1984 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3087 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Public service cuts-forestry. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3087

Public service cuts-Victoria. Mr. Blencoe –– 3088

Marine industries reports. Mr. Hanson –– 3098

B.C. fishermen lobby. Mrs. Wallace –– 3088

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 3088

Insurance corporation. Mr. Cocke –– 3089

Coal slick on Stuart Channel. Mrs. Wallace –– 3089

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 3090

Mrs. Dailly, Ms. Brown

On vote 46: Medical Services Commission –– 3091

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Ms. Brown

On vote 47: preventive and community health care services –– 3093

Mr. Passarell

On vote 48: institutional services –– 3093

Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 3094

Hon. Mr. Schroeder, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Passarell, Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 3104

Hon. A. Fraser, Mr. Passarell, Mr. Lockstead

Tabling Documents –– 3111

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1984

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

House to welcome one of the leading architects of British Columbia, who

is in the gallery today; he has been a distinguished citizen of British

Columbia and of the city of Vancouver. Will the House please welcome

Mr. Gerald Hamilton.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a constituent from Saanich and

the Islands, Alice Howes, has brought along two guests today to observe

the Legislature for a little while, Orville and Toni Davis of Swalwell,

Alberta. Even though that name seems to have rolled off my tongue

easily, I have no idea where Swalwell, Alberta, is, and I say that in

all candour; however, it is near Threehills, and I'm busy checking on

where Threehills is.

HON. MR. McGEER: The minister does know where High River is.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to give greetings to two very

distinguished Point Grey constituents. We don't often see people from

the faraway area of Point Grey, but Mr. and Mrs. William Sauder are

here today. Mr. Sauder is a member of the board of governors of UBC.

This is a very important function — and constituency, rivalling that of

Saanich and the Islands.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I

would like to extend every good wish to the Canadian athletes who are

now in Yugoslavia. I hope that it could be a unanimous good wish from

this Legislature, and that you would send a telegram to that effect.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to introduce Mr.

Sander and his lovely wife, but since my colleague Mr. McGeer did, I'll

just say that Mr. Sauder also served as a director of the British

Columbia Development Corporation for a number of years.

Also in the gallery today is an ex-member of this Legislature, who

used to represent the city of Victoria, Newell Morrison, who is also

chairman of the British Columbia Development Corporation. I'd like you

to make Newell welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are

a number of people from Bowen Island. I'd like the House to welcome

Mrs. Gail Taylor, who represents the chamber of commerce on Bowen

Island. I don't see them in the gallery, but I'm sure the following are

still on the premises: George Helenius, who is the GVRD representative

for Bowen Island, and John Rich, who is the Islands Trust

representative for Bowen Island. They were all here today to meet with

the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I would like this House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, one of your constituents who was visiting and had lunch with me

today is Dr. Alvin Bastedo, who is a well-known man in British Columbia. I'd

like the House to welcome him.

MR. PARKS: In your gallery this afternoon — and I'm sure we

are going to see them on numerous occasions for the next few weeks —

are four legislative interns. As we are all aware, through the auspices

of your good office there is a program that allows students to partake

in the legislative process. I'd like you to welcome the four

legislative interns assigned to the government caucus: Nancy Morgan,

Matthew Davies, Steve Fudge and Ray Bryant.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today.

First of all, I'd ask the House to welcome Pat May and Marlene Purvey.

This is their first visit to the House. Mrs. May is on her way to take

up residence in Australia and I'd ask the House to bid her bon voyage.

We also have with us today Mr. Bill Richardson, the national

president of the Society of Management Accountants of Canada, Mr. Bill

Langdon, the executive vice-president, and a good friend of mine, Mr.

Bill Easton, whose title, I think, is executive director of the Society

of Management Accountants of B.C. I'd ask the House to bid these

gentlemen welcome.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS — FORESTRY

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Forests.

On Friday 506 forestry jobs were axed by the minister, bringing the

total to around 1,400. Does the government plan further reductions in

the role of the government in the forest industry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I can't recall that the government's role

in forestry has ever been diminished. It's been expanding rather

remarkably over the last few years.

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the fact that many of the personnel

involved perform revenue functions, such as scaling and auditing, has

the minister determined the revenue implications of this kind of

privatization of forest management?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The reduction in staff positions

announced last Friday goes across the entire spectrum of the activities

of the ministry, and there are no more involved in the

revenue-collection function than in any other function. It will not

have any negative effect on that part of our ministry's activities.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister says it will not have an effect. Does he have a study demonstrating that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: All the moves that the ministry is making

and has been making over the last year have been very carefully thought

out, and I can assure the member that there will be no negative effect

on revenue-collection. I'm sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) would not allow me to do that.

MR. GABELMANN: Will the minister advise if any other aspect of management of our public forest lands is slated for privatization?

[ Page 3088 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Changes will be made from time to time in

all ministries of government. I can't lay out for the member now just

what our future plans are, but as they develop we'll advise the member

and the House.

PUBLIC SERVICE CUTS — VICTORIA

MR. BLENCOE: The layoff of 55 forestry staff in Victoria on

Friday is the culmination of several years of a depopulation policy for

Victoria by this government. Has the Minister of Finance decided to

place a moratorium on further provincial government job transfers and

job cuts in Victoria?

[2:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: In my view, the question was prefaced with a premise which is not necessarily correct.

MR. BLENCOE: Victoria has reached the staggering level of

16.2 percent unemployed. That means that the capital of British

Columbia is now officially classified as a depressed area in Canada.

It's a very sad day, and a sad reflection on this government. The

question that many people are asking, and that I am certainly asking,

is: when will the provincial government stop ripping the economic guts

out of this city by removing the provincial government payroll?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is somewhat out of order, hon. member. The minister may reply.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Without necessarily accepting the editorial

comment contained in the question, I have spoken to a number of people

engaged in business activity in the greater Victoria area; I intend, as

a greater Victoria member, to do so again — and repeatedly — over the

coming months. There is something wrong in the greater Victoria area,

particularly when one examines the unemployment rate for the province

as a whole and notes that January 1984 over January 1983 shows a

significant decline. In addition, we note that for Canada as a whole,

January 1984 is down just slightly over January 1983. In other words,

the unemployment situation in the province, while still of concern, is

showing marked improvement. I suggest that the cure in the city of

Victoria rests with a number of agencies and organizations, not

exclusively with the government of British Columbia.

MR. BLENCOE: What a ridiculous answer!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: How does that help 19,000 people unemployed in this community –– 16.2 percent unemployment?

Supplementary to the minister, how high does the unemployment rate

have to get in this city before the provincial government recognizes

the serious economic burden it is placing on Victorians and takes

remedial action? And when will the minister recognize that his policies

and his budget are creating chaos in this community and this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, there are regulations regarding question period. Nonetheless, the minister may reply.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I attempted to assist the member in the

earlier answer. I consider that there are problems in the capital

region which are not exclusively the responsibility of the government

of British Columbia. The member perhaps did not hear what I said

earlier: that is that the unemployment rate in the province of British

Columbia shows a decline January over January. That is something which

should be an important signal to that member, as well as to others who

make decisions in greater Victoria.

MARINE INDUSTRIES REPORTS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Lands, Parks, Housing and the Environment. As the minister is aware,

one way of creating employment in this region is specialty processing

of fish products. There was a major cannery here, and a producer of

specialized products for Japan at the Oakland Fisheries. The minister

has had two consultant reports in his ministry office for some months

which indicate that a management plan, properly executed, could create

a large number of jobs in this area, plus be an anchor for our marine

industries. Will the minister advise this House why the government has

not expedited the recommendations of those consultant reports to

stabilize the marine industries of our city?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To be correct, I will go back to those

reports, which I'm not that familiar with, nor with the

recommendations. I do know that in general terms you depend on markets.

You know, we can always produce products, but is the market there? I'll

check into that.

MR. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The consultant

reports indicate that in fact the markets are there. The fault lies

with the fact that we were selling our fish in the round in raw form at

export and not adding value to those products by pickling, smoking,

jarring, canning and other labour-intensive activities. So I would

appreciate the minister taking a serious look at the opening of Oakland.

B.C. FISHERMEN LOBBY

MRS. WALLACE: I have a further question for the Minister of

Environment relative to the fishing industry, which seems to be fast

disappearing here in British Columbia. Fishermen are lobbying in Ottawa

this week; what assistance has this province given to aid those

fishermen in their fight for survival?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, we have been involved to the

extent possible in the negotiations on the fish treaties with the

United States. We're monitoring all that is happening and providing

whatever assistance we can.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Did the minister state at a press

conference at Fort St. John in January of this year that in his opinion

the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission over northeastern

British Columbia should be eliminated?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I didn't have a press conference, but I did

have a discussion with people. I said that

[ Page

3089 ]

that subject had been discussed many times in front of me and other members

of cabinet, that the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve need not encompass

the whole province and that there are certain areas that don't need to be

covered. It was not a statement of government policy; it was a matter of general

conversation. I do recall making that statement. [Applause.]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it appears from the applause that

there is widespread support for that particular concept as advanced by

the minister.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, yes, the backbenchers here as well as the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

supported this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and

Food if he concurs in the statement just given to this Legislature by

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government remains the same.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister heard my question,

because he certainly didn't answer it. Does the Minister of Agriculture

and Food concur in the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources that there are some areas of this province over

which the agricultural land reserve should not have the jurisdiction it

now has?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer remains the same, Mr. Speaker:

the policy of the government regarding the agricultural land reserve

remains unchanged.

INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. COCKE: He's lost in Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister in

charge of ICBC, the member for Boundary Similkameen. Will the minister

advise what consideration the government is giving to selling ICBC —

that is, turning over all operations to the private insurance companies?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I think the response of the

Minister of Agriculture and Food is the same as the one I will give.

The government policy is to operate ICBC as we have done in the past;

until that policy changes it's business as usual.

MR. COCKE: Will the minister advise why the government

commissioned a $120,000 Goldfarb survey in January 1984 to test public

opinion on this matter, among others?

HON. MR. HEWITT: To clarify his question, was it ICBC that commissioned the report?

MR. COCKE: The Goldfarb public opinion survey asked the public what

their opinion was on privatizing ICBC. It was a $120,000 Goldfarb report, commissioned

by the government. We don't have the answer; you have the answer. That's

what we'd like to know.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm the minister responsible for ICBC. ICBC has not commissioned a Goldfarb study, to my knowledge. Therefore I cannot respond.

MR. COCKE: Has the minister received a report from the Premier's committee on privatizing ICBC? The group that are....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Listen, if you want to come into our caucus, which we would reject....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, that member continually interrupts the House and spoils question period.

There is a committee consisting of Patrick Kinsella, Jill Bodkin,

Jake Brouwer, Tom Holmes and Michael Burns, and their job is to develop

some policy with respect to privatizing. Would you tell us whether

you've had the report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not aware of a committee made up of all

the people that the member for New Westminster mentions, but I can

advise him that I sat on a committee that was to analyze the operations

of ICBC, and it was a very comprehensive study we went into as a

committee. No action has been taken on that, and no recommendations

have been dealt with. As I said before, the corporation operates its

business as usual until the government policy changes.

COAL SLICK ON STUART CHANNEL

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question for the Minister of

Environment. I'm sure that we were all a bit shocked to see the black

sludge that appeared on the Stuart Channel yesterday. Will the minister

advise what investigation, if any, he has launched into that five-mile

strip of black slick in the vicinity of Yellow Point and Thetis Island

that occurred yesterday?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I so far have heard the news and I

contacted.... I do read the paper as well. I have asked senior members

in my ministry to report. I have complete faith that some of our people

will be on it and investigating. Later this afternoon I expect a report

on their participation in this.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder whether or not the minister has

considered investigating the practices of the coal freighters that are

awaiting berth at Roberts Bank, with a view to determining whether the

slick originated from one of those vessels. Will that be included in

your investigation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in all cases of pollution or

potential pollution problems, we always try to determine the source and

investigate that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct a statement made by me during my estimates.

During my estimates I stated that Mr. Howard Lloyd had twice sold out quotas to large multinational companies, when

[ Page

3090 ]

in fact, as pointed out to me by Howard Lloyd after

that statement, on both occasions Howard Lloyd had sold out to his

partners and it was his partners who subsequently sold out to these

multinational companies. I wish to apologize for any embarrassment this

may have caused Mr. Lloyd.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 44: minister's office, $182,438.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have in front of me a press

clipping from February 3, reporting on a speech made by one of the

minister's officials, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health. I'd like

to give a quote to the minister and get a comment from him:

"Cardiff said he especially liked Nielsen's latest

comment about the highly politicized federal-provincial health

conflict: 'To hell with her. We will wait and negotiate with the new

government, who are certain to be more realistic and reasonable.'"

Assuming that the minister presumes that the Conservatives could

possibly form the next federal government, and judging from that

statement, which we presume reflects his policy, can we presume that he

thinks the new federal Conservative government would allow the use of

user fees by the provincial governments?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can't say what the new

federal Conservative government might do, but I believe the minimum

they would do is to listen, which would be a vast improvement over the

existing federal government.

MRS. DAILLY: Then I am to assume that he is not intending, in

his role as provincial minister, to put pressure on whoever the new

government is to allow him and his ministry to continue to have the

practice of user fees. Has he given us that reassurance?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm not quite sure what the question was,

Mr. Speaker, but it is the policy of the province of British Columbia

that user fees are a legitimate part of our medicare system. While we

have attempted to persuade the existing federal minister of that, and

so far have been somewhat unsuccessful, some of the other provinces

have attempted to persuade the federal minister of the legitimacy of

user fees.

In the event of a new government in Canada after the next federal

election, we certainly will attempt to persuade the new government of

the legitimate concerns of the provinces and the legitimate use of user

fees. We certainly have not abandoned the case that provincial

jurisdiction is important and should be recognized, and that the manner

in which we, have dispensed medical services over the years has been

successful. We believe that user fees are a legitimate part of that

service.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we know the philosophy of the

Social Credit government is to impose user fees irrespective of the

ability of the person to pay. I further note that in this speech of

February 3 the assistant deputy minister is obviously reflecting his

minister when he says that a $10 emergency fee, for example, should be

no obstacle to people. It is all right for a deputy minister or an

assistant or a superintendent in your ministry, who are obviously

making a fairly good salary, to say that $10 means nothing. You and I

know that to people out of work and people having a problem in trying

to maintain their families in this recession, $10 is something.

I am making this point because I want to point out that when the new

estimates come, the NDP intends to continue to question this

government's arrogance in the handling of medicare in this province. I

don't intend to belabour it now, because it is really ridiculous. We

are asked to stand up here and do a mock debate of estimates. As far as

I'm concerned, when the money is already passed it is a mockery.

Leaving that until the new budget comes in so that we can see how many

more impositions are going to be placed on the people of British

Columbia, I want to move on to the individual votes, where we will deal

with these things in detail to a very small degree.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the minister

could give me a couple of answers to assist me in some statistics I am

trying to collect. It has to do with children injured as a direct

result of not being strapped in with seat belts, or any other form of

restraint, while riding in automobiles. For the past several years I

have been raising this under the vote of the minister responsible for

motor vehicles, and I have been a little bit hamstrung because I

haven't been able to give exact statistics as to how many children

actually are involved in these accidents. I know that I can go to the

Children's Hospital and ask for the Vancouver statistics, but that

won't get me the statistics for the rest of the province. The only way

I can get that would be through the ministry itself.

I'm wondering, first of all, whether the minister keeps statistics

on children under the age of 6 who are injured — usually they are

brain-damaged or have some other spinal cord injury or something — as a

direct result of riding in automobiles without being in some form of

restraint. If the minister does have those statistics, would he be

willing to share them with me so that I'd be able to use them when the

estimates for the other minister responsible for this area come up?

I have a real problem with this, Mr. Chairman, because, as the

minister himself will know, as you drive around the city you are

continually seeing kids sitting in the front of automobiles, standing

on the back seats and climbing all over the cars while they're being

driven, and I'm sure the minister shares a real concern with me about

how dangerous this is. Yet we have not been able to get any legislation

on the books which will insist on children under the age of 6 being

restrained in one form or another. The B.C. Medical Association has

released statistics, and one of their programs is to give out free car

seats to various families whenever the opportunity arises. If I had

those statistics I would be in a better position to deal with the other

minister.

[ Page 3091 ]

I'm sorry that we're dealing with these estimates so late, because a

lot of the decisions that have to be made have already been made. In

September 1983 some decisions were made about cutting off funding to

some community groups that dealt specifically in the area of services

to women — preventive health care. I'm talking about groups like

Planned Parenthood. Even though I know he's not responsible for the

funding for post-partum counselling, it is a health issue. I'm

wondering whether, in terms of his budget, he has thought about picking

up that particular funding which has been dropped by the Ministry of

Human Resources, and also re-establishing funding for groups like the

Vancouver Women's Health Collective. As all of the other resources

start to go by the board, we're finding that these kinds of preventive

resources for women in the community, in terms of their pursuing good

health, are really necessary. I wonder if the minister would give some

indication as to whether this is part of his planning or is under

consideration at this time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the statistics available on

injuries to youngsters under 6 for want of restraint in an automobile

apparently are available through ICBC. I would be pleased to have

someone in the ministry try and get that information. We don't keep the

information separately, but apparently it is available.

The Planned Parenthood issue, I believe, has been resolved to a very

large degree through consultation between Planned Parenthood and

members of the ministry. My understanding is that $114,500 in sessional

payments for the clinic physicians is continuing, along with some free

clinical space in our health units and other methods of payment. The

people I met with from Planned Parenthood were quite receptive to

working out an arrangement to provide funding in a somewhat different

manner. Only the grant portion of the funding was terminated. I don't

know the precise amount which has been continuing on to Planned

Parenthood, but I believe the situation has been resolved to a very,

very large degree.

The Vancouver Women's Health Collective grant was severed as of, I

believe, September 8, 1983. That grant was not continued and is being

considered for our next estimates, but in the present year it has

simply not been made available to them. Some alternative forms of

service have been pointed out to the people who have been involved in

that.

MS. BROWN: Just a comment about post-partum counselling,

which, I pointed out to the minister, I knew was not his

responsibility. But now that the Ministry of Human Resources has

terminated their funding, is the Ministry of Health looking at the

possibility of picking it up? This is such an important resource to

women.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, we have not reviewed the

possibility of picking it up simply by transferring it from the

Ministry of Human Resources, or of funding the program which existed

previously. I know there has been some discussion with respect to how

such counselling could be obtained and whether it is obtainable now

through our Medical Services Plan. But specifically, no, we have not

given consideration to picking up the funding which lapsed under the

other ministry on a one-for-one basis.

MS. BROWN: This is my final comment. I would like to suggest

to the Ministry of Health, Mr. Chairman, that they should look at this,

because it is a very viable resource. We are already beginning to feel

the impact of its disappearance,

Also, I notice that his special-care services grant has been cut by

$1 million. As he knows, that includes the grant which covers Planned

Parenthood and the Women's Health Collective. That particular grant

certainly needs some beefing up.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: management operations: $66,569,430 approved.

On vote 46: Medical Services Commission: $526,713,581.

MR. COCKE: My first question: is the minister limiting billing privileges in relatively highly doctored areas in the province?

As an addendum under post-partum counselling, it strikes me that if

I heard the minister's reply that maybe something under the Medical

Services Commission could be implemented, then holy doodle, we are

really spending money, because if you start getting psychiatrists into

postpartum counselling — with all the respect that I can muster for my

colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) — it's going to be a pretty

expensive. Maybe they need the counselling, but I don't want them to do

the counselling. This is what I'm trying to get across. It strikes me

that the people to do the counselling are the people who have been

doing the counselling in the past, and I'll tell you it's relatively

inexpensive. These are people who have gone through the problems and

the depressions and are far better equipped, in my view, to provide

that kind of service than are psychiatrists at whatever dollars an hour

that might cost. So I would add this just as an addendum.

Will the minister tell me about billing privileges vis-a-vis the heavily doctored areas?

[2:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's our desire to develop a method whereby

we would be containing the billing numbers for what we refer to as

"over-doctored areas": Victoria, Vancouver and the Okanagan. We have

local manpower committees which review each application and are working

with the BCMA and others in developing a method of approval. We're also

considering the possibility of requiring hospital privileges to be tied

in with the billing number being offered to a new applicant. We have

some technical difficulties, according to our constitutional lawyers,

with respect to the limiting of billing numbers. We feel that we do

have the jurisdictional authority to limit the numbers, but we're still

trying to work out the precise details as to how that may be done to

prevent challenges under the constitution. I think it is fair to say

that the British Columbia Medical Association agree in principle that

we must contain the number of billing numbers in certain areas of the

province. We are not attempting to deny services that are required in

certain areas of the province, but we feel, after reviewing statistics

across the country, that indeed certain areas of British Columbia are

over-doctored. I think we are nearly in agreement in principle with

those who are involved, particularly the BCMA, in establishing a

program whereby the review would permit us to deny access to certain

individuals to practise in certain areas of the province. We have not

been able to wrap it up

[ Page 3092 ]

completely. We do not have the system firmly in

place which would deny access to those who make application. We

believe, however, that we are not far from achieving it, and we hope

that it will be a fact of life in a relatively short time.

MR. COCKE: Let me see if I can interpret for the minister. I

thought that was very skilful stickhandling. What he said was in fact

"not really, but maybe someday" and so on, and "right now we're

studying it." I'm not going to take a position on this, other than that

it has been brought to my attention that some people are now saying

that family practitioners are unable to secure a billing number, and so

it strikes me that the way you're able to do it is by saying: "Look,

we're studying this proposition, and until such time as our study is

complete we have no billing numbers available." Is that true? It may be

that we are de facto doing it, but we're not really doing it in a

hostile way so as to attract the attention of those interested in the

constitution.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If the member for New Westminster were

correct, that probably would be a skilful way of doing it. One of the

criteria we have attempted to establish is the availability of hospital

privileges in an area. My understanding is that some applicants have

been unable to secure such hospital privileges and that it has had an

impact on receiving billing numbers. But, Mr. Chairman, we certainly

intend to pursue this issue of billing numbers, because I believe our

analysis indicates without much opposition that we are overdoctored in

certain areas of the province. I think it's important for members to

know that it is not our belief that limiting numbers in one area will

automatically mean more doctors are available in other areas of the

province. It may mean there could be fewer applicants from outside

British Columbia for such privileges. We believe we will have a system

in place fairly quickly. We also have reason to believe we may require

specific legislative authority. That is still being reviewed by those

who have been asked to provide us with an answer.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a further couple of questions on billing

numbers. What security can the minister offer to young interns and

young people who are planning to enrol in our own college here? If the

billing numbers are in the hands of the doctors presently practising

and some members of the minister's staff, what security do they have

that they're going to have an opportunity to get a billing number?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The method and system hasn't been developed

completely. I would think that those who graduate from our medical

classes at university have every reason to believe they'll have the

opportunity of practising in the province. There may be some particular

advantage to the local graduates with respect to obtaining a billing

number. That could be one of the considerations by the local manpower

committee, for obtaining such a number. I couldn't guarantee that the

graduates of the University of B.C. medical school will be able to

immediately receive a billing number to practise in the greater

Vancouver, greater Victoria or Okanagan areas. I'm not suggesting that

they would be prohibited from practising in those areas, but it is not

necessarily taken that they would have no opposition at all. It could

be that some of the graduates from our university will find that to

obtain a billing number they may have to practise, for a period of time

at least, in an area other than those three I mentioned. I don't think

it will discourage the development of the doctors at UBC; I think it is

part of an overall package we must somehow develop in the province. We

must recognize, in my opinion, that we simply cannot afford the

overdoctoring situation we have in certain areas. Working with the Dean

of Medicine at UBC and with the BCMA, I think we can advise our young

students and those who complete their studies that they'll have an

excellent opportunity of practising in the province and perhaps within

a reasonable period of time in the community of their choice.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to ask the minister what happens under

your plan when a physician retires and he sells his practice. Is the

billing number up for sale, too?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not according to our desires or plan. The

BCMA has not totally embraced that idea as yet. I believe that under a

proper system the individual physician should be licensed to bill, and

when the individual physician decides to retire, transfer or move, the

billing number should in itself be retired. We are resisting the

desires of the BCMA to transfer the number. It will require some

adjustment, because there have been occasions where physicians felt

that they had counted on this as part of their retirement, or they may

at some time have invested in such a number. But I think we can

overcome that over a period of time. Our principle is that the numbers

would be individually assigned, and they lapse when they are no longer

being used by the individual.

MS. BROWN: I hope that the minister really digs his heel in

on that, because we certainly don't want it to become like the taxi

licences. I know that the old myth exists about building up goodwill

and selling it when you retire, and retiring to the Bahamas or

something based on selling your goodwill along with your practice.

But that's not the reason I stood up. I'm wondering if there is any

way at all that the minister has of monitoring whether young graduates,

not with a general practice but with a specialty, do get a billing

number after they graduate. I want to speak specifically about one

particular group that I'm familiar with, the young students in

psychiatry. It wasn't that many of them who graduated to start with —

about seven, I think, from British Columbia. The last time I met with

them — I see somebody nodding heads with someone; maybe it has changed

by now — most of those students had not yet received their billing

numbers. What we're dealing with — and I can speak from experience,

having been married to someone who was once a student in psychiatry —

is that by the time they graduate they are up to their necks in debt.

There is absolutely no way they can sit around for six months or a year

waiting to get a billing number so they can start paying off the bank,

the university and everyone else. I wonder if the minister can tell me,

for example, what is the very longest time that those young graduates

would have to wait before they could in fact start practising, before

they would have their billing number. What kind of monitoring is there

in the system to see to it that by the time they have completed their

specialty and got the results of their orals they can get their billing

number and be able to start working right away?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate responding to

that with very specific information, perhaps a bit later. I'm advised

that the average period before a billing

[ Page 3093 ]

number is approved is about two months. But I'll

have to look into it for the psychiatric students specifically, to go

back over the past while to see what the situation has been. It hasn't

been brought to my attention that there is a particular problem, but

I'll be very pleased to look into the details of that.

MS. BROWN: I just want to add, Mr. Chairman, that two months

is too long. That means that their spouses have got to put in that

extra two months supporting them. To heck with that!

Vote 46 approved.

On vote 47: preventive and community health care services, $158,801,506.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of quick

constituency questions for the minister. First, I'd like to say that

this is the first time in five years that we haven't had to discuss

Dease Lake. We've got that finished — congratulations. That's a pat on

the back there.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's overserviced now?

MR. PASSARELL: No! I hope the minister didn't say that. I don't want it to get on the public record.

There are a couple of constituency problems. The first one is the

Nishga health centre at New Aiyansh. What is the provincial input into

the Nishga health centre in money? Is the province putting up 20

percent of the cost, 40 percent or what? The second question is: what

is the status of the health centre complex? Has the ministry approved

certain regulations regarding the health centre itself? There must be

some type of input by the Ministry of Health in regard to the Nishga

health centre. The third question is: has the provincial government

endorsed the idea of the Nishga health centre? I know, as the minister

understood when he was there, the importance of the Nishga health

centre for the area of New Aiyansh — the entire Nass Valley — and the

need for this health centre, instead of driving on those terrible roads

to go down to Terrace to get some type of health care.

The last question I have to the minister is in regard to public

health in rural communities. The program is in existence, bringing in

surgeons and doctors to the north from the south. Dease Lake is a

perfect example of how this works. One suggestion I would like to make

to the minister — and maybe he can add to this.... What type of

additional funding is going toward the travelling of these public

health nurses? For instance, people in Cassiar have to travel out to

Good Hope Lake...or up and down the Cassiar road to hit some of the

small centres. Additional funding is needed for transportation so the

public health nurses can move around a little bit more.

My main concern is the questions I've asked about the Nishga health centre. I hope the minister has some answers on that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware that funds for

travel are inhibiting the public health nurses. I think that's pretty

much under control.

The New Aiyansh situation is quite interesting because, in speaking

with the representatives of the Nishga, we received correspondence from

them saying that the federal government had agreed to certain things

and were ready to go. I spoke with the representative of the Nishga to

say: "Could you provide the federal government's correspondence on

that, rather than your

interpretation of what they were going to do?"

This has taken some period of time. We have agreed in principle to the

D and T centre and whatever else.... We haven't developed a precise

formula on percentages yet, because my understanding is that we are

still awaiting the federal government's commitment to what they would

fund. We've been asking for some time what precisely they will commit

themselves to, rather than just a simple statement that they will be

funding. We've asked them: "What is it you are going to fund?" I'm not

sure what the percentages might be, but we have told the Nishga and the

federal government that we are prepared to share with them the costs of

such a centre. The federal government would be responsible for services

other than health, if they wished to expand the centre to include

social services and other aspects. We would be involved with the health

component of that.

[3:00]

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have yet received a firm figure

from the federal government. I know we've been in contact with them for

some time — I believe the last contact was Friday last — trying to get

them to come up with some firm numbers so we could continue on, but the

project has been approved in principle. We now await some firm

commitment from the federal government as to what percentage they

intend to fund so we can respond to that. The project is in line for

development for, I believe, 1985-86, so we still have a reasonable

period of time. We haven't yet been able to tie up those loose ends. We

are pursuing it with some vigour.

Vote 47 approved.

On vote 48: institutional services, $1,697,781,892.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I believe we find emergency health

services under vote 48, and I would like to direct the minister's

attention to air ambulance. It's been brought to my attention that Aero

Control Ltd. in Richmond have been attempting to make some inroads into

the air ambulance service. They tell me that they're the only air

ambulance carrier in the province that is licensed by the Canadian

Transport Commission. It strikes me that the minister, who is

interested in all these private enterprise firms, might have some

answers as to whether or not the only.... I notice that there is an

appeal by that company to the Canadian Transport Commission, and the

appeal has to be answered within 30 days. In terms of their treatment

here in the province, I am just asking the minister whether it has been

brought to his attention yet that these people have been rather sitting

on their hands with some, I think, exceptionally good equipment for the

transport of people who are ill. I just wonder what the minister knows

about this situation and whether he is at all interested in Acro

Control Ltd. and their Commander jet-props.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been briefed on

this one specifically in the last few weeks, although we were keeping

an almost daily monitor for some time. There have been a series of

difficulties associated with the application — if indeed it is an

application — not the least of which is the matter of which number of

licence this particular operator has. I believe it's an argument whether

[ Page 3094 ]

they're licensed, a number 4 or a number 7 and

which allows the transport of patients. But in addition to that, Mr.

Chairman, I've spoken to the principals, and one of the major problems

I had in dealing with this as Minister of Health and also as the MLA

for the area was the bit of musical chairs with respect to the

principals. On one day in one week we received a telephone call or

correspondence from one gentleman, and we were advised the next day to

disregard that because there had been a change in principals. We were

then advised the next day that the person to whom we were speaking had

been relieved of his position, and it was back to the original

principal. I know that emergency health had reviewed the application

and had expressed some concern about what they deemed to be some

instability at the principal level.

What has happened over the past couple of weeks, I am not completely

familiar with. I know that there have been a tremendous number of

questions raised about this, and it is still under consideration —

whether appeals are underway or not. I do know that the emergency

branch has been in touch with the federal government over the

licensing, and if indeed the organization has the correct licences and

if their organization is stable enough to satisfy the director, I would

think there would really be few problems in making use of their

aircraft, if indeed they have possession of that aircraft. So it's a

matter of working out some of those problems. I just don't have the

up-to-date information as to what the situation may be at this moment,

but I'll be pleased to try to find out where it is at.

MR. COCKE: I can't comment at all, of course, on the

corporate stability of this group. However, having talked to one or two

of them, and to others, I am persuaded that the particular aircraft

they propose is one this province should be very seriously considering.

As far as I am concerned, it has all of the qualities that are really

required for any fixed-wing medivac — or virtually all fixed-wing

medivacs — in terms of the size of the doors, and getting patients in

and out; so capacity is one thing. In terms of the short-distance

takeoff and landing, it can handle almost any airstrip in the province

and yet it's fast. So I hope the minister will be taking a good firm

look at this particular kind of aircraft, in any event.

One of the problems by now, I'm sure, is that some of the aircraft

in our government air service are somewhat — well, a bit archaic. Not

archaic, particularly, but I would say they are good used aircraft and

might be better used for some other less-intensive service than the one

we have to deal with from time to time. I suppose the King Airs are

good for a while, but I know that those speedy little jets are

something people are beginning to talk about in terms of concern.

That's it. I won't comment any further, but I do hope the minister will take some of these matters under consideration.

MS. DAILLY: Following along on air ambulances, when the

government fleet cannot be used and you need to get an adjunct from a

private company to pick up someone with an emergency health problem

somewhere in the province, how is it decided which airplane company

gets the government contract to fly the injured person or persons?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Emergency Health Services has a list of

companies that have aircraft available, and it's based on a first

availability from the list. If a government aircraft isn't available,

they'll start making contact with those persons on the list, and the

first available aircraft in any area will be utilized.

MS. DAILLY: The reason I'm asking, Mr. Chairman — of course,

it's unconfirmed and I just want to throw it out to the minister — is

that there's a concern that whoever operates out of Victoria seems to

be getting most of the requests when there are people in the lower

mainland who could also be used. I do not have the particulars on that,

but I would hope, whatever system is used, that it would be a fair

system. That's my main concern.

Vote 48 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

On vote 5: minister's office, $175,590.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, if you'll permit me, just a

few brief remarks before I entertain the recommendations and questions

of the members opposite.

The Ministry of Agriculture in the current fiscal year.... It's a

little difficult fielding the estimates for the first time, Mr.

Chairman, and fielding them so late in the fiscal year. It makes it a

little difficult. I hope I won't be saying "was" too often. In any

event, the ministry in this fiscal year has fared exceptionally well

when we compare our fiscal position with that of any other agricultural

ministry across Canada, or when we compare our ministry with the other

ministries within the province of British Columbia. This has not been a

good year to be in government. I would have loved to have come to the

ministry and announced many different kinds of new programs, but at a

time when you are asked to find savings, when you are asked to exercise

greater efficiencies, it becomes virtually impossible to bring together

new programs. It is even difficult to bring some new direction to the

ministry. But I think it needs to be said that if we reflect for a few

moments on the stability of the ministry itself — no, I shouldn't say

of the ministry, but the stability of the industry — it has fared very

well in this fiscal year. The budgetary provisions are some 13.5

percent above those for the previous fiscal year.

It should be noted that the increase in dollars available was not

spread evenly and equally across the ministry. It couldn't possibly be

done that way, because there were some areas that were in dire straits,

in crying need, and those were the financial assistance programs. I

think that it should be said to many of my colleagues who are

listening, I hope, that some of those financial assistance programs

were first introduced when the party now in opposition was government.

I think that they should be commended on the foresight, if that's

indeed what it was, which provided for stability and took some of the

economic troughs out of the industry. I am delighted to have been able

to have been associated with a government who found themselves able to

have a strong commitment toward a continuation of that kind of program.

In tree fruits 1982 was a critical crop year. It was a critical

production year in livestock, in the beef industry. As a result, the

draw on the insurance fund of the farm income insurance program would

have been unbearable if it hadn't been for the deposits there, which,

although they were sizeable, were still not sufficient. Some of those

plans are in a serious deficit position, even in this year. The

government was able to be

[ Page 3095 ]

convinced — and it feels good to be able to say

that — that this was the kind of program that needed an influx of funds

this year. That is really the reason why the budget for the current

fiscal year is sizeably larger than in the previous fiscal year.

I think the industry itself is quick to recognize this, and, as a

result, at a time when every other industry is suffering the pinch

economically, our industry has felt that same impact and yet is

relatively content. They have learned to accept ups and downs in years

gone by, and recognize that this year those ups and downs are not as

pronounced as they could have been. As a result, it is a delight to be

able to go out and speak with the farming communities and listen to

them dream and think in terms of better years ahead. They have not been

devastated.

I know that bankruptcy figures should not be any indicator at all.

Yet it's worthwhile to notice that although the bankruptcy level in the

farm industry across Canada has been far greater than it ought to have

been, in British Columbia we have escaped, not totally but to a large

degree, the effect of bankruptcies, and I think it has been because of

a strong commitment on behalf of this government to support the

stabilization programs.

[3:15]

There are smaller programs which have had to make a contribution in

a year in which there were not enough dollars. They have had to wait

for another year. Let me give you an example: one of the programs was

the weed program. We have a knapweed problem in the province which is

ongoing, and unless it was kept in check the weed would eventually gain

control over the land. The program this year could not possibly be

supported at the same level as in previous years and still spare the

dollars for the more serious programs. As a result, what happened is

that the number of dollars made available were curtailed. But in

consultation with industry the ministry went out and said: "If we could

at least guarantee the same volume of chemical which we normally spray

on the weed, would the industry then find some other way to have it

sprayed and distributed, rather than to have it done through ministry

personnel?" They found a way. One thing about the agriculture people:

they are innovative. They found a way, and as a result, even though the

dollars were seriously curtailed, the amount of chemical was not

curtailed at all; as a matter of fact, a greater number of gallons of

chemical were made available, and hence the overall effect — the final

result — was not impeded. I was delighted that it was an example of a

working relationship between the ministry and the industry themselves

so that we could meet our eventual goals by working together.

The new direction which I had sought to bring to the ministry

revolved around the awareness of marketing and management. A farm unit

is no longer a parcel of land which hasn't been used for anything else

and has a small residence on one corner and perhaps a barn and a few

stanchions. That concept of farming is passe. It's from yesteryear. If

you have a production unit in farming now, that production unit may

well be in excess of $1 million in capital investment. As a result,

fanning is now the kind of industry in which individually a farmer must

avail himself of management tools. It was an ambition of mine to

introduce that particular phase to the industry. We have had one major

management seminar in which the subscription was overwhelming. We

expected and made provision for about 200. In round figures, 300 came

to register for the seminar; hence you can see the interest in the

question of management on the farm.

The other area was an awareness of the sale — the marketing of the

product. As you know, we have under my ministry several marketing

agencies, marketing boards and marketing commissions. It became of

concern to me that many times these commissions were concerned with the

control of production — which they should be — and with the control of

orderly production. But as such, I noticed that they were considering

last year's consumption and curtailing next year's production to that

level, instead of having a concern about expanding the consumption of

that product. I think that it's excusable, because a farmer is

concerned about trying to gather enough capital to put a unit into

operation and then about the planting, pest control and a hundred other

things. He seldom thinks beyond the farm gate. If he can get his

product out of the farm gate and loaded onto someone else who will

carry it in inventory and carry it as far as the responsibility for

bringing it to the consumer, then he has seen his job done. What I've

asked is that every commodity group and every segment of that industry

be concerned about the eventual consumption of that product. It is

already beginning to bear results in the industry. We had another

seminar that brought together the four segments: the producer, the

processor, the wholesaler, the distributor and the eventual retailer.

We brought them all together to look at how better we can increase

consumption of those products that we produce down on the farm.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

With those few brief words, I think that I have outlined the

constraints that we have felt, the ambitions we have for the industry

and the stability of the industry. I would be very interested to hear

some questions and suggestions, which I would love to entertain.

MS. SANFORD: It's a little late for suggestions. We are in

February, and in March the money that is included in this budget will

presumably be expended, and we will have a new budget. So suggestions

are a bit late, but I do have some questions and some general comments

with respect to agriculture.

I was pleased to note that the minister extended a compliment to the

former Minister of Agriculture during the NDP regime, the member....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, not you. You weren't very well liked, as I recall.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I was loved by them all.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I know all about it.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) certainly did have the

foresight to appreciate what agriculture was all about, to understand

the value of agriculture in our economy in British Columbia and to

bring in the measures that the minister referred to today. If those

particular programs — particularly the farm income assurance program —

had not been introduced by the member for Nanaimo when he served as

Minister of Agriculture, I think that we would see the industry in a

much more difficult position than it's in right

[ Page 3096 ]

now. I too would like to join this minister in

complimenting the foresight of the NDP government and in particular the

member for Nanaimo for introducing these programs which, although it's

difficult for the industry to survive today, it would be impossible for

them to survive without those programs in place. We would not have seen

those programs introduced at this time. This government brags about its

commitment to agriculture, but what it's doing is simply continuing the

program that was introduced and initiated by the member for Nanaimo. I

am absolutely convinced that they would not ever have moved to bring

about a farm income assurance program or, for that matter, an

agricultural land reserve in this province. Government, it seems to me,

in order to ensure the survival of the agricultural industry in this

province, has that twofold responsibility. One is to ensure that the

land which is capable of producing food remains in that agricultural

land reserve, and I have a great deal of concern about the preservation

of agricultural land under this particular government.

As recently as question period today, I was asking the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) about a

statement that he made up in Fort St. John about taking all of the land

in that northeastern part of the province out of the agricultural land

reserve and he admitted to the Legislature today that it is an issue

that has been discussed among his colleagues.... To witness in this

House the applause afforded that minister when he stated that he feels

that land should come out of the ALR makes me worried — more worried

than I already was, Mr. Chairman — about the preservation of

agricultural land in this province. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

applauded on his desk; he wants the land in his particular constituency

that is now in the ALR out of the ALR. That was very clear to me. The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

applauded on his desk. It was clear to me that he wants the land in the

northern part of the province out of the ALR.

This present minister would not even give the Legislature a clear

statement about his position as the minister responsible for

agriculture and food in this province — whether or not he concurs with

the statement. He indicated to the Legislature that the policy remains

— and I know the policy remains; he doesn't have to tell me that. What

I want to know is: where does this government stand with respect to

agricultural land in this province? To me it is absolutely crucial that

we retain the remaining small bit of the province that is capable of

producing food in the agricultural land reserve. It is essential; it is

crucial. When you hear members of cabinet openly speaking out against

the preservation of agricultural land in some areas of this province,

then you know why I am particularly concerned about future food

production in this province.

There is only about 5 percent of the land in all of B.C. that is

capable of producing food. If you people are going to continue to

succumb to the kinds of pressures that come from developers — and we

know that the developers have had a great influence with the members of

this government, Mr. Chairman — then I will do everything that I can to

oppose any move by this government to further erode the agricultural

land reserve.

The government made some moves a few years ago. They decided that

they could overrule the Land Commission with respect to keeping land in

the ALR, where it belongs. We've had some excellent farmland removed

from the agricultural land reserve as a result of that kind of

pressure, and as a result of the ability of this government to overrule

the Land Commission. I think it's a grave error. I'm worried about the

friends of government applying that kind of pressure to have even more

land taken out, and secondly, having areas of the province excluded

from the jurisdiction of the Land Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, please. Would members please take their seats and not gather in small clusters for conversation.

[3:30]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, you are not in the chair very

frequently. One thing that I should make you aware of is that people

usually do not pay much attention during the debate on the estimated

expenditures of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's a very

important industry.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I heard what you've been saying about the marketing boards.

MS. SANFORD: What did you say about the marketing boards? We

know that a lot of people over there don't support marketing boards,

Mr. Chairman. Is that what the minister is referring to?

It's typical, and I think that the minister will agree with me. I

know that this was mentioned last year as well. As I am saying, this

Legislature and the topic generally is not one that grabs the

attention. I notice the press is not that interested in either what I

have to say or what the minister had to say.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: They're talking. They're here. Never mind, Mr. Chairman, we'll leave it at that.

I think that I have to point out again to the members of government,

and in particular to the Minister of Agriculture, the very dangerous

course they are on when they talk about taking increasing pieces of

land out of the ALR.

I'm very worried about what is going to happen to the excellent

farmland which is known as Colony Farm. I think that the minister and

the government made a serious error in selling the farm in the first

place, and I am particularly disappointed in the minister's comments

about the number of people who were involved in making that farm a

success compared to some of the other privately owned farms in that

area. That farm has been under government control for I don't know how

many years and has been totally neglected by government. The equipment

has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and modern methods of

agriculture were not adopted at that farm. For the minister to

criticize the operation of the farm when in fact the government has not

been prepared to put in money to upgrade it indicates to me that the

minister should not be critical of the operation of that farm. As a

matter of fact, I think that the manager they had in place when the

farm was finally dismantled did an excellent job, with the equipment

and with the authority he had. For the minister to suggest that the

farm was badly run because it required a lot of labour to run it is a

statement that minister should not be making. It was the fault of

government, who over the years neglected to upgrade the farm and to

make it a viable unit as the other farms in the area were and are.

[ Page 3097 ]

That land is located next to an industrial park at this moment. I

know that the land is going to be put up for sale. I believe it is

going to be sold in two blocks, although there are a number of one-acre

subdivisions that already exist on one of the blocks of the Colony

Farm. Because they are located next to the river, I am assuming that

there will be no building — no development — on those one-acre lots

because of the floodplain provisions that now exist.

It is a philosophy that this government has adopted that they are

determined to sell as much as they possibly can. I know that they are

strapped financially, and I know that they are looking for every penny

that they can, but to undertake the sale of Colony Farm, which has

served the province so well in providing a place where some of the

residents from the psychiatric unit could work, and in supplying dairy

products to the Riverview area and other facilities, I think is a great

mistake. If this government is interested in agriculture and says that

they promote and support agriculture and brag about it, then that land

should have been turned over to the University of British Columbia as a

research station easily accessible to the students who are currently

registered at the university in the faculty of agriculture. But oh, no.

The cattle have been sold, the land has been turned over to the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, and it will be sold.

If there is a commitment, then it should be in the area of research,

in order to improve our industry in this province — not to sell in

order to raise a few much-needed dollars for the treasury at this time.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to recommend and

in fact to insist that the land which is going to be put up for sale,

now controlled by B.C. Buildings Corporation, formerly Colony Farm,

have a restrictive covenant placed on it to ensure that it will not

come out of the agricultural land reserve. That's possible. B.C.

Buildings Corporation, which at the moment owns the land, could ensure

that a restrictive covenant is placed when it's sold so that it is

impossible for future owners of that property even to make application

to have it come out of the agricultural land reserve. That land is so

valuable that there is going to be pressure, no doubt because it is

located next to an industrial park at this moment, to have it taken out

of the ALR. The Land Commission could turn it down, but I've no

confidence that the cabinet would turn down a direct request to have

Colony Farm removed from the agricultural land reserve. The minister I

think has indicated that he hopes it will stay in the agricultural land

reserve, or that he expects it will, but could he please give a

commitment to this Legislature and to the people of this province that

a restrictive covenant will be placed on the land before it is sold to

ensure that it remains in agricultural production in perpetuity?

There's one other comment that I'd like to make. I'm not going to go

through the figures with respect to what's happening to agricultural

land in the areas that we now depend on for food imports; I'm going to

leave that for today. But something I would like to point out to the

Legislature, and to the public generally, is that a major cut within

the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was the one made to the Land

Commission. It's going to be difficult for the Land Commission to carry

on its work as it has done. I understand that one of the soil

specialists is now gone; a planner is gone, as are a planning

assistant, a draughting technician and a clerical employee. These are

people who served the Land Commission and assisted in ensuring that the

land remained within the ALR, and also assisted in terms of educating

the public. I hope they educate this Social Credit caucus about the

need to preserve that land for food production. The Land Commission

itself will not be able to meet as often, and I assume they have not

met as often during the ten months that these estimates have been in

effect. As a result, there will not be the liaison with local

government that the Land Commission certainly should have if we're

serious about protecting the agricultural land.

I would like to ask the minister as well about coverage under the

Workers' Compensation Board for farmworkers. We are all aware that

there was a decision last year that the regulations under the Workers'

Compensation Board would not be extended to farmworkers; instead, a

safety committee would be established, and safety procedures would be

adopted through that committee. I think the committee has done an

effective job in trying to educate farmers. I know that some of the

farmers within my own constituency indicated that they attended a

seminar, I assume at the WCB centre at Richmond, and they themselves,

as a result of attending that seminar, were making changes on the farm

which in fact made their operation safer — things they had never

thought about before, and things that would not have entered their

heads unless they had had the opportunity to attend. A number of

farmers are going to benefit from that procedure, including the one I

talked to in my constituency. He is willing to undertake the changes

and to follow the recommendations that were presented to him at the

seminar.

But there is no doubt in my mind that those regulations need to be

extended to cover the farmworkers of the province if we're going to

have a safe-as-possible farm operation in British Columbia. We cannot

expect people to comply, because we know it doesn't work. It works in

many cases, and may work in most cases, but there will be some who will

not comply unless there are actually regulations that extend to the

farms and unless those regulations are adhered to. There are inspectors

and we have the whole procedure that applies to the rest of the

industries of the province. I understand why farmers were reluctant to

have the regulations extend to them. They felt that they would have

some snoopy Workers' Compensation Board inspector coming around and

telling them what to do every time they turned around. But I think they

are now beginning to understand what the regulations are about and what

can be done through the Workers' Compensation Board. They are still

reluctant to accept those regulations — I'm aware of that — but I think

there is a better understanding today than there was a year ago.

I would like to pose a question to the minister about the extension

of the regulations to farmworkers. I know that this is done under the

Ministry of Labour, but I also know that the minister is involved in

the consultation on the coverage of Workers' Compensation Board

regulations to farmworkers.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: The safety committees have done a lot. There is

no doubt about that, but it's not good enough. I think that those

Workers' Compensation Board regulations do have to be extended, and I

would like to have the minister give us that assurance.

[3:45]

The oyster industry is now, at least in part, under the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. You may be aware, Mr. Chairman, that Baynes Sound

area near Courtenay is one of the best oyster-growing areas in the

world. The oyster

[ Page 3098 ]

growers up in that area would very much like to be

totally covered under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, not just

partially covered. Right now there is a conflict of jurisdiction,

because they have to get their leases through the lands branch, they

have to deal with marine resources through the Ministry of Environment

and they are covered in part under the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food. Has the minister had discussions with the other ministries about

assuming the total jurisdiction? I know it would certainly make a

difference in terms of the operation of the various oyster growers in

my area.

They are currently faced, which I'm sure that the Minister of

Agriculture and Food would not approve of, with an increase of 300

percent in their leases through the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing. If we're going to have a viable industry there, I think the

Minister of Agriculture and Food is the one who should be directly

involved in putting those kinds of costs on the leases for oyster

growers. The government is trying to get money every which way it can,

Mr. Chairman, and they are imposing user fees and charges of almost

every kind everywhere, but a 300 percent increase in the oyster leases

is not going to assist the oyster industry in this province. I would

like the minister to make a comment on that. Even though the oyster

industry is now under his ministry, he may not even be aware of the

proposed 300 percent increase. I don't think it has happened yet, but

it has been proposed.

Mr. Chairman, with those remarks I would like to give the minister

an opportunity to respond to some of the issues I have raised.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the member expresses

concern in a few areas. I took note of them as I went along. One of

them primarily had to do with the agricultural land reserve. She spoke

of it in two segments, and I'll put both segments together and try to

address her questions.

From a policy of government point of view, what I said earlier today

in question period I said in all sincerity. I was not trying to avoid a

question or trying to conceal information from the House. It's not my

way of doing things. I was very, very sincere in saying that the policy

of government has not changed with regard to the agricultural land

reserve.

MS. SANFORD: I know that.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: We are all very much aware that the

boundaries of the agricultural land reserve are not carved in stone. We

know that fine-tuning is a program which is continuing and will

continue. Therefore there will be land that is in the agricultural land

reserve today which ten years from now may not be in the land reserve,

but it is my direction that there will also be land that is not now in

the land reserve which will be. We are on a constant search for the

redrafting of the boundaries, not because we don't have any respect for

the boundaries where they are now but only because the boundaries were

drafted rather quickly, as you will recall. I don't know how any of us,

in our finite fashion, were going to divine exactly where those

boundaries would be, and there are errors and they will continue to be

corrected. But I have a goal. I don't know whether I can achieve it or

not, but you know you can't achieve anything if you don't establish

some goals. The goals are these: during my time in this ministry I

would like not to have a shrinkage in the number of hectares in the

land reserve, which means that I want to find as many new acres as

there are acres released. I think that we should not put our head in

the sand and say that there is only one use for land. I think that we

would all agree that we not only have to eat but also have to wear

something and have a place to live. We do not have closed boundaries.

We cannot say to people: "You do not and cannot live in British

Columbia. We all chose to live here, but you can't." Therefore there

are other uses for land, and I think that as long as we are here there

will be conflicts among these uses. What we must do is ensure that we

have a rational plan for all uses. I think the production of food

should be among the highest.

I was recently in Holland and watched what they were doing with

their land. Technology is moving to a point where a much greater volume

of the food is being produced under glass. If that technology moves as

well to British Columbia, more efficient food production may well be

under glass. It's not there now. Ten years ago it wasn't even evident

that it would be there to the degree that it's there today. The

technology is changing. I think that along with that change we should

be willing to look at our goals and rationalize our boundaries, whether

they be of the ALR or of any other description, so that on an ongoing

basis we have a reasonable and rational look at life in the province.

When the member suggested that there should be covenant on the land,

particularly the land in Colony Farm, I think the member was right. But

I don't know of a stronger covenant that I could place on those 746

acres than to have them in the agricultural land reserve. That is the

strongest covenant there is.

MS. SANFORD: Cabinet has taken it out.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I don't know how in the world you could

register anything against a title which would exercise a greater force.

In addition to the covenant of the reserve of the PALC — the

agricultural land reserve — we have the local zoning of the local

government, which by the way, in my humble opinion, should also have

something to say about the use of that land. As a result they have a

double covenant. It's in the ALR and is zoned locally, as I understand

it, both by the district of Coquitlam and by the district of Port

Coquitlam.

MS. SANFORD: They opposed the sale.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It has been zoned agricultural. I feel quite secure with those two very strong reserves — stronger than any covenant.

MS. SANFORD: Not with that government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Please remember that the recommendation

of this ministry to that agency which has the responsibility for that

land today was that it be retained in the agricultural land reserve. It

should also be recognized that the land is held in some 36 different

parcels, and if it's to be sold in two parcels, it must first go

through some rationalization and amalgamation process whereby it can be

put into two logical pieces of property, but if they were two of

approximately equal acreage, they'd still be in the neighbourhood of

350 acres. Three hundred and fifty acres may or may not be a viable,

workable farm unit at that location. It depends entirely upon what form

of food production will take place on those 746 acres. Nonetheless, I

share her concern that it should be kept for food production.

[ Page 3099 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I would like now to turn my remarks to her fears about the Colony

Farm. Why was the decision made to sell the stock, the dairy production

herd and, eventually, the land itself? I think part of the answer was

in your own suggestion. The farm had been incorporated years and years

ago. I walked through the farm to see the state of the art on Colony

Farm. The cattle were held in holding barns and stanchions, and when it

came milking time, those cattle were herded through to a milking

parlour. The cost of producing the product there was such that it

wasn't even fulfilling the need of the institution to which this

production was originally directed. They couldn't afford to buy the

milk for the cost that was incurred in producing it. The efficiency on

the farm — and this is no criticism of the people who worked there....

I met the people who worked there. They were grand people, who in some

instances had spent most of their lives on Colony Farm, had watched

very carefully the development of that herd, and whose hearts were

really in it. I sat down with them and said: "Hey, man, you've done a

good job with the herd." He said that at least the herd was not going

to be dispensed with; it was going to be dispersed. We will have the

entire province of British Columbia reap the benefits of years and

years of work with that herd. I could empathize with him; I knew

exactly how he felt. I'm a guy who likes to retain things — I collect

model-T Fords. I was not critical of the people who were on Colony

Farm, but I had to make a decision based on some hard facts.

The hard facts were that the farm had not, on a commercial basis,

produced its product at a price which, even at wholesale value, could

be afforded by the institutions. As a result, for years it lost money.

The managers of the farm had finally turned the thing around by

divesting the hog herd; the sheep operation followed later. They had

rationalized the costs of the farm to the point where in the last

fiscal year, I think, if we didn't take capital costs into

consideration, we did just a little better than break even.

While we were looking at rationalizing, deinstitutionalizing and

privatizing the farm, it seemed far better to make the plus factors of

that farm available to the rest of the dairymen of the province, to

allow the milk quota to go back to the Milk Board and the industry to

take up whatever slack in production might be represented by the

dispersing of the farm. I think that it was a logical way to go. Those

decisions had to be based on some hard facts. Hence Colony Farm.

You had one other concern: the oyster farm. Oyster farming is an

interministry concern, and not just within the province. As soon as you

get below the high-water tide level on any of our shores, the federal

people are also involved. We do have an oyster industry which has a

marketing board which comes under the umbrella of the food segment of

my ministry. We are delighted to have them there. We will act as

advocates for them, although we recognize our limitations. Environment,

who have been given the responsibility of foreshore leases, will

continue to have jurisdiction over those. We recognize that we will

have to sit down together — however many of us have jurisdiction — and

come to the reasonable conclusion that these leases must be made

available to these oyster growers in an affordable plan. The fact that

there is some kind of a forecast that these leases may increase by as

much as 300 percent doesn't necessarily mean that those percentages are

cast in concrete. They are negotiable, but they are an indicator of

what the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has taken for a guideline

for its other leasing programs. There is an assessment of the value of

the land, and, as closely as possible, those leases are made available

on the basis an assessment of the actual value. In farmland those

increases looked overwhelming. At the insistence of our ministry, and

the good guys who work with me in the ministry, we were able to

negotiate a plan whereby those increases are worked in on a gradual

basis. I am sure that something like that might also be considered for

the oyster growers.

I think I've answered all your questions.

[4:00]

MR. PASSARELL: I was encouraged to hear the minister's

statements regarding the "soft" technology in regard to food production

with greenhouse, of which he gained firsthand knowledge in Holland. I

don't know whether the minister has ever travelled in the far north,

but we do have a problem there in receiving fresh fruit and vegetables,

as everything has to be trucked in from the south.

Some individuals in the far north have written to the minister and

the government over the last year regarding using the soft technology

to grow fresh vegetables in the far north by warm springs and hot

springs, which are right across the north. I know one individual

personally who was denied any type of funding because it didn't fall

under the category of a major producer. The individual was told to go

to the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development to receive

funding for new technology. What I would like the minister to do is to

specifically look into the use of hot springs and warm springs in the

far north to grow vegetables for the residents up there and if there

could be some funding on a small level — not of major producers,

because you are talking about communities of one hundred to two hundred

people. They've been denied the funding because they don't have the

large systems, and they've been referred to the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development. Could the minister make some positive

suggestions on how these individuals could gain funding and start

programs which would help the residents in the far north with food

production?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's a good suggestion. I wish the member

would give me a little while to consider it and see whether or not it

is a feasible thing to do. I don't believe that it would be feasible,

for instance, to have an investment of many hundreds of thousands of

dollars to have a food-producing unit to feed 100 people. But I would

certainly like to look at it.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few comments on a number of topics.

I was very interested in what the minister had to say, and I'm

certain that he's sincere in his best wishes for the future of

agriculture generally, and Colony Farm in particular, and all the rest

of it. I don't doubt that at all. But he pointed to the lack of

efficiency of Colony Farm, and I point out to him that his government

has been in power for the last ten years, and if there was a problem

with Colony Farm and its lack of upgrading and updating so it could

meet its milk quota and produce efficiently, then I think that he

should look in the mirror to find out who the culprit was who allowed

this to happen. I was going to say while he's shaving, but I would have

to amend that since he doesn't anymore.

[ Page 3100 ]

Anyway, I'd like him to acknowledge that. The Colony Farm's

efficiency was allowed to erode. It's a little bit like the CPR and the

passenger service. If you run the trains late enough and dirty enough

and you charge enough, nobody is going to ride on the damn things and

you can say: "Nobody wants passenger service any more." Okay. The same

thing happens here. The buildings are allowed to decay, the drainage is

allowed to go downhill, there's not modern equipment for milking and

all the rest of it, and you say: "Well, it's no damn good any more.

It's not very efficient." The people directly responsible for Colony

Farm are a combination of the Ministry of Agriculture and the

department of health and welfare. So I'd like to make that point. I

don't really think I need to repeat it. I think it's a fact.

Another fact is.... I shouldn't say it's a fact — a projection.

Colony Farm, as the minister admitted, was an enterprise, in spite of

the fact that it was old-fashioned and had been underfunded and wasn't

brought up to date and was poorly managed by the Ministry of

Agriculture and allowed to get behind. The fact is that they had

projected a net surplus, on cost terms alone, of some $55,000 for that

facility for next year. That doesn't mean that because it was projected

we would actually get there. But it wasn't a big cost item. It wasn't a

heavy drain on the government at all. Sure, the government can

recapture some money if it sells the thing, but by selling out the

whole province you can recapture a lot of money too. You can use that

argument any way. The argument that hasn't been used is the cost of the

therapeutic benefits. I'm told that there are six forensic therapists

and about 100 patients there who receive some health benefits, if not

bottom-line accounting kind of benefits, from that operation. For that

reason alone it might have been spared the axe.

We don't know what the price is that we are asking. We don't know

what the future is going to be. The minister said we should be

comforted by the fact that it is in the ALR and therefore somehow

protected for its future use, in spite of the fact that his little

words about fine-tuning strike terror in my heart. You can fine-tune

anything out of existence, including a program on television or radio

or whatever. The very fact that we have the agricultural land reserve

today is not just philosophical. It's not just that the socialists want

to put on some sort of land-grab. As a matter of fact, the minister

supports this kind of socialist land-grab, if in fact it does exist.

The fact is that municipalities were unable to resist the

blandishments of the developers, and the developers want to develop the

land that is closest to large urban centres, because it is large urban

centres combined with traffic patterns and zoning that determine values

of land. Property is not valued in isolation from its location or its

use. There is a term in real estate: "a higher and better use." The

higher and better use for most land is how you can get the most money

out of it.

Now there are other determinations as to use and value. The value

might be environmental. In this case I think it is. Its value might be

aesthetic. I think this is true as well. The Ministry of Housing — or

else BCBC; I'm not certain which — has a tremendous development right

above Colony Farm on the hillside. Lots are going for between $50,000

and $70,000 on the Shaughnessy Heights of Coquitlam. Actually, part of

it is in my riding, but a good deal of it is in the riding of

Maillardville-Coquitlam. Now the value of the property is going to be a

great deal less if it overlooks a scenic pastoral setting such as

Colony Farm than if you have a replication of what you see to the

right: a huge area pumped full of river sand, upon which are sited some

extremely aesthetic warehouses. It provides employment. It provides a

lot of things. No one here is saying that industry has no right to

exist, but environmentally, if you ask the minister, pumping sand all

over wet land has severe environmental and fishing effects. For

instance, why have our stocks gone down? Because we have allowed our

wetlands to be filled in. That's only one of the reasons. So I say to

the minister: there are other kinds of costs and benefits besides

strictly the bottom line, or the ideological one. I am not at all

comforted that the local councils of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, as

fine bodies as they are — and I'm a former member of one of them — are,

like many councils, able to resist some of the pressures.

The fine tuning: sure, I think it's important that you don't lock

somebody into a particular piece of zoning forever. People have been

disadvantaged by that. I recall when Coquitlam zoned what is now part

of the Barnet Highway, and very, very attractive in terms of its value

15, 16, nearly 20 years ago now. As a councillor, I had to listen to

representations by people who owned that land, zoned far in advance of

its ultimate use. They couldn't sell it for the purpose for which it

was zoned, and they needed desperately to be compensated. There may be

a case when you freeze somebody's agricultural land to the point where

he can neither make a living out of it or sell it for another purpose,

and there should be some ways of compensating that person. But the

solution is not necessarily to take it and blacktop that land. Neither

is the solution to fine-tune all the agricultural land out of the lower

mainland, where for 700 or 800 miles you clear....

In the north you're clearing some bush. You have a shorter growing

season, and transportation problems that could be overwhelming.

Those are some concerns that I have when the minister says: "Yes,

we're going to do this. No, we're not going to put a restrictive

covenant on it because it's illegal, or it won't work," or for some

other reason. What we want is a clear statement that the next sound we

hear is not the CPR Marathon Realty buying that property, and we'll see

the pumps in the river pumping river sand all over it.

I don't think Colony Farm has been a really big issue in my riding,

although there are always people concerned about the erosion, the

diminution of our agricultural potential. There are people who would

like to see that area kept for research, and others who would like to

keep it green. There are people who are philosophically opposed to

selling it off privately unless it can be leased back, such as

Minnekhada Farm in the same municipality has done. Nevertheless, it is

an issue with some people, and I think it's something that we can't let

go without comment. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but it's done now;

if I'd had my druthers, it wouldn't have been done. I want the minister

to know that, and we're going to be very conscious of what ultimately

happens to that land.

There are a couple of things coming up now that I would like to know

the minister's attitudes about. I think he was quite generous in saying

that the marketing assurance programs, or the income assurance

programs, have taken the peaks and valleys out of farming. I take it

that even though some of his colleagues may disagree with marketing

boards, stabilization and all the rest of it, he is four-square behind

them. Is that the case? Could the minister nod or shake his head, or

would he care to comment later?

[ Page 3101 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'll comment later.

MR. ROSE: I notice that the minister said also that he felt

that as a result of the protection through the farm income assurance

program — and presumably marketing boards as well, because although

they're not identical, they do have some kind of relationship....

You have to have a commodity group in order to qualify for farm income

assurance. Most of the commodity groups are marketing boards, going

back to the potato board of 1922 or something like that. They have a

long history, through all kinds of different political parties in this

country. They are usually associated, but not always, with supply

management.

The minister has said that he is not content with supply management

per se, that he wants to encourage these people who are in a monopoly —

a union if you like, a marketing board, whichever way you choose to

describe it — not to just limit their production but to increase their

production and their efforts toward marketing that production — to feed

the hungry of the world, I presume. But he wouldn't want them to do

that if they had to do it at a loss. The big problem with any commodity

group, and the reason we got into supply management, is that we had, as

a result of marketing boards, a producers' monopoly. Even the licence

to produce the quota is probably worth more than the production — but

that's an aside. There were tremendous surpluses; butter was one, eggs

another and poultry was another. I would like the minister to ask

himself, and also tell us, how those two seemingly contradictory things

can be managed: the idea of stimulating production and yet not having

to handle overwhelming surpluses, regardless of the vigour with which

marketing is pursued. I'd be very interested in that.

[4:15]

I would also be interested in what the minister has to say about red

meat stabilization, because, as he well knows — and some of his

colleagues will certainly remind him if he doesn't — the red meat

industry, especially the cattlemen, are not really very happy about any

kind of a marketing board, supply management or stabilization. Their

attitude is: "Get the government off my back, leave me alone, let me

manage my own affairs." They say: "Give us government land at 10 cents

an acre — which we stole from the Blackfoot Indians — and keep out

Australian beef. But no government intrusion. Protect us, but stay out

of our lives." A lot of the people in that group, especially the big

ranchers in western Canada, have resisted, through Charles Gracey, and

other people who speak for the cattlemen's association, Whelan and his

efforts to get a marketing board or some kind of stability in that

industry. I'd like to know what the minister thinks about those

efforts. Whose side is he on? Does he want to have stability within the

industry? Is he in favour of some sort of farm income assurance for the

beef farmers of western Canada, or isn't he? If he isn't, what is he

for? What position is the province of British Columbia and his ministry

going to take for these meetings with Whelan that are forthcoming

within a week, having to do with the very serious problem in the red

meat industry? The cattle markets have been extremely poor over the

last two or three years.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Eat more beef.

MR. ROSE: Well, that's one answer. There are some

nutritionists who would argue that one, because they talk about cancer

of the colon and a few other little things like that. I'm all in favour

of eating more beef, regardless of the risk, but that isn't the total

answer, and I think the minister knows it. The total answer may be

somewhere else. The total answer may be closer to smoothing out the

peaks and valleys through some kind of stabilization program than in

simply eating more beef.

The big ranchers don't want to be touched. The little ranchers need

help, whether they're in Ontario or Quebec. The big ranchers want the

cows to vote. They don't want one man, one vote; they think that the

number of animals should determine how much power they have. That's

exactly what's happening in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. That

is why, when I was a modest little cattleman out in the Fraser Valley,

I made certain that Charles Gracey and the Canadian Cattlemen didn't

get hold of that checkoff for four bits at every slaughterhouse,

because I was opposed to what they believed in.

But I'd like to know what the minister believes in. Which way is

B.C. going to go? Does he believe in stabilization in the red meat

industry, or doesn't he? When Whelan calls this meeting, what stance is

B.C. going to take? Are they going to go for the big cattlemen who want

the cows to vote, or for the little guy who desperately needs some help

in stabilization of his particular commodity group?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The first question had to do with the

therapeutic value which the existence of Colony Farm afforded the local

forensic unit there. The fact was....

MR. LEA: Is.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Should I say is?

The fact is that the therapeutic value was waning, as the member for

the area knows. A few of the patients did have some little gardens

where they went to do some planting and weeding, but when it came to

the dairy herd there was little or no therapeutic value afforded the

local residents, and it was the dairy herd which really precipitated

the decision which had to be made. Although I have some empathy with

the member's position of providing some therapeutic value for the

residents of that forensic unit, nonetheless you have to put all of it

together in the mix with the cold facts when you have to make the

decision as to what you're going to do. The fact is that it was a

milk-producing unit and not an experimental farm. UBC has its own

experimental farm at Oyster River. The federal government has its own

experimental farm at Agassiz. This was not an experimental farm; it had

to stand on an assessment of its real value to society on the basis of

what it really was, a production unit. We had to answer some very real

questions of why we should be in the milk-producing business in the

first place. If it had been an experimental farm I could see exactly

the line of debate that the member for Coquitlam-Moody follows.

On the question of the red meat stabilization: there has been

ongoing discussion between the federal government, the producers and

the provincial government over what they call a tripartite red meat

stabilization program. The producers from Ontario, Alberta,

Saskatchewan and Manitoba have agreed to a level of stabilization

program for red meats. The province of British Columbia has steadfastly

resisted a red meat stabilization program, and not at the insistence of

the government or of the minister; consensus was sought after by the

discussion of all three levels. The fact is that the program

[ Page 3102 ]

which the province now has in place for British Columbia producers

cannot be matched by a tripartite red meat stabilization program

tripartite. As a result, the local producers have steadfastly said that

unless we can somehow provide, in addition to the benefits under a red

meat stabilization program, an additional benefit which would cover the

real cost of production in the province, they're not interested. I for

one do not believe in foisting upon the producers of British Columbia a

program they do not want, so as a result the discussion is continuing.

We're hopeful. After all, I think any one of us would be very

delighted to be able to utilize the 33.3 percent contribution to the

premiums of that program by the federal government; we would love to

have it, but only if it ultimately does us some good. That's the

position on the red meat stabilization program.

MR. ROSE: Do I take it then that the minister is not

necessarily opposed to the concept of some sort of national marketing

stabilization provided the one-third would come with no strings

attached so that the government of British Columbia could lower its

contribution by that third, leaving the more superior — according to

the minister — B.C. plan intact? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Not exactly, because....

I wish the member had been there for the discussions when all

parties were present. It's not simply a matter of trying to get

somebody else to pay the premium for an insurance plan that is

hopefully going to do you some good. Regardless of the premium, you

have to buy a plan which is better than the one you've got, or you've

got no sale.

MR. ROSE: There's one other item. There have been some pretty

strong arguments all across Canada recently over the matter of taxation

and the collection of back taxes on all kinds of business, including

part-time farmers. I've had considerable to do with this over the

years, because I found that what the feds had been doing with part-time

farmers in my riding was that they would come in, make an assessment

based on information given by people willingly to the tax assessors —

by the way, without witnesses or without any professional help from

their accountants or lawyers, or anything else — and then the part-time

farmers would find themselves suddenly assessed with maybe three or

four years of back taxes.

Many of these people were probably investing more in their farm than

they were getting out of it. They were working off the farm, but it was

catch-22. Because they were working off the farm and the greater part

of their income was from off the farm, they couldn't be classed as

qualified farmers. If on the other hand they spent all their time on

their farm, they wouldn't have enough money to eat. So the problem has

been that ethically the Department of National Revenue was functioning

very poorly. A lot of people were faced with horrendous tax loads going

back three and four years, when the fact is that they had condemned

themselves out of their own mouths, and they were never told that what

they were saying was going to be held against them.

Large meetings have been held in the Fraser Valley — I believe in

the riding of the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) over the

last weekend. There are going to be others. It's an ongoing thing going

back and applying not only to farmers but also to other businesses and

industries.

Since part of that money — and I'm not sure exactly what percentage

according to the tax points — comes to the provincial government, the

provincial government has obviously got an interest in the behavior of

National Revenue, because you do get money back. You have a tax rental

system. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can tell us whether

there is any interest on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture — or,

for that matter, on the part of the government; I see the Premier is

sitting over there. If so, has the government made any statement or

taken any position in regard to the collection of taxes from these

part-time farmers?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The audits which have been taking place

around the province — first of all in the Cariboo country and more

recently in the lower Fraser Valley — are audits which of course have

been ordered by the revenue department.

Section 21 of the act is being

reinterpreted. Our ministry has taken what we believe is as strong a

position as we can. Please remember that income tax levying at the

federal level is a ball that is in their court. We can express our

concerns and wishes and even give guidelines and offer assistance in

how better to interpret

section 21, all of which we have done. We

cannot say then that this is the way it's going to be.

What has happened is a redefinition of the

section for years that

have already gone by. The difficulty that we have with it is this: in

many instances, part-time farmers are people who have income from off

the farm and have gone to the revenue department to ask for assistance

in how to account for their earnings, returns and tax assessment.

Having accepted that advice, they have gone ahead and made their

returns in precisely the manner prescribed, and now they find that they

have taxes payable. My position is clearly this: if they wish to change

the rules of assessment and if they wish to change the rules in

section

31 on off-farm income, that certainly is their prerogative. But to do

it in such a manner that it contravenes previous instruction and

advice, and then brings producers into a position where they can not

even make arrangements to pay back taxes, seems harsh, and we've made

that expression. Not only have we made the expression as loudly as we

can; we have the federal Minister of Agriculture on our side. He is

asking for a second look at

section 31 and its

interpretation.

At this moment we still cannot offer the hope which we wish we could

offer to our provincial residents who have had this ugly experience

with federal tax collectors. Nonetheless, we have taken a position. We

have let that position be known. Our position is clearly known not only

to the federal Minister of Agriculture but to the Minister of National

Revenue.

[4:30]

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his information. I would

like to tell him though, on

section 31, that the policy of reassessment

is up to the minister. When Herb Gray was Minister of National Revenue,

I was able to succeed in a policy change, and that meant that there

would be reassessment limited to one year. I have the documents if the

minister is interested. But I am interested in his documents. He has

said that the government has made the strongest possible

recommendations for a change in policy, and I wonder if the minister

would be prepared to table any correspondence or press releases,

because I haven't seen any of it. I think it would be helpful for

people to have in their possession the

[ Page 3103 ]

strong representations made by the minister and his government.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I think that while we're negotiating is

not the time to issue conclusive press releases, but I think that there

would be no difficulty in at least sharing with the member the

correspondence that has gone to the federal Minister of Agriculture and

also to the federal Minister of National Revenue.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has indicated that he

is prepared to make that correspondence available to the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). I am wondering if he'd be prepared to table

it. Will he table that correspondence, or is he going to limit the

circulation?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I have agreed to circulate it to the

member who has asked for it. If the member for Comox is also included

in that request, no problem.

MS. SANFORD: At long last, Mr. Chairman, the government has

indicated that it is prepared to extend to farmworkers the provisions

for housing which now affect industrial sites in this province. It is

high time. Farmworkers in this province, as in many other

jurisdictions, have suffered under appalling working conditions. I want

to pose a few questions to the minister with respect to the application

of those industrial regulations as far as housing is concerned.

When discussion initially took place with respect to applying the

industrial regulations to the farms in the province to ensure that

farmworkers would have adequate housing when they are working, the

government was considering assisting the farmers with some of the costs

involved in the initial construction of those units. Now I've heard

various figures advanced as to the amount of money the government was

considering advancing to the farmers to assist them in following these

industrial regulations. I have not heard recently what sort of

assistance the government is prepared to advance in order to have the

farmers comply with those regulations. Has the ministry undertaken any

research into the costs involved to the various farms in the province?

Has the ministry conducted discussions with the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture about financial assistance to those farms in implementing

those particular requirements?

The other question, Mr. Chairman, relates to the time-frame in which

the farms must now meet those industrial standards as far as

accommodation is concerned.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in

providing accommodation for farmworkers on farms in British Columbia

lies in the fact that the work is so very seasonal. When I was in the

Okanagan I heard various conversations between producers. One suggested

that there is no way that you could afford to build a Holiday Inn on

the corner of your property for the workers who were only going to be

utilizing that accommodation for a few weeks. Nonetheless, I think that

somewhere between that extreme and the extreme which we had experienced

has to be the right answer. A couple of years ago the ministry even had

some funding to do some research with exactly that kind of

accommodation in mind. The end result is that there is presently

available for orchardists and farmers a floor plan for accommodation

which meets standards and which can be built very, very inexpensively.

It provides the kind of shelter, the kind of warmth and the standard of

housing which would be adequate for temporary housing. I am sorry I

didn't bring it with me — I didn't expect the question — but the plan

is available and the cost of putting it up is very, very reasonable.

There is a firm in the Okanagan which is taking on the task of building

this kind of shelter and making it available on a contract basis.

As far as funding is concerned, I am sorry that the budget which is

before us does not have money targeted as financial assistance for that

kind of a program, but the member does make a good suggestion that is

worthy of consideration.

MS. SANFORD: What about the time-frame? When do they have to be in place?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The member, Mr. Chairman, asked about a

time-frame — whether there is a deadline for when this accommodation

needs to be in place. I'm sorry I'm not aware of a deadline that has

been put in place. I think that what is happening, though, is that on a

continuing basis individual farmers themselves see the validity of

having adequate accommodation for these people.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I think that's one of the problems, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to farm work and farmworkers in British

Columbia. You can see that many farmers throughout the province have

provided excellent accommodation, even though they are providing them

for seasonal workers. They saw the need years ago, and they made the

attempt and undertook the expense at that time. Unless the government

is more definitive in saying that, within six months, a year or

whatever is reasonable at this point, these regulations shall be met,

then we might be looking at another 10, 20 or 30 years before we have

adequate accommodation for those farmworkers.

It's not good enough to say: "Oh, these should be in place, but I

don't think that there's any time-frame." That's not good enough. If we

are concerned about the kinds of accidents that have taken place

because of the total lack of adequate accommodation — horse barns that

have been converted, no running water, no provision for farmworkers who

are out in those fields that have been sprayed with various herbicides

and pesticides, they don't even have accommodation; they don't even

have the ability to take a shower when they get in — then, Mr.

Chairman, the government has to put some time-frame on it. That's not

good enough. As I say, many farmers have done well by their workers.

But it is the others, those who have not seen the need, and who still

don't see the need, and who will not see the need, in my view, unless

the government brings in some time-frame for the application of those

industrial regulations as far as they apply to accommodation.

Some of them may need financial help at this stage, because of the

fact that the industry is in a difficult position, as the minister

pointed out earlier. But, Mr. Chairman, we can't allow those

accommodations to continue to exist in this province which are so

inadequate that in some cases they have resulted in deaths to

farmworkers or their family members. I would appreciate having the

minister give us some assurance that there will be a time-frame for the

application of those regulations.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I appreciate the member's concern and share it. I do not believe that a year such as this in

[ Page 3104 ]

which the farm producer is trying and seeking, with government help,

to avoid bankruptcy would be a year in which to stipulate those

deadlines. I appreciate, though, the member's concern.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, this is typical of the minister and his

government, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman. What he has just

told us is that it's okay for farmworkers to live in the conditions

under which they have been living. He shares the concern but: "Oh, we

couldn't possibly improve conditions this year, because of the economic

situation in this province." Well, for heaven's sake, if there are

farmers who are not able by one means or other to meet those

regulations within a reasonable time — and I would suggest a year at

the outside — then let's have the government come in and assist them at

this stage, either through some kind of loan or grant program. The

minister says: "Oh, too bad. Too bad we may have more deaths because we

haven't applied the regulations, because we think, oh, the poor farmer

may not be able to meet those requirements this year." You can't play

with people's lives that way, Mr. Chairman. You cannot. You've got to

have some consideration, some action, some leadership from government

to ensure that we have safe, adequate accommodation for those people

who have suffered all these years because of neglect.

The minister talks about his commitment to agriculture. A very

important part of agriculture, Mr. Chairman, is those agricultural

workers. I know it's too bad. We've been able to increase our budget;

we've been able to maintain all these things. Our commitment is to the

farm industry in this province. There is no commitment to the farm

industry if they cannot ensure that the farmworkers have adequate

accommodation and that their families are not threatened with death

because the government is not prepared to take the necessary action.

This is news to me today, Mr. Chairman. I assumed when that

announcement was made that those accommodations would be in place this

summer. It now appears that there is no time limitation at all. "We

want the regulations. We want them to apply, but if you don't want to

do it, that's okay" — in spite of the fact that we have this sordid

history of the kind of accommodation that the farmworkers have had to

live in. That's a disgrace.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $78,200,677 — approved.

Vote 7: milk board, $263,285 — approved.

Vote 8: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $715,042 — approved.

[4:45]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 76: minister's office, $200,936.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to finally come to

the estimates that we have all been waiting for — at least I have. I

like to get them debated. I just have a few remarks to make before we

go into the questions and the other debate.

In 1983-84 we had an infusion of $189 million from the employment

development account into the highway capital program, resulting in

greatly accelerated highway construction activity all over the

province. It was an increase, over the fiscal year 1982-83, of 64

percent in grading, 250 percent in paving and 65 percent in bridges.

During debate since last June or July, remarks have been made that our

government didn't create any jobs. In the case of this program, it did

create 8,000 direct jobs. It's quite arguable, I guess, how many

indirect jobs were created, but it was probably twice that number. So

it did give work to a fair number of people when it was badly needed.

There were 38 grading contracts on 297 kilometres of construction.

The Revelstoke-Mica

section of Highway 23 was completed, and the new

Chetwynd–Tumbler Ridge highway in the northeast coal development was

completed except for some minor carryover of second level paving into

1984. Many of the active contracts involved construction of four lane

urban highways throughout the lower mainland and many centres in the

interior.

Work progressed on the Annacis access with the bridge crossing. As

far as paving is concerned, I guess we had the largest paving projects

in the history of British Columbia during 1983.

Regarding bridges during 1983, 66 bridges were under construction.

The amount of bridging completed is equivalent to more than 2.6

kilometres of two-lane highway. Railway overpass structures are being

constructed in several locations on the CNR between Prince George and

Prince Rupert to eliminate conflicts between highway traffic and

increased rail traffic.

Another program, which is a small program but very effective, is the

air transport assistance program. During its six-year life the air

transport assistance program has made 133 separate grants. These grants

have assisted 76 communities in providing improved airport facilities.

We have invested $17.5 million in the smaller communities of British

Columbia.

I guess the major achievement in 1983 was the paving of a 6,000-foot

strip at Dease Lake. Not only will the strip provide improved access

for all those interested in the development of northwest British

Columbia but it will also provide a base for forest fire protection, if

that be required.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the motor vehicle branch comes under this

ministry. They experienced another busy year, with 1.9 million licensed

vehicles and 2.2 million drivers now on record. Accident prevention

programs, with emphasis on the elimination of those that are alcohol

related, continues as a high priority to the motor vehicle branch.

As the members know, the Crown corporation of the B.C. Ferries also

comes under this ministry, as well as B.C. Steamships. I haven't too

much to say on B.C. Steamships. That will come out in debate.

B.C. Ferries faced a challenging year in 1983, one in which some

hard decisions had to be made. These decisions weren't made any easier

by the national recession, but I might say in my opening remarks that

there is a sign of recovery