance of the agricultural land that the Land Commission

holds and equipment, etc., that is on those various farm operations

that the Land Commission is responsible for.

MRS. WALLACE:

The one question the minister didn't answer was on the mechanics of

this vote coming to the floor of the Legislature. Was this the original

submission by the Agricultural Land Commission, or were there any

changes in it before, as it came from them?

I'm also really

curious why we've decided to go this route with the Land Commission by

hiring temporaries rather than professional services, while the Milk

Board decided to go the other route. Now if that's the decision being

made independently by those boards, that's fine, and something that

would be better discussed with the people involved in those boards. But

it's interesting to note that one is going one way and one the other.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, just quickly relating to the comment

I made on the Milk Board, Mr. Honeyman was on a salary and Mr. Jim Gilbert is

on the per diem; so they're a little different than what we're looking

at in the Land Commission where we're talking about professional services

and temporary staff. We're now really talking about planners, agrologists

etc., working on detailed applications of plans, community plans, settlement

plans etc., in the Land Commission office — better coordination, I think, in

our administering the money than with spending it on consultants' fees.

regard to the budget, the budget was prepared by the Land Commission

personnel, reviewed with my staff, and then proceeded to Treasury Board.

MRS. WALLACE: No changes?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'm advised there were very minimal changes in regard to my staff's

involvement with the Land Commission. The member may wish to ask

another question, and I might get some more detail for her.

MRS. WALLACE:

I'm really interested in his staff's involvement with the Land

Commission. Would these be the agrologists who work for the ministry

and also work for the Land Commission? Is that the group he's talking

about? Is that your staff that you're talking about — with whom the

changes were made? I don't understand what he means by "relative to his

staff" unless that's what it is.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If

I follow the member correctly, in regard to coming out of the

professional and special services budget and going into "salaries —

temporary," those are temporary staff in the Land Commission office,

not my ministry staff. It's the Land Commission staff. Instead of going

out, hiring a consultant and paying a fee, it may be the salary of an

employee. Are you asking whether it's my staff they're paying for,

whether my ministry agrologists may be working for them? No? Okay.

MRS. WALLACE:

I understood the minister to say that the only changes that were made

in the budget as submitted by the Agricultural Land Commission were

changes relative to his staff, and I'm trying to find out what his

staff has to do with the Agricultural Land Commission. Maybe I

misunderstood the minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The

Agricultural Land Commission budget comes forward and goes to Treasury

Board, and any cuts or adjustments are basically made at Treasury

Board. In regard to my staff's involvement, bear in mind I'm the

minister responsible for the Agricultural Land Commission. My staff

employed in the Ministry of Agriculture are my advisers — professional

people whom I call upon for input and advice. If we're getting into any

discussion, I turn to my staff people for their input as well. The

Agricultural Land Commission reports to me, prepares their budget, and

submits their budget to the Treasury Board. Treasury Board determines

whether or not their budget, as submitted, is accepted, or whether

there are some cuts — not my staff.

MRS. WALLACE: I

hate to belabour the point. but I think it's worthwhile we get this

absolutely clear. When I asked the minister whether that budget came to

him and was passed on to Treasury Board without any changes — just as

submitted by the Agricultural Land Commission — I understood him to

say: "Yes, except for some minor changes affecting my staff," or "...by

my staff," or "...related to my staff." If I misheard that, then I

would like to have that corrected. The thing I'm trying to establish is

whether or not the ministry is in any way involved in the preparation

of that budget or the finalization of the estimates for the

Agricultural Land Commission, or if the Agricultural Land Commission is

autonomous in the preparation of that budget. I seem to have had two

answers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Agricultural Land

Commission prepares its budget. My involvement is mainly that Mr.

Newman of my staff and my deputy minister advise.... They see what the

Treasury Board rules are. The Agricultural Land Commission's budget

goes through Treasury Board and its staff with my support. The

determination as to what cuts, if any, shall be made is made no

differently than in any other ministry or commission that's involved in

budgeting through the Treasury Board and its staff.

MRS. WALLACE:

I want to get this very clear. Maybe I'm not quite grasping what the

minister's saying. The Agricultural Land Commission prepares a budget

which goes directly to Treasury Board, or it goes by way of the

ministry, without any changes, to Treasury Board, and then Treasury

Board makes any necessary cuts or changes. I'm not sure which. Is that

the way the thing operates, or is the minister or any of his staff

involved in any way, through advice or telephone conversations, with

the Land Commission as to what their budget should or should not

contain, or is that something that is strictly the responsibility of

the Land Commission?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The Treasury Board deals with the Agricultural Land Commission's budget and determines the acceptability of that budget.

Vote 18 approved.

[ Page 5234 ]

On vote 19: ICBC — senior citizens' grant, $6,130,000.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, this is very interesting — the Ministry of Agriculture

and Food; ICBC — senior citizens' grant. How ridiculous to include a

grant to senior citizens relative to ICBC in the Agriculture and Food

estimates, just because this minister happens to be responsible. It has

no business in this estimate at all. I know I can't refer to

legislation, but there is a bill on the orders of the day that relates

to this. This could be made an appropriation bill rather than being in

the estimates. Certainly it doesn't belong in the estimates for the

Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I therefore move that vote 19 be

renumbered to vote 95(

a) under the Ministry of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, the amendment is out of order. A vote may be passed,

reduced, or withdrawn by leave, but it cannot be redirected. I

therefore find the amendment to vote 19 out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could give me the authority for your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Beauchesne, May....

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I would cite May's seventeenth edition, page 759, which

says you cannot alter the destination of a grant. That is redirecting

it, and that is what your amendment has referred to. Therefore I find

your amendment out of order.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr.

Chairman, on a further point of order, I don't quite understand. I'm

not changing the direction of the grant; I'm just changing the position

where it appears in estimates. With all due respect for the Chair, I

don't quite understand the

interpretation.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I further cite Sir Erskine May, seventeenth edition, page

759: "The Committee of Supply cannot attach a condition or an

expression of opinion to a grant or alter its destination." On the

basis that this amendment does attach a condition or an expression of

opinion, I would find that the amendment fails.

The hon. member continues on vote 19.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on your ruling, if I may. We do

not attach a condition to the payment of the grant. We're quite in

accord with paying the grant to the seniors.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I also find that we cannot debate that amendment. I

further cite Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 649, on

Committee of Supply, that no amendment is in order except a simple

reduction of the amount demanded. That is the ruling. I'm afraid that

your amendment does fail and that we must direct our debate to

discussion of vote 19 and whether or not it shall pass.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in view of that ruling I have no alternative

but to ask the minister whether or not he would be prepared to withdraw this

estimate. Certainly he would have the leave of the opposition should he decide

to withdraw it and transfer it either to the Minister of Finance, or as part

of the ICBC amendment bill to make that bill an appropriation bill. Certainly

one of those places is where that particular money more adequately belongs.

It doesn't belong in the votes for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

ask the minister whether he would be prepared to take that step: to

remove it from these estimates so that we'd have a more realistic

figure, and instead of looking at an 11.8 percent increase or whatever

it is, we'd be looking at the true increase for Agriculture and Food of

1.9 percent in total. If there's anything that the opposition can do to

facilitate such a move, we would be very happy to cooperate. If I can't

do it by the rules of the House — and I certainly don't want to offend

the rules — I'm sure that the minister could take that action.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to express to the member that it's

unfortunate that we always refer to percentage increases in minister's

budgets, and that's how you base the success of an enterprise or

industry in this province. I've read statistics in this House that show

the growth and stability of the agriculture community in this province,

but nevertheless they come back and say that we inflated the budgetary

figures because we included under my budget the $6 million for the

senior citizens' ICBC grant.

They fail to recognize that I

have responsibilities as a minister of the Crown. First of all, as

Minister of Agriculture and Food, I am responsible for that ministry

and must report and speak for it. I am also the minister responsible

for the Agricultural Land Commission; in the past it was under the

Ministry of Environment. Since I have that responsibility, I include in

my budget the funds for the Agricultural Land Commission. It is a

commission separate and apart from my ministry, but I am still

responsible for it in this House. Therefore the budgetary figures show

under my ministerial budget.

The ICBC senior citizens' grant

is no different. I am the minister responsible for ICBC in this House.

As a result I must carry those responsibilities. In regard to the grant

to senior citizens to assist in covering their automobile insurance,

that figure of $6.13 million falls within my budget.

I could

give a comparison that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace)

may or may not accept. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

administers what is called the First Citizens Fund in regard to grants

to the Indian community.

MR. BARBER: That's always been the catch-all portfolio.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The first member for Victoria says from his seat: "That's always the

catch-all ministry." It may well be, but the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) also happens to be responsible for provincial Indian affairs,

in liaison with the federal government. I feel that where the

responsibility lies, that's where the budgetary figures should be.

That's where they are and I'm prepared to accept them as being in the

right spot.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why the committee lets the minister get away with that kind of distortion of the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Let's be parliamentary, hon. member.

[ Page

5235 ]

MR. HOWARD: I am. The minister has deliberately distorted what the case is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid I will have to ask you to withdraw the word "deliberately." Will the member please withdraw.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm the most agreeable guy in the whole country. I'll

withdraw the word "deliberately." He did distort the facts of the case

— accidentally, stupidly, ignorantly, or otherwise.

What the

minister has done is say that he is being accused by the opposition of

padding his estimates by the inclusion therein of this $6 million vote

for a senior citizens' grant. That is not a true statement. At no time

have we made that statement. What we have said to the minister and

other ministers is that, yes, they have padded their estimates, but it

has been on such items as travel expense, office expense, office

furniture, advertising — you know, Doug Heal and the Hollywood crowd

who are going to use that — B.C. Systems Corporation payments, and B.C.

Buildings Corporation payments for building occupancy charges. There

were six items. At no time did anybody say that they were padded

because of this item called ICBC in here.

The minister

should be candid enough, truthful enough and considerate enough of the

integrity of this committee — I was going to say considerate enough of

his own integrity — to be able to tell the truth in the House and not

distort things. I'm not saying he has not told the truth. He has taken

the course of twisting and distorting what the position of the official

opposition is, and that's unpardonable.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment — since the member for

Skeena got up and made his little dissertation — that considering the

source it came from, I have no response to his comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, at this point let the Chair remind you once again that a

feature of parliamentary debate is always parliamentary language, good

temper, good humour and above all, courtesy to all hon. members.

MR. BARBER:

Vote 19 parades under false colours. It's part of an estimate within

the larger estimate of Agriculture and Food, and if people simply

looked at the total budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food,

they might be tricked into thinking that somehow Social Credit had been

more generous than it really has been with the agricultural industry

and the whole economy of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You see, there's that kind of comment. You said that wasn't happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: It seems to us that if the government were even half competent,

they wouldn't have attempted — in the way that they attempt in this estimate

— to, if you will, misinform people about their intentions and to leave the

wrong impression in the agricultural community. I agree entirely with my colleague

from Skeena when he says that the traditional and tricky budget padding that

goes on, as we have discerned in many previous estimates, lies in deliberate

overcharging by the B.C. Systems Corporation and the British Columbia Buildings

Corporation.

We have at hand — and I will refer to it only very briefly — Bill 9, the Senior

Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, which may or may not become law. I would

like to observe to the committee that if this were an efficient and businesslike

government, it would not put the current estimate we are debating in the form

of an estimate within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is in the wrong

place. It serves a good purpose, and we support making the grant available.

We support protecting senior citizens from the ravages of Social Credit's

ICBC. We also support good and competent administration and observe that if

you knew what you were doing, you would put it as an appropriation

section under

Bill 9, the Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act. It is parliamentary,

correct and traditional to do so. I'm not commenting on the merits of Bill

9, but I'm observing that it is before the Legislature. It seems to us to

be, far more appropriately and traditionally, the repository of such a grant

that the government proposes to pay and we propose to support — for senior citizens

and the burdens they have to carry for automobile insurance.

With

all respect this particular grant does not belong in that minister's

estimates. There is another instrument and another legislative option

available. You needn't take my word for it. Look in your own bill book,

Mr. Chairman, and discover what Bill 9 says and tell the committee why

Bill 9 is not an appropriation bill. Tell the committee why, instead,

you propose to put this money, estimates that do not belong in there

and cannot rationally be justified to be in there, under Agriculture

and Food estimates.

This is the year we have Bill 9 in front

of us. That being the case, it is perfectly clear that there is a

correct and businesslike way of spending these funds on the order paper

today. Make it an amendment to Bill 9 and we'll support it in that

form. We'll even support it in this form, because we wouldn't want to

see the seniors deprived. Nonetheless, we observe the simple

incompetence of a government that proposes to spend these millions for

seniors in the wrong place and could instead have put it in the right

place as an appropriation

section of Bill 9. I ask the minister to tell

us why he wants the money spent in the wrong place. It should be

orderly. It should be under the bill which he himself has authored and

is before the whole Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

members, the first member for Victoria made passing reference to a

bill, which, of course, we cannot discuss in committee. Some latitude

was given. However, I think at this point we should cease and desist

from any debate regarding legislation that may or may not be before the

House. We are in committee. If we could stick to vote 19 as it stands

before us, the committee would be well served.

MR. HOWARD:

The point of order I want to raise is that you have now ticked off the

first member for Victoria for referring to something other than what is

precisely in the estimates before us. When the minister was speaking

earlier, you permitted him to make reference to the Attorney-General's

department. the Provincial Secretary's department and the First

Citizens Fund — things that have nothing to do with the item before us.

Why do you pick and choose that way, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has traditionally allowed latitude when members want to relate some

[ Page 5236 ]

item

to the debate. They are allowed some latitude. such as the first member

for Victoria was allowed. I am simply reminding the committee now of

the rules before us: we do not discuss legislation when in committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The first member for Victoria talked about the ravages of ICBC under

Social Credit. I guess he meant the fact that we feet strongly that

premiums should pay for claims. Where claims go up, premiums must be

increased to pay for those claims. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I can

remember the ravages that we inherited. We're talking about $6 million

here for the senior citizens' discount. There were ravages of $181

million at the end of their term on ICBC, and we're still paying for

that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind the

minister that we have allowed a lot of latitude on this vote. If we

could return specifically to vote 19, the committee would be well

served.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the reason I

refer to the $6.13 million in vote 19 is that it is paid for by all

British Columbians out of general revenue as a social program for

senior citizens; it's no different than the homeowner grant for senior

citizens. If this allocation were paid for by ICBC, then only the

motoring public would be providing a social program for senior citizens

who drive. I think that's a fair approach to it. Mr. Chairman, I make a

passing reference that the legislation before the House is a social

program for senior citizens who drive.

The member talks

about an appropriation and putting it in the bill. I could be wrong,

because I'm not — in his mind anyway; I don't know about mine — an

astute parliamentarian. I would assume, Mr. Member for Victoria, that,

first of all, this is an ongoing budgetary item. The bill brings

forward the concept, the principle and the program. The budgetary

figures each year are placed before this House to carry out that

ongoing program. If there were an appropriation, an appropriation bill

would have to be brought forward every year in which it would be paid.

I'm just saying that instead of having senior citizens await a bill, to

find out whether or not they're going to get the benefit of that type

of social program each year, I'd much prefer to have it an ongoing

program and a budgetary item.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. BARBER:

The minister seemed not to get the point. For that matter, seniors also

have to await estimates every year. You have not required that there be

a provision in estimates every year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you read Bill 9?

MR. BARBER: I've read Bill 9 very closely. You could write it down to a dollar. In fact, there's not even a dollar provided in Bill 9.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's a plus, anyway. At least you've read something.

MR. BARBER:

Of course I've read it, and I understand it. And I understand that you

cannot tell us what the value of the seniors' discount might be or

whether it will even be required next year. We don't know what the FAIR

program will do next year — we don't know it and neither do you.

However, we're well aware that the government has chosen not to use a

more appropriate means of this particular expression of public policy;

they've not tied an appropriation to the current bill.

your argument is that you intend it to become a permanent feature,

there are two other options which, I argue, are far more relevant and

appropriate than including it under the Ministry of Agriculture. The

first is to allow the minister, by amendment to Bill 9, to make a

payment. But I won't refer to that except in passing, Mr. Chairman. The

second is to accept our proposal to withdraw it altogether from the

aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — where it does not

belong — and put it instead under the portfolio, the obligations and

the estimates of the Minister of Finance, who will then be required

annually to include in his estimates — according to the instructions of

Bill 9, which I do not otherwise refer to — such payments as ICBC may

require in order to provide the seniors' discount. It belongs in

Finance more than it belongs in Agriculture. This year it belongs in

Bill 9 more than it belongs in Agriculture. In either case, for either

reason, it does not belong in Agriculture at all. It has nothing

whatever to do with the agricultural policy of the government of

British Columbia. There is no relation whatever except this: it does

tend to give a somewhat inaccurate picture of the government's fiscal

commitment to the agricultural industry of British Columbia.

Once

again, we ask the minister whether or not he's prepared to withdraw

this particular estimate and reassign it to the Minister of Finance,

where it belongs, and thereby indicate more accurately, as he should,

the real public expenditure in Agriculture this year.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment. I wish the first member for

Victoria would get together with the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard),

because the member for Skeena is saying one thing and the member for

Victoria is saying another.

But no, Mr. Chairman, I feel

that vote 19 is in the proper ministry, because as Minister of

Agriculture and Food, I have an additional responsibility for ICBC. I

think the vote is in its correct place. I would not recommend any

change.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is a social program, and

it's in the correct place, because that is the minister in charge. What

I am standing in my place for is to express my amazement at this

opposition who say they are for it but yet they're against it. They're

for it because they want to get the kudos. We ask no kudos; we merely

say senior citizens are entitled to it, and they've got it year after

year. We want no accolades, but we do not want this water-cutting

system of the opposition saying: "Yes, it's great, but it's not in the

right place; just delay it." I hope that the senior citizens out there

hear the message: "Delay the estimate; another time, delay! They're

really not worthy of it, and maybe something will happen and they won't

get it." Yet on the other hand they're saying: "Oh yes, we are

champions." In their three and a half years in office that opposition

never championed a social program that was any good — not one. Every

social program was done by our government. They had great ideas, but

they did nothing, not one single social program. And here is a valid

program and they say: "Delay it." I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, it's

high time the public realized what they're doing here.

[ Page

5237 ]

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to make the record show very

clearly that there is no intention of the opposition to delay this

program. Apparently the member for Dewdney never heard of interim

supply, Mr. Chairman.

This is a social program which we

support, but we don't support having it show effectively as being a

charge against Agriculture; that's what we're opposed to. Certainly we

support this move, and we've tried the best way we know how to get it

moved to a proper place. We failed in that, but we've made our case. We

have no objection to the senior citizens' reimbursement going through.

We're prepared to support this, if we have to support it; but we would

have liked to have seen it handled in a different way. That's the only

point we've been making. There is no attempt to delay.

Vote 19 approved.

On vote 20: building occupancy charges, $3,840,000.

MRS, WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, at the risk of being out of order, the minister did say

he would try and give me some figures on vote 13 before his votes went

through, and I see his assistant is back. Perhaps he has those figures

now. By leave, could he give me those figures.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Dealing with some other vote, which I won't mention at this particular

time, the vacant positions were six. The number of vacant positions was

28, and I have a list of the vacant positions in the various locations

in British Columbia. Do you want me to read this for the record, or

could I send it to you?

MRS. WALLACE: I would like it in the record.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

District horticulturist, Duncan; urban horticulturist, Cloverdale;

potato specialist, Fraser Valley; district horticulturist, Summerland;

district agriculturist, Abbotsford; dairy specialist, Prince George;

research officer, Kamloops; agricultural officer, horticulture,

Kelowna; livestock specialist, Prince George; office assistant,

Victoria; two agricultural engineers, one in Dawson Creek and one in

Abbotsford; biologist, Victoria; lab technician, Kelowna; two

agricultural officers, brand sector; home economist with regard to

youth development, Vernon; laboratory scientist, vet lab, Abbotsford —

I hope the member appreciates these are hand-written notes that have

just come in to me.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I appreciate your giving this.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Then we have a balance of some farmworkers in the Fraser Valley. That

should total up to 28. The number of women who were previously in these

positions was one. The number of women in positions in vote 13 is 100.

One position is presently vacant. I believe that's at a vet laboratory

in Abbotsford. It's a laboratory scientist, and that position has been

vacant since March 31, 1981 — a fairly current position.

Also

for the record, I might add that we have over 550 employees working for

the Ministry of Agriculture. I mentioned retirements and people leaving

employment. Our vacancy vote at any one time is approximately 5

percent. Those jobs are advertised, interviews are held and those jobs

are filled as quickly as possible. On the average there are usually 20

to 30 jobs for new staff vacant and being researched at all times.

MRS. WALLACE:

I thank the minister very much, and I thank the House for its leeway. I

wouldn't like to reflect on a vote that we've already dealt with, but

it's interesting to know that 28 of the 38 vacancies are in the field

positions, and only one of those that the minister read off was an

office person in Victoria. So 27 of those positions vacant are field

positions.

Vote 20 — building occupancy charges. We have a

25 percent increase in building occupancy charges. That's right, 25

percent. We in the opposition do not believe that these kinds of

increased costs are in keeping with the policies of a government that

is asking the citizens to tighten their belts by increasing taxes, I

therefore move that vote 20 be reduced by $762,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HOWARD: The amendment is acceptable.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

On a point of order, the member for Skeena cannot make a comment on

behalf of the government, because he's in opposition, where he's always

going to stay.

In regard to the amendment, I do not support the amendment and will vote against it.

MR. NICOLSON:

It is in this area of building occupancy charges that we see a

tremendous increase in almost every ministry. This one is no exception.

There is a 24.8 percent increase in one year — an amount which we're

talking about in this amendment of $762,000. The minister gets up and

simply says that he isn't going to accept this amendment in a time when

we've seen taxes skyrocket in this province to the injury of other

industries such as the tourist industry. I think that we're due some

better explanation. I simply would like to know in what buildings the

ministry is located here in Victoria? What increase in square footage

has taken place or is projected to take place this year in order to

justify such an exorbitant increase? We really should be in a

belt-tightening year. When everyone else is belt-tightening, why should

there be a 25 percent increase?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In

regard to the amendment, I appreciate the fact that the member for

Nelson-Creston comments about belt-tightening, etc., I can advise him

that in many cases the additional expense was created by our having

moved in, expanded or improved accommodation part way through the past

fiscal year. Now, of course, it’s in for a full year. That is the

reason for part of your 24.8 percent.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Oh, 24.8 percent.

There

is one reason for it. The other reason — in order that the opposition

may consider withdrawing the amendment — is that we have projects on

stream at the present time with regard to renovations in Kamloops, the

Land Commission, Fort St. John and Cloverdale totalling approximately

$116,000. We have proposed projects which are renovations

[ Page 5238 ]

Nootka Court, Saanichton, Kelowna, etc. for another $109,000. So there

are three things: projects in process at the present time; proposed

projects in this fiscal year, plus some of those expansions we did part

way through the previous fiscal year for which we're now absorbing the

full cost for a full 12 months; and the adjustment in regard to the

amount charged by BCBC to ministries just because of increased costs of

occupancy.

MR. HOWARD: I just have one brief comment

to this, Mr. Chairman. In the fiscal year 1978-79 the minister

overestimated building occupancy charges to the extent of $144,560. He

overtaxed the citizenry of this province by that amount in this

department alone in order to have $144,000 extra at the end of the year

that he could give back to somebody to build up some kitty for

electoral purposes. That was in 1978-79. In 1979-80 the amount of

overestimation with respect to building occupancy charges was $532,534.

There was overtaxation to that extent, in that year, in this ministry

alone for building occupancy charges. We don't have — or at least I

don't have — the figures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, but

in the ten-month period ending January 31 of the immediately past

fiscal year we find that while the budgetary estimate was $3,078,000,

the expenditure was $2.5 million. There's a half a million dollars

short there. If you just take the normal progressions and add another

couple of months you'll come out that there is an overestimation in

that as well.

We've got a history of this ministry and this

department overtaxing to pay rent to BCBC, knowing full well that they

have no intention of paying the amount of money that they come to the

Legislature for. That's why it's necessary to have the minister tighten

his belt a little bit and save the folks of this province of bit of

money and level with them and say: "Look, we really don't need all this

money. We're overtaxing you in order to build up a surplus for some

other purposes." That's not an honourable way, I submit, to approach

the Legislature in asking for funds.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

In quick response: for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, we have

spent all in the budget, Mr. Member. I've been so advised by my staff.

If we had the cushion that you talked about in there, and if we do all

of this overexpenditure, it would seem to me that we would be using it

in 1981-82 instead of raising sales tax. Your argument falls short in

the comments that you've made.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Mrs. Wallace requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 20 approved.

On vote 21: computer and consulting charges, $421,450.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Cowichan-Malahat, I

must ask that when a division is being taken in the House members

retain their seats during that division, to help not only in the

preparation of the list but also in double-checking the list, and

secondly, because of the very fact that we are here primarily to have

votes recorded in this chamber, that silence be maintained during the

reading of the lists. That is something that must be adhered to by all

members.

MRS. WALLACE: This vote relates to the

computer and consulting charges, and on the surface it looks like it

might not be too bad, going from $408,400 up to $421,450. But if you do

a bit of review you find that the $408,400 budget had certainly not

been anywhere near expended up until 10 months. The 10-month actual was

$284,222. Projecting that at the same rate for the subsequent two

months you would come to a net expenditure of $341,066 — well below the

$408,400 thousand that was estimated. It appears that there is quite a

drastic underexpenditure here in the past, and to increase it by some

$13,000 is quite an unnecessary move. It seems, in fact, that we could

well reduce these computer and consulting charges in the amount of

$60,000 and still allow ample funding to provide the same kind of

service the minister had last year. I therefore move that vote 21 be

reduced in an amount of $60,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE . Speaking to the amendment for a reduction, I can only

assume this amendment will be turned down, as have been the others I have proposed

and as have been similar amendments proposed by my colleagues in other estimates.

have in my hand a book. It's fairly large because it is in draft form.

It's just being prepared for the printer; it hasn't gone to the

printer's yet. The title of the book is New Democratic Spending Cuts .

The text is being prepared. It will include the various amounts of

extra funding that have been included in the various estimates in the

budget this year. It will go on to point these out. It will contain

certain charts and graphs which will point out the amount of funds that

could have been saved had those amounts of money been reduced. In fact,

had the Forests ministry reductions been taken from the budget, we

would have saved the taxpayers $12 million. The Universities, Science

and Communications....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, the member is not in the estimates of the Ministry

of Forests or the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications.

The member is in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food,

and she should keep her remarks limited to that scope.

[ Page

5239 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must agree that a fair point of

order has been raised. We are on vote 21. I know that the member was

just getting to vote 21.

MRS. WALLACE: That's correct

On the Agriculture and Food estimates which we have been discussing,

had this amendment, together with all the other amendments that have

been proposed, been accepted, we would have reduced the Agriculture and

Food estimates by the amount of $1,760,565. I think we have quite

definitely indicated those items to be excessive expenditures somewhat

without direct controls. There's no real way that the taxpayer can know

whether those dollars are going into the hands of the Hollywood North

corporation to present the kind of images that we were beginning to

see, the kind of thing that was done when the Ministry of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was answering questions

today.

Including this particular amendment and all the other

Amendments, a total of over $16.5 million could have been saved the

taxpayers in these estimates. That's why we're moving these amendments,

that's why we support this amendment and that's why we're looking

forward to publishing this new book, New Democratic Spending Cuts , complete with illustrations.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I appreciate the latitude of the Chair. I'd just like to deal with the

amendment before the House, which I do not support. I say to the

Agriculture and Food critic in this House, who stands so strong and

firm on behalf of the farmers in this community, that she fails

miserably. The vote that she's trying to cut.... Let me ask her some

questions. Are you prepared to cut the farm rebates that you argued so

strongly for because you want me to take out a portion of my budget for

computer accounting? Do you want me to stop the market information

program that I have scheduled in there to tell the consumers of this

province the cost of food and to try to find out where our markets for

our products are? Do you want me to stop the crop insurance payments to

the farmers you know in the Cowichan Valley? Is that what you want? I

suggest it is. Do you want me to cut our 4-H programs for $7,000? You

know full well about the 4-H program in this province and you want that

cut as well.

I just think it's marvellous how they can stand

up and be so pious and righteous and attack the budget, yet they can't

be prepared to back it up with facts. They attack computer accounting

costs and want me to cut those programs. That computer accounting

expense is there to provide services to our farmers, Madam Member, and

you should support it 100 percent if you are a good Agriculture critic

— which you are not. Mr. Chairman, I'm totally opposed to the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, we are not asking the minister to cut any programs. All

we are asking is that he retain the same level of computer and

consulting charges as he spent last year, when he had a larger budget

for the farmers than he has this year. It's interesting to note that I

really must have been successful in these estimates. because when the

minister started he said what a good Agriculture critic I was and now

he's saying I'm not. I think he's been a little bit concerned by the

debate that has been raised today.

HON. MR. McGEER: This amendment, like the other fiscally irresponsible

amendments put forward by the NDP must be rejected. I find that the sense of

values and proportion brought forward by the opposition deserves careful scrutiny.

We've listened to the NDP in these estimates, as once before, pleading for

special interests in British Columbia. It went on for almost two full days —

pleading on behalf of the lawyers so there could be more for them. We heard

the opposition critic on medicine pleading a special case for the doctors. We've

heard everything come forward — pleading for special treatment for the teachers

and for the unions. Every one of these was done to increase the expenditures

to the public and decrease the efficiency of government. But when it comes

to the things that really count, where you can spend a few dollars and save

millions in the public purse, that's when the NDP disappears entirely. In

a vote like this there's no obvious way to bring votes from the special

interest groups of British Columbia — only better government, something they

didn't understand when they were in power. They only understood how to curry

to the special interest groups. When they were in power they only understood

how to provide favours to the unions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Except for the Egg Marketing Board. That was when the then Premier, the

Leader of the Opposition, decided he was going to kick the censored out

of them. That was one special interest group he didn't get along with.

The Agriculture minister of that day took milk of amnesia; he couldn't

remember what was going on.

They're there to speak for the

vested interests in British Columbia. They're there to see costs go up

by hundreds of millions of dollars, as they did when they were

government. But when it comes to commonsense management, or when it

comes to building up the information system in British Columbia so

programs can be handled more effectively, that's when they want to cut.

They're proud of it, Mr. Chairman. They bring forward the book of

spending cuts, and they hold it up for the province. With wise

management, people will never see how many hundreds of millions of

dollars would be lost by the vested interests they would pay off the

lawyers, the teachers, the trade unions and the doctors. None of that

would show. Only the carelessness and inefficiency shows. That's when

you take over government. That's what happened in 1972. That's when he

people of British Columbia let their guard down. But they didn't let it

down in 1933.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. McGEER: They didn't let it down in 1937, 1941...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order'.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...1945. 1949...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: ...1952, 1953. 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975 and 1979, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. hon. member. We're now on the amendment to vote 21.

HON. MR. McGEER: They won't let their guard down now. I only say this, Mr. Chairman....

[ Page 5240 ]

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, as a member who has been thrown out of this House

for merely quoting standing orders, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to enforce

order with that member when he deliberately disregards the authority of

the Chair, which is attempting to call him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a fair point.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Is it so wrong to relate the penalty that would come to the people of

British Columbia for cutting down the very vital management of funds

and programs which come through modern information systems? That's

something that the NDP is incapable of understanding. Heaven knows,

they certainly messed up the computer program when they were in charge

of government.

I can tell you, from the experience I had in

managing a different portfolio, how important this is. When we were in

the Ministry of Education they hauled up these files. You know, they

had them on a chain. All the files were hanging, like laundry, from the

chain. And they wound it around like this. This is the kind of

information system we took over when we became government. It applies

as much to the Ministry of Agriculture in this particular vote as it

does to every other one. But no, they want to live in the past. They

want to pay off the vested interests. They don't want to bring in

modern management. We saw that when they were in power. Now we're

seeing it again. They're going to put out a booklet of how to live in

the past. [Laughter.] The story that really should be told in British

Columbia and never has been properly told is the full story of NDP

mismanagement when they held power between 1972 and 1975. That's the

story that should be told. It's being revealed bit by bit with these

irresponsible amendments that the NDP is bringing forward. We must

reject these amendments, just like the people of British Columbia have

rejected the NDP in election after election.

MR. COCKE:

We've been subjected once again to the speech that we've heard so

often. I would hope, particularly on this vote, that the minister will

not be influenced — that is, the Minister of Agriculture and Food — by

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. He has proven

beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the biggest wastrel in the

government. Look at what happened to the health system when he had his

hand in behind the former Health minister. Look what happened out at

the university — a white elephant hospital built at the people's

expense.

That's the man that we are supposed to be listening

to, and he's supposed to be advising the Minister of Agriculture. He

wrote a book at one time talking about antiquity, politics and

paradise. He should go and reread that inspirational little piece of

literature, and come back into the Legislature and make sense. I would

hope that the minister will do what's responsible; that is, vote for

this resolution — a resolution reducing this amount by $60,000. It

should be reduced more.

HON. MR. McGEER: One day the

full story of the NDP years in office will be told. I want to say this.

If there were politics in paradise between 1932 and 1972 when the NDP

or its precursor, the CCF, first reared its ugly head here in British

Columbia, that paradise soon began to disappear between 1972 and 1975,

when the public of British Columbia let their guard down and let these

incompetent wastrels into office. Reject that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. NICOLSON:

We think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

protests. That is the very member who last year came to this

Legislature and asked for $50,000 for his computer. He'll be lucky if

he spends $10,000 this year. In other words, what we voted for last

year is about $40,000 towards monuments and things that are going to be

built out of accumulated surpluses.

That's what we're

objecting to in this particular vote. We're not against agriculture.

We're not against youth Programs. We're not against farm income

assurance and every other program. What we are saying is that this

figure is not a true figure. It wasn't a true figure last year. Mr.

Minister, at the rate that you're going, you're going to be underspent

by $67,000 on last year's budget. You came to this Legislature and

asked for $408,000. How much have you spent to date? You've spent

$284,000. If you keep going at that clip there's going to be $70,000

going into one of Gracie's monuments or going into some kind of a last

ditch effort to buoy up this sick, rotten government.

We are

in favour of agriculture, but we want to see an honest budget. We are

willing to spend honest dollars in an honest budget. We want to see

those things done responsibly and to see these figures become more than

just mere fiction. We want to see real, accurate and defendable

expenditures, not this mythology that we've been living with in this

vote, computer and consulting charges, and in many others. There's the

person who asked for $50,000, and he's going to spend $10,000. Here's a

minister who asked for $408,000 last year, and he's going to under

spend by about $67,000. What we're voting for is an increase in your

budget, even with this particular cut.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, briefly to correct the record — because the member for

Nelson-Creston is wrong as usual — before the final adjusting entries

are made, I can tell the member that, yes, our budget was $408,400 for

the year ended March 31, 1981, but the actual expenditure to March 31

was $372,834. That happens to be 91 percent expended.

MR. LEA:

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was absolutely wrong. You

know, he didn't have his heart in it. He just wanted to show us once

again the computer-like brain that memorized all of those numbers —

1933.... He's quite good at that. The only thing he can't do is be

innovative. We have got over there the most highly educated computer

that's ever come into the Legislature. He's having a little difficulty

with his programming.

Wasn't it a weak effort, Mr. Chairman?

He just felt that he had to come in here and make a speech. It was such

a weak effort that we wonder whether Dianne will be able to take his

place. She's going to have to fill the glasses of that great brain

who's memorized numbers from 1933 — skip a number here and there —

right up until now. We have been privy here today to the ravings of an

absolute genius. We'd like to thank the minister, because we all have

children who are thinking of a higher education. Maybe this will put

them off a bit. If it doesn't, maybe we can chain him up. If he's going

back to university, can you imagine our kids coming home from four

years in university saying, "1933, 1947...?" Let's get that guy back in

university where a brain like that doesn't harm anything.

[ Page

5241 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

King

Lea

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 21 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be reported in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill 9.

SENIOR CITIZEN AUTOMOBIL

INSURANCE GRANT ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, it

gives me great pleasure to make a few comments in moving second reading

of Bill 9. As we are all aware, the purpose of the bill is to provide

for a program to give financial assistance to senior citizens with

respect to the basic compulsory automobile insurance. You will recall

in 1979 we had unanimous agreement in this House regarding the passage

of the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination Act, which stated that

all good drivers would be treated equally with regard to age, sex and

marital status. Up until the time that act was passed, the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia had a policy whereby they allowed a 25

percent discount to senior citizens on their automobile insurance. The

legislation, of course, negated that program, and ICBC could no longer

offer that discount to seniors.

I'm pleased to say that as a result of discussions and a proposal that

I put forward, this government came forward with what I call a social program

that maintains the 25 percent senior citizen's discount for automobile insurance

without affecting the principle of the Automobile Insurance Non-discrimination

Act or the FAIR program. I feel it is warranted, being no different than the

homeowner grant for senior citizens, whereby they get assistance covering taxes

on their property. I feel it's realistic and warranted for two reasons:

(1) The senior citizen on fixed income at times cannot meet the inflationary

spiral we're faced with. This does give a little bit of relief to them.

(2) It is a recognition of the contribution our senior citizens have made to

the province of British Columbia in the past. You might say that in the twilight

years they have some relief given to them in recognition of what they've

done for the province of British Columbia.

The

legislation will apply, as I mentioned, to the basic compulsory

insurance costs. As members in the House know, there is a budgetary

amount in excess of $6 million in my ministry's budget to cover the

cost of the discount for the year 1981. Mr. Speaker, with those remarks

I would now move that Bill 9 be read a second time.

MR. HALL:

The official opposition will be supporting the bill on second reading.

In doing so. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the minister that he

must be a latter-day convert to what he just read out. I don't want to

belabour or delay the smooth passage of this bill. I'm sure there must

be many, many senior citizens who are anxiously awaiting some response

to those forms they're filling in at the agents' offices as they have

been doing since November 1980. I do want to say that those words we

just heard from the minister do fit rather strangely on top of the

words he said when he was asked all the questions about this particular

program. He said over and over again that there wouldn't be any second

thoughts by the government, that there wouldn't be any change in the

government's position and that. In fact, FAIR is fair.

fact, when the FAIR program was introduced, this member, as I mentioned

only last week in committee, suggested to the minister that one of the

results of the FAIR program would be indeed the loss of the discount

for senior citizens and that we should consider ways and means of

helping senior citizens to get over that increased burden of their

automobile insurance premiums going up so horrendously in one year. I

made a suggestion to the minister that perhaps it could be phased in

over a period of time, as we're phasing in other aspects of that FAIR

program. But no, the minister turned a deaf ear to that.

wasn't until the full political consequences of their actions were

measured and balanced that we saw the political response by this

cabinet and by this member. So now we have the bill. We welcome it.

It's late. It was, as I say, a response to pure political action. It

had nothing to do with twilight years or nothing to do with all those

things that that member just said. It's in response to straightforward

political action by the old-age pensioners of this province, and the

old-age pensioners are to be congratulated for having the wit to get

political action going. It's nothing more and nothing less; there is no

commitment to anything other than the ballot box.

The second

point, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps the minister would find out for

debate on committee stage whether or not the discount is being applied

to as much as the discount used to be applied to. Again, perhaps the

minister would listen to the debate on his bill. Characteristic of the

minister's behaviour during estimates in committee, Mr. Speaker, is the

minister's very short attention span. Perhaps the minister

[ Page 5242 ]

would

find out for the House and give an answer during committee on whether

or not this discount applies as much as it used to do. I understand the

discount only applies to the basic insurance, not to any extension —

not to third-party extension, not to collision extension, not to fire

and theft extension and not to comprehensive extension. I believe —

although I am not sure — that the discount used to apply to those

extensions in the years gone by. Perhaps the minister can find that out

for me.

The third point I wish to make in second reading is

that I'm disappointed that the bill itself doesn't carry with it its

own financial underpinnings, its own supply and money. There is no

reason at all why this bill couldn't have had a

section in it that

said: "Moneys sufficient for the purpose contained in this act shall be

secured from the general revenue of the province." We've seen other

bills do that; I can't understand why this bill didn't do it. Then we

wouldn't have had the peculiar and unsatisfactory situation whereby we

see the money for this bill in estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture

and Food. It's far better for this bill to have taken with it its own

financing. When we voted for this bill, the bill itself would have

produced the money, from a legal point of view; obviously a bill itself

cannot produce money. I don't want to get into any debate on money

production. But it certainly seems to me and to the official opposition

that it would have been a far better legislative method for this bill

to have carried with it its own financing, as so many bills have done

in the past.

With those three points dealing with the general principles of the bill, this opposition will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The principle of the bill was to provide a senior citizens' discount on

the compulsory aspect of automobile insurance. The legislation I

referred to earlier passed in 1979 said, in effect, that all insurance

coverage should have equal premiums, and there should not be

discrimination with regard to age, sex or marital status. Hence the

need for the bill. The bill covers basic compulsory coverage only, as

did the program in place for ICBC prior to the legislation passed in

In regard to the comments made concerning including in

the bill an allocation

section whereby the funding would be in the

bill, I guess it's a matter of opinion whether you do it by a bill or

in a budget. I for one like to see it in the budget. It is a budgetary

figure allocated out of general revenue — part of the budget easily

identified. Had you been in government putting through the same bill —

you've indicated that you support it — you may have chosen the other

route.

MR. SPEAKER: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the approach to it indicating that it is in the budget of

the minister responsible for ICBC is the proper format. I would not

agree to any change in that format.

With those comments, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill

9, Senior Citizen Automobile Insurance Grant Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 2.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Members will

recall that in a previous session the extracting of public fees with

respect to estates processed in this province was discontinued. This

bill now before the House will permit the full repeal of the Probate

Fee Act, which presently remains upon the books of this province.

Henceforth all proceedings in the administration of estates, whether by

way of probate or letters of administration, will be processed entirely

through the court registries in this province in accordance with the

rules of court and with the provisions of this amending statute.

You

will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that under the legislation which exists

today all estate documents relating to the assets and liabilities of a

deceased person, while initially deposited in a court registry, are

transmitted to the Ministry of Finance. They are retained in that

ministry for record purposes. They were used for the purposes of

determining probate fees and succession duties, but now that they are

no longer extracted the only purpose of such documents coming to the

Ministry of Finance is for being retained as records.

Previously

all authorizations necessary to deal with the assets of a deceased

person, including access to depositories or other places where assets

were kept, were issued by the Ministry of Finance. With the repeal of

the Probate Fee Act, the disclosure of matters relating to assets and

liabilities of a deceased person, in the course of estate

administration, will be made through the probate registries, and the

records will be maintained in such registries, wherever the application

for probate or administration happens to be. In addition, however, in

order that those persons who may have interests in estates can

ascertain precisely where the probate or administration has taken

place, a central registry will be maintained with the district

registrar at Victoria. Therefore, following the passage and

proclamation of this legislation, persons who seek information about

estates of deceased persons in British Columbia will make their initial

search in Victoria at the district registrar's office, and they will

there be directed to the particular registry wherever the probate and

administration documents are maintained, and they will be able to

obtain full information from the records maintained in those various

registries.

With respect to records which have heretofore

been maintained by the Ministry of Finance, they will be microfilmed

and also transmitted to the new central registry with the district

registrar in Victoria. Therefore we will have all estate documents

recorded in that one central registry.

MR. MACDONALD: Just new estates?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

No. Perhaps I can assist the hon. member by indicating that once the

registry is established all the records heretofore kept by the Ministry

of Finance will be transmitted to this new central registry, so

there'll be one place to search and one place only.

With those brief but clear remarks I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just one or two very brief remarks that will not be clear, because I'm suffering from a

[ Page

5243 ]

head cold — a code in my head which I will not reveal to any members in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. MACDONALD: Sympathy I need.

just want to say that in addition to the explanation of the

Attorney-General we're seeing here the disappearance of the last

vestigial remains of any tax or impost on an estate. It's true we did

that last year under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. We

abolished the last actual, physical collection of any taxes on estates

as of March 11, 1980. They were very modest — what was left after the

main action of this government in the abolition of any death duties. I

think it was $25 for the first $5,000 and then $3 per $1,000

thereafter. But I think history will record that perhaps the blackest

step this government has taken has been the abolition of any duties

upon the estates of those who pass from this life, no matter how large

that estate or how small. Of course, the effect of it is that the

principle of unfairness has been introduced with a vengeance into the

race of life for the children who will come after us. One child, the

happy beneficiary of a very large bequest from an estate, has an

unequal, unfair chance in the race of life.

Oh, no, say

those who stand for this kind of a privileged class system and oppose

the notion that there ought to be fair competition out there in terms

of rewards for service rendered to the community, not services rendered

by some deceased forebear, grandfather or parent. It's the principle of

unfairness which has been embodied in this area by the last

disappearance of any kind of tax on estates. I think it's contrary to

what you might call the notion of free enterprise too, which is

competition, but fair competition; which is equal treatment, but not

equal treatment before a kind of law that allows one person, unaided by

his own efforts, to receive such a tremendous advantage in life, and

somebody else to have to make his own way from scratch in competition

with that person.

On the rest of the bill, who can complain?

There's nothing to complain about there. If you're not having the

Finance ministry involved in any kind of collection machinery, then let

it be within the Ministry of the Attorney-General. I have no objection

to any of the other sections that I've had a chance to look at.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, in closing debate may I congratulate you on your

forbearance with the remarks of the previous speaker. He talked about a

statute which is not before us at all. He talked about the Succession

Duty Act and the estate tax act. This has nothing whatsoever to do with

succession duties or estate taxes. It is true that the probate fees are

going, but I can assure the hon. member that in their place will come

appropriate fees charged under the rules of court to cover the cost of

the processes which are to be substituted for the processes presently

undertaken by the Ministry of Finance. Having so said, I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Estate

Administration Amendment Act, 1981, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

COMPANY AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 3 may I make a few

remarks about some of the items contained in this bill, which proposes

certain amendments to the very substantial Company Act.

Many

of the changes are of a technical nature. For example, under the

current legislation the majority of standard bank debentures are

technically excluded from the act's definition of a debenture; the

amendment proposed in Bill 3 makes it clear that only unsecured

short-term promissory notes are excluded from this definition, thus

removing the confusion.

One useful change proposed will be

to require companies continued into British Columbia to file annual

reports in British Columbia, just as British Columbia incorporated

companies are presently so required.

There are other

housekeeping changes. For example,

section 16(4), as it presently reads

in the Company Act, could be taken to mean that if a company name is

used at all times. This was not the intention of the section, and

accordingly this bill corrects the same.

Several amendments

are designed to remove confusion. For example,

section 35(

l) presently

provides for the inclusion of other jurisdictions' names in B.C.

companies that are operating out of province. This provision has often

confused people into thinking that such companies were not incorporated

in this province. Another example