1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7901 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ministers' expenses. Mr. Macdonald –– 7901

Closing of Fraser Mills. Mr. Leggatt –– 7901

Lottery Fund dispensation. Mrs. Dailly –– 7902

Family law policy changes. Ms. Brown –– 7902

Transcripts of ELUC appeal hearings. Mrs. Wallace –– 7903

Ministerial statement re sabotage of Dunsmuir hydro substation.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7903

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7903

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

On vote 5: minister's office (continued) –– 7904

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Hall

Mr. Brummet

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 5 –– 7921

Mrs. Wallace

Division

On vote 6: ministry operations –– 7921

Mrs. Wallace

On the amendment to vote 6 –– 7921

Division

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act (Bill 16). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7922

Mr. Stupich –– 7922

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7922

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I was

hoping that the Leader of the Opposition would be here to join me in

welcoming two "no-show" guests from New Zealand. In the gallery today

are Mr. and Mrs. Derek Mason of King Country, New Zealand. Mr. Mason

has been a Social Credit candidate in New Zealand in the past couple of

elections. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and this House, I

welcome this fine couple from King Country, New Zealand, who are

wearing their "no-show" buttons.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, with us in the galleries today are two members from the

Queensland Legislative Assembly: Mr. C.J. Miller, who is the Deputy

Speaker of their House; and Mr. L.W. Powell, who is a member of the

House. I would ask all members to make them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to introduce Mayor John Agnew of

Mission and Mr. Bruce Webster, a member of the Mission Memorial

Hospital Society. I request the House make them welcome.

Oral Questions

MINISTERS EXPENSES

MR. MACDONALD:

I direct a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier

stated that a parallel did not exist between the case of the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and the case of the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). Why are the cases

different?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as much as

the member may require it, I don't want to advise him on the difference

between different situations and the legalities of them. As such, my

answer yesterday still stands.

MR. MACDONALD: I put

it again to the Premier that he is the one who brought up the question

that there was no parallel between the two cases. Why is there no

parallel? What is the distinction?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because there isn't.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have another question for the Premier. When was he first advised of

the difficulty with the expense account...of the matter of the expense

accounts of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To be exact, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Did the Premier meet with the minister on this question in one or more meetings, and when did those meetings first begin?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker. I'll provide all of that information when I come back with the answer to the first question.

MR. MACDONALD:

Did the Premier advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

to have his financial director make a review of his accounts?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll provide the answers to all these questions in bringing back the information on the first question.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier another question, which he would know

the answer to, I would think, at the present time. Apart from this

matter of the financial director, did the Premier initiate any inquiry

into this matter of accounts., formal or informal?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is an inquiry into the matter being undertaken by the auditor-general.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, was that on the initiation of the Premier,

and was any other inquiry made?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have such confidence in the auditor-general that I

would't be so presumptuous as to cause any other inquiry to be made.

MR. MACDONALD:

Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs discuss the decision

— following this review — of making a refund of certain moneys to the

government that related to his expenses? Did he discuss that with the

Premier at any time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker,

the line of questioning is getting difficult inasmuch as it would

require answers that are already taken on notice. I'll respond to that

question as part of the answer to the previous questions.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, Mr. Speaker, at this point I'm asking a very simple question: did

you discuss the matter of refunding money to the government with the

minister? I think the Premier would know the answer to that.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

CLOSING OF FRASER MILLS

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forests. and I

ask it on behalf of myself and my colleague the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). One of the largest mills in British

Columbia, Fraser Mills, owned by Crown Zellerbach, will be shut down on

June 18. This will lay off another 500 workers in the province, Could

the minister advise if he is aware of the imminent shutdown?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the member is aware that at the present time

quite a number of wood-manufacturing plants in British Columbia are

shutting down because of market conditions. Most of the shutdowns are

of a temporary nature to adjust to the markets, which can't absorb the

products that normally would be produced.

[ Page 7902 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

This particular shutdown is unique and unusual, and the minister should

be aware of that, in that it's one of the largest mills in the

province. I would like to ask the minister whether he can guarantee the

House that this is a temporary and not a permanent shutdown. Can he

also advise whether he's been in touch with the officials of Crown

Zellerbach to get some assurance that this shutdown is only temporary?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, normally when a mill shuts down for a market adjustment

the management of the company advises the Minister of Forests that such

a market shutdown is taking place, and I have no reason to believe that

this shutdown is anything more than a market adjustment shutdown.

MR. LEGGATT:

This will lay off another 500 people, adding to the many that are being

laid off all across the country, not only in the forest industry but in

other industries as well. Do the minister and his government have any

plan at all for those people who are now not merely being laid off, but

are falling off UIC and onto the welfare roll in thousands every month?

Has this government a plan of any kind that they can present to this

House to help the thousands of unemployed who are falling off their UIC?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite amazed that the member should ask such a

question. If he is aware at all of what is happening in British

Columbia, he must be aware of the employment committee of cabinet and

of the employment bridging assistance program that is currently getting

underway in the province to help people who are laid off in the forest

industry to bridge the time when they are unemployed, and at the same

time work on very meaningful work in the forests of British Columbia to

secure their future employment and also to enhance that resource.

LOTTERY FUND DISPENSATION

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. According

to the constituency report of the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond),

the Provincial Secretary, on behalf of the provincial government,

challenged the local Kamloops council to a $1,000 game of bowling, the

government's money to come from the Lottery Fund. My question to the

Provincial Secretary is this: is it now policy that when organizations

like Big Brothers require money for their good works they must gamble

for the grant?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think

the member is referring to the application for a lotteries grant in

support of an association in which many teams participate in a bowling

fraternity. I'd have to get further information on the nature of that

application.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: There are many thousands of applications for lotteries grants, Mr. Leader of the Opposition — he always enjoys these answers.

think if the member for Burnaby-North were there to witness the many

people who participate in these activities, she would be fully in

support of the support we're giving through lotteries to these

organizations.

MRS. DAILLY: The Provincial Secretary

is choosing to completely misinterpret the question, or else he doesn't

see anything wrong with a cabinet minister gambling with lottery funds.

a

preamble to the next question, I have here a picture of the member

for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) and behind him is the Provincial Secretary

— they are participating in a bowling game — underneath which it states

that $1,000 of the Lottery Fund was used for that. Again, I have a

direct question for the Provincial Secretary. Does the Provincial

Secretary believe that a minister of the Crown has the right to gamble

with lottery funds?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The specific

answer to the member's question is no. I think if the member were

there, she would realize that the member for Kamloops and I played

badly enough that the application is going to be successful on all

counts.

MRS. DAILLY: Following the minister's answer,

my next question to him is: if you believe there's nothing wrong with a

cabinet minister doing this, are you then suggesting that all MLAs in

this Legislature have the right to place gambling bets to provide

grants for their constituents out of the Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I think the member well knows that any time she has a legitimate

application for lottery funds in her constituency, she can come to this

minister and receive a good hearing in terms of these applications. She

has had good success, as all other constituencies have had, in applying

to this ministry for consideration under lotteries grants.

FAMILY LAW POLICY CHANGES

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as the

minister responsible for the Human Rights Code. On April 23 the

Attorney-General's ministry issued policy guidelines which, by

restricting and terminating legal counsel for applicants in matters of

maintenance, access and custody, creates inequality before the law in

that husbands are provided with counsel since they are usually the

respondents in these cases, and wives are denied since they are usually

the applicants. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the

implementation of these guidelines?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN:

Other guidelines outlined in those memos of April 23 make changes which

prejudice the human rights of all children in this province over the

age of 12. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the

implementation of those April 23 guidelines?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN:

The April 23 policy guidelines also make changes which prejudice the

rights of those children who are wards of the superintendent of child

welfare. Is the minister taking any action to prevent the

implementation of those guidelines of April 23?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7903 ]

MS. BROWN:

Why is the Minister of Labour, as the minister responsible for the

Human Rights Code, not taking any action on behalf of these three

groups of people who are having their rights before the courts

curtailed as a result of those guidelines?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds continues with a new question.

MS. BROWN:

My new question to the minister is the same old question. Why is he not

taking any responsibility as the minister responsible for the human

rights of these people?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

TRANSCRIPTS OF ELUC APPEAL HEARINGS

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is for the Minister of Environment as the chairman of ELUC.

Can the minister confirm that verbatim transcripts are made of ELUC

hearings on appeals concerning exclusions from the agricultural land

reserve?

HON. MR. ROGERS: On some of the appeals

there are. I believe there are on all of them. I could check. I know

there are on individual appeals. I'm not sure if there are on municipal

appeals, but I'll check and get back to you. There is a transcript

taken of most of the appeals.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it a ministerial statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

SABOTAGE OF DUNSMUIR HYDRO SUBSTATION

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you and all other members of the House are

aware that the Dunsmuir substation near Qualicum Bay on Vancouver

Island was extensively damaged by sabotage early Monday morning.

Officials of B.C. Hydro are still assessing the damage, but initial

estimates are that the bill will be close to $5 million because of the

destruction of three $1 million reactors, damage to a fourth and

destruction of a large crane.

As all members of the House

know, the Qualicum substation is part of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir 500-kv

line which is slated to bring power from the mainland to Vancouver

Island in October 1983. At this stage, officials of B.C. Hydro are

uncertain how this act will affect the construction schedule, but there

may well be delays stemming from the need to install new reactors at

the site.

This act appears to be the second directed against

a Hydro facility in recent weeks. An anonymous caller contacted a

Vancouver radio station, claiming responsibility not only for this

incident but also for damage to a reactor on Texada Island last week,

earlier thought to have been caused by a lightning strike.

I'm

absolutely appalled by this senseless and criminal sabotage, and I'm

certain that outrage and apprehension is shared by all members of this

House. The person or persons responsible have committed deliberate

criminal acts for whatever motives of their own, and my concern is that

this must not signal some dangerous trend — a new phase, if you like —

in which protestors go outside the law. Ours is a democratic society,

and the right to speak out, to march, to demonstrate and to carry

placards if we don't agree with something cannot and must not be

denied. But opposition, be it to a Hydro project or anything else, must

be confined to lawful activities. If there is no adherence to this

rule, then there is anarchy.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the damage bill for this sabotage

could be close to $5 million, and I would remind the House that this is

not

an act against Hydro, but rather is

an act against all of the

people of British Columbia, who will, intact, end up with the

responsibility for paying for that damage bill. Of course, there's a

more serious factor involved. If this kind of destructive and dangerous

activity were to increase. It is inevitable that we would soon have

more than property damage to worry about, sooner or later someone, a

workman or some other innocent bystander, could be maimed or killed.

My colleague the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has

assured me that an intensive investigation is underway to apprehend the

people responsible. I would like at this time to echo the appeal by the

RCMP for public assistance in helping bring those people responsible

before the courts.

I'm also concerned with the apparent ease

with which dynamite and other explosive materials can be obtained by

criminal elements of our society. This is an area which may well come

under scrutiny by the government. If there is sloppiness in ensuring

the security of explosive materials on job or construction sites, there

may well have to be a tightening up of procedures to improve that

security. I know that the Attorney-General is worried about that matter

and intends to discuss it with our colleagues.

In closing,

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that all of us are disturbed that this

kind of incident could take place in British Columbia. It is not a good

indication for our society if the destruction of public property

replaces legitimate protest, and I hope sincerely that the people

responsible are quickly brought to justice.

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Speaker, acts of terrorism cannot be condoned in this province or

anywhere else, regardless of the motivation. Certainly we are extremely

fortunate in this particular case that construction workers and the

general public were not affected in a physical way. There's no question

that we may not be so lucky in the future. I would hope that the law

enforcement agencies of this province move with much more than

deliberate speed in an investigation and apprehension of the

perpetrators of these deeds,

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I'm sure it will interest all members to know that we have a guest in

the gallery — Mrs. Lorraine Mills of Gates, Oregon. Mrs. Mills is a

past mayor of the city of Gates and, of course, has been, along with

many of the citizens of the state of Oregon, a regular visitor to

British Columbia. I would ask the House to extend a very warm welcome

to her.

[ Page 7904 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

(continued)

On vote 5: minister's office, $164,608.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I thank the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) for yielding the floor to

me. I did have a couple of questions which I was unable to place before

the minister prior to adjournment because he was busy in conversation

with a couple of colleagues, so I'll try again. I'll be very brief, Mr.

Chairman, and I won't protract the debate.

What I've done is

isolate a whole number of cases which I really think should be brought

to the minister's attention. There are two particular cases which I

want to discuss briefly, but prior to doing that I want to tell the

minister — and I think I speak for a great number of constituents of

mine — that we're not happy with the administration of ICBC. I think

that the administration of that corporation has deteriorated since this

government has meddled in the affairs of that corporation directly in

many ways. The problems — and I'm sure this is typical of most

constituency offices of most MLAs in this chamber — are cases from

constituents involving ICBC. The problems they're having have

multiplied year after year. The rates are pressing people into

unnecessary debt in some cases. I just say these things for the record,

but I'm sure that every member of this House and most members of the

public are aware of this situation I mention.

Mr. Chairman,

I have a particularly disturbing case that's been with me now for

almost a year and a half. I'll just quote from the latest

correspondence, because this case — unfortunately — has been settled.

One of the aspects of this particular case.... I don't think that I'll

mention names, although I'm sure this gentleman wouldn't object if I

did read his name and address into the record. The original complaint

to me, as the MLA for this person, was centred on the fact that the

corporation saw fit to have a private investigator put on a 16-year-old

youth who had suffered a fractured neck. I think it's a fair dose of

nonsense for the corporation to suggest that it is necessary to resort

to such Gestapo tactics, in my view, in order to be assured of the

extent and the consequences of the personal injuries. The corporation

has a number of things they can do without putting private

investigators to tailing 16-year-old people who have been seriously

injured in automobile accidents. Among other things that the

corporation has at its disposal is access to hospital records in the

course of litigation. They have an independent medical examination by a

qualified neurosurgeon of their own choosing. At least two weeks before

trial, the corporation must be given full details of all medical

records and information that they or the defendant's counsel would be

using at any trial. All of these avenues are open to the corporation,

and yet they use the fascist policy tactics of putting private

investigators to trailing people around the country on taxpayers'

money. I don't condone that.

I have a response from you, Mr.

Minister, on that. I don't know what you said across the floor, but I

see you shaking your head. I'll quote to you part of your response on

this particular question. The response was most unsatisfactory. I

wasn't going to go through this, but the minister seems to be upset and

disagreeing with what I'm saying. This response is dated October 13,

1981, and it's a two-page letter dealing with this particular case,

which was unsatisfactorily settled eventually. The minister's response

to me was:

"Private investigation by its very

nature remains a fundamental area of sensitivity. The corporation must

under certain circumstances have no alternative but to employ this

method of investigating claimants. You can rest assured that there's a

strict code of ethics covering the use of private investigators and

that any breach of this code of ethics can only be viewed as

reprehensible."

The minister agrees with me. Well, this is

one case where not only the person involved, but the solicitor

involved, the parents involved in the case.... If they're putting a

private investigator on in this particular instance, it's happening

elsewhere. The minister may want to respond to that. I suspect the

answer I'll get is the same response I received in writing late last

year.

It's not that I want to get involved in these cases as

such, Mr. Chairman, but they are indicative of the kinds of things that

are happening. All of us could spend hours going through our files on

ICBC cases.

HON. MR. CHABOT: But not you.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, not me. I'm attempting to make a point here with the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Hurry up! I wish you would hurry up, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing, and do something about the housing problem, the land problem,

the ALR problem, and the high interest rates out there, instead of

sitting in this Legislature making rude remarks across the floor, and

spoiling a very good speech.

I just want to tell you about a

case that has been in the works and was very recently settled. This

letter, notifying me that the case was finally resolved, was dated

April 1, 1982. The case goes back about two years. The problem here was

the harassment placed on this individual, who is still not working

today because of this accident. He was forced to make an out-of-court

settlement with ICBC at a very minimum rate. He was unable to work and

is still using a cane to walk around. He is having a difficult time of

it financially. In fact, ICBC cut off his indemnity, and he had no

recourse. He was cut off welfare and because of the pressure of

creditors, he was forced to accept a very inferior settlement from

ICBC. He had no choice; he was financially strapped and ICBC knew this

would happen with this particular person. They subjected him to the

most painful investigations and scrutiny — I would call it harassment —

for two years. This was an ordinary person living in the community. I

want it on the record that those tactics cannot be condoned. We would

not condone them if we were the government of this province, and I

don't think that government over there should condone these tactics

either.

I've got a whole lot more here, but I know time is

of the essence and other speakers want the floor. I hope the minister

will reply and not defend the tactics — despicable tactics in some

cases, in my view — of the corporation.

[ Page 7905 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I want to speak briefly on the minister's office estimates, in

particular since every time I've come to the House to hear the debates

about Agriculture, all I've really heard from the critic for

Agriculture and all the others on the NDP side is talk about ICBC. As

an MLA and a member representing the people of Surrey, certainly I have

problems presented to me from time to time related to ICBC. I do intend

to take every opportunity to raise those particular problems with the

minister, as his office has a direct responsibility in this.

But

I think Agriculture is worthy of some mention not only by the members

on this side but also by members of the opposition. Unfortunately, we

have heard little, if any, mention about agriculture. I consider

agriculture to be a priority item and certainly one deserving a lot of

discussion and debate in the House and we've not heard the debate about

agriculture. Agriculture is sufficiently important to the province that

I would have expected the critic for the NDP to have raised the various

things that affect agriculture throughout the various parts of

beautiful British Columbia.

I have a great deal of

involvement with agriculture and have had all of my life. As a

youngster I came out of school and became involved in the growing of

flower bulbs. Following that I was very involved in the nursery

business. I have carried on in the horticultural business and I know

what people in the horticultural trade are up against and involved

with. It has been a good business and continues to be a good business.

British Columbia offers tremendous opportunity in producing shrubs,

flowers, bulbs and perennial plants not only for the local market but

for exports to other parts of Canada and even to the U.S.A. We do have

an excellent climate on Vancouver Island, in the lower mainland and in

the Okanagan Valley to be competitive in the production of tree shrubs

to export to other areas of North America and eventually to other parts

of the world.

I too have a considerable involvement in

growing vegetables. Again, there appears to be the attitude that

somehow we in British Columbia cannot compete in growing vegetables. I

beg to differ with that and I intend to prove it. I know that most

members would be aware that I have been instrumental in bringing

technology from Holland to produce vegetables under glass. In Holland

this has been done for many years. Just below Rotterdam they have

15,000 acres under glass, growing lettuce and other vegetable crops and

exporting them to all parts of western Europe. That little country has

a tremendous trade in agriculture, probably its largest single export.

In British Columbia we have the opportunities to build. There is not

only a chance for us to be self-sufficient in producing vegetables but

perhaps to be exporting to our neighbours in Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and elsewhere. We do have a lot to talk about. Agriculture is

and will continue to be a great industry in B.C. and it could be an

even greater industry. The opportunities are here.

When you

see what will be produced just outside of Langley in a seven-acre

greenhouse complex with the help of computers, you certainly see an

example of what can be done, and how self-sufficient we can become. Mr.

Minister, I feel that British Columbians, with the various promotional

programs that you through your ministry have encouraged, will want to

buy B.C. home-grown produce wherever possible. We can produce lettuce

in competition with California; we can produce it and sell it for less.

We can produce beans, radishes, zucchini, tomatoes, cucumbers and more

in competition with California, with the other American states and with

Mexico, which are presently exporting to British Columbia and are also

probably supplying the bulk of the market in the whole of western

Canada.

Mr. Minister, I'm sorry that more mention hasn't

been made of this. I know there appears to be a great deal of time

spent by the opposition on ICBC. I can appreciate how the NDP critic

and other members would possibly see this as politically the better

item to give priority to when discussing your office estimates. Putting

aside the problems we may encounter in our constituencies, and putting

aside the temptation to try to take from Hansard where we've

mentioned various individual ICBC problems, thereby making a little bit

of politics, I think it's more important that members on both sides of

the House give priority first and foremost to the number one thing in

your ministry, the number one potential for British Columbia: the

development of greater opportunities in agriculture. We have it. It's

here. I know that much can be done.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Look at the big picture.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right, Mr. Minister.

This

is not a lecture to the members of the opposition, but as I return to

this House time and time again to listen to the debate on the

estimates. I keep hearing lCBC, ICBC, ICBC. I have yet to hear one

constructive suggestion for the ministry with respect to assisting

agriculture in British Columbia.

I want to now make one

particular suggestion to you, Mr. Minister, which I think will be of

enormous value to those involved in agriculture in British Columbia. To

grow various crops in this day and age — be they horticultural or

vegetable, trees or whatever, raising cattle or dairy farming —

requires a great deal of expertise, knowledge and information which

perhaps wasn't considered as important a number of years ago. We have a

great deal of competition from places like California, where not only

their operation is mechanized, but they have also brought in a great

many skills and useful information through the various agencies that

gather it and make it available to individual farmers. It is very

difficult for an individual greenhouse operator or farmer to bring in

all the necessary testing materials and equipment to ensure that his

soil has the structure and contains the various elements necessary to

produce the greatest crop per acre. It is difficult for an individual

to have all that equipment and expertise available. I commend you for

the work done through the soil analysis branch, for example.

My plea now, Mr. Minister, is that every effort be made by your

ministry to ensure that this particular branch will receive every

assistance and encouragement to become as involved as possible in

making contact with individual farmers, to offer its services, to

demonstrate how it is in the farmers' best interest to ensure that the

greatest return per acre is produced. I think that is possibly one of

the most important things ), on can do for agriculture in British

Columbia.

In the past, when I've heard agriculture discussed in the House

and elsewhere, and the various suggestions that were made to you by

members of the opposition, there has been a tendency, particularly by

the members from the socialist opposition, to say that we must have

more grant programs, that farmers — horticulturists, agriculturists or

whatever — should receive some moneys from government, and that

government must, through financial aid, become more and

[ Page 7906 ]

more

directly involved in the marketplace and in the production of the

various crops in British Columbia. I totally disagree with that. I

appreciate full well that there are those people in agriculture who

will do a better job than others. I can appreciate that during tough

times, such as we're now experiencing, some people will definitely go

under. I can only relate it to my own experiences and compare it to

what's happening today in agriculture, as it is in other industries.

When I started out as a boy of 17 or 18 in agriculture, we worked six —

and if necessary, seven — days a week, 18 hours a day. We plugged,

worked and stayed until the last customer was gone, so to speak. That

was in the early fifties.

In the early seventies and throughout the seventies, it

changed considerably. You didn't necessarily have to put in all of that

effort. The economy was such that practically anyone starting out and

just putting forth a little energy could somehow succeed, especially if

one way or another he could obtain some outside support from private,

individual or possibly government sources. Those people now, when the

going gets tough, find it very difficult to continue. I suppose that

isn't only in agriculture. I'm sure there are many people who are in

the sales business — be it the selling of furniture, cars or other

products — who could not have started in the fifties, but started in

the early seventies, and now suddenly find that they can't compete in

that tough market because they weren't conditioned for it.

the minister, as one who certainly is — and his family is — very much

involved in agriculture as well, I say that we're not looking for any

sorts of grants. I would much prefer it if there weren't any grants

available — no taxpayers' dollars available — to individual farmers. If

we could just put forth our very best efforts and be rewarded for

trying just a little bit harder.... The farmer especially finds it most

rewarding if that little extra effort produces just a little bit more.

If, when the sun shines, you get in the hay and don't wait until after

it starts to rain, you'll probably survive where many others wouldn't.

I don't particularly in any way, shape or form seek any government

assistance by way of dollars in our industry, but instead want every

assist available in providing that expertise that is available in the

ministry and that individual farmers could not in any way gain for

themselves. If you have the equipment, the necessary testing machinery

and the people who have been property educated to go out, take the

various soil tests and come back to the farmer and say, "Look, you're

producing X lbs. per acre now, but by providing these nutrients and

elements and doing this with the soils, you can increase it by 50

percent or whatever," that's the sort of help I think is important.

Mr.

Minister, I'm very pleased that I had the opportunity of saying how

important I think the agricultural industry is to British Columbia. I

didn't want these estimates to go by and have you sit here day after

day, as you have, with your very capable deputies and listen to matters

about ICBC. I see the deputy and other people who give you the

necessary backup, if questions come from the opposition with respect to

agricultural matters, sitting through hours and hours of debate about

ICBC. Somehow the most important industry in British Columbia,

agriculture, gets overlooked by the critic and all the other members on

the opposite side. It is an important industry for British Columbia. It

can grow. It offers tremendous potential. We in B.C. can be

self-sufficient in agricultural products. Not only that, we can provide

for our neighbouring provinces. We don't have to be, nor should we be,

dependent on California for all our foods, for all our agricultural

crops. We can do it in British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, again

I repeat — I know I've said it until perhaps it's been repeated too

many times — that we don't, as the opposition tends to suggest time and

time again if they do talk on agriculture, need more grants. We don't

need more government moneys. As a matter of fact — I know there may be

some disagreement with this as well — I would hope one day perhaps we

in Canada might even be able to market our products a little more

freely, because that too is important to me. I feel if individuals are

given the opportunity to produce to the best of their ability and to

sell in the marketplace, if they can be given a chance to stand up and

face the challenge, we can outdo anybody anywhere in the world.

MR. PASSARELL:

Briefly, on the previous member and his speech, it was the Agriculture

estimates that came up in debate in this Legislature last Tuesday. On

Friday we discussed the agricultural land reserve and some of the

problems that this government has brought to farmers in this province.

I found it very ironic that the previous speaker, the first member for

Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), did not state his opposition to this

government's position of taking agricultural land out of the ALR. He

talked about developing farmland in this province. He should start with

his own people and the minister sitting next to him, if he wants to

discuss farmland and building a self-sufficient province to grow

vegetables in this province. Start with your own minister, Mr. Member

for Surrey.

But on to some ICBC stuff, Mr. Chairman, since

we'll be discussing agriculture later this afternoon. I hope the first

member for Surrey sticks around and takes in the discussion. But on to

some constituency problems, Mr. Chairman. The first one is regarding

Kitsault. There is approximately half a mile of roads in Kitsault —

it's an isolated community — and I was wondering if some type of

program could be developed for people in Kitsault who drive half a mile

between the plant and their homes providing for a special tag that

could be up on their licence and for a reduction in their ICBC rates,

because they're presently paying the same amounts as individuals who

live in Prince Rupert or in Terrace.

Secondly, there is an

ongoing problem that the minister and myself have discussed over the

years: getting more visits by claim adjusters into the north. Last year

when we discussed this the minister stated his support of this. I

wonder what the minister could report back to the Legislature regarding

getting more claim adjusters to come up into the north to see problems.

Right now when there is an accident it's too easy to call down to

Terrace and say there has been an accident and have the RCMP state that

the car is a total write-off. It would be better to have more adjusters

come into the far north, not on a weekly basis but maybe on a monthly

basis. It appears too often, Mr. Chairman, that claim adjusters come

into the north on an annual, once-only trip into the riding.

Another

constituency problem that I wondered if the minister could help out

with is the statistics for accidents of 16- to 19-year-olds in the

Atlin constituency. I don't know if it's broken down into

constituencies, but I would appreciate it if the minister could get

this information regarding accidents from 16- to 19-year-olds in the

Atlin constituency.

The fourth issue is logging roads and

accidents. One of the problems that many residents are facing,

particularly in the Nass Valley, is that it is not a highway; it's a

CanCel-B.C. Timber road. There have been problems regarding

[ Page 7907 ]

logging

road accidents and ICBC. I hope the minister could look into this,

because there seems to be some confusion concerning the Nass Road.

The

last issue I'd like to discuss with the minister is that three or four

weeks ago I gave him a letter full of robust language from a

constituent who was having problems — I think a number of members in

the House had seen this letter — and I still haven't had any reply back

from the minister about what solutions the minister was able to offer

him regarding the fee that he was complaining about. These are five

local constituency issues, and I would certainly hope the minister

could give answers to those questions.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions and point

out what I see are some anomalies in the law as it presently stands,

and perhaps he might review some of these anomalies and explain whether

there is any progress being made internally in ICBC to try to resolve

them. One of the most devastating anomalies to those of us who come

into contact with ICBC is the strange rules concerning limitations of

coverage. Now I'm not dealing with the law on compulsory coverage — I

can deal with that separately. The concern I have is the strange

anomaly that if you are a driver who is insured and are convicted, say,

of reckless driving, that can result in a limitation on the damage

settlement of your victim. For example, if you're driving recklessly

and you have a million dollars' worth of coverage and you cause a

million dollars' worth of damage, ICBC has the right, if you are

convicted of that particular offence, to limit the coverage they give

to the claimant. So what claimants in this province have to do in

disastrous cases is sit around and hope that the driver who's been

charged receives an acquittal rather than being convicted, so that

their claim against ICBC can receive adequate compensation.

Just

to reinforce it, I give you the example of a whole family that would be

wiped out by a reckless, dangerous or drunk driver. Under the coverage

limit there is a discretionary clause which ICBC can enforce against

the claimants. They only have to pay up to the minimum coverage

required by law; they do not have to go into the coverage beyond it. I

am suggesting to the minister that this provision really should be

reviewed. I know ICBC has not done this in every case. There are

situations where ICBC has refused to exercise its discretion — on

compassionate grounds, I suppose — and has paid more than the limit in

the policy. I give them full marks for doing that. I think it indicates

some compassion on the part of the board in reviewing the claims. The

problem, however, is that people need to know a little more than that

compassion is going to be exercised. I think they are entitled to be

adequately compensated by law rather than relying upon a discretion.

The bottom line is that the corporation can turn the claim down as a

result of the policy violation of the driver who causes the problem and

causes the accident. I would ask the minister to look at that.

The second question....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I'll listen. I will concede the floor in a minute.

second question concerns the common insurance clause that prevails

between B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan. A B.C. resident, for example,

who is hit by a Manitoba driver, which driver has been out of his home

province for more than 60 days, is not entitled to coverage above the

$100,000 limit even if his policy has higher limits than that. That

again is something that should be looked at.

Of course, the

way to solve all these anomalies and problems in the law is to bring

forward a new piece of legislation that provides a $1 million minimum

coverage for all drivers in the province of British Columbia. This is

long overdue. I am surprised we haven't seen any legislation on this

floor. We are operating in the horse-and-buggy era in terms of limits

on the policies. If you looked at the budget of ICBC and the

profit-loss statement, you would find that by increasing the limits on

ICBC coverage you would not place the corporation at a significant

disadvantage. The majority of claims are well under the present limits.

It is the few catastrophic cases that are concerning some of us, where

the coverage is lacking when it is so desperately needed — for example,

in the case of a paraplegic or someone who received significant brain

damage. Those cases, while they may be few, are horrendous for the

individuals concerned. I submit that those are the cases which need to

be reviewed very carefully by the minister.

The other aspect

I want the minister to look at is the question of ICBC's public role.

As a public monopoly corporation, its responsibility is to promote

traffic safety and to create a reduction in our horrendous accident

rate in the province of British Columbia. We have one of the worst

accident rates in North America. ICBC's position — up to now, anyway —

seems to be that it's a public relations exercise; persuade people to

drive safely by advertising widely that safe driving is good and

reckless driving is bad. That is just not good enough. This kind of

public relations approach to safety is obviously not having any impact.

At the present time, ICBC has a budget of $2 million for this purpose.

In B.C. we had 143,310 accidents in 1980; five years ago we had 85,601.

We have had a 67 percent increase in five years. The number of insured

vehicles went up 22 percent in that period.

Driving is

becoming more hazardous in British Columbia and a good many people are

now asking what contribution ICBC is making toward promoting a

reduction in the awesome British Columbia statistics. One of the things

they did was to phase out the premium reduction for the safe driving

program. I think that should be reviewed. In the course of doing that,

it destroyed the small business people who were trying to survive in

that field. I can't believe that driver education program did not have

a positive impact in terms of the accident statistics.

Even more importantly, perhaps, ICBC has within its corporation more

information about accidents in this province than any other

organization, including police, municipalities, prosecutors or anyone

else. ICBC has the master computer system. They know which corners are

dangerous statistically. They can take traffic counts to determine how

many people go through a certain intersection and how many accidents

they're seeing at that intersection. Mr. Chairman, my complaint is that

there is still insufficient liaison between the various departments of

government — highways, municipalities and the police — and ICBC to

integrate this information. When it comes to traffic design, lighting

and all of the things which contribute to traffic safety. nothing is

happening. and we have this massive corporation, with all this

information. but which is not, it seems to me, using it successfully to

promote traffic safety. Surely one of the reasons that the overwhelming

majority of people in this

[ Page 7908 ]

province

supported and still support the principle of public auto insurance is

that they see it as a device to promote safety on the highway — that we

could integrate in a single corporation the question of safety on the

highways. We haven't done that. It seems to me that one of the things

that the public is looking at is why ICBC hasn't been more active and

more visible, and hasn't done more in terms of accident prevention.

There

are things, obviously, that ICBC can't do about the driving age, all of

the Motor Vehicle Act amendments, and so on. I'm not sure how

aggressive they've been in promoting changes in the traffic laws of the

province. I think they could be more aggressive there as well, but it

does seem that the role that ICBC should have been playing in accident

reduction is simply not being played. What I'm suggesting to the

minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that that whole question of

prevention should be reviewed by ICBC. They should beef up their

budget; $2 million is not enough. They're doing some public education

in the schools and they're doing some advertising, but that isn't

enough. We have to go to the actual question of redesigning lighting of

highways. Yes, some advertising is desirable and good, but the fact

that it's a public relations exercise is just not good enough.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

The

other question which has come up is whether, in fact, the corporation's

role in attempting to negotiate settlements, particularly on the

personal injury side, is as effective as it could be. If you examine

the annual report of ICBC, you find that the largest increase in cost

continues to be on the tin side, on the auto damage side. Those costs

have been escalating at a much greater rate than have those on the

personal injury side. Thirty-five percent of the cost is now going to

compensate those people who've been injured as a result of the

automobile on the highway, and 65 percent is now going to the question

of property damage.

There's a very real conflict that

develops within ICBC when you have an adjuster who takes statements and

brings in all the information about an accident, and then is faced with

a claim from this particular individual. That information doesn't go

back to the individual; it goes to ICBC, and the person then claiming

is at a bit of a disadvantage because any of that information can be

and has been used against people when they promote the claim. There has

to be another way of doing this. It seems to me that this conflict of

interest within the corporation is just not justice, and people

understand what fairness and justice is. It may be that you'll have to

use independent adjusters to get around it. Perhaps another way would

be to release to the other side any information that has been obtained

so that they have an opportunity to examine what has been said and

done, and so that they're not surprised if they have to come into a

conflict.

The other question is about what I think is a

stupid policy. ICBC does not instruct its adjusters to offer

prejudgment interest in regard to settlements, and that can be a very

major factor nowadays. I think that your prejudgment interest is

running at 12 percent to 13 percent, and if you have a protracted

negotiation, you will find that by not giving the adjuster the

authority to add the prejudgment interest into the settlement, it's

much more difficult to arrive at a settlement rather than go through a

costly court procedure. It seems to me that that rule.... Those of us

who have dealt with this are just amazed ICBC and their representatives

are not more forthcoming about that matter — that since you're going to

recover prejudgment interest at the trial anyway, you might as well

throw it into the package and try to get some resolution of the claim.

the moment our courts are clogged with cases that should be settled.

One reason there are fewer settlements is, I think, that there is an

unrealistic view of the appropriate award by both sides from time to

time. This is not just the fault of ICBC. I think there are unrealistic

views from claims lawyers as well about the value of any particular

claim. But it's getting worse. We're looking at many more cases going

to trial than we ever had before. Someone has suggested almost 80

percent, but that sounds like a high figure to me.

We are

faced with this problem of clogging the court system, so there is now

pressure to look to another system. I notice ICBC representatives have

started to look on a system like the Workers' Compensation Board scheme

with some favour. I see the minister smiling. He's read the same

reports that I have on this. This would solve a lot of bureaucratic

problems. You wouldn't have to wrestle with this idea of what is fair

and just; you'd have a

schedule of compensation. I find that

unattractive, not merely because I happen to be a lawyer and I'd be put

out of business. They've been trying to put lawyers out of business

since Nero's time, but they're always around. They're like priests: you

can't get rid of them. I'm satisfied that lawyers will always find a

way to make a living. That's really not been a major problem. It's just

like good farmers. They'd make a living too. Good lawyers will make a

living.

On the question of fairness in compensation, if the

minister is looking at a scheme of compensation which would give a

schedule to those injured on the roadway, how do you compare the loss

of an arm for a right-handed mechanic at age 22 with the loss of an arm

for an old-age pensioner on a

schedule basis? Both injuries are the

same but have a very unequal impact to the individual. One of the

difficulties we've always had in trying to assess fairness in claims is

that you've got to take the individual into consideration. I will

always oppose a scheme that becomes so depersonalized that the

individual in our society is lost. I hope I have support throughout the

House on that principle, because that's the principle of justice and

fairness.

It's easier to do it the other way. It may seem on

the surface that you've gotten rid of a lot of problems by doing it the

other way, but you haven't. You've compounded injustice, and it will

result in the kinds of awards that are grossly unfair or in some cases

too much. It is a scheme that avoids the difficult question of

compensating the individual in his real loss. That's what we're all

about. It's a difficult process; it's not an easy process. It's a

costly process.

The question of legal fees — lawyers

charging contingency fees — comes up from time to time. I don't know a

scheme that the public prefers other than that one. It's one that has

had much wider acceptance than a lawyer saying: "You'll get the bill at

the end, after I figure out how many hours I've spent." That may come

as a much greater shock than knowing in advance the approximate amount

it's going to be, depending on the result.

I agree that

there are temptations on lawyers to settle early and low. Remember that

there has been a good deal of complaint from ICBC that lawyers are

dragging this thing out and that lawyers are taking everything to

court. I can tell you

[ Page 7909 ]

from

some experience that if you're on a contingency contract, the best way

is to settle early, take your money and get on to the next file. In

reality, that is not what is happening. In reality, I think the

profession is trying to do its job as it always has — simply

representing its client to the best of their ability.

That

doesn't mean that lawyers' bills should not be reviewed or taxed. I

think some of them are too high. I find some of the percentage figures

appalling, too high and unrealistic in terms of the work that's being

done, but nevertheless, as a principle, it has broadened the

availability of legal services to people in the community. They feel

more at ease in going to a lawyer when they have some idea what it's

going to cost. So there's a good deal of merit in continuing that

system. If you want to move to a compensation scheme, I would

vigorously oppose any scheme that used a formula for the purpose of

compensation.

I want to make a couple more brief points to

the minister. One concern is that we still invest only 40 percent of

the reserves in the province of British Columbia and 60 percent outside

as an ICBC policy. I know the argument is that you should get the best

return on your money, and that if you decide as a policy to keep all

your money in British Columbia, you're going to have to pay more in

premiums or you're not going to have as adequate a return. I think we

should be willing to pay the price of keeping that capital in British

Columbia. I think one of the purposes of forming the public Insurance

Corporation was to try to develop capital pools here for development.

I'm sorry to see so much of that investment going outside of the

province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I want to thank the member

for Coquitlam-Moody for asking what I consider to be a number of

interesting and important questions and raising a number of points, not

in a political way but because he wishes to question the operation of

the corporation and has given some suggestions where he sees it can be

done a little better or a little differently. I would like to respond

to a number of members who have raised questions. I would like to start

with the last member, because I was interested in what he had to say.

Your

last item was ICBC. We only invest 40 percent of our investments in

British Columbia. I can tell you that our policy is to invest first in

British Columbia. You can recognize that in a number of instances those

investments are not available. We deal in large dollars. For example,

at the end of December 1981 we had $700 million in investments. There

are large blocks of money that come in as of February 28 because the

majority of renewals take place at that time. We look for investments

and attempt to place in British Columbia first, Canada second, and then

elsewhere if necessary. We do have to recognize return on investment,

because any reduction in return on investment will be reflected in

premium dollars paid by the motoring public.

On December 31,

1981, the revenue from investment received by the corporation was

$102,554,000. If you dropped that 1 or 2 percent you would find that in

order to make premiums and revenues equal the claims expense, we would

have to raise premiums. It is one of those issues where you have to

apply good logic, attempt to deal with your local investments and

attempt to serve British Columbia, because this is a B.C. corporation.

At the same time you must recognize that we have to serve the driver as

well.

You talked about contingency fees. My observation is

that there is a role for the Law Society to play here in monitoring its

own members. I don't think that most lawyers abuse that system of

contingency fees, but there are occasions. Like your association, in my

association of accountants if we abuse our code of ethics we certainly

are taken to task for it.

Just to give you one instance, I

have one letter in the files here that deals with the recent newspaper

articles about how management were concerned about the extent to which

the legal profession is involved with ICBC claims settlement and the

high cost of this involvement. This person's wife just completed a

settlement with the Insurance Corporation for an accident which

occurred almost three years ago. "This settlement required a court

judgment, and the process which led to the award was such as to

convince me that your management 's concerns are well founded. First

there were the financial aspects of the process. Of the total award

made to my wife for damages and costs, 41 percent were consumed by

legal fees and associated costs." This individual was writing as a

result of those newspaper articles.

With regard to no-fault

insurance, which is the workers' compensation approach, I agree with

the member for Coquitlam-Moody that it is too easy. By being too easy

and too impersonal you are going to see such situations as you

mentioned: a loss of an arm to a 22-year-old as opposed to a loss of an

arm to a 65-year-old driver and the same settlement being made. I don't

think it would work. As you know, there has been a task force, made up

of a number of officials from the corporation, the insurance industry

and the legal profession, looking at these things.

One area they've addressed is not so much no-fault insurance —

similar to a workers' compensation program — but the structured

settlement program which would say that a settlement would be achieved

that would not be paid out in one lump sum but would be structured over

the lifetime of the individual. That would catch the situation of a

22-year-old who lost his arm as opposed to getting one lump sum and

then the legal fee taking a certain percentage of it. But it doesn't

just stop there — and I'm not finding fault with the lawyers on that

score. The one lump-sum payment to an individual who has suffered a

loss, who is emotionally upset, could result in his having all those

dollars at a time when he may not really be able to emotionally deal

with that issue. As a result, he is not prudent as to how it's spent or

invested, and ends up after a short period of time, having, of course,

also suffered the results of the injury, with the funds provided for

his future well-being spent or poorly invested. That's the concept

behind the structured settlement, and I have some feeling for that, not

just because of possible high lawyers' fees but also because of

possibly paying a large amount of money — a half-million-dollar

settlement to an individual at a time when he may not be able to deal

with managing that money. If we structured it over a period of time he

would have, you might call it, disability pension, which would provide

him with income over a period of time to maintain the standard of

living he had before the accident.

Prejudgment interest. You make an interesting point in regard to looking at including that in the settlement that might be made.

The

driver-training program. I guess we could argue one way or the other.

Statistically, when you analyze those people who had driver-training

instruction — we gave $50 grants to those people who took it — relate

those people who had that instruction to those who didn't. and relate

it to the number of

[ Page 7910 ]

accidents

that have occurred, it is proven that the investment did not result in

a benefit. As a result, we took those dollars and directed them

elsewhere, still hoping to accomplish driver education.

The

member mentioned that ICBC has more information on accidents than any

other place. He talks about identifying street corners where a lot of

accidents occur, etc. Yes, I guess we could adapt the computer system

to providing that information. I would just say that there would be a

cost involved, and the cost, of course, would be paid for by the

motoring public in the form of premiums.

I think there has

been good liaison between ICBC, the motor vehicle branch, the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways and also the Attorney-General's

department. We put together a task force some time ago which resulted

in the bill that's before the House at the present time. That was done

as a result of good liaison between those two ministries and the

corporation, and I'm very pleased to see that the minister has brought

the bill before the House — a bill which I know I can't really comment

on in estimates. But it is a bill that I think would solve some of the

problems that exist today with regard to the motoring public.

The

member for Coquitlam-Moody mentioned the discretionary clause. You and

I know that when a person has, maybe, a half-million-dollar coverage,

but has breached his contract.... In effect, when he breaches his

contract, he really falls into the same level of coverage as an

uninsured motorist which is the maximum of $100,000. You're quite

right. I would say that in most if not all cases ICBC honours the claim

and the coverage, but it has the right to state that the contract has

been breached. As a result, the limitation is $100,000, which really

means that the motorist who is in breach of his contract — and, of

course, the primary breach is by the driver who was driving while

impaired — can be sued by the individual involved in the accident. In

many cases that doesn't accomplish anything, because the individual who

was driving while impaired may not have the assets to meet a lawsuit.

ICBC usually does live up to the limits of the contract, but it does

have the right, and it does maintain the discretion, to state that the

driver was in breach of his contract and therefore the limit of

$100,000 applies.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody talked

about the $1 million minimum, and I just want to say right now for the

benefit of the members here that we have a $100,000 minimum by law. You

might be interested in knowing that 88 percent of the driving public is

covered to an amount of $200,000 liability. In other words, they just

don't stay with the minimum; they increase it to $200,000. Eighty

percent of the driving public have $500,000, and 52 percent of the

driving public has $1 million or more liability insurance. The amount

of the premium isn't that great for them to do it, and that's an area

in which I think we could probably go to the individuals and say,

"Look, is $1 a month too much to pay for that protection?" — if your

figure of $12 is right. If you don't do it that way, then you are

saying to all drivers: "You're going to pay a little more if we raise

the minimum to $1 million."

Moving back to some other

members, the member for Atlin mentioned Kitsault and insurance at lower

cost because they only drive half a mile back and forth to the mine

site. We have this problem. We can look at individual situations, but

you're recognizing that ICBC writes contracts covering 1.8 million

vehicles in British Columbia. Every time you look at that exception to

the rule, you cause another administrative problem. However, your

comments are well taken, and when we're finished with my estimates I

can assure you that ICBC officials will be looking at some of the

questions that have been raised to see whether we can respond.

Adjusters

requested to visit the north more often. There is a very regular

schedule of attempting to get into those more remote areas to deal with

those issues from time to time, and if they're not being properly

served, I'd be quite happy to hear any individual complaints you have

and try to improve the service.

Mr. Member, I don't have the statistics on drivers aged 16 to 19 involved

in accidents in Atlin, but I can give you drivers 16 to 18 who are involved

in accidents in British Columbia. The latest statistics are for 1980 and for

the benefit of the House I'll read them out. A total of 4.3 percent of the

motoring public are between the ages of 16 and 18. Of that, the number of third-party

claims in that particular year total led 12 percent of the total claims involved

in that bracket. I don't have further detailed statistics, but we might

be able to find those. The computer is a wonderful thing, and we'll see

if we can identify the numbers in the Atlin area.

With

regard to that famous letter, yes, we attempted to communicate with the

man. We sent a telegram, but we didn't get a response. As a matter of

fact, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) tracked him down, and

he had moved to another place. Since that time we have communicated

with him again, and it is a refund, I believe, that's in the works at

this time. It was a hard task, I want you to note, to track this man

down. I agree with you that his language was colourful, to say the

least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you still have the letter?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think we framed it and filed it.

appreciate the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Vander Zalm). It's nice to know that a man involved in agriculture and

horticulture looks to the Ministry of Agriculture for assistance from

time to time and recognizes the value of the service and the work we

do. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we will attempt to update our

services in the field as we can. I think our strength lies in providing

services to that man outstanding in his field, so to speak — the

farmer. The farmer would agree and I agree that it's not grants or

government assistance that the farmer wants. He wants the ability to

grow and produce a product, to be able to market it and to get a fair

return on his investment, no different than any other businessman.

Almost every agricultural meeting I go to, the farmers say: "Mr.

Minister, we like your assistance program, your farm income assurance

and your interest rebate. We like all those programs and they help us a

great deal, but we'd much rather get it from the marketplace." They

will admit that themselves.

What we basically have in this

province and in this country — although some may not agree — is a

cheap-food policy. In Canada, for example, we pay out about 17 percent

to 18 percent of our disposable income — not our gross income but our

disposable income — for food. If you look at places like England and

Europe, you're looking at 25 percent plus for the purchase of the same

food in relation to disposable income. In places like Japan you're

looking at 30 percent plus for food. If we could have that kind of

return out of the marketplace, the farmers wouldn't have to look to

those assistance programs.

[ Page 7911 ]

One

other important statistic is that the farmer gets about 30 percent of

what the consumer spends for that food in the supermarket. The consumer

wants the controlled-atmosphere shopping mall, the colourful packaging,

advertising, promotion, etc. He wants that food moved from the farm

gate to a location where it is easy for him to pick it up; and there is

a cost involved. As a result, when you see that a head of lettuce costs

$1.29 in the middle of January, don't figure the B.C. farmer is getting

that. First of all, it comes from California. Secondly, in the summer

months the supermarket may have it on for 39 cents or 49 cents a head,

but only about one-third of that amount gets back to the farm gate. We

sometimes think the farmer is not doing too badly. I can tell you that

the amount he gets is not the price you pay in the store. He only gets

a portion of it.

Speaking of the ability to market, Mr.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), yes,

there is that ability. In certain areas the farm community has

marketing boards, just as other organizations have agencies set up in

order to get a price in the marketplace. However, as I say, that price

is sometimes not as much as we think it is when we buy things in the

store.

The member for Dewdney talked about improving claim

centres. We are addressing that question to see if we can improve the

service to the motoring public and improve the image of the corporation

in providing service to the public.

The member for Comox

mentioned the Ivy claim. My staff are listening to this conversation

and are attempting to get information back as quickly as possible. I am

told that this particular case has been in front of the courts twice

already, and both times the court has upheld that the maximum amount

available under the uninsured motorist fund is $75,000. I believe the

accident took place in 1978; that figure would now be $100,000. This

amount has been offered on numerous occasions by the corporation to the

person involved; but it has been refused.

I understand the

matter is being appealed once again. ICBC has lived up to the

legislation under which it operates. However, there is a

section in the

ICBC manual dealing with no-fault insurance, disability benefits and

the number of weeks covered. It is on page 29. I am not sure about the

common-law issue, which is intriguing. I think you said they were

together 10 years. The manual reads: "The head of the household in this

case is defined as the spouse contributing the larger income to the

household." I think you mentioned the Family Relations Act.

MS. SANFORD: The Family Compensation Act.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes. The way things are today, a common-law arrangement over a period

of time does recognize contributions by both parties. There might be an

area where this individual who had a common-law arrangement could be

considered a spouse; and maybe there would be further benefits. We will

certainly look into that as well.

I think I've covered them all to this point. If I’ve missed anything I'm sure the members will raise the questions again.

MR. HALL:

We don't want to delay the House committee much longer in this

particular

section of the debate on ICBC, but only want to point out

that the minister has not answered questions that he started to promise

to answer during debate on a bill almost a week ago. In order to

correct an impression which may have been left inadvertently by my

colleague for Surrey that we spend all our time talking about ICBC, I

want to read into the record and tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we

started talking about Agriculture last Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: For how long?

MR. HALL:

For as long as this House decided to talk about Agriculture, for as

long as the government could keep its act together, an hour at a time,

and could decide what to bring into this House at any one time. We've

had agriculture in and out and in and out. We started on ICBC after 4

yesterday afternoon, so don't come in here and try to say we've done

nothing except talk about ICBC, because that is not true.

MR. KEMPF: Do away, with it. Then we won't have to talk about it.

MR. HALL:

That may be your opinion, Mr. Member. The member for Omineca wants to

do away with it. That is not what his colleague. the member for

Penticton (Hon. Mr. Bennett) wants to do with it.

It's not

correct to say that we're not spending time on agriculture. We are

going to spend a lot more time on agriculture after I finish talking

about ICBC, so you can put that bag of votes back on the front bench,

Mr. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. (Hon. Mr. Hyndman).

The

point we've been trying to make in this debate is that the reason

members bring forth cases to you is not to repeat horror stories. If

I've said that once I may have said it two or three times, and I don't

want you to call me to order for repetitious conduct. The reason we

bring cases to you is to illustrate administrative faults and the

public's concern and awareness of what's going on with the corporation

— not to recount horror stories. as the minister would like to say. If

the minister would listen to this side, as he said he would do, and

phase in the changes in premiums the corporation charges for automobile

insurance based on territory and age.... If he had phased in some of

those changes he would not have been caught, metaphorically speaking,

with his trousers down and had to deal with the $6 million subsidy last

year and again this year. He could have processed those changes in the

way other changes are being gradually processed in. We might have seen

the corporation. for instance, spread that old-age persons discount of,

let's say, $12 million over possibly three or four years instead of

having to bite the whole bullet like that. You said you'd take that

under consideration, but you weren't even listening.

I want

to ask him now for the last time — we're not going to hold up the vote,

as we've certainly got records here and we can ask for him to

communicate with us perhaps in a more direct way — if he would now tell

us about the numbers in the uninsured fund that we dealt with the other

day, and if he'd tell us about the breakdown of the safety program at

ICBC. My colleague talked about that safety program and talked about

the corporation having the statistics at their disposal. The fact of

the matter is that the corporation has all sorts of statistics at its

disposal and I'd like to know how that $2 million expenditure on a

safety program breaks down to the dollar.

[ Page 7912 ]

He's

not replied to us as to whether the corporation does use Decima

Research at $20,000 or $40,000 a pop per quarter. He has not told us

the cost of the Delphi survey. He has not given us the figures on the

separation of senior personnel.

I was browsing through my records overnight and I found a nice column in the Summerland Bugle or the Okanagan Falls Gazette

with a picture of this bearded gentleman looking at me out of this

column, asking the members and the readers in that region to write to

him with their opinions about driving and drinking age. It is not a bad

technique to fill in a weekly column: ask someone else to do your work.

I'd like the minister to tell us what the results of that kind of

survey in his own community were. I would like to seriously share a

thought with the minister. I don't believe we should close the gap

between the driving and drinking age. If you make the driving and

drinking age the same, I think you make the police work harder. I would

like the gap to continue with at least two years between driving and

drinking. I don't believe you should automatically put up the driving

age to the drinking age. I think there should be quite a gap between

the two. I would like to know what the minister's thoughts are on that,

especially since he has gone to the trouble of getting constituency

input from the Okanagan Falls and Osoyoos area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you talk to your own constituents?

MR. HALL: Of course I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do they say?

MR. HALL: When I'm the minister I'll tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You may wait a long time.

MR. HALL: I'll bet you I don't wait as long as you do.

Mr.

Chairman, the greatest task that the minister has is not to get this

corporation back on track, but to convince his own colleagues of the

worth of his work. I want to pledge my assistance and the assistance of

the New Democratic Party opposition to that minister in the work he has

to do with his own back bench and a couple of his cabinet colleagues to

get support for this corporation that really should be doing much

better, could be doing much better and, Mr. Minister, must be doing

much better.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman....

[Applause.] I'm concerned when I get support from the opposition

benches. That bothers me. It weakens my case with my colleagues, I

think.

I'm sorry to say that I still haven't got the answer

to the question with regard to the uninsured motorists, but I sent

another message upstairs to find out why it hasn't been sent over.

The

public survey regarding the driving age that, I guess, I did in the

newspapers in my riding.... Yes, we've had a number of responses, and

my staff member involved with ICBC is compiling the statistical

information to tell me and my riding just what people think about

whether or not the driving age should be 16 or 18 and whether or not

the drinking age should be 19 or 21. I'm sure we're all aware that

there has been a considerable amount of news coverage on the driving

age of young people and, of course, on the drinking age.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

That's almost enough to make me sit down, Mr. Member, but your

colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), asked some

questions, and he wants answers.

Specific terms of reference

with regard to the Delphi survey were to establish the perception of

the public on the entire range of the services that ICBC offers. The

cost was approximately $65,000 for that survey, which was provincewide.

You

asked a question about how many senior members of staff had been

dismissed and awarded, following court action, amounts of money and

compensation for lack of notice. The answer is that there have been

only two actions related to the dismissal of senior members of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. They have been subject of a

trial in court and they both relate to staff of the legal department.

The first was the result of a dismissal in 1974. I'm not sure when you

were on the board, but that's where the first one was.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. HALL: Oh, I remember it well.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you? Oh.

The

other court award was recently reported in the newspaper, but the

matter is still under active litigation, so I'm not able to comment on

it.

You asked: "According to predictions of your

corporation, during the strike 50,000 claims appear not to have been

reported. Would you tell the committee if those claims have been

established?" Some 50,000 claims were estimated. Over the succeeding

months the corporation received claims which were reported and looked

after, to where now the estimated outstanding claims have been reduced

virtually to nil. So 50,000 was an estimate we put in.

You mentioned yesterday, although I guess Hansard

did not record it or spell it properly.... You said: "Isn't ICBC

already spending $20,000 per year with Decima research for reports?"

The answer came back that we have no record of paying that particular

company, but the spelling was wrong; you meant Decima. I believe — and

I'll have this checked out — that instead of using Decima, which we've

used for a number of years, this year we moved to this Delphi survey.

I think those were the questions. I have not got the answer back yet on the uninsured motorists, but I will endeavour to do so.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few brief comments before we

get off the topic of ICBC. One is that there's been a lot of discussion

about transactions, such as the rebates, that take so much time through

ICBC, and I suggest that perhaps some of this is because of too much

centralization. If agents are capable of selling the insurance — and

I'm talking about private-enterprise agents, if you like; the insurance

agents that do a lot of the business for ICBC — I would like to submit

that they are also capable of returning money when a licence plate is

turned in. It should not take months before a person has a refund, and

I would suggest that it would probably increase efficiency

immeasurably. Those agents in those offices depend on a commission, and

if some commission is necessary for that transaction, so be it. I think

it would probably cost

[ Page 7913 ]

less

than processing it through headquarters if you allowed for time

involved. Those agents have a vested interest in giving good and

immediate service to those customers. Their return customers depend on

it. I'd like to suggest to the minister that that is not necessarily

the case with direct employees of the Insurance Corporation in that

they are working for wages and whether the customer comes back is not

that significant to them. So there would be an incentive for better

service.

As far as the bookkeeping arrangements are

concerned in that respect, the agents would be quite capable of sending

in a report periodically saying that they have collected so much and

withheld so much for these reasons. Whatever form it takes, they could

send it in, and then it could be programmed into the computer. I think

that would speed up a lot of cases where people turn in licence plates

or make transactions and certainly the pro-rating formula. All of that

could be available to those agents anyway.

The question, of

course, would be whether that would take less staff in the ICBC direct

employ and whether the members opposite support that kind of a

reduction, because they are known to support the unions very much and

so they may say that we can't allow that sort of thing. I would submit

that it would speed up a great many of the transactions. For the more

serious cases involving arguments, I think people will be reasonable

and recognize that it can't be done immediately or it has to be done at

a higher level. But the small items could certainly be handled by

agents and just have reports sent in.

I would like to say

that in my function as an MLA I have received complaints from

constituents regarding delays and transactions that were erroneous. In

doing my job and contacting ICBC, I've always received very good help

and support from the senior levels at ICBC. They are most helpful.

would like to make a final point. I know there is a great deal of

pressure from various sources in this province right now to raise the

driving age, and I'm very concerned about that. I recognize that there

is a relatively high percentage of accidents among young people, but so

often our society responds by blanket punishment for everyone rather

than dealing more severely and properly with the violators alone. For

instance, if 25 percent of young drivers are having accidents, that is

a tragic figure. But I would like to ask the minister to resist the

pressure to have the driving age raised, because when 25 percent are

having accidents, I would like to remind everyone that 75 percent are

not having accidents, and I feel very strongly that those 75 percent

should not be punished. So let's deal with the violators and, for

goodness' sake, let's not all get on that simplistic bandwagon, which

is that if we take everybody's rights away from them, we're going to

help everyone or the majority. Let's deal more severely with those

people who deserve to have their rights or privileges taken away from

them, but let us not, for goodness' sake, punish all 16- 17- and

18-year-olds, many of whom are excellent drivers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the member has a good point with regard to

local agents being able to handle refunds. The management of ICBC is

addressing this question. One major concern is the time-payment plan

and the local agent knowing whether the man's commitment to make his

second or third instalment causes some problem. However, we are looking

at two things: firstly, the individual console in the agent's office

which gives him immediate access to the computer; and secondly, where

volumes don't dictate that type of installation, direct phone access to

the computer to get an amount. I agree with you that too much

centralization is not good. Ninety percent of our role, I think, is

providing service to the driving public, and one way we can serve them

if they want a refund or some information is by having access to it and

providing the service at the agent's office and not have them wait

three or four weeks because we've got a big corporation in downtown

Vancouver.

Regarding your comments about the age of the

driver, your figures are probably not as good as mine. The statistic I

have says that 88 percent of drivers under age 19 are good drivers. Why

should we penalize 88 percent because 12 percent have proven to have a

bad driving record? The FAIR program addressed that question. We

sometimes forget about that. It said: "This is the end of

discrimination for age, sex and marital status." It said: "The good

driver will pay a reasonable premium and the bad driver will pay a

penalty for his driving record." That, I think, is an approach that is

more "fair" than just raising the age and catching those the good

drivers in the net.

Although I'm asking the question of my

constituents in mv newsletter — although the issue has been raised in

the news media on a number of occasions — I don't disagree with what

you say. It seems to me that we should address the question of the bad

driver and treat the good driver accordingly, giving him a fair

insurance rate rather than penalizing him.

MRS. WALLACE:

Last Tuesday, at the beginning of last week, when we discussed the

minister's estimates when they were first introduced in the House, the

minister spent some time outlining the things that his ministry had

been doing and the reasons therefore. I spent some time responding to

that. I think, in fact, I spoke myself right into my red light that

first time around. I would like to continue that line of questioning

now in a little more specific and detailed way.

One of the

first questions I have for the minister relates to his press release

dated January 19, which was issued in Kelowna at the time the B.C. tree

fruit growers were meeting. He indicated at that time that a new grant

program for housing seasonal farmworkers was in the wheels. It said:

"The seasonal workers' housing program is to be a three-year,

$250,000-a-year, shared-cost program for growers who gross more than

$10,000 a year from their operations." It said that the application was

made to Treasury Board; that if approved, the program would come into

effect on April 1 of this year; and that the grants would be paid on a

first-come, first-served basis. What is the status of that program?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you got another question?

MRS. WALLACE: There's another question in line with this press release.

You

were also going to change the income assurance to 100 percent indemnity

for an additional segment of designated commodity producers. The 100

percent would go from $20,000 to $27,000. An application for that

change was made to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. I

would like an answer from the minister on that press release.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I believe the press release states that we were looking at those. Those were two proposals that

[ Page 7914 ]

were putting forward. Both of those proposals have been, you might say,

caught up in the restraint program inasmuch as we had to, as

ministries, limit our expenditures. As a result, we weren't able to

make those amendments.

MRS. WALLACE: What you're

telling me is that this was just so much propaganda at the B.C. Fruit

Growers Association meeting, and that in effect nothing is happening

with either of those programs. I was afraid that was going to be your

answer. It certainly seems to me rather unfair to go and tell people

that they're going to get these programs and then let them just fade

into oblivion at a future date.

In a similar vein, at the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture meeting at year ago, I believe it was,

they were discussing a resolution regarding assistance on a lime

program. At that time, I believe there was assurance from the ministry

that there would be assistance forthcoming. Is that program also caught

up in restraint, or is the liming assistance program going forward?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

First of all, the fruit growers' convention was in January. We were

still in budget negotiations and discussions at that particular time.

That is why I qualified my remarks at that time regarding applications

for funding. I wasn't attempting, in any way, shape or form, to mislead

any delegate to that convention.

The housing program for seasonal farmworkers is still under review, so we may be successful with that.

The

first comments with regard to a liming program dealt with the possible

use of that type of program in the compensation situation in the

development of Site C — if it went ahead, it might be possible to use

some of the compensation funds to develop agriculture in that area. The

second area was looking at it in my budget, because of the interest

that was shown. We did not put that into place this year. You might say

it was caught up in the restraint program. It is a program that I think

has merit, and it is possible we may pursue that next year.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his comments.

would like to move now to the farm income insurance program. I have

some real concerns about the dollars here. First of all, I would like

to refer you to — unfortunately there are no page numbers — this

detailed

summary that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has

introduced — "Detailed Summaries by Ministry" — which indicates, on

your budget.... I am sorry there are no page numbers, but it is under

votes 6.5.5 and 6.5.6. You will note that it indicates there that

6.5.5, crop insurance, was some $13 million in the 1981-82 budget; farm

income assurance was $126,000. I am sure this must be an error. In

fact, if you carry over to the final page 1t shows a total of $21

million for crop insurance and $96,000 for farm income assurance. I am

sure that this information is in error.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Do you have the blue book?

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, I have the blue book too, but there is so much more detail in

here. In attempting to use this to understand what the blue book says,

I found myself in a bit of a problem. I am wondering whether or not

there have been any checks and verifications made to find out whether

or not this document is authentic and reliable, because that seems to

be absolutely in error.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am looking

at page 30 of the blue book. Farm income assurance, as the member can

see there, was $13,663,377 for 1981-82; in 1982-83 it is budgeted at

$21,255,112. Although I don't have the same document in front of me

that you have, in that computer printout you have they are out of line.

You might say that what you have there is in error. This is the final

document, and I really don't know what you are referring to, because I

don't have a copy with me. You are correct in saying that the amounts

appear to be transposed.

MRS. WALLACE: I wanted to

raise that point because I think that the members of the House would

agree that it is very difficult to find out how those moneys are being

expended when there is so little detail given in the blue book now.

Take grants for example. It is just one big lump sum. Even in here it

is very difficult to find out where grants have been made. I would urge

the minister to ensure that next year this backup document, first of

all, has page numbers on it and, secondly, is checked for accuracy, so

that we do have that tool to work with to be able to understand what we

are debating here.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Going

on with farm income assurance, some $21 million is budgeted for this

year. It is my understanding that the payments for the beef income

insurance plan are usually made, for any given calendar year, about 50

percent out of one budget year and 50 percent out of the other. I

wonder if you could tell me how much, if any, of last year's beef

insurance plan was actually paid before March 31 of this year.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff advise me that $14 million was paid out of 1981-82 — that is, last year's budget.

MRS. WALLACE:

Fourteen million dollars was actually paid out. So then there is still

a fair amount owing, eh? Is there something like $17 million owing on

the beef plan, coming out of this year's beef plan to cover last

year's? Is that a fair figure?

HON. MR. HEWITT: My

staff advise me that incomplete submissions — ones that are being

further analyzed and have not been paid out — approximate about $2

million.

MRS. WALLACE: Only $2 million is owing on

last year's beef plan from this year's budget; is that what you're

telling me? Can you tell me, then, if any other plans from last year

are to be paid out of this year's budget, and if so, the approximate

amounts? I don't want exact figures. I gather from the farm community

that there are some delays in getting this money, and I'd like the

statistics on record as to where the minister stands.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

My understanding is that all claims have been processed, and none has

been delayed or held back. I think the member is aware that B.C. Tree

Fruits' claims were processed. The beef producers got theirs by the end

of April. Once the material comes in from either the packing house or

the association, it is audited and checked, and we process the payments

as quickly as possible. The record would probably show that we were a

little earlier this year because of the pressure on the agricultural

community as

[ Page 7915 ]

a result of high interest rates, etc. We tried to get the payments back to them as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE:

Did I understand the minister to say the beef payments went out in

April? Would that not come out of this year's budget, not last year's?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The beef payments were all out by April, but those payments were

charged to 1981-82. As the member is probably aware, the fiscal year

ends but the books remain open to clear up some of those things. It

just happens that the payments are approximately at the same time.

MRS. WALLACE:

In spite of all that, does this $21 million allow anything for any new

plans this year, or is it simply sufficient to cover what in your

estimation will be needed in the coming year for plans presently in

existence? Are any new plans under negotiation? Are you working towards

new areas?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The renewal of two plans is under negotiation. One is potatoes, and I believe the other is raspberries.

MRS. WALLACE:

Now that the Farm Income Assurance Fund has been recouped, how are

those records being kept? And is the interest that will accrue being

added to the funds available for farm income assurance? Are the moneys

put in by the producers being carefully earmarked and the interest

carefully accumulated, towards the payment of farm income assurance?

notice an order-in-council dated April 28 that moves $1 million out of

consolidated revenue for the farm income plan. Is this the way we're

going to see the Farm Income Assurance Fund financed in the future? If

it is going to be done through order-in-council by moving blocks of

money, can we get details of what they actually cover?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Carry on.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says to carry on. He's going to see if he can put together an answer on that one.

You

can gather from my questions that I am a little concerned about the

future of the farm income insurance program. Certainly the farmers I've

talked to are concerned about it. The minister keeps talking about how

it is desirable to get the return out of the marketplace. We couldn't

agree more; it would be fine if that could happen, but certainly it

isn't at this point. Even with some degree of organization in the area

of marketing on behalf of the farmers, it has been very difficult to do

anything about controlling prices. There may be some control on those

groups that have national schemes based on cost calculations, but

certainly other plans like vegetables, pork, and all those products....

Beef, of course, is one that's subject to the whims of the marketplace

and shows very heavy losses when those prices go down. We just aren't

able to get it out of the marketplace at this time.

Surely

the farm income assurance scheme is the one — I'm sorry the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) isn't here — that really does

take into consideration a successful operation, because they are able

to do a little better than the unsuccessful ones under the terms of

that scheme. Also, it's a contributory scheme, an insurance plan where

their payments come in. It seems to me that that is the one program

that is best able to ensure the viability of the farming community

until we reach a point where the return comes from the marketplace.

It's

fine to move in that direction, but along with that we have to ensure

that there is some way to protect the rights of the low-income people,

who have to have the right to provide an adequate diet to their growing

children and themselves. It is a social problem that will be a long

time in being resolved. In the meantime, the farm income assurance

scheme was established to ensure a viable return to the farmer, and it

is an insurance scheme. It does have the flexibility to reward

productivity. I hate to see any move that limits its operation, and I'm

a little concerned that the $21 million in the budget is not going to

be enough to cover all the needs for the future. I can't talk about

legislation, Mr. Chairman, but there is some material before this

Legislature which limits the funds that can be spent on farm income

assurance to the amount of the existing fund, matching premiums and so

on. I have some concerns about that, and I wonder if the minister is

now prepared to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister, is it agreed that the House Leader may make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, I ask all members to join me in a very cordial welcome to

a number of students from Point Grey Secondary School in Vancouver, in

company with their teacher Mr. John Plommer. They have the distinctive

motto "Honor ante honores," or honour before honours. I was proud to be

a member of that school, along with my colleague Dr. Patrick McGeer.

It's nice to have them here.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr.

Chairman, what used to be special funds are now special accounts. Each

plan is kept separately, and the producers' premium is identified in

those accounts as opposed to going into special funds.

MRS. WALLACE: What about the interest?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

No interest is paid. Those are premiums going into an account. As the

member knows, the government puts its funds into that account as well.

MRS. WALLACE:

So you're telling me that the farmers' premiums that go in there will

sit there, and the interest will go into consolidated revenue. The

premiums paid by the farmers will not be used for farm income

assurance. That is not acceptable to me, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I think the member would also be well aware that many of

those accounts are in a deficit balance, which really means that the

farm community has taken advances, and the government has put up more

than its share of the premium. You can understand the reason no

interest is paid on the producers' premium.

MRS. WALLACE:

Unfortunately the question standing in my name on the order paper which

would have provided me with that information has not yet been answered.

I would have been very interested in having that, because I'm not at

all sure whether apple producers should be paying for the

[ Page 7916 ]

production of beef. Anyway, that seems to me a rather unfair procedure.

want to deal next with the interest reimbursement program. This has

caused a lot of concern in the farming community. George Aylard, the

head of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, has been quoted as saying

at an annual meeting of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association on

March 31: "Economists are predicting a decline in farm incomes of 15 to

28 percent for 1982. This is certainly not the time for support

programs to be cut unrealistically, as we believe has been done in the

case of the interest, reimbursement program."

As I pointed

out a week ago or more, when we started discussing these estimates, the

higher the prime rate goes the better off the Minister of Agriculture

is with his determination to pay only 1 percent below prime. A great

many of these loans are financed by various monetary institutions. The

farm credit rate is, I believe, something like 16.75 percent. So you

get a situation where a lot of the interest rate falls right through

the cracks. Many people who have sizeable loans are getting nothing out

of this 1 percent below prime when prime is very high. In fact, the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture brief presented to our caucus and, I

believe, to your caucus estimated that you probably have too much in

the budget if you persist in sticking to 1 percent below prime. They

have done some work, and I have done some work, and it seems to me that

if you were to rebate back to 9 percent — which seems like a pretty low

rate of interest today, but you must remember that when this program

started, the rebate was back to 8 percent.... Do you know the estimated

cost to rebate to 9 percent all farm loans in this province? It's $45

million. That's a fair chunk of money. You must remember that if you

keep the agricultural community viable, it has very good potential for

job creation. The ratio is something like 1:5 of people actually

engaged in agriculture to people engaged in related industry.

you keep that industry viable, you're creating jobs. The government had

no compunction about voting a special warrant for $45 million for

northeast coal. To create one job in mining is a lot more costly than

to create one job in agriculture. Certainly a $45 million interest

reimbursement program would infuse such a degree of activity into the

agricultural industry that we would see a tremendous job creation

there; we would see viability in that industry; we would see the

related industries booming and a great many more jobs created. It's a

move that would appear to me to be a wise use of government money if

they're really concerned about two things: one is job creation and the

economy, and the other is the well-being of agriculture. Certainly the

two are very closely related.

A week ago the minister stood

in this House and spoke about how good it was that we had agriculture

as a stable industry, now that mining and forestry were in trouble.

That would be the place to invest some dollars to ensure that the

agricultural community — the people who work in it and the people who

could be employed in it — have that opportunity. But that's not

happening; instead, we have $10 million in here. You've said that the

rest of society would be upset if you put too many dollars in there.

This government is quite prepared to vote vast sums of money to other

jurisdictions, supposedly in the name of job creation and to stimulate

particular industries, but we don't seem to see it happening in

agriculture.

Again I would point out that agriculture has

one of the highest multiplier ratios of any industry; also the cost of

creating a job is one of the lowest. As far as I'm concerned, it's poor

economy to cut back on things that are really causing problems in the

agricultural industry.

The minister spoke about how well

farmers were managing their businesses, that they were consolidating

their operations. That's right: they're consolidating their operations.

Do you know what he means by that, Mr. Chairman? He means they're

selling off part of it; they're curtailing their operations. That's

what he means by "consolidating." That's what's happening with a great

many of the farmers whom I've talked to. Because of high interest

costs, they're being forced to get rid of some of the property, some of

the high capitalization, and consolidate or curtail their operations,

as he says, in order to meet their mortgage payments.

think the minister and I are on different tracks on this farm interest

reimbursement program. I don't think we're ever going to see eye to

eye. I have pointed out to him in quite some detail the reasons why I

think he's following the wrong direction.

It's my

understanding that there is no additional government funding going into

ALDA. The revolving door is closed. The money that is in there is

simply revolving and will stay there to be reused, but no additional

funds are being put into that program. This seems to be a poor time to

cut back on much needed assistance for a very stable and important

industry. In tough times — these are tough times — I think the

government has a responsibility to ensure that programs are available

to keep the industry alive. It seems to me a very poor time to stop any

additional funding going into the ALDA program. In fact, it is my

understanding that no new applications can be received there. There are

already far more applications in than there are funds to cover, just as

a carryover from the preceding year. It is a nothing program this year.

briefly discussed ARDSA before. We discussed it under another form in

this Legislature, too, but I wonder now if we can talk about dollars.

There are $12 million sitting there unspent. These are 50-cent dollars

if the federal scheme is continued. If not, will the moneys there this

year from the province for their share be used this year?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The

budget indicates some $10 million for this year, but that's already

committed. With that commitment out I believe there is still $12

million available from the federal funding. I am wondering just where

we are going on that program, if we are going to move ahead on that at

all this year or if it has just ground to a halt at this point in time.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

April 17 was a big day in the history of Canada. It was the day of the

patriation for the Canadian constitution, but it was similarly a big

day for the town of Port McNeill. As a matter of fact, it was April 17

when Port McNeill became a town. It was incorporated as a village in

1966. It certainly grew and gained prominence on the North Island and

it was incorporated as a town — the first Canadian municipal

incorporation under the authority of the

[ Page 7917 ]

patriated

Canadian constitution — on April 17. Today a delegation from Port

McNeill that I would like to introduce to the House and have you

welcome was at Government House in order to officially have the

proclamation read and to receive the message of good wishes from His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor personally. I am sure the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will add to the welcome, so I will speak

for myself and welcome Mayor Gerry Furney and Mrs. Furney; Alderman

John Ferrari; Alderman Bert Jensen and Mrs. Jensen; Alderman Robert

Borden, who is also the chairman of the regional district; and Alderman

Bill Kinley. I would ask to have the House extend to them a

congratulatory message through our welcome on this occasion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The introduction would appear more in the order of a ministerial statement. The member for North Island may wish to reply.

MR. GABELMANN: That is a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that we may want to remember.

just want to join with the Minister of Municipal Affairs in welcoming

the group from Port McNeill and also extend my congratulations to them

on their recent historic event of becoming a town on the day of the

proclamation of the constitution in this country. I just want to add my

words of welcome and congratulations. Gerry, I think we have a few

things to talk about, and we'll be chatting anon.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The member talked about the interest reimbursement program and keeping

the figure to which interest costs are taken down to 9 percent. I just

want the House to know that that type of approach, I think, would not

really be that well received by the farm community, and I'll try to

explain why. You could see very quickly that a farmer, being a

businessman, would look at that program and say: "If I'm very astute,

I'll keep my operating capital high and I'll invest my funds in term

deposits, because the cost of the money is only 9 percent" — and that

would really not be fair to the taxpayers of the province. The member

mentions that it would only cost $45 million to maintain that program.

and I can only say that I think, Madam Member, that we would be remiss

as politicians and as members of government if we put in place a

program such as that, because it would not be realistic at this

particular point in time.

I appreciate that the farm

community is hurting, and I guess I'm only repeating the comments you

made about all other sectors of the economy are hurting. We provide

some relief when we take the interest costs down to 1 percent below

prime, and in that way it does assist the farm community. Also

consolidation is taking place. A lot of the farm community, recognizing

the cost of money, are reducing their indebtedness in order to keep

their costs down, the same as other businessmen do. I think that

program does give realistic assistance. The solution to the problem, I

think, is more when those interest rates move down, as opposed to how

we could subsidize the farm community by an excessive program if we

took them down to 9 percent.

The ALDA program. There is $3

million in the budget. It is a revolving fund made up of the payments

that are received; the payments, of course, include interest on the

loans outstanding. That fund will continue to revolve to provide new

funds for new loans.

The ARDSA program. In 1982-83 we have

approximately $10 million in it. We had not expended all the moneys

under that program. There was a total of $60 million. made up of $30

million from the federal government and $30 million from ourselves. At

the present time we are looking at the possibility of extending that

program in order to continue to provide the ARDSA program to the farm

community and to use up the balance of that $60 million, which is about

$12 million. At present it is under consideration as to whether or not

we can extend that program.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

the minister has received a copy of a letter, I think it is, directed

to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture from the B.C. Chicken Growers

Association, interior division. over the signature of Rod Speidel of

Armstrong, so I won't bother reading it. I think the minister is

probably familiar with it, but I would draw to his attention that it is

supported by a petition of quite a number of area farmers who are

concerned about the discrepancy in freight rates between that

particular area of the province and other areas. They attach the

freight-rate differentials showing a comparison of the freight rates

from the coast, the Fraser Valley and from the interior. It shows that

corn shipments from Manitoba to the interior are $46.30 a metric tonne,

and a subsidy of $4.50 is provided, which reduces the freight cost to

$41.80,

whereas from Manitoba to Abbotsford, for the same commodity,

the basic freight rate of $46.30 brings a subsidy of $11.50, making the

net freight cost $34.80. They also list other food supplies, meals and

wheat, and the same kind of subsidy advantage exists for the Fraser

Valley over that area of the central interior.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'd

like the minister to respond as to what his ministry is considering in

terms of some kind of equalization so that no area of the province has

a competitive advantage, through,, government subsidy. over another. I

don't know whether or not the minister has yet replied to the chicken

producers in that area. Quite frankly, I'm not sure whether this

subsidy is totally a provincial one or a federal one, but whether or

not it is under the sole control of the provincial ministry, I would

think that the minister would have a responsibility and interest in

ensuring that subsidies for the farmers in British Columbia are

equitable and provide assistance to the farming community without

giving advantage to one area over another. Whether it is necessary to

deal with the federal minister in this respect or not, the

responsibility is still the same. I am sure the minister would agree

that he would want to see an equitable and fair system of freight-rate

subsidies for all areas of the province which would preclude setting up

this kind of apparent competitive advantage to the Fraser Valley in

this respect. I would appreciate receiving the minister's comments on

this point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't get the first

dollar figures that the member mentioned regarding the interior. I

gather, though, that the interior does not get the same benefit as the

coast — the Fraser Valley producers — and that is discrimination or

inequality. It is a federal subsidy under the feed freight assistance

program administered by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. We monitor

that program. From time to time they talk about doing away with it, but

we've been successful in maintaining that program. We support equal

consideration to all parts of the province. Although I don't have it in

front of me here, I am sure we would have followed

[ Page 7918 ]

on that and expressed our concern about discrimination within the

province to the federal agency, which is the Canadian Livestock Feed

Board.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his reply.

The figure was for corn from Manitoba to the interior, a $4.50 subsidy

on a basic freight rate of $46.30 — in other words, a net rate of

$41.80 —

whereas from Manitoba to Abbotsford there was an $11.50

subsidy on the basic $46.30 freight rate, for a net price of $34.80,

giving the Fraser Valley a competitive advantage of some $9 or close to

it. I would appreciate it if the minister would follow up on that with

the federal authorities, and perhaps he would be kind enough to let me

know the results of his representations to the federal authorities in

that respect. The farming community in my area is vitally concerned in

this way.

I've raised with the minister on a number of

occasions in the past the question of the secondary roads and the load

limitations in the interior, a major factor for most of the livestock

producers up there. When they have to haul grain supplies from area

suppliers and those suppliers are limited by the load restrictions

through the Ministry of Highways, then the grain suppliers are talking

about increasing the prices because their volume of hauling is down. I

don't know whether the minister pursued that last year, or had any

discussions with the area feed suppliers or with the farmers involved,

but it is an ongoing problem. I think it can be partially mitigated by

persuading his colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) to

pay closer attention to the improvement of those secondary roads in

that area. Many of them are very old. Anything we can do to minimize

the cost of food production in the province is money well spent. I

suggest we have an obligation to provide good standard roads for those

old areas of the province before undertaking major new construction

projects. I would appreciate the minister's having a look at that

particular problem, which I think is more peculiar to the interior of

the province than anywhere else. When we have breakup in the spring, as

a matter of course, we have these load restrictions, sometimes for up

to a six week period, and it really interferes with the flow of feed

supplies to the farmers.

There's one other thing I wanted to

mention to the minister. We have a particular flooding problem in the

Armstrong area at the moment from Otter Creek, which flows through the

valley from Armstrong pretty well down to Otter Lake. I was there last

week and viewed this acreage that is now under flood. I don't know

exactly how many farms are involved, but I'm told some 600 to 650 acres

are under water. Apparently there's a fairly high salinity to the

water, and it sours the land and prevents viable crops from being

planted in what is very productive valley bottom land.

occurred to me that some assistance might be available for dredging the

canal that carries this runoff down to Otter Lake. I don't know whether

the proper approach for a possible program along that line would be

through the minister and his department or through the federal

authorities with the ARDSA program. I would appreciate receiving a

response from the minister on what might be done to institute a program

which could reclaim a very large and significant amount of acreage in

what I say is very highly productive land.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I recall the debate we had last year regarding the area

that had problems with breakup on the roads and the ability to move in

supplies. I discussed that with the minister, and I believe some

permits were issued to allow trucks to get into that area. It's an

annual problem, as the member knows, because of spring breakup.

I'm

not aware of the flooding in the Armstrong area. The Ministry of

Environment, with regard to flood control, may have some interest in

the comments the member makes. We have, of course, the ARDSA program,

which is a joint federal and provincial program. In the past my

ministry has become involved in drainage programs, and that's a

possibility if we get the present ARDSA extended for a further year.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, there are just two or three other things that I would

like to raise with the minister. The DATE program — again, because of

this new form of reporting, I'm having difficulty knowing whether or

not it's in the budget and, if so, what's being done with it. I'm

wondering if the minister can tell me what he is proposing in this

particular area of research and development. It's the one area in his

budget where he gets into demonstrably innovative methods of proceeding

with agriculture. I'm wondering whether there have been any

applications, what projects are underway, whether it was carried out

last year, what was done last year and how many dollars he actually has

in the budget this year for the program.

I note